It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC 7 was IMPLODED : irrefutable seismic evidence from LDEO and NIST itself.

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:56 PM

Originally posted by thedman

This is what happens when you just believe what people tell you on faith.

You make statements that are flat out untrue.

If they can make a Boeing 720 remote controlled they can make any plane remote controlled.

And there is more...

...Using signals from orbiting GPS satellites and the ground-generated pseudolite signals, 110 autopilot-in-the-loop landings of a United Airlines Boeing 737 were completed...

In 1987, Honeywell developed the first integrated Inertial Reference and Global Positioning System in order to conduct testing of autoland systems for NASA. A Honeywell-equipped NASA Boeing 737 performed the first GPS guided automatic landing proving that DGPS landings were possible.

Enough yet?...

Ohio University's Avionics Engineering Center recently developed and successfully flight-tested technology that increases the availability and accuracy of the Global Positioning System (GPS) and its Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) for Category II and III approaches and landings. This technological breakthrough is the result of a 5-year aviation research grant provided by the FAA to the Avionics Center to design, implement, and test an advanced prototype GPS-based approach, landing, and surface movement guidance system.

In the Atlantic City tests, a UPS Boeing 767 flown by company pilots will perform 40 approaches down to as low as 25 feet above the runway. The pilots will fly some approaches manually; others will be coupled to the aircraft's autopilot.

The technology was available, period.

If I were you I'd ask for some kind of evidence before I take it on faith that anyone who claims to be a pilot in this 911 forum.

(Don't get me wrong I am NOT claiming they were remote controlled, just that it was possible)

edit on 2/28/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 09:59 PM
This one must be a fantasy, too.

from that page:

On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base (Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake.

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14 flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs, 69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:19 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

I have it open in two windows ( a few more, since I am reading it, nostalgia rules).

Links or it never happened. We shouldn't have to sort through every single post you've made to get your message.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:31 PM
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

Do you even know what he asked for?
Just quarreling?

EDIT : from the SEARCH page (ASK page) at ATS:

We've indexed more than five million distinct pages of content on, for an easy-to-use search engine that's more like asking questions of the smartest crowd of people you'll ever discover.

Use the field at left to enter anything from a simple one-word search to a complex query using conditional operators

And it is lightning fast. Whatever you need to know of my past posts, which did cost me quite an amount of time which I do not like to spend again, you can retrieve by using the right additional words in your Search Terms.
This function is made for your convenience, but especially our two conspiracy forums opponents seem to distrust it, are you afraid to get infected? Seriously?
edit on 28/2/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

edit on 28/2/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:43 PM
Wow. The OP wants to be taken literally at his opinion and research...yet insults someone who doesnt agree? Very one-sided.

Try this test. Go to a school or dinner with your parents, lunch with your friends , a neighborhood watch meeting and the next church get together...and even call your local stations and demand to talk about this......I doubt any lengthy discussion will ensue.

They will talk about Ron Paul being cheated, what Angelia Jolie wore at the Oscars. and no mention of Obamas birth certificate, or that ole Haitian Earthquake from a few years ago. Even the Nuclear-Tsunami in Japan...we just move on. Too many other thing to talk about. Things happen, the world goes "WOW"...and then it doesnt matter much anymore. We cannot do anything about those things, and no one will.

Dont blame me and insult me because of the prevailing attitude in 'OUR" country...and the world. Its the way it is...not mine...the rest of the world. Just move on to discussing the Nukes in Iran...that will pass too...not because of me and my attitude...but the worlds.

If its supposed to be just me? Well, then, I must have a lot of company because Japan, birth certificates, the Occupy Movement etc, etc, etc...each of these are not even main topic-platforms for the candidates in the coming election. Just Iran mostly...and thatll pass too as soon as the election is over..

Run for political office to change things and make WTC 7 and these topics your platform and see if anyone...would care. Good luck with that.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:44 PM
reply to post by NIcon

Hi, NIcon, nice to see you again online.

Von Bülow, the former Aussenminister of Germany, told us a story about the anti-spy unit from the Bundesnachrichtendienst in Frankfurt am Main, who had discovered that remote control equipment was installed in all Boeing planes flown by the Lufthansa National airlines of Germany.
They removed it from all their planes, before 9/11.

The same anti-spy unit discovered that special back doors were installed in all Microsoft computers bought by the German state divisions. That was the moment they decided nation wide, to use only proprietary open source software on all their sensitive computers. And got rid of all Microsoft operating systems. They now use their own in house developed brand of that famous open source Pinguin OS on sensitive boxes.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 10:49 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

He asked for links to material that you claimed to have open in your browser just a few posts ago.

My claim is that you don't, and can't be bothered looking it up yourself in your own thread.

So.... links or it never happened.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:01 PM
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

See my above EDIT.

Btw, YOU WIN ! Happy now?
That was my last exchange with you.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

Hi, Labtop. I'm afraid just replacing Microsoft may not be enough. It seems even the hardware can be compromised. Though it doesn't go into much detail, check this out:

I remember my bios catching a virus back in the late 90s, but what if the chips actually come with a dormant virus from the manufacturer.

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:47 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

Wow! ATS has a search page?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I never noticed that link at the top of every single ATS page 'til you ever so helpfully pointed it out.

Thanks for telling everyone that ATS has a Search page.

I'm sure this is EXACTLY what we've all been waiting for.

I'm sure you're not dodging anything.

You are ever so right: I have won, and in so many many ways. Thank you ever so much Mr. Labtop!

posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 11:51 PM

This function is made for your convenience, but especially our two conspiracy forums opponents seem to distrust it, are you afraid to get infected? Seriously?

After reading this thread, I guess I should be, right? Because ATS has a stuxnet like virus that reaches through the series of tubes between here and Albuquerque and deletes only those files that I had meant to get around to posting. Search is probably compromised. I'd better play it safe.

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 03:15 AM
reply to post by LaBTop

Irony and hypocrisy all around. I actually did do the search after you first suggested it, but I was flooded with garbage and more nonsense. You want me to invest a lot of time to read all this nonsense, while you are complaining it takes you too much time to link to actual relevant data.

The reason you are wasting time is because your are putting effort in avoiding answering questions, all while you can just post the answers after a 0.013 second search by your own admission.

Just for the record, you do understand that your posts, nor any other post on ATS, are a valid source for what I asked for? I am beginning to suspect this situation is that bad.
edit on 29-2-2012 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:29 AM
reply to post by rival

There was a boom reported before the collapse of the School of Architecture at Delft. Either the NWO really hates Dutch architects or one might just have to face the fact that collapsing buildings sometimes emit loud noises.

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 04:32 AM
reply to post by LaBTop

LaBTop, on page 2 you said "Seismic signals travel through the New York State bedrock, the 34 km from Manhattan to LDEO Palisades at a speed of 2km per second, period." Hence you got your total 17 second time.

However, latterly you seem to have acknowledged that seismologists have qualified that time with a plus or minus 2 second tolerance.

Do you therefore agree that seismic waves from the WTC to the Palisades seismic station could in fact have taken anything in the range 15 to 19 seconds ?

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:49 AM
reply to post by Alfie1

Answered that already several times in these 6 pages. Study my WTC 7 seismogram.
I just answered it in a post above yours, NIST altered its whole video and photo database with an added extra 5 seconds in 2006, which made it even worse for them, the pack of huge first peaks came even 5 seconds earlier then . ( Is it your goal to annoy the readers by repeated throwing in an already answered questions? )

I'm a bit less cranky after some sleep :
This is the first link that comes up when you enter these search terms :
LaBTop "LaBTop thermobaric"

From now on, if anybody, me or you, feel the need to extensively address the subjects of Dust Sampling by USGS, or eventual use of Thermobaric Devices on 9/11, they can just link to this page :

It has this post, with its extensive text in it about the Oklahoma City bombing mis-investigation, where Professor Brown explained the subject of ground coupled explosives effect on seismograms.

This page also has enough links to my work in it to keep the real interested ones quite busy for some time, if you would take the time to read the links and follow the links inside the links.
I started posting about thermobarics in 2005, when nobody in the 9/11 movement had ever heard about them, since they were deemed classified and National Security material by the Bush government, and its predecessors.

When you address the OP or my previous years posting work on my OP's subject, I will answer, otherwise have fun all of you JREFers with this board's rules.

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:54 AM
Stupid me, you will not read it as you just proved to us, so here's its text :

This was the first hint by me on this board on 7/8/2005 that thermobarics were possibly used by factions of the US government, or external factions, even from abroad :

There was some interesting seismic evidence of a thermobaric going off, addressed for the 1995 demolition of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in this link :

Chapter 1. The Mannlicher-Carcanno Bomb.

It should be obvious to the reader that it's implausible an ANFO bomb parked out in the street would have the force to blow all the way through a huge superstructure like the Alfred P. Murrah Building.

No matter how hard the government tried to lie, obfuscate, and distort the truth, the evidence would come back to haunt them.

On April 19, a tape recording made during a conference at the Water Resources Board directly across from the Murrah Building appears to indicate a succession of blast events, spaced very close together. [71]

The tape recorder at the Water Resources Board was not the only instrument recording explosions that morning. The seismograph at the Oklahoma Geological Survey at the University of Oklahoma at Norman, 16 miles from the Murrah Building, recorded two waves, or "two events," on the morning of April 19th. Another seismograph at the Omniplex Museum, four miles away from the Federal Building, also recorded two events. These seismic waves, or "spikes," spaced approximately ten seconds apart, seem to indicate two blasts. [See Appendix]

Professor Raymond Brown, senior geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma who studied the seismograms, knew and talked to people inside the building at the time of the blast. "My first impression was, this was a demolition job," said Brown. "Somebody who went in there with equipment tried to take that building down."

Not so, according to the U.S. Geological Survey's analysis. The USGS put out a press release on June 1st, entitled "Seismic Records Support One-Blast Theory in Oklahoma City Bombing."

The bomb that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City produced a train of conventional seismic waves, according to interpretations by scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS).

Scientists from those agencies said the seismic recordings of the May 23 demolition of the building reproduced the character of the original, April 19th seismic recording by producing two trains of seismic waves that were recorded on seismometers near Norman, Okla.

"Seismic recordings from the building's implosion indicate that there was only one bomb explosion on April 19," said Dr. Thomas Holzer, a USGS geologist in Menlo Park, Calif. Holzer is one of several USGS and OGS scientists who analyzed the shock waves created by the April 19 explosion and the May 23 implosion.[72]

Holzer added that the two distinct waves from the April 19 explosion(s) were the result of the same wave traveling at two different speeds through two separate layers of the earth's crust. The "illusion" of a double explosion was simply the result of the building's collapse, he claimed. "So the bottom line then," said Holzer, "is I think these observations are totally consistent with a single explosion. It doesn't require multiple explosions to do it."[73]

Dr. Brown has an honest difference of opinion with folks at the U.S. Geological Survey. "I will candidly say that we are having trouble finding that velocity difference," said Brown. "We have not identified a pair of layers that could account for the ten-second difference.

"Whatever the USGS saw in that data convinced them that the original blast was one bomb," he added. "I find that hard to believe…. What was uncomfortable and might be construed as pressure is that they were going to come out with a press release that says we have concluded that data indicates one bomb. It puts us in the uncomfortable stance of saying that we, too, have concluded that, and we haven't."

Yet the USGS press release said that Dr. Charles Mankin of the OGS, Brown's boss, was "pleased with the work performed by Dr. Holzer and his USGS colleagues in the analysis of the seismic records." Yet Mankin had actually urged Holzer to delay the press release. "Everybody that has looked at the signal has said a refraction (an echo) would really be strange because there's absolutely no loss of energy in the recorded seismic signal. The second event has the same amplitude as the first… The arrival time is wrong for a refracted wave… We've ruled out reflections, refractions, and the air blast… We determined that these two records of these two events corroborate our interpretation that there were two explosions."[74]


posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 07:57 AM

The mainstream media, of course, jumped on the USGS's findings, with headlines like "Single Bomb Destroyed Building" and "Seismic Records Shake Murrah Multiple Bomb Theory." "The news media even reported two bomb blasts initially," said Mankin, "but later changed their story."

"The USGS's conclusions are not supported by either data or analysis," added Brown, who asked that his name be taken off the report. Although Brown cautions that his own conclusions are far from conclusive and require "more thorough investigation," the most logical explanation for the second event says Brown, is "a bomb on the inside of the building."

"Even the smallest of those detonations (from the May 23rd demolition of the REMAINS of the Murrah building) had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building," he added, "which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building. So it is very unlikely that one-fourth of the building falling on April 19th could have created an energy wave similar to that caused by the large [truck-bomb] explosion."[75]

One of the problems with the two event theory is that the spikes on the seismic readings were ten seconds apart. With that much difference, most everybody in the vicinity should have heard two separate blasts. But given the traumatic nature of being in the immediate vicinity of a bombing, would witnesses necessarily have heard two explosions? Although the sound of a truck-bomb would certainly have made a loud, roaring noise, complete with lots of smoke and flying debris, experts say that the "crack" of a C-4 cutting charge is "downright disappointing" to hear.

That last bolded out excerpt is surprisingly consistent with my findings of a much bigger seismic spike in the LDEO seismograms for the WTC 7 collapse, seconds before ANY visual collapse signs on 9/11 seen in New York in video evidence of the onset of the WTC 7 collapse.

There we also see an explosion spike depicted in that seismogram, at least 6 seconds before the first visual sign of global collapse initiation of the whole WTC 7 building.
Which global collapse wrote a much smaller seismic spike on that LDEO seismogram.

I keep saying that 9/11/2001 bares a great resemblance to the 1995 Murrah building demolition blasts.
Both indicate that thermobarics were used.

And both started excessive panic waves in the US populace, fed by the mainstream media hypes, directed at newly invented, first internal and later on, external threads to the US of A.

By the way, most of my seismic links can be found in these 10 pages :

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:09 AM
reply to post by LaBTop

LaBTop, I don't find your seismogram at all clear and my question could not have been simpler. Do you accept, in relation to the time taken for seismic waves to travel from WTC to Palisades seismic station, the tolerance of 2 seconds either way advocated by seismologists ? i.e range 15 to 19 seconds, or do you maintain 17 seconds travel time is absolute ?

Yes or No would have done.

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:12 AM
This thread is a hoot! I've never encountered an OP so bent on not posting links or sourcing fantastic claims as noted in this one... Search for it he says.... It only took me .013 seconds, so you do it too... That is so funny my sides are hurting from laughing at the absurdity.

For those of you hanging your hat on remote control, it is truly a mystery why remote control was needed in any of the scenarios. It is far easier for a human to directly control an aircraft than it is for someone in a remote location to provide control for a Commercial Airliner, particularly in 2001. Several examples have been provided from the Global Hawk to the experiment with a Boeing 720, but all without direct application to the 9/11 aircraft. I believe most everyone knows that remote control capability has existed for many, many years. However, that does not provide evidence that remote control was used on 9/11. Not in the slightest. It is simply an idea pulled from nether regions of CTists.

The Global Hawk was built from the ground up as a remote controlled drone. Significantly different from a modified off-the-shelf aircraft. There are other examples of modified aircraft that could have been given even more recently that the ones provided. The QU-22B, a modified Beechcraft Debonaire was used in Southeast Asia for several years as a remotely controlled electronic data relay platform. It worked quite well except it was very heavy and had a habit of using excessive oil. I do not recall anyone ever saying it could not be done and that includes me. So, I'm not sure why all of those examples were posted except to fool the ignorant and gullible.

Simply because the technology exists does not in any way suggest it was used.. Because the 767/757 series of aircraft are not fly-by-wire it is infinitely more difficult to implement in those aircraft. There is bulky equipment and bundles of wires to install that could not be hidden from mechanics and pilots... If the equipment was installed on the 9/11 aircraft that means both American Airlines and United Airlines were involved in the conspiracy. That kind of equipment is impossible to hide.

Secondly, it could be easily disabled from the cockpit. So, who was sitting in the pilots seat? If it were the original pilots, they would NEVER EVER have accepted those aircraft for flight in the first place. If it were the Islamic extremists (as rational people know it was) why would remote control have been needed in the first place. It unnecessarily complicates things. Why not just train the pilots? Cheaper and simpler to implement...

The FDR readouts indicate that a human pilot was at the controls for portions of the flight not on Autopilot and a human would need to be in the cockpit to turn on and off the Autopilot. This is not just my analysis, but pfffft. the pilots cult, also agrees...

The poster who said Lufthansa Aircraft were fitted with remote control at some point is delusional.. That never happened. Reminds me of Field McConnell (Captain Shrerlock) an esteemed associate of John Lear and the dubious pfffft cult of idiots...

As I mentioned earlier, keep the thread going. Entertainment this hilarious is rare, very hard to buy anywhere....

posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 08:40 AM
reply to post by LaBTop

So basically, your "source" is some person saying so, on some (yet unknown) website, without showing any of the research that lead to this conclusions, and then you claim it is a "well known fact in seismic research circles".

Really good research

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in