Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Let’s Agree to Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument’s

page: 14
9
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 



I Should have typed Very Low Frequency SOUND waves.


So you made up that term in order to sound knowledgable, while in fact you don't know what you are talking about. Your analysis is based on


My gut feeling


You call me asking how you came to your conclusion using which mothodology


nitpicking


And expect me to accept you gut feeling on faith.

Yep, you conviced me.




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


My gut feeling, AND this link, and all the others that you seem to forget to connect to my and your gut feeling :

en.wikipedia.org...

Infrasound also can be generated by human-made processes such as sonic booms and explosions (both chemical and nuclear).


When are you at last going to attack all the facts I put up for you and the other believers in the official theories, here :

WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments.

Tell us why all these video's and links I posted, are in errancy according to all these stubborn believers in official fairy-tales. Come to the meat of the matter, no sidestepping anymore.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





I am going to assume that is meant as some kind of ironic joke.

In any case It is quite clear that the ideas behind the OP, my OP might I add, has been totally lost in this thread.

Ahhh well back to the petty arguments I guess.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
With 911, you have to "believe" at least 100 situations occurred as told officially, even though common logic says otherwise.

The amount of coincidences we have to swallow to believe the official story is too much. In my real life, if I have to believe 2 situations at once that seem too "coincidental" I question the whole thing, and rightly so.

I know we will argue forever on this, but really how many coincidences does it take for YOU to question the full story?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Honestly, why even start a 911 thread unless you wanted to hash it out some more?

:Your opening subject "why must we always argue?" seems to ask for that, plain and simple.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Do you understand that those infrasounds a) are not registered by a microphone b) are not played back by speakers and c) are not registered by the human ear? Yet you can identify them from a microphone recording played back on speakers using your ears. Do you realize how incredibly unrealistic that is?

Of course you want to change the subject as soon as you realize that I am not baffled by your gibberish and see right through it, as I actually know a thing or two about the subject. All in a sudden you want to talk about some other Youtube videos, and the current subject has become nitpicking all in a sudden. Until of course I demonstrate how your next "argument" is complete nonsense, then you will call that nitpicking and you will change the subject again, claiming that this new subject is the actual important one. And this will repeat ad infinitum.

Well, I agree with the OP, the truth movement will never get further than petty arguments. Like SunnyDee perfectly illustrates, its mostly based on an argument from incredulity.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


LaBTop

The "thermobaric" explosives you link to are all FAE. Each one talks about having a massive fireball form which decimates the area below or incinerates light structures or materials inside a bunker. All involve releasing a flammable agent (fuel, dust, powdered explosive, etc) having it mix with the oxygen into a FA mixture which is then ignited. It sucks the oxygen out of the air and is great for closed in areas like caves, bunkers, or enclosed spaces with chemical/biological sites. I do not see any mention of your fantasy version for cutting steel beams with water tampers..

Also, I cannot believe you are going back to that "pod" nonsense under the second airplane. This is where you have completely gone off the rails. And the "laser" designator? What is this, 2005?

An FAE exploding is not going to just have a low rumbling noise, especially when standing less than a block away from its detonation, nor is it indicative of steel beams being severed by this particular blast. It is a very loud blast heard for miles and you would see it occurring as all windows being blown out from the over pressure of the FAE explosion, which is what it does. A massive over pressure that incinerates and flattens, not severs steel columns and beams. Covering it with water will negate the whole damn thing because it is counter to what a FAE needs: fuel being dispersed in air for proper mix and then ignition. And no, your made up TB is a load of bull plop. You cannot go and make up a fantastic new device, call it the same thing as a real device which works completely opposite of what you claim, and then link to sites and things that all are opposite of what you claim.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
Do you understand that those infrasounds a) are not registered by a microphone b) are not played back by speakers and c) are not registered by the human ear? Yet you can identify them from a microphone recording played back on speakers using your ears. Do you realize how incredibly unrealistic that is?


No, he like most truthers they have very little understanding of physics, or how things work. They probably have never experienced a explosion, or seen and felt explosives going off. All their information comes from silly conspiracy theory sites, then they try and use wiki to back their claims up, not really understanding them.


Well, I agree with the OP, the truth movement will never get further than petty arguments. Like SunnyDee perfectly illustrates, its mostly based on an argument from incredulity.


They cannot even agree as to what caused the buildings to collapse. eg mini nukes, nano thermite, hush a boom explosives etc. They also keep bringing much discredited hoaxes up, like "pod carrying aircraft"!



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Do you understand that those infrasounds a) are not registered by a microphone b) are not played back by speakers and c) are not registered by the human ear? Yet you can identify them from a microphone recording played back on speakers using your ears. Do you realize how incredibly unrealistic that is?


You know what is unrealistic? What you do now. I agreed already I made a mistake, typo, whatever. Why go berserk about such minuscule part of all my texts?

I already made it clear that I talked about and meant this :

Back to the nitpicking-tour, out of 100,000 words, video's and photo's, you find 3 characters that could be a mistake, misunderstanding, typo, whatever.
So, let's cut one off, and instead make it Very Low Frequency Sounds and not radio wavelengths.
We are for years already, talking about explosions, with SOUND frequencies with very long wavelengths. My intention is clear, my definition disputable?


And then I told you to call it whatever you want to :


Some countries want to restrict the term ULF to radio-waves spectra effects only, some also use the term for sound-waves spectra effects and electromagnetic spectra effects.
You may also call it tactile sound, or infra sound if you like that better.


So, what's really your point? I did not call it an infra sound..!
I called it, after that you corrected me, CLEARLY a "very low frequency sound", which was the intention from the beginning on by me, but you seem to obsessively want to misunderstand me. And thus keep deviating from the meat of my posts f.ex. on page 13.

For the record :
en.wikipedia.org...


Human reactions to infrasound :
20 Hz is considered the normal low-frequency limit of human hearing. When pure sine waves are reproduced under ideal conditions and at very high volume, a human listener will be able to identify tones as low as 12 Hz.[28] Below 10 Hz it is possible to perceive the single cycles of the sound, along with a sensation of pressure at the eardrums.

The dynamic range of the auditory system decreases with decreasing frequency. This compression can be seen in the equal-loudness-level contours, and it implies that a slight increase in level can change the perceived loudness from barely audible, to loud. Combined with the natural spread in thresholds within a population, it may have the effect that a very low-frequency sound which is inaudible to some people may be loud to others.


Again, what a big deal. I made a mistake, typo, whatever gruesome deed you want to make from it. And everybody knew what I meant, namely this :


You know very well what I mean, SOUND waves (no radio waves) so low in frequency, that you nearly can't hear them with your ears, but for sure feel them in your stomach, as I already many times wrote in my recent posts.


All my quotes are from my posts on page 13.



Of course you want to change the subject as soon as you realize that I am not baffled by your gibberish and see right through it, as I actually know a thing or two about the subject. All in a sudden (LT: where do you base that on? I offered you a bulk of physical evidence on page 13 and YOU change the subject repeatedly) you want to talk about some other Youtube videos (No, I gave an additional post with the same subjects and some more.! ) and the current subject has become nitpicking all in a sudden (LT: There is no current subject anymore, I admitted it should be VLF instead of ULF, so stop this PETTY behavior). Until of course I demonstrate how your next "argument" is complete nonsense (LT: come on then, BRING IT ON.! ) then you will call that nitpicking and you will change the subject again, claiming that this new subject is the actual important one. And this will repeat ad infinitum. (LT: I expanded my subjects with a LOT more, linked to by me, and you try at all costs to change the real subject, namely all my posted evidence based on solid physics, that 911 was a black operation, and not from AlQaida)

Well, I agree with the OP, the truth movement will never get further than petty arguments (LT: If that is not the BIGGEST LIE I saw on this board and many others, then what shall we call a lie anymore? See my next comment! ). Like SunnyDee perfectly illustrates, its mostly based on an argument from incredulity. (LT: Come on then, bring on your REFUTATIONS.! Let's CHALLENGE you to make your BIG LIES come true, have a try at it. My posts are the sole ones in this thread with constructive additions to the 911 research pool. You and your ilk can only come up with those PETTY arguments from the opening poster, clearly to see for anyone reading them.


It's you who keeps desperately changing the subject, after I admitted that my ULF SOUND should be read as a VLF SOUND. No big deal for me, neither should it be for you. Why keep on hammering on it? Move on, show your REAL refutations of all those physics-based posts by me at page 13....

Could you bring yourself for once, to counter the heaps of serious arguments I offered on page 12 and 13? You try to constantly deviate from those serious subjects, which all indicate foul play by the real planners of 911.

And I challenge you to show the members of this board where I offered PETTY arguments !
It's you who use petty tactics to deviate from what I asked you numerous times, to offer at last some solid oppositional argumentation in return to my posted bulk of solid arguments based on PHYSICS, for foul play on 911.

And do not start about my Flight 175 "pod" remarks, I clearly added my considerate remark about that, at the end of it, to not take it too serious. Leave it out of consideration, it was just coincidental that I just before I wrote that, saw in a video some real clear pictures of that "pod" under the belly of 175. And military planes fitted with such long thin pods at their sides, parked on the tarmac near their runways. And then saw that photo of a BLU-118B thermobaric bomb on its loading pellet. Their shapes looked eerily familiar. And then the remark in the article that they could ad a laser guidance unit to that TB, remembered me of the flash on the facade beside 175's nose cone just before impact, which could never have been a sunlight reflection, the sun came up in the east....to the left of that nose cone.

My last lines under my "pod" remarks under my nr. 4 thermobaric link, just to show what weight to hang on the earlier ones :


Just a thought that came up. Do not go rampant on things like this, since the immediate question that comes up is : Why was such a possible weapon then still attached to the plane's belly, 10 meters from nose cone impact?


And what happened? EXACTLY THAT what I asked you not to do, you people are exactly doing that. Just as the next poster, going out of a limb to find something, anything that could give them their self esteem back....

I'll show you who is trying at all costs to get away from the REAL subject(s).
We were on page 13 "discussing" (not much of a discussion either, more a monologue by me with no serious opposition) these serious subjects inthis post here, where I offered lots of serious arguments that 911 is not what it looked like, and then you insert your next, -rightfully- correcting post about the wrong usage by me of the term ULF in my argument.
Ok, I thus see what you mean and I correct myself. I see my mistake and I agree having used the wrong word/definition, and expect now your rebuttals. No need for further nitpicking.

None such rebuttals come.

I then answer your next post, while I ad a whole lot of other arguments to the two from that first linked-to post, and then you keep doing what I said already in my next post (all on page 13) :

You still try to twist my REAL words in a dishonest and dishonored manner.

We however get used to it. It's a pity such behavior does not look good for your board-reputation.
It's so damn easy to see how you operate, that's why you are in dire need to Put an End to your Petty 9/11 Argument’s.

And start to counter all my posted, real serious arguments.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


GenRadek,
That's an improvement, you at least READ my post and my links! Well done.
And at least -you- write my screen name right.
But man, how come you got so disillusioned :


An FAE exploding is not going to just have a low rumbling noise, especially when standing less than a block away from its detonation, nor is it indicative of steel beams being severed by this particular blast. It is a very loud blast heard for miles and you would see it occurring as all windows being blown out from the over pressure of the FAE explosion, which is what it does. A massive over pressure that incinerates and flattens, not severs steel columns and beams. Covering it with water will negate the whole damn thing because it is counter to what a FAE needs: fuel being dispersed in air for proper mix and then ignition. And no, your made up TB is a load of bull plop. You cannot go and make up a fantastic new device, call it the same thing as a real device which works completely opposite of what you claim, and then link to sites and things that all are opposite of what you claim.


Let's take that apart for you, piece by piece :


I do not see any mention of your fantasy version for cutting steel beams with water tampers..


That you did read, but still did not understood.

I mentioned there HE CUTTER CHARGES. The HE cutters, those small, long, copper, "|_" shaped thingies, kneaded/molded/filled with HE RDX or the likes.
Not TB's to cut steel columns, that was higher up, where I said that a few 1 m3 water tanks will be a good directional back-up for Directional TB's. And great MUFFLERS. Why?
Because a water mist/fog, which hot steam in fact is, is a VERY EFFECTIVE EXPLOSION SOUND MUFFLER.

Ever been on a speed-boat in heavy FOG?
You hear nothing, until the other speed-boat is on top of you, at full engine power and speed. THEN you hear its full power noise...
At see, sailors used to use the loud, LOW TONE fog horn, to warn other ships nearby.
And what is fog - in fact a huge dense cloud of tiny water droplets, with plasticity, so all of them act as explosion-sound dampers, since they all will deform in the path of the circular sound path its explosion front ripples. And that costs energy, taken away from the explosion front.


See my remark nr. 10 at the bottom of the last post (mine) in page 13.
You can use them HE's just as well in air, as under water...The thin plastic walls of a 1 m3 water tank means nothing to them. Water does not offer a serious slowing down of their copper plasma beam, that water WILL however instantly go over from solid fluid to the gaseous phase, we call STEAM. Around the exploding directional cutter charge. MUFFLING its noise and keeping most of that noise inside that artificial "fog".

And that you can see in my posted videos in ABUNDANCE as the huge billowing white "smoke" clouds emanating from the lower portions of all THREE WTC towers. In that video I posted where that young lady interviews the young mother with baby in her arms late afternoon, you see that smoke/steam rise up from the bottom portion of WTC 7, a few seconds BEFORE the global collapse started, no movement at all to see yet on that building. But already that huge smoke/steam cloud billowing up, half way up its facades in the streets adjacent to WTC 7.
Page13, last post :


10. High explosives (HE) cutting charges, set off under water, also deliver a sound pattern which would fit that rumbling sound in the WTC 7 video's I posted.
The supersonic cutting plasma stream of these HE's will still cut the steel in a drowned elevator shaft bottom, and they will also cut the side of a m3 water tank first, which was placed tight against a central steel column in a basement or higher floor of a WTC building.


When they were placed inside that tank, it would be tight against one plastic side, and that side would be placed tight to the to be cut column, if there was room for that somewhere. They read the construction plans, and visited all their targets. Years long....

And yes, circular (around a column like two half donut shaped mists) and disk-shaped mist TB's do exists, which can cut steel.
Try to find how it works. Good luck.
Of course not, that's still top secret knowledge. You can not find that online, only in internal defense reviews, locked up under layers of admission levels.
Do you have that level of access? With the accompanying oath..?
I'm surprised they kept such a solid lock on it, for so many years already, from 1989 on. Russia, America, Britain, India, China, Pakistan, Israel and more. It seems to be a common effort between these countries' militaries, to protect that knowledge with all their might.

And yes, they are not talking about their real stuff, that's still classified.
A real TB has piezoelectric circuitry which is triggered by the huge over-pressure of the second, very small but powerful PETN charge on top of the bottom container with the piezoelectric film layers in it, that then charges the particles of the last stage's rapidly expanding mist positive, which second stage mist then form an intimately mixed mixture with the negative, already slowing down, particles from the first stage. You could also charge both mists equally, than their particles repel each other. But then you have to plan stage 1 and 2 with only a few microseconds interval, or both mists will not mix at all. Addition of a "drying agent" nano-powder to the first stage facilitates a perfectly air-dried aerosol explosion dome, in which the thermobaric mixtures develop their maximized static charges. Particles in dry air can hold a much higher static charge than those in damp or even worse, wet air.
The effect of static loading of the explosive clouds is a huge increase of the explosive pressure front. That's why an FAE with 4,000 m/sec is pumped up to a three or even more stages TB with 22,000 m/sec or more. Take in consideration that these explosion fronts' speeds bleed off very fast in dense air at ground level. That's why you have to calculate maximum effect related to overall weight of the warhead.

Look up the Vacuum Bomb thermobaric explosion in Russia on YouTube, there's that super-fast explosion front, filmed from 10 km or more, and for once it is perfectly viewable. It's the lightning fast dome of explosive light you see expanding above that immense dome of following fire. And then it bleeds off logarithmically fast, due to air density resistance to the shock waves.
Do not forget to watch the resulting VERY FINE DUST laying all around at the later filmed explosion site. Which used to be a whole lot of strong, concrete with re bar-filled, several stories high buildings. Totally crumbled to concrete dust and some concrete remnants left overs.


But first, to inject some FEAR into those bloodthirsty examples of humanity, reading this perhaps, that immense 57 Megatons hydrogen bomb, the Tzar Bomba.
Please realize that these former cold war arms race maniacs could have build ever bigger hydrogen bombs (they realized at last the insanity of it, and stopped..), they only needed to enlarge the Uranium content, and/or add more Deuterium and Tritium. That Tzar Bomba could have been made into a 100 Megaton one, by simply adding more Uranium.
At 100 Megaton, the resulting fireball would however be bigger than the Earth's atmospheric height, and the surplus energy would bleed off into the empty 0 Kelvin degrees, cold space. That would defeat the devastating objective of such increase of Megatons power. They could have made a 1000 MT hydrogen 5 stage bomb, its 1st stage an atomic fission bomb trigger, 2nd stage liquid hydrogen, encapsulating a deuterium and tritium core, 3rd, 4th and 5th stage other isotopes inside the 2nd core as sub cores.

Worlds.Biggest.Bomb.Tsar.Bomba 1/3.avi (14:55 min, by ChannelofRussia)
www.youtube.com...



Worlds.Biggest.Bomb.Tsar.Bomba 2/3.avi (14:55 min.)
It's about the USA's 15 Megatons Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb in this 2/3 part.
www.youtube.com...



Worlds.Biggest.Bomb.Tsar.Bomba 3/3.avi (14:50 min.)
www.youtube.com...



Do note how small the inner core of the Nagasaki atomic bomb was! As big as a standard women's handbag.! (4:46/14:55 in 1/3)

This ChannelofRussia seems to be the Russian answer to the constant military propaganda we are bombarded with for many decades already from Hollywood and Washington. Quite sophisticated and much better than the US old public crap.
And a lot of information the USA never gave to the public. View their other 51 video's (52 in total to this date)

It's still an arms race, but now for more and more sophisticated TB's. The max for Hydrogen bombs was reached with that Tzar Bomba.
But now we have the secret race for the ultimate destruction, the Antimatter bomb....capable to eliminate us ALL, in one strike...What an IDIOTS.
Its limit is infinite...Feed it more antimatter, that will result in exponentially more destruction.

Vacuum Bomb (The daddy of all bombs) :
www.youtube.com...



True FAE explosion :
www.youtube.com...




That's why you have to search for witnesses of real thermobaric explosions that talk about a peculiar crackling sound in the air just before the explosion; air that also felt like it had a strong static load, since it "raised their neck hairs" or even developed small static sparks all around them. And that is at the far out periphery of the explosive TB-cloud, otherwise these witnesses would not have lived to tell their story.
Take an inflated rubber balloon with a 20 cm long rubber band, rub it against a T-shirt and hold it 10 cm from your TV or monitor screen. You'll see opposite static charges attract each other, rub two balloons and hang them 10 cm from each other, and you see identical static charges repelling each other.
Now imagine the same principle on nano scale dust in two differently or identically charged TB clouds.


Also, I cannot believe you are going back to that "pod" nonsense under the second airplane. This is where you have completely gone off the rails. And the "laser" designator? What is this, 2005?


For my remarks see my last above post to -PLB- about the same subject.

Does it feel good now, that you added that insult to my intelligence? I'm still firmly on my "rails", my dear opponent.
Here, my TRUE words, not what you make of it :


LT: See that photo included. Its slick and slim exterior would fit the famous payload extension seen by many under the body of the second attack plane in New York. Especially when fitted with these various system packages, which extends the length of this TB bomb to twice its length, and fits that grainy video where we see that long thin "thingy" extension under the belly of Flight 175. And see perhaps a laser pointer as the flash on the facade, just right of the nose cone of the plane. Then set to detonate 10 millisecond after penetration of the outer facade, the resulting huge fireball would look damn equal to what we see in all these video's of the second impact.
Just a thought that came up. Don't go rampant on things like this, since the immediate question that comes up is : Why was such a possible weapon then still attached to the plane's belly, 10 meters from nose cone impact?


Pay specific attention to my last two sentences ! I hope you read and comprehend them at last, now.


GenRadek, you call yourself a Rational Thinker.
I doubt that, after reading your following effort to reason yourself out of your own preconceived twisted logic :

Let's take that apart, piece by piece.


GR: An FAE exploding is not going to just have a low rumbling noise, especially when standing less than a block away from its detonation, nor is it indicative of steel beams being severed by this particular blast.


Let's first get your biggest delusion out of the way.
It sure as hell was no FAE. PERIOD.
If TB's were used, it were relatively small ones, those that "pump up" a whole interior over a few floors, the literally "blowing up" of a building. Yes, like a balloon. Bolds in joints will break, floor beam seats will tear off.
Those TB'S result in an umbrella of debris spitting out of the windows and louvers, after the first terrible fast expansion phase has done its destructive expansion work. That phase is so fast, that the pressure is pumping up, despite there being so many windows all over the facade. Pressure keeps building up in Milli seconds, and there is not enough space to let it bleed off enough through windows in those first milliseconds.
That will of course blow out all windows at those floors, but we did not see that, because of the protective perimeter lines, first 4 blocks away, later expanded even further away. Getting all these high buildings in the way of full long distance video shots. In all WTC 7 video's you see the lower 20 or so floors obstructed by other buildings. Convenient, that way we did not have any evidence how it looked when they set off these first charges at floors 4&5 up to floor 11.
It surely looked the same as the few Twin Tower collapse initiation video's I posted, where you can see rows after rows of windows on same floors getting blown out. With far too high dust velocities to be air-compression expulsions, caused by supposed pancaking floors that collapsed.

Some way or the other, some time in the past, you came to your own private conclusion, that a huge amount of explosives must have been used to bring WTC 7 down. The reality is, that those cutter charges their overall weights are downright disappointing, when you realize that only a minimum amount of explosives was planned for, to surely get the building going into a further following, normal gravitational collapse.
Perhaps a few extra ones to keep the pace in the unfolding global collapse, but no more.

David Chandler"s audio research on that interview video with the young mother with her baby on her arm I posted, shows you the faint, but clearly distinctable from other sounds, 2 first explosions followed shortly by 5 others in cadence. Starting a few seconds before global collapse. Picked up by the interviewer her network microphone.

They exploded first a few m3 water tanks in the maintenance floors 4&5 (with the open-to-air louvers) to form a huge, very effective explosions-sounds muffling water-vapor mist (2 explosions), and then a few (5 other explosions) directional TB's, starting in the deepest basement of a 47 stories high building like WTC 7 was and then on higher up floors.
Basements, with all those thick concrete dividing floors in between those basements, with closed doors or small doors spread over the stairwells as in a huge maze, and a few elevator shafts in the center, all closed off from the next higher basement, guess what you hear 9 blocks away, at least 640 m (2100 ft) :

NOTHING.....

more than what you hear in the 3 video's I posted which have those Very Low Frequency audio footprints in them, and do not forget also, there were numerous other buildings between the 3 camera's (on street level that had sound tracks recorded), and WTC 7.
The only faint noises were picked up by those camera's (3 & 4; 8 & 9), from which the video's I linked to came, and all stood at spots which are all much further, about 9 blocks minimum, from WTC 7 than the irrational near distance you come up with, spots you can see in the below drawing, taken from NIST NCSTAR 1-9.
Camera 1 and 2 were located even 5 km to 7 km (3 to 4 miles) from WTC 7 :





I suppose you can count the many more blocks (9) than your unrealistic, "less than a block away from its detonation" placement of witnesses, with or without camera's.

The NYPD and other agencies had cleared a 4 block perimeter area after 15:00 P.M. already. And those two camera's, from which we have video's with that rumbling sound found in their video's, stood even blocks (5) further than that 4 block perimeter line.

By the way, Mr Bartmer was a 911 NYPD copper....and from his words we may conclude that he stood quite near to the WTC 7 building. I have however already spend a few posts in all three threads about him and why he probably did not report any sound heard by him, he talked only about that umbrella of dust(?) spitting out from WTC 7, just 7 feet above his head.
Why? Adrenaline. Fades out all terrific sound, to let the body not get paralyzed by naked fear and make it able to flee a dangerous scene.



GR: It is a very loud blast heard for miles and you would see it occurring as all windows being blown out from the over pressure of the FAE explosion, which is what it does.


No, it was muffled by the huge steam clouds appearing about 3 secs before the east penthouse began to crumble on the roof of WTC 7. It's in one of the video's.
And we could not SEE all windows being blown out occurring, since all views lower than 20 stories high in WTC 7 were blocked by in between other high buildings, for Networks film crews and all other eye witnesses alike.
We only have the story of Craig Bartmer, go re-read that, now I told you all of the above....pay attention to his "umbrella of debris" spitting out 7 feet above his head.



A massive over pressure that incinerates and flattens, not severs steel columns and beams.


You're still talking about an FAE, do you realize that?



Covering it with water will negate the whole damn thing because it is counter to what a FAE needs: fuel being dispersed in air for proper mix and then ignition.


Yup, even a child would understand that. Do not get fooled by my avatar picture...

But placing a directional TB OUTSIDE on one of the sides of a box shaped 1 m3 plastic water tank will give it some enormous backing and "recoil" effect and a lot of added muffler power.



And no, your made up TB is a load of bull plop. You cannot go and make up a fantastic new device, call it the same thing as a real device which works completely opposite of what you claim, and then link to sites and things that all are opposite of what you claim.


You really want to know desperately how it works, into the fine details, don't you?
Your eagerness drips off this kind of posting style.

When are you going to understand that in PUBLIC accessible writings, the military will never explain a real 22,000 m/sec TB, but always a 4,000 m/sec FAE.
They are not fully crazy, just slightly (otherwise you're not making killing people your profession) and don't want this kind of knowledge get into the wrong hands.

REFERENCES
1. Internet Website -
www.globalsecurity.org... / military/systems/munitions/blu-118.htm
2. 'Aspect of thermo baric weaponry' by Dr Anna E Wildeggar-Gaissmaier, ADF Health Vol 4, Apr 2003.
www.defence.gov.au...
3. 'Advanced Thermobaric Explosive Compositions', May L Chan & Gary W Meyers, US Patent no.6955732 B1, 18 Oct 2005.
4. 'Evaluation of castable thermobaric explosive compositions for enhanced blast and thermal effects' by A Apparao, R Samudra, P P Vadhe, R S Punekar, N G Wagmare and S H Sidi, VI International High Energy Materials Conference& Exhibit (HEMCE), 13-15 Dec 2007.
5. Lyran LY1002 'Hellsbreath' thermobaric hand grenade.
Excerpt : "although fuel-air explosives are extremely effective at destroying building" :
z6.invisionfree.com...


For the record, the demolition of WTC 7 could have been done by conventional HE charges, but the weight/effectiveness ratio between them and TB's is far leaning to the side of TB's. They can be placed in a few hours, instead of days for HE's.

And since it seems likely that WTC 7 should have gone down together with the North Tower, they had to improvise and set plan B into action, and speed of operation was of the utmost importance that day. Thus, TB's would be the obvious choice.
edit on 8/1/13 by LaBTop because: Lots of typo's.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTopmore than what you hear in the 3 video's I posted which have those Very Low Frequency audio footprints in them,


Even after it was explained to you that video camera's and microphones do NOT pick up VLF audio signals, you ignore that fact as it makes your claims look silly.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

No, he like most truthers they have very little understanding of physics, or how things work. They probably have never experienced a explosion, or seen and felt explosives going off. All their information comes from silly conspiracy theory sites, then they try and use wiki to back their claims up, not really understanding them.


Well, I agree with the OP, the truth movement will never get further than petty arguments. Like SunnyDee perfectly illustrates, its mostly based on an argument from incredulity.


They cannot even agree as to what caused the buildings to collapse. eg mini nukes, nano thermite, hush a boom explosives etc. They also keep bringing much discredited hoaxes up, like "pod carrying aircraft"!


Well, let's see who has more understanding of physics.
Make your brave words come true.
Attack my posted evidence from page 12 and 13. It's all physics based, so, for such a physics major as you, it must be easy to refute them. Let's see if you understand my claims...

And don't use the INSULTING word "truthers" here anymore, or you will get banned.

Btw, I have 37% of my body covered with scars from explosions, and I still live to this day. How about you.
And all my information comes from a solid and very long education. How about you?

And last but not least, I offered a lot of evidence for some sort of demolition, based on solid physics.
What kind of demolition is not premature, we'll have to water-board that out of the culprits, eventually.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Attack my posted evidence from page 12 and 13. It's all physics based


no it is not, your first statement "And when you listen to the Rick Siegel ones, on his 911EYEWITNESS video's, you can hear the same ULF rumbles for both WTC 1 and 2 towers, from 13 seconds on, before both collapses. "

Shows you have no understanding of physics, what frequency a "ULF" sound operates at and the fact that recording devices cannot pick them up.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
It shows people can type too fast and other people can't stop nagging about an already beaten to death subject.
Btw, It was me who gave the definitions of various descriptions of sounds.

When are you going to address the real evidence ?



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


The reason why it is important that I expose your argument from gibberish is that it shows that you are not shy of deceptive debating tactics. It also shows your ignorance on the subject, which is rather important.

You keep complaining that I make a big deal about it and that I am nitpicking. All while you have spend a couple of very lengthy posts about it. All while avoiding my actual important questions like:


How did you determine that your bombs match this signature?


Or


How did you determine that nothing else matches this signature?


That is what hypocrites do, accuse others of something the are guilty of themselves. But we both know why you avoid these actual relevant and important questions. Its because you do not have an answer. Your "argument" is nothing more than "Low frequency sounds heard on a video --> EXPLOSIVES". Any logic, critical thinking or scientific analysis is completely missing.
edit on 8-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
When are you going to address the real evidence ?


When you post some....



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by LaBTop
 


The reason why it is important that I expose your argument from gibberish is that it shows that you are not shy of deceptive debating tactics. It also shows your ignorance on the subject, which is rather important.

You keep complaining that I make a big deal about it and that I am nitpicking. All while you have spend a couple of very lengthy posts about it. All while avoiding my actual important questions like:


How did you determine that your bombs match this signature?


Or


How did you determine that nothing else matches this signature?


That is what hypocrites do, accuse others of something the are guilty of themselves. But we both know why you avoid these actual relevant and important questions. Its because you do not have an answer. Your "argument" is nothing more than "Low frequency sounds heard on a video --> EXPLOSIVES". Any logic, critical thinking or scientific analysis is completely missing.
edit on 8-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)


That's not my "argument". You know that very well. I gave many solid arguments based on physics for demolition on 9/11. Which you still do not touch.

What you point at is actually a small detail in the next step. Trying to find a modus operandus for the demolitions proved by the already extensively offered actual physical evidence.

That what you choose to attack is just my personal idea about the kind of explosives I think have been used. And that string of thoughts implicates that the by me listed physical evidence already proves any possible method of demolition.
And that subject you can't refute, and you know it. There are too many indicators that prove some sort of demolition technique was the modus operandus (the first argumentation), and thus explosives have been used (the second argumentation. Which ones, and how).

There is no online repository with exact figures how TB's should be made and function. Just as there is none how to make finely dispersed Anthrax spores, or Bubonic Plague, or Hydrogen Bombs, Dirty Bombs or Thermobaric Bombs.

These things are kept out of the publicly accessible University libraries and Patent Offices for as long as possible. There's a lot of popular TB-descriptions floating around on the Internet, but no more than that. They are however mostly all describing the old simple FAE's, not the barometrically functioning ones, the real TB's. With the thin film piezoelectric pre-detonation cloud chargers, operating on the dialed and thus set pressure for minimum to maximum charge release in the cloud.

But you avoid to even touch the first physics argumentations, based on simple and pure physics. Because you know you have no defense against pure physics. And you probably already asked friends with the proper physics education, they will have told you already that they can't offer you any remotely logical sounding contra arguments.

It looks as if it seems very illogical for you to conclude to a demolition, when you hear a sequence of detonation sounds, in a very peculiar cadence, just a few seconds before a 47 stories high building comes down in a ditto peculiar fashion, such that everyone seeing it on video, concludes that it damn sure looks like one of those demolitions they ever saw on their TV's.

Then you hear WTC 7 had 2.5 secs of real free fall (Real, within the 1 % fault margin of the used methods), and the WTC North Tower's top part had no discernibly slowing down of its collapse speed, while it in fact should have to mimic the fall speed of a natural collapsing building, with the telling 'kink' in it, when the first debris meets the still standing portion of the building and thus slows down considerably. While however the collapse speed graph for the WTC North Tower its top part collapsing, shows a constant slope.

Which means that that whole top part while collapsing, met no resistance of importance from its own floors, nor from the floors below the initiation line. That whole part went pass that line as if it was made of dust.
The dust we saw spitting out from the floors below that initiation line around all four facades.
The method used a fixed point on the roof rim. Thus, that point should have undergone already in the first seconds a fall acceleration delay from the resistance from its own floors, expressed in change of the graph's slope angle. Even an upward slope as its first damaged lowest floor met the first undamaged floors under the collapse initiation line.

And my seismic evidence that either that WTC 7 seismogram recorded by LDEO from the Columbia University was falsified or tampered with, or all times from video and photo material in NIST hands was false and from 10 to 17 secs offset from the real time.

HelloBruce, your one liners opinion is no contra argumentation for my posts.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by LaBTopmore than what you hear in the 3 video's I posted which have those Very Low Frequency audio footprints in them,


Even after it was explained to you that video camera's and microphones do NOT pick up VLF audio signals, you ignore that fact as it makes your claims look silly.


That's gross. You and I and everybody else hear those detonation sounds in those videos, and suddenly those videos are worthless?
Or do you mean that since I defined the description of those sounds wrong, the videos are thus also wrong?
You choose to keep repeating yourself, without addressing the physics based evidence in those other videos.

When are you going to address THIS VERY LONG POST full of PHYSICS BASED EVIDENCE OF 911 DEMOLITIONS?
edit on 8/1/13 by LaBTop because: Link added



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
You and I and everybody else hear those detonation sounds in those videos,


no one heard 'detonation sounds" in any vidro, as there were no detonations.


and suddenly those videos are worthless?


No, they are not worthless, but they are worthless to try and back up your claims of explosives.


Or do you mean that since I defined the description of those sounds wrong, the videos are thus also wrong?


Once again, video cameras are NOT capable picking up Ultra Low Frequency sounds - what part of that do you not understand?


without addressing the physics based evidence in those other videos.


Your silly claims are not based on any physics.


THIS VERY LONG POST full of PHYSICS BASED EVIDENCE OF 911 DEMOLITIONS?


There is zero physics based evidence of any demolitions there.



posted on Jan, 9 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


LaBTop

Time and again, you show that you have no idea what a "Thermobaric Bomb" is. According to EVERYTHING I have read, it is another term for a FAE. You keep saying TB! TB! Well you are saying FAE! Do you understand this yet? A thermobaric bomb is a fuel air bomb. I am wondering how the hell you can make a FAE "directional".? Water is not going to give it a direction. Fuel expands in air, it is then ignited. You really should read some actual literature on REAL thermobaric devices, and not made up crap from a guy who knows a guy who worked for a guy, whose cousin is the brother of a guy that created it secretly so no one else knows it exists. And if it ssoooooooo top secret and only in the hands of top military brass, why do you have it? Why do you have knowledge of it? Technically I am surprised you are not in a CIA black prison now in Poland! But yeah, Top Secret devices that no one knows about, but you know all about them. Yes, and I know of special explosives that are laced with pixy dust that magically silence the explosions and sound like Phil Collins albums. Good luck trying to find that information online. It is Above Top Secret and only the President knows and Vladmir Putin, cause they went out and used to hunt pixies in the Siberian Tundras where they actually live. But that is also Above Top Secret. about the only thing I can find that is remotely similar to what you say is the Voitenko compressor.

Also, if you can "muffle" cutter charges so well, why is this not being used, say, EVERYWHERE in the demolition industry? I'm sure people would appreciate quieter demolitions in their cities and towns. Can you provide of any ACTUAL times when demolitions were silenced in this fashion? However, in order for this to even be feasible, you would need to set this up. I am surprised not a single soul inside any of the buildings noticed people with tanks, water hoses, and other materials needed for this hilarious venture. "Hey Vern! Whats all this water leaking around here?"
Plus, you'd need a LOT of fog to be able to muffle a cutter charge.

Your video of the "steam" emanating from the bases of the Twin Towers is erroneous. That smoke at the base was from the cars burning in the parking lots after the airliner debris set cars off. This can be seen here:

Your videos of smoke at the base are also showing the collapse of one tower behind the other. You cannot see the other tower but you see the cloud of dust and debris at the base. That is strike two for your claims.

As for WTC7's collapse: Dust and debris clouds rising from the base? Yeah AS ITS COLLAPSING. Strike three LaBTop. The building is well collapsing when they zoom in on the base and yes I do expect to see dust and debris at the base. No steam though.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join