It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by samkent
We call that what you constantly practice, "making wind".
And we call what you constantly practice, "fantasy".
If you have such a strong case, please make your argument in 100 words, and provide some links with evidence for that argument (evidence does not equal other lengthy posts nor youtube videos).
Your argument "I hear low sounds on a youtube video so there must have been explosives" has already completely been debunked by the way, eventhough you probably don't realize that.
Originally posted by LaBTop
Are you serious? Look up the link to my huge evidence post, nicely separated in numbered parts.
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by LaBTop
Are you serious? Look up the link to my huge evidence post, nicely separated in numbered parts.
No I will not. If you can't be bothered to put your argument in an accessible easy to read and understand format, then I can't be bothered to spent any time on that endless drivel you post. The reason you get such an extremely low amount of rebuttals to your "arguments" is not because they are so good, but nobody can be bothered to invest time in decyphering them, just to find out how they are sheer nonsense.
TITLE: Thermobaric Blast Pressure Gauges
TECHNOLOGY AREAS: Sensors
ACQUISITION PROGRAM: PM, Aviation Rocket and Missiles
OBJECTIVE: To develop a fast response pressure transducer that has minimal response to outside stimulus. During Thermobaric explosions, the high heat and light caused by the blast can cause currently available sensors to give false readings. From past experience, we have found that thermal and photo stimulus can greatly impact the data received from these types of transducers. At the present time transducers with external cooling have had some success with the thermal effects but no success with the photoelectric.
DESCRIPTION: Virtually all pressure sensors are sensitive to thermal shock. When heat strikes the diaphragm of a pressure sensor that has crystals contained in an outer housing, the heat can cause an expansion of the case surrounding the internal crystals. Although quartz crystals are not significantly sensitive to thermal shock, the case expansion causes a lessening of the preload force on the crystals, usually causing a negative-signal output. Thermobaric reactions produce high thermal and photoelectric transients rendering present piezoelectric transducer technology inadequate for this application. The temperature ranges in question are from 1400 to 1600 degrees Fahrenheit or 760 to 870 degrees Celsius. These transducers need to be in the range of 50, 100 and 200 psi, with response rates around 1 microsecond. The transducer should exhibit minimal response when exposed to a broadband light source, which produces a radiant intensity of 10 milliwatts over the area of the transducer diaphragm.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by LaBTop
So this is one of your best? Your argument is "I see something I can not explain". At least you are clever enough to not stick any conclusion to it.
You nor me are qualified to interpret seismologic records. No wonder we can not come to any conclusion. We can however give our layman opinion (aka speculate). so here is mine: its not explosives of any kind because a) they would not have the required energy to cause this while b) remaining unnoticed. So my guess would be that we see the internal collapse.
Note that me pointing out that you are in no way qualified, nor providing any actual relevant analysis, is already enough to throw this argument in the garbage bin. I don't need to provide an alternative explanation. Instead you have to prove that a) it could have been caused by explosives but most of all that b) it could not have been caused by anything else. You haven't done either.edit on 24-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)
Professor Raymond Brown, senior geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma :
"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]
LaBTop : that's not at all an explanation for the most glaring and obvious conclusion which anybody with basic education can draw from my graph.
Namely that it's clear as hell from my above WTC 7 seismogram with all my textual additions, that the total collapse of the whole WTC 7 building with all its hundreds of internal and external columns and beams snapping in the process of a 10+ seconds long collapsing process, did not by far excited the bedrock under it in a comparable manner as that first, internal event inside WTC 7, depicted by that first huge peak in my seismic graph, which is clearly written on that graph seconds before the starting of the sinking of that penthouse roof and then the collapsing of that whole penthouse into the main roof floor and down into the top floor.
The bedrock under WTC 7 became excited during several seconds in a huge manner, and only after that, the camera's fixed on WTC 7 from quite a distance, started to record the first sign of any external movement.
Namely that east penthouse roof sinking down. Followed by the west penthouse sinking too.
And Aim64 tried to plant the impression that that huge seismic energy peak could be caused by the natural snapping of only one, too far stressed column. Number 79.
I hope you do understand by now, that such a proposal is meant to distract you from what your eyes register and your brain immediately realizes, a whole building snapping should show a very huge peak while it's happening. And that event should dwarf that first event recorded. If that would have been a form of natural snapping from only one vertical column under far too much stress.
However, as you can see clearly, the opposite is true, the first event dwarfs the following total collapse event, energy wise.
Thus, there must have been introduced an extra amount of energy, and a huge surplus for sure.
Originally posted by -PLB-
You nor me are qualified to interpret seismologic records. No wonder we can not come to any conclusion. We can however give our layman oppinion (aka speculate). so here is mine: its not explosives of any kind because a) they would not have the required energy to cause this while b) remaining unnoticed.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by maxella1
Here's a couple more dealing with the first hand accounts.
Thus the remaining folks who argue for and actively defend the government and MSM sanctioned OS, they serve a valuable purpose. They need not agree, but what's interesting is how the vast majority of average people who accept and believe the OS do not, I repeat do not have access to the same degree of information as those who defend the OS at places like this do, so while they do play a valuable role, I certainly wouldn't want to be in their shoes given the nature of what we're talking about here.
That's false, they did not go unnoticed by any means, I don't understand why the OS defenders keep promulgating this idea in the face of the first hand accounts and experiences.
Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by NewAgeMan
That's false, they did not go unnoticed by any means, I don't understand why the OS defenders keep promulgating this idea in the face of the first hand accounts and experiences.
Explosions do not prove explosives.
We had a house blow up over night in our area and no one is saying explosives.
I've tossed spray cans into fires and they exploded. But they didn't have TNT inside.
That's what happens when you take words out of context.
Sorry to 'explode' your myth.
Originally posted by LaBTop
Not one serious argument to counter my WTC 7 Cianca photo-anomaly Seismic WTC 7 thesis,
Originally posted by ANOK
In what way do those forums show it to be garbage?