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

page: 16
9
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:35 PM
link   

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).


Are you serious? Look up the link to my huge evidence post, nicely separated in numbered parts.


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.


The usual halting before thinking it totally through.
My argument is, that you can hear in several lately surfaced FOIA'ed videos, those explosion sounds, in a specific cadence. Then, combined with all the other evidence presented, the only sane conclusion can be that these low sounds can only be explosion sounds, and are not pancaking floors, snapping steel columns or beams (a fairy tail), exploding electrical devices, gas storage containers, paint cans or whatever other nonsense people came up with.
Those sounds you hear in those video's are also louder than the resulting collapse sounds.

The sounds, are evidence of explosions,
--together with the 8 floors non-resistance free fall period at WTC 7;
--the seismic evidence hinting on either falsification of seismograms or huge energy bursts before anything moves for the eye or camera's to see;
--the irrational long and straight collapse speed diagram line from the North Towers top part crumbling to dust, instead of into a pile of steel columns and beams that would have halted such a straight line and changed it to a real gravitational collapse diagram where that line would have changed from straight downwards to a bent and even upwards moving line, the more material would have hit other material;
--the clearly observable expel of smoke and dust together with a demolition muffler mat out of a window of the North Tower, at such a measurable high speed that it can only be the result of an explosion just seconds before collapse started;
--and all the other evidence for explosions heard and seen by ears, eyes and camera's.

And the rest of all my arguments. Look them up in my huge evidence post.

It's the combination of rock hard evidence that makes it such a clear case of a false flag operation, just as all the lies that brought us into the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and who knows which country next.

Have you forgotten that pack of now totally proven huge lies, read before Congress by ex-general Collin Powell, and the following attacks on countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 ?




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:21 PM
link   

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.


2.
Not one serious argument to counter my WTC 7 Cianca photo-anomaly Seismic WTC 7 thesis, just sidesteps to petty arguments of "no videos with explosion sounds", which I and ANOK however provided in massive amounts, and then those get ignored and it is back to unsubstantial posts again for these believers.

Cianca photo with time stamp, corrected and set by NIST themselves :
files.abovetopsecret.com...


Seismic WTC 7 thesis explanatory animation:
files.abovetopsecret.com...
(640x551):

(890x766) :


No contra-argument against that unexplainable first huge energy event on that above seismogram from WTC 7.
Evidenced by those first huge amplitudes peaks that outclassed the following smaller group of amplitudes peaks, which showed the real beginning of the global collapse of WTC 7.
So WHAT caused that first biggest pack of amplitudes peaks..?
No serious contra arguments came up from them.
In fact, not one. Never ever in all threads and posts related to my seismic graph on this board.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Start reading at that post of mine, and read up further posts there while reading the seismic links too, I provided.
______________________________

ARE YOU GOING TO DUCK AND COVER AGAIN ?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


By the way, that post of yours has 78 words. Without the quotation.
Not one of them is even nearing to any form of rebut to my arguments.
You're just blowing wind.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Wow, so many links. So many words. And yet, in the end, all it goes back to is essentially a FAE. The fuels are different. The mixes are different. The detonator is different. But in the end, the whole point, is to have a massive blast and a massive overpressure.

Also, FYI: A thermobaric pressure transducer is a fancy word for a pressure gauge. Did you read this DoD manual?
DoD Link

It is a Word document. I like this part:

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.

Huh, testing the effects of thermobaric weapons with pressure devices. Not so much about detonating them.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   
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 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. 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)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   

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)


POSTED on 20/6/08

www.abovetopsecret.com...


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]


Then read ALL my arguments on that page 11 from this thread :

I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007), page 11


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.


Since unnatural explosives coupled to the steel of a building are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion that is registered in a seismic station, than is the following natural gravitational collapse of the building; that amount of energy could have only come from planted explosives.

First TB's to "pump up" the floor spaces, and break all seats, welds and bolts of all vertical and horizontal steel beams and columns, then displacement and cutter charges to dislocate the now loose ends of those beams and columns.
Which is then followed by the natural forces of gravitation, forcing the whole 39 floors top portion of WTC 7 to fall in on itself, through the now non-existing 8 floors that were totally broken by TB's.

Listen to Craig Bartmer's remarks, he was a NYPD officer, near to WTC 7 when it blew. He described "an umbrella of debris just a few feet above his head spitting out of the building", which is exactly what you see when TB's go off inside a building to "pump it up" and demolish it



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


You forgot the piezoelectric thin film on rubber or silicon mats?
You essentially just proved to yourself that I am right, and you are wrong in equalizing an FAE with a TB.
Again, ask yourself, why would the DoD stringently keep using the distinction between the words FAE and TB ?
I do not read those three beloved letters of yours in your link.

When the DoD describes anything to do with an FAE, it uses those three letters all over its texts, and the same goes for anything to do with TB's.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 

There is so much information pointing to a 9/11 conspiracy, that it's a one way street for most people who look into it objectively and with an open mind. It doesn't matter what an "OSer" thinks, except to the degree that they serve as a valuable "foil" by which the information can be illuminated and brought to light for the observing eyes of the open minded and curious. In that sense, the "argument" is of value in bringing forth the information.

It should also be pointed out that most "truthers" at one time accepted and believed the OS hook, line and sinker, and it's worth noting that the "argument" doesn't sway truthers to becoming OS'ers.

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.

edit on 25-1-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

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.

Re: b) 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 NewAgeMan
reply to post by maxella1
 

Here's a couple more dealing with the first hand accounts.






posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 




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.

And yet not a peep in the real world.
Only on conspiracy sites are there 'truthers'.
Why is that?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

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.

They are also visible during the actual occurrence of the destruction of the buildings themselves.

Speaking of myth and myth-making, check this out.

Zelikow and the 9/11 Whitewash-Coverup

Anyway, as I said, people like you are helpful as a foil against which the information can continue to be shared, so thanks again samkent for all your efforts in supporting and actively defending the official story. Albeit it's a gruesome type of work you do, but still valuable nevertheless.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Not one serious argument to counter my WTC 7 Cianca photo-anomaly Seismic WTC 7 thesis,


Shown to be garbage here

"Here is some useful information on what you would see in a typical explosion, and also for a controlled demolition.
web.mst.edu...

Now, compare that to the 9/11 Seismic data
www.mgs.md.gov...

Here is a paper by Ryan Mackey about seismic data from 9/11
www.jod911.com...

About page 48 ff.

Gravy's reasearch
sites.google.com...

Pat's (??) site on the Seismic data
www.911myths.com...

NIST's info on the seismic data
wtc.nist.gov..."

and
www.911myths.com...
edit on 25-1-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


In what way do those forums show it to be garbage?

You expect people to wade through that to find what it is you're talking about?

Typical OSer drive-by posting.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
In what way do those forums show it to be garbage?


if you had bothered to actually follow the links you would have seen only 1 was a forum, and again if you had bothered to visit the page you would have seen the debunking of the silly claims.

So just another truther refusing to visit sites that will destroy their conspiracy theory.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Why should I be bothered to wade though a forum to find what it is you want us to read? Also isn't it against T&C to link to other forums? You're supposed to post your own thoughts, not just link to other peoples with no comment.

Post your point in the thread. Notice how LaBTop does that. You guys have a habit of lazy posting.

edit on 1/25/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Now all you need to do is to show how these explosives were capable of releasing so much energy responsible for the seismic records while remain completely unnoticed (visual or audible effects) to all the experts on the subject. It is the combination of the two.

And after that you have to show that just the collapse itself could not have been responsible. Just asserting it isn't going to help your case.
edit on 25-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 

More re: Visual (audio and physical effects experienced by first hand witnesses, covered in videos I posted above).


Just because you can't accept it, or don't want to believe it, doesn't make it not what it is.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join