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

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 12:43 AM
The main problem I have with the 9/11 official version of events at the Pentagon, is the angle of attack they propose.
Why is the imprint on the wall not much longer, more like nearly double the 124 feet wingspan of a 757. It should be about 230 feet in total, if it really would have smacked in that wall under that official angle, coming from the southwest.
But it impacted in reality under a nearly 90 degree angle, coming-in low from the west.

If that plane entered the building under an angle of attack of somewhere between 45 and 52 degrees, coming from the south (the right) side of the entry hole, why are those perpendicular on the E-Ring, concrete walls, standing in these following pictures of mine, still erect and not obliterated?
Only the very first part of those walls are destroyed, indicating a head-on collusion with a fast moving object. If that object would have impacted the outer wall under a 45 degree angle, a big chunk of those divider walls would have been chopped out, many many yards (meters) deep and long.
Be advised that some of the hanging down, limestone plus concrete strips still at the back of them, with bended re-bars in that concrete, can be mistaken as still standing, outer facade columns, but they are just bungling at their re-bars, limestone/concrete strips.
Many people before you made that grave mistake.







I told you so many years already, that that plane DID hit the Pentagon's west wall, but nearly perpendicular to that wall, entered only the first E-Ring and stopped crumbling just at that E-Ring's back walls.

Another observation : if those marks on that still standing west wall part above the first floors were caused by AAL77's wing or tail parts, why are they not sooted black too, just as the whole upper wall where those imprints can be seen in my above screenshots?

Since the intense fires that spilled so much soot on that west wall's facade, started behind that facade, and were leaking its sooted flames out of broken windows, AFTER the impact.

posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 12:49 AM
The official, 45 to 52 degrees angled damage path, leading much deeper into the building, must have been caused by other means, perhaps by :

1. JDAMS, or cruise missiles chasing the plane and incoming from that 45 to 52 degree angle and missing the plane, but not the building. Seems not valid, since these things are not for air to air purposes.

2. Air to air missiles launched somewhere from the roof of the Pentagon, or the Navy Annex or in that region further back, missing the plane partly and for the most entering the building. That could have been the, to be expected, secret defense measures of the Pentagon. I hope you do not really believe that it had no (kept secret for national security reasons) defenses at all?

3. Same sort of missiles, but launched from that Marines helicopter that flew from the White House to the Pentagon Helipad just minutes before, landed there and departed around 9:32, just a few minutes before the plane hit the west wall at 9:38. It appeared back on RADES' ground radar when it flew 150 feet high up again. One minute after its departure it flew 3 miles further north already.

Why did Sean Boger and his colleague, standing behind the windows in the Helipad Tower not recall that helicopter in their interviews, if it was really there just seconds before a "9:32" impact, as Barbara Honnegger thinks?

Because Barbara, who reported this heli as leaving just before AAL77"s "9:32" impact, in her video at 0:46:30 and further.
In that below 1:52:51 long video of her Seattle presentation, she sadly enough, made a grave impact time mistake based on her interpretation of those three stopped clocks :

Posted by Asktheanimals a few posts back, who also fell for Barbara's clock-interpretation :

CLICK here, to start the video at 0:46:30 .
See for her Pentagon impact time of 9:32 based on her mistaken fallen clock-times reasoning, the minutes before this above linked-to, point in her video.

I posted long ago already that those clocks were all found on the floors, and not still hanging on their nails on the walls. Still hanging clocks were still running, since their battery was still inside, so those could not indicate impact time.

So I took an identical electrical, battery operated clock, set it on the official impact time of 9:38 and hung it on a nail on a wall board, and knocked that board hard with a sledge hammer. The clock fell down, landed with its bottom rim on the floor and the minute hand shifted back downwards from 9:38 to between 9:32 and 9:34, in all five tests I did. The battery was also knocked out of its casing, all the five times. So the clock remained fixed every test, on those too early time-showing, shifted back down, minute hands positions.
Which is caused by the inertia of the fixed clock parts, and the minute hand rotation possibility around its thin center axes, when its minute-hand-mass reacts (action = reaction) on the sudden huge deceleration, when the clock's mass hits the floor.

And that's why those Pentagon and Heliport clocks show the wrong "impact" times.
And I am a 9/11 historical truth researcher who really would like to find such a kind of undeniable evidence of the US government or its institutes and agencies being involved in 9/11, but up till now they covered their behinds through countless "plausible deniability" examples of unearthed illogical witness statements.
However, my long evidence post I posted a few posts back is quite undeniable. But it does not appear in mainstream media.
Solid evidence of a conspiracy between them and ALL the western governments.

And thus Barbara, is your "9:32 impact-time evidence" in these three Pentagon clock-times-cases based on two wrong interpretations.
First, that they were found hanging on their original positions on the walls, and secondly, that even after a fall, they would still show their original times, which they don't, as I proved to myself.

And as a thorough and honest-to-yourself researcher, you should have played devils advocate too, just as I did.
It would have saved you this kind of embarrassment. I really feel sorry for you in your 9/11 Pentagon research case, since you were spot-on in your Iran-Contra investigation.

Please be honest, and after controlling my clock experiments, retract your 9:32 "white plane" impact theory. You then show your real class (as I expect you will as an honest person), and I am willing to assist you with a much deeper investigation of all of the 9/11 subjects, since especially you, really deserve it. PM me.
Because there are more pertinent wrong theories in your long Seattle presentation.

If you don't want to contact me, take the time to read my posts here, it will offer you quite some insights in the real 9/11.
I give you permission to use ALL of it in your future writings, it will brighten up your understanding of the real 9/11, that was a huge cover-up and probably a set-up by parts of the secret agencies, from the military and politics alike.

Simply said, the US must create wars, if not, they go bankrupt, and will slowly loose its military top position. And its designer food and drugs and weapons trades, and its energy cartels positions.

There are of course much better scenarios (for us the people) , however, in a military ruled country like the US is now, those will be suppressed by all means.

Title : "What You've Been Missing - Exposing The Noble Lie".

4. The plane was blown up just in front of the west wall, while JDAMS hit and entered that wall and made that officially proposed angled damage path inside. Quite tricky to pull off. How to synchronize those two events..?

But perfectly explainable when someone(s) high up in politics or the military made a grave mistake and fired rockets at AAL77 from a 45 degree angle, but far too late, so the plane was blown up just in front of that west wall, but the rest of that rockets pack flew into the Pentagon....

And a scenario like this would explain all external and internal damage and even the C-Ring roundish exit hole, without to have to go into the planted explosives realm.

It would also explain the missing skid marks in the first floor's concrete, made by a plane's belly when entering with 80 to 90 % of its mass into the outer E-Ring's first floor space.

These packs of rockets could also have downed those 5 light poles, then made that gouge in the roof of the generator trailer and the hole in the fence beneath that trailer.

The more massively plane parts would still enter the west wall and make those imprints on that wall's first floor slabs. The two jet engine cores would have made those smaller holes on both sides of that "nose cone" hole, which was then in fact made by the front landing gear and the huge strong longitudinal beam in the bottom one third of the fuselage.
The left and right wing landing gears would have assisted too in making that wide hole in the first floor space.
The wing tanks, the center tank and the fuselage would have been blown up by planted explosives or those pesky defense rockets, causing that huge WHITE hot fireball in front of the wall, and causing also all the tiny aluminum plane-skin confetti particles on the lawn in front of the west wall, which that long row of non-uniformed men collected not much later in plastic bags.

Were they afraid someone would take a souvenir, and later it could turn up explosives residues?

It also explains the missing imprints of the whole tail section on the wall and the still intact windows where a tail would have smashed through them.
Since its tail was then catapulted in several severed parts over and on the roofs (as can in fact be seen in those two DoD Pentagon parking-boot videos !

And it would strengthen our collective remote controlled plane theories.

And gave the planners the 100 % certainty that their plan to obliterate the ONI offices (Office of Naval Intelligence) and the Army Auditing rooms, would succeed. Those auditors were checking the books to find the paperwork-trail of those not-missing, but unaccounted-for trillions in the Pentagon bookkeeping over a period of more than a decade. Probably nearly all that money was spend on black projects.....Otherwise it would have turned up quickly, in whatever booking system whatever part of the military would have used over the years. You can not loose existing books. You can only let them disappear....

Black projects : Recovered UFO's? Overthrowing foreign governments? Killing US presidents, foreign politicians, whistle-blowers, nosy journalists, all those military secret projects we always hear about decades later. Coke, heroine running? Other exotic drugs running or preparing? To collect huge sums of black, unaccounted-for, money?

This scenario also explains the unbelievable lying and covering up by the whole military top in front of the 9/11 Commission investigations. They collectively covered their and the others their behinds, and were absoluted too by the political top. Who did not want to be interrogated under oath, only when both president and vice president (Bush and Cheney) would be heard behind close doors, with no public recording or registering of their testimony....for the next 90 years...

EVERYTHING points to this nr 4 scenario...!

5. Planted explosives to simulate a 45 degree plane impact and internal damage path.

I am still struggling all these years, with any kind of logic to explain the in such a scenario, seemingly idiotic overkill measures.

Like 5 planted downed light poles, the then construed skid mark in the roof of that generator trailer, the fixed hole in the fence to the left of that same trailer.

However, all explainable again with the too late launch of air to air rockets (see again scenario number 4).

posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 01:39 AM
Scenario 4a.
Without planted explosives on board AAL77.

My problems with that (only the first few...) :

I think there were planners. And they needed to be 100% sure that AAL77 would explode just in front of the Pentagon's west wall.

The far too obvious preparations to keep as much armed or ready to be armed jet fighters out of the whole New York and Virginia region.

The 7 war games held on 9/11. A bit of an overkill, don't you think so?

The deliberate sending of the two only jet fighters that got airborne, in the opposite direction of the Pentagon, over at their standard peace time flight pattern, above a piece of the Atlantic and its coastal region.

Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush who were all three MIA/out of contact, during the critical phase of the whole shebang.

Especially Cheney and Rumsfeld lying about their exact whereabouts when the shoot down order had to be send out much earlier. Mineta exposing Cheney.

Rumsfeld wandering around on the Pentagon lawn. All that, heavily politically motivated.
None of them wanted to be the one who ordered a shoot down of an American passenger plane.

WTC 7.

My long list of evidences. etcetera...

posted on Oct, 15 2013 @ 01:46 AM
the photos of the car engines on fire 3 blocks away does it for me yet bits of paper are everywhere on the site untouched

i applaud you for the amount of research you have put intothis thread devotion indeed bud well impressed i will put it into my favourites .

but what time did we hear about 9-11 in europe [big fxxx up there ]

posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 01:32 AM
I personally believe that (for the main towers) the official story is mainly true. They may not have really gotten the exact science of it right but I don't think they planted anything in the buildings to make them collapse. I think it would have made much mores sense for them to plan the attacks to strategically hit the towers in the areas most likely to cause enough damage to guarantee eventual collapse.

I mean, I originally believed the controlled demolition theory but when you look at all the evidence, it seems pretty clear that the damage that was done in the impact zones was just catastrophic.

This doesn't mean I don't think it was a probable "inside job". I just think they were smarter about it than most conspiracy theorists give them credit for. It would have been foolish to plant demolition charges in the buildings and risk detection if they didn't absolutely have to.

I think they took every step to make sure the twin towers came down in a way that didn't appear to be artificial. Then I think they either planted or strongly encouraged the controlled demolition theories because they knew the public would not really believe TPTB would do something like this and it really does sound outlandish.

I believe controlled demolition was promoted as a distraction from the real core of the issue. Were TPTB involved or not? It seems the more focus that goes on trying to figure out what brought the buildings down or what hit the Pentagon, the less attention is paid to the circumstantial evidence (the behavior of key elected officials and so forth).

So the question is this. Do we really even need controlled demolition to establish motive and a plausible scenario in which they could have either surreptitiously engineered the terrorists (without the terrorists even being aware they were working for the US government) or otherwise found some way to crash those planes into those buildings and let everything else happen as it would?

posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 09:18 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

And there wasn't an earthquake in all of New York, as you try to ridicule my work, there was a trembling a few seconds before collapses, also felt by peoples feet, recorded by many camera's on tripods, I just posted lots of links to all these tremors in this and other threads.

Question: Why is it that the WTC events did not produce larger seismic events than "trembling"?

posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 03:47 AM
reply to post by BrianFlanders

I think they took every step to make sure the twin towers came down in a way that didn't appear to be artificial.


Well I can not pass up the chance to say that it looks artificial to me. It does not remotely resemble any prior building destruction. It looks more like a volcanic eruption than a building destruction. What prior controlled demolition produced so much dust?


posted on Dec, 15 2013 @ 07:18 AM

I believe controlled demolition was promoted as a distraction from the real core of the issue.

This come up several years ago as many people were ask to use their experience to produce a parallel to some other known event. My experience with the SD and their Nacht und Nebel (night and fog decree) and other cleaver gaslight schemes failed to produce anything.

I tried to be as open minded as possible however I just drew a blank. It's easy to produce a plan until the factor of the 24hour news cycle is put in play along with the cutthroat competition for breaking news(true or not) between the networks. Too many questions would be ask for any foilaroid of this magnitude.

Unless a way was found to neutralize the media-The SD did use the intensely religious areas of Bavaria's Catholic communities for schemes in which various religious symbols, such as the Virgin Mary, were 'brought to life' in order to produce mass hysteria. This religious fervor produced acted the way they had planned however like most of their schemes they weren't much for follow up. A lot of the files survived the war and are housed in various archives across Europe.

The Hollywood movie machine has used these gaslight schemes many many times.

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 01:25 AM
reply to post by LaBTop

And as soon as possible, all these wrecks shattered all over the streets were towed away to further away street sides, and parking lots, to make room for emergency vehicles and then those big cranes and bulldozers.
I am afraid that advocates from "the burned car mystery" forgot to check most photo's their date stamps, most of these were photographed in their new parking places in the days after they were towed there. They were even stacked to make more room available for the insurance inspectors that had to check which owners were to be paid for their loss.

Evidence at this site (pro and con)
Parked toasted cars.
is that these cars were photographed while they were toasting where they still sit.
edit on 16-12-2013 by leostokes because: make car singular cars plural
edit on 16-12-2013 by leostokes because: add pro and con

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 01:47 PM

Question: Why is it that the WTC events did not produce larger seismic events than "trembling"?

Because there was no more energy than that needed and released that high up, to just cause a trembling, down at street level.

That was all needed to initiate a collapse of the plane-hit floors. And set off a row of follow-up Thermobaric Bombs in most of the lower floors, to keep the pace of the collapse going, without getting stuck.
As evidenced by the rings of explosive white smoke, all the way down during collapses. And the explosive lateral speeds as measured in videos, see my long evidence posts.

TB's do not offer any evidence of their use, later on, since they are of a gaseous nature. Their High Explosives triggering compounds are so tiny, they will be shattered in the main gas cloud explosion.

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 02:00 PM

Leo, how did the owners of those cars get out of their cars after "parking" them so ridiculously tight together?

Its clear now for still doubting 9/11 forum readers that they were towed there and stacked tight together, the only hole in that row is the one that just got towed out and stands now in front of that row.

B.t.w., there's a photo from above that parking lot, showing some still burning cars in that row. Logic tells us the tow personnel did not have much time to spend on extinguishing every bit of fire in those wrecks, they needed to free the way for the real heavy equipment rolling in from all over New York State.
So, some cars burned again, starting at some smoldering piece.

There was no scalar weapon used, in my opinion. Just some planes and some thermobaric weapons.
All perfectly easy to control and use.
Planes were very obvious to see, those TB explosions were very difficult to see, since they were exploded from deep within the core columns. TB's were developed specifically, to blow up buildings....

P.S. : your link lead to more contra than pro scalar-weapons-used-theories, which use could perhaps had resulted in those burned and wrecked cars.
Those cars were however just hit by burning debris and towed away to make place for all those heavy cranes, bulldozers etcetera.
edit on 16/12/13 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by spooky24

The Sicherheits Dienst was assisted by the psychological arm of the NSDAP and the German Army Moloch.
These social engineers were very well crafted in their jobs. They played a big part in keeping the effort up, even when in 1943, the bulk of the German High Command realized that the war was already lost, lingered only on because of the megalomania of Hitler and his tight circle of friends.

After the war, the Dulles brothers brought not only the German core Physicists and Chemists safely to the USA, but in their eyes and those of the not yet so called CIA, these social media experts were the main operation aim.

And their legacy left in the USA's political and military circles, are molding the whole worlds conception of "reality", which is a terrible mismatch with the real thing.

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by BrianFlanders

I think they however took every step possible to make sure those three towers came down to ultimately street level, those three buildings had to be flattened.

When they should have trusted in just those two planes, those top floors would have perhaps partially collapsed, but left hanging on top of the still standing utterly strong core column packet under it and the still standing outer columns. To be sure to get three total collapses of very strong steel buildings on one day, they had to bring in the big guns. Thermobaric bombs, HE cutter charges, whatever more.

WTC 1 and 2 formed an unsolvable technological risk with all the cancerous building materials in them, that would have cost a trillion to remove them safely.
WTC 7 held too many poisonous files on the bankers schemes and all associated with them. And was probably the collapse initiating center.

And the whole day of 9/11 was the trigger of a new era of offensive warfare for the USA, lining the pockets of all deeply involved.
And of course all participants understood that later leaking would mean imminent death to them and all their family members.

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by GenRadek

" Even LaBTop's long posts are pretty much the same old debunked junk from years ago. Just because its repackaged, does not mean its new. "

Thats Odd , I haven't seen or heard most of the Material presented in LaBTop's Posts being Debunked Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt today , or even 11 Years ago . Where is all this Imformation " Hiding " ?

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 07:22 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

Leo, how did the owners of those cars get out of their cars after "parking" them so ridiculously tight together?

You may be right. You may be wrong. The evidence is not conclusive.

Some cars do seem close together. How did the tow truck maneuver to accomplish the close spacing. The tow truck would have to back in? Other cars are plenty far apart, not ridiculously tight together. Sloppy tow truck maneuvering? Different driver?

It does seem unlikely that all drivers would back in to park.

You know the truth of this question must be easy to find. There must be lots of witnesses with first hand knowledge. The tow truck drivers. The insurance agents.

No doubt many toasted cars were towed right away to clear a path.

edit on 16-12-2013 by leostokes because: spelling
edit on 16-12-2013 by leostokes because: clarify

Here is a new idea. Tires. Many toasted cars had their tires mauled into a shape or state where they would not roll. They would require hauling. Not towing.
edit on 16-12-2013 by leostokes because: new idea

posted on Dec, 16 2013 @ 07:57 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

Because there was no more energy than that needed and released that high up, to just cause a trembling, down at street level.

I do not understand your answer. Lets see if we can sort this out.

The plan of a conventional controlled demolition is (I assume) to first weaken the supports and second to let gravity pull the tower down. The mass that hits the ground would produce a seismic event. The size of the quake is directly related to the size of the mass. The size of the quake is also related to the height of the mass. The same mass falling from higher up would produce a larger quake. If this is really the way it works then a comparison can be made. A comparison of the seismic data from past controlled demolitions. With this data available we could place the WTC event into the context to see how it compares.

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 01:31 AM

reply to post by LaBTop

Because there was no more energy than that needed and released that high up, to just cause a trembling, down at street level.

I do not understand your answer. Lets see if we can sort this out.

The plan of a conventional controlled demolition is (I assume) to first weaken the supports and second to let gravity pull the tower down.

This wasn't a conventional one, it was a hidden one.

The mass that hits the ground would produce a seismic event. The size of the quake is directly related to the size of the mass. The size of the quake is also related to the height of the mass. The same mass falling from higher up would produce a larger quake.

You seem to think those towers toppled over....
The initiating event produced that ripple in the ground, felt and recorded by so many persons and apertures.
When a mass (the top floors of those two towers) falls in on and THROUGH itself, it directly starts to make waves inside the still standing portion of the structure when it hits those portions. NOT when the first debris OUTSIDE the towers reached and hit the ground levels.....
Sound travels at about 20 miles per second in steel. Movements like ripples travel much slower, sound however travels at 333 meters per second, that's why you constantly have to remember that when you watch those nearby filmed collapse videos.
Do you hear the start of the collapse as a noise from the steel under your feet, or from the airborne sounds, and do you notice trembling from cameras on tripods just a few seconds before you SEE the top floors start crumbling under the immense power of exploding thermobaric bombs, which look amazingly the same as the onset of a gravity driven collapse.
The one thing that shows the intention is the white smoke rings all around the first floors crumbling. (btw UNDER the lowest impacted floors)
Another giveaway is the lateral speed of the exploded building parts, as shown to you in the calculations in my long evidence posts.

If this is really the way it works then a comparison can be made. A comparison of the seismic data from past controlled demolitions. With this data available we could place the WTC event into the context to see how it compares.

Ahhh, yes, I asked this same question many times but never got ANY seismic data from demolition companies. One would suspect those companies to register exactly these kind of scientific data for EVERY job they did.....
I once was in an ATS discussion with that journalist working for the demolition companies trade union. He bragged about all the hand-held seismographs that registered no seismic evidence of explosions in New York on 9/11. When I asked him to show me those pesky things, since I was sure I could show him then the signs of explosions going off BEFORE the timestamped collapses started, he suddenly disappeared from all computer screens.
I called a few demolition companies mentioned by him, working the NY area on 9/11, and they said they lost those recordings, nowhere to be found anymore.....

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by LaBTop

I judge from your reply that we do not understand each other.

Let me oversimplify.

Here are two hypothetical but simple examples.

First we have a mass, a solid rock that weighs 50 tons. Some how we raise the rock 300 feet in the air and drop it. The impact causes the ground to shake. The rock was in the air. It is now on the ground.

Second we construct a building of concrete and steel. The building is made 300 feet tall. Also it is made so that its total weight is 50 tons like the rock. We demolish the building by controlled demolition. The supports weaken and gravity pulls the building to the ground. The ground shakes. The building was standing but now it is a pile of rubble. The total weight of the pile of rubble is 50 tons.

These two experiments are not identical. But they share something in common. In both, 50 tons hit the ground. The time it took the building to collapse was longer than the time it took the rock to fall. The rock fell as a unit. The building came down in chunks. Both experiments caused the ground to shake.

The point is that controlled demolition produces a seismic event that can be recorded and studied. If we make the building taller and heavier it will produce a larger seismic event.

I hope this over simplification marks a common understanding for further discussion.

Now you say the WTC events produced trembling. Indeed they did. Here in red is the seismograph of the fall of the north tower.
The blue graph is a Manhattan earthquake for comparison.

Here is the seismograph of the controlled demolition of the Seattle Kingdome.

A comparison follows.

The Kingdome produced an earthquake-like seismic event magnitude 2.3. Earthquake-like in that it produced P(rimary) waves and S(econdary) waves that travel below the surface. The north tower seismic event was 2.3. But it was not earthquake-like. It consisted of only a simple surface wave.

Is it not surprising that the WTC seismic event was so small? The north tower potential energy was 30 times that of the Kingdome.

If the destruction of the north tower was a demolition, the seismic evidence should support demolition. It does not.

One guess that may explain the smallness is that the north tower changed to dust as it came down. Dust does not make the earth shake as it settles.

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 04:55 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

Leo, how did the owners of those cars get out of their cars after "parking" them so ridiculously tight together?
Here is more evidence. Here is the lot showing the cars as their drivers parked them ridiculously tight together.
Here is the lot after the cars toasted sitting where their drivers parked them ridiculously tight together..
It must be the camera perspective obscures the actual spacing of the cars in this picture.

edit on 17-12-2013 by leostokes because: reorder words in the last sentence

posted on Dec, 17 2013 @ 05:28 PM
It seems to me that you do not understand your own reasoning, no offense meant.

The mass that hits the ground would produce a seismic event. The size of the quake is directly related to the size of the mass. The size of the quake is also related to the height of the mass. The same mass falling from higher up would produce a larger quake.

You seem to think those towers toppled over....

The mass does not hit the ground, it hits the underlaying still intact structure. The combination of your two relationships shows that you really seem to think that a huge portion of those towers fell BESIDE them (your height comment), which they did not, especially in the case of the North Tower (Tower 1) you see the top starting to lean and topple over, and then that whole part obliterated in mid air.

That same mass falling IN ON ITSELF a mile higher up would still exert the same force on the underlaying structure, which has nothing to do with its height above the ground on that moment, but only with its mass and height above the UNDERLAYING structure.
It is that still standing underlaying part of the structure that leads the TREMBLING of the collapse initiation downwards to the ground levels, where it changes to seismic waves that then start to ripple out in circles.
And those first ripples reached the seismic station at Palisades N.Y. 17 seconds later (34 km divided by a mean speed of 2 km/sec in the upper N.Y. State crust), as defined during thousands of seismic events over many decades recorded there at Palisades.

You clearly show by your choice of words (see your bolded by me texts) that you forget that both WTC 2 and WTC 1 collapses were pile-driven ones.
We were lead by all media footage to believe that the mass of the top parts above the plane impacted floors went straight down THROUGH the still standing, much stiffer and stronger lower parts of those towers. You saw all that dust and debris spread up and out like a row of opening umbrellas. With lateral speeds measured again by David Chandler, which are far too fast to could be caused by a natural gravitational collapse.
And laterally exploding gas clouds as those from thermobaric bombs do not exert a lot of vertical force on the still standing steel columns and beams. Thus do not significantly add to the seismic shock wave, traveling all the time of the collapse through the outer and inner still standing steel columns down to ground levels.

The problem seems to be that you do not understand the significance of the Chandler calculations, showing without a trace of doubt, that the North Tower collapse initiation and follow up was not met with any kind of resistance of the still standing, in full view, lower portion of the building.
The graph David drew following the descend of one pixel of the WTC 1 (North Tower) collapse video resulted in a straight line down on his graph, while a French demolition that followed the same technique of starting the demolition higher up in that building, showed a V-formed resulting graph for just such a video pixel. The rising part at the bottom of that demolition graph for that pixel of that video showed it getting slowed down by resistance from the still standing building portion under the explosions fronts.

And please, you can't compare all those seismograms you bring in at all with each other. Where is the amplitude mentioned in those graphs?
Please type in the ATS search the words "LaBTop seismic" and you will find in 300+ posts of mine the whole explanation you need to understand how to read seismograms and how to try to interpret them. And if you lack lots of information about the machines they are recorded on and the circumstances, filters and amplitudes and in which directions the waves were measured, it has no sense to even start to try to compare them.

I have used really comparable LDEO seismograms from the plane impacts and the three collapses, where I even changed the sensitivity of the two WTC-2 and WTC-1 graphs back from 10 nm/sec to the other ten times better 100 nm/sec sensitivity.
And then you suddenly see the initiating explosive events ripples (amplitudes) in the beginning of those stretched up graphs.....Because there are atomic clocked timestamps set in concrete by NIST for collapse initiations times, which they can not change again, as they did already one time when my seismic WTC 7 thesis was first published.
And those two initiating explosive events amplitudes are of the same magnitude as the one from the WTC 7 seismogram, showing that no risk was taken, equally strong initiating thermobarics were set off in all three demolitions.
All this can be found in my 300+ seismic posts.

new topics
top topics
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in