Times LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo

originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: samkent

Sam - what are your thoughts on the persistence of LaBTop? As in the years and time he has put into his effort. Thanks.

Yet no effort to conjure credible research for a peer review paper.The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a great and ethical group for impartial peer review!

a reply to: LaBTop

You are a great researcher and I mean it.

But it's an illusion to think that 'they' will tell us the truth right now. Maybe after 50 years, who knows. I think the real leaders of this world took the 9-11 disaster as the reason to open the war on terror. Without 9-11 they would never have had the support of the citizens and leaders in the USA and in most parts in the rest of the world.
Think about the Tonkin incident. It took 50 years before they told us the truth. And there were other incidents that were the reason to get the support of the people to take decisions that changed the world.
www.evawaseerst.be...

a reply to: LaBTop

So what you're saying is a 500,000 lbs building didn't impact the ground with the appropriate seismic activity? Almost like a vast majority of the debris wasn't there...

Dr. Judy Wood's report becomes more plausible with each revelation.

a reply to: Jason88

Sam - what are your thoughts on the persistence of LaBTop? As in the years and time he has put into his effort. Thanks.

There are those people in life where giving a short answer is not part of their make up.
They obsess the the Nth degree over the smallest thing.
He may be right on a point here or there but if people tune out it's all for not.

Personally I can't read his posts because they are just too long.
If he were a degreed seismologist I might give his posts more eyeball time.
But he is dedicated and his posts are not vulgar or attackish.
So cudos to that.

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
a reply to: LaBTop

So what you're saying is a 500,000 lbs building didn't impact the ground with the appropriate seismic activity? Almost like a vast majority of the debris wasn't there...

Dr. Judy Wood's report becomes more plausible with each revelation.

500,000 TONS each, not pounds.
Just to be clear. Which IMO adds more
credence to your question as to where it all went.

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

Dr. Judy Wood's report becomes more plausible with each revelation.

Just because one misinformation agrees with another misinformation doesn't make either true.

One thing Judy Woods avoids is the power needed to accomplish what she claims.
It takes 334 Kilo Joules to boil 1 Kilogram of water.
Steel takes 2 Mega Joules to vaporize 1 Kilogram.
Each WTC had a mass of 450,000,000 Kilograms.
450,000,000 X 2,000,000 = 900,000,000,000,000 Kilo joules.
Which equals 250,000,000 watt hrs.
Or 125 Hoover dams.

Show me the transmission lines for that Dr Judy !!!

If Obama said he did it on TV.
most of the american people would Still not belive it.

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Yes, of course. My mistake....

a reply to: samkent

That is the most redundant line of dialogue I have ever read in regards to this issue and it proves nor disproves absolutely nothing.

Ever heard of The Hutchinson Effect? Look it up on YouTube. If someone can do it to a hunk of iron on their kitchen table it's not much of a stretch to assume the Black Government has this technology on a much... much bigger scale.

Dr. Wood's hypothesis regarding the origin of the focused energy waves being the hurricane off the coast of New York that day is the most compelling yet, in my opinion. All the evidence supports it. From the buildings to the melted car engines, to the heating of the Brooklyn Bridge. There are many factors most refuse to acknowledge simply because they have no rational explanation for it. Judy Wood does, and she was completely press-ganged and chastised for it. Big surprise.

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker

Ever heard of The Hutchinson Effect?

Oh dear, that is a well known hoax! rationalwiki.org...

All the evidence supports it. From the buildings to the melted car engines,

No car engines melted on 9/11....

to the heating of the Brooklyn Bridge.

What makes you claim that was heated?

a reply to: LaBTop

So how can a failing single steel column 79, according to NIST, cause that first huge earth shaking amplitude peak?
When 8.4 seconds later all the other identical steel columns fail all together at once, evidenced by a 2.6 secs free fall of the top of that building.
That means over 34 meters, there was no resistance at all against a free fall of building material.
Logic should have shown us a whole pack of peaks at least identical to that first one, however, we don't see that at all, they are all lower in amplitude.

You are correct.

A very good question?

What could cause all the single columns throughout the entire building to fail simultaneously. We know if just one column 79 failed, only a part of the WTC 7 would have collapse, as we all know buildings always fall in their lease resistance. But the whole building? This alone defies NIST logic.

The only way a building like that can fall the way we all witnessed it on TV, is only by demolition. I agree with your wonderful presentation and I believe you have nailed it!

The only answers we are going to get from people who support the official narratives are "opinions" based on no facts.

a reply to: LaBTop

NIST removed all their former seismic studies from their websites and repositories, they even succeeded to scrap those from the whole Internet, because of my publication at that time.

One has to ask why did NIST remove all their seismic studies?

Perhaps you were able to punch a big hole in their pseudo science. I have yet to see anyone disprove your presentation yet, after all these years.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker

Ever heard of The Hutchinson Effect?

Oh dear, that is a well known hoax! rationalwiki.org...

All the evidence supports it. From the buildings to the melted car engines,

No car engines melted on 9/11....

to the heating of the Brooklyn Bridge.

What makes you claim that was heated?

Regardless if Hutchinson is or ever was credible is irrelevant. His name is used to describe the type of physical process such as what was seen on 9/11. I agree it's about time someone comes up with a more appropriate name...


Did she pull these photos off a movie set? I'd like to know how they managed to burn the motors out but hardly the rest...:

drjudywood.com...

As for the bridges, you'll find in her report that many witnesses who were on the Brooklyn Bridge at the time of the attack reported "feeling the heat of the buildings burning", which was obviously not the case. Whatever form of energy was employed, it caused the iron in the bridge to heat up. There are diagrams which mark everything that was directly or indirectly affected in and around ground zero. It's in the shape of a "fanning" or "wave" effect coming from the sea (directly from hurricane Erin) and directed at the twin towers. I won't bother wasting my time searching for every quote and image as I'm sure it's all the same to you. "Rubbish."

Ever think the reason you will never get the truth you seek is because what you think is the truth are lies. Strange as one truther lie is exposed, the narrative changes and becomes more elaborate. First the buildings were blown up. No sounds of explosions found on any videos. Well, it had to be thermite. But no cut columns found. The guy that "found" traces of sulfur which obviously ment thermite was used was proven a fraud. So Steven Jones is a hoax and working for the CIA to misinform. It had to be nukes because some poor guy lost his teeth so it had to be radiation poisoning. But wide spread contamination was not found. So it had to be freecken laser beams.

You guys have never picked a solution that worked and you truth keeps evolving.

And you still cannot answer if steel is impregnable to fire why it needs insulated in the first place.

a reply to: neutronflux

First the buildings were blown up. No sounds of explosions found on any videos.

False.

The fact is, there are several videos that were recorded that day with the sounds of explosions.

Well, it had to be thermite. But no cut columns found. The guy that "found" traces of sulfur which obviously ment thermite was used was proven a fraud. So Steven Jones is a hoax and working for the CIA to misinform.

Where is your proof to support your "opinion"?

It had to be nukes because some poor guy lost his teeth so it had to be radiation poisoning. But wide spread contamination was not found. So it had to be freecken laser beams.

Who lost their teeth?

"wide spread contamination was not found." Just like the air that was tested by the EPA and was found safe to breath, yet many first Responder have some form of cancer and many have already died because the air was poison. Because EPA was paid to lie to the american people.

Now one has to ask, who has that kind of power to twist the arms of the EPA?

You guys have never picked a solution that worked and you truth keeps evolving.

I can agree with your statement. However we all should thank the CIA and FBI for creating disinformation and dividing the Truth movement in many fractions, and lumping all Truthers as "conspiracy theorist."

The Term “Conspiracy Theory” — an Invention of the CIA

from the Rev. Douglas Wilson, member of the Core Group of Project Unspeakable

Having read JFK and the Unspeakable several years ago, I’ve been thinking about assassinations for quite a while and I’ve seen how “conspiracy theory” is used to shut off debate, to signal that we’re entering “the unspeakable” zone. So I began to wonder if the use of the term Conspiracy Theory might be a conspiracy itself.

So I went exploring, and surprise surprise, there is a 1967 CIA memo that puts forward a great many of the commonly heard rebuttals to the Warren Commission Report. The CIA owned over 250 media outlets in the 1960s, spent close to a billion dollars (in today’s dollars) spreading information, and had people doing its bidding in every major city in the world, so it is not surprising that they were able to disseminate this idea.

projectunspeakable.com...

So what is your take on LaBTop presentation? True or false?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jason88

Sam - what are your thoughts on the persistence of LaBTop? As in the years and time he has put into his effort. Thanks.

There are those people in life where giving a short answer is not part of their make up.
They obsess the the Nth degree over the smallest thing.
He may be right on a point here or there but if people tune out it's all for not.

Personally I can't read his posts because they are just too long.
If he were a degreed seismologist I might give his posts more eyeball time.
But he is dedicated and his posts are not vulgar or attackish.
So cudos to that.

Yes well take over the helm for us, and get to the bottom of it in a few sentences please, we look forward to it.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker

Ever heard of The Hutchinson Effect?

Oh dear, that is a well known hoax! rationalwiki.org...

All the evidence supports it. From the buildings to the melted car engines,

No car engines melted on 9/11....

to the heating of the Brooklyn Bridge.

What makes you claim that was heated?

The engines got up and walked away ?

THOUSANDS of available pictures show all sorts of missing things, funny how you dismiss all that !!

a reply to: Informer1958

You are so ignorant on nuclear contamination. The contamination required to cause sicknesses would have been long term and been carried to homes, restaurants, and hospitalities. causing collateral slickness.

Truthers cannot even agree on one signal hypothesis.


Give one link of vedio that conforms the sound of demolition explosives going off. Should easily be heard up to hslh a mile away with a distinct sound signature.

a reply to: Informer1958

The fact is, there are several videos that were recorded that day with the sounds of explosions.

Yes, the sound of explosions, no sound of explosives, stop pretending the sound of explosions means explosives, there is a big difference, the sound of explosives is very distinctive and there are no sound of that in any recordings.

The only answers we are going to get from people who support the official narratives are "opinions" based on no facts.

Say the guy voicing his Opinion without any facts...irony

a reply to: ParasuvO

The engines got up and walked away ?

THOUSANDS of available pictures show all sorts of missing things, funny how you dismiss all that !!

So you believe that missing engines prove some sort of energy weapon was used ?
Then explain why the cars on either side still had their engines.

What's missing is proof of energy weapons.

I'm just waiting on proof that the time stamps were synchronize. We're the timing devices set to an exact synchronized time? Were is the proof the times referenced are certified to be calibrated by a calibration lab. I have a camera I haven't set the time on so it time stamps show 2000. So you can say with credibility all devices referanced set to the correct and synchronized time through calibration certificates? It's something you would hammer the NIST for. Lack of credible proof. Hypocrites.