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 LaBTop
It's highly advisable for all non-believers of the official 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST Reports' investigations into the events on 9/11/2001,
and also very beneficial for this ATS 9/11 Forum its internal PEACE,
to counter any further threads- and posts disturbances, by well known disturbers who never answer 9/11-Conspiracies evidence-loaded posts by LINKING THIS POST as a STANDARD ANSWER to these "simple- or one liner" posts disturbers :
LaBTop : WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments.
ANSWER THIS HUGE POST BEFORE POSTING ANY FURTHER THREAD-DISTURBING UNSUBSTANTIATED POSTS.
Three threads of recent interest (this thread, and these two) where I felt the need to post a few details that in fact also fall under the umbrella of this thread its own title, are also a partly repository for what follows a bit further down :
Lets Agree to Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Arguments
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and
2011 Toronto 9/11 Hearings.(Full Length Video)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
up to 0:55:26.
"When I walked into the revolving doors of the lobby, the last door before you get to the outside, and I was gonna walk around the building and go up to the Postal Service to get some special stamps, and, eh, I had no sooner walked out the door when I heard a wishing roaring noise, eh, and I looked to my left and I see a friend of mine, ehh, with terror on his face racing for cover. And then I saw several other people that I didn't recognize, also heading for cover. And, eh, I looked, eh, I heard the, a Boomm and the ground tremble, and,eh, the next thing I know I was looking up to the roof and I seeing stuff coming off the roof. I figured my best bet would be to get back into the building, so to avoid the stuff coming off the roof. I know as soon as I was going back into the revolving door, when, eh, eh, all of a sudden it seems like the whole lobby, the door I was in and everything filled up with a yellowish brownish, eh, combustible mixture.
I didnt really smell any different, but, there wasnt, it took so quickly to happen, it was like a tenth of a second and the next thing I know is a major explosion, which Im now thrown back out through both of these revolving doors and back outside underneath the overhang where the taxis were coming. I was on fire, I quickly put my shirt out and kinda douche my hair and just started to stagger away, as fast as I could."
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by LaBTop
Oh LaBTop, thats funny.
Just how much energy is in a 767 impacting at 550mph? How can you say that a 550 mph impact is negligible in comparison to an explosive? It is not the speed, but the FORCE.
You think we are tricked by kindergarten tricks. Yet, you cannot even figure out or understand basic physics lesson 1.
Also, basement bombs. Where? How? To fake seismograph records? Really?edit on 1/29/2013 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)
Just how much energy is in a 767 impacting at 550mph? How can you say that a 550 mph impact is negligible in comparison to an explosive? It is not the speed, but the FORCE.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by LaBTop
You have an issue though! The actual professionals that deal with explosive demolitions also disagree with your nonsense:
Implosion World pdf
Now who to believe? Someone with zero credibility about demolitions and does not know that an airliner has far more energy on impact than a cutter charge detonation, or people with decades of experience in these matters who also disagree with any explosive demolition ideas?
In fact there are no professionals that agree with you. Except for the "professionals" that got their degrees in a Cracker Jack box.
When the first plane hit the North Tower on about the 90th floor it was nowhere near as dramatic as you would think on the 65th floor, just 25 floors down. There was a definite explosion but it did not sound that bad.
There was a big flash of light. The really scary part was how much the building moved, and kept moving, for a long time before re-stabilizing.
Bruce Stephen, WTC Survivor.
www.newyork-stories.com...
--snip--
...I heard a loud explosion, which was immediately followed by tremendous building sways and vibrations. As I was thrown out of my chair, I immediately thought that this was an earthquake, but still thinking rationally, I thought that it was abnormal since there are no earth-quakes in NYC, especially of this magnitude. I remember thinking that the building felt like it was going to collapse from this initial explosion. Cary Sheih, WTC Survivor.
www.newyork-stories.com...
LT : Don't think so, quite the opposite.
Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by LaBTop
More problems for you LaBTop.
LT : Same goes for that guy from that demolition firm who came to this forum and said they had lots of hand-held seismic devices seismographs from the events in New York on 9/11.
I challenged him to directly post just one of them, since I really would like to get my hands on a real one, because I am sure I can prove than even better how clear it is that there were explosions registered as seismic events, before any tower moved a millimeter.
Never heard from the guy anymore. He got whipped by his bosses probably, for going on-line with such damming potential evidence. Later we read that all the seismograms from those handhold seismographs got lost.....How convenient.
LaBTop : Huge evidence post.
ANSWER THIS HUGE POST BEFORE POSTING ANY FURTHER THREAD-DISTURBING UNSUBSTANTIATED POSTS.
posted on 21/5/07 :
LT : This guy from Protec has written some sort of rebuttal on a debunking site.
He NEVER EVER delivered the seismic graphs from his hand held devices to the public domain.
He keeps talking and expect us to believe, about no seismic proof for standard demolitions, while we saw with our own eyes, a televised event, which definitely did not look as a standard demolition. That were 2 top down demo's, and 1 bottom up.
And I suspect him to have them NOT offered to dr. Kim from LDEO, to be included in dr. Kim's 2006 second seismic report, written for NIST, who hired dr. Kim to do so.
Or perhaps, he did, and then NIST was "not amused" with it?
And then NIST removed every hint to dr. Kim's 2006 ""NIST"" seismic report from all their sites.
Just as they did for a thorough report from an engineering firm they also hired to write a report on the causes and effects of the 9/11 collapses.
That report, by the way, did not fit AT ALL in the NIST "picture", so they removed it.
BTW, in my view, NIST is not an entity, made up by thousands of honest scientists.
The NIST I see and mention all the time, is a cluster of politically appointed CEO's, who prescribe those honest hardworking researchers what to look at, and what to ignore. And if they step out of line, their career is toast.
Perhaps it was I who did not explain well enough, so I'll try again. The seismic activity recorded from these events is simply energy propagated through the structure and transformed into ground motion. The stronger the object affected is coupled to the ground, and the less flex in that object, the more energy is transferred to the ground and hence into ground motion, i.e. seismic activity. When the planes struck the towers high up, much of the kinetic energy would be used to do work bending the structure and thus be absorbed by it, therefore less energy is transferred to the ground. (And the buildings did sway a lot when struck, as is documented). It's the same principle which makes air bags and crumple zones work for crash safety. If the planes had struck the buildings low down near to the ground where there is less flex and therefore less work done in bending the structure, then more energy would be transferred into peak seismic motion. The same applies for explosions on the base columns.
Here's another practical experiment akin to yours. Plant a small, 50cm high sapling in a pot of earth. Stand a toy soldier next to the base. Now strike the top of the sapling with a hammer and watch the toy soldier. He will barely move if at all, but the sapling will bend a lot. Now strike the sapling just above where it enters the earth. The sapling will not bend and the energy of the blow will instead be transferred efficiently into moving the earth in the pot. A miniature earthquake! The toy soldier will fall over. The high strike will produce longer duration "seismic activity" in the pot as the sapling sways, but lower peak seismic energy. This practical and common sense observation is why I asked if you have any scientific, observational, or experimental support for your contention.
So my point is that comparing the energy of the plane impacts to the energy of explosions on the base columns of WTC7 is moot, because only a certain portion of the energy of the plane impacts would be transferred into ground motion, hence their seismic signals are not representative of the energy of the impacts. What clinches it for me is that the WTC7 pre-collapse signal was larger in peak energy than the collapse of the entire building, so it simply cannot be explained away by a partial collapse inside the building as HowardRoark has attempted before, and this is true whether the event occurred before the penthouse or was concurrent with it. Regardless of the timing, that large peak is a smoking gun.