911myths.com : WHY FAKING >73° BANK-ANGLES for a NoC FLYING PLANE.?

a reply to: skyeagle409

None of your seismic reference depict demo explosions. Let's take one of your seismic references and tell us, where is the evidence of demo spikes in this seismic data that you posted a reference to?

Seismic Data

As you can plainly see in the seismic data, there are no demo explosion spikes. To sum it up, you allowed yourself to be duped again.

Not only have you just ignored all my posts and evidence I and LapTop just debunked your silly seismic data from Popular Mechanic.

READ IT.

How amusing!! In that case you should not have any problem posting his demo explosion time lines that I am requesting.

Now, the clock is ticking and I am waiting for you to post those time lines for everyone here and I hope you don't keep us waiting too long.

Here is the proof and the facts, you have been debunk!

originally posted by: LaBTop
Skyeagle409, who are you trying to deceive?
The gullible, non educated masses? You failed miserable.

This repeatedly posted by you, mockery of a seismic diagram is the most childish and cheating example of Popular Mechanics alike, yellow journalism, I ever saw :

Anyone WITH some education can tell you what example of ten- to thirty-fold cheating YOU missed in your repeatedly posted picture.
I'll give you one clue : the word nano is in it.
The honest picture would need a lot more vertical space : 14.6 plus 28.0 times more vertical space.

You are either missing quite some necessary education, or intentionally posting misinformation, and I have come to the conclusion after reading 91 pages of your stubborn endless diatribe, that the latter is the case.

If you resize your diagram to honest comparable dimensions, the REAL TRUTH would stare you in the face....
That red square would be in its vertical dimension, 42.6 times as big as it is now.!

This graph below is a comparison between a huge explosion, its top graph, and a simple earthquake, its bottom graph.
Which bottom earthquake graph would be the effect of a normal, gravity-driven collapse of a building on the bedrock of Manhattan, without explosive charges utilized as in a demolition, as in the top graph.

Now, tell me, which one of these amplitude peaks on this seismogram does look like one of the above examples :

Take your time to compare and study this one also :

Do NOT miss my RED text under this seismogram of the collapse of the North Tower, notice the same cheating by LDEO as in your posted MOCKERY of honestly comparable seismic diagrams. You can't compare your 4 seismograms, they are far out of synchronization, look at the huge difference in seismogram sensitivities, the nanometers per second values.!!!

These are the real LDEO comparable 2 collapse seismograms to the 2 plane impact seismograms, both in 10 nm/s sensitivity :

North Tower collapse (10 nm/s instead of the original 100 nm/s), you see that the amplitudes RUN OFF the graph, evidence of explosives when checked to the real Manhattan times of origin, 17 secs earlier :

South Tower collapse (10 nm/s instead of the original 100 nm/s), you see that the amplitudes RUN OFF the graph, evidence of explosives when checked to the real Manhattan times of origin, 17 secs earlier :

This is the first North Tower its plane impact seismogram (original sensitivity in 10 nm/s), note the huge difference in amplitudes with both collapse seismograms :

This is the second, South Tower its plane impact seismogram (original sensitivity in 10 nm/s), note the huge difference in amplitudes with both collapse seismograms :

You can ignore it all you want, however the facts peaks volumes against your OS.

a reply to: Informer1958

Do they pay you over time for this?

Yes, I have contacted Protec, but no, they don't pay me but I have been aware that demolition experts and investigators have examined the very same videos that I posted and they found no evidence of demo explosions in those videos either.

In addition, I did not hear demo explosions either and I have heard my share of explosions in war to know what I am talking about.

I knew that you could not post demo explosion time lines from those videos because there were no time lines of demo explosions for you to post. Instead, you posted a video of WTC 7 where the deep sound had nothing to do with explosives.

a reply to: Informer1958

I want you to point out for us all, where are the spikes that indicate demo explosions in the data and then, I will use your interpretation to match them up in the WTC videos and if they do not match, there will be a problem for you.

a reply to: Informer1958

ot only have you just ignored all my posts and evidence I and LapTop just debunked your silly seismic data from Popular Mechanic.

Let's take a look at the rest of the story.


It was silly of you to post seismic data that do not depict demo explosions that matched the WTC videos during the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. I

n other words, you've committed a serious blunder.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Yes, I have contacted Protec, but no, they don't pay me

I never asked you if Protec pays you did I?
I am sure I know who does. However, I dare not say because that will leave my ATS account Banned.

but I have been aware that demolition experts and investigators have examined the very same videos that I posted and they found no evidence of demo explosions in those videos either.

You mean the edited videos that you have posted don't you?

In addition, I did not hear demo explosions either and I have heard my share of explosions in war to know what I am talking about.

I doubt that seriously. I don't believe for one min you are who you claim your are. Your way to young to have done all the things you say you have done.

I knew that you could not post demo explosion time lines from those videos because there were no time lines of demo explosions for you to post. Instead, you posted a video of WTC 7 where the deep sound had nothing to do with explosives.

Your time line has been debunked,and the fact is your just ignoring it.

You keep posting prove my time line, Sorry, It has been debunked.

a reply to: Informer1958

just to let you know that I tend to go the extra distance whenever I need information.

I doubt that seriously. I don't believe for one min you are who you claim your are. Your way to young to have done all the things you say you have done.

I am a lot older than you think. I was born in the 1940's.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Let's take a look at the rest of the story.

Its been DEBUNKED already!

a reply to: skyeagle409

just to let you know that I tend to go the extra distance whenever I need information.

Yeah, so do I when I am being lied to.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: skyeagle409

Just to let you know that I am still waiting for you to post those demo explosion time lines in the WTC videos. I might add that investigators acknowledged that they heard no demo explosions either.

Do they pay you over time for this?

What is most telling is the effort he puts into 'debunking' Truthers, but yet he never critically looks at the research he posts. I can't think of one worthy reason someone would overlook garbage sources to put the federal government on a pedestal.

a reply to: Informer1958

That false and you know it. That explains why you cannot post the exact spikes that depict demo explosions in your seismic references. Remember, I wasn't born yesterday.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I am a lot older than you think. I was born in the 1940's.

I doubt that very seriously, I have encountered Juveniles on ATS that are far more mature in their debating skills than you are.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

What is most telling is the effort he puts into 'debunking' Truthers,

That is not difficult at all because truthers have done a very good job of mocking themselves. Now, there are truthers attacking one another, including hardcore truther attacks on Richard Gage and "AE911 Truth."

a reply to: MotherMayEye

What is most telling is the effort he puts into 'debunking' Truthers, but yet he never critically looks at the research he posts. I can't think of one worthy reason someone would overlook garbage sources to put the federal government on a pedestal.

Thank you, you notice it to.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: MotherMayEye

What is most telling is the effort he puts into 'debunking' Truthers,

That is not difficult at all because truthers have done a very good job of mocking themselves. Now, there are truthers attacking one another, including hardcore truther attacks on Richard Gage and "AE911 Truth."

You left out the part after my comma.

a reply to: Informer1958

I doubt that very seriously, I have encountered Juveniles on ATS that are far more mature in their debating skills than you are.

Well, I have challenged truthers to prove me wrong with evidence and instead, they hit me with hoaxed and bogus videos and photos that were debunked years ago. Do I need to post a few examples?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do you mean this?

...but yet he never critically looks at the research he posts. I can't think of one worthy reason someone would overlook garbage sources to put the federal government on a pedestal.

Look at the research? To let you know that I have debunked many truther claims based on my own knowledge and experience as a pilot of 46 years to debunk the false claims of "Pilots for 911 Truth", an aircraft structural technician since 1967 to understand structural issues, and my war time experience to know what explosions sound like.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Stop asking for evidence. No one even tried to collect the kind of evidence that will meet your *cough* standards before it was all shipped off to China.

What is left, you completely ignore.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You either prove me wrong with evidence or throw in the towel.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Do you mean this?

...but yet he never critically looks at the research he posts. I can't think of one worthy reason someone would overlook garbage sources to put the federal government on a pedestal.

Look at the research? To let you know that I have debunked many truther claims based on my own knowledge and experience as a pilot of 46 years to debunk the false claims of "Pilots for 911 Truth", an aircraft structural technician since 1967 to understand structural issues, and my war time experience to know what explosions sound like.

Bah. Many people have debunked the OS with their knowledge and experience. Why are you the special snowflake?

a reply to: skyeagle409

That is not difficult at all because truthers have done a very good job of mocking themselves. Now, there are truthers attacking one another, including hardcore truther attacks on Richard Gage and "AE911 Truth."

That is false.

I have been a member of ATS for years, and I have never encountered any Truther attacking another Truther.

The only people I see mocking themselves are the OS supporters, they cant keep up with their own disinformation and phony edited videos and yellow journalism they continue to post in their desprete attempts to prove the OS all true.

I have never seen any Truther say anything against Richard Gage.
The fact is, Only you and OS die hart supporters. No one else.