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

a reply to: MrBig2430

Well, we will have to wait until A&E working with another group who will have a Peer Review Report done on the WTC 7.

I believe that Report will be available around April of 2017.

a reply to: Informer1958

You act like conspiracists are the only ones interested in the WTC. Because universities and scientists don't publish their work in to the form of an over produced info commercial on youtube doesn't mean they are idle. In fact, how many researchers publish their findings on youtube? Why would they. If they work at an university, the public can inquire about their research? Which begs the question why conspiracists spend their effort in production and sales tactics, not letting their science talk for them.

www.google.com...://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjci4CHhczNAhVLWh4KHQ6kDZkQFggbMAA&usg =AFQjCNEQT2gww6CKr_3bY4RZKOYKt0iwfQ&sig2=zqPbz2MUDRnSs146SyVIXQ
www.google.com...://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/&ved=0ahUKEwjci4CHhczNAhVLWh4KHQ6kDZkQFgggMAE&usg=AFQjCNHOYrjtuokuX YYr_QtSUbzBOQOKCA&sig2=vpASrDgX1tgJZcfRridr_Q
www.uwgb.edu...


When 99.9 percent of the scientists that looked in to why the WTC buildings fell concluded it was fire, I would say the work of others saying otherwise has been peer reviewed as false.

a reply to: Informer1958

Use flat earth for an example. If 999 scientists each on their own through research concluded the earth is a sphere backed by satellite imagery with no evidence of flat earth, why would they waste their time with a person concluding the earth is flat? You can find "proof" of flat earth on youtube. 911 conspiracists use much of the same false logic, pseudoscience, and claims of everyone being against them.

a reply to: neutronflux

Sorry Neutron Flux. No one understands where you're coming from. You seem to just make up false facts and ignore the science and hard work others are doing.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: MrBig2430

Well, we will have to wait until A&E working with another group who will have a Peer Review Report done on the WTC 7.

I believe that Report will be available around April of 2017.

These sick individuals will surely attack whoever peer reviews the report. The same old tactics will be droned out yet again, you can be sure.

Some real science will be done though.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

That's is the point. Now you know what the average conspiracy theory is like for people really looking for scientific truth. From the disinformation of Jones thermite paper on down. Tricking people on YouTube with over hyped pseudoscience.

Like people knowing the earth is not flat tricking people into believing the earth is flat for sport.

The WTC buildings were brought down by fire and academic study after study proves it.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

You seem to just make up false facts and ignore the science and hard work others are doing.

No he's just mocking the pseudoscience they claim as real science.

If you just set aside the thermitic samples for a minute and look at all their other evidence.
ALL the evidence submitted by the conspiracy hawkers is based on pictures.
They dissect pictures and videos and claim it to be evidence.
Not one of them have touched or physically examined any piece of debris.

With only pictures you can claim craters or secret moon bases.
Secret moon bases will make you more money.

a reply to: neutronflux

Use flat earth for an example. If 999 scientists each on their own through research concluded the earth is a sphere backed by satellite imagery with no evidence of flat earth, why would they waste their time with a person concluding the earth is flat? You can find "proof" of flat earth on youtube. 911 conspiracists use much of the same false logic, pseudoscience, and claims of everyone being against them.

The fact is, many Conspiracy Theories have been proven true.

CONSPIRACY THEORIES THAT TURNED OUT TO BE TRUE


This is a list OR INDEX of conspiracies considered proven to have existed or officially covered-up (and or later discovered) with or without newer evidence.

conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com...

16 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True

Are you a conspiracy theorist? If not, perhaps you should be. Yes, there have certainly been a lot of “conspiracy theories” over the years that have turned out not to be accurate. However, the truth is that a large number of very prominent conspiracy theories have turned out to actually be true. So the next time that you run into some “tin foil hat wearing lunatics”, you might want to actually listen to what they have to say. They may actually know some things that you do not. In fact, one recent study found that “conspiracy theorists” are actually more sane than the general population. So the next time you are tempted to dismiss someone as a “conspiracy theorist”, just remember that the one that is crazy might actually be you. The following are 16 popular conspiracy theories that turned out to be true…

thetruthwins.com...

911 conspiracists use much of the same false logic, pseudoscience, and claims of everyone being against them.

I disagree.

This is your "opinion" and there is no facts to support your rant.

lumping all 911 conspiracy theories with flat earther's, most of us do not support such stupid nonsense.

You behave as if there are no Conspiracy Theories in government, or cover ups.

The fact is, the 911 Truth movement is long dead, another fact is, it was destroyed from the beginning.

I am not a Truther. I am a Doubter of the OS of 911

The fact is, the CIA started a properganda program against all Conspiracy Theorist in the 1970's, why? Because the ruling elite who are the most dangerous, and corrupt people on this planet do not like critical, or logical thinkers figuring out their plan agendas against We The People.

So go ahead and jump on the CIA properganda programs and ridicule all of us, You will never stop people from using their brains, or the truth from coming out.

a reply to: samkent

Especially when it can be edited to fit a narrative, overproduced like a bad info commercial, placed on YouTube with no needed credentials, and no fear of consequences. Which is funny, how many people is the government accused of murdering?

I like how conspiracists claim fire collapse backers will get their just ending someday. Usually invoking some threat. Who is guilty of strong arming who?

a reply to: Informer1958

So, debunk the MIT, Purdue, and the other backers of fire collapse. Repeated research only increases the legitimate claim of fire collapse. Research has discredited jones and the like. Scientific proof, not opinion.

Name the cause of the WTC collapses backed by a majority of 911 conspiracists. Bombs, thermite, nukes, missiles, lasers, energy waves. Ironic those of "truth" cannot agree on a truth. By logic, from the get go, 5/6 the narratives are wrong. And the sure bet is fire, shown by accredited research.

a reply to: Informer1958

And DR. Wood "debunked thermite" and "proved" energy waves. Whole book about it. Which conspiracy science is right.

a reply to: neutronflux

So, debunk the MIT, Purdue, and the other backers of fire collapse. Repeated research only increases the legitimate claim of fire collapse. Research has discredited jones and the like. Scientific proof, not opinion.

Scientific proof, bring it on! I have never seen this scientific proof, can you post the credible sources to all this credible sciences that debunks Jones Science?

Name the cause of the WTC collapses backed by a majority of 911 conspiracists. Bombs, thermite, nukes, missiles, lasers, energy waves. Ironic those of "truth" cannot agree on a truth.

None of the above you listed. Many of us including me, believe some kind of demolition was used to bring down all three WTC.

There is no physical evidence of demolition, because that was all quickly carted away. However, the ofical 911 narrative "science has already been proven a fraud."

So when this Peer Reviewed Report comes out next years and scientices are able to prove demolition was the cause of WTC 7 demise, then I guess the Conspiracy Theorist were right all along.

a reply to: neutronflux

And DR. Wood "debunked thermite" and "proved" energy waves. Whole book about it. Which conspiracy science is right.

Interesting that you support Dr Wood science?

I do not, and I found her work a joke.

a reply to: Informer1958

I think I'm implying all the conspiracists are jokes concerning the WTC collapses and not understand fire brought them down. Its funny your conspiracy theories are so lacking in credibility the movement can easily discredit each other. Wood puts a hurting to the explosives / thermite narratives. Jones or Wood making more money off their narrative?

Said it before. Strange the movement started from explosives, lasers, then energy. Heat is a form of energy which is produced by fire. You guys are getting closer to the truth.

a reply to: neutronflux

It seems more logical, that NIST can't bring themselves to admit that their real time methods are bogus.
Or they know, their whole real-time reasoning/calculations fall apart, when the second plane impact time was also 9 seconds earlier, and what we see in the LDEO plane impact seismogram are then explosions, and not a plane impact.

I am going to ignore your rude remarks against members on ATS.

Now, the above sources I just posted is from LaBTop post, Do you understand what he is saying here?

If so and you disagree, would you kindly show some scientific evidence were he is wrong?

a reply to: Informer1958

I also understand the fact the time line was puzzled together scrap book fashion when the person in question was implying atomic click accuracy. By the person's own admission, the time line can be off by as much as one second.

Also claims the government destroyed seismic activity of 1993 WTC bombing. Knowing of 2001. There was no seismic activity captured during recording seismic activity of 1992 WTC bomb.

Numerous resources debunked seismic activity due to bombs on 911. The trend scales are zoomed and rescaled to fool people not knowledgeable of their meaning. Not the first time conspiracists Photoshop / misrepresentef data for their false narratives.

Columbia Universities and a company recording seismic data in Manhattan during 911 determined no seismic activity due to explosives.
Outlined here: www.implosionworld.com...&ved=0ahUKEwiX_L6AyczNAhVEyyYKHdPMDtwQF ggeMAA&usg=AFQjCNFFfgFVm_7mMB-mGLS4OM6lRft0_A&sig2=YSHsyBNud_nQBWePGBmuaQ

While 20,000 body parts and bone fragments found, no fragments of bombs, blasting caps, thermite igniters, shape charges, or ignition systems found.

No isolated recording or audio of bombs detonating.

No steel found that was worked on by thermite, explosives, or drilled to place explosives. Remember, 6000 of the body remains found could fit in test tubes.

Even conspiracists such as dr wood debunked seismic activity due to explosives.

a reply to: Informer1958

Sorry I don't trust ya.......

a reply to: Informer1958

On top of knowing the correct composition and layers of earth the waves travelled through and over for accurate modelling of travel time. Seismic has lag time and wave travel speeds. Many areas of the united sates are still fine tuning ground composition for more accurate seismic models.

Dr woods seismic interpretation. Something about only s waves.

m.youtube.com...

a reply to: Informer1958


This has a small WTC seismic section. It says no p or s waves just the Rayleigh waves.

The Columbia paper also shows no p or s waves.
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...&ved=0ahUKEwje4-aZ4czNAhVCSyYKHTVBBn4QFgiIATAR&usg=AFQjCNGxtSX17KY9VXhTjMytPiC2mzmOE Q&sig2=vMWK5WSFUAZq5Gz_EZuDtA

I notice the start of this post, the displayed graphs only show the time scale. No ground velocity scales.

Researching earthquake origin time. Usually the difference in p and s waves and a multiplier give the origin time. Not sure how it's just determined from
Rayleigh waves. Didn't find calculations. Does not seem to be a preferred method.