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

a reply to: Gh0stwalker

I am undecided and open minded regarding Judy Woods' hypothesis. Certainly something mysterious and most unnatural happened there that day, something OTHER THAN burning office fires.

I'm curious as to where such a device might have been mounted? If it came in from off the coast as you suggest, how did it spare everything else, but focus so intently on WTC?

I had not heard reports of people on Brooklyn Bridge regarding the heat they felt. It seems to me a certain type of nuclear event could also produce intense heat, possibly felt that far away. There were reports of some humans engulfed in flames.

originally posted by: samkent
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.

What is missing are the engines, but you do not seem to care about that.

In fact, all the weird things that happened seem perfectly normal to you, perfectly explainable and yet not one has any shred of investigation OR proof.

You can never prove how the towers went down, and no one has even attempted to do so yet, it is all an imaginary belief system akin to Unicorns.

a reply to: ParasuvO

What is missing are the engines, but you do not seem to care about that.

Missing means you are assuming there were there before the attack(s).

You are taking random pictures provided by Judy Woods and drawing conclusions from them.
Just as truthers are upset about the chain of custody for explosives evidence you should be asking Judy Woods about the cars.
Where were they located before the attack?
Who owned them?
Did they have an engine 9/10 ?

Shall I show you a picture of a unicorn so you can conclude unicorns exist ?

a reply to: neutronflux

Ignorant? Call it what you want.

Whatever this contamination was, did carry to many location s around NYC.

Cops dead from 9/11 illnesses outnumber officers who died in attacks

www.cbsnews.com...

9 Years Later, Nearly 900 9/11 Responders Have Died, Survivors Fight for Compensation

www.foxnews.com...

Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks

en.wikipedia.org...

Three 9/11 first responders died of cancer on the same day

www.rt.com...

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.

I do not need to. The fact is, the links have been posted about a 1,000 times on ATS, only official narrative supporters thumb their noses at the evidence.

Now back on topic.

I asked you a question?

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

Still waiting for an answer?

a reply to: Mianeye

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.

Where is your evidence that the sounds of explosions were not caused by explosives?

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

You just demonstrated what I was talking about.

Question? Do you believe LaBTop presentation is pretty accurate, true or false? If not please explain showing evidence where it is wrong. Remember "opinions" are not evidence.

a reply to: Informer1958

Where is your evidence that the sounds of explosions were not caused by explosives?

You have the cart before the horse.
If you are claiming the sounds of explosions were caused by explosives , it is you who must provide evidence that explosives were used.

a reply to: samkent

You have the cart before the horse.

The door swings both ways here. I have never seen any evidence that there were "no explosives", have you? You and I know this has been debated to death on both sides.

Nether sides can prove their claims of none explosives, or explosions due to demolition.

Back on topic here.

Since no one can answer my simple question, what is your take on LaBTop presentation, do you agree he is correct? Or do you believe he is wrong?

If you believe he is wrong, can you give us an example with evidence to support your claim?

a reply to: Informer1958

The door swings both ways here. I have never seen any evidence that there were "no explosives", have you?

I have not seen any evidence that there are no unicorns either.
I have not seen any evidence that there are no space aliens either.

What you are saying is an "appeal to ignorance".

the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa.

what is your take on LaBTop presentation, do you agree he is correct? Or do you believe he is wrong?

Sorry I can't devote the time to read more than a paragraph or two.
I suspect there are a lots of ATSer's who don't read the majority of his posts.

But I don't believe he is smarter than professional seismologists.
So unless the government is paying off all the worlds professionals, labtop must be incorrect in his conclusions.

a reply to: Informer1958

Where is your evidence that the sounds of explosions were not caused by explosives?

Knowledge of how explosives sounds, i have been in demolition from sea, 7 times with explosives.
We have all seen videos of demolition and thereby also heard what it sounds like, there were no sounds of demolition explosives before or during collapse of any of the buildings.

You just demonstrated what I was talking about.

You did that perfectly fine your self, claiming without facts, don't throw stones in a glass house.

Question? Do you believe LaBTop presentation is pretty accurate, true or false? If not please explain showing evidence where it is wrong. Remember "opinions" are not evidence.

LaBTop presents a theory, not evidence, thereby i can not present counter evidence.

If he should prove it he should either produce an experiment, or present other seismographs from other demolition, so to compare, saying "look here...explosions" is not proof when there is nothing to compare with, then it's just a theory of what could initially be something completely different.

a reply to: samkent

Sorry I can't devote the time to read more than a paragraph or two.
I suspect there are a lots of ATSer's who don't read the majority of his posts.

You cannot devote the time to read the OP post? Then why are you posting in here? Because your comments are "all off topic here."

I suspect there are a lot of ATSer's that do take the time and read long well put together posts. Perhaps you don't understand the topic?

So unless the government is paying off all the worlds professionals, labtop must be incorrect in his conclusions.

That is your "opinion" it is not a fact.

Please explain the over 2 second speed of the collapse and why it is so important, and what does it suggests?

a reply to: Mianeye

LaBTop presents a theory, not evidence, thereby i can not present counter evidence.

On the contrary LaBTop did provide the evidence. What is it that you don't understand?

If he should prove it he should either produce an experiment, or present other seismographs from other demolition,

Nice excuse, bringing other seismographs from other demolitions will never work and you know that. The building would have to be the same as the WTC in order to prove otherwise.

it's just a theory of what could initially be something completely different.

Not a theory. The seismographs does support his claims.

a reply to: Informer1958

Not a theory. The seismographs does support his claims.

You said it your self...Claims..

There is no evidence, his theory is that 3 explosions were picked up by the seismographs right before the collapse, one in each building, trade center 1, 2 and 7.

Though, there is nothing that prove they were actual explosives, and from videos we can also conclude there were no sounds of explosives right before the collapse on any of the buildings .

I actually find the topic ridicules, so excuse me if i back out...Yes that is my opinion if you wanna call me out on that one.

a reply to: Mianeye

There is no evidence, his theory is that 3 explosions were picked up by the seismographs right before the collapse, one in each building, trade center 1, 2 and 7.

You do not understand the seismographs charts do you? It is not a theory, he proves his statement and timing using the seismographs charts and you are completely ignoring it.

Though, there is nothing that prove they were actual explosives, and from videos we can also conclude there were no sounds of explosives right before the collapse on any of the buildings .

You just proved to me that you do not understand the OP post.

I actually find the topic ridicules, so excuse me if i back out...Yes that is my opinion if you wanna call me out on that one.

Thank you.

a reply to: Informer1958

I suspect you are trolling...

a reply to: Informer1958
Dust and smoke are toxic without radiation. Lead, hydrocarbons, non radioactive carcinogens. Large amounts of toxins were exposed to large amounts of people. Survy, a simple vitamin deficiency, causes tooth loss and open wounds. Much like the symptoms of radiation sickness. Using your logic, cause it's obvious only radiation in your mind, causes cancer. So people working in nothing but a chemical factory should never have an accelerated rate of cancer.

Cancer is the result of the uncontrolled division of abnormal cells. The definition says nothing about cancer.

Thinking radiation caused those deaths is very ignorant with no evedance of contamination. The physical left over atoms that give of radiation. Very distinct nuclear reactions if a nuke was used.

a reply to: Mianeye

Though, there is nothing that prove they were actual explosives,

Wrong again.

The seismographs charts do prove there were explosions.

Now for the word game, explosives, and exploding? No the seismographs charts cannot distinguish the different from a detonator blowing up and an explosions.

The fact is, there shouldn't have been any explosions recorded on seismographs charts in the first place, but there was.

If the WTC just fell down due to office fires it should just fall down correct?

I suspect you are trolling...

When all else fails call names. On the contrary, I understand LaBTop presentation and it is solid.

a reply to: neutronflux

Thinking radiation caused those deaths is very ignorant with no evedance of contamination. The physical left over atoms that give of radiation. Very distinct nuclear reactions if a nuke was used.

I have a hard time trusting anything our government says anymore due to their proven history of lying to us. The EPA has been caught in a huge lie claiming the air was safe to breath.

So who are you going to trust to do radiation test at ground zero who are not corrupt?

a reply to: Informer1958
The fission product contamination would still be were ever contaminated persons and material from the WTC site ended up. The contamination would be presents for years. Still detectible radiation release. It's that simple.

a reply to: Informer1958

I didn't fail, you avoided everything i said instead trying to make it look like i didn't understand, that i see as trolling.

The fact is, there shouldn't have been any explosions recorded on seismographs charts in the first place, but there was.

Let me Finnish with that one.

As the world trade center 1 and 2 collapsed it was from the point were the plane hit (the top down), which is clearly shown in videos, that mean that if explosives were used, they were placed up in the air(the top of the building), i doubt any seismic tremble would reach the ground and further more be recorded as LaPTop is showing, i could understand if the explosives were at ground level, then maybe the trembles from explosives would be picked up.

I mean there is so much wrong with it, it's terrible.

No sounds of explosives, no video of explosives, tremors from explosives placed high up in buildings would never reach seismographs, and many many many more reasons for it to be a ridicules theory.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Mianeye

Though, there is nothing that prove they were actual explosives,

Wrong again.

The seismographs charts do prove there were explosions.

Now for the word game, explosives, and exploding? No the seismographs charts cannot distinguish the different from a detonator blowing up and an explosions.

The fact is, there shouldn't have been any explosions recorded on seismographs charts in the first place, but there was.

If the WTC just fell down due to office fires it should just fall down correct?

I suspect you are trolling...

When all else fails call names. On the contrary, I understand LaBTop presentation and it is solid.

Seismographs only pick up explosions. How do seismographs pick up earthquakes. Are they caused by explosions?