Any evidence of pre setup?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

The sad thing I’m distrustful and paranoid enough that I will not have a smart TV in my house, Have no desire to place an Echo or an Alexa in my home.

Metoo! Finally something we can agree upon.

And I even know AE, Richard Gage, DR Wood, and the truth movement in general are full of crap. Willing to manipulate the delusional for personal gain.

How can you say this? Surely you have proof of crap to present.
In my mind AE911 is doing what NIST should have done.

a reply to: democracydemo

You need to answer to your own blatant falsehoods.

Again...
originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Just asking guestions

Sir Newton did it


Then if you have a better explanation that doesn’t rely on blatant falsehoods like


originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Nope
No buckling, bowing, contractring

just

CUT then at impact.


While ignoring the towers fell through the weakest points, the floor connections. And did not fall through the greatest path of resistance, the vertical columns.



www.skeptic.com...

The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.


Lay it out with cited facts.

a reply to: democracydemo

Like I can cite actual video evidence?

a reply to: democracydemo

Why play word games when you could cite actual evidence of CD. Oh, because there is no evidence of CD in the video, audio, seismic, or photo record.

a reply to: neutronflux

I did present audio evidence of CD via video ca. 3 moths ago, to which, you acted out a skeptical tantrum compared to religious beliefs i.e. ignore and excuse.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

I did present audio evidence of CD via video ca. 3 moths ago, to which, you acted out a skeptical tantrum compared to religious beliefs i.e. ignore and excuse.

Then you should provide a link to the exchange?

So, you don’t have any evidence of CD. Because there is no video evidence of CD.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

I did present audio evidence of CD via video ca. 3 moths ago, to which, you acted out a skeptical tantrum compared to religious beliefs i.e. ignore and excuse.

Which I replied there could be several reasons for what your referred to as booms. Then posted videos of exploding AC units and transformers.

Now. Do you have evidence of a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. Again, special in the context of a supposed CD the WTC buildings had no traps to capture ejected shrapnel that would had sprayed the streets, and caused very specific evidence, damage, and injuries.

Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion

The public's attendance was encouraged by the then ACT Liberal Government. Katie was standing more than 400m away from the explosion but killed instantly when she was hit by a piece of flying steel.

Break

Seconds after the explosion on that Sunday afternoon, Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.

What detonations cutting structural members looks like. No confusion or doubts they might be there.

Canberra Hospital Implosion 1997
m.youtube.com...

There were about 48 core columns alone in the twin towers that were supposedly cut without the ejection of material to initiate collapse. While the building was bowing inward. With no evidence of a pressure wave cutting steel?

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

For WTC 7, you can see evidence of internal progressive collapse through WTC 7’s windows, but no evidence of explosives with the force to cut steel columns?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Why play word games when you could cite actual evidence of CD. Oh, because there is no evidence of CD in the video, audio, seismic, or photo record.

Playing games and regurgitating falsehoods seems to be all you do here.

a reply to: Salander

Just going to ignore below, and that you actively try to suppress the whole true.

Now you are on the sickfully denial / blatantly false, the suppression of truth train?

You means besides the recovery of jet engines, documented jet wreckage, recovery of jet wreckage, witness accounts of jet wreckage, directional damage and fire balls at the towers with no other explanation, documented missing family members with records they boarded the jets, jets tracked from the airport to the towers, recovered human remains identified by DNA, human remains recovered by local law enforcement, and the remains attested to by the New York Coroners department, with death certificates issued as humans remains were identified by DNA?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Why play word games when you could cite actual evidence of CD. Oh, because there is no evidence of CD in the video, audio, seismic, or photo record.

Playing games and regurgitating falsehoods seems to be all you do here.

Your pet theory for the towers is Nuclear Weapons? Is that false?

List all the credible evidence based on scientific principle, go......

a reply to: neutronflux


It's not theory, it's fact.

If you dare, the best analysis regarding all that is Jeff Prager's work. Somewhat difficult to read, but certainly understandable, and the FEMA pictures are worth many thousands of words.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


It's not theory, it's fact.

If you dare, the best analysis regarding all that is Jeff Prager's work. but certainly understandable, and the FEMA pictures are worth many thousands of words.

Pictures? When there should have been detectable radiation above background, and visible evidence of a blast in the video?

You

Somewhat difficult to read,

That is usually a sign of nonsense. I guess you have nothing worth quoting from Jeff?

Again,

List all the credible evidence based on scientific principle, go......

Or you afraid of being crushed by actual science again?

a reply to: Salander

And seismic evidence.

a reply to: Salander
Let’s put it this way. Can you cite actual evidence of nukes. Or just regenerate the created Jeff argument based entirely on his made up universe, which has nothing to do with the actual evidence and science of 9/11?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

And seismic evidence.

a reply to: Salander


The seismic evidence exists, and is cited in the recent legal work submitted to the US Attorney's Office in Manhattan. The USA has responded and says it will act.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Salander


The seismic evidence exists, and is cited in the recent legal work submitted to the US Attorney's Office in Manhattan. The USA has responded and says it will act.

Like to provide a link?

And

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can you state which waves are present in your cited seismic evidence that shows it was activity from a charge setting off? Are there certain types of waves generated by detonations that are not present in the WTC data?

Below is a link that explains the WTC seismic data, and the medium the waves traveled through. With comparisons of know explosions compared to the multiple building WTC collapses.


Again, it is expected that a building fire would have resultant explosions from large battery backup systems, AC compressors, and any sealed item holding pressure. Is that a false statement.

Is it true the resistance of every one of the 47 floors of the WTC 7 had to be removed to achieve the witnesses collapse rate?

What evidence is there of an explosion setting of the final collapse of WTC 7? Or was explosives not needed?

Why can you not reference any video and audio to show proof of a detonations powerful enough to cut steel columns?

Explosions that you think where picked up 21 miles away at LDEO? With a large body of water between? A body of water some seismic waves cannot travel through, and may generate seismic noise.

Yet those explosions are not picked up on any known video? They did not eject any shrapnel? Did they blow out remaining windows in WTC 7? Even set off a car alarm?



www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City.

a reply to: Salander

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The historical seismic activity shows a building collapse is expected to transmit Rayleigh waves.

Rayleigh waves would change in amplitude as items with different masses with different kinetic energy hit the ground.

“Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves” which are not present in the WTC seismic data.

I have produced evidence a building not properly prepared for an implosion by explosives would eject shrapnel. Shrapnel that would have sprayed bystanders, the street, and adjacent buildings. There is no evidence of shrapnel being ejected while the towers under went inward bowing of columns resulting in buckling leading to collapse.

The 1993 WTC bombing of 1000 pounds of explosives blow out at least one wall and caused substantial structural damage, but did not cause detectable siesmic activity 15 kilometers at a former seismic station. But you claimed LEDO recorded seismic activity from detonations at the WTC 31 kilometers away, but there is no audio or video evidence of detonations powerful enough to cut steel columns from footage of the collapse of the WTC towers? No evidence of ejected shrapnel during the buckling of the vertical columns?

To remain relevant, the biggest pusher of controlled demolition, Architects and Engineers, abandoned the narrative of kinetic detentions brought down the towers in favor of thermal cuttting devices?

You cite a seismic narrative debunked, abandoned by the biggest group pushing WTC CD, and ridiculed by other conspiracists.

There is no seismic evidence of conventional implosions at the WTC. Get over it.

a reply to: Salander

You referring to a law that requires somebody making an accusation refer the mater to a grand jury? An action based on the seriousness of the crime. Not the actual evidence. So once the “evidence” presented gets debunked,what happens then? Will it get through to you there is no evidence?

And please cite where the “evidence” claims anything about nukes.

Amazing how many times you present items out of context.

a reply to: neutronflux

Correct ,the booms (sound) that start prior to visual (light) of the collapse and continues as collapse progress.

Source of the booms are not air condition units nor transformers, but evidence of pre setup explosive material...exploding.