Federal Grand Jury To Hear Evidence - World Trade Center 9-11 Was Controlled Demolition.

a reply to: tadaman

And you have not responded to...

Then if an underground detonation started the collapse of WTC 2, how did its core fall after the floor system. How did the buckling occur at the point of the jet impact some eighty floors up with no visible failure of the the core failing or dropping. If it was an underground detonation, how did the core offer resistance to slow down the upper 30 or 29 floors falling into the building below.

a reply to: neutronflux

What are you talking about? Who said laser beams? Directed energy?

What is going on? Serious question, are you a bot?

Again with bable of P and S waves. I linked a seismic graph showing 2 spikes, one small, one larger that were consistent with signatures of underground nuclear detonations?!

2 anonymous sharp, short spikes in seismic recordings. Before the recorded collapse. Got that?

What?

a reply to: tadaman

Give it a rest. You used a debunked photo. You cannot cite any seismic evidence of a detonation from the bedrock. You are using quotes out of context, or misquotes. You cannot cite one study that links WTC cancers from radiation or radioactive contamination.

And

9/11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! 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.

a reply to: tadaman

I said I didn’t endorse energy beans.

And again

Again, you provide no evidence of
One, higher frequencies that would be indicative of a detonation.
Two, no proof a seismic event originating from the bed rock.
Three, no proof of seismic activity that traveled through the bed rock.
Four, there were no P or S waves that would be indicative of a underground detonation.
Six, you use part of a quote out of context that actually states


The seismic waves looked quite unlike those of natural earthquakes, which originate under the surface, said Kim. These had started from above. “More like ringing a bell,” he said
blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

a reply to: neutronflux

I didn't type that. That's not a quote from me

I never talked about free fall.

You are not making any sense.

a reply to: neutronflux

Why do you keep talking about energy beams?

The rest is just a list of gibberish followed by quoted absurdity with no direction.

What are you saying ?

a reply to: tadaman

Sorry, there is zero evidence of higher frequencies indicative of a detonation. There is zero evidence of P and S waves that would be indicative of a detonation from the bedrock. And you yourself cited a person that said

These had started from above. “More like ringing a bell,” he said.
blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

And you cannot answer to
Then if an underground detonation started the collapse of WTC 2, how did its core fall after the floor system. How did the buckling occur at the point of the jet impact some eighty floors up with no visible failure of the the core failing or dropping. If it was an underground detonation, how did the core offer resistance to slow down the upper 30 or 29 floors falling into the building below.

a reply to: tadaman

Funny I can cite actual evidence in context. I can cite the video evidence. You are down to posting random pictures with no context or explanation?

a reply to: neutronflux

This is spam. Should I go back and over every point you conveniently sidestepped.

Why would anything that you are asking about cores and such be indicative for or against a nuclear demolition?

What is this based on? Do you work for demolition inc that developed the demo plan in question?

Where else have we seen the effects of nukes in NY to form a comparison?

a reply to: neutronflux

That is the seismic data for 911.

2 anonymous spikes.

Are you blind?

LoL

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

Why do you keep talking about energy beams?

The rest is just a list of gibberish followed by quoted absurdity with no direction.

What are you saying ?

Quote where I have backed DR. Woods theory?

It seems I posted”I don’t believe in energy beam weapons used at the towers. But it is funny DR. Wood makes short work of other CD theories.”

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now we can add false arguments to your list

a reply to: tadaman

So large items hitting the ground caused large amplitudes in surface waves.

Now:
Again, you provide no evidence of
One, higher frequencies that would be indicative of a detonation.
Two, no proof a seismic event originating from the bed rock.
Three, no proof of seismic activity that traveled through the bed rock.
Four, there were no P or S waves that would be indicative of a underground detonation.
Six, you use part of a quote out of context that actually states


The seismic waves looked quite unlike those of natural earthquakes, which originate under the surface, said Kim. These had started from above. “More like ringing a bell,” he said
blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

a reply to: neutronflux

No, this has been addressed. The two spikes happen before the registered collapse of the towers.

a reply to: tadaman
You

Why do you keep talking about energy beams?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I reminded you I posted this before your above statement.

I don’t believe in energy beam weapons used at the towers. But it is funny DR. Wood makes short work of other CD theories.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

No, this has been addressed. The two spikes happen before the registered collapse of the towers.

Think about what you posted. It’s seismic data. The spikes are the largest registered impacts of the largest or bulk of the buildings hitting the ground to cause the largest surface waves amplitudes.

How could the spikes be registered on the seismic data before they are recorded on the seismic data. The spikes are the seismic data.

a reply to: neutronflux

And I asked where we can form a comparison for prior nuclear detonations in NY so as to know what they SHOULD look like?

I mentioned there is plenty of sand. Manhattan itself is layered and atypical.

Also what type and what yield device was used? Who knows but that would also determine its specific signature.

End of the day we had two sharp blurps like we should see in underground detonations

Like it or not. That much just is.

Detonations in the bed rock would cause higher frequency waves than what was captured. They would also produce P and S waves.

Then you need to produce seismic evidence of a nuclear detonation that only produced surface waves at low frequencies. Something similar to the seismic data from the WTC. There have been something like 2,000 plus nuclear bomb detonations since WW II.

a reply to: tadaman

I mentioned there is plenty of sand. Manhattan itself is layered and atypical.

Previous earthquake data from under Manhattan shows the bed rock will transmit P and S waves.

So now you are saying the nukes were detonated in a sandy layer?

Please quote where P and S waves will not propagated through a sand layer or sand stone