Popular Mechanics 911 Debunking was Dismantled & Dismembered

Originally posted by Realtruth
There is plenty of seismic activity that is documented, review and time stamped.

And full explanations.

Nice try to muddle the debate. I did not ask for collapse seismic data. I ask for someone to show me the two seperate spikes for each of WTC 1 & 2 druing the supposed basement explosion and subsequent plane crash. Show me evidence of an explosion prior to the planes impacting. The data you are providing shows that there is an increase in sesimc activity just prior to the main collapse. That is not evidence of planted charges.

Do you fully read your own links? You are proving my point for me.

There appears to be no basis for the claim that the large spikes preceded the collapses, nor that the energy indicated by those spikes was more than could be accounted for by the approximately 110 megawatt-hours of gravitational energy stored in the elevated mass of each tower. And there is strong evidence contradicting the idea that the seismic spikes indicated underground explosions including:

There is no support in the large body of photographic and video collapse evidence for the idea of powerful explosions in the towers' basements at the onset of the collapses. Instead the evidence shows waves of destruction proceeding methodically downward from the crash zones to the ground.

Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves, but the seismic stations registered only strong S waves. P waves oscillate horizontally -- parallel to the direction of travel; whereas S waves oscillate vertically -- perpendicular to the direction of travel.

911review.com...

Please try to prove your theory again.

Originally posted by cashlink
Popular Mechanic's David Cobunu an editor of the 911 Debunking book was thrashed taken apart, dismantled ,Dismembered, laughed off the stage.
(call it what you want) by the host Charles Goyette Radio/show,when he tried to peddle the GOverments Popular Mechanics 911 Fairy tail.
You can listen here, its a Blast!

nowpublic.com



[edit on 8-4-2007 by cashlink]
i'll call it smugmly dismissed
[edit on 8-4-2007 by cashlink]


Mod Edit: Link format edited. Please review this post.


[edit on 8-4-2007 by DontTreadOnMe]

Dear Pavil:

Sorry bout budging in here to join the ‘debate’ at such a late time. I know you’ve seen this chart a thousand times. But what again exactly is wrong with it? It shows the small spikes when the ‘two planes hit’. [Note, those surges of course weren’t cause by aircraft — there were none — but by pre-planted explosives in the towers.] Then, prior to the collapses you’ve clearly got your earthquake sized gyrations as a result of the hydrogen bomb detonations. Everything seems in order. So what is there to discuss? Just wondering…

Greetings, And They Claimed Those Evil Terrorists Killed Fritz…
The Wizard In The Woods

LOL! are you serious you asked for seismic data on 911. I had some seismic data, so I thought it would be a kind gesture to post it, if it proves your point good. I don't have any theory because I never made any claim to have a theory on the explosions at the WTC.

Muddle the debate?

Do I read my own links? Yes.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Realtruth
There is plenty of seismic activity that is documented, review and time stamped.

And full explanations.

Nice try to muddle the debate. I did not ask for collapse seismic data. I ask for someone to show me the two seperate spikes for each of WTC 1 & 2 druing the supposed basement explosion and subsequent plane crash. Show me evidence of an explosion prior to the planes impacting. The data you are providing shows that there is an increase in sesimc activity just prior to the main collapse. That is not evidence of planted charges.

Do you fully read your own links? You are proving my point for me.



911review.com...

Please try to prove your theory again.

[edit on 11-4-2007 by Realtruth]

If I have misread your post, My apologies. Do not those charts show the increase in sesimic activity just prior to collapse?

That is not the data I requested. That is all I am saying. Thanks for trying to help out with evidence. Have a goodnight!

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
But what again exactly is wrong with it? It shows the small spikes when the ‘two planes hit’. [Note, those surges of course weren’t cause by aircraft — there were none — but by pre-planted explosives in the towers.] Then, prior to the collapses you’ve clearly got your earthquake sized gyrations as a result of the hydrogen bomb detonations. Everything seems in order. So what is there to discuss? Just wondering…

Greetings, And They Claimed Those Evil Terrorists Killed Fritz…
The Wizard In The Woods

Hello as well,

I'm not really sure what there is to discuss Wiz. What is your take on those readings and the causes of them? Do you claim that the planes did not strike the WTC's and that there were hydrogen bomb dentonations there? I have heard these and more as proposed "theories". Sorry but I have heard stranger things stated. My apologies in advance if I am not catching your sarcasm.

Originally posted by pavil

Originally posted by Realtruth
There is plenty of seismic activity that is documented, review and time stamped.

And full explanations.

Nice try to muddle the debate. I did not ask for collapse seismic data. I ask for someone to show me the two seperate spikes for each of WTC 1 & 2 druing the supposed basement explosion and subsequent plane crash. Show me evidence of an explosion prior to the planes impacting. The data you are providing shows that there is an increase in sesimc activity just prior to the main collapse. That is not evidence of planted charges.

Do you fully read your own links? You are proving my point for me.

There is no support in the large body of photographic and video collapse evidence for the idea of powerful explosions in the towers' basements at the onset of the collapses. Instead the evidence shows waves of destruction proceeding methodically downward from the crash zones to the ground.

Please try to prove your theory again.




I have given you a lot of links with a lot of facts.
You are looking for something that no one claim to have.
If you are baseing OUR Conspiracies theory on seismic data that You know that dosnt explaine what is what! and if you choose to ignore everything else.
Then I dont think we need to debate. I think you are looking for a hole in our Theory. and you may have found it,I dont know. We are only here to find the truth nothing more. But if you belive in the Goverments version
and still do. then I dont know why you are here debateing us.
I can asure you , You will not get me to belive in the Goverments version of 911.
We all know the Goverment trash all the evidences everything!
So here is this link that I sent you before read it you might find it intersting.

911proof.com...

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Quicksilver
I am just saying it seems like the governemnt was just too lucky after 9/11 and not lucky at all before it.

Maybe they were lucky beforehand. It would make sense that they knew these guys and already had the evidence on them. Either the government F'ed up or they were complicit. It's funny how most all involved got raises and promotions for being incompitant.

Honesylu Griff if that is the case it would sicken me. If we can clear distinct evidence of the plot to fly airplanes in to the WTC then it should have been stopped.

IF someone "missed" clear signs and evidence they need to be fired and those who ignored it need to be held someone accountable for their actions.

Originally posted by cashlink
Then I dont think we need to debate. I think you are looking for a hole in our Theory. and you may have found it,I dont know. We are only here to find the truth nothing more. But if you belive in the Goverments version
and still do. then I dont know why you are here debateing us.
I can asure you , You will not get me to belive in the Goverments version of 911.

Don't give up. You said yourself "Here is more proof,I dont think you need anymore proof than this." When I ask for proof of that event you quote I get nothing in the way of incontrivertable fact to support your theory. In fact I get no evidence from you to support it. In fact you seem to say I may have found a hole in the theory you just said that I wouldn't need any more proof than this. See where that is flawed logic?

I debate the 9/11 conspiracies because I have yet to see conclusive evidence in support of any of them. Where is the thermite? Where is any physical evidence of planted charges? Where is the radioactive residue from the supposed nuclear detonations? Where is the proof of any of those theories?

I tell you honestly, if you could provide incontrovertible, factual evidence of your claims it would change my viewpoint. That you can't do that speaks more to the weakness of your argument than the strength of my and others debunking ot it. A solid theory should be able to stand up rigorous challenges to it, should it not.

Till you prove otherwise the most probable cause of the WTC collapses are due to Planes impacting and exploding into the top floors of the WTC followed by the subsequent fire that further damaged and compromised an already weakened infrastructure causing a catastrophic collapse.

I asked for your best shot, your best example of why you believe what you do, and asked you to document it with physical evidence to support it. You did not provide any. Please keep trying but don't get mad at me for taking an opposing viewpoint. If your theory can not stand up to critical thinking perhaps you should adjust your theory.

Dear pavil:

Top of the morning to you. And I wasn’t meaning to be sarcastic at all in my recent post, honestly.

As you can- tell, I think it’s a bunch of nonsense that real actual commercial passenger planes hit the WTC’s on 9-11. Or the Pentagon, or crashed at Shanksville, Pennsylvania for that matter. It was all nothing but hocus-pocus. Edited in to the ‘live film footage’, which was never shown live at all. All video was shown with MAJOR time delays, as in hours later.

What the 9-11 planners did on site in New York to show the ‘impacts’ is uncertain. Everyone claims there are countless direct eyewitnesses to the events. But where are they? If anyone really saw something even remotely resembling passengered planes, they I would surmise the presence of holograms. Yep, crazy sounding holograms have existed since the late nineteen-fifties. They are a reality. And they would perfectly fit the mindset of our advanced psychological warfare designers in their search for ways to intimidate the enemy.

My personal guess however is there wasn’t anything at all happening at the top of the twin towers, other than conventional explosions. The small spikes on the Palisades graph were caused by whatever ‘firecrackers’ they planted at the WTC to blow open the ‘plane impact holes’. Anyone can see that the columns were vertically sheared off and not pronouncedly bent and twisted inward as they should have been (had they been hit sideways by a large object such as a jetliner).

The big spikes, the ones that are off-the-charts, were caused by nuclear-fusion explosions at the bases of the WTC’s. These detonations registered as 2.1 earthquakes on the Richter scale. You don’t get this type of shake-rattle-and-roll with trinitrotoluene or any other nitrogen based chemical explosives, let alone Thermate.

Sure, at the end of the day, all we’ve got is theories. But that’s normal. That’s what science is based on. No one’s ever ‘seen’ an atom before. It’s all hypothesis. So we choose those theories which answer the questions best — and throw the ones that don’t add up out! Like it or not, this approach works quite well. Our and your entire world is based on and functions around ‘theories’. There’s nothing strange about that.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by esdad71
Noting was debunked here.

Is that all you got out of it? lol

I think it's a perfectly fair question to ask how something was confirmed, or to ask what the alleged terrorist DNA was compared to, or to ask why Popular Mechanics gets to see evidence that no other citizens are alowed to see. Some citizens just more special than others? Popular Mechanics isn't fed, and they weren't contracted for anything.... right?

Come on bsbray, you know that dad will only ever come up with vague one liners that are based on nothing other than what fits his personal stance on this subject. His posts are some of the best because he at least keeps the humor alive.

pavil

Your eliminating *circumstantial* evidence in your search for *evidence*, yet the circumstantial is often used in LAW when the more hard core evidence is missing. It is this way in many murder trials.

There are many cases that lack the proverbial 'smoking gun', but the case is cuumulative.

PNAC article did indeed mention that the plans they laid out would need something like a "NEW PEARL HARBOUR", and from there you go and dig. The case is out there, there is also a heck of a lot of disinformation, but brick by brick people can come to some logical assertions.

Originally posted by talisman
pavil

Your eliminating *circumstantial* evidence in your search for *evidence*, yet the circumstantial is often used in LAW when the more hard core evidence is missing. It is this way in many murder trials.

There are many cases that lack the proverbial 'smoking gun', but the case is cuumulative.

PNAC article did indeed mention that the plans they laid out would need something like a "NEW PEARL HARBOUR", and from there you go and dig. The case is out there, there is also a heck of a lot of disinformation, but brick by brick people can come to some logical assertions.

Ok Tailsman lets try your best piece of proof that 9/11 was done with preplanted explosives? Hit me again with your # 1 best piece of proof. Prove it to me with logical assertions.

Originally posted by pavil
Ok Tailsman lets try your best piece of proof that 9/11 was done with preplanted explosives? Hit me again with your # 1 best piece of proof. Prove it to me with logical assertions.

I would like the NIST or any of their followers to do likewise for their collapse mechanism.

Originally posted by cashlink

Originally posted by pavil

Ok, I'll bite for the umpteenth time.

What is your #1 piece of total factual, irrefutable evidence that proves to you beyond a doubt that the official story is total "crock". Please just give one for starters. I know you have so much "evidence", all I ask is just one piece.

Hit me with your best shot that proves a controlled demolition is the most obvious of choices available to what happened Sept 11th.

Ok lets start with this link.
www.attackonamerica.net...

Wow, you are using this guy as proof. He claims to have a couple degrees including a PhD, but he sounds like an idiot and writes like seventh grader. I admit I am not a writer, but I do not claim to have a PhD either.

A bomber strike to the Empire State Building during World War II did not harm that building.

Comparing 25,000 lb B-25, with a couple hundred gallons of fuel, crashing into the Empire State Building to a 300,000 lb 767 with 1000’s of gallons of fuel is ridicules.

The World Trade Center towers were designed to survive a strike by a Boeing 707.

Both towers did survive the impact. Hard to predict this type of fire, and there was no way to test this assumption.
From Leslie Robertson (wtc designer), Reflections on the World Trade Center, The Bridge Vol. 32, #1.
The modeled aircraft weighed 263,000 lbs with a flight speed of 180 mph, as in approach and landing.
The model, sense it is landing, would probable be low on fuel as well and this is very different then a 767 at 500+ mph.

But if a failure had occurred at that moment, it would have been at the point of highest levered stress, near the base of the tower, and the tower would have fallen over like a giant tree in a forest windstorm. That, of course, did not happen.

This is very funny. Buildings falling like trees. If this person is your best proof, you’re in trouble.

Fires do not destroy skyscrapers. Never in the history of steel frame structures has a single one been destroyed by fire.

Never in history has terrorist flown passenger jets into buildings. They where destroyed by a combination of impact and fire.

As your eyes will tell you, the World Trade Center collapses looked like controlled demolitions.

I have seen many controlled demolitions and the WCT collapses looked completely out of control. In controlled demolitions, we do not see huge amounts of debris flying out the middle of the building and damaging the surrounding buildings. If it were a demolition, why have planes involved at all, just bring them down with all the people inside. There would have been no video at all and the government could say anything.

The freefall argument is faulty as well. I don’t know of any exact way to tell the amount of time for collapse. The seismic information is not accurate to the second and we can’t see much of the final moments in the video due to debris. One or two seconds of error can make a large difference. A collapsing building should fall close to freefall speed.

But on 9/11, the remote control systems were not used to bring the planes home, nor did fighters scramble to escort. Instead, the airplanes executed highly skilled aerobatic maneuvers (well beyond any known educational background of the Arab student pilots) and crashed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

There is no remote control system on any American passenger plane. The pilot in command is the pilot in the airplane.
I have never heard standard banking, climbing, and descending called ‘aerobatic maneuvers’. Flying an airplane really is not the hard. These hijackers did not do anything impressive.

Originally posted by numb99
One or two seconds of error can make a large difference.

Not when talking about a 110 story building falling.

A collapsing building should fall close to freefall speed.

How's that again? I guess we need to get rid of demolition companies then since they all fall at freefall speed with no resistance. I guess there was no use in getting my engineering degree because we all know now that buildings don't give any resistance when they fail. Damn, wasted years of my life learning how to make buildings give resistance. I want my money back.

Flying an airplane really is not the hard. These hijackers did not do anything impressive.

Also, personal experience or opinion?

pavil

That is just it. It just isn't about the demolition and so forth. It is the highly suspicious nature of 'lying', 'deception' and 'cover-ups'. Watch 9/11 press for Truth. The timeline, the response from Gov officials, there is much there.


As for the demolition, I would ask you what cleared the mass below in order for the mass above to proceed downward at almost free-fall speed when in fact most of the debri and mass was being ejected 'outward'.

If you can answer why in the NIST tests, when they tried to make STEEL like in the TOWERS fail at very high temperatures and Loads it didn't.

Why they(NIST) could only achieve 3inches of warping when they needed 40 inches of warping! Not on ONE but ALL columns! ALL at the same time!

But, there is much more involved then this. The recovery of DNA of the hijackers and how was this at all possible, and if it did occur what did they match it to?

I would recommend the documentary 9/11 press for TRUTH, and I would stay away from things like LOOSE CHANGE and so forth.

There is a real circumstantial case to be made.

Remember, Bin Laden has more ties to Bush then Sadam ever had. Also, Bush Sr and Bin Laden's Brother were together on the week of 9/11.



[edit on 11-4-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by numb99

Originally posted by cashlink

Originally posted by pavil

Wow, you are using this guy as proof. He claims to have a couple degrees including a PhD, but he sounds like an idiot and writes like seventh grader. I admit I am not a writer, but I do not claim to have a PhD either.

WOW!! So you are now an expert in journalism, and you clearly juge other people writing skills.
With out a degree. Tell me something, what dose an idiot sound like?
You dont have a degree in anything,
Who are you again?
I would belive his work befor I would belive yours.
Anyway I think you have stray off my REAL topic here, its Popular Mechanics 911 Debunking was Dismantled & Dismembered.

Originally posted by talisman
pavil

That is just it. It just isn't about the demolition and so forth. It is the highly suspicious nature of 'lying', 'deception' and 'cover-ups'. Watch 9/11 press for Truth. The timeline, the response from Gov officials, there is much there.


As for the demolition, I would ask you what cleared the mass below in order for the mass above to proceed downward at almost free-fall speed when in fact most of the debri and mass was being ejected 'outward'.......

But, there is much more involved then this. The recovery of DNA of the hijackers and how was this at all possible, and if it did occur what did they match it to?........

There is a real circumstantial case to be made.

[edit on 11-4-2007 by talisman]

So, just to be clear, you don't have any physical piece of evidence to support your theory? That's basically what you are telling me by not providing any. I should not have to search for it, you bring it out to discuss.

When you say "most" are you claiming that more than 50% an acre sized floor(s) ejected outward to the point where it was not falling down on floors below it? Explain the process that does that to me. Even if that is the case, how much weight is 50% of just one floor of the WTC?

If there were planted charges in the WTC tell me some basics about how you think it occurred. How many charges and where were they
located? Throughout the buildings or just on certain floors? Were all three building wired with the explosives? When were they planted? How were they triggered?

To be honest the DNA has nothing to do with the event itself. The plane crash and subsequent collapse happened regardless of the DNA and how and when it was recovered. It is a sideshow to the main event itself.

What is your best piece of circumstantial evidence at least then. A circumstantial case without one physical piece of evidence to support it does not make for a compelling case. If your proposed theories are to stand up, they must stand on their own merits.

Like I said you, are posting in the wrong thread for your Topic.
This thread is about a radio show, Host Debunking an editor who resurch
and edit the Popular Mechanics debunking 911 book.
Have a nice day.