New 9/11 Video Eyewitness: "Trailer rocked and almost lifted off the ground"- Deep Explosions?

New video may support other evidence of subterranean explosion close to when the first plane hit:



We know what Willie Rodriguez said, as well as Barry Jennings, that they were blown upward- indicative of subterranean explosions. What this lady says may help to confirm that...

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Thanks, True.

Yes, it helps a lot. I believe she's just telling what she experienced; and the lifting of her work trailer adds solid confirmation of the underground explosion.

What happened up top to both towers was a 1/4 mile away. What happened in the basements was right there.

The testimonies, the photo evidence of camera/tripod shake just prior, and especially the audio in many videos all lock it down. It happened. And whatever sort of devices they actually were... they were truly, truly massive.

reply to post by PixelDuster


Yep. I also don't believe either that the plane impacts could have caused those kind of blast effects on the ground to push a trailer upward. Those buildings were designed to sway somewhat for hurricanes and such, and sway they did. As much as two or three feet, according to some eyewitnesses.

And that absorption of the impact would have prevented this woman feeling this if it was just the impacts.

If those planes were indeed piloted by remote control, all bets are off. Once that is occurring, total precision of impact timing/basement explosions can be achieved automatically, to confuse and cover up the truth.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


110 story buildings crash to the ground and people say they felt ground move!

Stop the presses we have an exclusive !

When the towers came down the impact was recorded by seismic staions for hundreds of mile around

It registered as more than 2 on the Richter scale

.Collapses of the two WTC towers generated large seismic waves, observed in five states and up to 428 km away. The North Tower collapse was the largest seismic source and had local magnitude ML 2.3

Looks like the lunatic fringe getting desperate.....

Originally posted by thedman
Looks like the lunatic fringe getting desperate.....

No, it looks like lunatic trusters not watching a video. Or doing the usual and disregarding the evidence.

She's talking about the plane impact, not the collapse. Not having ignores anymore totally sucks. I am forced to read total BS by people like you. I don't know why I even bother anymore.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


The impact of the planes into the towers generated seismic energy which was measured by the seismographs
equivalent to Richter scale of .9

The top of the towers were violently whipsawed being displaced some 6 feet before snapping back. The towers continued to vibrate for minutes afterwards.

The explosion of the 1993 truck bomb which weighed some 1200 lbs was not recorded

A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away.

The 1993 bomb was in the underground parking garage - yet was not recorded

No evidence of explosions, just the violent shaking generated by the aircraft impacts

Originally posted by thedman
The impact of the planes into the towers generated seismic energy which was measured by the seismographs equivalent to Richter scale of .9

Heh, boy did you pick the wrong person to argue seismology with. It takes at least a 3.0 quake, on a bad day and very close to the epicenter TO EVEN BE DETECTABLE BY A HUMAN. If the impact measured a .9, only a seismograph would be able to detect it. And therefore, there is no way in hell she felt the plane impacts lift her trailer up. It had to be massive explosives underground.

You just buried yourself with your own argument. But they don't pay you to know seismology, do they....Just to distort, bury, confuse, and deflect from the truth any way you can.

Yawn. Next. You lose.

@ thedman
This is prior to the towers collapsing, The ground is still clean and they are real close to the towers, Although you would know this considering you watched the video? Right? probably not..

To all else..

I noticed something else. This lady when she was talking about a plane, she only mentioned plane, she didnt say AA or UA and UFO or missile.. She only mentioned tail of a plane.. she also mentioned something pushing into the building.. She didn't specifically come out and say what or brand of plane...

I find this interesting because the people on TV swore they saw AA, UA, flying fish..

Ya know..

And no I am not a no planer, I am just pointing this out because well I find it highly suspect.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Can you direct me to the seismic evidence for " massive explosives underground " prior to the collapse of the Towers. Thanks.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by thedman
The impact of the planes into the towers generated seismic energy which was measured by the seismographs equivalent to Richter scale of .9

You just buried yourself with your own argument. But they don't pay you to know seismology, do they....Just to distort, bury, confuse, and deflect from the truth any way you can.

Yawn. Next. You lose.

edit on Thu Oct 28th 2010 by TrueAmerican because: (no reason given)

Ah, dear, I see the trolls have arrived. It's sad nothing is done about them, as was previously promised. As before try not to feed them. This one's sorted at least. The fellow seems not to understand what he is saying. Parrot. Sigh.

Energy radiated up comes from below. Period. Full stop. A child could figure it out. These people grow tedious, but sadly, that's one of their objectives. Well, we've got news for them, eh, what?

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
@ thedman
This is prior to the towers collapsing, The ground is still clean and they are real close to the towers, Although you would know this considering you watched the video? Right? probably not..

ThichHeaded, trolls don't watch videos or read articles that are linked. They don't need to as they almost never discuss actual points of interest. You'll notice this as time goes on.

Originally posted by ThichHeadedI noticed something else. This lady when she was talking about a plane, she only mentioned plane, she didnt say AA or UA and UFO or missile.. She only mentioned tail of a plane.. she also mentioned something pushing into the building.. She didn't specifically come out and say what or brand of plane...

I find this interesting because the people on TV swore they saw AA, UA, flying fish..
[...] I am just pointing this out because well I find it highly suspect.

That's because she's honest and is just telling what she saw. Amazing the visual acuity of some of the other "witnesses" isn't it?

Indeed, most of the people that appeared on TV are highly suspect. Most were employees of the network that they appeared on. The ones who actually did manage to voice factual reports contrary to the script were immediately squashed.

Peace,
Pixel

reply to post by TrueAmerican


OK...since you have indicated that you know more about seismology than anyone who has questioned your OP, you wrote this, and I have a logical question:

It takes at least a 3.0 quake, on a bad day and very close to the epicenter TO EVEN BE DETECTABLE BY A HUMAN. If the impact measured a .9, only a seismograph would be able to detect it. And therefore, there is no way in hell she felt the plane impacts lift her trailer up. It had to be massive explosives underground...

Ummm...where are the seismic records of the "massive explosives underground" that were able, as she says, to "almost lift up the trailer"...?

Do you see the contradiction, here? You say that a human cannot "detect" unless it's a 3.0, yet this woman "claims" she felt the trailer "almost lift off the ground". You can't have it both ways.

Is this making sense? Because, the logic seems to indicate that her description may have been somewhat exaggerated, as to the "almost lifted" part. She felt "something" (maybe...or, she heard it, and imagined the "motion", perhaps? Hysterical memory?).

Seismographs recorded the aircraft impacts - 300000 lbs of aircraft hitting at 500 mph

911research.wtc7.net...

Yet these seismographs were unable to record the truck bomb - an UNDERGROUD truck bomb from the 1993
attack

Also are dredging up same garbage proposed by noted anti Jewish conspiracy loons Eric Hufschmid/Chris
Bolleyn

Which goes to show you - no bad truther nonsense ever dies - it just gets enlessly recirculated.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


From watching quake data for some time now, and getting a sense of what shows up where at how far away, I personally don't believe the analysis here:

911research.wtc7.net...

I think what they are deeming as a plane impact in fact may be a subterranean explosion of some kind instead on the seismo. Station PAL is like 34 km away. I don't believe a plane impact could have registered that far away, when the building itself was designed to absorb the shock, which it did. Local tiny events can register when very close to the station, but not that far- not from a plane impact.

And where are the seismograms from the other station that was like 5 to 10 km away? Why did they choose to do the analysis on the least dependable data after it had traveled so far?

Note that the article doesn't show the multiple stations recording the plane impacts... Just from that one station PAL.

So how could the explosions be so big as to cause her trailer to lift up, yet so small as to barely register at PAL? Because PAL is 34 km away, for one. And for two, due to the nature of wave propagation from surface events, which start near the ground surface- versus those from say earthquakes even shallow at 5 km deep, the deeper ones will travel much further and register on way more stations in the area.

Reminder: An explosive device concealed in the very shallow (by comparison) WTC basements qualifies as a virtual surface event when it comes to seismometers. They are just not deep enough to have enough long range effect. But they would have had a great local effect, such as what she describes. They could have easily registered as those small spikes they claim as plane impacts from 34 km away. But I don't believe for a minute those spikes are from the impacts. No way.

See, cave men with box cutters were smart enough to figure all this out, too.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


You know more (apparently) about the science of seismology than I. I don't think I even want to try to get up to speed, might take too long, because I KNOW the value of a great deal of experience, gained in a particular field, and how it can be applied to assess the conditions of an event. That's why my AVIATION expertise is most useful for me, to dispel so, so many misconceptions I see repeated, by the so-called "truthers" who, bless their ignorance, are merely parroting from the "conspiracy" websites they've read.

But, indulge me about your logic here, based on the scads of video evidence of the actual collapsing of the structures (WTC 1 and 2, for now, since it applies similarly to both, based on this thread's premise).

You wrote about those seismic readings from "9/11research"s site as indicative of explosions "in the basements"?

Tell us, how would even a massive explosion, down there, cause a top-down collapse of the buildings? It is pretty hard to dispute, since there is plenty of video showing the exact sequence and pattern of collapse.

Also, where is any corroboration, besides this one woman, interviewed whilst in an agitated state? Surely, nine years, there should by now by thousands of others, from around the entire perimeter of hte WTC complex, both on the ground and in surrounding buildings, on multiple floors, who were closer than she, and would have heard and felt the concussion of these "basement explosions"?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Tell us, how would even a massive explosion, down there, cause a top-down collapse of the buildings? It is pretty hard to dispute, since there is plenty of video showing the exact sequence and pattern of collapse.

It's not at all hard to dispute, once you understand the construction of the towers and the way the core columns were handling the stress load. When WTC2 collapsed first, it was very difficult to see how key core columns were cut on the inside. But when WTC1 went down after that, they forgot that one very big antenna on top of it would give away the secret, and clearly show how the core was collapsed first, taking the rest with it. The antenna dropped first.

Also, where is any corroboration, besides this one woman, interviewed whilst in an agitated state? Surely, nine years, there should by now by thousands of others, from around the entire perimeter of hte WTC complex, both on the ground and in surrounding buildings, on multiple floors, who were closer than she, and would have heard and felt the concussion of these "basement explosions"?

Well, as I mentioned in the OP. Willie's testimony corroborates it, and so does his boss's. But before we get too far away from the seismic aspect of this, there are a couple more things you guys might want to know.

That analysis I linked to uses the BHE channel of the seismometer. That is the east-west axis channel. There are at least two other channels- the BHN (north-south axis) and the most commonly referenced channel- the BHZ (up-down axis).

Once I realized that, my spidey senses immediately went up. The BHE channel on seismos frequently registers events much higher than the BHZ channel. And why they would use that channel on this is suspect to me. Almost everyone uses the BHZ channel to convey seismos, because it is more conservative. Magnitude is determined from a lot of things- and beyond the seismos even. But it is never determined from just one channel. That's total BS, and makes me suspect this analysis for fraud even further.

On top of that, the sensitivity that the seismo is set to has a major effect on how big those bumps appear. Those figures are not even mentioned, and are cropped out of the pics. I suspect from the shape of the bigger waves (bumps) that PAL was turned up very high. In other words, the tiniest events would register big. And by pulling the BHE channel, all the more. In places where large magnitude seismic events are rare, or non-existent (like NYC), they are often kept at high sensitivity to better view small ones.

I had also mentioned there was another station closer. There was. At Fordham University. That seismic station started operation in November 1999. I checked into it a bit. That was of course until I went to their website. I think I've seen all I need to, just in their logo alone.

www.fordham.edu...

"The Jesuit University of New York"



I am really getting sick of opening one can of worms after another with 9/11. Congress should be investigating this impartially, not me or you.

reply to post by TrueAmerican



Is your expertise in the engineering and construction design details? Because, I'd be careful when you say this:

...they forgot that one very big antenna on top of it would give away the secret, and clearly show how the core was collapsed first, taking the rest with it. The antenna dropped first.

You see, I don't know how the structure that supported the Antenna "farm" up there was actually built. I said "be careful" because, UNLESS you have something to show, that you've looked into the details, then it seems you might be assuming that the antennas caving down as they did is indicative of the central core being "blown". Understand what I mean? It is one of those (many) leaps that I've seen, over and over again, by the staunch "believers"....of course, my area of experience is in the aviation aspects, and I see it THERE many times...but at least I have the ability to know, immediately, what's right and what's wrong, in people's assumptions and beliefs.

So...this "theory", examining it this way....well, I think there are OTHER (non-NIST) groups that already have. There must be some sources online, by now.

AS TO the central core, and its much ballyhooed "strength"....I've seen some very convincing rebuttals to that.

In any case, the weakest link, in that (or any) such design, is likely where the individual components...beams, columns, etc...are connected. The beam or column ALONE is, of course, much stronger than the attachment points...bolts, etc. Original designs were, of course, meant to be strongest to resist a DOWN force! (gravity), with some allowances for horizontal building sway, winds and such. I feel it's not too hard to visualize a "breaking" sideways, or even in a twisting manner, as things progressed in a cascade, once the initial stresses were too much for the remaining undamaged rest to hold up. Gravity initiated, and other mechanical forces then became a factor, in the sequence of collapse.

Just appeared to me, always has, that NO exposives were required, at all, based on the type of damage, and (we have since learned) the unique design.