WTC 7 was IMPLODED : irrefutable seismic evidence from LDEO and NIST itself.

I firmly advise those of you who are genuinely interested in the real seismic historic facts about the days they bombed the Murrah building in OKC and the WTC towers in NY and the Pentagon in WDC, to read those pages in that last linked by me, 10 page thread :

I challenge NIST's Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You will find in the first page already a mysterious post by ATS-member "jthomas".
He complained also about his two posts disappearing totally.

He was the one who convinced me in another thread, that the fly-over theory of the Pilots for Truth and the CIT team, based on one witness account (Roosevelt Roberts), was in fact based on a total misinterpretation by CIT and Pf911Truth of RR's own words in his two telephone interviews with CIT. (Citizens Investigation Team).

Before that, I did hold that CIT AA77 fly-over theory as one of the possible solutions for the Pentagon attack subject.
After my exchange with jthomas, I was convinced the fly-over theory is a hoax, played upon us all through Balsamo from Pf911Truth.

I think jthomas is also a JREFer, but that did not influence my change of opinion regarding the Pentagon attack, simply said, he was totally right about what RR really said and what he really indicated to CIT.
I respect him for that. We still differ on many points, time will tell if one of us can influence the other again.
We both enjoyed the exchange of arguments then.
(There was one other usual opponent who also added to my change of thoughts then, I'm sorry, I forgot his member name. He aided in my switch of thoughts too.)
CIT and Pf911T just do not want to really listen what RR told them, they can't let their fly-over theory go.

So, if you can convince me in a mutually respectful debate about seismic or thermobaric subjects that I am wrong, be my guest. Read my earlier seismic and thermobaric work first, address the flaws as you see them, with the proper linkage to where I said it (r.click the "this post" tag), and I will gladly answer. Any form of thread derailment without serious debating points properly linked to, I will not answer.

If however your only goal in life is to spit on the by you so disgusted "Truthers" in this Conspiracy forum, read and then grasp the text above each page here, or get the hell out of here. A CONSPIRACY forum is not the place for you, in that case.
Some of you demonstrated already in the first pages of this thread again to me, to not be able to show some respect, but directly started throwing the endless stream of insults.

RESPECT and DECORUM, that's what keeps boards as ATS alive.

reply to post by -PLB-


Professor Brown's extensive explanation not enough for you?
Tell me.

reply to post by LaBTop


Can you post this explanation? I can't see it anywhere. I only see the baseless assertion "explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse".

Should I be impressed by the "Professor" title? (I was unable to confirm that by the way. All I could find was "Dr"). Is that it? Are you making an argument from authority? Why should I accept this authority? Where is his research? Where is the line of reasoning where you go from that specific case to a "well known fact in seismic research circles"? Where can I see this position being supported within "seismic research circles"?

The foundation of your "research" is some of the worse I have seen. Either that or you are just terrible at presenting it.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by rival

 

There was a boom reported before the collapse of the School of Architecture at Delft. Either the NWO really hates Dutch architects or one might just have to face the fact that collapsing buildings sometimes emit loud noises.

You do not get the quintessence, namely the connection between the amplitude of the biggest pack of seismic peaks, appearing in my WTC 7 seismogram before the Cianca photo time-stamp moment, and the amplitude of the following pack of peaks depicting the total global collapse of a total building, 47 stories high.

Do you think that made no sound?

I have news for you, Alfie1.
And for all.
Not one of you saw and HEARD the quintessence in that NIST provided video I posted of the collapse of WTC 7. That's why I waited so long, 8 pages by now, to see what the level of understanding in this forum was.

At 0.01 seconds in, you hear that deep, very low frequency boooom. Then try to hear the sound of the following collapse of the whole 47 stories high building, all its columns crushed, all its walls, windows, steel beams, dry walls..........NOTHING to HEAR. Only the loud conversation between the people near that camera.

www.youtube.com...



That is in my books a real SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE, coupled with my Opening Post and my thermobaric posts over time.
That first ...Booooom.... obviously was so damn loud at the origin point, that the camera, blocks away, with lots of other buildings blocking the sound path, could still pick it up, while the immense noise of the global collapse at the same spot, was NOT picked up by the same camera.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

reply to post by LaBTop


Thank you for your response to my question about the improbability of WTC 7 being blown up without any attempt at camouflage or disguise. Few truthers when they are banging on about WTC 7 being a "smoking gun" seem to stop to think that it was only damaged and set on fire by accident and without that it would have to have been a bold as brass obvious cd in broad daylight with half the world watching.

At least you see the problem but your solution that UA 93 was intended for WTC 7 just doesn't hold water for a raft of reasons.

a) according to Khalid Sheik Mohamed the intended target was the Capitol.

b) When the plane turned after the hi-jacking it held a course for Washington until the last bit of erratic flight when the passengers were trying to smash their way into the cockpit.

c) You acknowledge yourself that WTC 7 could not be hit while the Towers stood, so you would have had the absurd situation of UA 93 stooging around New York waiting for the Towers to go down. Don't forget UA 93 took off 41 minutes late and could have been over Manhattan quite some time before the North Tower collapsed at 10.28.

d) Does it seem likely that a 3rd plane would be expended on the WTC complex ? What would be the point of expending 75% of the effort at one place ?

e) But the absolute clincher is this. The hi-jackers dialed in the VHF omnidirectional range (VOR) frequency for the navigational aid at Reagan National Airport. Thereby eliminating any doubt that UA 93 was en-route to Washington.

So, if we can rule out UA 93 as a cover for demolishing WTC 7 and you still believe it was a cd then you must believe that the perps just intended to blow it up as it stood, in marked contrast to the care to disguise lavished on the Towers.

reply to post by LaBTop


I thought this was all the evidence needed???

reply to post by Alfie1


That's an answer to the first post at page 8.
Please address it in a new thread. This subject was already addressed here and on the internet.

Now please answer my above post.


And -PLB- is the kind of intentional thread wrecker who will use every trick in the book to avoid a real debate.
He is the kind that would say :
"Nelson Mandela? You must be delusional. That's a known criminal. So obvious. Everybody knows he was 30 years in jail."

Professor Raymond Brown, senior geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma who studied the seismograms, knew and talked to people inside the building at the time of the blast. "My first impression was, this was a demolition job," said Brown. "Somebody who went in there with equipment tried to take that building down."

And yes, he's also a Dr.

EDIT : His reasoning is btw the point, not only his credentials.
The demolition of the last standing portion of the Murrah building in OKC one month later than the attack, was done by explosives.
Every charge exploding gave a peak on the seismogram. Every explosives-peak in that demolition seismogram was much bigger in amplitude than any of the pack of peaks in the bombing seismogram that was connected to the collapse of 3 quarters of the Murrah building. ENDEDIT

Originally posted by LaBTop

And -PLB- is the kind of intentional thread wrecker who will use every trick in the book to avoid a real debate.
He is the kind that would say :
"Nelson Mandela? You must be delusional. That's a known criminal. So obvious. Everybody knows he was 30 years in jail."

Professor Raymond Brown, senior geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma who studied the seismograms, knew and talked to people inside the building at the time of the blast. "My first impression was, this was a demolition job," said Brown. "Somebody who went in there with equipment tried to take that building down."

And yes, he's also a Dr.

Aha, so asking critical questions is called being a "thread wrecker". You want everyone to agree with you and praise you? No questions allowed? And of course you didn't answer any of my questions.

reply to post by LaBTop


So you can't or won't give me a straight answer to my simple question about travel times of seismic waves from the WTC to Palisades seismic station.

I draw the obvious conclusion from that.

reply to post by -PLB-


Was already answered in my "text" post, as the last bolded excerpt of Prof Brown's words, but I added an EDIT in simpler terms to my above post.

reply to post by Alfie1


I can't help it if you forgot your reading glasses at work.
For the stumpiest time, yes, there was an error margin of 1-2 seconds mentioned by Dr KIM, as I have shown in my OP graph two times, in the left bottom corner and in between my light blue lines in the same graph center, with the text "error margin" in it.
This is the third answer to the same question.

Now I really wonder if a moderator can interfere here.
This is such an obvious case of thread derailment, that I start to wonder.....

Originally posted by LaBTop
EDIT : His reasoning is btw the point, not only his credentials.
The demolition of the last standing portion of the Murrah building in OKC one month later than the attack, was done by explosives.
Every charge exploding gave a peak on the seismogram. Every explosives-peak in that demolition seismogram was much bigger in amplitude than any of the pack of peaks in the bombing seismogram that was connected to the collapse of 3 quarters of the Murrah building. ENDEDIT

edit on 29/2/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)

I do not know about his reasoning, because I haven't seen any of his work (yet). I do know that your reasoning is completely flawed though.

You are making a fallacy called hasty generalization. Just because in that specific situation explosives (allegedly) gave larger peaks, it in no way means that applies to every situation. And even to a lower degree it means it is a "well known fact in seismic research circles". This is a massive fault in your "reasoning" (or rather lack of it).

Where is this "professor's" (still could not confirm this credential) research? You are quoting "My first impression was, this was a demolition job" for crying out loud. Who cares about anyones impression.

Just to add, this isn't really an important issue. I picked it up to show how your whole line of reasoning is based on fallacies. The major issue you have to deal with are explosives that do not leave a trace on video/audio record and is capable of taking down a building. Or course you evaded any question I made about that issue.

reply to post by LaBTop


Now answer my post.

Alfie1, If you look at the last part of the 93 flight path, you see a sudden change towards the north, direction New York. And then a short straight flightpath line in that direction.
Then the story goes on that the passengers revolted, the pilot had to try to hush them back in the plane by erratic flight movements.
Then the plane impacted the ground.

The problem is Viola Saylor, she saw a plane looking like 93 flying very low over the oak in her backyard. Which does not cooperate with the shown FDR. At the same spot above her house, that 93 FDR shows that "same" plane 1400 meters high in the air.
And Viola Sailor was not the only one seeing 93 much lower than the FDR data depicts.

On of the theories floating around is that the first two planes had to get WTC 1 and 2 out of the way, to get an open attack route for 93 to impact WTC 7, thus making a great "terrorist propaganda plan" up of three planes that took down three skyscrapers in Manhattan, the financial hub of the world.

Search here at ATS ( LaBTop Viola ) and at Pilots for 911Truth with the same search terms. I have posted extensively on the 93 subject. I do not believe unconditionally the FDR's that were found, they were both altered for their last 10 to 20 seconds part.

This you can use for your new thread here at ATS. Start your own, and defend your viewpoint.
Let's lay it aside in this thread, I hope.

reply to post by -PLB-


Are you studying psychology?
""The major issue you have to deal with are explosives that do not leave a trace on video/audio record and is capable of taking down a building. Or course you evaded any question I made about that issue. ""

You introduce again the same MASSIVE lie.

I never said what you try to put in my keyboard. Of course they leave traces on the video/audio record, and yes, we all can HEAR the explosion and SEE in my NIST video a few posts up, that it can take down a building.
Or are you nearly deaf and blind perhaps? Sorry for you, if so.

Now answer that post above with the NIST video implications laid on the table.
WHICH ANSWERED YOUR pathetic endlessly repeated questions, while you are busy neglecting my answers.

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I can't help it if you forgot your reading glasses at work.
For the stumpiest time, yes, there was an error margin of 1-2 seconds mentioned by Dr KIM, as I have shown in my OP graph two times, in the left bottom corner and in between my light blue lines in the same graph center, with the text "error margin" in it.
This is the third answer to the same question.

Now I really wonder if a moderator can interfere here.
This is such an obvious case of thread derailment, that I start to wonder.....

How is seeking clarification from you about what you think of seismic wave travel times a "derailment" in a thread supposedly about "irrefutable seismic evidence" ? It absolutely goes to the heart of your "theory".

If you accept what the seismologists say, and you haven't indicated any credentials to justify not accepting it, then the travel time of seismic waves from the WTC to the Palisades seismic station was 17 seconds plus or minus 2 seconds. In other words could be anything over a 4 second range from 15 seconds to 19 seconds.

You have been talking about something happening within WTC 7 three seconds before any external sign of collapse , basing that on the times waves were registered at the Palisades . However, if no-one can be more specific about the travel time of the waves beyond 15 to 19 secs then your 3 seconds is just lost in that range and has no significance at all.

reply to post by LaBTop

On of the theories floating around is that the first two planes had to get WTC 1 and 2 out of the way, to get an open attack route for 93 to impact WTC 7, thus making a great "terrorist propaganda plan" up of three planes that took down three skyscrapers in Manhattan, the financial hub of the world.

In the planning stage:
How would they know for sure that 1&2 would be down B4 93 got back to NYC?
It seems like a awful big risk to take given the perfection the rest of the plan worked out don't you think?

The simple explaination for that last minute turn toward NYC was that the passengers were beating at the door. Which of course jives with the phone calls, and the recorder.

But never lets the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

reply to post by LaBTop


Your baseless assumption that a faint rumble sound is an explosive going off is not that interesting. Your analysis is as short sighted as that from the seismic record, as you assume upfront that explosives are going off. That is not how proper research is done. On top of that you show a nice case of circular reasoning. In order to support your claim that your fantasized bomb can take down a building you put forward the collapse of WTC7. Maybe you missed it somehow, the collapse of WTC 7 is the subject under discussion. You have to assume that your fantasized bomb(s) were there in order for that to count as evidence that your fantasized bombs can take down a building.

What of course is reasonable evidence, is showing a video of a situation where we know your fantasized bomb is detonated, and see if there is any similarity to the WTC building. I looked up thermobaric bombs on Youtube, I can tell you I didn't see any similarity. They were all huge bad ass explosion with huge visible shock waves, loud sounds, and often a lot of fire.

If we put aside the complete lack of visual/audio similarities, do you, in all seriousness, think that this would be the type of explosive used in a covert operation where it is essential that nobody discovers an explosive device is used? I think the thermite theory is about 100 times better. Still of course without any evidence to back it up, but I can at least imagine, unlikely as it is, it is possible.

reply to post by LaBTop
Thanks for the nod, LaBTop! And thanks for the evidence and analysis you've put together here - I'm still digging through it all, but it's powerful stuff so far. Well done.

I am still amazed that there are people that have the information, have the intellect to analyze it, yet still hold on so tightly to their irrational perception of reality.
They brought the building down, simple as that. You certainly can debate about "whom" or "why"
but "Pull it" they did.
Mr. Op, you are going to drive your self insane if you think that you will change these hardcore deniers. You even seem willing to try and convince them of the areas that call for great speculation...ie; if a plane was suppose to target the building or not. All that did was entrench these guys and distract you from just sticking to whatever scientific evidence you are presenting. Jesus Christ could tell these guys the building was pulled and they wouldn't change their minds, they are emotionally vested in their position at the expense of facts or truth.

Streamline your evidence, articulate it so a 5th grader could understand, and present it as if your reader has never heard of WTC 7. Don't add theory's of motive or any other conjectures.

keep in mind that there are still people that deny the holocaust, deny that there is anyone gay in Iran, that nobody has been to the moon, that the Earth is flat, and that the world is coming to an end on 12/21/2012. Ignore them or risk your sanity.