skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1401 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Of course they were not explosions in the videos. Glad you cleared that up because no evidence of explosives were found at ground zero, which helps to explain why you don't see explosions in the videos. Protec have never shown us these seismic records they claim to have! They should! After all, It was their monitors that recorded the events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1402 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Protec have never shown us these seismic records they claim to have! They should! After all, it was their equipment that recorded the events that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1403 Share Posted March 26, 2013 he saw a couple of elevators on fire which caused an explosion. Out of all of these, there is only one fact which supports your assertion...lol..But what you fail to understand is that others there are plenty of others who witnesses explosions who were not near any lifts. lol No evidence was found because none was looked for. No one heard any bomb explosions. The sounds of explosions came from many different places. Not from bombs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 26, 2013 #1404 Share Posted March 26, 2013 You should thank me for this. The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span. On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear — misleadingly — as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves — blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower — start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs. Utter nonsense. Maybe you should try reading Ross and Furlongs paper which shows you how and why the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory orignally showed that the seismic activity was recorded 14 and 17 seconds earlier, until it was revised by the NIST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 26, 2013 #1405 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Glad you cleared that up because no evidence of explosives were found at ground zero, which helps to explain why you don't see explosions in the videos.You do not get irony do you?? lolBecause everyone at GZ was just suffering from mass hallucination hey Skyeagle.... They should! After all, It was their monitors that recorded the events. Yes they should, shouldn't they. Otherwise it's is nothing more than hearsay.I love the double standards in your application of what constitues as evidence. Eyewitnesses are not evidence, yet someone who tells a eyewitness what they saw is evidence or better still, telling us seismic equipment didn't record any activity while not releasing the data is rock, solid evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 26, 2013 #1406 Share Posted March 26, 2013 No one heard any bomb explosions.Sorry but there were people at GZ who would disagree with you. Like those firefighters in the videos I posted who swore blind they were explosives going off as they climbed the stairs.Not from bombsSorry but seeing as you were not there at GZ and you have no fricking idea, I will take that statement with a pinch of salt. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1407 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Jim Hoffmans critque of Blanchard is perfectly founded and the fact that Blanchard has not responded to his criticisms shows us all that he suffers from the same problems as you...lol On the contrary, investigators, civil and structural engneers have sided with Brent Blanchard. Utter nonsense. How amusing. There is nothing in that seismic data that even remotely suggest the use of explosives and look what you posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1408 Share Posted March 26, 2013 You do not get irony do you?? 1. No evidence of explosions in the videos 2. No sound of explosions during the collapase of the WTC buildings 3. No seismic data depicting bomb explosions at ground zero That's three strikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1409 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Sorry but there were people at GZ who would disagree with you. Considering that no evidence of explosives of any kind was ever recovered at ground zero, nor even presented to the media, then GZ agrees with me, not you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1410 Share Posted March 26, 2013 I love the double standards in your application of what constitues as evidence. E Show us evidence of explosives at ground zero. If you are unable to do so, then you have no case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 26, 2013 #1411 Share Posted March 26, 2013 On the contrary, investigators, civil and structural engneers have sided with Brent Blanchard.No they haven't...lolHow amusing. There is nothing in that seismic data that even remotely suggest the use of explosives and look what you posted.Except a seismic event happening 14 and 17 seconds before either plane hits the towers...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1412 Share Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) No they haven't.. On yes they have!! Present the evidence to the contrary. What did the Society of Civil Engineers and American Institute of Architects conclude? They have sided with Brent Blanchard and look what you posted. Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002 Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy. Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report. http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/ ARCHITECT Magazine The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics. http://www.architect...y-theory_2.aspx Edited March 26, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1413 Share Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) Except a seismic event happening 14 and 17 seconds before either plane hits the towers...lol I think you misunderstood, There is no evidence anywhere in that seismic data indicates bomb explosions. You were duped again! Edited March 26, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 26, 2013 #1414 Share Posted March 26, 2013 (edited) 1. No evidence of explosions in the videosExcept for this one...and numerous other too..lol[media=] [/media]2. No sound of explosions during the collapase of the WTC buildingsExcept for..."I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out." [Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.)] "That's when [the North Tower] went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down." [Frank Campagna -- Firefighter] "At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last." - NBC Reporter "Basically I was outside when that third explosion occurred ... the whole area turned pitch black when that third explosion happened ... this is the safest place to be right now because when when everyone was outside there were three explosions ... I'm completely covered in white smoke from that third explosion." - CNBC Maria Bartiromo 3. No seismic data depicting bomb explosions at ground zeroSorry but it appears you are wrong.http://www.journalof...longAndRoss.pdf That's three strikes.Not 3 strikes, but 3 explosions...lol Edited March 26, 2013 by Stundie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1415 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Except for this one...and numerous other too..lol [media=] [/media]Except for... "I had heard a distant boom boom boom, sounded like three explosions. I don't know what it was. At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out." [Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.)] "That's when [the North Tower] went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down." [Frank Campagna -- Firefighter] "At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last." - NBC Reporter "Basically I was outside when that third explosion occurred ... the whole area turned pitch black when that third explosion happened ... this is the safest place to be right now because when when everyone was outside there were three explosions ... I'm completely covered in white smoke from that third explosion." - CNBC Maria Bartiromo Sorry but it appears you are wrong. http://www.journalof...longAndRoss.pdf Not 3 strikes, but 3 explosions...lol That is not evidence of bomb explosions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1416 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Not 3 strikes, but 3 explosions...lol Nothing to do with bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 26, 2013 #1417 Share Posted March 26, 2013 On yes they have!! Present the evidence to the contrary. What did the Society of Civil Engineers and American Institute of Architects conclude? They have sided with Brent Blanchard and look what you posted. Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002 Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy. Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report. http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/ So they deicded to agree with Brent Blanchard back in 2002, a full 4 years before Blanchard had even published his paper?? lolHow could they side with someone who didn't produce their report until 4 years later? Are they psychic?? lol And a full 6 years before the NIST report into WTC7?? ARCHITECT Magazine The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics. http://www.architect...y-theory_2.aspx So the FEMA report, the NIST report have been peer reviewed?? lol....By whom?? Themselves....hahahahahahahahahaha!!!James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11. Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.” “I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.” Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said. http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 26, 2013 #1418 Share Posted March 26, 2013 That is not evidence of bomb explosions. What consititues as evidence of bomb explosives?? lolEyewitnesses at GZ who heard, saw and felt explosions is not evidence that they were elevators crashing are they?? lol Nothing to do with bombs. Or strikes for that matter...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1419 Share Posted March 26, 2013 What consititues as evidence of bomb explosives?? For one thing, the use of explosives Eyewitnesses at GZ who heard, saw and felt explosions is not evidence that they were elevators crashing are they?? You haven't been paying attention. What other possible sources have I mentioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1420 Share Posted March 26, 2013 So they deicded to agree with Brent Blanchard back in 2002, a full 4 years before Blanchard had even published his paper?? lol How could they side with someone who didn't produce their report until 4 years later? Are they psychic?? lol And a full 6 years before the NIST report into WTC7?? So the FEMA report, the NIST report have been peer reviewed?? lol....By whom?? Themselves....hahahahahahahahahaha!!! James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11. Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.” “I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.” Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said. http://www.opednews....ief_of_nist.htm Structural and civil engineers and demolition companies have concluded that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings. After all, we have evidence of fires, but absolutely none for explosives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 26, 2013 #1421 Share Posted March 26, 2013 For one thing, the use of explosivesHahahaha!! I suppose you think that explosives would be lying about everywhere with people tripping over them and fall over the god damn things...lolYou haven't been paying attention. What other possible sources have I mentioned? Eyewitnesses, who are now evidence but eyewitnesses are not evidence when they witness explosions...lolIts a mad paradox your worlds is...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1422 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Hahahaha!! I suppose you think that explosives would be lying about everywhere with people tripping over them and fall over the god damn things... Show us the 'explosives' money. If you are unable to do so, then consider yourself broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 26, 2013 #1423 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Structural and civil engineers and demolition companies have concluded that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings. After all, we have evidence of fires, but absolutely none for explosives. Not all structual and civil engineers and demolition companies have concluded that. lolLike there are lots of Structural and civil engineers who disagree and have not concluded that fire down the WTC buildings. There are demolition companies/experts who disagree and have not concluded that fire down the WTC buildings. And yes, there is evidence of fires, but as we have seen in our comparisons, fires tend not to collapse high rise steel structures to the ground. However, they are rather good at collapsing toy factories and over passes as you have shown us...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 26, 2013 #1424 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Show us the 'explosives' money. If you are unable to do so, then consider yourself broke. I can't show you explosives, because they were never looked for...lolBut I can show you plenty of people who witnessed explosions....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 26, 2013 #1425 Share Posted March 26, 2013 Not all structual and civil engineers and demolition companies have concluded that. Yes indeed! Apparently, you failed to read the conclusions in their reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now