Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

Sky we could play that a Million times and the C.T`s will still say it was a bomb,missle,UFO,Swampgas special weapon of mass destruction ! It will never change ! What Happened is what we know Happened ! Four Aircraft and people were lost that day to a Terriost attack ! :tu:

GOD whares the Logic in here ?

Why do you suppose the trial regarding benghazi is still going on too? and that Military officials are coming forward with inside information that's been covered up ,yeah a cover up is what officais are saying has taken place in Benghazi. Are they too to be mocked as CT's in your mind ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, because the charts show the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no evidence of explosions.

Again, according to the only evidence you want to accept. Even though better, more recent, more accurate evidence from a better qualified and more experienced source repudiates the hell out of popular mechanics out-dated, badly researched junk.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, according to the only evidence you want to accept. Even though better, more recent, more accurate evidence from a better qualified and more experienced source repudiates the hell out of popular mechanics out-dated, badly researched junk.

I have been through war and spent many months experiencing the sound of explosions to know that there were no bomb explosions evident at ground zero, which explains why demolition experts in the area stated they saw no evidence of explosions and I concur.You don't just hear explosions, you can feel the effects as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been through war and spent many months experiencing the sound of explosions to know that there were no bomb explosions evident at ground zero, which explains why demolition experts in the area stated they saw no evidence of explosions and I concur.You don't just hear explosions, you can feel the effects as well.

Were you there on 9/11? 'Cause unless you're calling the emergency services that WERE there liars; your testimony is secondary to theirs. I'm not doubting you, but dozens upon dozens of people reported explosions (note, I have not used the word 'bomb') on the day.

Regardless, the discussion was centred around seismic disturbances (Again, note the usage. 'disturbance'; a neutral word. I'm not saying 'bombs', I'm not saying 'explosions') Now there is the info from Columbia University that says there needs to be more investigation. There is the Popular Mechanics research debunking it and there is also Roussou's research, which corroborates the idea that more investigation is needed as the official story does not match the disturbances.

I'm of the opinion, that Roussou's research and experience are much more worthwhile and valid than Popular Mechanics'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you there on 9/11?

On Travis AFB, CA., and a member of the Air Wing whose commanding officer was in the Pentagon at the time of the 911 attack.

'Cause unless you're calling the emergency services that WERE there liars; your testimony is secondary to theirs.

They didn't hear nor see bomb explosions either, and additionally, they did not recover evidence of bombs at ground zero.

regardless, the discussion was centred around seismic disturbances (Again, note the usage. 'disturbance'; a neutral word. I'm not saying 'bombs', I'm not saying 'explosions') Now there is the info from Columbia University that says there needs to be more investigation. There is the Popular Mechanics research debunking it and there is also Roussou's research, which corroborates the idea that more investigation is needed as the official story does not match the disturbances.

Looking at the charts, I see no evidence of bomb explosions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Travis AFB, CA., and a member of the Air Wing whose commanding officer was in the Pentagon at the time of the 911 attack.

So, to clarify, is that closer or further away than the Police and Fire crews on the scene?

They didn't hear nor see bomb explosions either, and additionally, they did not recover evidence of bombs at ground zero.

Gonna have to resort to quoting myself here. "dozens upon dozens of people reported explosions (note, I have not used the word 'bomb') on the day."

Looking at the charts, I see no evidence of bomb explosions.

Right. First of all, I shall again quote myself, as you seem to be skim-reading my posts.

" (Again, note the usage. 'disturbance'; a neutral word. I'm not saying 'bombs', I'm not saying 'explosions') "

As a Pilot, and something of an aircraft expert, you have much to bring to ANY 9/11 discussion, knowledge of flight plans/paths, Aircraft specs.... Your interpretation of seismographic data is, however, next to worthless.

Andre Roussou has much experience, much knowledge and his research is thorough. He has come to the conclusion that the official explanation does not come close to matching the Seismic data. His data is refuting the Popular Mechanics data you have used to illustrate your point.

I believe Popular Mechanics are wrong on this subject. I believe Roussou is correct. The Seismic information does not back up the official story. More investigation is needed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were you there on 9/11? 'Cause unless you're calling the emergency services that WERE there liars; your testimony is secondary to theirs. I'm not doubting you, but dozens upon dozens of people reported explosions (note, I have not used the word 'bomb') on the day.

Regardless, the discussion was centred around seismic disturbances (Again, note the usage. 'disturbance'; a neutral word. I'm not saying 'bombs', I'm not saying 'explosions') Now there is the info from Columbia University that says there needs to be more investigation. There is the Popular Mechanics research debunking it and there is also Roussou's research, which corroborates the idea that more investigation is needed as the official story does not match the disturbances.

I'm of the opinion, that Roussou's research and experience are much more worthwhile and valid than Popular Mechanics'.

Mind posting Roussou's peer reviewed and published by a reputable scientific journal papers please.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The obvious answer to that is because the steel was shipped out of the country too fast to test. The government didn't give any samples to investigators.

Considering the first shipment didn't leave till late January or early February, that gave 5 months of holding prior being shipped. 5 months doesn't seem all that "fast" if you want my opinion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So, to clarify, is that closer or further away than the Police and Fire crews on the scene?

It doesn't make any difference because the videos spoke for themselves. There were no secondaries observed nor explosions heard and I have posted videos to backup my claim. It was very lear that fires were weakening the structures of the WTC buildings because the buildings were observed buckling, which is a clear indication of thermal expansion of the steel structures, which was the result of those fires and nothing to do with explosives.

In addition, just because someone heard what they perceived as explosions doesn't mean the sounds they heard were the result of explosives. Check it out.

Testimony of those who heard such sounds but later attributed those sounds other than to explosives. Since it seems that you have forgotten, do a review here.

Explosions

"When we got to about 50 ft from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go.The way I see it, it had to be the rivets. The building let go, there was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down."

He also says he thinks the rivets caused the building to fall and not bombs. Interestingly, the NIST said most of the failures were at the bolts and connections.

http://www.debunking.../explosions.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem

Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jay Swithers

An ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dominick Derubbio

t was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FDNY Batallion Chief Brian Dixon

I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That ís what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

http://www.911myths....uote_abuse.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So once again, just because someone heard the sound of explosions, is not evidence that bombs were involved.

And just because someone heard...

  • Rivets popping.
  • Floors Collapsing.
  • An explosion that blew out the floors which wasn't an explosions.

Nothing there indicating the use of explosives. There is no video of bomb explosions and no audio of bomb explosions and no evidence of bombs within the rubble of the WTC buildings and no seismic data of bomb explosions.

Verdict!! No bombs.

As you can see, the firefighters attributed the sounds to things other than explosives, however, what importance do you place on the sounds they heard?

As a Pilot, and something of an aircraft expert, you have much to bring to ANY 9/11 discussion, knowledge of flight plans/paths, Aircraft specs.... Your interpretation of seismographic data is, however, next to worthless.

All I asked was for you to show us where the characteristics of explosions were evident on the charts.

Andre Roussou has much experience, much knowledge and his research is thorough. He has come to the conclusion that the official explanation does not come close to matching the Seismic data. His data is refuting the Popular Mechanics data you have used to illustrate your point.

I can easily debunk the work of Andre Roussou by showing you this video. Seismic recordings as the WTC buildings collapsed are noted in the charts but there is nothing in those charts that depict explosions. Andre Roussou should have known better than that.

Apparently, there are no explosions seen nor heard as the WTC buildings collapsed. Now, tie the video with the seismic charts provided earlier and you will see a clear discrepancy in Andre Roussou's seismic research because the charts depicted the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no explosions, which explains why no WTC explosions are seen nor heard in the video.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you suppose the trial regarding benghazi is still going on too? and that Military officials are coming forward with inside information that's been covered up ,yeah a cover up is what officais are saying has taken place in Benghazi. Are they too to be mocked as CT's in your mind ?

For Real ? THat was nothong more than a Terriost attack ! No Government involvment !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spinebreaker

Have not read Roussou's work, but the work of Ross & Furlong contradict the official story, and corroborates the story of Rodriguez. The seismic evidence contradicts the official story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind posting Roussou's peer reviewed and published by a reputable scientific journal papers please.

Thanks.

Shall do, but it'll be this evening. It's pretty recent research though. December 2012 I think.

It doesn't make any difference because the videos spoke for themselves.

OK. For the video's to "speak for themselves" I'd want a plan of where the cameraman was on the day, with a full diagram of every noise and movement, the technical specs of the camera, particularly the inbuilt microphone or additional microphones if used. Plus a stack of information about compression and quality when it was uploaded. Then and only then will a video "speak for itself."

There were no secondaries observed nor explosions heard and I have posted videos to backup my claim.

I, and others, have posted lots and lots of quotes of people saying they did see and hear such things...

As you can see, the firefighters attributed the sounds to things other than explosives, however, what importance do you place on the sounds they heard?

Afterwards, even if there was no corruption involved, other people's expectation will have affected their subsequent opinion. Eyewitness testimony is useful immediately, later on, people will invariably say what they're expected to say.

All I asked was for you to show us where the characteristics of explosions were evident on the charts.

I'll have a look at the basics of seismographic interpretation later, though I would recommend you accept the word of an expert with 20-odd years experience over my opinions.

I can easily debunk the work of Andre Roussou by showing you this video. Seismic recordings as the WTC buildings collapsed are noted in the charts but there is nothing in those charts that depict explosions. Andre Roussou should have known better than that.

No, you can't. You can repudiate or refute. YOU cannot debunk it. Not without a career change and 20 years doing nothing else. He looked at the evidence in detail, and made his observations based on that. Rather than your approach, which appears to be to decide what happened first, and then only listen to sources that agree with you. Behaviour normally found in hardcore conspiracy theorists.

And again, one more time. Hoping it sinks in.

seismic

disturbance

not 'bomb'

not 'explosion'

not 'bomb explosion'

This discussion would be a lot simpler if you could stick to disagreeing with what I actually say, rather than what you choose to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been through war and spent many months experiencing the sound of explosions to know that there were no bomb explosions evident at ground zero, which explains why demolition experts in the area stated they saw no evidence of explosions and I concur.You don't just hear explosions, you can feel the effects as well.

You were not at GZ to counter the claim of those people.....lol

Demolition experts in the area?? lol

Jesus, the delusions are still in abundant on this one...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. For the video's to "speak for themselves" I'd want a plan of where the cameraman was on the day, with a full diagram of every noise and movement, the technical specs of the camera, particularly the inbuilt microphone or additional microphones if used. Plus a stack of information about compression and quality when it was uploaded. Then and only then will a video "speak for itself."

Still no evidence of bomb explosions heard in the videos.

I, and others, have posted lots and lots of quotes of people saying they did see and hear such things...

And, I have posted quotes from people at ground zero who have attributed the sounds to things else other than explosives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were not at GZ to counter the claim of those people.....

And those on the clean-up crews at ground zero have found zero evidence of explosives, and remember, zero evidence means you have no case.

Demolition experts in the area??

That's right and they found ZERO evidence of explosives at ground zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No, you can't. You can repudiate or refute.

I already have! All he had to do is to compare the videos with the seismic data.

And again, one more time. Hoping it sinks in.

seismic

disturbance

not 'bomb'

not 'explosion'

not 'bomb explosion'

Of course no bombs, no explosions, no bomb explosions, and those facts can be determined using the videos, audio equipment, and seismic data and once again, the seismic data recorded the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no explosions.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That won't be necessary since, despite many posts where you implored me to take into account your entire argument and how no one piece of your evidence is really that convincing and everything must be looked at as a whole to truly see the strength of it, you subsequently turn around and provide examples that ignore your very same 'big picture'. What was the purpose of the discussion of the squibs then? I thought those best matched a demolition and I thought it was you who got all incredulous about how those appeared as the result of the collapse, so how does a fire-based collapse falsify that point or have anything to do with it? Why drag anyone through the tortured 'molten flow' argument, matching colors from a video to charts and pontificating about the effects of the destruction and fire in a room full of UPS units, again the cause of the actual collapse is irrelevant to that point? If we can falsify the demolition by providing evidence of a fire-based collapse then apparently the squibs and flow aren't that convincing of arguments after all, if they can be falsified by something that is orthogonal to your argument for either of those points. Way to weaken your own evidence.

Wait... I provide you with suggestions for the type of hypothetical evidence that could falsify the demolition theory, i.e. physical analysis of high fire temperatures in the steelwork, conspicuously ‘missed’ by the official investigation, despite their ‘best’ efforts... and you come back with this? Why not keep to the point and accept the fire collapse theory is shot full of more evidence holes than you proclaim even demolition is? At least we should expect to see evidence holes given a demolition (or any covert operation), whereas everyone should know that the competent investigation we are supposed to have demands evidence.

So where to start with the response that I did get? Ok, first you are misrepresenting me: “no one piece of evidence is really that convincing”?? No, this is what I said (end of post #230). Each piece of evidence is convincing in its own right and to its own degree. I don’t think one is the outstanding piece, but the complete set of facts derived from them, held together, reveal the big picture; false flag.

Regarding discussion of the squibs and WTC2 thermite flow, if, by some miraculous chance, evidence proving the fire collapse case arose, I’d have two options 1) accept a planned demolition but that fire beat ’em to it, or 2) accept that the astronomically unlikely occurred. I’d likely shift to 1) as a first port of call, but either way it would destroy the relevance of any demolition theory, for me, personally.

Of course, my real points to flyingswan are 1) that the demolition is falsifiable in theory, it’s just that no one is able to produce the evidence to achieve it, and 2) that hypothetical evidence to falsify the demolition is most likely just that, hypothetical, it does not exist to begin, otherwise why such the struggle to present its use for investigation. And I’m not simply talking about physical samples of steelwork here, but all manner of 9/11 questions that could and should have been answered.

That really isn’t my problem, nor is it because the demolition theory is so boo-hoo-unfair-unfalsifiable as Swanny likes to fool himself. It’s a problem of lacking evidence and/or logic to the official collapse theory which facilitates the demolition to number one spot.

Evidence of a fire-based collapse is 100% congruent with a covert demolition, this isn't just your average mom-and-pop demolition team setting this up.

I’ll just say you need to give me more credit than coming out with this sort of thing that is not reflective of either reality or my opinion.

Yea, you need to think a bit more on what really falsifies your argument because the above doesn't do it, I personally think you require a lot more. In the past you've gotten sensitive when I've stated what I thought your argument would be if some piece of evidence was produced, you may have even asked for a retraction I don't recall specifically, but it's pretty bad that the alternative is that I have to temporarily assume your point of view and use your own argument against you. You should be doing that.

I see, so you just, “temporarily assume” my view this time rather than, “stated what I thought your argument would be”. Yeah, whole lot of difference there. Well, you got it mistaken both times. I think I’ll just refer you back to my opening paragraph of this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your supposed analogy is not relevant to the 9/11 case one bit.

1. There is no evidence specific to a fire based collapse.

2. Demolition theories are not “cunningly created” but inherent in the covert nature of the operation.

3. Why would God be “a cunning creator” anyway? A covert creation theory is entirely fantasy to begin. In other words, again it is not an analogy for 9/11 where solid precedent, motive and evidence exist.

4. The demolition is absolutely possible to refute in theory, I even told you how. It’s simply that the evidence is not available to do so. I wonder why.

5. There is no evidence against the covert demolition.

In all you continue to show the lack of understanding which explains your overall views.

As to your first point, without going too far into specifics, the following facts all favour a fire-based collapse:

The buildings were on fire at the time and the collapses initiated at the fire locations.

The gradual onset of collapse, as shown by the bowing of the tower walls at the fire locations and the penthouse collapse at WTC7.

NIST computer modelling of collapse initiation process, within the measurement error of the impact damage for the towers.

You can throw in the sheer implausibility of setting up covert demolition systems in occupied buildings, in the case of the towers at the exact floors where the aircraft hit, using two different demolition methods, both hitherto unknown and not involving high explosives, and having these systems survive a high-speed aircraft impact and/or an uncontrolled fire.

Your remaining points simply demonstrate again your self-delusion about your unfalsifiable hypothesis.

First fail. I said, “specific to a fire based collapse”, e.g. evidence which exclusively supports a fire based collapse. Simply the presence of fire in the building does not 1) indicate a structure will necessarily collapse, or 2) preclude the collapse through demolition. So of course it does not falsify the demolition based collapse – I’m surprised that needs explaining.

Next fail. The NIST impact and fire computer modelling shows a greater range where the towers will not collapse. You openly admit it – you didn’t have much choice after I pinned you to that fact after pages of your denials. Anyhow, this finding is backed by the original WTC engineers and all known precedent. How in the world do you present it as exclusive evidence for the official theory? That showpiece official story evidence is actually if anything more in favour of demolition. It gets worse when we realise that NIST’s collapse range was stretched right to the periphery of a measurement error of their choosing and also interjected with further tweaks specifically to induce collapse initiation in the model. It becomes altogether untenable when we know the result of that imparted more damage to the simulated models than was ever done to the towers in reality. That isn’t science, it’s fitting the ‘right’ answer on paper.

Third fail. There is nothing implausible about the demolition setup, neither are thermite or explosive based demolitions unknown. If you understood the possibilities presented for the setup, briefly researched and accepted historical precedent for tertiary explosives and thermite, then you wouldn’t need to be putting forward such weak arguments.

What you need here, is a feature of the physical building collapse that can only be a result of fire. Three such features are described on the AE911T homepage noting the WTC collapses: -

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

  1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
  2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Of course, before you say it, the first point does not include a simple bulge or bowing which could be brought on by any manner of unbalancing a structure. Again, if it can be caused by demolition then it’s no good. The point refers specifically to slow and large deformations as clearly caused by fire prior to the Windsor building partial collapse.

Given your current lacking answers matching the above and presence of anything better, this is insufficient to prove the official collapse theory or falsify the WTC demolition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First fail. I said, “specific to a fire based collapse”, e.g. evidence which exclusively supports a fire based collapse. Simply the presence of fire in the building does not 1) indicate a structure will necessarily collapse, or 2) preclude the collapse through demolition.

You have to understand that no explosive evidence of any kind was ever found at ground zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third fail. There is nothing implausible about the demolition setup, neither are thermite or explosive based demolitions unknown.

First of all, no evidence of planted thermite nor evidence of explosives were ever found at ground zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle ITs never going to end,ITs like the Bin Laden thread,or Landing on the Moon, od Sandy Hook. C.T`s are just what it describes them as ! All Conspiracies people ! Make Believer`s !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle ITs never going to end,ITs like the Bin Laden thread,or Landing on the Moon, od Sandy Hook. C.T`s are just what it describes them as ! All Conspiracies people ! Make Believer`s !

I heard that!! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no evidence of bomb explosions heard in the videos.

And? Without all the specific information I requested before, with details of camera type, position, microphones, quality, compression and so on, I refuse to even discuss video footage with you.

A

nd, I have posted quotes from people at ground zero who have attributed the sounds to things else other than explosives.

Not concerned. We have both posted testimony that disagrees. Meh.

As far as I can see, all your quotes are well after the fact. As such, they are less reliable.

I already have! All he had to do is to compare the videos with the seismic data.

No. You haven't. You may refute. You may attempt to repudiate. In this situation, on this subject, with your skills and your knowledge you may not debunk. If you still disagree I recommend a dictionary to learn the definitions of those words.

Of course no bombs, no explosions, no bomb explosions, and those facts can be determined using the videos, audio equipment, and seismic data and once again, the seismic data recorded the collapse of the WTC buildings, but no explosions.

Sigh. This is beginning to resemble talking to my son.

Read this very carefully, because I suspect you are not reading posts as carefully as you obviously need to.

1 - a number of researchers have found seismic anomalies in the data for September 11.

2 - the research done by popular mechanics is, not to put too finer point on it, bulls**t.

3 - these seismic anomalies have not been explained.

Now, if you wish to respond and have me not just click on 'ignore' I'd like you to follow 4 rules.

1 - I haven't said bomb, or explosion. Neither can you.

2 - don't post a list of horribly researched nonsense as a response.

3 - respond to what I have actually WRITTEN, not what you IMAGINE I've said.

4 - do not use, or respond to, any words you do not understand.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And? Without all the specific information I requested before, with details of camera type, position, microphones, quality, compression and so on, I refuse to even discuss video footage with you.

Doesn't make any difference what kind of equipment because there were many in the general area and none depicted no explosions, either on video nor audio or even on seismic monitors. Living in a world of denial and not presenting evidence to refute what I have posted doesn't work here.

1 - a number of researchers have found seismic anomalies in the data for September 11.

2 - the research done by popular mechanics is, not to put too finer point on it, bulls**t.

3 - these seismic anomalies have not been explained.

Looking at the charts, there is nothing on those charts that even remotely suggest what 911 Truther have claimed. In other words, if the evidence is not there, then, the evidence is not there. It seems that 911 Truther websites have this thing about not doing their homework properly.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't make any difference what kind of equipment because there were many in the general area and none depicted no explosions, either on video nor audio or even on seismic monitors. Living in a world of denial and not presenting evidence to refute what I have posted doesn't work here.

As I appear to be dealing with the intellect of a 9 year old, I'll lower to that level myself... You would know all about denial and lack of evidence.

You make a claim about video footage

I repudiate that claim.

that's how a coherent discussion looks... (Also, note repudiate in it's proper context...)

Looking at the charts, there is nothing there to suggest explosions.

You wrote one sentence, and still managed to break rule number one... I'm genuinely impressed by your stubborn will to not read anything properly.

but I'll play along... So in your opinion of those charts... tell me again your seismography qualifications and experience...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.