Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

To those who believe the 911 official story


Zaus

Recommended Posts

The point is anyone who believes the official story should go and check themselves into a mental institution.

So that would be the majority of th world?

You ACTUALLY ADMIT to believing that this is evidence against the "hijacker", you believe "paper" survived an explosion that "melted" steel...

Yes

http://nancyandjackrudolph.com/Sept.%2011,...termath%202.jpg

I

http://www.petrifiedtruth.com/archives/WTC_firefighters.jpg

Do.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...l%3Den%26sa%3DG

A whole lot of paper in those pics.

You believe that Satam Al Suqami was on flight 11... and he is alive to this day.

Yes the same "hijacker" who's face was there for you(among the other 19) to hate for killing innocent americans... never did a thing.

One of my best friends is named Jim Brown. Yet he's White... And he never played professional Football!... and he's only 34!!!! How is this possible!?!?!?!

Who's reality is skewed when this is what you attest to "truth"? Or "Rational".

WTF.

Yours is.

Edited by Redtail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • flyingswan

    313

  • Q24

    205

  • turbonium

    180

  • merril

    113

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

You made the claim you support it.

I told you how to prove it to yourself, by Googling it. Do you need me to Google it for you in person, because it's beyond your ability? linked-image

Skin color can make people cower in submission, the right tone of voice can make people cower in submission, but a weapon that can do serious physical harm can't. No, you're wrong.

What's that supposed to mean? That 20-30 white people cowered in fear whenever James Earl Jones came in the room and said something? linked-image

You forgot to take your meds again, didn't you?

Yes they are.

Prove it.

So you and yours were so threatened, in a situation much more dangerous than the victims aboard those flights, there was no flight option so you handled it yourself and didn't file a police report, and managed to get out unharmed (Well unharmed enough you didn't need medical attention.)

Correct.

Aside from the phone calls, and cockpit recordings?

Cite your sources for this.

No they weren't and its laughable (in a sad way)that you would think so.

It only reveals your sheer ignorance when you start making idiotic claims regarding events you know absolutely nothing about. It's quite pathetic.

So what were the other attackers doing? They just stood and waited patiently for you to finish them off one by one?

If you ever grow up and show some sign of maturity, I'll be more than happy to discuss the details with you...

Oh, and just so you know, NO, you weren't in as much danger as the people on those flights even if your story is true.

...but I really doubt you ever will.

You're still not getting it. Pre 9/11 it wasn't uncommon to leave the cockpit door unlocked. Hell sometimes they left it open. Do you think a hijacker bent on using a plane as a weapon is going to be polite and ask the pilot to please give up his seat?

You seem to think a pilot will politely give up control of his plane to a hijacker wielding a box-cutter.

No, it's not.

Prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It only reveals your sheer ignorance when you start making idiotic claims regarding events you know absolutely nothing about. It's quite pathetic.

The sheer irony of you, of all people, making this statement, Turbs, is just incredible, since this seems to be what you do on an amazingly regular basis....

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that would be the majority of the world?

Obviously...

Let me get this straight... the "hijacker's" passport was... found... among those thousands upon thousands of sheets of paper that were obviously not in the original blast zone where a plane with full fuel tanks EXPLODED reaching temperatures of 1500+ degrees... especially right between the wings, where the blast from BOTH TANKS EXPLODING SIMULTANEOUSLY reached eachother.

So needle in a haystack + impossible physics + invincible paper + same "hijacker" is alive still. Yeah, i stand by "check yourself into a mental institution".

One of my best friends is named Jim Brown. Yet he's White... And he never played professional Football!... and he's only 34!!!! How is this possible!?!?!?!

no comment.

Edited by Zaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. The critical supports could only be seen and accessed by authorized personnel. The elevator shafts had sealed access doors, restricted to office workers.

So all the authorized personnel, ie the building maintenance staff, were in on it?

You investigate the actual evidence first, and follow that to wherever it leads you. You don't begin by speculating on what would be required to collapse it by a CD. If the evidence leads you to a CD, then it doesn't matter how difficult it would have been to prep the explosives.

Same as above. You go where the evidence takes you, to find out the cause(s) of collapse. If the evidence shows a CD, then you can speculate on the technical details involved in the CD.

Which is why I mentioned the lack of evidence.

No, there is seismic data which shows the greatest spikes occurred at the initiation of the collapse - before the debris had even started to hit the ground.

Have you actually looked at the seismic evidence? It looks nothing like you claim:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html

They never searched for steel with explosive damage! They only looked for steel which fit in with their pre-determined theory a of fire / impact damage collapse. Steel which didn't meet this criteria was never sought out or collected.

And none of the thousands of people who participated in the clean-up would have recognized explosive damage?

Same as above. They never looked for nitrate residues, or any other evidence of explosives, in the steel.

Same as above.

There were hundreds of witness reports of the sound of explosives, including many firefighters inside and nearby the buildings.

Do you expect a burning building to be silent, of course there were sounds like explosions. It's evidence of explosives that is missing.

Superthermite has been cited as a plausible source for cutting columns. Such residue (as I said) was never sought out by NIST's steel recovery team.

And has this method ever been demonstrated on the scale of a building column?

But Steven Jones does have physical evidence of thermite residue - several samples.

He has sulphur, which happens to be a common constituent of everyday materials, but no barium, which is much less common.

The CD theory of collapse has a wealth of valid supporting evidence. It can't simply be dismissed or ignored.

It has nothing, so that is why it is ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is anyone who believes the official story should go and check themselves into a mental institution.

Sometimes, you sit down to your keyboard to construct a rational response... and then you decide...

... it's just not worth the effort.

Edited by 747400
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told you how to prove it to yourself, by Googling it. Do you need me to Google it for you in person, because it's beyond your ability? linked-image

You brought up the claim you support it.

What's that supposed to mean? That 20-30 white people cowered in fear whenever James Earl Jones came in the room and said something? linked-image

You forgot to take your meds again, didn't you?

Nope. It means exactly what it says.

Prove it.

http://archive.thisislancashire.co.uk/1999/11/23/749820.html

http://www.cnn.com/US/9708/27/crips.bloods/

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0050,gonn...2a,20625,1.html

Correct.

uh-huh.

Cite your sources for this.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Ameri...1_-_Phone_calls

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Unite...3_-_Phone_calls

Note that they cite their sources too.

It only reveals your sheer ignorance when you start making idiotic claims regarding events you know absolutely nothing about. It's quite pathetic.

Pot, meet kettle. Or are you now going to claim you been on a plane that was hijacked and you bravely fought back saving the passengers?

If you ever grow up and show some sign of maturity, I'll be more than happy to discuss the details with you...

...but I really doubt you ever will.

Uh-huh.

You seem to think a pilot will politely give up control of his plane to a hijacker wielding a box-cutter.

No, I think they didn't have a choice.

Prove it.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home

So, are you going to prove the story is "absolute crap"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously...

Better get to work on that then.

Let me get this straight... the "hijacker's" passport was... found... among those thousands upon thousands of sheets of paper that were obviously not in the original blast zone where a plane with full fuel tanks EXPLODED reaching temperatures of 1500+ degrees... especially right between the wings, where the blast from BOTH TANKS EXPLODING SIMULTANEOUSLY reached eachother.

They explain it quite well here.

http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

So needle in a haystack + impossible physics + invincible paper + same "hijacker" is alive still. Yeah, i stand by "check yourself into a mental institution".

See above. Oh, and also this.

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

no comment.

Do you believe that only in the western world can two different people have the same name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there is seismic data which shows the greatest spikes occurred at the initiation of the collapse - before the debris had even started to hit the ground.

Have you actually looked at the seismic evidence? It looks nothing like you claim:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html

Hmmm, maybe I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, but before any detailed analysis of seismic charts goes back and forth I thought I'd raise it...

Turbs, from my understanding of what you're saying you think the greatest seismic reading happens at the point of collapse (indicating explosives going off), then further but lesser seismic readings happen as the building starts to fall and impacts the ground?

Before the collapse of the first tower things were relatively quiet and thousands of people were observing. If, just before the tower collapsed, there was an explosive event more violent than than one of the largest buildings in the world falling to the ground, do we not think that every single person watching, everyone within a mile or so listening distance and every camera filming that day would have noticed it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The seismic data is certainly interesting. I have been reading a few different opinions on the data and have compared it with video footage myself. I am sure people will interpret the information differently but below are my findings for the collapse of WTC1: -

linked-image

  • The first red line indicates the initial collapse movement of the upper block.
  • The second red line indicates the first debris reaching ground level.
  • The third red line indicates beginning of the main debris field impacting the ground.
The above conclusions were drawn from a comparison of the graph and
video evidence of the collapse which seems as good as any.

Now the important part. Between the initiation of collapse and the 10s mark in the figure, this is where the upper block falls through its own height. This area shows minor activity/spikes and actually calms just before the 10s mark. This is what I would expect to see if the momentum of the upper block was actually slowing.

The remainder of the collapse from the 10s mark leading up to the first debris reaching the ground shows increased activity. There are a series of well spaced spikes that I have marked out with red dots. It is this area that seems to be indicative of explosives used to continue the collapses after the thermite initiated fall of the upper block.

The same observations can be made of the WTC2 collapse, with initial activity of the upper block followed by nearly one second of calm before a series of larger spikes.

As well as confirming the near freefall collapse time of approximately 10-14 seconds, the above also fits with the demolition process I have previously stated: -

  1. Conventional explosives (witnessed by numerous firemen, workers and reporters) weakened the structure over time.
  2. Thermite/thermate charges (apparent from evidence presented by Professor S Jones and visible flowing from WTC2) initiated the collapse.
  3. Further conventional demolition charges (evident through explosive ‘squibs’ during collapse) removed remaining resistance from the structure resulting in a symmetrical, near freefall collapse.
It now appears I can add seismic evidence as supportive of the third step. Edited by Q24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the important part. Between the initiation of collapse and the 10s mark in the figure, this is where the upper block falls through its own height. This area shows minor activity/spikes and actually calms just before the 10s mark. This is what I would expect to see if the momentum of the upper block was actually slowing.

There's a calm point later in the middle of your 'explosive' spikes, after your spikes, in the middle of the main collapse. And the first collaspe graph is far more random.

Unless you are technically trained in analysing seismographs or have an odd hobby looking at them regularly I would be amazed if you 'expect' to see anything. Realistically you are intepreting the data based on your belief of the events - the graphs could look any of a dozen different ways and you would still be able to say the same thing. Similarly anyone not believing the CD theory could come up with a reason for any part of the graph looking like it does, say they 'expect' it to look like that and it would have equal worth.

The remainder of the collapse from the 10s mark leading up to the first debris reaching the ground shows increased activity. There are a series of well spaced spikes that I have marked out with red dots. It is this area that seems to be indicative of explosives used to continue the collapses after the thermite initiated fall of the upper block.

The part you identify as the top collapsing is a series of well spaces spikes as well, I'm not sure why you find the later ones so indicative. Are you suggesting your eight dots indicate eight big explosions, as that wouldn't make a lot of sense? They would have to be pretty huge explosions. The spikes are about the same size or even larger than the spikes caused by the airline's impacting and resulting exposions. That would be a lot more observable than the puffs coming from the building you believe to be squibs.

If you're just saying you think general explosions are going on at this point I don't know what your argument is. How big do your explosives have to be to take out columns / how many? How is the graph indicative of this happening and not just the graph or a large building collapsing? What's your interpretation of the graph after your eight spikes?

It now appears I can add seismic evidence as supportive of the third step.

To be fair I think, so far, "It now appears, even though I have no training or experience to justify it, I can interpret seismic evidence as I please and without any compelling arguments in order to verify any pre-conceived opinions I already have, even if relevant seismographic experts disagree with me." seems more accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all the authorized personnel, ie the building maintenance staff, were in on it?

No. Only authorized personnel had access to these areas. What in the world makes you think that every one of them had to be involved? Get a grip.

And none of the thousands of people who participated in the clean-up would have recognized explosive damage?

The steel was removed from Ground Zero at lightning speed. They looked for survivors in the rubble. There wasn't any time to browse through the steel.

The actual steel recovery was at the Fresh Kills landfill site. They searched / retrieved only the steel that met the list of specific criteria they were given.

Nobody was looking for - or retrieving - any steel that didn't meet those specific criteria. Do you actually think they would have retrieved all sorts of steel they weren't even looking for in the first place? They couldn't even find any steel that DID meet their criteria!!

Do you expect a burning building to be silent, of course there were sounds like explosions. It's evidence of explosives that is missing.

There were multiple explosions heard before the collapses even began. Those are not the sounds created by a burning building.

He has sulphur, which happens to be a common constituent of everyday materials, but no barium, which is much less common.

He has much more than sulfur, and he also explains why no barium is required. You'd know that if you took the time to read his papers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sheer irony of you, of all people, making this statement, Turbs, is just incredible, since this seems to be what you do on an amazingly regular basis....

Cz

Maybe you'd also like to try and tell me how much more you know about my personal experiences than I do?

Pretend you know what really happened, since I was only there, and you weren't.

Your posts have become a sheer waste of time and space, so what's the harm if you add one more onto the smelly heap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Only authorized personnel had access to these areas. What in the world makes you think that every one of them had to be involved? Get a grip.

Any maintenance man might need to look behind the walls at any time. Unless the lot of them were in on it, what's to stop an innocent one stumbling on the charges?

The steel was removed from Ground Zero at lightning speed. They looked for survivors in the rubble. There wasn't any time to browse through the steel.

The actual steel recovery was at the Fresh Kills landfill site. They searched / retrieved only the steel that met the list of specific criteria they were given.

Nobody was looking for - or retrieving - any steel that didn't meet those specific criteria. Do you actually think they would have retrieved all sorts of steel they weren't even looking for in the first place? They couldn't even find any steel that DID meet their criteria!

Ground Zero took months to clear, and engineers were looking at the evidence before it was cleared to Fresh Kills. They included CD experts who would have recognised the evidence for a CD if it had been there:

http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20011001b.asp

There were multiple explosions heard before the collapses even began. Those are not the sounds created by a burning building.

What makes you think that nothing in a burning building can explode, or break with an explosion-like sound. get a grip.

He has much more than sulfur, and he also explains why no barium is required. You'd know that if you took the time to read his papers.

Must be new since the last time I bothered to look. Got a link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a calm point later in the middle of your 'explosive' spikes, after your spikes, in the middle of the main collapse. And the first collaspe graph is far more random.

In the official story, the collapses are one continuous movement, gaining momentum from the initiation – thus the supposed reason for minor resistance and near freefall. If this were the case, there should equally be continuous activity levels throughout the collapse (between the first and second red lines before debris begins impacting the ground). That the calm section, just prior to the 10s mark, coincides with the end of the upper block fall before increased activity resumes, appears indicative of a transition phase from one method of collapse to another.

The part you identify as the top collapsing is a series of well spaces spikes as well, I'm not sure why you find the later ones so indicative. Are you suggesting your eight dots indicate eight big explosions, as that wouldn't make a lot of sense? They would have to be pretty huge explosions. The spikes are about the same size or even larger than the spikes caused by the airline's impacting and resulting exposions. That would be a lot more observable than the puffs coming from the building you believe to be squibs.

I understand we could interpret the fall of the upper block, between the first red line and 10s mark, as a series of spikes. There is though no doubt that after the calm section and 10s point, the spikes are both sharper and larger.

Yes, I am saying the spikes marked with dots could be in part indicative of demolition charges and agree they show approximately equivalent seismic activity to the airliner impacts. The airliners crudely severed some columns and the demolition charges would more efficiently cut many columns so the equivalent readings are reasonable. The charges detonating would be focussed on columns and at the central core area of the Tower. As demolition charges do not contain gallons of jet fuel and would not be at the building perimeter, there is no reason whatsoever they should be visually comparable to the airliner impacts. The visible squibs though could well be indicative of the pressure wave these charges create.

If you're just saying you think general explosions are going on at this point I don't know what your argument is. How big do your explosives have to be to take out columns / how many? How is the graph indicative of this happening and not just the graph or a large building collapsing? What's your interpretation of the graph after your eight spikes?

I am not suggesting general explosions; I am suggesting demolition charges with the force to cut the main columns of the core structure. Precisely how many were required I could only speculate on without knowing the full building details but the charges are not particularly large in relation to the column at all - see photograph here.

After the eight spikes, we can see the activity levels reducing back to that of the initial upper block fall as what is remaining of the devastated structure breaks up. There is additional disturbance in the reading here that would be indicative of the first lighter debris impacting the ground. Obviously after the last red line where the largest activity begins is where the main debris of an approximately half million ton building starts impacting the ground.

Unless you are technically trained in analysing seismographs or have an odd hobby looking at them regularly I would be amazed if you 'expect' to see anything. Realistically you are intepreting the data based on your belief of the events - the graphs could look any of a dozen different ways and you would still be able to say the same thing. Similarly anyone not believing the CD theory could come up with a reason for any part of the graph looking like it does, say they 'expect' it to look like that and it would have equal worth.

I don’t believe it is unreasonable to ‘expect’ something if a basic understanding is held of what the graph represents. Indeed, you and a few other members here gave your opinions of the data before I did. I do understand this is Unexplained Mysteries and not a science and geological convention but by comparing the video evidence to the seismic graph I don’t believe I have made any major errors in the areas I have highlighted.

Also I did not expect to find anything in the data at all indicative of controlled demolition. Realistically I looked at the evidence out of curiosity and with an open mind. It is not as though I have fabricated the points I raise above – the evidence is there for everyone to see.

I have looked for a detailed analysis of the seismic graph without much success. Most sites, both official and alternative, seem to agree the largest activity is the debris impacting the ground but do not go on to say much more than that. I would be very interested in other interpretations of the data with particular emphasis on the reduced activity just before the 10s point and the series of eight larger spikes that follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t believe it is unreasonable to ‘expect’ something if a basic understanding is held of what the graph represents.

Perhaps you should take steps to gain that basic understanding before you take this any further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should take steps to gain that basic understanding before you take this any further.

I would be interested to hear your interpretation of the seismic data, flyingswan. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you'd also like to try and tell me how much more you know about my personal experiences than I do?

Pretend you know what really happened, since I was only there, and you weren't.

Your posts have become a sheer waste of time and space, so what's the harm if you add one more onto the smelly heap?

Yes, well, its is a matter of perspective, isn't it Turbs...?

Perhaps my recent posts towards you have been somewhat lacking intellectually, but that is just so that they match the kindergarten level yours have shown all along...

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be interested to hear your interpretation of the seismic data, flyingswan. :)

A seismograph is a mass and damper system. A disturbance causes the mass to vibrate and the damper reduces the vibrations over time. You cannot pick out individual cycles of the vibration and say that they are caused by separate disturbances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that 9-11 is an inside job. Iraq is the new American frontier. We're like a buncha ****in' cowboys over there.

I mean, it's pretty blatant that 9/11 was a set up.

But in knowing 9/11 was an inside job, what do you propose, we as a people do about this sh**?

This sh**'s gonna blow over one day, and I'm honestly worried about the climate of violence we'll be living under soon. We'll be living under Marshall Law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the official story, the collapses are one continuous movement, gaining momentum from the initiation – thus the supposed reason for minor resistance and near freefall. If this were the case, there should equally be continuous activity levels throughout the collapse (between the first and second red lines before debris begins impacting the ground). That the calm section, just prior to the 10s mark, coincides with the end of the upper block fall before increased activity resumes, appears indicative of a transition phase from one method of collapse to another.

And even if your interpretation was correct it still does not suggest any explosives. You don't actually know what the various peaks and flat areas relate to. As I mentioned, the first collapse is a far more random graph. Even in the second collapse graph there are numerous 'flat' points. For example, you interpret great meaning into the flat point at the 10s mark yet ingnore the flat section between your 7th and 8th spikes, or the randomness after your spikes. A building collapsing is an extremely chaotic event.

As demolition charges do not contain gallons of jet fuel and would not be at the building perimeter, there is no reason whatsoever they should be visually comparable to the airliner impacts. The visible squibs though could well be indicative of the pressure wave these charges create.

...

I am not suggesting general explosions; I am suggesting demolition charges with the force to cut the main columns of the core structure. Precisely how many were required I could only speculate on without knowing the full building details but the charges are not particularly large in relation to the column at all - see photograph here.

I wasn't trying to say your detonation charges would be as colourful as the jet liner balls of flames. I was saying a very large plane hitting into a building is a big thud. You're saying your explosives caused the same seimic scale as those impacts, whether that's eight big bangs or loads of other bangs that override the general rumbling of the building collapsing. But also you are saying that cutting charges are pretty small and they can cause one or two small 'squibs'. Basically you can say big, small, few, many - you can make up whatever you want.

Also I did not expect to find anything in the data at all indicative of controlled demolition. Realistically I looked at the evidence out of curiosity and with an open mind. It is not as though I have fabricated the points I raise above – the evidence is there for everyone to see.

I don't think you can truthfully say you've looked at the graphs with an open mind. You've repeatedly posted on how you believe the towers were CD so you do have pre-conceived opinions. The evidence to see is a graph of wobbley lines, nothing more. As I said, you're perfectly capable of reading into those wobbly lines whatever you want to, but ultimately it means no more than any other person with no training or expertise saying that that's exactly what they would expect the building collapse to look like without CD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A seismograph is a mass and damper system. A disturbance causes the mass to vibrate and the damper reduces the vibrations over time. You cannot pick out individual cycles of the vibration and say that they are caused by separate disturbances.

The above would be to say that the seismic data cannot be matched to individual observations in video evidence and for instance, that the building collapse is indiscernible from the debris impacting the ground. The graph though does show activity levels at a given time so I cannot agree the information is that useless.

Do you agree with the approximate positions of the lines I have inserted in the graph? If so, why is there a second of reduced vibration after the upper block has fallen through its height, followed by increased vibrations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even if your interpretation was correct it still does not suggest any explosives. You don't actually know what the various peaks and flat areas relate to. As I mentioned, the first collapse is a far more random graph. Even in the second collapse graph there are numerous 'flat' points. For example, you interpret great meaning into the flat point at the 10s mark yet ingnore the flat section between your 7th and 8th spikes, or the randomness after your spikes. A building collapsing is an extremely chaotic event.

By matching the timeline of the graph to video evidence it is possible to know what moments or events in the collapse the varying activity relates to. If my interpretation is correct, the momentum of the falling block was reduced before an event renewed the collapse with greater vigour.

The flat section between the 7th and 8th spikes is shorter, lasting perhaps less than half a second, and could be explained at that point through the controlled demolition having removed most of the resistance to the falling mass. The randomness after the spikes is where the demolition work would be over, with the remnants of the structure falling apart and the first debris randomly impacting the ground.

Regarding the collapse of WTC2, I wouldn’t say the reading is more random, though perhaps more confused before the main debris impacts the ground. I would think this due to the lower collapse initiation point therefore an increased time of the upper block fall, a reduced period of demolition charges and shorter duration before debris reaches the ground. I can see the same characteristics there of reduced activity midway through the collapse followed by greater activity.

I wasn't trying to say your detonation charges would be as colourful as the jet liner balls of flames. I was saying a very large plane hitting into a building is a big thud. You're saying your explosives caused the same seimic scale as those impacts, whether that's eight big bangs or loads of other bangs that override the general rumbling of the building collapsing. But also you are saying that cutting charges are pretty small and they can cause one or two small 'squibs'. Basically you can say big, small, few, many - you can make up whatever you want.

The severing of columns by the airliners should be approximate to the activity in the cutting of columns by demolition charges. The demolition charges would be audibly indiscernible during the building collapses. The amount of noise that any of this should create is not necessarily reflected in the seismic data.

I have been looking into the structure of the Tower cores and there were two large box columns central on each of the sides. As the squibs all occurred generally in the centre of the building face, it is likely demolition charges in that position that caused them.

I don't think you can truthfully say you've looked at the graphs with an open mind. You've repeatedly posted on how you believe the towers were CD so you do have pre-conceived opinions. The evidence to see is a graph of wobbley lines, nothing more. As I said, you're perfectly capable of reading into those wobbly lines whatever you want to, but ultimately it means no more than any other person with no training or expertise saying that that's exactly what they would expect the building collapse to look like without CD.

It is not a “graph of wobbly lines” (though the definition made me smile); it is a graph showing seismic activity throughout the duration of the collapses. Without being able to find a detailed analysis, I genuinely attempted to interpret the graph impartially and, after inserting the lines, noticed the areas I have highlighted. I was hoping that someone from an official story standpoint would attempt doing the same and suggest reasons in a ‘natural’ collapse for these areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.