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

  • 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

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?

Come on, think about it. Whoever is in charge of the buildings' service and maintenance decides who does or doesn't go into these areas.

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

Where do they mention that "engineers were looking at the evidence" in your link?

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

That's not what I said. There were numerous reports of explosions in the towers, which wasn't the case in previous high-rise fires, even in much more severe fires than in the towers.

But even more important, there was a massive explosion in the basement of one tower before the plane even hit the building. How can you explain that?

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

Part 1 of 7 (you'll also find links to Part 2 - 7 here)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDiL_q1m67k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Where do they mention that "engineers were looking at the evidence" in your link?

Turbs, Turbs, Turbs.... perhaps if you actually bothered to read the article, you'd have the answer for yourself... but that's not really your style, now, is it? Doing actual research just isn't as fun as believing every crackpot theory that comes along, is it? At least there's something you're an expert at... :rolleyes:

Here... I'll do your homework for you again...

"The core of what may become the cleanup master plan for the wrecked site in lower Manhattan was delivered to the city's Dept. of Design and Construction Sept. 22 by implosion consultant Controlled Demolition Inc., Phoenix, Md."

"CDI was initially retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc., one of the site's four main cleanup management contractors, to assess debris removal in its sector that includes the former Two WTC and several smaller buildings."

""I saw I-beams stacked six stories high," says Allen Morse, chief debris expert for the Army Corps of Engineers, a technical advisor to the Federal Emergency Management Agency"

"Business was slow at first as truckdrivers maneuvered through the site and city streets and had to pass muster with fbi officials checking for evidence."

"He adds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is "writing a plan" to manage hazardous waste recovered on site, including freon, fuel and biomedical waste. "When we run across it now, the stuff is being put in a holding area," he says."

So it seems that several experts were looking at the evidence in one capacity or another.

But even more important, there was a massive explosion in the basement of one tower before the plane even hit the building. How can you explain that?

And surely you have some sort of evidence to back this up, don't you? Again, I know that providing actual evidence really isn't your forté, but maybe you'll surprise us this time...? B)

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Construction.com brought to you by your corporate overlords!

ENTER the Mcgraw hills company... big money in train development and construction(1910), a union of hills, and mcgraw publishing also, now a mega-corporate family tree stretching from entertainment, big business, and UH OH politics! YAY!

And, many, many, many newspapers and other publications and websites.

Edited by Zaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Or the momentum is not being reduced, maybe it could be the peak of one event coinciding with the trough of another event to create a flat point which does not represent the choatic, violent nature of what is truely happening. Just another interpretation...

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.

See what I mean? You say your eight 'sharp, well spaced' spikes are indicative of explosives, I point out a flat point between seven and eight, so that part isn't sharp and well spaced and you make up a reason for it without feeling it detracts from your theory. Ask you about the part after your eighth spike and you wave it away like that's what you expect a falling building to look like. The WTC2 collapse graph doesn't look anything like what you say explosive demolition looks like or a falling building looks like and you make excuses and still it doesn't detract from your theory. You just point out bits you like and ignore bits you don't like to fit the graphs to your theory.

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.

I think you know what I meant. You don't know how to interpret seimograms, you have no technical expertise or experience. You don't know what the graphs should look like, you don't know what kind of peaks could possibley indicate explosives or not. Neither do I or, likely, anyone else on this forum. So it's all just guesswork and interpretation which could be completely wrong. Anyone from the official story standpoint could spend a lot of time and effort analysing the graphs, present their finding to you just for you to then say 'Nah, my explaination is better'. Given the fact both have equal value (i.e. virtually none), what would be the point.

My comment about your impartiality is due to your insistance on explosives and your "It now appears I can add seismic evidence as supportive of the third step." comment. The reality is nothing points (or, equally, does not point) to explosives, you've just decided it does because that's what you want to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even more important, there was a massive explosion in the basement of one tower before the plane even hit the building. How can you explain that?

Do you have the source for this, it's the first time I've heard this claim?

Why would they detonate the presumed pre-placed explosives prior to the plane hitting the tower? Why did the towers not collapse for a further hour? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Your lines seem reasonable, however you are reading a lot more information into the signal than is actually there. Because the seismograph is a vibrating system, a subsequent impact signal can either add to or subtract from the signal from an earlier impact, depending on how the timing of the impacts matches with the frequency of the seismograph. It's a similar phenomenon to the low-frequency "beats" you get with two sounds of similar frequency as they either reinforce or cancel each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, think about it. Whoever is in charge of the buildings' service and maintenance decides who does or doesn't go into these areas.

So you phone maintenance about a problem and the guy who shows up says "I can't go into the maintenance area of the building, only the new guys with special clearance can do that". Very plausible.

Where do they mention that "engineers were looking at the evidence" in your link?

Read the link.

That's not what I said. There were numerous reports of explosions in the towers, which wasn't the case in previous high-rise fires, even in much more severe fires than in the towers.

Certainly reported explosions in the Madrid fire:

http://newsfromrussia.com/accidents/2005/02/13/58231.html

But even more important, there was a massive explosion in the basement of one tower before the plane even hit the building. How can you explain that?

William Rodriguez has changed his story so often that he no longer knows when he is telling the truth:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

Part 1 of 7 (you'll also find links to Part 2 - 7 here)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDiL_q1m67k

Let me rephrase that. Have you got a link that does not require me to watch a lot of poor-quality video?

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Idiot Nation™ Inc.

Please proceed to the nearest 2 minutes hate station, you are under terrorist attack, and big brother is watching you, and 1984 started in 1943...

so, now that we can all agree we live in distorted twisted realities, where our cuboid television, with its cuboid endorsed mass media, all under 15 corporate partnerships and owned by an even smaller amount of bankers making up war to solve overpopulation because they use(and used) sex too exclusively to sell EVERYTHING WORLDWIDE.

Oh yes "the matrix" is real, in a metaphorical sense, where realities can be changed and the population can be swayed with minimal effort to see and hear exactly whatever you want them to hear and see in order to achieve their selfish goals. 9/11 was the "glitch" if you will, but it was an intended glitch... the culmination of its completion, if you didn't believe you were brainwashed beforehand, i think its probably too late... Even Mario Brothers had two giant smoldering towers in the "Alternate" (New York?) Reality.

Our leaders are complete psychopathic mass murderers, our government political system, and our mass media and entertainment industry are owned(in the end) by the same people who own the federal reserve and control the money of the rest of the world.

By mass media, i mean every single television channel, every radio station, every movie, every news station and Video Game(with the exception of actual public broadcast, and privately made films, etc.)

AHEM, an OBVIOUS propaganda technique, the truth.

Morpheus: Do you want to know what IT is? The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo.

-The Matrix

morpheus = transformation

neo = new

... ... ...

Movies, the Ultimate Propaganda...

And no, this is not BS, and the Illuminati are not hunting down the "lady in red" Angelina Jolie in a jungle while she tries to climb the pyramid to steal the capstone in a skintight "battle?!" suit thing...

They are laughing at you along with the other billions of people fooled by this ploy.

Indeed the entire world is falling apart, and a dark side is about to emerge as has not been seen in a long while, if you thought it was bad now be can only possibly be going farther.

Iran is america's next target, and then it will be time to initiate the religious war of Armageddon as they have "preshadowed" since ages past with the awe-insipiring brainwashing tool, the bible.

A masonic influence? surely not, especially if the 1611 edition KJV is one of their "sacred texts" And the guy is looking for a connection from Christ to pharaohs, because he is convinced(as masonry IS ancient Egyptian belief) that the pharaohs did have "gods blood" as can be seen in their depictions. They also had the lightbulb, and undoubtedly the Tesla Coil(or natural equivalent?) with various other interesting artifacts.

hope you all tear me to shreds now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the momentum is not being reduced, maybe it could be the peak of one event coinciding with the trough of another event to create a flat point which does not represent the choatic, violent nature of what is truely happening. Just another interpretation...

At last, a suggestion of some sort of alternative explanation. There are a number of reasons I do not find the interpretation to be reasonable. There is no reason two events in a building collapse should cancel each other out. If this was the case in a ‘natural’ continuous collapse, it would be realistic to expect a number of these flat areas throughout the duration. Also the coinciding of a peak and trough during a collapse would be down to random coincidence though, as it happens, the flat area which is unique throughout the collapse period, occurs at the specific point after the upper block has fallen through its height.

See what I mean? You say your eight 'sharp, well spaced' spikes are indicative of explosives, I point out a flat point between seven and eight, so that part isn't sharp and well spaced and you make up a reason for it without feeling it detracts from your theory. Ask you about the part after your eighth spike and you wave it away like that's what you expect a falling building to look like.

The calm point occurs specifically as the upper block has fallen through its height. The eight spikes show there was increased activity beginning after the fall of the upper block and calm point. After the eight spikes, the activity reduces back to initial collapse levels and combined with the first debris impacting the floor gives a more distorted reading. I did not ‘make up’ any of this - they are facts I cannot change or have control over.

Questions to be answered are: Why is there a calm point during collapse, specifically at the point where the upper block has fallen through its height? Why is there then increased activity following this calm point?

That my theory of the controlled demolition process is supported by the above events and effortlessly answers the questions along the way is another fact that just cannot be helped.

The WTC2 collapse graph doesn't look anything like what you say explosive demolition looks like or a falling building looks like and you make excuses and still it doesn't detract from your theory.

I am not saying every collapse or controlled demolition, even of equivalent buildings, should appear only one way, either visually or in seismic data. I am saying that the separate Tower collapses both show the features mentioned above. You obviously don’t see it but here is the graph for WTC2: -

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 observations were made through comparing the seismic data to
video evidence.

As with WTC1, there is a distinct flat or calm period I have marked out in blue. Again, this reading is specific to the point the upper block has fallen through its height, approximately 6 seconds after initiation, as can be confirmed in

video.

The calm point is then followed by increased activity during the rest of the building collapse - I have this time only been able to mark out 7 red dots. The reason these spikes are more distorted than in WTC1 is due to the fact the first debris more quickly reaches ground level after they begin. The reason there are less spikes than the 8 in WTC1 is due to the fact the lower block was shorter. For both Towers, dividing the number of floors up to the collapse initiation point by the number of spikes gives approximately 12 floors.

Both collapses show the following: -

  1. Seismic activity of the upper block fall
  2. A calm duration of approximately 1 second at the point the upper block has fallen through its height
  3. An increased activity following the calm point
As these events occur in both Towers, it cannot be random chance producing these readings at given points. The seismic data is directly linked to the characteristics of the collapses. Therefore there are specific reasons for these readings.

How the official story can under the above circumstances explain away the reduced activity calm points mid-collapse, followed by greater activity, I do not know.

I think you know what I meant. You don't know how to interpret seimograms, you have no technical expertise or experience. You don't know what the graphs should look like, you don't know what kind of peaks could possibley indicate explosives or not. Neither do I or, likely, anyone else on this forum.

Please don’t judge me based on your own admitted lack of understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your lines seem reasonable, however you are reading a lot more information into the signal than is actually there. Because the seismograph is a vibrating system, a subsequent impact signal can either add to or subtract from the signal from an earlier impact, depending on how the timing of the impacts matches with the frequency of the seismograph. It's a similar phenomenon to the low-frequency "beats" you get with two sounds of similar frequency as they either reinforce or cancel each other.

The separate vibrations you mention that may affect the activity levels, perhaps cancelling each other out, would seem unusual and is a situation relying on random chance - if you are correct, it could happen at any point during the collapses and perhaps multiple times.

As I have discussed above, the calm points, mid-collapse, occur only in the instant the upper block has fallen through its height. After this point there is increased activity for both Towers. This is not random chance and actually indicates a change in the building collapse progression. Why there should be such a sudden and noticeable change in a ‘natural’ progressive collapse is not clear. Why there should be such a change in my controlled demolition theory is very clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read the entire thread. I would have been very entertaining except that it was a little sad that some people actually believe this nonsense. I think the title of the page linked to in this quote sums it all up completely:

9/11 for dummies

Not that I believe it, but I could understand believing theories about the government knowing about the attacks in advance or even in some way being responsible for them. To claim that planes didn't even hit the buildings and not believing that hijackers could take control of the planes is just ridiculous. I could go on and show how stupid almost every claim made in the thread so far is, but what would be the point - people who believe this lunacy in the first place could probably never be convinced, no matter how much evidence they see to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zaus, I believe in this aswell. I have heard a lot about this topic about how the twin towers went down.

I know that that was all the governments little plan and for some support, people who never even met each other, overheard a government offical say, "It's time, take them down," then there they went down perfect enough not to destroy to much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that that was all the governments little plan and for some support, people who never even met each other, overheard a government offical say, "It's time, take them down," then there they went down perfect enough not to destroy to much.

I Googled the quote you give above and just got a lot of results referring to Xmas decorations. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turbs, Turbs, Turbs.... perhaps if you actually bothered to read the article, you'd have the answer for yourself... but that's not really your style, now, is it? Doing actual research just isn't as fun as believing every crackpot theory that comes along, is it? At least there's something you're an expert at... :rolleyes:

Here... I'll do your homework for you again...

"The core of what may become the cleanup master plan for the wrecked site in lower Manhattan was delivered to the city's Dept. of Design and Construction Sept. 22 by implosion consultant Controlled Demolition Inc., Phoenix, Md."

"CDI was initially retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc., one of the site's four main cleanup management contractors, to assess debris removal in its sector that includes the former Two WTC and several smaller buildings."

""I saw I-beams stacked six stories high," says Allen Morse, chief debris expert for the Army Corps of Engineers, a technical advisor to the Federal Emergency Management Agency"

"Business was slow at first as truckdrivers maneuvered through the site and city streets and had to pass muster with fbi officials checking for evidence."

"He adds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is "writing a plan" to manage hazardous waste recovered on site, including freon, fuel and biomedical waste. "When we run across it now, the stuff is being put in a holding area," he says."

So it seems that several experts were looking at the evidence in one capacity or another.

Are you serious?

How does debris removal by a demolition company remotely compare to a forensic / scientific analysis of the evidence by qualified experts?

It doesn't.

And that's all they did at Ground Zero - debris removal.

Oh, except for the "fbi officials checking for evidence"? You're actually trying to claim that this was some sort of inspection of the steel for possible recovery and scientific analysis?

By the FBI?

And what did the FBI do, exactly? Jump on the back of the trucks, and rummage through 5 to 10 tons of steel by hand, looking for anything they might find unusual?

linked-image

linked-image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you phone maintenance about a problem and the guy who shows up says "I can't go into the maintenance area of the building, only the new guys with special clearance can do that". Very plausible.

Such logic! A maintenance worker shows up on the 78th floor just to tell you he can't help. "Only the new guys are allowed to do that".

That's right. His boss told him to do that. Right after his boss said that he wasn't allowed to go into the restricted areas anymore, because he'd hired some new guys for that.

Hilarious.

Read the link.

I did. Read my response.

William Rodriguez has changed his story so often that he no longer knows when he is telling the truth:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

Your link is to a smear propaganda piece. I've discussed it elsewhere at length, and it's pure garbage.

Let me rephrase that. Have you got a link that does not require me to watch a lot of poor-quality video?

It's far better quality than the crap article by Mark Roberts you linked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Idiot Nation™ Inc.

Please proceed to the nearest 2 minutes hate station, you are under terrorist attack, and big brother is watching you, and 1984 started in 1943...

so, now that we can all agree we live in distorted twisted realities, where our cuboid television, with its cuboid endorsed mass media, all under 15 corporate partnerships and owned by an even smaller amount of bankers making up war to solve overpopulation because they use(and used) sex too exclusively to sell EVERYTHING WORLDWIDE.

Oh yes "the matrix" is real, in a metaphorical sense, where realities can be changed and the population can be swayed with minimal effort to see and hear exactly whatever you want them to hear and see in order to achieve their selfish goals. 9/11 was the "glitch" if you will, but it was an intended glitch... the culmination of its completion, if you didn't believe you were brainwashed beforehand, i think its probably too late... Even Mario Brothers had two giant smoldering towers in the "Alternate" (New York?) Reality.

Our leaders are complete psychopathic mass murderers, our government political system, and our mass media and entertainment industry are owned(in the end) by the same people who own the federal reserve and control the money of the rest of the world.

By mass media, i mean every single television channel, every radio station, every movie, every news station and Video Game(with the exception of actual public broadcast, and privately made films, etc.)

AHEM, an OBVIOUS propaganda technique, the truth.

Morpheus: Do you want to know what IT is? The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo.

-The Matrix

morpheus = transformation

neo = new

... ... ...

Movies, the Ultimate Propaganda...

And no, this is not BS, and the Illuminati are not hunting down the "lady in red" Angelina Jolie in a jungle while she tries to climb the pyramid to steal the capstone in a skintight "battle?!" suit thing...

They are laughing at you along with the other billions of people fooled by this ploy.

Indeed the entire world is falling apart, and a dark side is about to emerge as has not been seen in a long while, if you thought it was bad now be can only possibly be going farther.

Iran is america's next target, and then it will be time to initiate the religious war of Armageddon as they have "preshadowed" since ages past with the awe-insipiring brainwashing tool, the bible.

A masonic influence? surely not, especially if the 1611 edition KJV is one of their "sacred texts" And the guy is looking for a connection from Christ to pharaohs, because he is convinced(as masonry IS ancient Egyptian belief) that the pharaohs did have "gods blood" as can be seen in their depictions. They also had the lightbulb, and undoubtedly the Tesla Coil(or natural equivalent?) with various other interesting artifacts.

hope you all tear me to shreds now.

Still wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such logic! A maintenance worker shows up on the 78th floor just to tell you he can't help. "Only the new guys are allowed to do that".

That's right. His boss told him to do that. Right after his boss said that he wasn't allowed to go into the restricted areas anymore, because he'd hired some new guys for that.

Hilarious.

I did. Read my response.

Your link is to a smear propaganda piece. I've discussed it elsewhere at length, and it's pure garbage.

It's far better quality than the crap article by Mark Roberts you linked.

The article by Gravy is crap? The you will have no problem showing where is is wrong... Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still wrong.

The Egyptian Lightbulb, infact it was massive, and had NO WIRES...

There is only one way i know of that can do this, but then again the pyramids of giza were giant calendars, clocks, pinpoints the sun, moon, and itself on the surface,

And, they are also perfectly aligned to the equator.

Now do you understand why you know nothing? Because until you understand that(as every great thinking man has always said) the more you know, the more things you can be sure you have no clue about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read the entire thread. I would have been very entertaining except that it was a little sad that some people actually believe this nonsense. I think the title of the page linked to in this quote sums it all up completely:

9/11 for dummies

Not that I believe it, but I could understand believing theories about the government knowing about the attacks in advance or even in some way being responsible for them. To claim that planes didn't even hit the buildings and not believing that hijackers could take control of the planes is just ridiculous. I could go on and show how stupid almost every claim made in the thread so far is, but what would be the point - people who believe this lunacy in the first place could probably never be convinced, no matter how much evidence they see to the contrary.

Have you ever seen physical objects defy the laws of physics? no.

Non-Physical objects however, are not as inclined to look real. There is a mass of evidence supporting this theory, and if it is true that this was the Elite's celebration of complete brainwashing of the people of america, then it makes perfect sense...

You are the crazed insane lunatic who cannot see for himself what has flashed before his eyes. The only reason you even believe airplanes hit the towers is because you watched it on TV.

You watched it, you were shown impossible things, non-existent things, "evidence" was fabricated, just as even the video's were fabricated. Do you even remember the two towers LIVE shots?

Bad CGI animation and Bad Inconsistent CGI planes. Some black, some WHITE, some other off color, every video's coloration is r******ed. These are paid professional CAMERA MEN they really should know how to white balance.

3000 people see a bomb go off, and no plane. atleast 1 billion people are fooled into thinking it was planes... Which do you REALLY think the truth is? Keep in mind the "vaporized" plane in shanksville. The evidence against one hijacker was ON THE STREET AFTER THE EXPLOSION... and the hijacker WAS ALIVE... HE WAS ALIVE... HE DIDN'T DO ISHT. Keep also in mind the obvious disinfo tactic from the beginning, the "military plane" with no windows Then keep in mind you are expected to believe on top of all of this, with vast amounts of missing evidence, that 3 steel buildings(they are made with airplane collision in mind, and can probably take 3-4 impacts) that burned for 4 hours each begin an "initiation of collapse" followed by "global collapse".

WHAT ARE YOU BASING YOUR BELIEFS OFF OF?!?!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The separate vibrations you mention that may affect the activity levels, perhaps cancelling each other out, would seem unusual and is a situation relying on random chance - if you are correct, it could happen at any point during the collapses and perhaps multiple times.

As I have discussed above, the calm points, mid-collapse, occur only in the instant the upper block has fallen through its height. After this point there is increased activity for both Towers. This is not random chance and actually indicates a change in the building collapse progression. Why there should be such a sudden and noticeable change in a ‘natural’ progressive collapse is not clear. Why there should be such a change in my controlled demolition theory is very clear.

What don't you understand about "reading more into the graph than is actually there"? You cannot pick out individual swings and link them to specific events. All you can do is take the amplitude averaged over several swings. This means that all you can get out of the graph is a gradual build-up as the building collapses, then a big increase as pieces hit the ground.

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such logic! A maintenance worker shows up on the 78th floor just to tell you he can't help. "Only the new guys are allowed to do that".

That's right. His boss told him to do that. Right after his boss said that he wasn't allowed to go into the restricted areas anymore, because he'd hired some new guys for that.

Hilarious.

Yes, hilarious, but that's the sort of thing that would be happening with your scenario, unless they replaced the entire maintenance staff with conspirators in one go.

I did. Read my response.

I did. You appear to believe that CD experts would be all over a CD site without recognising it for what it was. More hilarity.

Your link is to a smear propaganda piece. I've discussed it elsewhere at length, and it's pure garbage.

Link? On second thoughts, don't bother. The last thing I need is more of your warped view of how the world works. Page after page of the Apollo dust argument was bad enough.

It's far better quality than the crap article by Mark Roberts you linked.

Is that a no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At last, a suggestion of some sort of alternative explanation. There are a number of reasons I do not find the interpretation to be reasonable. There is no reason two events in a building collapse should cancel each other out. If this was the case in a ‘natural’ continuous collapse, it would be realistic to expect a number of these flat areas throughout the duration. Also the coinciding of a peak and trough during a collapse would be down to random coincidence though, as it happens, the flat area which is unique throughout the collapse period, occurs at the specific point after the upper block has fallen through its height.

What did I say in my previous post? Oh yeah "Anyone from the official story standpoint could spend a lot of time and effort analysing the graphs, present their finding to you just for you to then say 'Nah, my explaination is better'." Admittedly it's not like I spent a lot of time and effort, but that's pretty much why.

If your flat point coincides with the end of the top of the building collapsing and the start of the main collapse then why would there have to be a number of flat points, why would the flat point have to be random coincidence? The top of the building collapses and produces a rumble, the main building is overcome by the weight of the top, starts to stress and collapses. The flat point represents interference between two actions - the rumble of the top of the building and the rumble of the start of the rest of the building collapse - which explains why it appears on both graphs. I'm not saying this intepretation is correct, but it is an interpretation that's just as right/wrong/provable/unprovable as yours.

All you've done is calculate approximate timings for the top of building collapse, the rest of building collapse and parts of building hitting the ground. You've then interpreted why those parts look like they do. You're free to do so, but it's not evidence of anything, just opinion. You're not intereprting data from a position of knowledge, experience or understanding. You're looking at the graphs, finding certain peaks where you can make up a story to fit your CD view and waving away other parts. If you don't give quantitive reasoning no one can prove you are wrong but equally you can't prove you are right.

Please don’t judge me based on your own admitted lack of understanding.

A fine display of arrogance and ego there. Let's have a look at my statement - "You don't know how to interpret seimograms, you have no technical expertise or experience." So am I wrong there - are you trained on interpreting seismograms, some kind of geoscience degree you've not mentioned so far? Unless you do, my statement was correct. Next part: You don't know what the graphs should look like, you don't know what kind of peaks could possibley indicate explosives or not. Again, do you have any experience? Have you done a lot of work investigating normal earthquake seismograms or seismograms from previous, known, controlled demolition? Want to point me to any technical paper on how to define explosive peaks in building collapses that you've been referencing? Because unless you have, again, my statement is correct. Next part (including the bit you didn't quote): "Neither do I or, likely, anyone else on this forum. So it's all just guesswork and interpretation which could be completely wrong." Yep, I'm admitting my 'lack of understanding'. Not quite sure where you have displayed your experience and expertise. Not sure where you've displayed anything other than personal interpretation.

I'm pretty sure on a discussion forum one person with no relevant skills, experience or training is allowed to 'judge' the personal opinion of another person with equally no relevant skills, experience or training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

morpheus = transformation

neo = new

Morpheus actually means sleep. If you're going to use a phrase from a film to back up your idiotic ideas you could at least get the reference right.

As for this whole almost offensive 9/11 crap:

WHICH IS THE MOST LIKELY:

1. That terrorists hijaked two planes and flew them into a building

2. That a government wuold wilfully kill 3000 of its own citizens simply to declare war on a country who provides it with less that 1% of its oil.

I know which is more likely.

Stupid discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did have flight training, they went to flight schools. Their membership and hours are all logged at those flight schools

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.