Oh dear. You didn't just try to reframe the issue to your advantage, did you? The issue isn't "explosions/bombs", as if they're the same thing. Something can sound like an explosion but not be a bomb.Originally Posted by lee h oswald
Oh dear. You didn't just try to reframe the issue to your advantage, did you? The issue isn't "explosions/bombs", as if they're the same thing. Something can sound like an explosion but not be a bomb.
What "process of elimination"?
Video footage shows two commercial aircraft crashing into the sides of the buildings, releasing tens of thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel into the structures. The same video evidence fails to show any signs of explosives having been used.
Should we test for flooding too? How about earthquakes? Maybe the wind blew them down. Maybe a meteor entered the atmosphere and dropped the buildings. Where was King Kong that day?
Sounds more like you're in the process of denying the obvious.
LOL! Oooh crap - coffee out the nose! Sorry, had to chime in! LOL!
Nighthawk, excellent point.Except someone might ask for the samples that were used to test and retest them. . . .or ask for the chain of custody for the samples or God forbid ask the testers to testify. . . .etc . . .
George B, if 9/11 was a conspiracy, it would involve tens of thousands of people to be in on the plot and every one of those thousands of people to have remained perfectly silent ever since that day.
Surely those in power with the ability to keep tens of thousands of co-conspirators silent, would be able to produce fake samples to be handed out to the public, fake chain of custody evidence and not think twice about committing perjury on the witness stand.
1) Testing modalities and capabilities change all the time. . . Once undetectable items become identifiable . . .there need not be a conspiracy just new information to be discovered . . .
2) History has many examples of covert operations involving thousands of people keeping quiet for patriotic or intimidation reasons. . .
3) Criminals always wish to limit exposure. . . If samples could be discovered to be fake in the future why risk it. . . Don't do the tests from the beginning. . . And steamroll the public into believing it wasn't necessary. . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Please never become a criminal investigator, arson investigator, or accident investigator. . . That is not your talent. . .
testing for explosives in no way was exceptional, a waste of time or money. . . .we are talking about the crime of the century. . . A reasonable, rational person especially an investigator would have done so in my opinion especially in view of the recent history of the WTC. . . .1993 bombing. . ..
What if additional explosives or accelerants had been placed on the aircraft to increase the effects . . .would you not want to know?????
What if coconspirators with the high jackers had placed explosives in the towers. . . .???. . . Would you not want to know. . . .???
Last edited by George B; April 16th, 2012 at 08:43 AM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
lee h oswald (April 16th, 2012)
Originally Posted by Mick
JFK's head appeared to explode. Did they test that for explosives?
If such ordnance had been known to exist (exploding rounds)and available to an assassin . . . Such testing would have been prudent . . .
Last edited by George B; April 16th, 2012 at 08:52 AM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
My, what busy bees you've been.
Evening all. Here's one for Mick - you said you'd listen to one person who had the relevant experience - and that you'd check their maths. No maths to check, but here's a demolition professional being shown wtc7 for the first time. His name was Danny, he was Dutch, he died in a car crash after his car accelerated into a tree, so unfortunately you can't correspond with him any more; not unless you know a good medium.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA
No actually, if you actually read it you'll find that was always the crux of the point. And you're right! The issue isn't "explosions/bombs", as if they're the same thing. Something can sound like an explosion but not be a bomb. No-one disputes that, least of all me - and if I did then show me where please. The issue was if there were or were not eyewitness accounts of explosions/bombs. And there were.Oh dear. You didn't just try to reframe the issue to your advantage, did you? The issue isn't "explosions/bombs", as if they're the same thing. Something can sound like an explosion but not be a bomb.
Are you serious?
How come we don't hear or see any "bombs" in this video?
Yes: Would you not want to know?
In Danny's office? Or you want bomb sounds on a wtc7 video? Is that what you're asking for?
Careful, you'll do yourself a mischief stretching your tongue like that.
There's no maths. He's not doing any math. He's just saying it looks like a controlled demolition, which in that video is does.
Show me on qualified person who has read the WTC7 NIST report, and done the math to show it is wrong, and has the math to support an alternate explanation.
Here is an analysis from a demolition expert who was actually on site in the weeks following the event and inspected actual debris.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf
Any thoughts Lee?
Mick (April 16th, 2012)
There's no math? That's why I saidWe have strange ways us conspiracy theorists.'No maths to check'.
I can do twice as good as one, just for starters. Surely you've heard of Stephen Jones? Physics man, Brigham Young University? Or Ryan, the former site manager at Underwriters Lab? the guy who went to his management after reviewing tests on wtc samples and said: the words don't match the music... There's two to start with.
I'm asking for a domain expert who has done the math, not some expert on fusion and Mormon archeology (Stephen Jones), or and expert on whatever Kevin R. Ryan did at UL (chemist?).
Where's the math? A bunch of clever people saying "look like demolition to me" is pretty pointless, as they are in the vast majority, and all the people who have actually done the math have come the opposite conclusion.
When you say the NIST WTC7 Report, which the are you talking about?
I'd stop shouting about 'math' if I were you, I haven't seen much from you and it doesn't appear to have done you too well in seeing a rounded view of the issue. Anyway - what 'math' are you talking about, seeing as you keep mentioning it?
Ah, so Kevin Ryan was an expert at testing drinking water?
(page is titled "UL Executive Blows Whistle")
- Kevin Ryan was Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana (www.ehl.cc) at the time he wrote the letter. He was fired shortly after writing the letter.
- EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (www.ul.com).
Environmental Health Laboratories is a company, which offers laboratory facilities for chemical and microbiological analyses of drinking water. It helps public water supplies comply with Safe Drinking Water Act regulations and assists environmental professionals in understanding changes in the industry
Did you read the account of the demolition expert who was actually there, and not just reacting to a 15 second video clip about an event he knew nothing about?
http://www.implosionworld.com/Articl...09-8-06%20.pdf
An analysis of what happened, based on the known variable. Like what would probably happen given the various scenarios for impact damage and fires.
If you don't like math, then maybe you can find someone with tall building demolition experience, who has read the NIST report, and who will give a simple verbal explanation of why explosives must have been used?
And some recoding of the explosion would be nice. Something that matches actual demolition charges.
Lee, correct me if I'm wrong, but (based on your perception of the dustification of the concrete) I take it you don't hold much stock with the nano-thermite explanation? You prefer large amounts of conventional explosives? Or both?
Math?
2+1=3
All the laws of maths and all previous experience and observation tells us this sum is correct, it's always looked like that.
1. WTC7 looked exactly like a controlled demolition; clean implosion, out with the columns, bottom-first classic demo. It will always look like that.
2. The towers, two extraordinary structures - totally destroyed by a completley different system to 7wtc. Erupted; dissociated; split asunder; reduced in extremis. It'll always look like that
2+1 = 3 in one day and you brush it off with NIST? NIST? But everything is lovely and normal, yes?
Last edited by lee h oswald; April 16th, 2012 at 01:05 PM.
And you are an expert at? Anything to shoot the messenger unless it's an official messenger - should tests for explosives be made in such circumstances as 911? As part of a process of elimination? You still say no?
I have
Seems to be a well written document. . . .my issues with this unauthorized, self-motivated investigation is why I have not seen it before . . . Some points are well made . . . He seems to have knowledge no one else has published in one place before to my knowledge. I will have to analyze this paper further, I have seen contradictory assertions made on
sound and seismic analysis as well as remote temperature sensing . . . Will take some time to run these down . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
Why did the Penthouse fall first then?
Experts agree that the collapses are explained by known events. Your incredulity is understandable, but it's still just your incredulity.
Well?
Perhaps because it was only written in 2006? Perhaps you don't look at debunking sites?
There's a simpler one-page version on their web site:
http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm
Here's a copy-and-pasteable version
Implosionworld-wtc.pdf
NCSTAR 1A, Nov 2008
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publi...?pub_id=861610
Where the foundation of the building comes into contact with the bedrock it is anchored; demolition like wtc7 requires these anchors to be severed just before the columns are destroyed - the result is what you've seen every time you watch a controlled demolition of that type, without exception - are you're saying that this is the event which falsifies all that?
And how about answering a question or even two? Here's one: Should explosives have been tested for on 911 and if not why not?
The following is a simplified sound analysis. . . If accurate would seem to indicate significant sound generation from the towers prior to the first collapse . . . structural failures or explosions???
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
How would it falsify that? It superficially resembles a controlled demolition, but even a cursory examination tells you it's not. No explosions for a start.
I asked you why the penthouse fell first.
I have no objection to them being tested for. But I see no reason to test for them. There was nothing that sounded like a demolition charge. Like these:
No, it indicates the microphone recorded something, it gives no indication how loud it actually was. Have you ever touched or breathed on a mic? You get the same noise.
Now if there were synchronized noises from two separate locations, that would be something.
Please see 2:37 mark through 3:20 on this video . . . representing multiple sources for explosion signatures on analysis . . . first building fell at mark 7:40 . . .
Last edited by George B; April 16th, 2012 at 02:18 PM.
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
What are the two sources of the same sound?
Why don't the videos recorded in the city, close to the towers, have any explosions? Listen to this, very good audio - you can hear the tower collapsing. But no explosions.
This does NOT match the Hoboken audio - which suggests the Hoboken audio is recording some more localized noise.
The narrator mentions in the segment I referred to. . . that other recordings of the same time from different sources showed similar or identical sounds on analysis . . .
The only thing guaranteed in life is deception. . . everything else is optional . . . George B
So why not show it? Just put the spectrum analysis side by side. You'll get a fingerprint - plus the relative volumes and time differential will let you triangulate it.
But that's rather a moot point, as there's no explosion sounds in close-up video, like the one above.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks