your initial 1993 seismograph argument failed. your 2001 argument has also failed, as you've refused to produce any seismographs recording all the
pre collapse explosions corroborated by hundreds of witnesses on the ground. you have also refused to provide any seismographs for then the "jet fuel" explosions you mentioned
again, with your pathetic logic, no explosions existed at all. continue failing, kid.
The name-calling doesn't change the fact that your statements, per usual, make no sense.
1. Protec was operating portable field seismographs at constructions site in Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11, and these seismographs were recording round vibration throughout the time frame of the events at Ground Zero.
source
Read bold text. Inconveniently for you, Protec, who owned the seismographs, happens to be one of the largest and more respected companies in structural inspections, construction consulting, and vibration monitoring and prediction.
Yikes.
of course it has relevance. you are the one continuing with the seismograph argument, even after getting destroyed and proven dead wrong repeatedly. continue failing, kid.
It is sad that you really don't see how thousands of pounds of explosives are different than jet fuel igniting.
given the fact there are hundreds of corroborating witnesses, the us government is lying when they claim there is no audio / video evidence supporting a demolition theory. as we've seen in the audio in this thread alone, that claim is a blatant lie. continue failing, kid.
Except that for nearly every one you've presented, their testimony supports both hypothesis and the rest of the world's conclusions about what happened.
hundreds saw and heard these pre collapse explosions, yet there was never an official acknowledgement or search for anything out of the ordinary. can't find what you're not acknowledging and not looking for, eh? it's a given fact you refuse to acknowledge this simple concept. i love this quote:
Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.)
We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.
Interview, 10/03/01, New York Times
Thanks FDNY!
It is sort of damaging to your own credibility when you cite sources that say
but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.
Appear? So they could have been flashes and they could have been something else. Great. That's real conclusive.
Even if they were there, does this guy say anything about explosions? Nope.
Yet another red herring you've tossed out there with nothing behind it.
it is a given fact hundreds of testimonies, such as Gregory's, were never acknowledged. continue failing, jingle.
I actually have answered all your questions, something you refuse to do. Get off your high-horse.
nothing was taken out of context. you repeatedly lied and made the absurd claim there were no pre collapse explosions due to seismographs. of course i'm going to hammer home your idiocy. continue failing, kid.
Reading comprehension would really help your argument, but instead you're going to completely miss my point and pull words out of context and harp on them. I've been consistent in my stance, something you cannot say.
corroborating. eye. witness. testimony. proving. you. wrong. and. proving. the. us. government. is lying. when. they. state. there. were. no. audio. video. or. eyewitness. evidence. supporting. a. demolition. theory.
Find. Me. The. Bombs. And. Someone. Who. Saw. Them.
For the fiftieth time:
Almost every source you've cited thus far as being "proof" of a controlled demolition presents testimony that doesn't exclusively support your hypothesis.
Instead of digging deep, you scratch at the surface hoping that if you throw enough quotes at it, you'll be right. Unfortunately for you, you aren't and you continue to demonstrate a completely inability to comprehend what's read or to understand why your arguments make absolutely no sense.
edit:
proof of
explosions? something created the deep thunders. it sure as hell wasn't voices unless the speakers emitted sonic boom waves
as for proof of
explosives? i made no such claim. it is proof that evidence exists in support of a demolition theory, and it is proof the us government is lying when they claim there is no audio, visual, or eyewitness evidence.
Now it's a sonic boom?
Your evidence has so far been cherrypicked eye witness testimony that isn't conclusive to your story, heavily edited youtube videos, and... well... nothing. On the other hand, you've ignored reports from professionals and the evidence in front of your own eyes in the collapse of the buildings themselves.
given the fact that the
people speaking in this link on page 1 were far away from the microphone, what created the deep thunders before the penthouse collapse initiated? the same question was posed to elfenix. incoming dodge! can't use your "brushed up against the microphone" bullshit LOL!
My mention of the microphone bit actually wasn't from a video you posted, I got your post and someone else's confused... of course you couldn't even bother to read it so you didn't even realize I was talking about a news clip.
As for your evidence of deep thunders, sorry nobody else hears them. At all. If anything, the building collapses quietly and the men speaking in the foreground support that because, if there were really deep loud noises, they would have reacted in some measurable way, not just stood there.
edit: I listened a few more times and, sure enough, there is a noise at 11 seconds. It's pretty faint and it sure sounds like wind blowing against the microphone. If it isn't then I've gotta ask, are these explosions "sonic booms" (as you've described them) or whispers that are almost inaudible unless you're listening for them?
How do you square this video being "evidence" of your explosions when you've described them (and cited other evidence) of them being violent and enough that eye witnesses (like the guys in the camera) reported them (which these guys clearly didnt)?
If anything, the video you posted is a nice summary of your argument.
Anyway, that is a clip of WTC7 which I wasn't talking about, but in this carousel of red herrings, I assume that's where you want to head next.
[/quote]given the fact that this
audio/video previously held by NIST is now missing the penthouse collapse , was this the work of god? God's invisible hand removing the penthouse, and his sonic boom voice driving wtc7 to the ground?
[/quote]
I don't know anything about any supposed doctoring, all I see is an obviously doctored video on a truther youtube account. Unless you're going to provide any proof for those claims, this isn't even worth discussing.
I've removed everything else you've posted. as proven previously, you have continued to play dumb since the summer. most, if not all your pathetic points have been addressed here: (and tell me how many you played dumb in this previous post):
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30320856&postcount=1284
for LOL reference, the post where you contradicted yourself and subsequently never returned until months later:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30326773&postcount=1312
Sorry dude, I have a life to live outside of arguing with you on the internet. Life got busy, I stopped caring about your triviliaties and left it to a host of other guys who continued to where I had left off. Of course you're going to continue to twist and turn every little fact so that it fits into your narrow-minded predetermined view of what happened and how my actions "prove" that I was contradicted or owned or something.
I wasn't. I left you with a whole host of questions that you continue to dodge because you have no answers. You've got nothing. You fired your clip and missed and now you're just shooting blanks, posting the same incessant drivel over and over again.
Again, I've answered all your charges... which is why this conversation continues. You refuse to do the same for some pretty basic questions.
What is your explanation for seismographs located within Manhattan and Brooklyn being unable to detect the shaking that is visible on this camera?
Do you recognize the fact that your eye witness testimony does not exclusively support your own theory of what happened? Do you even begin to comprehend that it also fits the version of events that I have been putting forward?
Please address the fact that your eye witness testimony does not exclusively support your theory and acknowledge the fact that eye witness testimony, in any legal or non legal case, is NOT reliable.
Please address why Protec's engineeers, who had multiple seismographs located in Manhattan and Brooklyn detected the plane impacts and the subsquent collapses but failed to detect your mysterious shaking.
Why would the US Government TIP OFF news agencies prior to destroying WTC 7?
Find me an example of a piece of steel from WTC 1, 2, or 7 that was melted. For this game, you need to find steel that is entirely liquid (not just glowing) and has been tested and confirmed to be steel.
Either explain to me the NIST's collapse model or present your own
Why did the planes strike the towers? Why did the plane strike the pentagon? Why did the other plane crash? Did Osama cooperate with the US Government? -- What is YOUR story?
Read. My. Post. especially the parts concerning thermite and melted steel.
Please, please provide some evidence that links these reports to actual explosives, rather than simply self-referentially referring to them over and over again.
Who is part of your conspiracy and who isn't?
To this list, I'll happily add:
Find me video evidence of the actual explosions at ground zero.
Explain how any original video of the collapse shows that it is triggered from the top, not the bottom, and that there are no charges going off prior to the collapse.
Explain how Protec, who had the seismographs on the ground, also examined Ground Zero and have first-hand accounts (and professional opinions) that the towers were not brought down by explosives.
haha. you are crying about insults, after you were the first to initiate insults against other posters? if you want me to stop insulting you like the mental midget you are, get down on your knees, and publicly beg all the other posters you've insulted for forgiveness. get to it, kid.
good stuff.
As for the continued belittlement, it's getting old. It doesn't help your argument any and, maybe, if you spent half as much time trying to read what is actually written to you as you obviously do thinking up clever little plays on the name of everyone who defies you, you might have learned a thing or two.
I'm not interesting in being insulted or insulting you, why is it beyond your capacity to extend the same courtesy to me and the others who post here? Or do you really have that much of an inferiority complex?
Facebook
Twitter