paimei01 said:Yossarian I want a link from that site which says what you just said
And from the first result in the google search:paimei01 said:There is a lot of seismic evidence. Look here
http://www.google.ro/search?hl=ro&q=wtc+seismic+evidence&meta=
The fact that the largest movement is followed by smaller movement has been cited as evidence that bombs, detonated at the starts of the collapses, generated the large movement, and that the debris impacting the ground contributed to the smaller subsequent movement. However, bombs, if detonated underground, would have generated strong P waves in addition to S waves. The fact that only strong S waves were reported is consistent with the theory that the largest movement was caused by building remains hitting the ground.
Instead of posting up an endless succession of links, why don't you deliver your critique on the implosionworld research, citing credible, independent sources. Please explain - in as much detail as you like - why these leading experts in demolition are completely wrong and you are right.paimei01 said:There is a lot of seismic evidence. Look here
paimei01 said:Send me a link with what he believes. Here is James Fetzer speaking, it's a link from http://911scholars.org/
Do some fucking proper research. Oh, and look up the word "credible" in a dictionary.paimei01 said:Send me a link with what he believes. Here is James Fetzer speaking, it's a link from http://911scholars.org/
Here's a link for you - watch the fucking nutcase babble on about space beams here:paimei01 said:Send me a link with what he believes. Here is James Fetzer speaking, it's a link from http://911scholars.org/
This seems to be the only possible reason why the buildings fell - it is pretty much agreed on all sides I think that fire could not have had this effect - the official report is struggling precisely with this point.editor said:Would those same buildings have been struck with almighty chunks of one of the world's highest buildings collapsing catastrophically beforehand?
paimei01 said:I said : steel is stronger than concrete.
They aren't interested in the truth just the 'truth' that backs up their bonkers theories.editor said:Or don't you want to find out the truth?
OK, let's put it another way. Seeing as it would take - literally - thousands of explosives charges carefully placed next to stripped down beams to create a 'perfect demolition,' why do you think no one saw a thing?niksativa said:As I said before there just isnt the evidence to prove it either way - doubts remain.
Space beams, that to achieve the effects that are claimed, would have had to have given everybody in Lower Manhatten radiation sickness. Any signs of that, no...editor said:Here's a link for you - watch the fucking nutcase babble on about space beams here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=646337772656177512
Listen to this fucking nutcase fom that vid link:MikeMcc said:Space beams, that to achieve the effects that are claimed, would have had to have given everybody in Lower Manhatten radiation sickness. Any signs of that, no...
The only beam weapons capable of focusing such an intense beam in a small area such as that would be an X-ray laser, which requires a nuke to provide the power. An nuke explosions, that will be a no then... EMP? No....
Excellent, yes the 911 Eyewitness shows helicopters flying over the building just immediately before their collapse.The siquence is that as the helicopters dissapear into the thick smoke and can not be fully seen, bright blue white flases of light, pulses of light eminate from the bottom of the helicopters. Then the helicopters move off, and then very rapidly the buldings collapse, top down.
That wouldn't be the xenon strobe that's fitted to all aircraft would it? Usually one underneath and one on top.editor said:Listen to this fucking nutcase fom that vid link:
bright blue white flases of light, pulses of light eminate from the bottom of the helicopters.
guinnessdrinker said:just like you.....
Barking_Mad said:Why?
paimei01 said:What is with the seismological findigs ? There was no big explosion to create seismic findings before it collapsed. Where are those findings ?
Yossarian I want a link from that site which says what you just said
kyser_soze said:paimei - while I appreciate that you won't believe a word of the link I'm suggesting you read, this was written by ACTUAL experts on demolition:
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf
I talked about this in posts #224 and #233 MikeMcc.MikeMcc said:Of course, nobody thought it was going to collapse...
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...igro_Daniel.txt
[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
[Firehouse Magazine, 4/02]
[Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
[Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/htm...yan_William.txt
This lot would probably make quite painful reading for you Jazz, so you will probably ignore it:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_01.html
So the USG was prepared to kill 3000+ people including firemen in the 2 towers but not prepared to kill a few more firemen in WTC7.Jazzz said:They wanted as little attention as possible attracted to the bizarre collapse so this meant getting all human interest stories out of the way, everyone evacuated.
This is exactly the point, and I've linked to the videos myself: no-one could possibly have predicted the collapse of WTC7, and still no-one has much of an idea why it came down even now, yet incredibly everyone was expecting it at the time, and the collapse even got announced on official wires before it happened. This is because people were told it was coming down. They wanted as little attention as possible attracted to the bizarre collapse so this meant getting all human interest stories out of the way, everyone evacuated.
Here's the bottom line of that document:aylee said:That's a very interesting paper, written in commendably plain English. I await the response ...
"We do not know exactly how or why WTC7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here."
is loaded speculation, especially considering they have gone out of their way not to hypothesize about how this may have happened. If there is a "possibility" then what was it? Nope, they wont give it - and quite right too."all we can offer is that [...] available data doesnt rule out the possibility of the building collapsing as a result of the strcutural conditions laid out above"
I couldnt agree more - for now no one knows for sure."We do not know exactly how or why WTC7 fell when it did, and we decline to hypothesize here."
How can anyone know exactly what hit the building? Without knowing what it was that hit it, what size it was, what it weighed and how it was constructed it is going to be nigh on impossible to do a computer model to work out how this affected the structural integrity of the building.niksativa said:But they do not provide evidence that the building was damaged enough for it to collaspe in the way that it did.
Apart from Jazzz.Yes it did take some damage - all are agreed on that
The damage was from the 18th floor all the way to ground level. What about the dirty great big chunk taken out of one side of the building shown in editors photo?They mention damage on the corner of the 18th to 20th floor - but it is agreed on all sides that this would not have been sufficient in and of itself to cause the building to collapse in the manner that it did.