I found the missing Jolt.

[skyeagle409]

With all due respect the camera is very far from the tower. In fact you hear nothing of the collapse in that clip and surely it was not silent.

Explosives, when detonated, make a lot of noise that can be heard many miles away and I know that from experience.

 

[rwguinn]

I'm beginning to lean toward a new investigation, myself
But!
The focus of that investigation will be "Why is it that Tony Szamboti, False Flag, and their ilk, who have such intimate knowledge of the highly classified 'Hush-a-Boom' Extreme High Efficiency Explosive, and the way they were utilized on 9-11-2001, are still vertical and looking at the green side of the grass after divulging that knowledge?"
I believe they may have been involved in the planning and execution of the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, as well as the deaths and destruction of 4 air crews, several hundred civilians, and 4 very valuable aircraft

 

[ozeco41]

Bring on a New Investigation

I'm beginning to lean toward a new investigation, myself...

So am I - I've suggested what I think are good reasons for a new investigation several times over the past few months.

The most recent was this post on 30 May 2016

Like you I have a mixture of both serious intent and light relief comedy in my reasoning.

The more serious side is that putting T Szamboti, R Gage et al "on the stand" under oath and subject to cross-examination would destroy their nonsense claims and any remnants of credibility they may have. Sure they would keep on lying after the event but the claims would have been destroyed once and for all in an undeniably legitimate process and venue.

Hence my repeated advice to T Sz that he read the transcript of M Behe's testimony as a witness in Kitzmiller v Dover The cross examination was not a pretty sight - and the shredding of the credibility of a creationist lying for his version of God should be a salutary lesson for any truther prepared to continue lying for his version of truth.

Meanwhile I like your "light hearted" suggested reasons:

But!
The focus of that investigation will be "Why is it that Tony Szamboti, False Flag, and their ilk, who have such intimate knowledge of the highly classified 'Hush-a-Boom' Extreme High Efficiency Explosive, and the way they were utilized on 9-11-2001, are still vertical and looking at the green side of the grass after divulging that knowledge?"
I believe they may have been involved in the planning and execution of the destruction of the World Trade Center complex, as well as the deaths and destruction of 4 air crews, several hundred civilians, and 4 very valuable aircraft

My pragmatic perspective is that we will never see such a scenario - an investigation with Szamboti, Gage et al "on the stand". Even they must realise that it would not gain anything for them.

I wouldn't even put FF and his current contemporaries in the same ranking.

BUT - Debunkers - why not join with rwguinn and ozeco41 in a united call for a "New Investigation"?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Bring on a New Investigation


So am I - I've suggested what I think are good reasons for a new investigation several times over the past few months.

The most recent was this post on 30 May 2016

Like you I have a mixture of both serious intent and light relief comedy in my reasoning.

The more serious side is that putting T Szamboti, R Gage et al "on the stand" under oath and subject to cross-examination would destroy their nonsense claims and any remnants of credibility they may have. Sure they would keep on lying after the event but the claims would have been destroyed once and for all in an undeniably legitimate process and venue.

Hence my repeated advice to T Sz that he read the transcript of M Behe's testimony as a witness in Kitzmiller v Dover The cross examination was not a pretty sight - and the shredding of the credibility of a creationist lying for his version of God should be a salutary lesson for any truther prepared to continue lying for his version of truth.

Meanwhile I like your "light hearted" suggested reasons:


My pragmatic perspective is that we will never see such a scenario - an investigation with Szamboti, Gage et al "on the stand". Even they must realise that it would not gain anything for them.

I wouldn't even put FF and his current contemporaries in the same ranking.

BUT - Debunkers - why not join with rwguinn and ozeco41 in a united call for a "New Investigation"?

I am not opposed to a new investigation, of the mental disorder that is trutherism.

 

[skyeagle409]

There was no CD involving the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

First of all, the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 initiated at the impact points, yet there were no secondary explosions is either case. That fact alone dismiss the CD theory.

Secondly, no tell-tale signals were detected by seismic monitors that would have indicated the use of explosives.

Thirdly, there was no sound of explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed

Fourthly, no evidence of demolition hardware was ever found. In other words, there is no evidence that explosives were used.

 

[ozeco41]

I am not opposed to a new investigation, of the mental disorder that is trutherism.

I would oppose a "New Investigation" based on the pre-emptive assumption that those involved suffered mental illness.

Such an obviously biased starting point would not satisfy anyone with a respect for fair play under due process >> rule of law in a country with a constitution which protects the rights of potential accused or victims.

AND - if you check my linked specification for the process - this bit:

Provided:
1) It has full legal powers and process including subpoena and cross-examination;
AND
2) It starts with a process of rigorous witness accreditation;

you would (should) realise that you would fail accreditation together with T Sz and Richard G et al. I'll give you one BIG difference - if they gave false testimony in their arena of professional expertise they would run the risk of perjury charges. You would not face THAT risk since AFAIK you are not a medical/psychological professional.

Stiil - if you wanted to have some sort of say in the proceedings - you had better hide the pre-emptive predispositions CC.

 

[ozeco41]

There was no CD involving the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

First of all, the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 initiated at the impact points, yet there were no secondary explosions is either case. That fact alone dismiss the CD theory.

Secondly, no tell-tale signals were detected by seismic monitors that would have indicated the use of explosives.

Thirdly, there was no sound of explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed

Fourthly, no evidence of demolition hardware was ever found. In other words, there is no evidence that explosives were used.

Don't lose track of the two bigger issues:
1) It is not your (or "our") burden of DISproof to show "No CD" - it is the claimant's BoP to show that there was CD and 15+ years down the track they haven't got to first base. So - strictly in law - there is "no case to answer." And never has been;
2) Straight forward engineering forensic analyses show no need for CD - so if someone did perform CD it wasn't needed.

 

[skyeagle409]

Don't lose track of the two bigger issues:
1) It is not your (or "our") burden of DISproof to show "No CD" - it is the claimant's BoP to show that there was CD and 15+ years down the track they haven't got to first base. So - strictly in law - there is "no case to answer." And never has been;
2) Straight forward engineering forensic analyses show no need for CD - so if someone did perform CD it wasn't needed.

I would like for them to explain in detail, how the WTC buildings could have been prepared for controlled demolition unnoticed considering the WTC buildings were occupied by thousands of people.

I have often read post where CD was proven because the WTC Towers fell within their own footprints, which isn't true at all considering the seriousness of the damage inflicted to nearby buildings, including WTC 7. That is not how typical controlled demolitions are conducted in the real world.

In another case, I caught someone posting a hoaxed video of WTC 1 during its collapse where the sound of audible explosions was added, whereas, I posted the original news media video, which lacked such explosions. Some Truthers were duped by another hoaxed video of WTC 7, which I posted recently.

I posted that hoaxed video of WTC 7 on another message board and amazingly just days later, two Truthers, who were unaware the video was a hoax, used my video as evidence that WTC 7 was demolished by CD and they failed to see that WTC 7 was depicted in reverse imagery, which should have told them the video was a hoax. Simply amazing!!!

Another proof of CD in their eyes is the claim that the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed, so I asked them to explain why they thought the WTC Towers fell at free fall speed when videos clearly depicted dust plumes and falling debris outpacing the collapse of each of the WTC Towers.

When I caught them distorting WTC seismic data, I let them have it with both barrels, one barrel fired from Protec Documentation service, Inc. and the other fired from the Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory because they have confirmed that their seismic monitors did not detect demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed.

There are folks, who over the years, have taken advantage of Truthers due to their lack of wiliness to do homework or to inability to understand the laws of physics in order to discredit Truthers and unfortunately for the Truthers, they have been successful.

 

[GlennB]

Explosives, when detonated, make a lot of noise that can be heard many miles away and I know that from experience.

Which is a point I hammered recently (to add to the hundreds of such over the years here) - that a single charge capable of severing a single WTC7 column would register at 130db (painful) 1km away. The proposed CD scenario would have involved hundreds of such explosions in a short time span.

No answer except "Did they cater for furnishings?"

 

[skyeagle409]

Which is a point I hammered recently (to add to the hundreds of such over the years here) - that a single charge capable of severing a single WTC7 column would register at 130db (painful) 1km away. The proposed CD scenario would have involved hundreds of such explosions in a short time span.

No answer except "Did they cater for furnishings?"

In addition, the explosions, if explosives were firmly attached to steel columns, would have generated shock signals that would have traveled through the steel columns and into the ground where the signals would have been detected by seismic monitors, yet no such signals were detected.

They have yet to explain how anyone could have gained access to, and pre-weaken the structural columns in order to rig the WTC buildings with thousands of feet of detonation wires and explosives, a very noisy and dirty process that would have taken almost a year if not longer to complete, and not draw attention of the thousands of people occupying the WTC buildings.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I would oppose a "New Investigation" based on the pre-emptive assumption that those involved suffered mental illness.

Such an obviously biased starting point would not satisfy anyone with a respect for fair play under due process >> rule of law in a country with a constitution which protects the rights of potential accused or victims.

AND - if you check my linked specification for the process - this bit:
you would (should) realise that you would fail accreditation together with T Sz and Richard G et al. I'll give you one BIG difference - if they gave false testimony in their arena of professional expertise they would run the risk of perjury charges. You would not face THAT risk since AFAIK you are not a medical/psychological professional.

Stiil - if you wanted to have some sort of say in the proceedings - you had better hide the pre-emptive predispositions CC.

Understood Oz, just can't understand the constant lying from, supposed professionals, but you are correct legal proceedings must be fair.

 

[GlennB]

In addition, the explosions, if explosives were firmly attached to steel columns, would have generated shock signals that would have traveled through the steel columns and into the ground where the signals would have been detected by seismic monitors, yet no such signals were detected.

They have yet to explain how anyone could have gained access to, and pre-weaken the structural columns in order to rig the WTC buildings with thousands of feet of detonation wires and explosives, a very noisy and dirty process that would have taken almost a year if not longer to complete, and not draw attention of the thousands of people occupying the WTC buildings.

Incidentally, I wasn't very clear about the photos of inward bowing that Szamboti rejected. They were in fact of WTC1:

 

[ozeco41]

Understood Oz, just can't understand the constant lying from, supposed professionals, but you are correct legal proceedings must be fair.

The last place Gage, Szamboti et al would want to be - in the witness box - under oath - being cross examined.

 

[rwguinn]

Sorry, Oz, but the level of confidence the assertions by Tony and FF have for explosive use, in the face of what are absolutely verifiable and most likely scenarios, is such that they have to have been complicit in the event.

 

[ozeco41]

Sorry, Oz, but the level of confidence the assertions by Tony and FF have for explosive use, in the face of what are absolutely verifiable and most likely scenarios, is such that they have to have been complicit in the event.

Maybe they want to give evidence - relying on "Whistle blower's Immunity" to protect them from prosecution?

 

[jaydeehess]

I'll have to call WTC 7 to see what records they have

edit: ****

Its been a while. How's it going with your investigation MJ?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Explosives, when detonated, make a lot of noise that can be heard many miles away and I know that from experience.

I did on the debate politics forum about a year and a half ago post videos taken at the base of the towers to demonstrate an extreme case of this issue. Basically if you dont hear the explosions in the video from that proximity it wasnt going to be exhibited anywhere because being adjacent to the source means to have the loudest noise and greatest exposure to shrapnel. All others more distant results in a lesser event.

 

[tfk]

Explosives, when detonated, make a lot of noise that can be heard many miles away and I know that from experience.

This is exactly correct. ESPECIALLY when the explosions happen at great height. Because there is nothing but air between the explosion & the person's ears (or the camera's audio mike).

Sailors know this when sitting in boats on a very calm sea. You can occasionally hear quiet conversations happening on boats a LONG way away.

I learned this while climbing this spire, Lost Arrow Spire, in Yosemite.

[imgw=300]http://www.summitpost.org/images/original/755837.jpg[/imgw]

My climbing partner & I were climbing the spire. Our girlfriends were sitting on the head wall, back about 100' - 150' from the edge. All told, they were about 250' - 300' from us. That's a full football field away.

And yet, we could hear clearly every word of the conversation that they were having, sitting right beside each other, because they were watching us (& therefore talking in our direction).

On the ground, sound gets reflected & absorbed & therefore gets quiet fairly quickly.

When there is nothing to reflect or absorb it, it goes on and on and on and on...

If there were any explosions, then they would have been easily recorded on the other side of the Hudson.
__

The single most compelling argument is Brent Blanchard's report, item 4.

Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com and Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc.

A Critical Analysis Of The Collapse Of Wtc Towers 1, 2 & 7 From An Explosives And Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

tinyurl.com/z6zyc

“ASSERTION #4
“Several credible eyewitnesses are adamant that they heard explosions in or near the towers.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Maybe they did hear loud noises that sounded to them like explosions, but such statements do nothing to refute scientific evidence that explosives were not used.

Arguing over who heard explosion-like noises, when they heard them, how loud they were or from what direction they came is a pointless exercise…

Simply put, there are countless causes of sharp, loud noises that have no relation to explosives. The only scientifically legitimate way to ascertain if explosives were used is to cross reference the fundamental characteristics of an explosive detonation with independent ground vibration data recorded near Ground Zero on 9/11.

Protec technicians were operating portable field seismographs at several construction sites in Manhattan on 9/11. These seismographs recorded the events at Ground Zero, including the collapse of all three structures. These measurements, combined with seismic and airblast data recorded by other independent entities, provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each event.

In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events."

In other words, “NO explosives”.

 

[FalseFlag]

Mark Loiseaux’s speculation about giant building demolition is superb. He’s a world class expert in the field.

OK.

Maybe Loiseaux and Danny Jowenko can have a debate. Oh, wait....

ZERO signs point to CD.

You can only believe this if you ignore the most basic laws of physics, which you obviously do.

A mountain of proof exists that there could not possibly have been a CD.

Where? Saying this repeatedly doesn't make your statement true.

Your delusions of moral & intellectual superiority

Where have I claimed moral and intellectual superiority? Once again, the evidence for your claim does not exist. You simply throw a temper tantrum and make derogatory remarks to try to convince others that you must be right.

Don’t you think that it’s about time that you grew up?

No. Never. But that is not relevant here.

Besides, why does someone need to grow up to believe you? Even an 8yo with a basic understanding of Newton's laws of motion can see you're full of ****.

 

[FalseFlag]

I have a question about the debate.

We know who TSz is, but who is tfk? I think both parties need to prove they are experts.

I also think it's unwise to hold the debate on this forum. A neutral forum would be much better. No, I don't have any suggestions for a neutral forum, but others might.

ETA: We also need verified experts who will substantiate individual claims and settle disputes. Without that, the debate is pointless.

Easy example, just for illustration: Debater 1 says a bolt is 3/5" in diameter. Debater 2 says that same bolt is actually 5/8" in diameter. The NIST report agrees with debater 1, but debater 2 says both NIST and debater 1 are not correct. Another expert on structural engineering would be brought in to resolve the conflict. Ideally, as many credible experts as possible would volunteer to settle these kinds of disputes. Without this, the debate is pointless.

I also think AE911T should get involved, and the 2500+ signers need to start speaking up.

If AE911T is legitimate (which I think it is), the signers should be willing to lend their expertise to this.