I found the missing Jolt.

Explain the Alladin demo?

No Monrue's effect cutter charges were used, on reinforced concrete.
Concrete uses drilled explosives where most of the energy goes into fracturing the concrete.
The type of explosive explains why, also the bed rock or fill the building sets on will effect sound transmission, fault lines can also cause seismic reflections that cancel out near by instruments.
 
Again you're just making an unambigious statement about something that can not be known for sure.


What can't be known for sure?

You're talking about buildings in which hundreds of thousands or people lived and worked for decades. Their construction is not in dispute, nor are the factors required for CD, or in the case of the WTC non-use of CD.
 
What about that hotel in Las Vegas which barely registered on the seismographs because the explosives were placed well above the ground?

What about it?

Sound/shock waves move through the earth differently depending on the rock type.

This is Las Vegas:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2005/2814/pdf/SIM-2814.pdf

This the USGS's super cool map which will make zero sense to you:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/2005/2814/pdf/2814sh1.pdf

This is the USGS -all things New York:

http://mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/state/state.php?state=NY

In Manhattan you have Schist, a dense metamorphic rock layer created from the massive compression of a mountain range which dominated the area millions of years ago and eroded.

In Las Vegas you have a grab bag of geologic layers, and dozens of minor fault lines in play.

Comparing the seismographs of NYC on 9-11 to anything in Las Vegas is like comparing Basket Ball to oil painting. They're two very different things.

Thanks for posting something I can comment on with some authority.
 
That won't work for you because you have failed to answer the questions that I have posed to you and if you had been paying attention, you would not be asking for what I have already posted.
I'm not asking for what was already posted. I'm asking you to post what I asked for.
 
Just to let you know the experts do not support the use of CD at the World Trade Center.
That's good to hear. I think anyone who supports using explosives at the WTC must be a pretty hardcore *******. Besides, it's already been done once. "You don't run the same gag twice. You do the next gag." - Basher (Ocean's 13)

I have posted comments of those who have worked with AE911 Truth and they have trashed that discredited AE911 Truth organization
Are they credible?
 
Last edited:
1). Show me a credible source demonstrating those two models are the only ones produced.
What's your point? If they produced more, why didn't they release them? If they actually produced a computer model that matched what was observed, why wouldn't they release that?

2). Show me a credible source where these two models are the final results produced from the data.

What?

3 of 50
 
Last edited:
This is what I think he means:

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/513801604.png[/qimg]

Note how in this comparison of smoothing techniques, that free fall is not 'fixed', and that it was actually exceeded.
Why is this credible? If it's more credible than the NIST report, why not support a new investigation?
 
Last edited:
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are in the US well over 300,000 mechanical & structural engineers.

99% of these people are completely aware of the collapse of all 3 buildings on 9/11.
Proof? Until you prove this, the rest of your post is meaningless.

We are not cowards, unethical frauds, traitors or clueless.
I agree. They are not all cowards, unethical frauds, traitors, or clueless. You are. Well, all except the clueless part. You know exactly what you are doing. Maybe... Sometimes I wonder.

Meanwhile, NONE of the AE911T morons have lifted one finger to to bring their talents to bear, and produce one single study, followed up by a competent paper that is good enough to get published in any engineering journal.
"Good enough" to be published or "allowed to be published"?

You accuse the hundreds of competent, honest, honorable engineers who produced the FEMA report & the NIST report of lying, fraud & accessory to the murder of thousands of innocent Americans.
No...just the ones who had editorial control and chose what was published and what was ignored.

Grow a pair.
Does this support a "mature conversation"?

Name names.
Provide evidence.

That is a job for experts. Support a new investigation, and let credible experts do this.

You have no honor.
You admit it.
What does that have to do with anything?

You have no clue that other people are not so bereft of self-respect & honor.
THAT is your main problem.
I could easily cash the $1 million dollar check and still have complete self-respect. I would also keep my honor by doing what I said I would.

See if you can read just TWO SIMPLE SENTENCES & figure out the difference between them..

Statement 1: “State clearly the laws of physics that you believe are broken by NIST’s conclusions.”
Statement 2: “State clearly the laws of physics that were broken.”

Do you notice ANY DIFFERENCE between those two sentences?
Perhaps it would help you if you were to count the number of words in each sentence.

Why are you incapable of comprehending the difference between those two sentences?

Do you have a learning disability?

I’ve asked you this before, facetiously.
Now, I’m asking it seriously.

The laws of physics can not be broken. How hard is that to understand?

Without the sound, would you have known …

… that this was a NASA facility?

… how big it is?

… how many tons of air was in it?

… as a direct result of the above, how many tons of air from each floor of the WTC had to be pushed out in {1.07 second, then 0.44 second, then 0.34 second, then 0.29 second, then 0.25 second, then 0.23 second, then 0.21 second, then 0.20 second, then 0.18 second, then 0.17 second, then 0.17 second, then 0.16 second …} during the crush down of the {1st, 2nd, 3rd, … , 12th story} below the collapse initiation floor?

… that the chamber was built for testing of nuclear propslsion systems? (which I SERIOUSLY doubt to be true. I think it was highly likely built to test ICBMs & nuclear warhead re-entry vehicles during the exo-atmospheric portion of their trajectories.)

… the SEMINAL CONCEPT of this video: that it is an investigation of “the true nature of gravity”, rather than an investigation of “the nature of air resistance”?

… that it takes HUGE pumps three hours to pull the air out of this chamber?

… that the 2nd SEMINAL CONCEPT of this video is about Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity?

… that Einstein’s Theory says that “there is no force acting on the feather or the bowling ball at all?

… that the bowling ball & the feathers are, in fact, NOT FALLING AT ALL. That they are “standing still”?
No. Without the sound, you would have gotten NONE of that info.
Is any of that relevant to the experiment being performed? Let me clarify. The fact that air was removed was relevant. How it was done was not. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics would be able to explain that the bowling ball and the feather fell at the same rate because there was no air in the chamber.

You would have gotten only the most trivial, superficial, & LEAST interesting information: that under some conditions, the bowling ball & feathers fall at the same acceleration.

You consider the entire reason for the video to the most trivial, superficial, and least interesting aspect? Really?

4 of 50. Fact.

Just exactly as in the collapse video that the lying Twoofers showed Jowenko provided him with the most trivial, superficial, & LEAST interesting information: that the building fell down suddenly.
Seriously.

4 of 50.

The video provided him with NONE if the crucial, deeper, richer most significant information that was available to “experts” who restrained their clueless blatherings until they had an opportunity to review ALL the data: that there were zero explosive detonation, that there were zero explosively cut or melted columns, girders or beams in the rubble pile. And therefore, precisely zero possibility that it was brought down by CD.
Again, I don't think you understand the meaning of "all". This is not surprising, well, considering 4 of 50.

When are YOU ever going to address the "9 facts that disprove CD" that I've now listed for you several times, FalseFlag?
Are they facts? Are you sure? Are you sure they "disprove" CD?
 
Last edited:
Why didn't they?
Did you ask the FBI what they investigated? Gee, the two planes were a big hint. Guess 9/11 truth cult members have to ignore reality of two planes and the 10 terrorists who did all the damage in NYC; why do you apologize for the terrorirst, are you of Islam and upset idiots for UBL did 9/11? Or are you like McVeigh, anti-government paranoid person?

If you have evidence for CD, you must of contacted the FBI. What did the FBI say?
 
Yeah except the lurkers are now laughing too, keep up the good work!
I will.

That "gubbamint cheese" is amazing you should try it sometime.
Hook me up with some.

I'm typing this from my government funded yacht, off the coast of Monaco.
What's she called? The W. T. $ea?

Like I said your stuff is comedy gold!

V70gQTq.png


Thanks. Would you like my PayPal account so you can donate?
 
Proof? Until you prove this, the rest of your post is meaningless.


I agree. They are not all cowards, unethical frauds, traitors, or clueless. You are. Well, all except the clueless part. You know exactly what you are doing. "Good enough" to be published or "allowed to be published"?



No...just the ones who had editorial control and chose what was published and what was ignored.


Does this support a "mature conversation"?



That is a job for experts. Support a new investigation and let credible experts do this.


What does that have to do with anything?


I could easily cash the $1 million dollar check and still have complete self-respect. I would also keep my honor by doing what I said I would.



The laws of physics can not be broken. How hard is that to understand?


Is any of that relevant to the experiment being performed? Let me clarify. The fact that air was removed was relevant. How it was done was not. Anyone with a basic understanding of physics would be able to explain that the bowling ball and the feather fell at the same rate because there was no air in the chamber.



You consider the entire reason for the video to the most trivial, superficial, and least interesting aspect? Really?

4 of 50. Fact.


Seriously.

4 of 50.


Again, I don't think you understand the meaning of "all". This is not surprising, well, considering 4 of 50.


Are they facts? Are you sure? Are you sure they "disprove" CD?
It's dark someone is at the door incessantly knocking inside your head call them http://tinyurl.com/hu9ao27 tell them you want the intruders to stop the ceaseless roar leave you alone make it quiet
 
Did they test for explosives?


Since there was no video and audio evidence of explosives nor seismic data evidence or even demolition hardware evidence, why waste the time?

And, there was no way anyone could have structurally pre-weaken each WTC building, including firewalls and staircases, in secret. Structural pre-weakening is a very noisy and filthy process that would have taken about a year if not longer, for each building, and wire each building with thousands and thousands of feet of detonation wire while tying cutter charges and explosives together.

Very good reasons not to waste time and money looking for something for which there was no evidence for in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom