Seismic signals and witness testimony indicate explosions via demolition on 9/11

Below is a summation of the information contained in the link that proves controlled demolition was used on 9/11. I posted the very last paragraph (highlighted in green) and invite the intelligent reader to check out what people much smarter than me conclude regard controlled demolition on 9/11. The proof is self explanatory and the technical details are there for scrutiny for anyone that cares to investigate for themselves.

Particularly interesting is some of the eyewitness testimony along with "timing discrepancies" between what the "official" commission reports and the actual seismic information. Somehow, seismic information changes as well in the "official" BS story. "Officially", EVERYTHING is something other than it actually was on that date. It smells bad folks.

Why would actual seismic activity be in contradiction with the "official" version of events? WHY? I think the answer is obvious.

As usual, intelligent, respectful and SPECIFIC debate of the SPECIFIC issues raised in the article are welcomed.


Finally, controlled demolition of the three towers, suggested by the visual and audio witness testimony as well as by observations of video recordings of their collapses, is thus confirmed and demonstrated by analysis of the seismic waves emitted at the moments of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapses.


The complete article is here:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20120120134709791

 

The conclusion is that there is a seismic event as the planes hit, followed immediately another which was caused by an 'explosion of some magnitude".

Am I correct in reading this?

 

Demolitions experts disagree with your theory, RWF.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

You're thread title is misleading.

"Seismic signals and witness testimony indicate explosions via demolition on 9/11"

It should say

"Seismic signals and witness testimony indicate explosions on 9/11"

Anything extra is speculation given the lack of physical evidence.

I'm sure the intelligent reader will notice the difference.

 

Hmmmm. Who are we to believe? Yet another in a long list of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) sites from RWAF? Or the seismologists at Lamont Doherty who recorded the signals and analysed them?

Want to know just how utterly RETARDED the site is? They claim the seismic signals are wrong based on the time stamp at the bottom of the CNN live feed.

Like I said. Who are we to believe? The rank amateurs RWAF keeps digging up and hoping are actual experts, or the known, recognized experts? I think I will go with the known, recognized experts like Won-Young Kim.

 

In this link there's a video called "911 Eyewitness".
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

I watched it several years ago and I don't remember all of the details but it had info on the explosions that I hadn't seen anywhere else.

 

I own the video. The demolition sounds occurring well before the buildings fell is blatantly obvious. The camera shakes well prior as well. This was filmed from across the waterway. Musta been them office chairs blowing up all at once.

 

Yeah, because everyone knows truthers aren't so dishonest they would fake a video or the sound track on a video, right? How does the camera shake before the tower collapses? Seismic records show there was no shaking prior to the collapse, and any shaking wouldn't affect someone across the waterway enough to make a camera shake. But hey. We all know you truthers don't let little things like facts and discrepancies get in the way of your lies.

 

I'm sorry...you're right. The goobment is so notoriously known for being so completely honest all the time...no reason to doubt anything they say. You guys crack me up...everything anti OCT is faked, made up. blah, blah, blah...yet everything PRO OCT is rock solid, of course. Why? Because they said so..
You're right...no inconsistencies or oddities whatsoever in the OCT....everything is absolutely square business and no reason in the world to doubt them. What a joke.

 

Spoken like an ostrich with their head buried deep in the sand. Can't refute the facts so you try to deflect and obfuscate by pretending the government does it to as though it excuses truthers from lying and dishonesty. It doesn't.

 

I know...it doesn't. Only an "official" stamp can authorize that sort of stuff. Write a report...stamp it "official"....done.

 

You've gone back to whining. No one here is taking that position except for you.

 

You want an official stamp on your whining? Do you think that would legitimize your claims in some way? Wow.

 

Here's some good information for the intelligent reader to take in regarding the quote mining that routinely is found on truther sites.

http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm

 

Good? Again....your sites are good...our aren't? Disinfo point #??

 

From your other thread:

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

Why are you engaging in this behavior? Just present your evidence.

 

We can point out the lies and dishonesty in your sites. All you can do is whine about it and cry that you can't do the same to our sites. Pretty pathetic!

 

Please point out the incorrect or misleading info on the site that I posted.

Whether one site is "good" or not depends on content, not whether it's "yours" or "ours". It's not my fault that truther sites quote mine, take things out of context and stretch the truth.

It should really make you wonder if truth is their actual agenda.

 

I don't wonder at all. Truth is the furthest thing from their minds. Their agendas speak for themselves as soon as you see who they blame for 9/11. I've seen anti-government, anti-semitic, anti-NWO, anti-Illuminati, and anti-green lizard people. The one thing all these sites have in common is that Al Qaeda is not responsible for 9/11. Makes you wonder if maybe they have a hidden agenda, doesn't it!

 

Horse hockey. That French professor has no clue about building demolitions or how to interpret an oral history of an event.

He cites a firefighter who mentions the ground's shaking before the building started to collapse. This is evidence of bugger-all.

Now, had he heard a a loud bang from half a mile away, it would mean something.

The ground would have shaken before he hearde the collapse. He probably wans't looking at the top of the tower when it started. Vibrations from impacts pass through solid steel a lot faster than does sound through air.

You got diddly.

 

There is a Bacon factor of, at most 3 between any given twoofer and some Nazi site or personality.

As for the earliest twoofers, a lot was made of the wreckage (or lack thereof) by one Pierre-Henri Bunel. His outright lies were picked up right away by the American Nazi Chris Bollyn, who was then picked up by Loose Screws...excuse me Loose Change producer Dylan Avery.

Unqualified turds talking outside their limit range of semi-competency, the lot of them.

Bunel is amusing, in that he advertises himself as a retired French Army officer, when he was, in fact, kicked to the curb in disgrace after serving three years in prison for treason, for which he blame the United States and NATO. Everything the sorry sack of crap says about the damage to the Pentagon is a lie, but the twoofers eat his stuff up with a heavy-duty spoon.

 

Sound passes through steel at approximately 13,330 mph.

and through air at sea level at about 767 mph.

I'd say that 17x faster is a a heck of a lot faster.

 

You mean when one site aligns with an "official" view, it's considered credible. Also when one's mind is bad up, and believes what they believe, anything contrary is dismissed. Correct?

 

This is the "ridicule and insult" part of the disinformation dialogue, no doubt.

 

There is no ridicule or insult there. It is the truth. The fact they run from the truth at every opportunity and still proclaim long cleared up issues as issues should be all the proof anyone needs. Alex Jones and DRG still claim the hijackers are alive today. Have they tried to find them? No. RWAF, you were shown this lie and you had to make up your own lie to cover for DRG's outright lie.... trouble is you couldn't even defend your own lie, much less DRGs.

So how am I ridiculing these sites?

Now, if the truth is insulting, which in this case it is clear that the truth is, should one have to hide the truth because it might offend people with the truth? I don't think it should. How about it, RWAF? Do you think people should give up their first amendment rights simply because some are offended by the truth?

 

That is the exact opposite of what DDave said. I expect no less than complete and utter dishonesty from your posts and your posts rarely fail to deliver. You're still stuck on "mine vs. theirs". Everyone else is dealing with the content of the sites and the credibility of the contents. A shame you feel it necessary to ignore this important fact to continue with your dishonest portrayal of the crap sites you worship.