Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

@vikorr,

Quote:

You make allegations of brainwashing. You do realise that brainwashed people:
- do not seek to test their knowledge,

What have you tested with your new found knowledge?

1. How can there be hijackers when there is no actual evidence for any?

2. How did alleged hijackers cause WTC7 to free fall?

3. How did alleged hijackers melt/vaporized WTC structural steel?

4. How did alleged hijackers melt molybdenum, 4,900F?

5. How did alleged hijackers cause the plane that supposedly hit WTC2

6. How did alleged hijackers cause molten steel to flow out of WTC2 just before its collapse?

7. How did alleged hijackers cause the huge subterranean explosion that was described by WTC1 workers before the "plane" hit, workers who were in the subterranean levels at that time?

Quote:

https://washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/seismic-evidence-prove-controlled-demolition-on-911.html

Seismic Evidence Implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11

Posted on December 1, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog

Yet Another Line of Evidence Shows Demolition

André Rousseau is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, a former researcher in the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), who has published 50 papers on the relationships between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology.

Dr. Rousseau is an expert on measurement of acoustic waves.

Rousseau says that the seismic waves measured on September 11th proves that the 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, in a new scientific article published by the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Rosseau writes:

The seismic signals propagating from New York on September 11, 2001, recorded at Palisades (34 km) and published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), have here been subjected to a new critical study concerning their sources. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official explanations which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

***

First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic sources of different magnitudes. We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies. According to the nature of the recorded waves (body and surface waves), we can propose a location of each explosive source. According to the presence of shear waves or the presence of Rayleigh waves only, we hypothesize a subterranean … explosion.

***

Near the times of the planes’ impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and (2) low frequencies are associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes’ impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another.
As we have shown, they were not.

***

We can only conclude that the wave sources were independently
detonated explosives ….

***

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 near the time of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapses.

This seismic analysis is just one of multiple lines of scientific evidence implying that 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition:

8. How did alleged hijackers get US proprietary nanothermite?

0 Replies

@camlok,

Quote:

You reject the science and the facts and replace it with distractions and diversions about totally inane ideas.

As I mentioned many times, the engineering, and the motive are sticking points to our disagreement. They are absolutely essential to your theory - which can't occur without them.

Even if I bought into the guesswork that you present as science - I would still have further questions, particularly anything essential to such a theory - how it was carried out, and why...for which there are no good answers. Not even you can provide them.

Hell, you can't even nominate how much light your precious nano-thermite would emit, which is again essential to your theory (if it emits copious amounts, like normal thermite, and like most instant heat things, you would see it on the video footage, because WTC walls had large girders in it)

Nor how long it would take to melt large steel girders, let alone vaporise them, which question is again essential to your theory, for obvious reasons (if they aren't instantaneous, then your theory falls apart)

The answer to all of these things, despite being essential to your theory, you avoid like the plague. We've seen this avoidance, over, and over, and over again.

So please, stop pretending that it is I who doesn't ask the questions necessary to my beliefs.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

You bought into USGOCT regarding the "hijackers' motives but you can't even provide any evidence for any hijackers.

You have answered none of the total impossibilities, vikorr. You keep avoiding them like the plague.

You just keep advancing things that illustrate your ignorance of things scientific.

Quote:

Even if I bought into the guesswork that you present as science

It's not guesswork, it's science from professionals, for example, the nanothermite, the free fall, the molten steel, the seismic record which shows huge explosions before the "planes" hit, and many many more.

All of which you studiously ignore but you can't come up with one actual piece of evidence to support your lame notions.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

That is you in a nutshell. Totally brainwashed.

In terms of 'brainwashing' - I didn't read much regarding the theories of the fall of the twin towers. I watched the footage. I came to my own conclusions as to how they fell. So brainwashing is hard to achieve under those conditions.

Your's is the first theory I've bothered reading. The questions I asked you, are the questions I would ask myself. And they are questions you should have asked yourself, given how essential they are to your theory, before swallowing wholesale a theory with so many missing pieces.

So please don't pretend it is I who is not engaging in critical thinking, who is not asking questions, who is not testing explanations before accepting them.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

So please don't pretend it is I who is not engaging in critical thinking

A man named Howard Zinn lives in his head. Any thinking for him has been over for quite a while. Zinn does his thinking for him.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

Hell, you can't even nominate how much light your precious nano-thermite would emit,

"nominate"??? You don't even have a grasp of the English language.

Nanothermite is a TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITY for the US government story. It had no legal or legitimate reason to be there. Why are you avoiding this?

What is it, in your mind, that created the molten and vaporized steel? The existence of these things shows, with no doubt at all, that the USGOCT is false.

"your precious nano-thermite", how childish!!

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

You bought into USGOCT regarding the "hijackers' motives but you can't even provide any evidence for any hijackers.

Well, there were certainly hijackers. Were they Islamists? Always a possible lie. That would raise questions.

Quote:

You have answered none of the impossibilities vikorr. You keep avoiding them like the plague

Actually, even you admitted that I answered them....but you outright stated that I can't answer because I am not an expert.

...so please stop pretending I didn't answer.

What you claim to be impossibilities, have other explanations.

Quote:

It's not guesswork, it's science from professionals,

Rofl...professionals don't do science, they do application. Scientists do science. A professional is someone, like an engineer. And do you have one link a professional that actually works with nano-thermite?

It would certainly answer a number of the questions I've been asking about it...

...or are your professionals unsure of how it works...rendering it guesswork?

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

"nominate"??? You don't even have a grasp of the English language.

Nanothermite is a TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITY for the US government story. It had no legal or legitimate reason to be there. Why are you avoiding this?

Why do you think I'm avoiding it...I'm asking of you the questions that need asking...due to its existence.

How is that avoiding?

We both agree on the likelihood of its existance. So questions need to be asked about how it would work to do what you claim it is capable of doing. Does anyone know how it works? Are they simply guessing how it works? You say it's I am ignoring the science...where is the science showing how it works? How much light it produces. What heat it reaches. How quickly it would melt just one steel girder?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

How did WTC structural steel get melted, coldjoint?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0qW6--1XX4

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

How did WTC structural steel get melted, coldjoint?

I don't care.

3 Replies

@vikorr,

Quote:

Well, there were certainly hijackers.

As always, not a shred of evidence from you.

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

How did US government 1990s discovered nanothermite, a new generation of super explosives, developed by US military labs, which no one else on Earth has, get into WTC dust, along with the by products of that nanothermite - iron microspheres some 6% of WTC dust which means a lot of exploding nanothermite?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

It's actually a good question. Well, not the melting part - I think the aviation fuel explosion does explain that.

But the particlarisation (is that even a word) of the steel is very interesting.

It just the nonsense "It must be this, even though I don't know anything of the specifics of how it works, the heat it reaches, the light it produces, nor even how it would work to cause particlarisation...but it must be that". Or the ignoring "how much would be need, nor where, nor how they got it there" nonsense.

Unlike some others it seems, I've watched several docos where experts were utterly wrong. I've seen other cases where experts were wrong, but couldn't comprehend why until they carried out the practicality of their claims.

One sad one, was that for decades US fire experts gave evidence that spalding in concrete was evidence of the use of accelerants - it was accepted as scientific. That evidence was used by prosecutors to convict (the doco believed) around 20 people of premeditated murder. When someone finally thought to pour fuel over concrete and light to see how the spalding formed - they found absolutely no spalding. The flame burned above the liquid, and the liquid kept the concrete under it cooler than the surrounds.

The point is - it's always worth questioning the application.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

As always, not a shred of evidence from you.

Well, the only other explanation is the pilots. Do you believe they did it? Because that too raises questions.

It certainly rears that awful "what motive" question again. Why would so many highly paid pilots, doing one of the most respected jobs around, with a lifestyle most envy, wish to crash their planes, murdering everyone on board, and those they crash into?

1 Reply

@coldjoint,

Quote:

I don't care.

You don't care that your governments murdered 2,996 of your fellow citizens?

Here's a short video of your US government exploding one of your fellow citizens out of a twin tower window, before the twin tower was blown up.

9/11 South Tower-Person being blown out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuRVL-_q0Yk

1 Reply

@vikorr,

As always, not a shred of evidence from you. You actually don't believe there were hijackers. No can be so dumb as to think there were hijackers with the voluminous evidence against the USGOCT.

Provide some evidence.

1 Reply

@camlok,

Quote:

You don't care that your governments murdered 2,996 of your fellow citizens?

Hardly what he said.

Are you are so bent on your theory, that you can't help but twist what others say?

1 Reply

@camlok,

Do I really care that there were hijackers? It's not a huge issue for me, because I already disagreed with the follow on invasions. So do I feel the need to provide evidence - no - again, because it's an explanation I have no vested interest in.

I simply asked you whether or not you believe it was the pilots. And if so, why you think they would do it (see previous post).

You do find it incredibly difficult to answer questions, don't you.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

It occurs to me, that of the two of us, the only one with a vested interest in the alternate explanations - is you. I'm happy that questions are raised. It is good, in my view, that people raise problems with official explanations. It is good that people say 'these experts say this doesn't actually explain ###"

Any alternate explanations should also undergo the same veracity of questions / testing / explanation.

Something you don't seem to comprehend.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Quote:

In terms of 'brainwashing' - I didn't read much regarding the theories of the fall of the twin towers. ... So brainwashing is hard to achieve under those conditions.

Not at all. The TV media did a very effective job of brainwashing. You , and many others stand as proof positive of that.

Quote:

I watched the footage. I came to my own conclusions as to how they fell.

You, with zero expertise, which you have highlighted here so often, decided how the twin towers fell. Your conclusions don't mean a thing. Your willingness to blind yourself to all these impossibilities in the USGOCT shows this.

Quote:

Your's is the first theory I've bothered reading. The questions I asked you, are the questions I would ask myself. And they are questions you should have asked yourself, given how essential they are to your theory, before swallowing wholesale a theory with so many missing pieces.

You keep lying. It isn't my theory. Again, you have zero expertise so your questions are of no value. There are no missing pieces in the AE911Truth critique of NIST while NIST has many holes in their story big enough to fly multiple 767s thru.

Holes that you can't and have never addressed.

1. How can there be hijackers when there is no actual evidence for any?

2. How did alleged hijackers cause WTC7 to free fall?

3. How did alleged hijackers melt/vaporized WTC structural steel?

4. How did alleged hijackers melt molybdenum, 4,900F?

5. How did alleged hijackers cause the plane that supposedly hit WTC2

6. How did alleged hijackers cause molten steel to flow out of WTC2 just before its collapse?

7. How did alleged hijackers cause the huge subterranean explosion that was described by WTC1 workers before the "plane" hit, workers who were in the subterranean levels at that time?

2 Replies

Are there any peaceful muslim nations?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know