22-04-2011, 08:15 PM
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Wrote:I agree that a building hitting the ground in chunks as opposed to one large mass could result in smaller spikes on a seismograph, but this would also be reflected by a longer seismic wave since the pieces would not all hit the ground at the same time (if they did, it would be similar to the whole building hitting the ground at once).No longer than it takes for those pieces to hit the ground though, eh? Best I can tell, the seismic spikes match the time it too for the towers to come down as recorded by the videos.
Any, I've reviewed what you've presented, but I've yet to see anything which leads me to believe that it took more than incendiaries and explosives to bring down the towers. Your arguments to the contrary seem based soly on misinterpretations of data, your expectation that explosive demolition should produce comparable seismic data regardless of if it is done from near the top down or in the typical bottom up manor because that is the one you elaborated on to Gage in your video.
For another example along similar lines from your blog post, you suggest the height of the rubble pile being notably less than that of a traditional controlled demolition is inconsistent with explosive demotion in general. However, when the rubble pile is blasted all over and well beyond the footprint of the WTC complex rather than traditional controlled demolitions where the buildings are brought down barely exceeding their own footprint (as was the case with WTC 7), of course the much wider rubble pile is going to far shorter. It's not a matter of hight alone, but a matter of volume, and in that regard I don't see anything to support the notion that the towers were vaporized. Furthermore, in the photos and videos you presented as steel beams being vaporized I'm not seeing any notable reduction in their size, and rather it looks to me like they simply have something attached to them producing an intense chemical reaction; likely nanothermite based demolition devices.
Then there's things like your claims of round holes in windows while the collection of images you link to the holes all look very jagged, magnetosphere fluctuations which look reasonably similar to many other days throughout the year, a hurricane that never got anywhere close to the coastline. Perhaps you could you elaborate on one of these or any of the other points in your blog which you feel best makes your case, but at this point I'm not seeing a coherent argument from you at all, and get the impression that it is you who needs too look into this matter more.