Where did the towers go?

[Aaron Gustaveson]

That link you provided says it all and no where was I saying only a primary wave was recorded I have been saying a surface wave was.

You’re right I mixed up surface and secondary. I would not expect any more than the slightest of body waves, if any, because of what body waves are. You are not comprehending the difference in scale between plates moving and buildings falling down. I’m not understanding why you would imagine, even an enormous building collapse, as being capable of producing any significant body waves. What evidence suggest that body waves (if generated) would be anywhere near the magnitudes that are detectable by instruments?

untitled1361769312302 (620x509).jpg

Tuning forks are purpose built tools, designed to produce vibrations. What evidence is used to support the notion that any part of the building should be expected to produce a tuning fork-like effect? Even if parts of the buildings structure where literally giant tuning forks, it is not safe to assume that they would be struck in such a manner as to produce significant vibration, or be free to vibrate since they would be attached to other structure.

Her equations come from the evidence provided by satellite imagery of the dust cloud rollout from the earthobservatory nasa.gov images, collection of sample locations reported by the usgs.

What do you mean “come from”, was she just looking at pictures? In what way where the images evidence for this assertion? How do these equations derive from the data? Are they for expected or observed values? What does the phrase, “collection of sample locations reported by the usgs.” mean?

The DELTA group at the University of California at Davis and Lawrence Berkelt Laboratory undertook studies of the particle size.

How is this related?

She gives approximations of the exact amount because of wind and other factors the zone of dust isnt symmetrically arranged around where the towers stood. She provides satellite images showing the dust forms a circular boundary northeast of the wtc complex, estimating the centre of the arc she caculates the approximate area for this part of the dust zone. Then provided the equation I provided you. She also uses that very same seismic data you linked.

So she looked at pictures and estimated the size of an area she called “the dust zone”? How did she determine how much dust was actually present or how much should have been expected? How was the seismic data used to support her claim that there was more dust than should be expected?

If you are curious the destructive mechanism I can point you in the direction if you research thermal switches in bacteria. http://m.caltech.edu/news/biologists...controls-52968

I am interested in the specific devices claimed to have been used in this case. I see nothing in this link that is at all related to directed energy weapons. Are you claiming that traditional explosive devices were triggered by heat? Are you claiming that genetically engineered bacteria was used as part of this weapon?

What are the two parts exactly? Let’s say I have a pair of walky-talkies. On one of them, I disconnect the conductors that power the speaker and attach them to an explosive device. This way, when the other walkie-talkie is spoken into, energy in the form of radio waves will be generated and received by the walkie-talkie that is wired to the explosive device, resulting in an explosion. Would you consider that a two part directed energy weapon?

What is the nature of this/these broadcasting and destructive mechanism(s)?
What would they look like?
What are they made of?
How do they work?
What is the best evidence supporting her claims?
How was the energy generated?
Why is it relevant that a storm had charged the atmosphere?

[SamSmith]

I think you are more interested in trying to find an area of doubt than the answers I have given and continue to give you, you obviously tried to search the seismic data and you only proved what I was saying the whole time of why you should expect a primary wave secondary waves.The buildings built 70feet BELOW the watertable anchored into the bedrock. Traditional controlled demolitions produce primary waves recorded by the seattle kingdome demolition the evidence provided in her book since you will be inclined to ask what do I mean evidence provided and pick apart as much as you can... "What do I mean come from" I should have expected this from the internet. You already misquoted me saying I only said primary waves so Im quite aware of how you will keep distorting any answer I give and try to pick it apart to create doubt. Even in that link I put it shows the correlation of remote controlling bacteria and yes there are types of archaea that subsit on metals. Im sure you knew that. Ill await you to misquote and cherry pick what we are proving next you did indeed watch Dr.Jenkins interview lol.

[Nigel Waddington]

In order for everyone in this thread to "get on the same page" regarding the physical evidence pertaining to the destruction of the WTC, I highly recommend finding around 2 1/2 hours to watch the following video. It's Dr Judy Wood giving a presentation at the Breakthrough Energy Conference 2012, and she covers a great deal (though her book goes into much greater detail). It's Paradigm Shifting!

[Aaron Gustaveson]

I am asking obvious questions that are necessary in order to understand what exactly her claims are. If you want to support Dr. Woods claims, someone looking for areas of doubt is the best thing you could hope for. It provides an opportunity for you to address the obvious background questions, and any weaknesses in the claims. Are you interested in objectively exporting her views, or do you just want people to agree with you? If it’s the latter, I’ll leave you to it.

I did search for the seismic data (not tried) and I did not prove what you were saying. You were claiming that it is suspicious that only surface waves were detected. The nature of the building’s foundations does not provide any obvious support for this claim.

The demolition of the kingdome used 4,461 Pounds of dynamite. Over 200 seismometers were placed in back yards and buildings in order to collect data. I expect the geology at each location may be very different as were the events themselves. IF primary waves were produced by the demolition of the kingdome, why should we take that to indicate that they should be expected to have been recorded during the events of 911? Where is the evidence that body waves were recorded from the demolition of the kingdome?

I did not misquote you. I made the very understandable mistake of mixing up s waves (secondary waves, or shear waves) and surface waves. I am not picking apart your words, I’m trying to understand your vague and poor writing. I’ll give you an example.

“Traditional controlled demolitions produce primary waves recorded by the evidence provided in her book since you will be inclined to ask what do I mean evidence provided and pick apart as much as you can... "What do I mean come from" I should have expected this from the internet.”

This sentence does not make any sense.

I am forced to ask you question like this, unfortunately. It is clear why if you read it in context above. Maybe I should have asked, how are these equations derived? On what evidence or information are they based?

” Even in that link I put it shows the correlation of remote controlling bacteria . . “

What do you mean “even the link . .” ? What are you using the word “even” to emphasis here? Correlation to what? I’m not sure you understand some of the words you are using.

“ . . and yes there are types of archaea that subsit on metals. Im sure you knew that.”

I never asked that. Are you answering my question, ”Are you claiming that genetically engineered bacteria was used as part of this weapon?” ?

Ill await you to misquote and cherry pick what we are proving next you did indeed watch Dr.Jenkins interview lol.

Again, this is nonsensical. Did you mean to make two, separate sentences here? What are you talking about? That is not an English sentence. Try to control your emotions and write clearly, please. Again, I did not misquote you

[Aaron Gustaveson]

Just to keep things clear (as possible) here is a list of the important question that for the most part remain unanswered.

How much dust was there?

Was it an abnormal amount?

Do these equations represent expected or observed values?
Dust Volume (One tower)=(10%)xVolume tower (approx.)
Dust Volume for one WTC tower (approx.)=5,918,515ft

What amount of dust would not have been suspicious?

What directed energy weapon does she claim was used?

Where does she claim the weapon was located?

What form of energy was it, light, heat, microwave?
A: To my understanding its micro/radio waves introduced into an electric field of which she shows evidence was from hurricane erin outside NY sept 11th.

Microwave radiation is part of an electric field itself, what sort of electric field are you talking about?
A: Charged atmosphere assorted with a storm system.

How was this field generated?
A: By a storm.

Maybe asking a question based on hypothetical can clarify this. Let’s say I have a pair of walky-talkies. On one of them, I disconnect the conductors that power the speaker and attach them to an explosive device. This way, when the other walkie-talkie is spoken into, energy in the form of radio waves will be generated and received by the walkie-talkie that is wired to the explosive device, resulting in an explosion. Would you consider that a two part directed energy weapon?



So when you say that microwave or radio wave energy was "introduced to the field", you’re simply saying the energy was emitted into the atmosphere, since the “field” you are referring to is the storm charged atmosphere?

By what methods and or devices was the energy introduced?

What is the nature of this/these broadcasting and destructive mechanism(s)?

What would they look like?

What are they made of?

How do they work?

What is the best evidence supporting her claims?

IF primary waves were produced by the demolition of the kingdome, why should we take that to indicate that they should be expected to have been recorded during the events of 911, especially given the difference in geology demolition and data collection?

Where is the evidence that body waves were recorded from the demolition of the kingdome?

[SamSmith]

Let us review your data gathering and processing ability. Initially you miss the interview link between NDT and Joe rogan I provided on THE FIRST PAGE (8th comment down) to which you are the 9th comment sharing part of an interview between Dr.Judy Wood and Dr.Greg Jenkins, how did you not see the link in my comment if you were indeed reading the comments and processing the information? The conversation moved foward from that point discussing seismic data, dust, hurricane erin and energy. Next you comment saying either event WOULD produce both types of waves, asking why I claimed only PRIMARY waves were recorded ( I never did) and that both p and s waves were recorded at six stations and provide a link to Columbia University's Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impact and Building Collapses at World Trade Centre,New York City pdf. In this pdf at the bottom of the FIRST PAGE it says "Surface waves were the largest seismic waves observed at various stations. The presence of seismic body waves is questionable even at Palisades for the two largest collapses; they are not observed at other stations" But according to you "Either event would produce both s and p waves theres no need to evoke any sort of tuning fork effect in order to EXPECT both wave types. Why are you claiming only primary waves were detected? Six seperate stations detected both types of waves". I point out your mistake and you reply "You're right I mixed up surface and secondary. I WOULD NOT EXPECT any more than the slightest of body waves, if any, being what body waves are"... But wait you just said either event would produce both waves and I didnt need to evoke a tuning fork effect to expect both waves types and that both p and s waves were recorded at six stations and used the Columbia University link to dispute me. Not only did you flip flop on your view of expecting both waves types in one comment then when your logic fails you get say you werent expecting them, you mix up surface waves and secondary waves, also you said I claimed only PRIMARY waves were recorded and tried to dispute it with a link that reinforced what I was saying the whole time! How does mixing up surface waves and secondary waves translate to you saying I said only primary waves were recorded and both types being recorded at six stations of which you provide a link that you obviously didnt read, you would of noticed this if you were indeed processing this data instead of trying to find an area of dispute. Based on this confusion 1.You missing the interview link I provided on the FIRST PAGE 2. Flip flopping on your expextations of wave types, disputing and confusing the different wave types and providing a link that you obviously didnt read being the bottom of the FIRST PAGE CONTRADICTS what you were using it for. 3 You did not proof read your comment before or after posting it cause if you did you should of made the necessary correction. Conclusion I do not believe you are taking the time when reading to process the data I present, or the data you present in a link you tried to use for an area of disput. Any further discussion of such complex information with the ignorant and easily confused will result in the repeat of this pattern you have displayed. Especially the topics of archaea, gene expression and the types of signals that switch on the up-regulation. Good day sir.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

I see your confusion (talk about easily confused). Expecting a wave to be produced is not at all the same as expecting it to be detected. The magnitude of a wave and the placement of instruments used for detection are important factors in this. That should clear up most of what your are bitching about here.

You are claiming that because I missed one link, that you posted, and confused s and surface waves, I am ignorant and easily confused, and it is therefore not worth your time addressing the questions I provided. This is a ridiculous and baseless ad hominem fallacy.

I missed your link the the NDT and Rogan podcast because I wasn't paying much attention to the thread, at the time.

Confusing s and surface waves is very understandable imo.

You're obviously clutching at straws, looking for a way to justify slinking out of the conversation, because you are massively ignorant as to the basics of claims you are trying to support and being exposed as such.

You could have summarized this with a few, clear sentences.

If you want to support your claims, simply answer the basic questions I provided.

If we are looking for patterns in this exchange, the most prevalent would be, me posing a basic question and you ignoring it.

[Chrismasonic]

I lived at Stanton Street, Bowery at the time...it was about a mile and a half away...for days afterwards we had dust all over the floor of our apartment that came through the screens

[Aaron Gustaveson]

I lived at Stanton Street, Bowery at the time...it was about a mile and a half away...for days afterwards we had dust all over the floor of our apartment that came through the screens

Thats horrible. Hope you're all healthy!
Have you been around any other giant building collapses that you could compare the amount of dust to?

[SamSmith]

I lived at Stanton Street, Bowery at the time...it was about a mile and a half away...for days afterwards we had dust all over the floor of our apartment that came through the screens

My condolences, what a tragic experience that must have been.