9/11 earthquakes cover up begins by limiting who can research the issue and what data they can look at. So far Columbia was the only university reporting on issue and no one else.
Dr. Sykes also from Columbia said the twin tower collapses were slightly larger in destructive energy then 2.4+ while 2.3 was largest measurement by Won-Young Kim who became the only voice of 9/11 earthquake research. Later Nuclear explosion seismology was blended with 9/11 and then they said they had no idea what happened like just like FEMA said about building 7.
"Nuclear explosion seismology, 7260 Theory and modeling"
and
"It is not possible to infer (with detail sufficient to meet the demands of civil engineers in an emergency situation) just what the near-in ground motions must have been." Won-Young Kim
"Urban Earthquakes, Nuclear Bombs and 9/11" hint hint
Won-Young Kim
"He is one of the leading researchers in the United States in methods of using seismic waves to discriminate between earthquakes, industrial explosions in mines and quarries, and underground nuclear explosions. "
Is Won-Young Kim trying to tell us something about 9/11?
The destructive energy of the January earthquake was magnitude 2.4, a minor earthquake. It was felt in Manhattan and Queens. Dr. Sykes said the twin tower collapses were slightly larger in destructive energy.
But bombs not immediately attached to bodies don't rip bodies to such tiny shreds as you imagine.
In terror bomb attacks of the suicide kind, the only person usually ripped to shreds is the terrorist to whom the bomb is strapped, or who have a carload of explosives in their back.
How large do you imagine those bombs in the core to have been?
How large ? Well if you listened to the video I provided and looked at seismic charts you would know. But somehow you turned Rick Siegel 's video 9/11 Eyewitness is a DVD by Rick Siegel
into something that has match up with other with explosion sound videos? Why would ALL explosion sounds have to match up? Who said that all explosion sounds have to match up anyway?
Quote "The destructive energy of the January earthquake was magnitude 2.4, a minor earthquake. It was felt in Manhattan and Queens. Dr. Sykes said the twin tower collapses were slightly larger in destructive energy." How large ? Ask Dr. Sykes.
I never said " tiny shreds" torsos are very large pieces and the point was the distance they traveled not anything else.
Christine Mazzola Paramedic Fire Department of New York
For those who didn't get out, if they didn't jump, if they weren't burned if they weren't trapped in the collapse, THEY WERE BLOWN APART BY THE EXPLOSION. A very good friend of mine had a torso land right in front of her. From the sky. Arms and limbs gone, head gone gone just a torso...
1. Myth Damage from North Tower. FEMA Map shows no Exterior Column Impacts. (no impact means no damage, the only damage seen was from Barry Jennings) 2. Myth No water to fight the fire. Videos shows lots of water. 3. Myth Out of Control Fire. No photo shows any out of control fire or damage. 4. Myth NIST report was not fraudulent. Actually the report was very fraudulent.
Myth Damage from North Tower
FEMA Map shows no exterior column impacts, which means NIST has some explaining to....
That means there was no exterior steel columns from WTC 1 or WTC 2 found there. This map is a map of where debris from WTC 1 and WTC 2 was found. As you can see, a lot of debris from WTC 1 hit WTC 7, so there would have been damage.
This picture shows that FEMA *did* show that there was damage to WTC
“That means there was no exterior steel columns from WTC 1 or WTC 2 found there.”
That’s right. What other objects, if not the exterior steel columns can do major damage? What other debris are you talking about? “lot of debris from WTC 1 hit WTC 7″ like what? The other labels say “cladding”
What can aluminium cladding do? Nothing!
Only the exterior columns can do something big and meaningful.
BTW WTC 7 is in the yellow area which means even less likely anything big from North Tower hit WTC 7. The orange area is more problematic.
My claim that they refused to show major damage is clearly factually correct, while your claim is without merit and falls short.
“Everything else that the building was made of, and was in the building. The building is mostly steel, concrete and glass.” You failed to add “would cause structural damage” in you incomplete sentence of meaningless rambling nonsense because you already know you are wrong.
The concrete and glass was never photographed as causing ANY structural damage on any other structure surround building 1 and 2 so why do believe that was an issue for building 7? Do you have photos to back up your claims? NOPE!
Deutsche Bank Building shows everything. The damage from Exterior columns and your suspect list which most likely shows the results as broken windows. Not building ending collapse damage here.
Exterior columns weighed tons and your glass and dust weighed next nothing and somehow that is “nonsense” to say tons of steel is nonsense when photos exist of exactly the damage they did do verse the damage glass and concrete did which is nothing.
Yellow zone means smaller debris and nothing important hit WTC7 .. So what did happen to Building 7? How many buildings in the world collapsed and managed to ignite other fires in other buildings? The way that can be done is through a conspiracy using molten steel showered the area which was filmed and photographed.
Lennart Regebro “Why would you say such a completely insane thing? And don’t you realize the building was full of INTERIOR steel beams?””
This is the first time you have mentioned core columns, and yet somehow you are making it sound like you have been talking about the core, maybe you were talking with a small puppet instead of people.
What photograph shows a core column hitting any of the other buildings? It is completely insane to say something no one has mentioned or documented. So where is your proof? It is completely insane that FEMA would map out exterior beams and not map out core columns on the same map.
“your glass and dust”
Lennart Regebro Dust? Did I say dust? No, I did not. The concrete into dust and glass got smaller too.
Unless you have photos to back up large pieces idea you got .
This is what a photograph looks like.
Add caption
Photos show a different story. Buses and cars were extinguished around building 7, but not building 7.
No retreat! and traffic lights are still working. No one looks “pulled” to me!
People are filmed trapped in building 7 yelling out a window. Firefighters weren’t pulled from building 7 then.
The famous flag raising photos at Ground Zero shows the retreat wasn’t so going well and at around 5:00 P.M they turned up the “stand down order” to a whole different level.
When has a building ever been predicted to fall in human history and then all the departments FDNY, FBI etc. followed up that rumor with zero video or photos taken of the problem and the source of the prediction? The only photos that exist are from NYCTA-Miller,G and he is not talking. You wonder why.
This photo shows no FDNY retreat and lots of water for building 5
Basically the OEM was telling everyone to get everyone out all buildings and they did this on video. Others were saying, “get back the building is about blow up” again on video. How did all these people know the building was going to blow up?
Photos of Building 7 show a single fire which could have been put out by anyone from an adjacent building and other photos support this idea and they did do this but only after building fell at 5:20. and those photos are from the next day or days down the road.
DUST CONTROL SOUNDS TOTALLY MADE UP AND STUPID???? Omg, HILARIOUS. Its REQUIRED to keep everyone downwind from getting silicosis and mesothelioma. Maybe learn some basic facts before you spread crap…
Why would they fight the dust when the area was already hosed down and wet? I asked you to look at the photos and video by the New York City Transit Authority (also known as NYCTA..you would have seen how wet the street became and all fighting that DID HAPPEN. You can’t really look because all your bullshit waste of my time effort would be harder to do. You can’t handle the truth and or you are just too stupid to put all together.
All your actions are babyish. Why don’t you eat your vegetables? Because you are a baby. The fucktardery is your refusal to see it all. The streets, the no fires and lots of water but no firefighting at all.
They had lots of water. They had lots of people willing to do the job and yet no actual work being done and you see groups of firefighters walking by building 7 in the background.
The target fire was also photographed
I believe that was all the fire building 7 had.
“Controlled Demolition takes months?” So ? Did you SEE the building filmed by CNN for at least an hour before it when down?
Did you hear what the said? “The building is about To BLOW UP, move it back” 3:25
BIG F’ing deal another inch and a half on a dust control stream. So what??? Some badly narrated conspiracy whacko video that says stuff that defies the laws of physics? 9–11 conspiracy people should be euthanized as simply too stupid to live.
The whacko video talked about the water myth you idiot and so you didn’t bother to watch your made up world go down., big surprise there. The deal is you are wrong about the water and everything else. The “dust control” sounds totally made up and stupid. You have been shown photos of buses and cars extinguished and an already wet street from firefighting activity and YOU resorted to make-believe world just like a child.. That is a big deal. No one has ever refuted a single word and now you are crying like little baby. All emotional.. So sad. Grow up! None 9–11 conspiracy people should be euthanized as simply too stupid to live as I just proven a hundred times over.
The NIST report is a lie and the photos above and follow up FOIA’s provide the evidence .
“1. NCSTAR 1 -9 states that the girder spanning between columns 44 and 79 at floor 13 lacked shear studs to provide composite action with the concrete floor slab,
2 and this agrees with a partial framing plan included in the report.
3 An article appeared in the Canadian Structural Engineering Conference Proceedings — 1986 describing the fabrication and construction of the steel structure.
4 Figure 5 of this article clearly shows 30 shear studs equally spaced along the girder at typical floors including floor 13. How did NIST confirm that shear studs were in fact omitted from the girder at floor 13?
NCSTAR1-9 Section 8.8 describes the partial-floor LS-DYNA model used to develop failure modes of floor framing and connections. The seated-beam connection shown in Figures 8-21 and 8-23 was compared to Frankel Steel drawing 1091. This drawing illustrates the one-inch thick bearing plate was 12 inches long. Does the partial-floor model account for the full length of the bearing plate? Why does the 16-story ANSYS model account for only an 11-inch long bearing plate?
Still wrong, even after you edit. MANY office fires get NO WATER as they halogen suppression systems built in. Last thing you want to do is start spraying water on servers, magnetic media, or critical documents.
HOWEVER - this was probably not the case in your 9–11 conspiracy. In that case the lack of firefighting effort was probably either of two things.
#1 There had just been a major structural collapse with an unknown number of people trapped and AT LEAST 343 firefighters unaccounted for. Over here we have a fire in an unoccupied building, and over here we have 343 firefighters trapped. Which incident takes precedence? Obviously the firefighters down.
#2 There was probably no water to use for firefighting at the other building. Major structures fell. Water mains were broken. There would be no water pressure. This would certainly be the case judging from the lack of sprinkler activation in your photo. If the sprinklers wont work, the hydrants wont either. Thats the problem with broken mains and a lack of pressure.
Your picture proves nothing other than that firefighters stayed at the original scene trying to dig for their dead brethren. Newsflash - cops weren't out writing meter tickets much that day either….
“Obviously the firefighters down.” is a reason NOT to fight fire? How do YOU rescue them then? Do you even understand what you are saying? . Say the 100% opposite and win a cigar!
You are totally wrong. You can see the other buildings getting hosed down and they are close to building 7 and have more problems.
“For many years, Halon 1301 was the holy grail of fire suppressants for high-value assets that would be damaged by traditional sprinkler systems. But, in 1989, when the Montreal Protocol determined that halon depleted the ozone layer, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency subsequently banned its manufacture in 1994, the search was on for halon.”
So you are totally full of it and most likely really old.
“Probably no water to use for firefighting,” WRONG We see the water in the photos.
“Your picture proves nothing other than that firefighters stayed at the original scene trying to dig for their dead brethren.” WRONG! That was the point. You said they retreated, the photos show 1. no fire 2. no retreat and 3 lots of water.
You have been 100% wrong so far. Can you at least get to 99% wrong. If you can one thing right, I will say you win!
