It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Serious 9/11 Arguments Compilation.

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Wining side? Things like not understanding there is no seismic evidence of conventional explosives at the WTC killed the credibility of the truth movement long ago. There is a reason why AE abandoned conventional explosives long ago. There is no proof of detonations that created a pressure wave with the energy to cut steel columns.




posted on May, 3 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Would you like to put forth the entire Windsor Narrative?



www.carba.co.uk...

However, it is interesting to see what happened on the 9th level. The picture shows that the unprotected steel mullions buckled as they were restrained against thermal expansion. But collapse did not ensue. Why?

The answer is that the loads were taken by multiple alternative load paths – a classic robustness provision. Mullions above from level 10 to 17 and below from level 8 down were able to distribute and share the loads as the 9th level mullions failed. The fact that there were 60 mullions per floor level added to the number of alternative load paths available.
Why was it that although these
alternative load paths existed above the
17th level they did not apparently
prevent the collapses? There are two
answers to this – firstly because there was no effective fire compartmentation of the building; secondly because of the failure of two internal concrete columns. Yes, a portalised pair of 1200 x 500 concrete columns did collapse.

The fire started on the 21st floor level. As shown in the picture taken from the east after the fire, the serviced storey between 16th and 17th levels arrested all the progressive collapse that occurred to the upper superstructure. Such “strong floors” in multi-storey buildings are another classic robustness provision.



The towers did not have a traditional concrete core. Floors were only supported on the ends of the floor trusses.

WTC 7 was not as open at the towes, but had floor connections not at traditional angles.

The WTC buildings did not have “classic robustness provision“ that prevented the total collapse of the Madrid Windsor. is that false statement?

edit on 3-5-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop


LT : The atomic explosion diagram is CLEARLY characterized by a really huge spike at the onset.
Can you even try to acknowledge those two HUGE spikes in the above 911 diagram ???
It's the only honestly showing amplitudes diagram for all 4 first events, ever given by LDEO.



1. But what type of wave is that spike? P waves? S waves? Surface waves? Love waves? Rayleigh waves?

2. Is it true the detonation of explosives historically create specific types of seismic waves? And LDEO has a seismic history of previous detentions. And is it false a building collapse without the aid of explosives will not create seismic waves associated with the detention of explosives?

3. Does your seismic evidence show waves associated with the detention of explosives. It has nothing to do with the amplitude of the wave’s spike if that wave is not solely associated with the detention of explosives.

4. If there was seismic evidence of conventional CD, why did AE, Richard Gage, and Steven Jones abandon conventional CD for fizzle no flash / thermite heat based cutting? Are they false flag deniers?

5. Dr Wood has repeatedly debunked seismic evidence of CD at the WTC? Is she a false flag denier?


Now this is a fine example how you tend to post.
It is a verbatim copy of another post in another thread.
I spotted it by your 4 times use of detention instead of the first time, proper use of "detonation".
Quite simple in fact, to disrupt all serious forum flow, by doing that ad infinitum.
And constantly ignoring any contra arguments offered to you also ad infinitum.
Just keep posting like a robot, if you enjoy that. The more you will get ignored by most members.

1. Rayleigh wave (surface wave). If you just had looked at the diagrams in Dr. Rousseau's paper, you had it already known. By the way, P and S body waves are much smaller in amplitude and energy and propagate through the earth's upper crust somewhat faster than Rayleigh waves.
Page 10, Rousseau paper :

The composition of the waves is revealing both in terms of the location of the source and the magnitude of the energy transmitted to the ground. The subterranean origin of the waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S body waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves. The placement of the source of the four other explosions is sub-aerial, attested by the unique presence of only Rayleigh waves.


You saw the radio mast of WTC-1N sink first, which indicates a demolition of the inner core columns, somewhere in the building.
WTC-2S showed an initial toppling move and torque of the full body upper part, then after the demolition charges were set off the whole upper part exploded and all that pulverized debris sunk into the still erect 77 other floors.
After the initial core column explosions, the natural gravitational collapse sequence of the floor areas takes over. So that part of the collapse is really not interesting for 9/11 OS doubters. And yes, parts of the center columns kept erect a few seconds longer than the already past floors collapse fronts. Which is not contradictory to a human led, core column destruction.

2. Read at last the Rousseau paper and try to comprehend what it explains.
It's the form and kind of amplitudes (spikes) and the total energy that a pack of spikes holds during a certain time slot, compared to the following then naturally occurring smaller seismic collapse spikes their energy content, that determines its explosive origins.

3. Read my full ""WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved"" thread, it's all there in its 121 pages :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
My 121 pages long WTC-7 thread[/url] was started on Jul, 27 2015, and I fully participated in it for the first 5 pages.
Then I left the playground for some member interactions, and yes, the distraction started, after my Jul, 28 2015 post, as usual. Luckily some to be taken seriously members from both sides then flocked in, and those are the ones I respect for their more (or lesser in some cases) professionalism and solid 9/11 research capabilities.
On page 9 on Jul, 29 2015 I posted one again. The Achimspock video :
Title : WTC7 collapse sound & seismic spikes.
www.youtube.com...

Page 14 one long post by me at the page bottom :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Page 15, this post and four more :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Page 16, quite some posts by me.
Page 17, quite some posts by me.
Page 18, lots of my posts and my WTC-7 collapse seismogram Conclusion post.
Page 20, 21, one post by me.
I returned to my "WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved" thread on Jan, 11 2016, at page 113 and left lots of posts full of links, up to the recent last page 121.

4. and 5. already answered in one of my above posts.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop

Winning side? Things like not understanding there is no seismic evidence of conventional explosives at the WTC killed the credibility of the truth movement long ago. There is a reason why AE abandoned conventional explosives long ago. There is no proof of detonations that created a pressure wave with the energy to cut steel columns.


Just keep stubbornly neglecting all seismic evidence I and others laid before you, do you?
No proof ?
Just reread this thread and my full ""WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved"" thread, it's all there in its 121 pages :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I have nothing to do with A&E its site. I am no poster there. But I adhere to many of their proposals and evidence.
And of course there is proof of such detonations, just listen to the "cap guy" video in page 1.
Did you watch it at all? Heard him say about the pressure waves during the audible row of explosions he and all the bystanders felt, like the pressure on a sub at hundred meters deep.?
And do you even understand that a pressure wave that far up is spreading like a cone, with its smallest cone shape at the origin of the high up detonation. You will feel its full might only if you stood in the other tower at the same height.
The Hudson Pier guy (what's his name again? I have to write this all from memory, I lost all my bookmarks in the upgrade to Firefox Quantum, a major improvement btw) did record ALL these detonations, it's clearly recognizable in his recordings. Because he stood in the much wider sound cone created by those HIGH UP detonations, spreading down to that Pier, 1.2 miles further away.
Did you know the FBI raided his office and confiscated his original tapes.? Dirty critters.
Luckily he made copies before that....some of your country's power structures are crooked to the bone.

Luckily, the bulk of you are totally normal happy citizens, ...still.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop



By the way, P and S body waves are much smaller in amplitude and energy and propagate through the earth's upper crust somewhat faster than Rayleigh wave



Amplitude in not controlled by type of wave. Amplitude is controlled by the energy during a seismic event. A magnitude 2 earth quake is going to have all associated waves with smaller amplitudes than a magnitude 6 earthquake. All seismic waves generated by a magnitude 6 earthquake will have higher amplitudes than a magnitude 2 earthquake with the same origin? Is that false.

Amplitude is just the maximum energy released by a certain event.

So what type of an event historically has smaller P and S waves with more prevalent Rayleigh waves?



www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Comparison with Signals from Earthquakes, Gas Explosion and Mine Collapse
The signals at PAL from Collapse 2 and a small felt earthquake beneath the east side of Manhattan on January 17, 2001 are of comparable amplitude and ML (Fig. 4). The character of the two seismograms, however, is quite different. Clear P and S waves are seen only for the earthquake. The 7-km depth of the earthquake suppressed the excitation of short- period Rg, which is so prominent for the collapse. The difference in the excitation of higher frequencies also can be attributed to the short time duration of slip in small earthquakes compared to the combined source time of several seconds of the complex system of the towers and foundations responding to the impacts and collapses. The waves from the WTC events resemble those recorded by regional stations from the collapse of part of a salt mine in western New York on March 12, 1994 (ML 3.6). That source also lasted longer than that of a small earthquake. A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away.
An explosion at a gasoline tank farm near Newark NJ on January 7, 1983 generated observ- able P and S waves and short-period Rg waves (ML 3) at PAL. Its Rg is comparable to that for WTC collapse 2. Similar arrivals were seen at station AMNH in Manhattan, which is no longer operating, at a distance of 15 km. AMNH also recorded a prominent seismic arrival at the time expected for an atmospheric acoustic wave. We know of no microbarograph recordings of either that explosion or the events at the WTC. Many people asked us if the arrivals at seismic stations from the WTC events propagated in the atmosphere. We find no evidence of waves arriving at such slow velocities. Instead the seismic waves excited by impacts and collapses at the WTC are short-period surface waves, i.e. seismic waves traveling within the upper few kilometers of the crust.


There is no seismic evidence of conventional CD at the WTC

Amplitude is not wave dependent. Amplitude is dependent on how much energy is released by the event that caused it.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop


www.carba.co.uk...
However, it is interesting to see what happened on the 9th level. The picture shows that the unprotected steel mullions buckled as they were restrained against thermal expansion. But collapse did not ensue. Why?
The answer is that the loads were taken by multiple alternative load paths – a classic robustness provision. Mullions above from level 10 to 17 and below from level 8 down were able to distribute and share the loads as the 9th level mullions failed. The fact that there were 60 mullions per floor level added to the number of alternative load paths available.
Why was it that although these alternative load paths existed above the17th level they did not apparently prevent the collapses? There are two answers to this – firstly because there was no effective fire compartmentalization of the building; secondly because of the failure of two internal concrete columns. Yes, a portaled pair of 1200 x 500 concrete columns did collapse.
The fire started on the 21st floor level. As shown in the picture taken from the east after the fire, the serviced story between 16th and 17th levels arrested all the progressive collapse that occurred to the upper superstructure. Such “strong floors” in multi-story buildings are another classic robustness provision.



1. The towers did not have a traditional concrete core. Floors were only supported on the ends of the floor trusses.
2. WTC 7 was not as open as the towers, but had floor connections not at traditional angles.
3. The WTC buildings did not have “classic robustness provision“ that prevented the total collapse of the Madrid Windsor. is that a false statement?


""Would you like to put forth the entire Windsor Narrative?""

Of course. Use the ATS Search with these terms : LaBTop Windsor Madrid
There you will find the links to my Windsor Tower Madrid texts, photos and videos. If they do not exist anymore, since a serious scrubbing of non OS material from the Internet is ongoing, just use this site :
archive.org... , and fill in the "lost" url.

1. The Twins had damn sturdy cores, with extra reinforced concrete, laid on damn thick crossbeams connected to the 47 core columns, on each floor. And they had lightweight steel bar reinforced concrete on steel plates, floors, sturdily welded to the core columns and their outer beams, and sturdily welded to the Vierendeel triplets that made up the Facade.
That welds sturdiness evidenced by the inward pulling by those floors of both the facades, at both sides of the burning WTC-1N corner, the one that streamed orange melted metal from down, at the onset of the tower collapse.

2. Have you ever taken the time to search for the construction photos of the steel reinforcements welded over the sub station in WTC-7 when the old WTC-7 was renewed to the 47 story high one?
Did you see the enormous side beams and crossbeams placed over that CONEDISON electrical substation? On which they then build the rest of the floors on. That was some damn serious thick steel. I have posted that photo a few times, so you can find it back via the ATS Search, use : LaBTop CON EDISON , or : WTC 7 construction photo
And what have non traditional angles to do with its collapse? It was a half day long demolition, not a structural failure.

3. They had the classic Tube in Tube construction, agreed on by all the Architects and all the Engineering societies.
Nothing can protect ANY building from being demolitioned, however. So, yes its a false statement, overly narrow, based on just one construction type. Just look at all these modern extravagant buildings nowadays erected everywhere. They don't collapse from structural failures. But if I place a disk shaped variety, thermobaric bomb in them at crucial positions, I can easily bring all of them down. One by one. Piece of cake.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Way would it be unusual for a collapse to have a large amplitude in a Reyleigh wave when seismic historical date shows this type of seismic activity mostly creates Reyleigh waves?



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop
This addressed was was lacking for seismic evidence of conventional implosion.



911review.com...

There appears to be no basis for the claim that the large spikes preceded the "collapses", nor that the energy indicated by those spikes was more than could be accounted for by the approximately 110 megawatt-hours of gravitational energy stored in the elevated mass of each Tower. And there is strong evidence contradicting the idea that the seismic spikes indicated underground explosions including:

There is no support in the large body of photographic and video collapse evidence for the idea of powerful explosions in the Towers' basements at the onset of the collapses. Instead the evidence shows waves of destruction proceeding methodically downward from the crash zones to the ground.
Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves, but the seismic stations registered only strong S waves. P waves oscillate horizontally -- parallel to the direction of travel; whereas S waves oscillate vertically -- perpendicular to the direction of travel.
An analysis of the timeline of the North Tower collapse on the 9-11Research site corroborates the idea that the large seismic spikes were produced by rubble reaching the ground.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 07:25 PM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

""Amplitude is just the maximum energy released by a certain event.
Amplitude is not wave dependent. Amplitude is dependent on how much energy is released by the event that caused it.""


The amplitude of a periodic variable (LT : wave) is a measure of its change over a single period. There are various definitions of amplitude, which are all functions of the magnitude of the difference between the variable's extreme values. In older texts the phase is sometimes called the amplitude.
snip
Maximum magnitude computes the maximum value of the absolute value of the amplitudes within a timed window.
( en.wikipedia.org... )


You have peak and trough amplitude, the wave form part above the zero line and the one below that.
Amplitude is the wave form expression of energy-spread over a certain time window.
The total count of amplitude waves, count for the TOTAL energy released in that specific measured time frame on a seismogram. And the maximum amplitude is just that.

Like those two enormous spikes on the LDEO seismogram I posted earlier above. Those are the maximum peak and trough amplitudes, instantly showing the explosive nature of the two events.
Because any demolotion explosion is registered at much higher energy levels on any building collapse seismogram, than the then following gravitational debris collapses onto the surrounding soil.
Use ATS Search : LaBTop Prof Brown, or Dr. Brown


Similar arrivals were seen at station AMNH in Manhattan, which is no longer operating, at a distance of 15 km.


Ask Giuliano, now defending your president, why that station, so important to the earthquake riddled New York region, had to be closed. One year earlier.

P and S waves are body waves, they travel through the body of the earth.
P stands for primary or pressure or push-pull.
P-waves have the greatest speed and arrive as the first on seismograms.
S-waves have speeds less than P-waves, and appear on seismograms after P-waves.
S stands for secondary or shear or shake.
Rg or Eayleigh waves are guided through the upper crust layers and appear after P and S waves.



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Again, the amount of energy for any given wave is what raises or lowers the amplitude. Then number of times a wave cycles over a period of time is frequency.

The only way to change any give frequency generated by any given object is to speed up or slow down the vibration of that object. Is that false.

The only way to make an object increase its amplitude for any give frequency is to make it vibrate more forcefully at that frequency. Is that false.

Take the US electrical system. Industrial power is transmitted at a frequency of 60 hertz? Is that false. By changing the amplitude, you have 120 volts at 60 hertz, 220 volts at 60 hertz. For three phase power at 60 hertz, you have 480 volts then 15 kilovolts.


A wide selection of different voltages at the same frequency by changing amplitude.

You change amplitude by increasing or decreasing the amount of energy transmitted at a specific frequency.

edit on 3-5-2018 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Let’s review.

The historical seismic activity shows a building collapse is expected to transmit Rayleigh waves.

Rayleigh waves would change in amplitude as items with different masses with different kinetic energy hit the ground.

“Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves” which are not present in the WTC seismic data.

I have produced evidence a building not properly prepared for an implosion by explosives would eject shrapnel. Shrapnel that would have sprayed bystanders, the street, and adjacent buildings. There is no evidence of shrapnel being ejected while the towers under went inward bowing of columns resulting in buckling leading to collapse.

The 1993 WTC bombing of 1000 pounds of explosives blow out at least one wall and caused substantial structural damage, but did not cause detectable siesmic activity 15 kilometers at a former seismic station. But you claimed LEDO recorded seismic activity from detonations at the WTC 31 kilometers away, but there is no audio or video evidence of detonations powerful enough to cut steel columns from footage of the collapse of the WTC towers? No evidence of ejected shrapnel during the buckling of the vertical columns?

To remain relevant, the biggest pusher of controlled demolition, Architects and Engineers, abandoned the narrative of kinetic detentions brought down the towers in favor of thermal cuttting devices?

You cite a seismic narrative debunked, abandoned by the biggest group pushing WTC CD, and ridiculed by other conspiracists.

There is no seismic evidence of conventional implosions at the WTC. Get over it.



posted on May, 4 2018 @ 02:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop

originally posted by: LaBTop
""and claiming only one did"". HuH?



Yup



Two steel framed construction collapses there



Only the upper few, outer floor steel parts of the Windsor Tower in Madrid PARTIALLY collapsed, since those were the ones where the spray-on insulation wasn't attached yet. When the partial collapse reached the floor where it WAS attached everywhere, the collapse sequence immediately got halted by the still intact, unbend or weakened steel.



Hey look at that, we agree that steel framed structures collapse from fire.

For some reason though you aren't aware that the collpse of the Windor Tower stopped at the concrete reinfoced machine floor. Sloppy research I guess

edit on 4-5-2018 by mrthumpy because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
23
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join