WTC Seismic spike hoax.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Zaphod..

Your quote:
"Because it took 16.95 seconds for the vibration to travel through the ground to where the sensors were located"

That's what I said silly.


"The vibrations weren't being caused by the debris hitting the ground, they were being caused by the floor collapses, which transmitted the vibration straight down the support columns into the ground"

I respectfully disagree with this and I wish HR would comment on this further. If what you say is the case, then building 7 should have had a MUCH larger showing on the siesmograph.

What these signals are in between 12.8 and 16.95 I'm not sure to be honest. But like I said earlier, you can't escape the correlational relativity between the big spikes of the plane crashes and big spikes from the buildings collapsing.. Right now I'm looking at some stuff concerning the gravitational energy stored in the towers and it's relation to the energy level that's showing up here.. I'm sorry but I don't think there was enough energy involved "during" the collapse itself to cause a small earthquake and I don't think there was enough even at the point all that stuff hit the ground. Were talking about a 2.1 richter spike here guys.


[edit on 29-6-2005 by TxSecret]




posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   


Why does the first impact last twice as long as the second impact?
bearing in my the answer has to take into account the first tower collpased after the second one.




why is there a clear difference in the scale of these two events.
are they the same events?

can anyone answer those questions?



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
AdamJ, those are good questions.

Right now I'm crash coursing on siesmology, very interesting stuff indeed.

I'll try and answer your questions the best I can.

Concerning the scales of the events? Yes.. The plane strikes and the building "collapses" are deffinitely on a different scale. Look at the left of each event and notice there is a ML=XX. From what I understand this means "equivalent siesmic". (Not sure if that's actual Richter) You will notice that the building "collapses" generate a 2.1 to 2.3 whereas the plane strikes generate a 0.7 to 0.9,,,,Not even HALF of that relative to the "collapses"


As far as the first impact lasting twice as long as the second one? I think that's pretty easy to explain.: When the first plance hit the north it struck pretty much head on right at the middle, thus impacting the core section of that building pretty directly. The SECOND plane, however, came in more at an angle and hit closer to the edge of the building, thus NOT hitting/affecting the core of the south tower to the extent relative to the north tower. The less action on the core, the less action going to the ground.. Comprende? The box collumns of each tower were built "into" the bedrock so you can safely assume they had great ground coupling abilities relative to other building components just 'resting" on the ground.

Speaking of duration.. Here is what I said in an earlier post"
"Here are some facts to keep in mind: This stuff also seems to be consistant throughout all the sources I've been looking at.

The readings of WTC 1 and 2 collapsing were on the order of about 2.1 - 2.3 (equivalent seismic)

The Plane strikes were not even half of this. (0.7 to 0.9)

***The colllapse of building 7 was 0.6. (AGAIN not even half of the WTC 1-2 and less than the strikes even)***

MOST importantly.. the DURATION of each events is follows..

Impact 1 at North Tower 12 seconds

Impact 2 at South Tower 6 seconds

Collapse 1, South Tower 10 seconds

Collapse 2, North Tower 8 seconds

Collapse 3, Building 7 **18** seconds


Ok.. why is the duration of the building 7 collapse nearly TWICE as long as the duration of the WTC 1 and 2 collapse? Physically, building 7 took about 6 seconds to fall with WTC taking about 11. (Obviously because they were taller) Keep in mind: just like the WTC 1 and 2, building 7 was deffinitely in "free fall".

So far fishy indeed. "


Hope that helps. Pay particularly close attention to what I've said in prior post about ground coupling and the timing of each event.. These are crucial in understanding my argument 'against' what HR is tyring to purport.


Another good read:

www.exit23.com...



[edit on 29-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Just a thought, but are we really in a position to interpret these graphs without additional material anyway ?
... by which I mean that there may be other factors that are feeding into the seismic data and obscuring the analysis.

Is the ground density at the site sufficiently homogenous to ensure that the data produced is consistent ?

Did any changes to the tidal position of the river have any effects (more likely between WTC2&1 and WTC7) ?

Do the buildings have a similar enough sub-structure, voids, service ducts and such to present a consistent platform ?



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
AdamJ, those are good questions.

Right now I'm crash coursing on siesmology, very interesting stuff indeed.

I'll try and answer your questions the best I can.


thanx for giving them a go.



Concerning the scales of the events? Yes.. The plane strikes and the building "collapses" are deffinitely on a different scale. Look at the left of each event and notice there is a ML=XX. From what I understand this means "equivalent siesmic". (Not sure if that's actual Richter) You will notice that the building "collapses" generate a 2.1 to 2.3 whereas the plane strikes generate a 0.7 to 0.9,,,,Not even HALF of that relative to the "collapses"


Unless im am missing something, still fails to explain the size of the spike present in one graph only. scale is not 0.7 to 2.3



As far as the first impact lasting twice as long as the second one? I think that's pretty easy to explain.: When the first plance hit the north it struck pretty much head on right at the middle, thus impacting the core section of that building pretty directly. The SECOND plane, however, came in more at an angle and hit closer to the edge of the building, thus NOT hitting/affecting the core of the south tower to the extent relative to the north tower. The less action on the core, the less action going to the ground.. Comprende? The box collumns of each tower were built "into" the bedrock so you can safely assume they had great ground coupling abilities relative to other building components just 'resting" on the ground.


Hit direct head on, core twice as impacted at least, more jet fuel in the building, yet collapsed second of the two?



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
Concerning the scales of the events? Yes.. The plane strikes and the building "collapses" are deffinitely on a different scale. Look at the left of each event and notice there is a ML=XX. From what I understand this means "equivalent siesmic". (Not sure if that's actual Richter) You will notice that the building "collapses" generate a 2.1 to 2.3 whereas the plane strikes generate a 0.7 to 0.9,,,,Not even HALF of that relative to the "collapses"


Don't forget that the M.L. is a logarithmic scale.


Originally posted by AdamJ
Why does the first impact last twice as long as the second impact?
bearing in my the answer has to take into account the first tower collpased after the second one.


I think the answer has to do with the nature of the two impacts. The north tower was hit straight on, high in the building. Thus the direction of the forces from the impact were relatively "normal" (i.e. aligned with) to the building's natural periodic motion.

The south tower was hit lower, and the impact was skewed and more of a slicing motion across the side of the building. This caused greater damage to the exterior columns. In addition, the off center impact meant that in addition to the normal rocking motion, the building also experienced a twisting from the impact (with the additional structural damage that that twisting may have caused.)



There was a twist, if you like, to the building when it got hit, and therefore the plane's hitting explained some things to me later, like why the ceiling fell apart. The ceiling tiles and some of the brackets and so on fell; some air conditioning ducts, speakers, cables, and things like that that were in the ceiling fell. I seem to have a sense that some of the floor tiles even buckled a bit or were moved. Some of the walls, I recall vaguely, were actually torn in a jagged direction rather then up and down. Again perhaps explained by the torque, some of the door frames popped out of the wall and partially fell or fully fell.


www.pbs.org...





Originally posted by AdamJ
why is there a clear difference in the scale of these two events.
are they the same events?

can anyone answer those questions?


As I explained earlier in this thread, the graphs are rescaled for the convenience of the viewer. Seismologists are like cardiologists. The shape of the waves is more interesting to them than the absolute magnitude.

Also in the top graph, the time scale for each horizontal line is 30 minutes. At that scale, a 30 second event is only a few pixels wide.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
I'm sorry but I don't think there was enough energy involved "during" the collapse itself to cause a small earthquake and I don't think there was enough even at the point all that stuff hit the ground. Were talking about a 2.1 richter spike here guys.


[edit on 29-6-2005 by TxSecret]


From the Columbia report


The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least 1011 J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for ML 2.3 is about 106 to 107 J. Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust. The perception of people in the vicinity of the collapses as reported in the media seems to be in full accord with the notion that ground shaking was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings. The seismic energy of a ML 0.7 to 0.9 computed for the impacts is a tiny fraction of the kinetic energy of each aircraft, about 2  109 J.


Does that help?



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   
the scale of those spikes is still not explained



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by TxSecret
I'm sorry but I don't think there was enough energy involved "during" the collapse itself to cause a small earthquake and I don't think there was enough even at the point all that stuff hit the ground. Were talking about a 2.1 richter spike here guys.


[edit on 29-6-2005 by TxSecret]


From the Columbia report


The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least 1011 J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for ML 2.3 is about 106 to 107 J. Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust. The perception of people in the vicinity of the collapses as reported in the media seems to be in full accord with the notion that ground shaking was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings. The seismic energy of a ML 0.7 to 0.9 computed for the impacts is a tiny fraction of the kinetic energy of each aircraft, about 2  109 J.


Does that help?


I'd also like to add a bit of info I gathered from one of the many WTC Contruction history websites..

They talked about an incident where one of the support beams broke from from the crane and plumeted into the basement peircing every solid contrete floors before striking the ground..

Ill look for the article, but it atleasts gives you a 'jist' of how heavy this # was. It also adds to the "pancake" theory as well. if *one* support beam can pierce 7 stories of concrete reinforced floor structures, imagine what several STORIES of building falling onto the next would do...

God I flip flop on this 9/11 # so much..

edit: cant find the story now, not really that important



[edit on 6/29/2005 by QuietSoul]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Howard, that 100 +- J that showed up on the seismograph... Can anyone really prove that the collapse caused that? I mean really..How much of the energy expended by the building 7 collapse should have showed up? Answer that one.

You also have not answered my question concerning the timing issue I keep bringing up. ALL that energy was making it into the ground at the VERY moment the buildings started to collapse.. Do I have to keep reminding you that the debri hadn't made it to the ground yet?

Quiet Soul.. ONE piece of steel.. WHO CARES.
Wasn't that concrete in the floor slabs pretty light? So it made it to the ground. I bet it didnt' show up on a seismograph did it?


AdamJ, Check out this link:

interactive2.usgs.gov...

Interesting eh? I think it's safe to assume, in this particlar sitation that it's ok to use the smaller number from the plane strikes a reference for the bigger numbers from the collapse.

Adam,,, Why did south tower fall before the north tower even though it was hit after? That's probably worth of it's own thread really and I don't really want to get in that.

I'm sticking to my guns concerning Adams question earlier as to why the first strike was twice the duration as the second strike.. AGAIN I reiterate.:

"When the first plance hit the north it struck pretty much head on right at the middle, thus impacting the core section of that building pretty directly. The SECOND plane, however, came in more at an angle and hit closer to the edge of the building, thus NOT hitting/affecting the core of the south tower to the extent relative to the north tower. The less action on the core, the less action going to the ground.. Comprende?"

Let me repeat.. "The less action on the core, the less action going to the ground.. Comprende?" Remember what I've been telling you guys.. For any given amount of energy 'trying' to make it's way to a seismograph, any energy that's going through a "ground coupled" building element.. (such as a box collumn) is going to be more amplified than one that isnt. Plain and simple.

Hr , when you say this...:
"I think the answer has to do with the nature of the two impacts. The north tower was hit straight on, high in the building. Thus the direction of the forces from the impact were relatively "normal" (i.e. aligned with) to the building's natural periodic motion.

The south tower was hit lower, and the impact was skewed and more of a slicing motion across the side of the building. This caused greater damage to the exterior columns. In addition, the off center impact meant that in addition to the normal rocking motion, the building also experienced a twisting from the impact (with the additional structural damage that that twisting may have caused.) "

I'm not really sure where you are going with that.. You pretty much say the same thing I do but you seem to be implying that some of the energy from the second plane strike was used up in the twisting motion it caused on the south tower. Fact is.. BOTH building sustained ALL the energy from each respective plane and BOTH had a great deal of movement and twisting associated with the strikes. I can't remember off the top of my head but it was pretty amazing how far each building traveled.. (at the top) and how long each building bounced back and forth after they were hit. It's pretty obvious the second plane didn't/or couldn't affect the core and it's resident box collumns to the degree the north tower strike did.

AND.. HR.. you still have not answered my other question concerning why the duration of building 7 collapse is almost TWICE as long as the towers...You ahve to admit.. that's a good one.



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
Howard, that 100 +- J that showed up on the seismograph... Can anyone really prove that the collapse caused that? I mean really..How much of the energy expended by the building 7 collapse should have showed up? Answer that one.

You also have not answered my question concerning the timing issue I keep bringing up. ALL that energy was making it into the ground at the VERY moment the buildings started to collapse.. Do I have to keep reminding you that the debri hadn't made it to the ground yet?



Huh? How do you come up with that? The exact timing of the collapse is impossible to tell based on the seismograph.

However, I will give you this to think about.

The buildings weighed a lot. That weight was transmitted to the bedrock under the site through the building foundation piles.

When the collapse started, the foundations were no longer supporting the total load of the building above, since an increasing portion of it was falling groundward.

Imagine if you were standing on a trampline and somone was standing on your shoulders. Now if that person were to drop off, even if he hit you and knocked you over on the way down, the trampoline would start to rebound upward from the loss of that weight, untill both of you hit the surface.




posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
As far as the different seismic energies go, if the less of the second planes energy was converted to ground motion, then more of it had to be absorbed by the building. Thus there would have been greater damage to the building structural system.

Which is probably a contributing factor in why the south tower collapsed first.



[edit on 29-6-2005 by HowardRoark]



posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
HR, not offense but that's absurd....


"The buildings weighed a lot. That weight was transmitted to the bedrock under the site through the building foundation piles.

Umm.. What have I been telling you all along?

"When the collapse started, the foundations were no longer supporting the total load of the building above, since an increasing portion of it was falling groundward.

Imagine if you were standing on a trampline and somone was standing on your shoulders. Now if that person were to drop off, even if he hit you and knocked you over on the way down, the trampoline would start to rebound upward from the loss of that weight, untill both of you hit the surface.

WTH???



Since when did BEDROCK become as ELASTIC as a trampoline mat? I'm sorry dude... Please tell me that the rest of you reading this thread will not even remotely fall for that one. Again, no offense HR as I've come to respect at least your tanacity.


"As far as the different seismic energies go, if the less of the second planes energy was converted to ground motion, then more of it had to be absorbed by the building. Thus there would have been greater damage to the building structural system.

Did you not read what I said earlier? BOTH building absorbed ALL of the impact from each respective plane. We're also talking a question of duration.. Remember? Why did the DURATION of the 1 strike last twice as long as the second? The maginitued was very similar no? I don't buy it for a second that one building swayed or "twisted" more thus absorbing more energy before it made it to the seismograph. AGAIN, both buildings absorbed all the energy from each respective plane strike. If south tower twisted "a little more" than north tower BIG DEAL.. I doubt it was an appreciable amount. What IS self evident is that the south tower strike was less focused on the core as opposed to the north tower strike.. Plain and simple.


[edit on 29-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Actually, not ALL the energy was transmitted to the towers. The fuel that exploded out of the tower was some energy, parts of the plane went through the tower, that was some energy. If more of the plane and fuel stayed in one tower, then there was more energy for the tower to absorb, so you would get a bigger seismic reading. The parts of the plane that went through, transferred SOME of their energy to the building, but obviously not ALL of it, because they kept going out the other side. If they had transferred all of their energy to the building they should have stayed in the building. The same with the fuel explosion. If it explodes outside the building, there's that much less energy transmitted TO the building.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Let me clarify my earlier post before HR chimes in. I remember watching some video of the 1989 earthquake in San Francisco, it was so intense that the ground looked like an ocean on a windy say. It was quite spooky to say the least. I'm not retracting what I said earlier, just stating that the only way you can make the ground move in such a fashion is to bring to bare a HUGE load in -oscilation-. For example, if I had super human abilities and was able to walk up to WTC1 and just "lift" it off the ground. (pretend it was not attached) the ground may 'move' back to a certain position but it's not going to "bounce" Now if I 'shook and crumbled' the building then tossed it to the ground from 1000 feet up then YES, the debri would hit the ground causing oscilations/waves. (Taking a few seconds to reach the ground mind you) In a nutshell, the ground underneath WTC 1 and 2 was not compressed enough to cause the effect HR is trying push. What I'm trying to say is.. If what HR said is true then after the weight of the WTC was 'removed' off the ground the ground would have had to have moved SEVERAL FEET at least.. Balogne..
The bedrock acted like a spring in this particular situation? Maybe AFTER the debris struct the earth. . Sounds like we can't reconcile the timing of the afformentioned seismograph readings and resorting to desperate measures.





[edit on 30-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Zaphod.. Good point but...... the energy 'stored' in the fuel (btus for example) is not the same as the energy stored in it's MOTION. (Potential or Kinetic) The explosion you saw was caused by the energy stored in the fuel ITSELF.. not from the energy that was 'stored' in it's motion Now.. Did the towers stop the planes completely? Of course not. The debri and fuel that exited the building possesed some energy but very little I'm sure compared to what it took to 'shred' the plane. The explosion of the fuel is from energy stored in a different fashion although 'some' energy was used from motion to ignite it. YOU get the gist. (I hope)

[edit on 30-6-2005 by TxSecret]



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
WTH???



Since when did BEDROCK become as ELASTIC as a trampoline mat? I'm sorry dude... Please tell me that the rest of you reading this thread will not even remotely fall for that one. Again, no offense HR as I've come to respect at least your tanacity.



Um, dude, it was an example. A visualization of the process. No bedrock is not as elastic as a trampoline mat, but it is elastic to its own degree.

That is why we have seismic signals from the impacts and the collapses.


Originally posted by TxSecret
AND.. HR.. you still have not answered my other question concerning why the duration of building 7 collapse is almost TWICE as long as the towers...You ahve to admit.. that's a good one.


Uh, no. The it is the duration of the seismic signal that is longer, not necessary the collapse itself.


If pressed, I would attribute this to the fact that the WTC collapse had to progress laterally and well as vertically, where in the towers, the entire floors collapsed as a unit. The two buildings had totally different aspect rations.

Furthermore, I would also wonder if the collapse of the building onto a major electrical substation caused any additional subsurface vibrations.





top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join