Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Please provide me with copies of ANY of those seismic hand helds from PROTEC.
Because I know that the guy, who wrote that piece of disinfo, when confronted with the same question, suddenly had not one copy saved anywhere in his premises.
Isn't that a tidbit strange?



Do you remember those old sets (I don't know if they still do it or not) that were just facades? They looked like buildings, salons and things with windows and all, but they were pretty much just 1-dimensional drawings on a flat wooden wall.

Why do none of the experts have the actual numbers to back up the "official story," which in itself is ill-defined and doesn't really exist? This is a critical realization but it only happens to you if you have sense enough to know what data the "experts" would really be looking at. Otherwise, you're looking at a wooden wall painted to be in 3 dimensions and don't have sense enough to realize it. But for anyone that will trust what I post, someone is yanking all of your chains. If you don't trust me, then, damn it, post the damned figures and documents and everything else! Or at least learn how this stuff works, so you understand the concept of having to plug variables into formulas, and variables are the important values that you often have to determine from other formulas (ie using geometry in the case of the towers' structural documents). In this case, it's pretty overt, apparently: the evidence just isn't there. He (PROTEC) references all this, but it isn't there.

I don't know what world some people come from where we all just forget about the numbers and argue about something else like they won't ultimately matter. We can all go on and argue about whatever, and it'll all be nonsense until someone finally goes for some numbers or some real, authentic data.

So why are there no numbers, no papers, etc., again?

[edit on 4-12-2007 by bsbray11]




posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   
And i agree with you Bsb.

but, thats why im trying to apply the math im able to do to the situation in order for it to make sense to me. if it makes sense to anyone else i applaud them given how articulate ive been today. but your reasoning in your post and Labtops sentiments in his last post are why even I asked if that data was available in my last post (the short one not the bore you to death rambling of the one prior to that).

At this point I'm going to apply the math im able to do, share it, and if anyone can show me where im wrong then I wont take that as part of a debate but an opportunity for me to learn something new.

of course thats just me.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
At this point I'm going to apply the math im able to do, share it, and if anyone can show me where im wrong then I wont take that as part of a debate but an opportunity for me to learn something new.


You're the trooper that's set out to show everyone that it couldn't have been C4 and anfo, aren't you?

I don't see why someone couldn't just approximate the structural documents, except that the ultimate point is going to be just to argue with someone anyway, and the approximation is of course going to be questioned with someone hard-headed enough. I'm sure it won't make any difference to you because you can just ballpark your figures and the problem is immediately evident. The same robustness that allowed them to stand so easily after the impacts makes conventional demolition out of the question.

And this is completely off topic, and I apologize for temporarily hijacking the thread.

[edit on 4-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


LOL in THIS instance yes, my stance is that the seizmic data is not indicative of an HE blast for the simple reason that the size of the blast required to create the siezmic data was simply not witnessed by anyone anywhere with or without audio video equipment.

that would be my argument to the casual theorist who is trying to use the seizmic data to prove their point.

now, labtops data has proven to be a challenge simply because im still not sure we're discussing the same aspects of the event yet. so, im going to go over his data some more tomorrow and ask questions where necessary and see what comes out in the wash so to speak.

as to the rest, cant say i disagree with you entirely. the structural documents would be of great value to make exact calculations but based on the best unverified sources i could find i think my numbers are pretty close, even generous at times.

and i still dont see it.

and personally i dont think youve disrupted or derailed the thread. matter of fact i think overall we've got a decent discussion going on here.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
the structural documents would be of great value to make exact calculations but based on the best unverified sources i could find i think my numbers are pretty close, even generous at times.


Just "for the record" I know what you're talking about and am aware how little difference the actual plans would make. It would make much less difference than the amount of explosives you're not even considering that would have to be in place to cut anything besides core columns on every 3rd floor. And if that weren't the case then I'd have to question if we were even talking about the same buildings anymore.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by bsbray11
 


LOL in THIS instance yes, my stance is that the seizmic data is not indicative of an HE blast for the simple reason that the size of the blast required to create the siezmic data was simply not witnessed by anyone anywhere with or without audio video equipment.



That's the kicker, ain't it?

The '93 bombing had a yield of a 1/2 ton of tnt - I believe - and yet FAILED to register on the seismograph. So in order to show during 9/11 as Labtop asserts, it would have HAD to be a significantly larger blast, which obviously and absolutlely would have been heard on any and all recordings.

But hey, as long as we can concoct a CT theory that suits out world/NWO views, let's just ignore that little fact, shall we.....



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Haroki
That's the kicker, ain't it?

The '93 bombing had a yield of a 1/2 ton of tnt - I believe - and yet FAILED to register on the seismograph.

well in the interest of keeping the discussions real and based totally in fact, the reason (even stated by the guys working the seizmic equipment) that the 93 blast didnt register was that it wasnt, strictly speaking, connected to the ground or anything that way. it was in the truck, which technically makes it a surface detonation and for one of those to register it has to be MASSIVE.

any scenarios involving bombs on 911 they are going to be connected to something that is embedded in the ground.



So in order to show during 9/11 as Labtop asserts, it would have HAD to be a significantly larger blast, which obviously and absolutlely would have been heard on any and all recordings.


they would not be IN the ground so it would likely take MORE HE to register the same size blast IMO.


Labtop, did my massive post on the previous page clear up my thoughts a bit? any thoughts to add?



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

Originally posted by Haroki
That's the kicker, ain't it?

The '93 bombing had a yield of a 1/2 ton of tnt - I believe - and yet FAILED to register on the seismograph.

well in the interest of keeping the discussions real and based totally in fact, the reason (even stated by the guys working the seizmic equipment) that the 93 blast didnt register was that it wasnt, strictly speaking, connected to the ground or anything that way. it was in the truck, which technically makes it a surface detonation and for one of those to register it has to be MASSIVE.

any scenarios involving bombs on 911 they are going to be connected to something that is embedded in the ground.



So in order to show during 9/11 as Labtop asserts, it would have HAD to be a significantly larger blast, which obviously and absolutlely would have been heard on any and all recordings.


they would not be IN the ground so it would likely take MORE HE to register the same size blast IMO.


Labtop, did my massive post on the previous page clear up my thoughts a bit? any thoughts to add?


Oops, you're right, I didn't think about that.

Estimates have been done about the tnt equivalent force of the impact of the planes. I think they're around 4-600 lbs? Not sure about that. Anyone have any quotes?

So, it would have to be at least THAT amount to register, correct?

Do you think that much would be able to heard?



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I hate to go off topic on an excellent thread.

Has anyone thought about thermite cutting the horizontal beam supports of the core columns and forcing them (the core columns) to buckle?

Euler's buckling equation:

F=(П²)EI/(Kl)²

Force equals pi squared times the modulus of elasticity times the area moment of inertia divided by the effective length squared.

Let's say the effective length is 12 feet for simplicity.

E is always 29,000,000 psi (lbs./inch squared) for steel.

I for a W14x730 (taken from NIST as a typical rolled member between floor 83 and 86...wtc.nist.gov... 86/275) is Ix=14300 in.^4 and Iy=4720 in.^4

The force to buckle a W14x730 member would then be:

Fx=(3.1416)^2x(29,000,000 lb./in^2)x(14300 in^4)/(144 in)^2

Fx=197 million pounds.
Fy=65 million pounds.

So, it would buckle in the y direction first.

Now, say they severed just one floor worth of horizontal supports. This would change the effective length to 24 feet.

Fx=49 million pounds
Fy=16 million pounds

Just 2 floors worth of horizontal supports

Fx=22 million pounds
Fy=7 million pounds

Now just 3 floors worth

Fy=4 million pounds

As you can see, it wouldn't have taken many floors worth of horizontal severing to force the core columns to buckle.

Silent. No siesmic signature (other than beams collapsing inside the structure...which was observed). And the exterior would collapse from the impact zones.

Again. Sorry to be off topic. And if I've made an error in anything, please point it out.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Damocles, let's try to keep it as simple as can be for the readers with less, or no specific training in the fields we are now talking about.

There is no need for your explosives calculations, when you really understand what my thesis undoubtedly proves.

And I repeat :
I will defend my thesis against ANYONE, and again challenge all of you to proof me wrong, within the rules of reasonable debating and without childish remarks.

I will not answer to persons who obviously haven't read, or understood my reasoning in my thesis. (which btw does not mean you have to agree, after the first thorough reading. I will however help you to agree at second sight, if wanted.)


All these mathematical calculations or understanding of complicated professional jargon aren't needed, when you start to understand what my interpretation of the LDEO seismic chart of the collapse of WTC 7 indicates.
It boils down to simple basic-school calculus skills: adding, subtracting, multiplication and dividing.
Which all of you, our forum readers, have mastered, otherwise you weren't posting or reading here.

This is the most important conclusion of my thesis :
The WTC 7 global collapse magnitudes are substantially smaller than the unknown events magnitudes PRECLUDING that global collapse.



Please take a lot of time to try to understand the implications of this graph I made, and its included notes, especially the last note at the center bottom :

Big thesis graph with readable notes!

This big graph is not allowed to be posted here, because of the forums posting boundaries rules here at ATS, a real pity in this case.
That's why I outsourced it to a more exceptions-rich forum.

Last note part on my graph :
You need a LOT of extra energy input to be able to explain this part of the graph.

Thus, Damocles, no need for complicated calculations, just come up with a reasonable explanation for those anomalies, and we can all go to sleep at ease again.
Or try to proof me wrong on my notes.

I'll counter now already all the less gifted posters in the logics-department, in advance :
-- No, it's NOT reasonable to come up with snapping columns causing those huge precluding seismic events, don't try to fool your colleagues in your department with such a comparison of a tiny event to a total global collapse of a massive 47 floors WTC 7 building, slamming into the ground. --

And it was a BOTTOM down collapse in this case, so the biggest bang of the global building collapse was circa 1 or 2 seconds after initiation of the global collapse, since the whole pack of 42 floors slammed down to the ground, through the first 5 floors, according to the officially promoted LIES.
The most massive mass, banged to the ground, at first.
And still the precluding events caused seismic signals with bigger magnitudes .


In fact, it looks as if the whole WTC 7 seismic collapse chart is a falsification, whether fabricated by feeding the seismographs with false data, by outside or inside sources, or by altering part or parts of the graph.
Somebody in the planning stages, seemed to have forgotten about the 17 seconds retention time in the upper crust, for seismic signals travelling from New York 9/11 events to the needles of the seismic recorders at Palisades, NY state.
It was also the only graph which took up till Friday after Tuesday 9/11, to be processed and published on the LDEO website. All other graphs were processed the next day already.
This, perhaps, indicates, that some people realized their 17 seconds mistake, but were not able to re-falsify their initial seismic graph of the WTC 7 collapse. It is very difficult to convince old-school scientists, that their apparatus was functioning correct in the cases of the twin towers plane impacts, and their collapses, but was suddenly incorrect in the case of a much later collapse of another building.


Of course, if we proof falsification, or offer strong doubt to the sincerity of this WTC 7 seismic chart, any logical thinking individual will agree with me, that in that case, it is clear that a LOT of US officials were involved in High Treason.

I am convinced that I offered both proofs already many years ago, but nobody in the official believers camp EVER came up with any substantial or vague contradictorily proof of me being wrong.

They can't, because it simply is so damn Simple.
You can't refute simple facts with complicated nonsense, simplicity always rules.

And you can't retract, as a government which lied already too much, the so triumphantly published seismic data, after so many years.
That would do much more damage to their propaganda pile, than my, hidden to the mainstream public eyes, thesis, in-casu proof of High Treason.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff, interesting thought.
So you calculated that the Y-vector, the vertical one, is the smallest factor, thus the weight of the building will force an already standing loose horizontal column, to buckle to the left or right, since thermite-cut, and hanging loose HORIZONTAL beams which normally keeps that column in place, can not keep that column in place anymore against the gravitational forces of the weight of the above building's part.

But then all the 42 columns cross beams at that floor must have been severed, otherwise all the remaining 41, still cross-beamed columns will take over the "buckling-causing" weight of the top part of the building on just one column.

I have thought, and posted those thoughts, from the first time on that I began to see videos of the collapse emerge on the Web, that initiation must have begun at the mechanical floors, for a few reasons.
- The strange puffs of smoke or water-vapour at those floors which held water tanks, which could have been severed by any relatively small, column-displacement charges, after these columns were cut by thermite.
- The more intense and massive debris expulsions at those floors during collapse.
- The massive exterior-column parts expelled from these mechanical floors during the collapses, which parts f.ex. ended up at the glass dome of the Winter Garden building 300 meters away.

Your idea is much smoother, fitting in the video proof we all saw, of the collapses.
Much smaller, less detonative charges were needed to severe HORIZONTAL beams instead of VERTICAL columns !

How big is the chance in your engineering eyes, that one column with no horizontal crossbeam support at all anymore, would buckle under the weight of the above total building, or partial building effectual gravitational weight on that one column ? (since the whole building can not lean on one column alone)

Must all columns or most columns at one floor be severed from their horizontal supports, to initiate for sure enough buckling, to start a global, gravitational driven collapse?

Last but not least, what are those precluding huge seismic events then in the WTC 7 seismic chart, if they are NOT caused by explosives?



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   
You state that there are obviously 3 bomb packets going off prior to the collapses. And the proof is in the seismic readings. However, NO ONE is reacting to any explosives large enough to set off a seismograph.

I know you would like to gloss over this fact, but you can't if you want to prove what you're saying. It's the crack in your theory that must be proven wrong.

The shoe is now on the other foot. You have a theory. Now I am asking for proof. You must give a reasonable answer to advance your theory....




posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
How big is the chance in your engineering eyes, that one column with no horizontal crossbeam support at all anymore, would buckle under the weight of the above total building, or partial building effectual gravitational weight on that one column ? (since the whole building can not lean on one column alone)


IMO, it would need to be more than one. But as few as half. Think of two columns horizontally supported by a beam. You need to only sever one column's connection for them both to not have the bracing anymore. The one side (attached to the beam) would actually be worse case because of the extra wieght of the beam not shared by both columns.


Must all columns or most columns at one floor be severed from their horizontal supports, to initiate for sure enough buckling, to start a global, gravitational driven collapse?


Same as above. BTW, this theory is only for collapse initiation. The rest would be done with explosives.


Last but not least, what are those precluding huge seismic events then in the WTC 7 seismic chart, if they are NOT caused by explosives?


I would have to say IMO, explosives. Remember that WTC 7 didn't have a core, so the initiation and collapse would be different.

Hope I answered your questions.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
How much time did you spent in these forums to read the massive amount of former posts, regarding explosives going off at the WTC compound on 9/11?

Use the F****** Search Engine :UTFSE!

Btw, I really hate that triumphantly tone of your posts, based on nothing.
If you try to get me banned here, try me out.
I can be very descriptive of the prerogatives of opponents if needed.



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


I'm assuming you're responding to Haroki.

Since he/she is on my ignore list, my life has been more calm. BTW, I know what you mean about the attitude. Unless he/she can verify their educational background that is. Which has been asked several times by me to only be ignored.

Life is better when the vitriols are ignored in your life.



[edit on 12/5/2007 by Griff]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
How much time did you spent in these forums to read the massive amount of former posts, regarding explosives going off at the WTC compound on 9/11?

Use the F****** Search Engine :UTFSE!

Btw, I really hate that triumphantly tone of your posts, based on nothing.
If you try to get me banned here, try me out.
I can be very descriptive of the prerogatives of opponents if needed.


Then I'll take that as a no, you have no evidence AT ALL of explosives going off JUST PRIOR to the collapses, which would back up your claim, btw. Yet?

Nobody's saying that there wasn't explosions that day. WHAT they were are in question though, agree? It's not cut and dried by any means.....

You see, right now you're setting yourself up as an authority. Now I, similar to CTerz, have a Q. They must be answered, providing they're reasonable of course. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone, anyone, who will respond that they heard explosions that were big enough to move the seismograph going off just prior to the collapses that fits your time line.

Again, I realize it's not something you want to answer, cuz I believe you have none. But tooooo baaaaaaaaad........


[edit on 5-12-2007 by Haroki]

[edit on 5-12-2007 by Haroki]



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I'm working on your time line.

I already see a huuuuge problem. I'm getting it all together for you, I'll put it up for you to review when I get it all together. I'm trying to put notes on the graph like you do to explain what I see. We'll see if I can make it work.

Looks like I'll need somewhere to put images. Anybody have a site that's easy to use?



posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
@Labtop: I really hope that what im about to type is way off base and im just reacting to it as i am due to a really bad day with a couple more to follow...

BUT..the tone of your last few posts have been defensive and bordering on hostile. you seem, and i pray im wrong, to be of the opinion that anyone who disagrees with you is out to get you personally. it seems though any disagreement is taken as an attack to be dealt with in kind.

i do hope im wrong because until now it seemed we were two people discussing opposing viewpoints of a common event. i was rather enjoying myself and once i get through this crap in the next few days i hope we're able to pick that up again.

however...for you to just dismiss my calculations and theories out of hand is both arrogant and unneccessary in my opinion.

regardless of your thesis you cannot dismiss the FACT that it takes a very large explosion event to register on the seizmographs.

with that in mind you should also be able to admit that any explosions of that magnitude were NOT witnessed.

NOW having said all that...i have NOT taken the time to go over your reserach in detail to see if what you have found DOES reconcile with what was observed and IF explosive events could be the cause. i DO plan to do that once i return home this weekend

ive not done a thorough analysis of your data so i am not going to say you are wrong yet. but in my opnion youve yet to prove that im wrong yet either. if you did i missed it ill go over this thread again when i return as well

as far as explaining any anomolies..im not even going to try. when i get to that point im going to stick to what i know and am not going to try to be anything or anyone im not. if i can look at the anomylous events and conclude they are not the result of bombs ill say so. if i conclude that they ARE the result of bombs, ill say that as well.
if i cannot explain them as yes or no to bombs then im not going to speculate. if i was going to speculate id would involve godzilla and where would our discussion go then.

in closing i really hope i misread your intent here and if i did then please accept my most sincere apologies. it really has been a rough few days.

if i didnt misread your intent then i guess im just disappointed becuase this could have been a great opportunity for us to collaberate and try to come up with some solid fact based conclusions instead of an "im right youre wrong" pissing match. not real interested in one of those and if thats where this threads going then have fun, im out.


@griff, gee, thanks for making me feel stupid
jk


[edit on 5-12-2007 by Damocles]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Griff, that conclusion would be the very first and obvious one to arrive at.
But perhaps there is another, much graver conclusion to adhere to, after deeper reasoning :
All the seismic charts were falsified, only the WTC 7 one was for some reason hurriedly constructed on the day itself, and showed very clear huge anomalies, which is more difficult to proof in the other charts.
But if one chart is proved false, then the same burden lays on the other ones, and an immense con plot starts surfacing.

Haroki, you at last seem to have noticed what I wrote earlier on :

I will not answer to persons who obviously haven't read, or understood my reasoning in my thesis.

And you also have the bad habit to try to lay words in my mouth which I did not wrote at all.

Damocles, your last line seem to indicate that at last you seem to understand what a disturbance certain behaviour of other posters causes in an otherwise interesting developing thread.
I am not hostile against you, you should know better already from the tone of my posts answering explicitly to you.
I am understanding you are in grave pain, and need medication therefor.
I know this will heavily influence the working of your thoughts, especially if you have been prescribed with f.ex. tri-oxypam or tetrazepam, the benzodiazepines-family of medical prescriptions.
As you stated, as Haroki btw did now at last, you also still had no time to carefully read my reasoning with a clear mind.
So I'll wait and see if you understand it later on.

Do not make the presumption, as Haroki does, that if you saw no signs of explosions in video material (offered to you by worldwide controlled media), that there were no explosions.

I tried to tell you, that there is no need for any more complicated calculus than the basic school ones, the moment you realize what the WTC 7 seismic chart implicates.
If you can accept my reasoning and explanation of the WTC 7 anomalies, then we can proceed AFTER that conclusion, to try to explain WHAT exactly those anomalies depict. And not the other way round, as people like Haroki are fond of, to do.

I repeat, it looks as if the planners were expecting WTC 7 to go down with the collapse of WTC 1, but for some unknown reason it's demolition packet misfired or did not fire at all, so the planners had to come up in a hurry with an unexpected third, collapse seismic diagram. They had planned to mask the downing of WTC 7 with the much huger downing of WTC 1.
And in this third seismic graph, they forgot the 17 seconds delay implications.

I'll include for hastily posters, my undeniable proof that LDEO included the 17 seconds delay time for seismic signals in all of their seismic charts of 9/11 :
5 times Proof of 17 seconds delay in LDEO 9/11 seismic charts.

You should also pay attention to the way NIST absolved dr Kim from LDEO, hired by them in 2006 to write a second report, from his task, and neglected his second report and did not publish his findings of that report.
NIST has since that time suppressed all recent seismic evidence publications.
It is explained in my last posts at the StudyOf911 thesis.

Another last remark about media influence :
As has been noted by several internet writers already a long time ago, it was reasonable easy for military planners to insert their own editors in the editing rooms of most news agencies who would deliver the 9/11 news on a plate to all the smaller news outlets in the USA and worldwide.
News is first edited, then offered down the chain, even the raw feeds are edited first, to get them on air.
That's one of the reasons I do believe in the authenticity of Rod Siegel of 911Eyewitness proof of huge explosion sounds recorded during the whole day of 9/11 by himself on a pier at the board of the Hudson river :
911eyewitness.com...

The editing room's planted editors erased all explosion sounds, before they could be aired.
Hundreds of people interviewed, recalled hearing explosion sounds, but only a few video records got out, lately.
They had a firm grasp on all media outlets on 9/11, and most of us at these forums know that very well.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:09 AM
link   
@ Labtop:

Sorry for the tone of my posts. It's just that when someone says "I dare you to prove me wrong" (I'm paraphrasing), it gets me agitated.

I'm still working on the long post/reply, maybe by this evening.

But here's the big problem I see, it'll be explained in more detail later.

If you use the clock times, the shock wave makes the trip to PAL in 12 seconds, not 17 seconds. 17 seconds was the estimated time to travel that Dr Kim used in his estimates of when the events happened. But the time hacks, confirmed by the atomic clocks used by broadcast tv and LDEO, say 12 seconds. Use 12 seconds, and all the events fall exactly in agreement on both the NIST and the graphs.....





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join