Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited.

page: 9
5
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
just a note to anyone coming in late to this thread. in my OP i linked to a graphic that represented what i was talking about but now, mysteriously, that page is a plug for a book and a list of "praises" for the website.

so, if you want to know exactly which graphs are being used to support the "spikes were bombs" theory, please watch the video in labops post here: here and its been called an excellent video.

i however feel its wrong and i think that the math supports me.




posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
Then combine this with videos of the cores still standing for a short time near the end of the collapse, and I have no idea how he could come up with the conclusion that the cores were blown in the basement. Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

Looking at Griff's presentation of Euler's buckling equation on page 2 of this thread, could those core columns have remained vertical independantly ~1000' tall once stripped of all lateral horizontal support like floor trusses, dampers and other stabilising components?

I think they'd fold and snap under their own weight which fits that observation.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Looking at Griff's presentation of Euler's buckling equation on page 2 of this thread, could those core columns have remained vertical independantly ~1000' tall once stripped of all lateral horizontal support like floor trusses, dampers and other stabilising components?

I think they'd fold and snap under their own weight which fits that observation.


Exactly. There's no way that those columns could have remained standing for long, unsupported, with all the debris banging into. In the videos, you can even see one of the columns swaying a little before it buckles.

Maybe I'm wrong about Labtop's theory, but does he say that there were charges in the basements? I believe he says that, but reading his work made my head hurt.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Some of the forty seven total core columns remained standing because it takes time for heat to transfer in steel. They stood there for a few seconds ‘steaming’ away their mass — as metal vapor particles — until their joints failed. Toward the bottom the twin tower core columns were made of five inch thick steel — that’s not so easily softened up, not even with a nuke.

North Tower (WTC-1) Spire


Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Some of the forty seven total core columns remained standing because it takes time for heat to transfer in steel. They stood there for a few seconds ‘steaming’ away their mass — as metal vapor particles — until their joints failed. Toward the bottom the twin tower core columns were made of five inch thick steel — that’s not so easily softened up, not even with a nuke.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



Howza-

So now you're saying that your nuke was a sustained output type of device? Is that what you mean when you say it heated for several seconds, or is there something else?

How's that work BTW. I thought nukes were bango and over.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MikeVet
Maybe I'm wrong about Labtop's theory, but does he say that there were charges in the basements? I believe he says that, but reading his work made my head hurt.

To fit the seismic data a lot of energy only needed to be conducted into the ground so it could be anywhere on the core columns to fit that data. All the action we see is at the top where the collapse started and the columns still standing until shortly after the building came down goes against the suggestion of them being blasted at ground level or anywhere but the top of what was still standing briefly. Combine that with the lack of evidence of an explosion of the required magnitude to do the job....



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
To fit the seismic data a lot of energy only needed to be conducted into the ground so it could be anywhere on the core columns to fit that data. All the action we see is at the top where the collapse started and the columns still standing until shortly after the building came down goes against the suggestion of them being blasted at ground level or anywhere but the top of what was still standing briefly. Combine that with the lack of evidence of an explosion of the required magnitude to do the job....


Oh, ok. I just remember reading him stating about smoke and/or steam coming out of the lower levels, and then trying to connect that with underwater explosions to muffle the sound, etc, etc....

In the thread he started, I love the way he dodges questions about the lack of evidence of those types of explosions just at the onset of collapse by saying it's irrelevant. Nahh, it's VERY relevant.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
LabTop's work on this is excellent and extensive and it indicates a definite 'something' but whatever it is doesn't stand out visually or audibly for the level of force it would take to produce that signal. Finding a way to deliver that sort of force relatively quietly without a visible blast effect is the problem. Damocles figure of about 12 tons of C4 or equivalent would be very difficult to cover up in the middle of downtown Manhattan with millions of witnesses.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Pilgrum, it was FAR from that figure by Damocles, and easy to muffle away.

This quote is in fact Damocles's conclusion from his Opening Post, and he repeated that same conclusion in his sixth post again :


Damocles : so, i guess what my point is is this: did anyone see 12.5 tons of explosives going off in the instant the towers started to collapse?


That's a very precise question, but is based on calculations for an already invalid conclusion.
You in fact calculated in your OP, the amount of explosives needed to arrive at a roughly ML=1 to 2 seismic event, and thus equal to the total global collapse of a tower, taking about 16 to 20 seconds in total.
You compared that collapse to a 80,000 lbs (40 tons) ANFO detonation in a quarry at about the same distance from the LDEO PAL seismic station as the 9/11 events which registered between 1 and 2 on the ML scale.

That's however by far not the amount used, the instant the towers started to globally collapse.
I told you already this, many posts back :
www.abovetopsecret.com...


"Damocles : If large scale explosions 20 miles away from the station show magnitude 1-2 quakes ""

LaBTop : This subject can not be compared to where we talk about.
The Richter scale seismic readings were from the total collapse magnitude of each of the three buildings, not from the initiating events, be it explosives, or (in your opinion perhaps) gravity driven failures of main columns.


So why you direct me back to your OP, is beyond reason, in my humble opinion.
And no, I am not trying to discredit you, far from that, I try to educate you, and I hope we may succeed before it is too late for both of us.

I'll try to compact my thesis (which is not a theory btw, but a scenario based on a proved fact), again, for those who still don't get the chilling picture of treason by some powerful individuals inside or near the US government and military :

I have proved without doubt, and no one can refute my arguments, that 3 identical energy events precluded the moment of global collapse initiation, for all 3 WTC collapses during 9/11.
This is especially clear for WTC 7, I repeat.


Damocles has very roughly calculated that if you compare the seismic ML's for the two first tower's global collapses, being 2.1 and 2.3 (he took a value of 2.0) to roughly comparable quarry detonations which caused ML's around 1 to 2 (that's damn rough btw), he ends up with a value for the WHOLE collapse of 12.5 tons of High Explosives, in this case C4 plastic explosives.

It becomes obvious now, what explosive force was used in the initiating phase.
Just measure the height of the maximum seismic peaks in the two towers collapses, shown here :
www.studyof911.com...

Then measure the maximum heights of the two pre-running tiny peaks ( tiny, because they are depicted at a 100 nm/s value), and use your math skills to tell us how much explosives probably were used to initiate global collapse. In my opinion more than 12 to 15 times less than 12.5 tons C4.
And even considerable more less, if you take in account the different, non-comparable scenarios in the quarry and at the WTC.

It will be very useful to first look at my post #4 at StudyOf911 :

www.studyof911.com...

where I (with the helpful hand of bsbray11) show you how big the pre-running collapse initiating events really were, by re-scaling back the two tower collapse graphs to 10 nm/sec. And then comparing those two, to the one pre-running the WTC 7 collapse, which is in fact higher than its following global collapse peaks!

All three pre-initiating events were evidently duo-packs of seismic signals.
The first smaller pack were the combined blasts, and the second pack was the impact of the f.ex. 1 meter or more, falling down, 47 cut core columns in either the basements alone, or also combined, so synchronized at the mechanical floor under the plane impact floors.

You have to look carefully for the duo-packs in my post #4 at StudyOf911 for :


Collapse 1 at its 4s to 14s peaks-positions,


Collapse 2 at its 5s to 15s peaks-positions,

Collapse WTC 7 at its 11s to 21s peaks-positions.


It is easier to measure the height of the small peaks in there, and then divide that value by 10, to arrive at the exact heights of the pre-running tiny pictured peaks in the LDEO collapse graphs with the 100 nm/sec scale values, and compare that to the height of the global collapse peaks.
You must use conversions of all LDEO graphs to 673 x 517 pixels, to get a truly comparable result.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I realized just something important.
Can non-members of StudyOf911 see the 3 graphs I posted at the bottom of my above post?

Please let at least one non-member tell us here, if he/she can see them.
If not, I should ask for someone to upload those 3 above linked graphs to ATS, so you can see clearly those duo-packs of pre-running seismic signals.

Perhaps StudyOf911 also forbids hot-linking to their graphs, just as 911Review forbids that.

Damocles, that's the reason you can't see the graph in your OP anymore, when you have closed the direct window to 911Review.
When you click later on your own link to that graph, you get redirected to a 911Review add page.
You have to reopen a fresh window, and paste the link address in the address line of that _ Then you can directly see that graph again.

So, I am afraid this could happen also to my links to StudyOf911, and thus all this misunderstanding in both threads about this subject of initiating energy events.

I am looking for a reason why all these ATS members are not interested in this immense important subject, since it indicates high treason by many insiders on 9/11.
So perhaps all my graphs are missing for the casual readers, and one picture tells most of the time, more than a thousand words.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
LabTop's work on this is excellent and extensive and it indicates a definite 'something' but whatever it is doesn't stand out visually or audibly for the level of force it would take to produce that signal.


Obviously the part I have bolded is false. If nothing was there to account for it, then why is it on the seismic record?

What's apparently wrong is your assumption that HEs or some other conventional blast put the energy to the bedrock. It is possible for something you don't know about, to function, unless you already understand everything that functions. And then we would have to be dealing with the impossible. The signal was still presented on the chart, as actually occurring.


PS


Originally posted by LaBTop
Perhaps StudyOf911 also forbids hot-linking to their graphs, just as 911Review forbids that.


The images appear fine for me. There is plenty of bandwidth for hotlinking.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Am I reading this right - you're claiming that HE was used to initiate the global collapses?

You disagree with Damocles and say maybe a ton of C4. Even that would have been heard though, don't you think?

Explain again WHY only a ton of C4 would give that kind of seismic event? How could such a low amount result in that kind of seismic activity?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
i swear this thread is going to give me an aneurysm.

Labtop, if ALL you are talking about is the little events before the big bang, then why oh why did you post this video:

Google Video Link


Source : video.google.co.uk...


in this post: here

and say:

And then observe the overlaying of the two 3D seismic fingerprint graphs of the collapses of the South and North Towers by LCSN at Palisades LDEO seismic station in NY State, done by Rick Siegel or the Blue Media Group publishers of the 9/11Eyewitness video:

< snip >

They conclude that the identical sharp peaks placements in the two graphs indicate the use of HE, High Explosives, at the initiation of the collapses.


and then come back and say in the other thread you decided was part of this one: link

Damocles, I meant the audio segments of the 911 Eyewitness videos, not their erroneous conclusion that the main seismic spikes on their used LDEO charts indicated explosives.


when the video you linked and talked about THEIR findings doesnt discuss audio in any way in that short video clip?

do you see why some of us (well me at least) are confused about what it is youre trying to say?

the video i linked (from YOUR post) is the EXACT problem i have with most of the "911 truth movement" who use the seizmic record as proof of explosives and it is, and you seem to agree with me, that they are WRONG!!! the 2.1 and 2.3 spikes are NOT the result of explosives and for them to be the result of explosives it would take the equivilant of 12.5 tons of C4 to recreate that as a minimum.


so am i right or am i wrong? you say the video is erroneous but then still contend that I am wrong about the very same set of data that 911 eyewitness and others use as PROOF! could you please make up your mind?

now, as to what you finally seem to settle on talking about. great, you have a few theories but lets look at a couple then shall we? in 1993 the bomb used was ~1310lbs of a hopped up anfo. it had a significant increase in det velocity but still less than dynamite. so by comparison it was ROUGHLY equal to 600lbs of C4 (i rounded down). now, that blast did NOT register on ledo's seizmographs and the theory is that its cuz the bomb wasnt coupled to the ground. that bomb also did no significant damage to the core members (though in all fairness it didnt go off where they wanted it to) but, if an explosion that large not coupled to the ground didnt register, whats that do to your TBE theory?

also you said:

In my opinion more than 12 to 15 times less than 12.5 tons C4.

that is STILL 1633lbs of C4 equivilant. (24500lbs/15=1633) so, to quote john lear: no way, no way in hell.

sorry but the evidence just doesnt support this.

i have in other threads calculated that on the 66th floor it would take 172lbs of RDX based linear shaped charges. that number would go up as you went down the columns. this isnt enough to even register at ldeo and IMO is still enough to have been pretty obvious in at least the first blast. so, IMO either they used something big enough to show on the seizmic graphs which everyone would know about and we wouldnt be having this discussion or they used smaller more efficient charges that wouldnt show on the seizmographs and therefore your conclusions are wrong.

next question. did willie notice that his basements were full of water? did anyone? if we look at the dimensions of the building as 208'*208' and figure that it had around a 3m ceiling do you realize that we're talking about 39560 cubic meters? even if we subtract the space the columns etc would take up thats still a very large space to fill. that converts to 39560601 liters of water? (10450805 gallons for us yanks) that would take 400 firehoses at 400gpm 4 hours to fill. no one noticed? cmon, i was born at night, but brother it wasnt last night.

so, you want to educate me? cool, i do like to learn and ill admit that your thread on TBE's was very informative though it really had no relavance to 911 or the destruction of the wtc's but it was still a great and informative thread.

so, if you really want to educate me then do this: take your little seizmic events and put them into ricther so that we all have a common frame of reference. THEN we'll take your finding and we'll apply known values for explosives to it. and we'll see if THAT brings us to a conclusion that is both enough to bring down the towers and show your seizmic events but still small enough to go unnoticed by a few 1000 people. maybe we can turn this whole thread from a confrontation to a collaboration and really find something worth while for the community. i mean id convert them myself but you seem to be more familiar with this stuff so id rather you did it so no one else can come along and say i was using erroneous data later on. plus using this data i found that i dont have the soil constants for the local area so that any conversions i made would be erroneous and lets not have that. as this is more your area than mine im sure you have or can find the local constants and make accurate conversions which we'll then put into perspective.

between your knowledge of the seizmic stuff and mine of explosives im sure we can figure out what happened and if its even plausible. that is of course if youre even open minded enough to consider that it MAY NOT HAVE BEEN explosives at this point. im willing to go where the evidence leads but right now, as someone trained in explosives, we're just not there yet.


[edit on 1-1-2008 by Damocles]



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Pilgrum
LabTop's work on this is excellent and extensive and it indicates a definite 'something' but whatever it is doesn't stand out visually or audibly for the level of force it would take to produce that signal.


Obviously the part I have bolded is false. If nothing was there to account for it, then why is it on the seismic record?

well, since this is a discussion about whether or not it was HE's, no matter how badly you dont want it to be, then its not false as there is nothing anywhere to support the magnitude of the blast to support the 911eyewitness video i linked to (from labtops post) above.

so, we're back to its NOT HE, but something else.



What's apparently wrong is your assumption that HEs or some other conventional blast put the energy to the bedrock. It is possible for something you don't know about, to function, unless you already understand everything that functions. And then we would have to be dealing with the impossible. The signal was still presented on the chart, as actually occurring.


yes, SOMETHING caused a seizmic event but again, this thread is about how it likely WASNT HE.

i mean if we want to deal with facts and known constants it wasnt HE...if we want to speculate then its wide open.

how bout godzilla wearing thermoptic camoflage? that would be something we know nothing about and has about as much factual support as HE does....

i mean there are plenty of other threads dealing with hypotheticals. Mini nukes, DEW, Holograms etc, but THIS thread was intended to discuss the commonly held belief that the MASSIVE spikes were caused by HE. i think ive proved that they werent. or at least given people enough factual data to consider it themselves. if someone wants to think that 12 tons of C4 went off then more power to them i guess.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
""Am I reading this right - you're claiming that HE was used to initiate the global collapses?""

The only thing I am CLAIMING and am 100 % sure of, is that 3 nearly identical energy bursts were pre-running all 3 collapses.
The rest is an educated guess to fill in the blanks caused by this fact.

""You disagree with Damocles and say maybe a ton of C4. Even that would have been heard though, don't you think?""

First, do I taste here that you still hang on to Damocles figure of roughly 12.5 tons of C4? When I have explained now several times over, that that assumption is far out of scale.
And why are you so sure that the combined force of such explosions would be heard at street level, and from hundreds of meters away, or even kilometers away, by innocent bystanders and media personnel? Under all that immense loud noise from sirens, NYFD motors running, yelling etc, all to be heard perfectly on all video and audio footages. It was very loud at street level, that's for sure.

Do you know how deep those basements were, and how thick the surrounding walls and bathtub construction, to keep the Hudson river out?
And do you know, what percentage of an audio footprint from a thermobaric detonation at 800 feet high will in fact reach the ears and microphones of bystanders and journalists?

If it ever occurred to you, the bulk of the media reporters were stationed (kept) away from near the events, and the ones who reached the actual events, were all reporting explosions and were even blown from their feet by explosions emanating from the ground floors.
The rest of the emergency personnel made a very high percentage of reports of explosions and pressure waves while in or outside the buildings, before they collapsed. Read the witness reports from the NIST reports, it will open your eyes for a lot more than the usual media lies.

""Explain again WHY only a ton of C4 would give that kind of seismic event? How could such a low amount result in that kind of seismic activity?""

Did you ever compare the total global collapse spikes to these pre-running seismic spikes?
Really did so, not just speed reading over my explanations, but trying to absorb and understand my arguments?

Then it is crystal clear, that ""only a ton of C4"" gives off also only a tiny seismic event, compared to the whole global collapse running down after that. And could you ever get a real grasp of the real volume of the collapses, the audio equipments all got overloaded.

Btw, I still leave the exact modus operandi of the perpetrators open to adjustment, I did not plan it, so I am just as left in the dark as you, regarding the exact scenario. But I am closing in, as you can see.

PS : as I said before, these three energy bursts were comparable to the plane impacts.
Did you listen carefully to the Naudet brothers video footage of the first impact?
Was that REALLY as loud as you advertise, being so high up in the sky?
Can you give me another audio event, from the second impact, where you can hear the impact as if it was a tremendous explosion?

Rethink your pre-formed conclusions, you have been lied to from the beginning of the Federal Reserve system, and you are nothing more than badly paid slave labourers for those who developed the FEDS system.



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
video.google.co.uk...
video.google.co.uk...

Damocles, did you really LOOK at those 3D seismic graphs? Or only glanced over them?
It seems you only heard his first lines about the huge peaks of short duration. And yes, in my opinion he made the wrong conclusion about those huge peaks.

Did you however listen what Rick explained in the last part? They compared both tower collapses, North and South tower, and overlaid their three motion diagrams, and concluded that both of them overlapped each other perfectly, indicating that their was a similar pattern of destruction, to demolish all 47 columns and all the floors downward in BOTH towers.

They are totally different than the ones I used from LDEO, which are specifically filtered for only ONE hertz region, 0.6535 Hz, and one component of motion, the East-West component.

The ones Rick Siegel and Blue Media Group showed, are totally different, first they are depicting THREE components of motion, Z axis, North/South axis and East/West axis. They also have another scale, not nanometer/sec, but instead micrometer/second.
He then overlaid all three, and came to his conclusion.

Since I don't have these graphs, and the original Blue Media DVD, I am in the dark what EXACTLY they see there, since the Google video resolution is very vague, to say the least.
Rick has released a BIG video footage on DVD, and that is the excellent part, the audio combined with the video from across the river, and the time of the radio playing in the background, with the atomic clock signals at the hours beeping, so we can time-line the whole thing, and a few more good explanations.
And in the Blue Media Google link, you can find a LOT of other links of 2 to 3 minutes length from Blue Media, where you can hear excerpts of Ricks DVD.

But at the time Rick Siegel was releasing his DVD via his website, you could download large chunks of that DVD. That is now past procedure, he got robbed by too many online video thiefs, I suppose.
And in those chunks, you could hear and analyse yourself, lots of audio signals indicating low frequency explosions, combined with visuals of white explosion clouds emanating from the base of the towers.

The audio was enhanced, but Wecomeinpeace and I both had the original audio signals from the Terrorize.dk site of both the tower collapses, and indeed you could hear there also very faint sounds of low frequency explosions.


""the 2.1 and 2.3 spikes are NOT the result of explosives and for them to be the result of explosives it would take the equivalent of 12.5 tons of C4 to recreate that as a minimum. ""

Yup, I agree wholeheartedly, however we have to add that part of those spikes were possibly caused by additional "small" explosives, to break the mechanical floors ahead of the collapse front, and extra explosives at every 3 floors f.ex.

""that is STILL 1633lbs of C4 equivalent.""

I think in kilos, that's about 800 kilo.
However, I have a few things to add. Your comparison to the quarry began with a very rough statement, namely "a ML of 1 to 2". That is a BIG difference, since the Richter scale is logarithmic.
So you build your whole argument on a very rough statement from LDEO about an ML which could differ a magnitude 1 on the Richter scale.
So, I could just as well say that your 12.5 tons, now subsequently 800 kilo, is at least 50% off. But since we have a logarithmic difference, its even more.

But, let's stay with your 800 kilo. As I said in my post above this one, that amount could have been placed inside the top part of the tower, and eventually in the basement. Your guess as good as mine how exactly.

You by now know that I think heavy thermobarics were used at emptied floors, and at other floors several smaller TBE's were placed to pulverize the above and below floors, every third floor, as we can see in the videos, the windows are blown out in patterns covering every 3 floors and every face of the buildings. In fact rings of detonations travelled down the faces, expelling rings of dust clouds.

But, I think that the story of the Egyptian former army major, who delivered the explosives given to him by his handlers from the FBI, to the sheik and his followers in the 1993 WTC bombing, is a red herring.
I think that was a thermobaric device, and the rehearsal for the main 9/11 events. They needed extensive data to calculate the thermobaric effects on the tower construction in the basements. They probably had a fairly good insight of the effects on cleared out, empty floors up high, but not in the much stronger and more complicated basements.

Well, about the water filled basements, I think you missed the part where I told you that Willie rescued 2 men from an elevator END. This is a confined space, which is easily flooded by water running over the floors of the basements.
And there could an underwater explosion by HE have taken place.
Yes, I expect they used a mix of all types of explosives, even thermite is not out of order, since Dr. Jones has now published his findings of an abundance of red/grey chunks of unreacted thermite in the dust of WTC.

If you count the amount of years they had, to plan this, it would go from the Oklahoma City bombing to 9/11. That's an awful long time to plan it so meticulously, that nearly nobody could ever proof anything. I think I did prove something very important however, which they never counted on.

""that is of course if you're even open minded enough to consider that it MAY NOT HAVE BEEN explosives at this point.""

That was of course the first thing I opted for, and I have really tried to come up with reasonable explanations, within the observed data packs. And the first thing was of course the INITIATION of a natural gravitational collapse.
But, how do YOU explain then the proved beyond any doubt, much bigger spikes running in front of the start of global collapse of WTC 7 ?

I can't explain to anyone, that an initiation event could be expressed in a BIGGER pack of spikes than the whole next following collapse of a 47 story massive building.

Perhaps you can ?



posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
how bout godzilla wearing thermoptic camoflage?


You know man things like this strike me as pretty arrogant really. When there's a suggestion of technology that isn't immediately obvious to us, you immediately jump to the comically ridiculous as if the notion of technology or even just a clever methodology existing just beyond what you can conceive has to be silly and ultimately impossible. What exactly have you contributed to our engineering sciences? What makes you an expert on invention or how technology changes over time? You'll probably respond saying you have an open mind and all this crap but you obviously don't mean it, because you keep floating back to the same stupid opinion and it shows in what you post.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
ill get to labtops post tomorrow as i dont feel real well tonight but i wanted to adress a few points here.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Damocles
how bout godzilla wearing thermoptic camoflage?


You know man things like this strike me as pretty arrogant really. When there's a suggestion of technology that isn't immediately obvious to us, you immediately jump to the comically ridiculous

yes, it was comically ridiculous and that was intentional. i dont think anyone thinks that I think it was godzilla. that whole thing was written to try to add just a bit of levity to the discussion and it apparently failed. my bad.



as if the notion of technology or even just a clever methodology existing just beyond what you can conceive has to be silly and ultimately impossible.

no, not silly or impossible per se. but say outloud what we're talking about here. an explosive device capable of duplicating the effects of over 150lbs of high explosive and remain undetected. im not saying its IMPOSSIBLE im saying that if we're going to base our discussions in fact then lets stay with what is known and provable. is that such a bad thing? does that make me closed minded? you have read my opening post here yeah?

my contention is that the seizmic records cited by 911 eyewitness and others which show spikes of a 2.1 and 2.3 on the richter scale were NOT the result of high explosives. obviously im going to base those statements on what is known as THEY are basing their assumptions on what is known. im trying to refute their statements by showing where their theories do not hold up to proven facts.

and what i dont get is that YOU yourself have stated that you dont think taht there were conventional demo charges used. so, you seem to agree with me. no where have i in this thread wandered into the realm of the unknown as since we have no real basis for referrence it doesnt really fit with the topic of this thread.

so, all im trying to do in this thread is answer a common misconception with known facts. isnt that kind of what the search for truth and the scientific method are based on?

now, if you want to discuss hypotheticals in all seriousness thats fine, lets start yet another thread on it. but i dont see that happening as youve said before that you dont really care what was used, youre just sure SOMETHING was used. sorry but i just dont want to make any leaps of faith here. working with hypotheticals is like trying to prove a negative.

having said that, i know about your questions about some of the energy transfers etc that arise as a result of the collapse of the towers and i find your questions and theories very compelling. but as it is, im inquisitive and i am not satisfied to just leave the question of "ok, then how...?" hanging out there. i would like to know the how's and whats behind these questions. and yes, im going to be skeptical of the answers becuase otherwise its just "cuz i said so" as an answer from so many people, and thats no better than nist is doing.

so ill ask again, if its ok to question nist about their theories why is it not ok to question the conspiracy theories? isnt that what drives a theory forward? ask the tough questions and once all of them have been answered it goes from theory to law?

im just askin here. you seem to think that cuz im skeptical im closed minded. im not, i just need more answers to some questions before ill accept it. i guess i dont see that as a bad thing.

but i guess ill ask again, since THIS thread is about how i dont think that explosives are the cause of the seizmic evidence, well at least not the 2.1 and 2.3 registered spikes, and since youve said you dont think it was conventional high explosives....why do you have such a problem with me?

911eyewitness and others make a claim. ive shown how it was likely wrong. im the bad guy here? hell im not even selling a dvd and im the bad guy, wtf?

id say put out a thread on what was used but you seem to be happy filling in the blank with "something" so i wont hold my breath there.


What exactly have you contributed to our engineering sciences?

yeah i wont be able to answer that question for a few weeks/months. maybe the answer will be "nothing" (the deck is kinda stacked against me on this one) but maybe something big. ill let you know


You'll probably respond saying you have an open mind and all this crap but you obviously don't mean it, because you keep floating back to the same stupid opinion and it shows in what you post.

my opinion. explosives werent used to bring down the wtc towers. thats stupid? why is that? cuz it doesnt agree with the conspiracy theories? because i would like some proof of it? cuz i want an answer that is more than just "oh, i dunno, but SOMETHING"?

why is it ok to question nist but not the Conspiracy Theories?



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but say outloud what we're talking about here.


How am I supposed to know? What if it is some technology/methodology that's beyond public scope? Then I wouldn't know either, and it's not like you can force it out of me just for the sake of argument.

So I avoid the problem entirely by just stating the obvious, that none of the models that have been invented to explain the collapses (FEMA, NIST) can even come close to providing an all-encompassing and consistent theory, using just the building, and fire and impact damages alone. How hard could it really be to figure out why a building fell down, anyway? How many things could possibly fail? But on 9/11, the way those buildings fell, any would-be common sense answer just doesn't work out in the details like it should. The suggestion to me being that the buildings did not fall "naturally".


but i dont see that happening as youve said before that you dont really care what was used, youre just sure SOMETHING was used. sorry but i just dont want to make any leaps of faith here.


How is that a leap of faith? Can you seriously not understand how someone can see coordination without knowing what exact devices were used and where they were placed? Is that really incomprehensible to you, so much that you see it as a "leap of faith"?


having said that, i know about your questions about some of the energy transfers etc that arise as a result of the collapse of the towers and i find your questions and theories very compelling. but as it is, im inquisitive and i am not satisfied to just leave the question of "ok, then how...?" hanging out there.


All the rhetorical questions that have no possible answers are just illustrations that models that FEMA and NIST and etc. have invented don't work. They can't work. They don't describe what they're supposed to be describing. You can consider it someone else's job to do the actual investigative work that FEMA/NIST were supposed to do in the first place, if you want specifics.


isnt that what drives a theory forward? ask the tough questions and once all of them have been answered it goes from theory to law?


I think a law is actually a rigorous mathematical relationship, and theories are best guesses as to how something actually works. Like Ohm's Law is a law, but electrons are a theory. Ohm's Law will function and can be measured and verified REGARDLESS of whether electrons actually exist as we know them. Isn't that interesting? And theoretically, electrons can either be particles, waves, or a unit charge of smaller particles, depending on which field you're working in, and none of those concepts are necessarily any more correct than the others.


i guess ill ask again, since THIS thread is about how i dont think that explosives are the cause of the seizmic evidence, well at least not the 2.1 and 2.3 registered spikes, and since youve said you dont think it was conventional high explosives....why do you have such a problem with me?


Because you seem like you want to close the entire book every time we rediscover that conventional explosives are out of the question. You don't really think anything exists that you don't know about, it's just something meaningless that you say, as a gesture. That's the feeling I get, and that's why I post these kinds of posts. Just to prod you.



why is it ok to question nist but not the Conspiracy Theories?


Are you questioning anything I've said? Absolutely you can do it; I encourage it.

[edit on 2-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Quote from my last post's last lines :
""I can't explain to anyone, that an initiation event could be expressed in a BIGGER pack of spikes than the whole next following collapse of a 47 story massive building.

Perhaps you can ? ""

=========

And that initiation event happened 6 to 11 seconds before anybody could see or record any indication of movement outside and inside the building of any structural components of that building.
The difference is based on the latest 2006 adjusted NIST times for all video and photo events, they then added 5 seconds to all of them. See this graph of mine in post #7 in my thesis :
www.studyof911.com...
----------------

In the following graph from the Opening Post, we see a very dense compressed LDEO picture of the seismic events, in minutes timescale, compared to the expanded LDEO graphs with their seconds timescale, which I used in my thesis.
So, if you should ask yourself why you don't see these pre-collapse tiny peaks in there, that's the reason. The signals are too dense packed in this graph, to ever be able to see those pre-collapse peaks.

www.911review.com...




As you can see in the above linked graph, the ML values are given for these events :
1 Impact = 0.9 ML
2 Impact = 0.7 ML
1 Collapse = 2.1 ML
2 Collapse = 2.3 ML
If we compare these impact values to the WTC 7 graph values, we can deduct that the WTC 7 pre-collapse event = +/- 0.8 ML when we compare the max heights of all three pre-collapse peaks in my posted 3 seismic graphs (those with the same 10 nm/s scales), to the 2 plane impact graphs.

Another peculiar group of events are the five "further collapse" events, of which three are shown. The two others I know of, after 12:00 EDT are not included, and I don't know the magnitude of those, since LDEO does not show them to us anywhere.
Strange that LDEO did not include these other two events, especially when we look at the +/- 1.3 ML magnitude of the 11:15:04 EDT event, compared to the first plane impact. And observe the nearly identical 14 minutes distances between these 3 further events. As if a clockwork was ticking somewhere to regulate these events.

I can just as easily call them Initiating WTC 7 demolition blasts, based on that reporter saying around 14:00 hrs that ""the WTC 7 area was a very dangerous place to be, since every 20 minutes or so, explosions went off.""
----------------

If you would explain the explosions away with gas leaks :
No life gas lines at 9/11 shortly after the first plane impact :
9/11 news conference in which Rudolph Giuliani acknowledges explosions in the area of the World Trade Center and says he does not believe they were gas related - "...we've turned off the gas in the city buildings just to be certain, as a precaution."
To be sure you understand the NY City and their Port Authority building rules for high-rises, life gas lines are forbidden in them, cooking and heating must be done by electrical means, and emergency generators are fed by heavily protected diesel lines.
There is no gas supplied to high-rises. Only to much lower buildings in the WTC complex area.

WMV video download (607kB).
----------------

Video Evidence of an Explosion at the Base of WTC 1.
whatreallyhappened.com... :


This 2.6 MB wmv video shows the collapse of WTC 1 and it corroborates the above "seismic spikes". The camera was not hand held, it was directly connected to the ground via a tripod, and this allowed the camera to visually capture a ground shake which occurred ~13 seconds before the building collapsed. The video also shows an object fall from the right hand side of the building moments before the camera begins to shake. The close timing of these two events indicates they are linked.
Note that 6 seconds into the video the camera shakes for almost a second, too long to be a kick or a jostle.
Moments before the shake a large piece of debris is knocked from the right side of the building. etcetera.
--snip--
This video shows two perspectives of the collapse. The inset video shows the camera shake at roughly six seconds into that video. Five seconds later the main video shows smoke appearing at the building's base.

WMV video download (363kB).


The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis.
whatreallyhappened.com...


Video Evidence of a Ground Level Explosion Prior to WTC 1's Collapse.
Seismic recordings, eyewitness testimony, and two videos of WTC 1 indicate an explosive detonation occurred at the base of the building fourteen seconds before its collapse.


The Core of WTC 1 was Solid After the Aircraft Impact.
whatreallyhappened.com...

The FBI allowed the 1993 WTC bombing to happen.
whatreallyhappened.com...

Damage Caused by the 1993 WTC Bombing.
whatreallyhappened.com...

A few damage examples :


# reinforced floors almost 30 inches think blasted away on 3 levels below grade, plus a concourse level floor, leaving a crater about 150 feet in diameter at it's largest point.
# On the B2 level, various walls of elevator shafts and fresh air plenums severely damaged, allowing smoke to enter and rise through the cores of both towers.
# Numerous concrete walls destroyed or damaged.
# 200,000 cubic feet of water poured into the lowest grade from damaged refrigeration unit supplies (from the Hudson River), sewer lines, fresh domestic water lines, steam pipes, and condensate return. Water 1.5 feet deep across the B6 level.
# Water cooled emergency generators shut down due to overheating when their water supply was cut. This disabled the emergency lighting.
# Sprinklers & standpipes out of service.


Those are a few of my reasons to suspect the 1993 WTC bombing to have been a thermobaric device, and a dual purpose blast :
If the building was toppled onto the other tower, success for the planners.
If the building stood, another success for the planners, since now they could use all the investigation reports to plan for the next go for them.

BTW, you saw the 1993 flooding of the basements and what caused that, so please include this argument as one of my reasons to suspect water-muffled explosions in the basements on 9 11 2001.

There is a thread here, about a telephone call made during a meeting in a nearby building on 9/11, and in that recorded and saved call, you can clearly hear a low frequency explosion sound in the background, seconds before a collapse or an impact.





top topics
 
5
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join