Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
Um - no.

Force is, typically, measured in units as the SI standard. Grams (and more commonly Kilograms - since it's a unit we can comprehend much easier - much like the difference between pounds and ounces).


What more proof do you need that in structural engineering we don't use the SI system very much?

Ask any PE if they've seen SI units when taking their structural part of the PE exam.

Do I need to start scanning the AISC (American Institute of Steel Construction) manual and my text books? I will if you need more proof.


Additionally, the metric system is simply easier to work with and requires fewer conversions and makes errors in calculations less likely.


Maybe you use metric in your line of work. But, don't sit there and tell me what I use in my line of work. Got it? We still use pounds-force. It's as simple as that. I don't know why you are arguing this other than I may have hurt your ego and you need to vent?


So, you "can" use pounds - but, operationally and when working the math, it's best to use the metric system.


It's actually easier to use pounds-force when dealing in structural engineering. That is why we still use feet, psi (pounds per inch squared), inches^4 for moment of inertia, psi for E, etc. Please stop telling me how I do my job.

Because you have no clue. Ask ANY structural engineer what is used.

You CAN use SI units, but we normally use English units...i.e. the pound.


And, as I said before, your issue is one of torque - as it is an expression of the amount of force being applied. Hang a weight on the end of a rod - and all of the forces experienced can be broken down into a function of torque.


And as I've said before, this is what a moment is.



We use something similar in electronics to calculate the various voltages and values in a circuit at any given point in time along an AC waveform. Adding multiple 'weights and levers' to the system, even at different angles and lengths is simple - everything will behave according to the same rules and all of the values will follow a sine function.


So, an electrical engineer is trying to educate a structural engineer in structural engineering? You people are too much.


Same concept - different application. After you've determined the net force at play, all you have left to do is compare it to the material's tolerances (although this is where the geometry of your material being subjected to the force and its relation to the direction(s) of that force come into play more than anything - and that's a whole different ballgame, static strengths of materials based on their geometry).


What you describe is called "moment of inertia". Check my posts again. I'm sure that word has come up before.




posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
For further suppliment:





Need anymore proof?

BTW....a Kip is a killa (killo) (killi)? POUND.



In the United States, a kip is a unit of force that equals 1,000 pounds-force, used primarily by architects and engineers to measure engineering loads. It is also used as a unit of weight to compute shipping charges. It is equivalent to one half of a U.S. ton. Although uncommon, it is occasionally also considered a unit of mass, equal to 1,000 pounds.


en.wikipedia.org...(unit)


[edit on 2/29/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 2/29/2008 by Griff]



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
lol - it's easier for you to work in the 'old' system simply because you're used to it.

Since I am typically converting energy from one type to another (typically electrical to kinetic) - the metric system is easier. And since I've already got it in metric units - it's easier to keep it that way.

It all depends upon what units you are starting with. I always use metric anymore, since it's the going standard in science and measurement (and international business - I'm used to ISO 9000 standards). The conversions through electrical units are also more smooth, and also into thermal energy. This is because the metric system is based around the properties of a cubic centimeter of water.

And, I can tell you what to use, since it seems to get such a good reaction
Now, you don't have to do it. But, it's all moving to metric standards. And it's easy if you keep it all within metric units of measurement.

For instance, if I'm measuring my materials in metric units - kilograms, meters, etc - then it's easier to stay within the metric system.

Though, I still have missed what in the devil the relevance of the original issue of a mass extended a certain distance from a point of anchor to conspiracy theories, etc. I'm still lost, there. Aside from trying to prove something with regards to tipping structures.... but there you are getting into multiple supports under tension, torsion, compression, shearing, and probably some rather interesting combinations of the above.... and calculating all of that out by had would be a rather long and tedious endeavor..... and good luck with calculating the dynamics of that........ which is why I love computers..... they make complex and dynamic math so much more enjoyable.......



posted on Feb, 29 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
which is why I love computers..... they make complex and dynamic math so much more enjoyable.......


This is not a slant on you.

This is why I feel computers are dumbing us down. We don't have to do the real math anymore.



posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


This post of Aim64C slipped under my radar, 2 weeks ago.
He however repeats his same worn-out arguments from page 7, packed in a slightly new jacket.

See all my posts on page 8 of this thread which countered all his previous arguments, and in fact also in advance what he now posted in his last post, addressing my seismic evidence of 9/11 explosions, just before all three collapses, especially regarding the precision of the seismic evidence :

Source : www.abovetopsecret.com...

( LT
I have posted before on professor Terry Wallace, because he was mentioned in a forensic seismic experiment in Kenya, after the US Embassy bombing in Nairobi, to determine the exact explosion time, which they said was found with a precision of thousands of a second (milliseconds), through the seismic records.
Keep this in mind when you hear or see seismologists trying to tell you that the exact 9/11 seismic times could differ within a 2 SECONDS error frame. That's 2,000 milliseconds above the possible error margin!


Now he tries again to seed confusion over the precision of the presented seismic evidence. And again, doesn't address the quintessence of my arguments in my posts at page 8 of this thread.

Both NIST and LDEO based their time frames on GPS based techniques.
The Gianca WTC 7 Penthouse roof-dent photograph's time stamp, published by NIST, and the LDEO seismograph's timestamps, were all calculated from the SAME well-known GPS based atomic clock readings from NIST.
The same NIST atomic clock readings you can use through NIST's internet-time server at time.nist.gov to precisely set your computer's clock :
tf.nist.gov...



posted on Mar, 15 2008 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Sooo Ive sent this to a few people, one of them being Webster Tarpley and a couple other notable people in movement(hope thats ok) so maybe they can really get it out there. I also included the thread where LaBTop proves R.Mackey wrong.

Something needs to be done.

edit: Times running out in my opinion.

[edit on 15-3-2008 by Silly]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I like to add this snippet of information on the Oklahoma City Murrah building explosions.
This was the first hint by me on this board on 7/8/2005 that thermobarics were possibly used by factions of the US government, or external factions, even from abroad :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

There was some interesting seismic evidence of a thermobaric going off, addressed for the 1995 demolition of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in this link :

Chapter 1. The Mannlicher-Carcanno Bomb.
www.constitution.org...


It should be obvious to the reader that it's implausible an ANFO bomb parked out in the street would have the force to blow all the way through a huge superstructure like the Alfred P. Murrah Building.

No matter how hard the government tried to lie, obsfucate, and distort the truth, the evidence would come back to haunt them.

On April 19, a tape recording made during a conference at the Water Resources Board directly across from the Murrah Building appears to indicate a succession of blast events, spaced very close together. [71]

The tape recorder at the Water Resources Board was not the only instrument recording explosions that morning. The seismograph at the Oklahoma Geological Survey at the University of Oklahoma at Norman, 16 miles from the Murrah Building, recorded two waves, or "two events," on the morning of April 19th. Another seismograph at the Omniplex Museum, four miles away from the Federal Building, also recorded two events. These seismic waves, or "spikes," spaced approximately ten seconds apart, seem to indicate two blasts. [See Appendix]

Professor Raymond Brown, senior geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma who studied the seismograms, knew and talked to people inside the building at the time of the blast. "My first impression was, this was a demolition job," said Brown. "Somebody who went in there with equipment tried to take that building down."

Not so, according to the U.S. Geological Survey's analysis. The USGS put out a press release on June 1st, entitled "Seismic Records Support One-Blast Theory in Oklahoma City Bombing."

The bomb that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City produced a train of conventional seismic waves, according to interpretations by scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS).

Scientists from those agencies said the seismic recordings of the May 23 demolition of the building reproduced the character of the original, April 19th seismic recording by producing two trains of seismic waves that were recorded on seismometers near Norman, Okla.

"Seismic recordings from the building's implosion indicate that there was only one bomb explosion on April 19," said Dr. Thomas Holzer, a USGS geologist in Menlo Park, Calif. Holzer is one of several USGS and OGS scientists who analyzed the shock waves created by the April 19 explosion and the May 23 implosion.[72]

Holzer added that the two distinct waves from the April 19 explosion(s) were the result of the same wave traveling at two different speeds through two separate layers of the earth's crust. The "illusion" of a double explosion was simply the result of the building's collapse, he claimed. "So the bottom line then," said Holzer, "is I think these observations are totally consistent with a single explosion. It doesn't require multiple explosions to do it."[73]

Dr. Brown has an honest difference of opinion with folks at the U.S. Geological Survey. "I will candidly say that we are having trouble finding that velocity difference," said Brown. "We have not identified a pair of layers that could account for the ten-second difference.

"Whatever the USGS saw in that data convinced them that the original blast was one bomb," he added. "I find that hard to believe…. What was uncomfortable and might be construed as pressure is that they were going to come out with a press release that says we have concluded that data indicates one bomb. It puts us in the uncomfortable stance of saying that we, too, have concluded that, and we haven't."

Yet the USGS press release said that Dr. Charles Mankin of the OGS, Brown's boss, was "pleased with the work performed by Dr. Holzer and his USGS colleagues in the analysis of the seismic records." Yet Mankin had actually urged Holzer to delay the press release. "Everybody that has looked at the signal has said a refraction (an echo) would really be strange because there's absolutely no loss of energy in the recorded seismic signal. The second event has the same amplitude as the first… The arrival time is wrong for a refracted wave… We've ruled out reflections, refractions, and the air blast… We determined that these two records of these two events corroborate our interpretation that there were two explosions."[74]

The mainstream media, of course, jumped on the USGS's findings, with headlines like "Single Bomb Destroyed Building" and "Seismic Records Shake Murrah Multiple Bomb Theory." "The news media even reported two bomb blasts initially," said Mankin, "but later changed their story."

"The USGS's conclusions are not supported by either data or analysis," added Brown, who asked that his name be taken off the report. Although Brown cautions that his own conclusions are far from conclusive and require "more thorough investigation," the most logical explanation for the second event says Brown, is "a bomb on the inside of the building."

"Even the smallest of those detonations (from the May 23rd demolition of the REMAINS of the Murrah building) had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building," he added, "which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building. So it is very unlikely that one-fourth of the building falling on April 19th could have created an energy wave similar to that caused by the large [truck-bomb] explosion."[75]

One of the problems with the two event theory is that the spikes on the seismic readings were ten seconds apart. With that much difference, most everybody in the vicinity should have heard two separate blasts. But given the traumatic nature of being in the immediate vicinity of a bombing, would witnesses necessarily have heard two explosions? Although the sound of a truck-bomb would certainly have made a loud, roaring noise, complete with lots of smoke and flying debris, experts say that the "crack" of a C-4 cutting charge is "downright disappointing" to hear.



That last bolded out excerpt is surprisingly consistent with my findings of a much bigger seismic spike in the LDEO seismograms for the WTC 7 collapse, seconds before ANY visual collapse signs on 9/11 seen in New York in video evidence of the onset of the WTC 7 collapse.

There we also see an explosion spike depicted in that seismogram, at least 6 seconds before the first visual sign of global collapse initiation of the whole WTC 7 building.
Which global collapse wrote a much smaller seismic spike on that LDEO seismogram.

I keep saying that 9/11/2001 bares a great resemblance to the 1995 Murrah building demolition blasts.
Both indicate that thermobarics were used.

And both started excessive panic waves in the US populace, fed by the mainstream media hypes, directed at newly invented, first internal and later on, external threads to the US of A.

Additionally, the anger of professor Raymond Brown, senior geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma is understandable.
An honest scientist who sees his colleagues turning "politically correct" and trying to implicate him in the same press release as a co-editor, will be abhorred by such butt-kissing behavior, contradictory to his own objective fact finding of the event.
EDIT: changed real- to objective fact finding.

[edit on 20/6/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Silly
 


Silly, if you are still present at this board, could you lead me to this thread you mentioned here :
"" I also included the thread where LaBTop proves R.Mackey wrong. ""

Sorry, but I have no idea which one you meant, frankly said.
And I'm quite curious to see what you saw.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I still to this day have never met any opponent who could prove me wrong on this WTC 7 seismic thesis, showing clear evidence of a false flag on 9/11.



Try to prove that huge first seismic peak wrong, evidence of a huge energy event, taking place before any building movement was visible for the camera's around WTC 7, bigger than the resulting energy from the whole following global collapse of a 47 stories high rise.
You can't. That's why no one seriously tried me over it, over all these past years.
It was also never picked up by other notorious and well known 9/11 researchers, which baffled me even more, since I have many times told my readers that everyone can use my research, my only interest is that the case of 9/11 be solved at last.

Does anyone seriously believe that ONE column breakage, nr 79, could cause that HUGE seismic peak?
NIST said so, NIST also DELETED into oblivion all the seismic reports they payed Dr Kim for, and had stored on their site, after they got this graph.
The only measly refutation of my graph was a short but nearly unnoticed edit in their reports, about a so called new found very small precluding seismic peak they supposedly found in the old LDEO online graphs which they published online in the week of 9/11. That would indicate their new found set-back point in time that that huge peak started according to them.

I told them to shred then immediately all the past 80 years of seismic research in the New York State and New York City areas, since such small peaks were NEVER found as indication of start of a registered explosion, in loads of other explosive events, like well documented and time stamped quarry explosions, city building demolitions, natural earthquakes and so on.
Never heard from them anymore.

Same goes for that guy from that demolition firm who came to this forum and said they had lots of hand-held seismic devices seismographs from the events in New York on 9/11.
I challenged him to directly post just one of them, since I really would like to get my hands on a real one, because I am sure I can prove than even better how clear it is that their were explosions registered as seismic events, before any tower moved a millimeter.
Never heard from the guy anymore. He got whipped by his bosses probably, for going on-line with such damming potential evidence. Later we read that all the seismographs from those handhold seismographs got lost.....How convenient.

That kind of precluding huge seismic peaks are sure signs in conventional demolitions, of explosives.
Which, when coupled to the columns to be broken, cause far more energy to be lead into the ground than the following global collapses, in all explosive demolitions.
Evidence of that was once again proved when they demolished the still standing parts of the Oklahoma City bombed Murrah Building, the demolition charges going off were showing the biggest spikes in the graphs. The following thundering down of all that concrete showed only moderate spikes.



Notice Fig D. In a high rise, when you explode circular thermobaric devices filled with depleted uranium strips to form supersonic, super-hot and super-heavy DU plasma cutting fronts, at every fourth floor, the resulting immense amplified pressure fronts and simultaneous resulting, oscillating enormous shock waves in those corners will cause "peeling off" of the four corners of that high rise, just as we saw when those two towers collapsed.

Just place them in the central shafts, and combined with thermobaric fillings in the hollow thick steel core columns at calculated intervals, they will shatter that steel when ignited, as if it were crystal instead of heavy steel.
The resulting oscillating enormous shock waves will have an additional vibrating effect on the lower and higher floors, turning the relatively thin concrete on thin steel floor plates into dust, just as you saw happen on 9/11/2001.

One has only to place reasonable small TB devices in the elevator shafts and set them off with radio, electrical or sound signals from a computerized sequencing program. And place also TB's in the hollow core columns.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 



I still to this day have never met any opponent who could prove me wrong on this WTC 7 seismic thesis, showing clear evidence of a false flag on 9/11.


Holy #. I forgot I used to be active in these debates.

I need another procrastination facilitator - this will work perfectly.


Try to prove that huge first seismic peak wrong, evidence of a huge energy event, taking place before any building movement was visible for the camera's around WTC 7, bigger than the resulting energy from the whole following global collapse of a 47 stories high rise.


You're making some strange interpretations of the data.

When dealing with seismic data - you're dealing with frequency and the associated coupling into your measuring system. For example, your wireless router emits much more power into the space occupied by your radio than the radio station you listen to. Yet the radio doesn't register the presence of your wireless router. This is due to the coupling of the signal into the antenna and the attached circuitry.

Different frequencies and different events will register as having different amounts of energy.

Let me invert your question:

Did you see any event in the footage of WTC 7 collapse that illustrated a release of more energy than the collapse of the building?

Such a release of energy would have been fairly obvious, one would think.


You can't. That's why no one seriously tried me over it, over all these past years.


It has more to do with your irrelevance. I'm a busy guy and I must selectively choose which irrelevant internet debates to occupy my free time and hubris with.


Does anyone seriously believe that ONE column breakage, nr 79, could cause that HUGE seismic peak?


It's not entirely implausible. The snapping of a support column firmly rooted into the bedrock would transmit well to surrounding monitoring sites. The collapse of the building, on the other hand, has many layers of soil to perturb before it can transmit into the bedrock.

It's the difference between dropping a boulder into the dirt twenty feet away and banging a sledge-hammer on the same concrete slab as you 20 feet away.

You'll feel the shock of the hammer in your feet. You may only feel a slight rumble from the boulder. Depending upon how your measuring equipment is set up - the hammer may very well register as more energetic than the boulder.


Notice Fig D. In a high rise, when you explode circular thermobaric devices filled with depleted uranium strips to form supersonic, super-hot and super-heavy DU plasma cutting fronts, at every fourth floor, the resulting immense amplified pressure fronts and simultaneous resulting, oscillating enormous shock waves in those corners will cause "peeling off" of the four corners of that high rise, just as we saw when those two towers collapsed.


Except that the WTC was mostly empty space. The "walls" were of temporary construction and the outer walls glass.

The mesh structure of the WTC would have made destruction by explosive forces exceptionally difficult - you'd simply blow out the glass and the steel supports would have remained.


Just place them in the central shafts, and combined with thermobaric fillings in the hollow thick steel core columns at calculated intervals, they will shatter that steel when ignited, as if it were crystal instead of heavy steel.


That's a completely different concept. There, you're talking about not a barometric device. You're talking about an explosive with a detonating velocity so high that it creates a compression wave in a material like steel so intense as to shatter the steel.


One has only to place reasonable small TB devices in the elevator shafts and set them off with radio, electrical or sound signals from a computerized sequencing program. And place also TB's in the hollow core columns.


So simple that we did it in Cub Scouts.

Refresh my memory, how did we do this in Cub Scouts, again?



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Aim64c, we have had this discussion before in other threads, and now you give it again another switch, still wrong.
Column 79 was not rooted in the bedrock. It stood on top of the protective, 3 times overengineerd, immense thick steel beams "cage" covering the whole ConEd electrical station that delivered electrical power for the whole WTC complex.
And snapping of it at one place would not be identical to it being cut over 6 floors, as must have been done to it, to achieve a 2+ seconds freefall period. Of course many more columns were cut simultaneous after that 8.3 delay period. The sound of that, relatively small, has been calculated to drown in the sound of the global collapse starting period.
But we still could hear that low frequency rumble before we saw the first movements at the roof line in that video I last year posted. The one with sufficient audio to hear that low sound, seconds before collapse initiated.

You just had to scroll up two posts above my last one to find the explanation why that huge first WTC 7 seismic peak is an indication of high velocity explosives coupled to several columns and beams in the lower levels of WTC 7, which levels we do not have any video reports from, despite the massive occurrence of news agencies and their camera crews.
They were all pushed back behind the 4 block perimeter lines set up by NYFD, which took hours to clean up the area from any people still roaming free in that area. When they were quite sure that nobody could film or photograph the lower floors of WTC 7, then they detonated these packs of explosives which produced that first huge spike in the seismographic diagram. And I have posted a video of the WTC 7 collapse with sufficient audio, so that you can hear a distinctive but very low rumbling sound before you see the east penthouse roof starting to sink inside the roof top parapet's line.
This is Prof. Brown's explanation based on the Murrah Building total demolition that was scheduled two weeks after McVeigh's bombing of it :


Professor Raymond Brown, senior geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma who studied the seismograms :
Even the smallest of those detonations (from the May 23rd demolition of the REMAINS of the Murrah building) had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building," he added, "which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building.
--snip--
, experts say that the "crack" of a C-4 cutting charge is "downright disappointing" to hear.


I still firmly stand by my own remarks under my quote from Prof. Brown.

The WTC 7 seismogram is remarkably identical to the seismographic recordings of the clean-up of the remnants of the first Oklahoma City Murrah Building bombing by McVeigh and colleagues from two weeks earlier.
And also comparable to the original seismograms of that terror event, which also shows two separate peaks, separated by 10 seconds.

Huge spikes from the explosives, followed in that seismogram by a set of much smaller spikes from the global collapse of the 2/3 remnants of that already two weeks before bombed Murrah building.
Because explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the remnants of that Murrah Building building.

The WTC 7 seismogram recorded by LDEO also shows a delay period, in this case of 8.3 seconds, before the building started its global collapse.
And also two main spikes, the first one being much bigger than the second one from the global collapse.

The NIST theory, talking about natural snapping of column 79, is ridiculous, and they very well know that. That's why they removed all later research from Dr Kim who was payed for it by them...(an old trick in academic circles, pay and can delete than any danger to your firm, institute or government, its rampant by now, nearly all research is not FREE anymore).
His results were not in accordance with their intentions to prove their theory correct.
It turned out it was by far not correct. Then they swiftly removed all his further seismic evidence from their sites.


Aim64 :You're making some strange interpretations of the data.
--snip--
Did you see any event in the footage of WTC 7 collapse that illustrated a release of more energy than the collapse of the building?
Such a release of energy would have been fairly obvious, one would think.


I think you did not understand the text in my post two posts up. You do not see any effect of a cutting charge, until, after a slow-motion delay period the building starts to react by crumbling down.
First they cut column 79 over about a height of 6 floors, it sags down taking beams with it down, then we saw the east penthouse roof line sink down after a delay period of 8.3 seconds in which they cut several other crucial columns and cross-beams in those lower 6 floors, and the global collapse initiated, then the huge sound of that covered up the massive blow out of the rest of their calculated columns and beams (isn't that loud at all, lost in the rumble of the start of the global collapse ), which caused the whole top of the building to start falling down in unisome at FREEFALL speed during more than 2 seconds. This can only be achieved when a whole packet of construction parts is going to be removed INSTANTLY.
I do not know of any natural event that could achieve that what happened in those 2+ seconds. Only human intervention with explosives can do that.
After that, natural gravitation effects take over, no further explosives needed anymore.
You just have to break the backbone of a building with cutter charges at the right places to bring it down at freefall speed, followed by natural gravitational speeds.


It's not entirely implausible.

I will not spend many words on this strange argument.
All ConEd columns were set in the bedrock, all the other columns too, that's right.
High velocity cutting charges however bring a LOT more "excitement" to that bedrock than natural breaking.


Except that the WTC was mostly empty space.

You did not grasp the notion of total pressure on all four exterior walls. That caused the peeling out of all 4 wall sections, instantly followed by tearing, rupturing loose of the corner sections. THEN the glass broke.


That's a completely different concept.

No, it's not, search in this thread or in others cross-linked in it, to the remarks of Tom of Bedlam, about his find that TB's were developed that would and could shatter thick steel columns like glass.

Your Cub Scouts last remark, immature, and I have explained that in many of my thermobaric posts. The most reliable way would be to couple electronic pressure devices and shear devices to the TB's, so that the collapse forces from the above floors would trigger the lower TB's.
Radio signals, fed into all the kilometers of IT cables, sound signals fed into the steel structure, laser signals fed to specific amplifiers at windows, etc. And a combination of all to have double and triple security.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 



Aim64c, we have had this discussion before in other threads, and now you give it again another switch, still wrong.


You're the one presuming to be all-knowing regarding events that took place over ten years ago with limited equipment in place to answer the types of questions being asked, and relying mostly on eye-witness testimony.


Column 79 was not rooted in the bedrock. It stood on top of the protective, 3 times overengineerd, immense thick steel beams "cage" covering the whole ConEd electrical station that delivered electrical power for the whole WTC complex.


So, it stood on top of a massive resonant cavity that is ultimately anchored to the bedrock.


And snapping of it at one place would not be identical to it being cut over 6 floors, as must have been done to it, to achieve a 2+ seconds freefall period.


Not really relevant to the original point.

However, it's not really clear in your explanation why it would need to be cut at over six floors simultaneously for the building to achieve what you declare to be "free fall" (based solely upon external views of the building - which give us little idea of what is going on inside).


The sound of that, relatively small, has been calculated to drown in the sound of the global collapse starting period.


What instruments recorded the sound used in your calculations? What calculations were used? Where else have those same calculations been applied to real world and experimental data? What are the limitations of that method?


But we still could hear that low frequency rumble before we saw the first movements at the roof line in that video I last year posted. The one with sufficient audio to hear that low sound, seconds before collapse initiated.


You're basing all of this on the view of the outside.


You just had to scroll up two posts above my last one to find the explanation why that huge first WTC 7 seismic peak is an indication of high velocity explosives coupled to several columns and beams in the lower levels of WTC 7, which levels we do not have any video reports from, despite the massive occurrence of news agencies and their camera crews.


If I found the explanation competent, I would not have asked the question again.


They were all pushed back behind the 4 block perimeter lines set up by NYFD, which took hours to clean up the area from any people still roaming free in that area.


Because there wasn't a huge building on fire or anything. Wouldn't want to keep people away from that.

"Sure - go right inside! We pulled the firefighters out, so they won't be in the way of your filming the collapse!"


And I have posted a video of the WTC 7 collapse with sufficient audio, so that you can hear a distinctive but very low rumbling sound before you see the east penthouse roof starting to sink inside the roof top parapet's line.


Yet explosives at that range do not generate low rumbles. It's understandable - because you've never heard an explosion generated by explosives heavier than a petty firework (a very small percentage of Americans have). Atmospheric attenuation will reduce explosions of that type to a pop/crunch - a series of which would be present in a controlled demolition. The velocity of the explosions would also create overpressure - which, at that range, sounds more like a sucking sound - a literal 'hole in the air.'


I still firmly stand by my own remarks under my quote from Prof. Brown.


You're all over the place.

You talk about barometric charges creating plasma cutting wedges using depleted uranium....
and make a quote regarding a C-4 cutting charge.

Which would still be quite audible.

Perhaps you would like to get your explosives theory in order.


Huge spikes from the explosives, followed in that seismogram by a set of much smaller spikes from the global collapse of the 2/3 remnants of that already two weeks before bombed Murrah building.
Because explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the remnants of that Murrah Building building.


You're also talking about the simultaneous demolition of an entire building as compared to the demolition of a select few columns.

Perhaps you would care to elaborate on how the demolition of a few supports at a few floors could possibly excite the ground to the degree required.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 



I think you did not understand the text in my post two posts up.


Honestly, I don't think you understand your own argument.


You do not see any effect of a cutting charge, until, after a slow-motion delay period the building starts to react by crumbling down.


This is debatable. It depends upon the objective of the demolition, the placement, etc.


First they cut column 79 over about a height of 6 floors, it sags down taking beams with it down, then we saw the east penthouse roof line sink down after a delay period of 8.3 seconds in which they cut several other crucial columns and cross-beams in those lower 6 floors, and the global collapse initiated, then the huge sound of that covered up the massive blow out of the rest of their calculated columns and beams (isn't that loud at all, lost in the rumble of the start of the global collapse ), which caused the whole top of the building to start falling down in unisome at FREEFALL speed during more than 2 seconds. This can only be achieved when a whole packet of construction parts is going to be removed INSTANTLY.


Not the way the building is designed, it doesn't.

Metals have a remarkable amount of plasticity and malleability, particularly structural steel. The fires that were left unfought in the building due to errant assessment of the amount of damage done to the building and the strained resources available heated the metal and allowed the structure to begin sagging. This put unorthodox tensile strain on segments that were designed for compression.

The building consists of an almost modular construction with a rigid mesh 'sheath'. Inner parts of the building can, literally, fall away and collapse with little visibility on the outside. Your own seismic data also supports this theory - with large sections of the building falling away 8.3 seconds prior to the visible external collapse of the building (after large portions of the inside had already collapsed).


I do not know of any natural event that could achieve that what happened in those 2+ seconds. Only human intervention with explosives can do that.


To presume to be able to know exactly what happened to that building is where you've gone fatally wrong in all of this.


You just have to break the backbone of a building with cutter charges at the right places to bring it down at freefall speed, followed by natural gravitational speeds.


Right, any team of boyscouts can properly demolish a building.

The professionals just like to spend months performing measurements, calculations, and prep-work to drive up the costs and make more money.

Since we're on the topic of controlled demolition - most of the explosives in a controlled demolition do little in terms of cutting the steel supports. Supports are cut with torches or saws to a specific point, and the section of metal hit with a timed sequence of two different explosives - one to cut the rest of the metal, the other to kick that chunk of metal out.

Cutting fully through large steel beams with only explosives is not nearly as easy as you make it sound.


High velocity cutting charges however bring a LOT more "excitement" to that bedrock than natural breaking.


Raw physics disagrees with you. The amount of energy stored within a stressed steel beam can easily exceed the amount of energy in a kilogram or more of C-4. The sound of snapping steel beams is often mistaken for an explosion.


You did not grasp the notion of total pressure on all four exterior walls. That caused the peeling out of all 4 wall sections, instantly followed by tearing, rupturing loose of the corner sections. THEN the glass broke.


And you missed the part about the inverse square law and the difficulty of doing this in spaces without ideal symmetry (the effect is lost when the dimensions of the room form a different ratio of length, width, and height).


No, it's not, search in this thread or in others cross-linked in it, to the remarks of Tom of Bedlam, about his find that TB's were developed that would and could shatter thick steel columns like glass.


Unfortunately, he's the only one who talks about it. The nature of thermobaric explosions does not lend them to the purpose of shattering metals. They are simply not suited to the task.

Killing thousands in an instant by rupturing the lining of their lungs with sudden shifts in pressure? Yes - thermobaric weapons are great at that. They are, unfortunately, not all that great at creating overpressure (which requires supersonic detonation velocities and the forcing of air into supersonic displacement).



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
There is years of intensive research invested in ALL my seismic posts. (Type: "LaBTop seismic" ) and click the second blue link again since the first is a systematic typo by Google) , read them all 330, spread over all these 7.5 years, or if you have less time, just read for a simple example this SHORT thread and all my posts in it, which btw ended with no counterarguments at all at the end of my argumentation in several posts of mine :

Seismic analysis NYC 9/11 by member "In nothing we trust"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He's banned : there's a ~ ,above his posting date.
So many conspiracy proponents, who posted well thought out posts, were banned here, so little others were.....Were all these members really so aggressive? I think it's inheritive to their personal conspiracy/skeptical-belief-systems.
However, these others have grown a habit of using much more aggressive and insulting texts over the last few years, i.m.h.op. Too many times as first offenders in nearly every thread, which then triggered nasty responses of those who felt themselves insulted. Who then got banned...
There is something inherently wrong with that, and we should check it with a statistical software program that has a list of insults used by both parties.
Only then we can conclude what group used the most, and the first insults.

And I'm not really sure that there was a true balance between both isles, I had the impression that the others did start most insults, just as now demonstrated above by Aim64C again.

Aim64C, visit ZeuZZ facebook page. ( Nature is Awesome x∞ )
It will lighten you up. Beautiful pictures of Nature in all its splendor.


We, humans, are like sand grains moving relentlessly under the influence of our, and others' decisions.
The main non-solved issue yet, is there another source involved who takes those decisions for us? And why should we worship such an entity.
I am too much of a stubborn single soul to bow for anything, thus I await my final destiny.
Curious as always.
My hopes are not very high to have any at all.
I expect to simply fade away when the last moment of my long existence finally arrives.
I am 'on speaking terms' with that notion, already for a long time.
I respect Nature for my well earned existence.
SO, don't worry, it can only get better from now on.

I am afraid you will read something totally different in the following words by Carl Sagan, taken from that Facebook's member account's Info page :


Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way
of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility.

If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along.”

- Carl Sagan.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   
REFERENCES
(Honest researchers read whole linked-to or referenced threads, before contemplating how to post their serious opinion)

1. 330 Results for an ATS Search at "ask.abovetopsecret.com" based on the two words "LaBTop seismic" filled in the search term space.
Then click the second blue line on top of the results, depicting the same two words again in blue, because that Search Engine changes my words automatically to "LaPTop seismic" and shows their incorrect 308 results first. That's an incorrect "P" instead of a correct "B" !
The 308 results for "LaPTop seismic" do contain just a few of other seismic posts or referenced links to that subject, by members/persons who spelled my member name incorrectly.
ask.abovetopsecret.com...

2. Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited, page 7, my low frequency explosives sound post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

3. 9/11 WTC Detonations Finally Revealed. by BoneZ.
www.youtube.com...



What most of those latest to date, rude and insulting commenters on this video do not realize at all, is that the demolition sounds had to come from 800 feet up, travel down through the dense air at 330 m/sec, there is some delay caused by that, before these sounds reached the camera microphones.
While the overall, immense global collapse sound originating from high up there, traveled through the steel columns at speeds exceeding 20 miles or km per second, so arrived at the base of the towers nearly instantly where it first was recorded by the camera microphones aimed at the sides of those towers.
And overwhelmed the other, air-traveling sounds already before those arrived at the ground level where they then at last were recorded. That were some huge vibrating "stem forks" collapsing there and then.
Remember for always : column and beam breaking sounds travels through steel at supersonic speeds, there is no air to displace, its speed exceeds the subsonic, lower than the sound barrier speeds in air, by many, many factors.

And secondly, these commenters all refer to official demolitions they saw on TV or YouTube, where buildings were first stripped totally empty and were removed from all exterior walls and panels, that's why in those videos the sounds are so loud. At the three WTC's, all that sound was seriously muffled by all the still existing ex- and interior wall parts. It were fully covered building facades. Cutting charges are very difficult to source from such air tight buildings.

4. The science of why it had to be controlled demolition, in laymen's terms.
ZeuZZ excerpt: :

ZeuZZ : On the face of it, Aim64C, that looks like a pretty extensive response. A shame then that everything you have just said is, at best, utterly misleading, and at worst, bare faced lies.


You must read that whole thread, when your interest in the real facts of 9/11 was heightened by this thread. Those are ZeuZZ his refutations of Aim64C's page-1 post in there, trying to ridicule him too.
One of ZeuZZ's posts in it :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

5. As you see, that YouTube link of that video showing the symmetrical ring of explosions running at free fall speed down the building at the first exploding floors, as so many other interesting videos and article links, is obsolete now. I have however a working link included to the same video in this and in other threads. You see those floors bursting out, with measurable far too high, upwards, sidewards and downwards dust-front velocities, to be caused by a natural gravitational collapse. David Chandler, of WTC-7 free fall speed fame, has published some fine videos on that explosive dust front velocity subject. And that German former JREF member too.
His name slipped from my memory for now.

9/11 WTC2 Demolition Northeast Corner Zoomed With Slow (NBC). (watch it in HD)
www.youtube.com...




I can go on, with three hundred+ of refs more, it's however more interesting to continue posting seismic subjects that I, to my knowledge have not addressed yet.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
This was the original video I once posted that I was looking for. Found it here, in that page 7 of that highly interesting argument I had with Damocles over several pages (where are you, my respected opponent? Hope you're still alive and well.) :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Source : www.youtube.com...
Damning WTC demolition charges exposed.




See at 004 secs the rows of whitish clouds emanate from the windows, in rings around the building, from two floors below the lowest impact point. The fires were three to five floors higher, smoldering, indicated by their black smoke rising.
The -explosive- white smoke started emitting from -lower than impact- floors which were not burned at all, and the above floors were already out of combustible objects a long time ago.
One should expect the still burning higher floors to give way and explode/emit black smoke rings.
They did not.

Undamaged floors just below the lowest wing tip impact floor were the first to blow out.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 



Aim64: The building consists of an almost modular construction with a rigid mesh 'sheath'. Inner parts of the building can, literally, fall away and collapse with little visibility on the outside. Your own seismic data also supports this theory - with large sections of the building falling away 8.3 seconds prior to the visible external collapse of the building (after large portions of the inside had already collapsed).


LT : This is a complete uncertainty, changed by him into a certainty.

We do not know at all what exactly happened inside WTC 7 in the time span before the first sign of the start of the global visible collapse.
That sign being the video and News cameras recording the sinking of the eastern penthouse roof into the parapet line and into the main roof floor.
The only thing we can conclude from the seismic data is, that there was a huge seismic event (a huge amount of energy released) before the first sign of external movement, which huge event dwarfed the then following events.
Which were the collapsing of a whole high rise.

The only hard physical evidence of what happened with, and inside WTC 7 before that point in time is the huge peak written in the first part of the seismogram recorded by LDEO in their seismic station at Palisades, N.Y. on 9/11. My above graph with my additions in it.


Aim64: Raw physics disagrees with you. The amount of energy stored within a stressed steel beam can easily exceed the amount of energy in a kilogram or more of C-4. The sound of snapping steel beams is often mistaken for an explosion.


LT : That's nice to know, however, that's not at all an explanation for the most glaring and obvious conclusion which anybody with basic education can draw from my graph.

Namely that it's clear as hell from my above WTC 7 seismogram with all my textual additions, that the total collapse of the whole WTC 7 building with all its hundreds of internal and external columns and beams snapping in the process of a 10+ seconds long collapsing process, did not by far excited the bedrock under it in a comparable manner as that first, internal event inside WTC 7, depicted by that first huge peak in my seismic graph, which is clearly written on that graph seconds before the starting of the sinking of that penthouse roof and then the collapsing of that whole penthouse into the main roof floor and down into the top floor.

The bedrock under WTC 7 became excited during several seconds in a huge manner, and only after that, the camera's fixed on WTC 7 from quite a distance, started to record the first sign of any external movement.
Namely that east penthouse roof sinking down. Followed by the west penthouse sinking too.

And Aim64 tried to plant the impression that that huge seismic energy peak could be caused by the natural snapping of only one, too far stressed column. Number 79.
I hope you do understand by now, that such a proposal is meant to distract you from what your eyes register and your brain immediately realizes, a whole building snapping should show a very huge peak while it's happening. And that event should dwarf that first event recorded. If that would have been a form of natural snapping from only one vertical column under far too much stress.

However, as you can see clearly, the opposite is true, the first event dwarfs the following total collapse event, energy wise.
Thus, there must have been introduced an extra amount of energy, and a huge surplus for sure.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join