That means no P or S waves.
No, these huge pre-collapse spikes on the WTC 7 graph are not P or S waves, since these are much smaller in amplitude than Rg waves, the surface ones mainly received by LDEO on 9/11.
If the main collapse would have been shown in the WTC 7 collapse graph as a spread-out signal packet from a real time event which was seconds shorter in duration, like in another type of seismogram from LDEO, then it would still be totally impossible for the spread-out graph, to have bigger than collapse signals in front of the collapse signals.
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by Aim64C
BTW, I CAN go point by point with you and disspell ALL your arguments with REAL science. Not just something I picked up from "debunking 9/11".
Let me know if you want me to, because I'm more than happy and willing to.
Page 2 and 3, from 9 :
Comparison with Signals from Earthquakes, Gas Explosion and Mine Collapse.
The signals at PAL from Collapse 2 and a small felt earthquake beneath the east side of Manhattan on January 17, 2001 are of comparable amplitude and ML (Fig. 4). The character of the two seismograms, however, is quite different.
Clear P and S waves are seen only for the earthquake.
The 7-km depth of the earthquake suppressed the excitation of short- period Rg,
which is so prominent for the collapse. The difference in the excitation of higher frequencies also can be attributed to the short time duration of slip in small earthquakes compared to the combined source time of several seconds of the complex system of the towers and foundations responding to the impacts and collapses. The waves from the WTC events resemble those recorded by regional stations from the collapse of part of a salt mine in western New York on March 12, 1994 (ML 3.6). That source also lasted longer than that of a small earthquake. A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away. (LT: because it was not coupled to the ground, but instead on the floor of a truck, above ground!)
An explosion at a gasoline tank farm near Newark NJ on January 7, 1983 generated observable P and S waves and short-period Rg waves (ML 3) at PAL. Its Rg is comparable to that for WTC collapse 2. Similar arrivals were seen at station AMNH in Manhattan, which is no longer operating, at a distance of 15 km. AMNH also recorded a prominent seismic arrival at the time expected for an atmospheric acoustic wave. We know of no microbarograph recordings of either that explosion or the events at the WTC.
Many people asked us if the arrivals at seismic stations from the WTC events propagated in the atmosphere. We find no evidence of waves arriving at such slow velocities. Instead the seismic waves excited by impacts and collapses at the WTC are short-period surface waves, i.e. seismic waves travelling within the upper few kilometers of the crust.
The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least
10^11 J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for ML 2.3 is about 10^6 to 10^7 J. Hence, only a
very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy
went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust.
Originally posted by Aim64C
Do you realize how many chemical compounds are in an office environment? You've got hydrocarbons, fluorocarbons, silicon wafers, human fat (which burns hot enough to melt steel, mind you - why oven fires are so dangerous), and countless other elements, compounds, and potential for any type of various reactions.
You also have the magnesium and titanium in the aircraft structure - both are HIGHLY flammable metals that will burn a hole through concrete, given the time. You've got all kinds of potential for any number of chemical reactions.
That is why this is 'unique' - we don't have aircraft crashing into buildings and combining the elements of aircraft fires with structural fires (and the two are quite different, I can tell you from my training on fighting fires on a flight deck - the fundamentals are the same, but there are a number of more concerns in an aircraft fire that you don't have with structural fires... such as that fuel, ordinance (if present), and the engine components (which can catch fire... and are bad, bad, BAD when they do)).
There are simply too many factors involved here to say "unusual residue" is any sort of indication of bombs.
BOMBS, or KNOWN reactions would be very quickly identified. And since there are virtually no unknown chemical reactions of that genre - you're left with mythical fusion devices - which would also leave rather distinct traces that would be identified.
What you're dealing with is a number of various compounds oxidizing, being broken up, reformed, and all kinds of crazy stuff.
You are going to get some awkward residues - especially with the presence burning proteins, which are known for containing elevated amounts of potassium and sodium when compared to an office fire that did not contain burning human bodies.
If you knew anything about chemistry,
or read your Anarchist's Handbook (the earlier generations, not this sissy one they put out today), you would know that Sodium and Potassium are very commonly used in bombs. Which is why residues containing elevated amounts of potassium and/or sodium would be of curiosity. And when you have a number of other hydrocarbons, fluorocarbons, etc all burning together... you are going to get some rather peculiar and random residues.
And unless you're willing to let me set someone on fire in a laboratory to prove this to you
(when it would just be more simple for you to take a couple classes on chemistry and biology),
Anyway, burden of proof is on you to prove that this is, in some way, linked to explosive devices, or some sort of 'controlled demolition' or something implying a conspiracy.
So far, all it is is "Hmm... isn't this suspicious"..... possibly. But when there are other, perfectly logical explanations out there that don't begin pushing the bounds of reality with black ops setting explosive charges of some sort in the building - you need to provide something rather solid as to how this could only be what you are suggesting. .... If you can, first, figure out what it is you are suggesting.
Originally posted by NIcon
Isn't the first sample FEMA talks about in their report from WTC7? As far as I know no plane parts went into that building. Did any jet fuel make it there? And wasn't it evacuated before it was even damaged by the collapsing towers?
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Just a couple of questions:
Given the omnidirectional nature of seismic vibrations, was WTC7 the only detectable source of activity in that area at that point in time (pre-collapse)?
Apart from the mechanism involved in a total failure of the truss over the 5 story high substation within the building, could an internal collapse of a major part of the core of the building into the substation have been the cause of the precollapse signal?
Originally posted by Aim64C
You've got hydrocarbons, fluorocarbons, silicon wafers, human fat (which burns hot enough to melt steel, mind you -
I'm sure the abundance of human fat present in that environment (which is also different from a number of other fires - as structures are usually vacant or become vacant before anyone gets the chance to catch on fire) could also trigger such flammable metals, as well.
Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
What are you highlighting?
[edit on 19-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]
According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor along the south side following the collapse of WTC 1, the only damage to the 9th floor facade occurred at the southwest corner. According to firefighters' eyewitness accounts from outside of the building, approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree. Other eyewitness accounts relate that there was additional damage to the south elevation.
So we have been presented with the following absurd story:
1. Power to the Twin Towers was wired from the substation in WTC 7 through two separate systems. The first provided power throughout each building; the second provided power only to the emergency systems. In the event of fire, power would only be provided to the emergency systems. This was to prevent arcing electric lines igniting new fires and to reduce the risk of firefighters being electrocuted. There were also six 1,200 kW emergency power generators located in the sixth basement (B-6) level of the towers, which provided a backup power supply. These also had normal and emergency subsystems.
2. Previous to the collapse of the South Tower, the power to the towers was switched to the emergency subsystem to provide power for communications equipment, elevators, emergency lighting in corridors and stairwells, and fire pumps and safety for firefighters. At this time power was still provided by the WTC 7 substation.
3. Con Ed reported that "the feeders supplying power to WTC 7 were de-energized at 9:59 a.m.". This was due to the South Tower collapse which occurred at the same time.
4. Unfortunately, even though the main power system for the towers was switched off and WTC 7 had been evacuated, a design flaw allowed generators (designed to supply backup power for the WTC complex) to start up and resume an unnecessary and unwanted power supply.
5. Unfortunately, debris from the collapse of the north tower (the closest tower) fell across the building known as World Trade Center Six, and then across Vesey Street, and then impacted WTC 7 which is (at closest) 355 feet away from the north tower.
6. Unfortunately, some of this debris penetrated the outer wall of WTC 7, smashed half way through the building, demolishing a concrete masonry wall (in the north half of the building) and then breached a fuel oil pipe that ran across the building just to the north of the masonry wall.
7. Unfortunately, though most of the falling debris was cold, it manages to start numerous fires in WTC 7.
8. Unfortunately, even with the outbreak of numerous fires in the building, no decision was made to turn off the generators now supplying electricity to WTC 7. Fortunately, for the firefighters, someone did make the decision not to fight and contain the fires while they were still small, but to wait until the fires were large and out of control. Otherwise, many firefighters may have been electrocuted while fighting the fires.
9. Unfortunately, the safety mechanism that should have shut down the fuel oil pumps (which were powered by electricity) upon the breaching of the fuel line, failed to work and fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the Salomon Smith Barney tanks on the ground floor onto the 5th floor where it ignited. The pumps eventually emptied the tanks, pumping some 12,000 gallons in all.
10. Unfortunately, the sprinkler system of WTC 7 malfunctioned and did not extinguish the fires.
11. Unfortunately, the burning diesel heated trusses one and two to the point that they lost their structural integrity.
12. Unfortunately, this then (somehow) caused the whole building to collapse, even though before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire.
You must agree, it is absurd, isn't it?
13. "We were down about a block from the base of the World Trade Center towers about an hour ago. And there was a great deal of concern at that time, the firemen said building number 7 was going to collapse, building number five was in danger of collapsing. And there's so little they can do to try to fight the fires in these buildings, because the fires are so massive. And so much of the buildings continues to fall into the street. When you're down there, Dan, you hear smaller secondary explosions going off every 15 or 20 minutes, and so it's an extremely dangerous place to be."
–CBS-TV News Reporter Vince DeMentri
16. The time was approximately 11a.m. Both of the WTC towers were collapsed and the streets were covered with debris. Building #7 was still standing but burning. ...We spoke to with a FDNY Chief who has his men holed up in the US Post Office building. He informed us that the fires in building 7 were uncontrollable and that its collapse was imminent. There were no fires inside the loading dock (of 7) at this time but we could hear explosions deep inside. –PAPD P.O. William Connors www.thememoryhole.org... page 69
7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. www.record-eagle.com...
Originally posted by LaBTop
The directors of NIST....
Look into them, how they were exchanged from free thinkers to political appointed parrots of the party lines and corporate America.
The position of NIST director is a presidential appointment.
He comes to NIST from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), where he was senior director for homeland and national security, as well as assistant director for space and aeronautics.
Before serving at OSTP, Jeffrey worked at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) as deputy director for the Advanced Technology Office and chief scientist for the Tactical Technology Office. According to the NIST press release, his work at DARPA involved research in communications, computer network security, development of sensors and space operations.
Jeffrey's experience prior to DARPA includes positions with the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Office and the Institute for Defense Analyses. He has served on review panels addressing national security issues, and chaired a national panel that proposed a technology investment strategy to support NASA's planetary missions.
Jeffrey responded that NIST has a very active role in homeland security, taking the lead in the World Trade Center investigation and participating in the investigation of the anthrax sent to Senate offices, as well as other security issues.