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

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I only ask you to provide us with a solid explanation of that huge energy source that caused the seismographs at LDEO to write the tallest peaks seconds before they started to write the following, smaller global collapse peaks.

No negatives, no positives there, just a simple explanation where that energy could have been coming from, shown there, that was bigger than the following energy of a 47 story building collapsing in total, to ground level.

And if you can't come up with that, it really becomes time to re-evaluate your opinion on the events of 9/11.


Ahem. It's not an energy pulse, so much as it is a radical vertical acceleration.... such as the initial impact of the structure. If you notice - there is a momentary rise in the seismic activity moments before your 'pulse'. Then, the remaining debris jostle around and finally come to a rest. Since the building was reportedly falling at or near free-fall - this would make sense that not much of the energy of the collapse would be dispersed into the ground until the collapsing tower actually hit the ground.

And if the entire mass of the WTC hitting the ground only created those minuscule scribbles on the seismograph.... then I highly doubt we would have not captured the explosions from those bombs on video. Even the combined explosions from demolitions charges would not produce a seismograph reading of that magnitude.

And, at this time, I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the readings (unfiltered) and showing both collapses over time are east-west seismic motion. The filtered comparisons are showing vertical movement. The filtered comparisons will remove the short pulse we see, as it's going to be way above 10Hz. Then taking note that the filtered comparison is also from a vertical wave analysis.....


If you don't grasp that coloured and bolded text by now, then you're a lost case to science.
(from and earlier post)

Actually - I do grasp it quite well. The reason clear P and S waves are seen only for the Earthquake is because of the distance of the Earthquake and the lack of distance to the WTC. However - this FURTHER compounds my point that various waves will be 'stacked on top' of each other - making for a potentially confusing seismic reading.

If you don't understand that.... well.... I believe you said it yourself.

And I apologize for my delay in responding to this. Life took over and I had to tend to it.




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Well, first, Nixon didn't kill anyone at Watergate and didn't send out letters filled with anthrax to people as a warning.

Plus, you are forgetting the fact that deepthroat didn't ID himself until his deathbed days. Why not? What was he afraid of? He may have secretly brought down Nixon but was too afraid to ID himself for over 30 years. Again...what was he afraid of?

Also, if someone today came out as "deepthroat II" and spilled the beans...would you and your ilk take it as fact? Or would you publicly denounce this person as a "dissident", "disgruntled employee", or "crazy conspiracy theorist", etc.?

I'd bet my next weeks salary, it's the latter.


1- yeah, well the killers responsible have owed up to it. Al Quaeda anyone? 19 martyrs video anyone? So what's your point? Making unfounded and unprovable allegations get you nowhere in this argument. Gotta have some kind of credible proof, there's the rub, eh?

2- who says he was afraid? You say so? And that's enough I bet, right? And again, HE SPILLED THE BEANS!!

3- the diff is........ his allegations were provable. EVERY allegation from so-called whistleblowers, for example Scott Forbes of power down fame, has been proven to be utter junk. How about the guy who said he heard the countdown on some Red Cross worker's radio, where's HIS proof? I'd call that being a crazy conspiracy theorist, wouldn't you? The list goes on and on....

How about the LC crew, most of their movie is utter garbage also, with so many untruthful and misleading statements as to be utterly laughable. Are they CCT too. How about the hologram guys, or the nuke guys? A lot of them around on your side of the argument, eh?

IF someone came forward with CREDIBLE proof, that would be great. Ain't gonna happen.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
So why wouldn't an agengy tasked with finding out what happened actually find out what happened? I.E. This steel evaporation is still a mystery. Why?


Why does the Highway Patrol not investigate every single little thing involved in a thirty car pileup? They have things to do, they evaluate the major things, search for causes, recommend a way to keep it from happening again, and life goes on.


Again. Why hasn't this theory of yours been proven with scientific modeling? Just so we can know what not to do in the future?


What are you talking about? Magnesium and Titanium are incredibly flammable materials. Part of our training in the aviation field revolves around fighting aircraft fires. Hence why the general tactic to fighting the fire of a plane that has had parts of its landing gear (magnesium and some titanium), engine turbines/ducts, etc catch fire is to deep-six it (toss it over the side). Otherwise it will burn until it's melted all the way through the carrier, or burnt itself up.

Where we used to live, there was a factory up the road from my dad's die-casting factory that did work on titanium. One day something went wrong, a lathe wasn't cooled properly, got too hot, and the whole dang factory practically caught on fire. The only thing they could put it out with was tons and tons of dirt. Every available dump-truck in town was hauling dirt in to pile on that factory. Like a mini-Chernobyl.


Again. Why hasn't this theory of yours been tested?


Again - It's called "experience." It's no obscure fact of life that titanium and magnesium are flammable. Hell - magnesium powder was used to create the 'flash' for early cameras and would leave a black, powdery substance (magnesium-oxide... don't remember if it's dioxide, trioxide, etc) all over the people in the room.


Where have I stated that the only conclusion is bombs? BTW, bombs wouldn't produce it either.


Where did I say that my post was completely and totally directed at you? Other people read this who do believe it was bombs, nuclear fusion weapons, and proton torpedoes.


Thermate would though. Or a natural eutetic reaction. Of which, NIST should have at least looked into so that I don't spec the wrong things in my next building. Right?


Sulfur residue is not part of a thermite reaction. Additionally, there exist no metals in the structure of significant enough mass to cause any reaction capable of damaging the structure - aside from the steel - which would require another reactant to cause a reaction. Now - other reactions would be enough to cause residues - but residues are just that - residues and traces.


Wow. I've seen the obfuscation from you before, but this takes the cake. Now we're talking about fusion bombs? I thought this was just about NIST not testing steel that FEMA said should have been tested?


Slow down there, Turbo - again - you're not the only one I'm talking to. I avoid tunnel-vision. I am always looking to where people might 'run' to and cut them off before they can get there.



What you're dealing with is a number of various compounds oxidizing, being broken up, reformed, and all kinds of crazy stuff.


Please provide empirical and/or physical proof of these claims.


Hmm... let's see... I've got about 90% of the periodic table involved in both the plane, the building, the proteins in people, and the furniture in the building. Why don't you try and figure out how to describe to me how all of these elements could not be reacting with each other, and the compounds various reactions develop would not go on to further react with other compounds/elements?


Your burning human body theory may have some merit. But, again, how does burning human bodies sulfidate steel and evaporate it?


You can't "sulfidate" steel. You can only sulfidate elements. Steel is a non-metal alloy (carbon is not a metal). Either the iron, chromium, or carbon in the steel reacted with sulfur to produce what we see. It would only be on the surface of the metal. Whether or not this is what caused it to "evaporate" is a good question. Under such heat, sulfur from other sources could easily bond with other elements in the steel, causing the "sulfidated steel." That is - if iron, chromium, or carbon bond with sulfur....


Again. Empirical and/or physical proof of your statements please.


I thought you said you knew a lot about chemistry.... Potassium and Sodium are the two most reactive elements there are. Each are "bombs" by themselves - toss a chunk of potassium into water and watch it explode (sodium does the same). As such - they are very crucial components to many bombs. Look at the labels on fireworks - most of them have potassium and sodium in their composition - various metals and oxides are contained to produce the various colors.



(when it would just be more simple for you to take a couple classes on chemistry and biology),


Again with the jab about my intellegence and/or education huh? Is that all you got?


Well, you're not doing a good job of demonstrating your prowess in this area.... If it grabs your attention and makes you think - that's what I'm after.


The burden of proof is definitely NOT on me to proove anything of the sort. The burden of proof is on NIST to find out what did this to the steel. You know, the agency tasked with "investigating" the incident so that safety codes and building codes could be re-written if need be? But, they are just going to ignore it?


Nice cover. Assuming they did, in fact, do their job and find nothing horribly out of place - and nothing is horribly out of place.... then what are you trying to prove or do? The reality is that you're looking for an answer that simply is not.


See, this is where you are having a problem understanding.

I am NOT out to prove there were explosives/thermate/a conspiracy with this. All I'm out for is that MY tax paying money be used to find out what actually happened. NOT just what they "think" happened.


And you found out what actually happened. The reality is that planes crash into buildings on such a rare occasion that there is no need to redefine building codes for material composition because of any sort of reaction resulting from such.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Don't forget the Patriot Act, or "Carnivore" (later renamed to DCS1000), and Echelon.

The Patriot Act calls for the monitoring of ANY communication entering/leaving the USA.

This isn't paranoia - this is called being informed. Don't forget also that this is only what we know about - the mind boggles over what we don't know about.


You really believe that?

If you think so, IMO, you're delusional paranoid.

Not delusional paranoid, just informed.
There is plenty of info on this on the 'net (if you dare to search
- just don't use Google).


[edit on 9-1-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Aren't you being somewhat misleading in what you state considering the following? Aren't you neglecting to tell people the right conditions must exist for each element?

hss.energy.gov...

"Titanium, like magnesium, is classified as a combustible metal, but again the size and shape of the metal determine to a great extent whether or not it will ignite. Castings and other massive pieces of titanium are not combustible under ordinary conditions. Small chips, fine turnings, and dust ignite readily and, once ignited, burn with the release of large quantities of heat. Tests have shown that very thin chips and fine turnings could be ignited by a match and heavier chips and turnings by a Bunsen burner. Coarse chips and turnings 0.79 by 2.7 mm (1/32 by 3/28 in.) or larger may be considered as difficult to ignite, but unless it is known that smaller particles are not mixed with the coarser material in significant amounts, it is wise to assume easy ignition is possible."

If titanium was that easy to ignite at all time, jetliners would not have titanium parts anywhere in their plane components, particularly the engines:

findarticles.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 


I'm not being misleading at all. There have been many instances of such components catching fire when a plane has crashed or otherwise caught fire. Those are not "ordinary" conditions. Typically, what is flammable are shavings, and the dust is highly flammable - sometimes explosive (in fact, the dust of any metal will burn or sometimes explode - coal will also do this).

Now, "Normal conditions" is not defined very well - but we would assume it to be a magnesium-alloy (or even a pure magnesium) wheel/rim on a car (used because they are light yet strong) - and holding a match/lighter to it. It won't ignite, just like holding a match up against the bark of a tree won't make it ignite.

Alloys increase the heat required to make it ignite - and the mass not exposed to air determines the total thermal energy needed to cause it to ignite.

Although I am waiting to see a lawsuit over magnesium rims when someone with them gets into a car accident that allows the car to catch fire for an extended period of time - and their rims catch on fire and burn a hole into the ground and melt half the car down. I would pay to see the look on someone's face as their rims assume this brilliant, white radiance about them that burns one's retinas.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


That is precisely to what I was referring. The circumstances make all the difference. Those need to be considered, not generalities in specific discussion of circumstances. Generalities are very often misleading.

I became convinced that 9/11/2001 is misunderstood by some because some deal in nothing but generalities, not specifics and details as needs to be done.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Aim64C
 


That is precisely to what I was referring. The circumstances make all the difference. Those need to be considered, not generalities in specific discussion of circumstances. Generalities are very often misleading.


What do you fail to understand? Titanium parts catch fire - so does magnesium. Those metals are very hard to work with because they will often catch fire before they will melt. However, in uncontrolled fires and circumstances, such pieces and parts will often catch fire if left to their own (no one is able to extinguish the flames).

It's not a generality. In aircraft crashes/fires - such parts will catch fire. Their functioning design keeps them from doing so... but a crashed aircraft that is on fire is operating outside of its functional design parameters.


I became convinced that 9/11/2001 is misunderstood by some because some deal in nothing but generalities, not specifics and details as needs to be done.


Specifics and details can be vastly over-rated when you're dealing with an event as chaotic and frantic as 9/11. No one honestly knew what the hell was going on for days after that incident. Memories become muddled and mixed up - the present challenges the limits of comprehension - and the future looks bleak in such incidents.

You will get people who claim they saw aliens in amongst all of that mess - because they were scared and confused - just like we all were. Interview twenty witnesses to a car accident - and you'll get twenty distinctly different stories. Some will be different because someone is trying to hide their own error - others will be different because of how they remember things - and still others will be different because of how they describe things.

Example: "Big" to you might be "average" to me.

And Forensics is rather difficult to do in such areas. You have little idea what damage was caused when, or by what. You had the initial plane crash, the fires, the collapse, and the days that debris sat there, smoldering while workers toiled to clean it all up.

Unfortunately - specifics and details become rather hard to nail down in the natural world. Now - what would be more interesting is if we found many, many incidents of "sulfidated" steel in conjunction with some form of evaporation. But to my knowledge, that's an isolated incident.

The problem with debating specifics and details in this type of event is the sheer lack of their existence and the unclear implications they have. "We found a steel beam out of place - there must be something else out of place to tell us what this means!"

It turns into a long, tedious journey through the imagination of the individuals leading the investigations - and no conclusions can be drawn from anything. In fact - the reason I can claim this was not some setup is because of the numerous inconsistencies and strange events.

In Tornadoes we have all of the houses but one or two on the street get destroyed - when conventional logic tells you they should have been. Was it then, a conspiracy by those two homeowners to take revenge on their neighbors? Or, perhaps, it was the Government warning them to behave.

Where does it stop? Odd things happen in the world. The larger and more chaotic the event... the more odd stuff happens.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Generally, I agree. When specifics are necessary to make accurate, detailed determination, I do not engage in general statements, and, therefore, disagree. They are too misleading by anyone relying on generalities. A vast large number of discussions, in this forum by various members, are left too general to be of any real value, in serious evaluation of what actually did transpire on 9/11/2001.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


I only ask you to provide us with a solid explanation of that huge energy source that caused the seismographs at LDEO to write the tallest peaks seconds before they started to write the following, smaller global collapse peaks.

No negatives, no positives there, just a simple explanation where that energy could have been coming from, shown there, that was bigger than the following energy of a 47 story building collapsing in total, to ground level.

And if you can't come up with that, it really becomes time to re-evaluate your opinion on the events of 9/11.


Ahem. It's not an energy pulse, so much as it is a radical vertical acceleration.... such as the initial impact of the structure. If you notice - there is a momentary rise in the seismic activity moments before your 'pulse'. Then, the remaining debris jostle around and finally come to a rest. Since the building was reportedly falling at or near free-fall - this would make sense that not much of the energy of the collapse would be dispersed into the ground until the collapsing tower actually hit the ground.


You again try to obfuscate and obstruct the ongoing argumentation by mixing-in semi-scientific popular science babble with my very clear to read and not to be misinterpreted coloured graph :

1. I used up there in my quote the words "that huge energy source", then you obfuscate it to "an energy pulse". A word "pulse" I sometimes used somewhere else, not there.

2. You use the word "remaining" to describe "debris", when it's crystal clear from my coloured graph, that at the moment in time that the "pulse" originating from that huge energy source, arrived and got written, 17 seconds before in New York there was no movement at all to be seen at the WTC 7 building exterior. Especially not from the penthouse. NO DEBRIS !
Those 17 seconds were the travelling time from seismic signals from NY's WTC complex to the Palisades LDEO seismic station. (34 km divided by 2 km/sec = 17 sec).
So there was NO DEBRIS AT ALL to be described by you at that moment in time. And especially no REMAINING debris. There was no debris hitting anything, especially not the ground.

3. The later following dent in the roof of that penthouse on top of WTC 7 was described by NIST as the first VISUAL sign of movement at the building.
And after that dent showed itself, it took 8.2 more seconds, before, as described by NIST in their own words "the TOTAL GLOBAL collapse initiated" and progressed to the ground.

4. And your last words after "Since" are really showing your ignorance and total lack of comprehension of the subject of my thesis.
That WTC 7 collapse was a BOTTOM first collapse, as I have told you several times by now.
You describe a top first collapse, where a top part travels through a now lost part of the structure, "until the collapsing tower actually hit the ground."
Actually, you keep mixing WTC 7 facts all the time with Twin Tower facts.
I don't know if that is intentionally, to obfuscate the matter, but it sure starts to look so.

NIST tries to prove that a column failure at the 5th or 7th floor initiated that collapse. Thus the whole building, according to NIST, is crashing down only a few floors, then collapses totally caused by the too strong force of this acceleration and subsequent deceleration of its total mass.
What you in fact proposed there, is an "evaporation" of steel components, so a part of the building suddenly wasn't there anymore.
That's what all of us are used to call an explosion, which removes parts of a structure, so it can free fall in itself, started by a sudden global drop which impacts the ground with such great force, that the above still intact structure will be shattered to pieces by the sudden fall-acceleration and then deceleration of its total mass, which will then rain down in broken-up pieces to the ground. A men-made demolition collapse.

I'll try to explain it one more time to you :
There was no "pulse".
I showed you DUAL-PACKS of seismic peaks appearing in especially the WTC 7 graph I am MAINLY talking about in my thesis, at a time when there was NO MOVEMENT at all to be seen at the WTC 7 in New York. (All three dual-pack peaks are comparable and lasting 10 seconds in total, for all three collapses.)



We are really going to cut the crab now, and ask every poster to address this SIMPLE graph which can be understood by an eight year old :



Open this Simple Coloured Diagram in a new Browser-Tab.

and address this slightly more COMPLICATED graph, which could be grasped by a ten year old, since it involves only plain old logic and basic calculus skills :



Open this Big Coloured Diagram in a new Browser-Tab.

Tell me and our readers, what you think is wrong with my thesis, explained crystal clear by these two graphs.
Using exact terms and using the precise data I showed you IN THOSE GRAPHS, originating from NIST and LDEO, two USA GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, which I used, to show you all that something very disturbing can be read in the WTC 7 seismogram from LDEO, and subsequently also in the Twin Tower collapse seismograms.

Some entity BLEW UP those towers.

And on a side note, explain to me, using any sane reason, why NIST from the moment on I came out with my thesis, has TOTALLY erased all seismic reports from their databases.
Especially the one from Januari 2006, the new one written by LDEO's dr. Kim (now suddenly hired by NIST), the same one who wrote his first seismic reports within a few days after 9/11. That one is one time mentioned by NIST, but even that quote is now missing in action.
I and others have it all saved.

NIST can not delete the time stamp from the Cianca photo of the WTC 7 penthouse dent, or alter it. They added 5 seconds in 2006, which pushed the actual LDEO seismic needle writing of that event even more to the end of the global collapse.
And LDEO can't delete their 0.6535 Hz seismic graphs anymore either.

I got these institutions both cornered, and they know it very well, so they choose to ignore me. Their only way out, they hope.


I will bring this to the core of the Internet, if the management of this board isn't interested to address this one-and-only PROVABLE thesis of high treason by some entity, yet to be found and named, at a fixed place at this board.
This subject must not be doomed again to disappear in the dungeons of this board.
I PM'ed the administration of this board one and a half week ago, do they ignore me too? They say they will address all pleas within 2 days.

I am sure that not one moderator can prove me wrong, and if one of them thinks he can, come forward.
If not, tell me why you all do not answer my plea in your complaint and ideas forum, to bring this subject to the attention of all members and lurkers of this board, not only the participants of this thread, or only this 9/11 forum.

By saying the above, it's clear by now, that I am sure that I am right, and that I will defend my thesis against any one willing to confront me with equal solid data and arguments.

See all my posts at this page :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
for a FIRST impression, then read that whole thread, and this whole thread.

Thesis can be found here :
www.studyof911.com...



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

Ahem. It's not an energy pulse, so much as it is a radical vertical acceleration.... such as the initial impact of the structure. If you notice - there is a momentary rise in the seismic activity moments before your 'pulse'. Then, the remaining debris jostle around and finally come to a rest. Since the building was reportedly falling at or near free-fall - this would make sense that not much of the energy of the collapse would be dispersed into the ground until the collapsing tower actually hit the ground.


In the world of real physical science, we call what you posted pseudo-science. It is not the finish of a dropping building before recording. It is not the light weight debris finished dropping. Light weight debris relative to the condensed mass and weight, of the building, will not even register on seismograph. That includes the individual sections of steel facade and exterior steel wall framing. They needed a crane to hoist them, but relative to the entire building, those sections were light in comparison to the condensed square mass and weight of entire buildings.

If the initial force is heavy enough to start moving platelets at the mantle, and the seismograph sensitive enough to read it, it will start picking up the motion shortly thereafter, as the impact force starts moving the platelets, and sending the message on to the seismograph. It increases as the condensed heavy mass continues to drop. The antenna alone weighed over 100 tons, and some record it at 360 tons. Then there were the monsterous hat trusses looking nothing like the floor trusses. They were needed to support the weight of the antenna and roof.

Movement of platelets is always kinetic energy force, as is the vertical drop at highly condensed and powerful impact force, with energy moving hortizontally, as the highly condensed and heavy mass was dropping.

In the case of the twin towers, it began as vertical movement from initial start of drop, and continuously pounding enough to horizontally move platelets at the earth's mantle, and register on seismograph in crescendo and decresendo, including aftershock. Though the buildings had seconds or even minutes before stopped dropping. It depends on when the platelets stop moving from aftershock as to when the seismograph returns to normal. The experts know the difference between shock and aftershock.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   
More of your erroneous assumptions :


Aim64C : And if the entire mass of the WTC hitting the ground only created those minuscule scribbles on the seismograph.... then I highly doubt we would have not captured the explosions from those bombs on video. Even the combined explosions from demolitions charges would not produce a seismograph reading of that magnitude.


See my extensive answers about muffling, high-up explosions and under-water explosions and ground-coupled explosions in this thread here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The Naudet brothers video from the first impact at 1000 feet high makes clear that that impact did not make an impressive audio event down at street level, all this talk about easily to be heard explosions if there were ones, is obfuscation, these sounds are way muffled by height (1000 feet high) and deadened enormously when exploding devices 6 basements deep and under water in flooded elevator shafts.


Aim64C : And, at this time, I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the readings (unfiltered) and showing both collapses over time are east-west seismic motion. The filtered comparisons are showing vertical movement. The filtered comparisons will remove the short pulse we see, as it's going to be way above 10Hz. Then taking note that the filtered comparison is also from a vertical wave analysis.....


Obfuscation again, no precise arguments used, and erroneous ones.
See the first graph in my post here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Here's the graph you address :



1. The readings ARE filtered (0.6 - 5 Hz), and not "(unfiltered) " as you said.

2. The graph depicts the east-west COMPONENT of motion but there exists also a north-south component of motion.

3. There are no "comparisons", there are factual depictions of seismic events, laid out for us on an exact timeline.

4. It will not "remove the short pulse", it will condense them. And not for your reason, but because this graph is based on a MINUTES timescale, and not on a SECONDS timescale, as the more precise LDEO ones I used in my THESIS.

You not even noticed it, but LDEO included in that "popular science for mass media purposes" graph, exactly what I was proving to you.They included the "removed short pulse".
Have a good look at the extra embedded 273 nm/s First impact graph (in SECONDS instead of MINUTES depicted), and compare that one to the other 4.545 nm/s embedded graph from the First collapse.
You again see the dual-peaks packs in front of the main global collapse peaks-pack, at 8 to 18 seconds in that graph. This graph's seconds scale is shifted compared to the LDEO graphs used in my thesis.
And these 2 embedded graphs are about 10 times less sensitive than those in my thesis, but you still can see the pre-collapse dual-pack peaks.

5. "Way above 10 Hz." It's not above 10 Hz, it's above its scale of 0-1600 nm/s, in case of the First collapse exactly 4.545 nm/s maximum. That value of nm/s is a value based on a metric LENGTH scale per second.
In fact nm/s is a ground velocity. What length is depicted, from what, you think?
6. Your last sentence there, I can only say, read this post :
www.abovetopsecret.com...




LaBTop : If you don't grasp that coloured and bolded text by now, then you're a lost case to science.
(from an earlier post)
Aim64C : Actually - I do grasp it quite well. The reason clear P and S waves are seen only for the Earthquake is because of the distance of the Earthquake and the lack of distance to the WTC. However - this FURTHER compounds my point that various waves will be 'stacked on top' of each other - making for a potentially confusing seismic reading.
If you don't understand that.... well.... I believe you said it yourself.
And I apologize for my delay in responding to this. Life took over and I had to tend to it.


See my post here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

""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.
-snip-
The seismic waves excited by impacts and collapses at the WTC are short-period Rg surface waves, i.e. seismic waves travelling within the upper few kilometers of the crust.""

Do YOU understand now?
Depth is not equal to Distance.

"" because of the distance of the Earthquake and the lack of distance to the WTC"".

Do you agree now, that that is a confusing or obfuscating remark? You meant depth, I hope for you.
It's about the SAME DISTANCE to Palisades for the earthquake (east of Manhattan) and the WTC events, 34 km in fact.

""my point that various waves will be 'stacked on top' of each other - making for a potentially confusing seismic reading.""

You don't understand it at all, the way these seconds-scale based seismograms from LDEO are depicted, makes it possible to spread out the condensed minutes-scale based seismograms, and show us the otherwise condensed and "stacked on top" separate peaks. And look at the position of the blue, earthquake in Manhattan, P and S waves, compared to the same region in the red WTC 1 collapse. (Fig.4. Nov.2001 report by LDEO)

But there were no observable P and S waves, which could be covered-over by RG waves.
Says LDEO here in their November 2001 report :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Have an intense look at page 9 from 9 in this original LDEO pdf :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
(Figure 4: Comparison of Palisades seismograms for collapse 2 and earthquake of 17 January 2001.
Arrows at left indicate computed origin times.)

We should discuss that comparison of diagrams much deeper, and compare origin times to my re-shuffled Table 3.1, the original one can be found at NIST :
wtc.nist.gov...

I see clearly what LDEO did in 2001, they put initiation of the North tower collapse at 10:28:31 because they worked back from their initial interpretation, that the 17 seconds position in the red graph indicated the arrival of the first big collapse-initiation waves. They had not yet, precise clocked photos or videos from that collapse.
But is that true, since we now know of photo and video material set to atomic clocks, by NIST.

And in 2006, NIST put the initiation of the global collapse of the North tower based on videos of that collapse, at 10:28:22. (They adjusted in 2006 and added 5 seconds to all their 2001 NIST times.)

And LDEO added 3 seconds in 2006, and now said the collapse initiated in New York at 10:28:34.

That's 12 seconds earlier than LDEO, for NIST.
Now place those two new times in the red graph, and count 17 seconds further, for the delay time in the upper NY State crust.
Remember, 14h 28m 31s is STILL the 0 seconds position.
The graph must be kept fixed to that timescale, IMHOP, since LDEO fixed that time to that point in their graph in 2001.


10:28:34 , so 3 seconds later, LDEO says in 2006, that the event started in NY. That's the 28:34s position.
Add 17 seconds, and we arrive at the 51s position, which is the 20 seconds position on the Fig.4 graphs timescale.
What on earth caused then those big peaks already written.

10:28:22 , so 9 seconds earlier, NIST says in 2006, that the event started in NY. That's the 28:22s position.
Add 17 seconds, and we arrive at the 39s position, which is the 8 seconds position on the Fig.4 graphs timescale.
Correct, since that's 12 seconds earlier than the adjusted LDEO time, for the adjusted NIST time.
That's about 9 seconds of smaller activity shown on the graph, before the big peaks show up at the 17 seconds position.

When we also compare the blue arrival times of the earthquake signals, we see a very different picture than the red arrival times of the WTC event.
Biggest difference : the biggest amplitudes arrive much earlier and all peaks cover more time for the earthquake event.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Bad links. Sorry, have to repair those first.

Is there a way to make still clickable links to web.archive.org ?
So that one click will bring you to their archived page. Is it possible at all with this board software?

Examples how these links are butchered now, using ATS BBCode :

Just a simple link :
web.archive.org...*sr_1nr_30/geo.arizona.edu...*

An url link :
geo.arizona.edu...*" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">web.archive.org...*sr_1nr_30/geo.arizona.edu...*

An url= link :
geo.arizona.edu...*" target="_blank" class="postlink">Source

A code link :

web.archive.org...*sr_1nr_30/geo.arizona.edu...*



Just click this post's "quote" tag to see the original link, taken from the web.archive.org page's address bar.

[edit on 21/1/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Thanks for perhaps trying to solve the linking problem, found it myself.

As we, long term 9/11 researchers, know far too well by now;
myriads of former open links to still interesting facts of 9/11 are now defunct.
Since we are interested in collecting as much true factual seismic explosives data and seismic 9/11 data as we can, we have the chance of retracting that once posted data from the dungeons of oblivion through the Way-Back Machine :
web.archive.org...
Their very long URL's can be shortened, and thus remain clickable (hot-linked) within ATS, by using :
/

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!

There are about 1463 seismologic pages to be found from various researchers working at the GeoPhysics department of Arizona University, if you click this TinyURL-link, you'll be able to investigate them all :

web.archive.org...*sr_1nr_30/geo.arizona.edu...*
/2ljsdx or preview.tinyurl.com...

One of them, our previous known professor Wallace, had a personal public website and various public pages in that site, but since he wrote about seismic events at 9/11, he had locked his site, as the only one at that faculty btw.
He had (now hidden) pages about Afghanistan, Iraq, 9/11 Pentagon, the 12 August 2001 Kursk Russian submarine mystery explosion(s), etc, once posted.
He also had former public pages about the detection of nuclear explosions, which do not follow the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty rules.

In other words, this is a seismologist, worthy of the attention of ATS researchers.
He became appointed Government Affairs Liaison, in 1996, for the Seismological Society of America.
Terry Wallace is no longer at the University of Arizona.
He has "moved on to a dynamic future at LANL." (Los Alamos National Lab)
Let's see which interesting pages once made by him, we can unearth via the WayBack machine.

web.archive.org...://www.geo.arizona.edu/geophysics/faculty/wallace/WTC/
/39zqut or preview.tinyurl.com...
"Forensic seismology analysis of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001".

web.archive.org...
/3ybluh or preview.tinyurl.com...
Pentagon seismic review, originally posted on Sept 12, 2001.
or
web.archive.org...://www.geo.arizona.edu/geophysics/faculty/wallace/PENTAGON/index.html
/36gea2 or preview.tinyurl.com...
Same kind of Pentagon page, but updated August 9, 2002, here is an excerpt :


Forensic seismology analysis of the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon. (12 September 2001)

At approximately 9:38 am EDT (13:38 GMT) American Airlines flight 77 from Dulles to Los Angeles struck west side of the Pentagon. The jet, which was a Boeing 757, penetrated through several of the rings in the Pentagon and started a tremendous fire. The impact produced a seismic signal that was recorded at the USGS station CBN.

preview.tinyurl.com...


Above, location of the Pentagon and the USGS seismic station CBN.

A drawing of the impact location within the pentagon from the Washington Post. (Not available anymore)

A satellite image of the damage at the pentagon from the IKONOS satellite and Space Imaging is available here. (N.a.a.)

Seismogram 1: Recording of energy from the collision of Flight 77 with the Pentagon at USGS seismic station CBN. The energy is predominately surface wave energy :

preview.tinyurl.com...


This is preliminary analysis, and may change with further work.


Wallace deleted his embedded “time window of energy arrival” with a yellow band.
Perhaps he himself also raised some questions regarding the official 10:38 impact time at the Pentagon.
We all saw the clocks at the Smithsonian Institute and from the Navy site, which both stopped at 10:31:32 (+/- 2 seconds).
That’s 7 MINUTES earlier !



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
For a picture of those two clocks we go here (read also 911exposed.org... ) :
911exposed.org... and read an excerpt :


What does the seismographic data show?
Only seismographic data for 3 min. was released around the official time. As we would expect there was no seismic signals detected of a large 100-ton airliner crashing into the Pentagon. Keep in mind that the WTC crashes of smaller jets at 70-plus stories aboveground was detected at seismographic stations even further away. How can that be explained? The simple answer is, as we have already shown, there is no credible evidence that supports the official time. This was only an arbitrary time chosen by the Bush Administration’s 9/11 cover-up Commission to collaborate with the Ted Olson “my wife called me” fable. They therefore fixed the time at 9:38 a.m. despite all the evidence to the contrary — like two frozen clocks (both stopped at the same time) :



Clocks stopped 9:31:31 a.m. (+/– 4 sec.)
(Photos: Smithsonian and navy.mil).

Was there incriminating data on the seismographic data strips? Would the seismographic data around 9:31 a.m. show numerous signals that would be consistent with the powerful explosions of a controlled demolition? If there were no abnormal signals at 9:31 a.m., then why not show it to the public? If the official story had the aircraft striking the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m., then why are there no seismographic signals?On the next page are the data strips that should show a signal for the government’s claim, but don’t.



Seismic Recordings around the Pentagon from 9:38:09 – 9:40:09 a.m.
(Image: Maryland Geological Survey)



Seismic Recordings around the Pentagon from 9:36:30 – 9:39:30 a.m.
(Image: Maryland Geological Survey)

The fact that no seismic signals had detected a large 100-ton airliner crashing into the Pentagon further weakened the government’s position.
Won-Young Kim and Gerald R. Baum, both working for the government, stated in their report:
“”We analyzed seismic records from five stations in the northeastern United States, ranging from 63 to 350 km from the Pentagon. Despite detailed analysis of the data, we could not find a clear seismic signal.[iv]““

Seismographic data indicating a strong event was posted at a USGS station near the Pentagon.

Interesting seismic data was found posted on a University of Arizona website by [professor?] Wallace.
It had data from USGS seismic station CBN (Soldier’s Delight, MD — 38 miles from the Pentagon).
The University of Arizona, 9/12/01, announced: “The impact produced a seismic signal that was recorded at the USGS station CBN."[v]
Later, the time-stamp was removed [???] and a retraction statement accompanied the data graph :


Recording of energy originally thought to be from the collision of Flight 77 with the Pentagon at USGS seismic station CBN. The energy is dominantly surface wave energy, and gives a back azimuth roughly consistent with the Pentagon, later work showed that this is an unrelated event.253


Why would they retract? Were they told to? Notice that the author used yellow to block out the time — he was not subtle about it.
Did it show a different time than the government report? If it weren’t incriminating, then why wouldn’t it be a problem for the experts to see it and decide for themselves? It was obvious that someone was trying to quiet this up.



The bottom X-axis scale appears is in seconds; 650 sec. to 790 sec.
(Image: Wallace/U of AZ).

According to the scale this probably was stamped at 10:10:50 – 10:13:10 (Hr: m: s) A strong signal appears at 697 seconds that would correspond to a time of 11 min. and 37 sec. Could it be the collapse signal? … Or more precisely is it the detonated explosion that caused the collapse? It is hauntingly similar to the WTC detonation signals that caused its collapse. CNN reported, “[at] 10:10 a.m. — A portion of the Pentagon collapses.” Could it actually have collapsed at 10:11 a.m.?
Why do Gerald Baum and Won-Young Kim, in their report, not speak about this recording? Is it the smoking gun for controlled demolition? Why did Wallace have to yellow out the time stamp? Was it that incriminating? Yes.


(IV) A more in depth research of the seismic events regarding the Pentagon attack and the United Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pa. was written by LDEO's Won-Young Kim and Gerald R. Baum from Maryland Geological Survey in Baltimore :
www.mgs.md.gov...



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:07 PM
link   
For some seismic recordings of quite forceful explosions we can find these :
Professor Wallace's KURSK explosion article (explosion on 12 August 2000) that appeared in EOS On Jan 23, 2001 :
Forensic Seismology and the Sinking of the Kursk.
web.archive.org...
/2lme3l or preview.tinyurl.com...
or
web.archive.org...://www.geo.arizona.edu/geophysics/faculty/wallace/RUSSIANSUB/
/376bdb or preview.tinyurl.com...

preview.tinyurl.com...



Seismic recordings at ARCESS from the second, larger explosion. The three components correspond to the three directions of ground motion. Although the explosion was a impulsive event the seismograms are complex due to the propagation of the seismic waves through the earth. The first arriving seismic phase is Pn followed by Pg.

TRANSLATION for non-seismologists: This figure shows three seismograms which are recording the ground shaking from the larger of the explosions. The ground moves in three dimensions, hence three components. The vertical component is up-down; the radial is horizontal shaking along a direction between the explosion source and the recording station; the transverse component shows horizontal shaking which is perpendicular to the radial direction. The shaking is complex due to the waves traveling through the Earth, although the ratio of the vertical to transverse shaking tells us that it was an explosion not an earthquake.


First observation based on the last sentence : why did we never see any Transverse seismograms from the WTC 9/11 events ?
So we can compare them to the vertical ones and find any signs of explosion-caused ground movements!

As you can see in these 3 seismograms, it seems like the vertical component graph (ARA0-Vertical) is the one which shows the best method of separation of those independent signals Pn, Pg and Lg.
First impression : it looks quite comparable with the WTC 7 collapse seismogram, which was also recorded as the vertical component, with a very distinct pass-band filtering, namely 0.6535 Hz.

Remember however, all three WTC collapses were "small"explosions mixed in with much "louder" subsequent gravitational collapses.
Wallace is presenting here pure explosions and their ground shaking, recorded at seismic stations.

I found another seismic graph like the above, on Wallace's pages, the timescale is compressed to 200 seconds, and the amplitude is "normalized" so the scale is equivalent to the above(?) :

preview.tinyurl.com...



Here however, is another extra wave introduced, the S wave.
As you can see, these three "normalized" graphs are quite different from the above (yellow) three.
Here is the Radial graph more explicit in showing separate wave events.

All these graphs show that seismologists have a plethora of interpretation techniques at hand, which they can use on 9/11 graphs also, but we never saw any of those, sadly enough.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
web.archive.org...
/2tdkzy or preview.tinyurl.com...



The seismology of monitoring a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
In the fall of 1996 the United Nations adopted a new treaty which banned the testing of nuclear weapons. The monitoring of a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTBT) poses great challenges to seismology: seismologists must identify "suspicious" seismic events which may occur in the normal background of seismic activity. There are literally hundreds of earthquakes and large industrial explosions every day, and these must be verified as "natural" seismicity.
Seismic monitoring of a CTBT is a three-step process: (1) detection of a seismic event, (2) location of the event, and (3) identification of the type of seismic source. The identification, or discrimination, of seismic sources is based on differences in the seismic wave fields generated by explosions, earthquakes, and some exotic sources such as bolides and asteroids. There are two basic classes of seismic discriminates used to identify explosions. The first of these is based on the spectral content of the wave field. Explosions tend to have significantly enriched short-period energy (>1 Hz) relative to long-period energy levels (



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 05:55 PM
link   
More : web.archive.org...://www.geo.arizona.edu/geophysics/faculty/wallace/PUBLICATIONS/agu2000_a/agu2000_a.html
/2tdkzy or preview.tinyurl.com...

Now will follow a sequence of WTC 9/11 seismic pictures I found back from professor Wallace's website at Arizona.edu :

preview.tinyurl.com...


LT :This Y-axis scale is expressed from -1.5 to + 1.5. My guess, he used micrometers/second.
This is the first plane impact, my educated guess.
I see something rather peculiar at the start of the seismogram, at 971 seconds a peak with rather big amplitude is just visible. At 32 seconds before arrival of a Love Wave.
The William Rodriguez story about an explosion, he aproximated from memory, about 6 seconds before actual plane impact, comes to mind.

Found back, the original Wallace text here :
web.archive.org...://www.geo.arizona.edu/geophysics/faculty/wallace/WTC/
/3acagw or preview.tinyurl.com...


Seismogram 1: A recording of the collision of the American Airline jet with the World Trade Center north tower.

The signal was recorded on several seismometers in the greater New York area. Using the recordings from multiple seismic stations allows a determination of the velocity of the wave. In our earlier assessment we reported the this seismic arrival was an air wave but in fact it is a surface wave. The arrival shows up strongest on the tangential component, implying that this is a Love Wave. The wave was likely generated because the tower was struck well above the ground level, causing it to vibrate the ground like a spoon stuck in honey. The building acted as a shear vibrator creating strong Love waves.

Seismic energy from the first collision between the American Airlines Jet and the WTC recorded on the PAL east-west component. The P/S wave arrivals are tiny, but the surface waves, particular the Love wave, is strong.



Seismogram 2: recording of the second collison. As with the first crash, the seismogram is dominated by a Love wave.

preview.tinyurl.com...



Second collision recorded on the PAL east-west component. As with the first collision, the P/S energy is small, and the records are dominated by the Love wave.


LT :This Y-axis scale is expressed from -100 to + 100. My guess, he used here nanometers/second.
This is the second plane impact, another one of my educated guesses.
I see something rather strange at the start, why did he take here only 6 seconds pre-impact time on this graph? But 32 seconds for the first impact.



Seismogram 3: recording of the collapse of the first tower. The seismogram is dominated by a Rayleigh wave which is a seismic wave traveling along the surface of the earth. The source appears prolonged -- approximately 3 seconds-- which reflects the time it took for the entire building to collapse.
The collapse of a WTC tower generates a downward directed force. This type of force is very effective at generating Rayleigh waves which is the dominate seismic energy in seismogram 3.


preview.tinyurl.com...



This is the second collapse, different amplitudes for all three graphs, and only the Raleigh waves are prominent.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Next one is an unknown.
preview.tinyurl.com...
Smaller format :

Its unclear to me what event this is, but it is a WTC event.
Start time for the third graph is 24 milli-seconds earlier than the other two.
First one East, second one North, third one South motion?


This photo I've not seen before
Big one : preview.tinyurl.com...
Smaller image :



The huge standing column of whitish steam indicates quite a heat source responsible for such a vertical column of steam and smoke.
What day was this, 9/11 by any chance? Or is all the dust on buildings and streets already washed away by the pouring rain from the night(s) after?


preview.tinyurl.com...




The problem which arises when we super-impose the earthquake graph over the explosion graph, the explosion becomes indescernable. Just as in the WTC 1 and 2 collapses. Which were basically explosion initiated collapses, which then proceeded into gravitational collapses, with some help at the mechanical floors, where the reinforced floors and beams were blown out in advance (one second before the collapse front hit).

New Mexico Pipeline Explosion Seismogram article :
/3boevw or preview.tinyurl.com...



preview.tinyurl.com...


The three waveforms above show groundmotion at three of the permanent Carlsbad stations. They are arranged according to distance from the explosion site, with the closest station appearing first. The x axis shows time in seconds, and the y axis is proportional to ground movement. The data are consistent with three separate explosions occurring within a time span of approximately 40 seconds, the first being much smaller than the subsequent two.

preview.tinyurl.com...



This seismogram shows the blast recorded at the nearest permanent Carlsbad station. The time scale shown here is much longer than that of the figure above. An extended coda of seismic energy continues for nearly one hour after the explosion. This is probably associated with the roaring of the flames from the ruptured pipeline. The end of this coda is consistent with the time that the gas was shut off by the El Paso Natural Gas Company.



A last one, for the historical record :
www.lanl.gov...
Infrared imagery from space, false color photo's taken on 12 September 2001 from a space stationed satellite probably owned, or tapped by LANL, Los Alamos National Lab.

-----------------------------------------------






top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join