It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanZana
 


Yes it's a serious subject.

The only thing I laugh at is troofers.




posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 


Oh, those questions have everything to do with his thesis.

He says that explosives caused those seis spikes.

I'm asking how much explosives would be necessary. He won't/can't answer. So I did some research and did them myself. The amounts are staggering, It would have been unescapable. His audio recording are crap and they don't match the time line that he proposes that match the seis charts.

Again, you are ignoring a critical question here: if explosives were used to produce those spikes, how much explosives must be used, and why can't they be heard on audio recodrings.

But of course his junk thesis agrees with what you want to hear, so the standards that you apply to the NIST no longer exist for his thesis.

My irony meter just asploded..........



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Since there is no rebuttal in this thread to LaBTop's conclusions to the timing and strength of the seismic spikes, I assume there is a general concession (agreement) among the people in this thread that he is correct and that something is very wrong; the time of and the strength of the first spike don't add up when compared to other evidence. But it does seem there is a question in this thread of what was the ultimate cause of this. Is there some other explanation I'm missing that would solve this timing problem and the larger first spike? And is there a way to prove this new explanation?



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Yes, many things are wrong.

Namely, his time line.

The xplosives needed to make a seis spike like this aren't heard at the time he claims they went off.

Instead, if you take, for example 7's seis chart, the first big spike is when the east penthouse fell, and then the chart activity dies away. Then about 8 seconds later, when the exterior falls, the activity on the chart picks up again. So he's got the timing wrong. This can be shown for all the events. It was covered in another thread he was part of/started. Basically, he says that the NIST is true when it suits him, and is wrong when it doesn't.

The dudes at LDEO say that the waves move at 3400 mps(fps?). Sounds like a round number, right? But Labtop uses this number as absolutely true in order to fit his agenda.

He's just cherry picking individual parts to fit his agenda.





[edit on 31-7-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Still not willing to look for the truth yourself, eh?

This is to be expected. Troofers will not seek out the truth if they even think that it MIGHT go against their beliefs.

It's much easier to ask others to provide you with info, because then it allows you the oppurtunity to reject it out of hand cuz you can claim that the person supplying the info is "biased". And of course, after this claim of bias is leveled, it will be proof for the troofer that their beliefs are true, cuz why else would all the "disinfo agents" be trying to muddy the waters.


Nice cop out. As much as I expected though.

How am I to believe you when all you say is: "I have the proof. I have the calculations. I know everything but will not supply you with any of it."? Kind of sounds like NIST's approach. Your supervisors have taught you well.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
7-why didn't Protec's seismo's show anything


Why hasn't Protec's seismos been released so we can see for ourselves? How do you know that they don't show anything? Because someone who claims buildings are always raised from the bottom up (which is wrong) has told you so? Real investigation there.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

Okay, so you don't agree with the timing problem, sorry for assuming. I looked at LaBTop's work for months and I never did find where he went wrong. You could look at the seismographs alone, but when you factor in the times that NIST came up with from independent sources there seems to be a problem. When I look at the four preceding graphs of the towers there seems to be a delay factored in the times of the spikes on the graphs. For example if we take the graph for the first plane colliding and mark the time NIST came up with on that graph (8:46:30) I see a thirteen second delay until the spike shows up. For the second collision, I see about a 12 second delay. First tower collapse: about 18 second delay. Second tower collapse: about an 18 second delay.

So I don't think it unreasonable to assume the delay would show up in the graph for WTC 7's collapse. So when I mark the time NIST confirmed through independent sources on that graph and add the shortest delay I found in the other graphs (12 seconds) it does put the collapse time after the first big spike. (At the 24 second mark in the graph)

Is there an error in this that I'm missing?



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Nice cop out. As much as I expected though.

How am I to believe you when all you say is: "I have the proof. I have the calculations. I know everything but will not supply you with any of it."? Kind of sounds like NIST's approach. Your supervisors have taught you well.


Ha ha, good one. (Supervisors)

Would you like to know now what Dr Greening says?

Ask nice.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Why hasn't Protec's seismos been released so we can see for ourselves? How do you know that they don't show anything? Because someone who claims buildings are always raised from the bottom up (which is wrong) has told you so? Real investigation there.


You're saying that Blanchard is lying? That he's "in on it"?

Oh, that's right, the inflationary fallacy rears its head again.......



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

Okay, so you don't agree with the timing problem, sorry for assuming. I looked at LaBTop's work for months and I never did find where he went wrong. You could look at the seismographs alone, but when you factor in the times that NIST came up with from independent sources there seems to be a problem. When I look at the four preceding graphs of the towers there seems to be a delay factored in the times of the spikes on the graphs. For example if we take the graph for the first plane colliding and mark the time NIST came up with on that graph (8:46:30) I see a thirteen second delay until the spike shows up. For the second collision, I see about a 12 second delay. First tower collapse: about 18 second delay. Second tower collapse: about an 18 second delay.

So I don't think it unreasonable to assume the delay would show up in the graph for WTC 7's collapse. So when I mark the time NIST confirmed through independent sources on that graph and add the shortest delay I found in the other graphs (12 seconds) it does put the collapse time after the first big spike. (At the 24 second mark in the graph)

Is there an error in this that I'm missing?



1- the big spikes for the collapses (towers) are when the first large ext columns hit the ground. Look at the expanded version of the events. there is a gradual buildup of seis energy while the building is collapsing, but BEFORE the panels hit. About 6-8 seconds? I think that's what you're asking me?

2- his timing also hinges on the seis waves being transmitted at EXACTLY 3400 mps to the LDEO graphs. I'm saying that 3400 is just too round of a number to be correct. Precise timing of earthquakes is determined by using several stations and averaging their results. the use of 1 station invites some huge errors.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Would you like to know now what Dr Greening says?

Ask nice.


Why should I ask you nicely? Have you been any kind of nice to anyone around here? Respect is earned not freely given.

But, back to Greening. I know what he says. His assumptions are full of it IMO.


where mf is the mass of one WTC floor, assumed to be 1/110 the mass of an entire WTC
tower
, namely mf = (510,000,000 / 110) kg  4,636,000 kg


First wrong assumption. As you and I both know that the columns got thinner as the towers got higher (about the only thing you have ever "schooled" me on). Do you know why the columns got thinner as the towers got taller? That's right, to decrease the weight. So, how can Greening say that floor 99 had the same amount of weight as floor 5? He can't. Strike one.


We consider the initiating event of a WTC tower collapse to be the failure of
crucial steel support structures at the appropriate upper floor level of the building,
followed by the free fall of the entire upper block of n floors through a distance hf = one
floor height = 3.7 meters.
It is readily determined using the relation v = [2gh) that the
descending upper block impacts the floor below at a velocity of 8.5 m/s. The law of
conservation of momentum states that:


I'd like to know how he assumes that the upper caps freefell a distance of 3.7 meters. What happened to the columns' support? BTW, even buckled columns give resistance and would therefore throw his "freefalling" assumption out the window. Faulty assumption number 2. And strike 2.


We will use this law for the non-elastic collision where the colliding masses essentially
merge into a single mass that continues to descend
. For the simplest case of one floor
collapsing onto an identical floor,


And there is strike 3 only into page 3 of his 32 page paper. If you don't understand what is wrong with this assumption, I suggest looking at pictures of ground zero where you can easily identify about 85% of the building falling off to the sides and thus not "essentially merging" into one single mass.

As we engineers like to say. "Garbage in equals garbage out."

And that is all Greening's paper is IMO.

www.911myths.com...

So, why would I want to know what Greening says? When I have proven this to be faulty assumptions on more than one occasion.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
You're saying that Blanchard is lying? That he's "in on it"?


No. I'm saying he doesn't know what he's talking about. Just because someone is ignorant on a subject or doesn't have the capacity to understand a subject, doesn't mean they are "in on it". Look at yourself for an example.


Oh, that's right, the inflationary fallacy rears its head again.......


Don't give me that Ryan Mackey psychobable bullsnot. It doesn't work with real thinking idividuals.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Don't give me that Ryan Mackey psychobable bullsnot. It doesn't work with real thinking idividuals.


Which is exactly why it will never have an effect on you.

Had to say that.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

But, back to Greening. I know what he says. His assumptions are full of it IMO.



Ahhh, so if a chemical engineer has an opinion about the chemistry of sulfided steel it has no merit?

Why are you afraid of the truth?



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

No. I'm saying he doesn't know what he's talking about. Just because someone is ignorant on a subject or doesn't have the capacity to understand a subject, doesn't mean they are "in on it". Look at yourself for an example.



Now this is pure ignorance on your part.

He's not making an interpretation of what some readings mean. He said that there's nothing there at all. It's a binary yes/no answer.

But, as alawys, it doesn't agree with your beliefs, so........



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Ahhh, so if a chemical engineer has an opinion about the chemistry of sulfided steel it has no merit?

Why are you afraid of the truth?


I'm not afraid of anything. Why don't you just post it instead of asking? What are YOU afraid of?



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
But, as alawys, it doesn't agree with your beliefs, so........


I love how you assume what my beliefs are. This is your (and jthomas's) faulty logic here. You two assume what we believe at all cost to build your strawman tactics.

I don't believe HE was used at the towers. At least not for collapse initiation (which would be the time when this unexplained spike happened). So, why don't YOU "school" us as to what caused a spike greater than the global collapse of the towers before the towers collapsed? What do YOU think it was? Any ideas? Or are you going to parrot NIST, Greening and Mackey for your answers as always?



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

I'm not afraid of anything. Why don't you just post it instead of asking? What are YOU afraid of?


Why don't you answer the question?

Does his opinion on the chemistry have no merit because you disagree with his collapse paper?

Can I apply this to civil engineers as well when I disagree with them?



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Has eneyone compared seismic data taken during a known demolition to the seismic data taken during WTC 7 demolition? If not, why not. If they matched that should be proof.



posted on Jul, 31 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Does his opinion on the chemistry have no merit because you disagree with his collapse paper?


Since his collapse paper is about physics, what does his chemistry credentials have to do with it? Since he is a physical chemist, I'd assume he knows more about chemistry than he does about structural dynamics. So please, be my guest and post your evidence already instead of pussyfooting around it.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join