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.
Originally posted by NIcon
Yes I see your point about the calcs of the cause, but first things first. I think we should determine if in fact there was an actual event before NIST's iniation time before we go speculating on what may have caused it.
How much explosives would need to be set off in order to get the seismic activity that you claim? Do these calcs. It would be interesting to see what you get and how you will explain away this inconvenient fact.
Butz: A member did a calc and figured that it would take 17lbs(?) of LSC to cut each core column at the impact zone.
Damocles: when I said I stand by my calculations to sever the core. I was referring back to the debate I had on this topic in which I calculated 172lbs/floor for all 47 columns.
Butz: 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.
Butz: While I accept that there was a 9 and 11 second fall time, there's just no way of knowing if the first ones to hit were the ones that CAUSED the largest spikes. Hence why I'm saying that they are just too chaotic to use.
Butz: Also, do you see a problem with my wanting audio records of the explosions? Because i think that's key.
Butz: Maybe I should dig out my notes regarding the explosives needed also, just to satisfy the gnats pestering me about it, since they'll never do it for themselves.
Butz:
ETA: I just remembered another point. Even though the 9 and 11 second fall time can be agreed upon, we cannot assume that the panels fell at the very second that collapse initiation began. Again, this is a problem trying to prove it either way due to interpretation. Some will say that the panels began their fall at the moment of collapse initiation, but I've never been able to find a video that has this. And then of course I'd get called delusional, stupid, and a "prick" (LOL) and due to all the other uncertainties involved, it was just never worth the effort.
""Yet, the top floor reached the ground at free-fall.""
LaBTop: This is pertinently not true.
Since I have posted 2 years ago, a BBC video from a running camera man who had his camera by chance, pointed back at the collapse front from WTC 2, which nearly landed on top of him, you could easily count the seconds from the moment the first perimeter wall parts broke out (at about the plane impact point), up till they reached the ground behind him.
Twelve seconds.
At that moment at least half of the building still stood firm, while you saw the collapse front smashing through the building.
So at least 12 more seconds were needed for all of the debris to reach the ground and come to rest.
That's 24 seconds or more, counting no resistance from the building itself.
So please do not simply copy the many mistaken assumptions of 911 websites, that the buildings fell in free fall.
They did NOT, by far.
Originally posted by LaBTop
Since you are the promoter of a few ideas, such as
1. The part of the building above the point of failure impacted the part under it as a massive block (like a rammer from a pile driver, NIST doesn't think that is right, to them, there was no pan-caking effect.)
The uncertainty what caused the largest spikes on the seismograms.
2.These two opinions of you contradict each other.
3.So, which seismic signal do you expect to arrive first at LDEO, the impact of the rubble of the building's top part on the underlaying steel construction, or the impact from the first ejected and then falling exterior column parts.
4.No, I and Nicon and others showed you time and time again, that the energy event 14.2 seconds in front of the start of the global collapse is the KEY.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1-That's a horrible representation of what NIST says, nor does it match video evidence. The upper block tipped and the columns buckled, and unevenly at that, so there would be no massive, singular shock at collapse initiation.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Labtop says that about a ton of explosives made the seismic events.
Originally posted by LabTop
That’s a simple weight of 3.66 lbs to cut ONE of the WTC tower columns, which are comparable to ONE of the WTC 7 columns.
Originally posted by Griff
So, you agree with me then that Greening's (and others) calculations are off because they use the cap freefalling 12.5 feet onto the intact structure?
Do you understand that this is imperative for global collapse as assummed by Greening et al.?
Originally posted by Griff
You have now become the king of misrepresentation.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Do you agree that if you take any 1 point of the floor, say a square meter, that when it fell, it fell 12.5 ft? It's not necessary for this all to happen at once, right? Nor would it be necessary for all the columns to fail at the same time. Them failing in rapid succession works too.
Originally posted by Griff
Since Force equals mass times acceleration, F=ma, then the more mass the more force, hence then, the less mass, the less force. Yes, there has to be some mass for this whole thing to get going.
Plus, even NIST says that the floors could hold 6 times the impact force produced by one floor. In your scenario, how does this impact force of 6 floors happen? Not with partial failures and collapses that's for sure.
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
And what happens when a buckled column impacts the floors below, carrying their floors with them?
Surely you're not going to claim that a floor could hold up a column that was 2-300 feet high with all the load that they carried with them?
In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building.
Butz: Here's where I show that Labtop is making stuff up as he goes.
LT:--You still can't even write my screen-name correct, and YOU are the one making stuff up, very much intentionally; or plainly out of lack of intelligence, in that case you are excused.--
He says that the 2+ R spikes are caused by the floors crashing into each other.
--Where did you find that "2+ R" thingy? What on earth do you mean by it? Can't you write coherently, as to save us time to try to find out what the hell you mean? By the way, where do I "say" that whole stupid sentence?--
He says that the 2000 lbs of explosives goes off BEFORE the collapse, that it caused it.
--Are you crazy? Show us where I said that. You are now clearly INTENTIONALLY lying.--
But he also argues that the collapses could have hidden the explosions. How can that happen when he claims that they went off before?
--Best kind of intentional misrepresentation and upside-down circular logic I have ever seen on this board.
I ever wrote that first sentence. But definitely never the second sentence together with the first.
I wrote about an initiating energy event. Then eventually the global collapse started, eventually aided by further explosions, which sounds would for sure totally drawn in the collapse roar.--
Can't happen. He's doing all that he can to deny that he's wrong.
--You are pathetic.--