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 taibunsuu
Hey Howard, I'm not into unbased conspiracy. I don't even believe in UFOs. I just don't believe that 7 could have possible fallen perfectly like a controlled demo from two fires.
And when you say it was a structure fire, I don't know of any steel-and-concrete framed buildings that have ever suffered a structure fire. That's a term for wooden buildings.
What's that third pod on the aircraft?
As far as diesel, it burns at around 210c,
and steel depending on quality melts at around 1300c.
So if the diesel tank in that building was on fire it would have to be placed perfectly to thoroughly melt all the building's load bearing members at the same time for it to collapse perfectly into its own footprint.
If you can site a single building in the world that has accomplished this by accident like WTC 7, I'd be very interested in hearing about it, because I can't find anything.
Originally posted by twitchy
You can repeat it all you like roark but they are on the left side of the graph. Echos and reverberations eh? Is that anything like squibs being digital noise?
Thus, we conclude that the pulse duration at those four stations reflects mainly that the generation of seismic energy from the collapse was delivered over 5-6 s. A portion of the pulse duration probably results from the dispersion of Rg waves.
Figure 1: Seismic recordings on E-W component at Palisades for events at World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, distance 34 km. Three hours of continuous data shown starting at 08:40 EDT (12:40 UTC). Data were sampled at 40 times/s and passband filtered from 0.6 to 5 Hz. Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) is UTC minus 4 hours. Expanded views of first impact and first collapse shown in red. (emphasis added - HR)
Originally posted by HowardRoark
that pulse caused the big spike.
The big spike is the same as the expanded graph. there is no "anomalous spike" because the spike is the signal that they are analyzing.
Originally posted by Muaddib
Again all this talk about the WTC not possibly falling because of just a fire?....... was there just a fire?.....you all seem to want to leave out a few facts.....
I have to ask again...since it seems you all keep ignoring the facts that have been posted time and time again....
Since when have there been any buildings, which had the designs of the WTC and were hit by Boeings?................
Never, but only in 9/11, thats the anwser.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
And it is hard to discuss anything with someone who refuses to understand what it is he is looking at.
Since you brought up the seismic graph again, I will debunk your theory again, for the third time in this thread.
Those big spikes you are talking about are the seismic signatures of the buildings hitting the ground.
the smaller signals that go on for a couple of minutes after that initial impact are not from the impact of the building with the ground They are echos and reverberations from the massive signal caused by the impact of the building with the ground.
Do you see the two separate lines, one next to the first plane impact and one next to the first collapse. These are time expanded views of the seismic signals. If you look at the main chart, you will see that from one end of the page to the other is a 30 minute time scale. If you look at the expanded view, you will see that the seismic signal only lasted about 10 seconds. 10 seconds is 1/180 of the length of the longer chart. If the chart is 200 pixels wide, 10 seconds is only 1 pixel wide.
Note also that the inset chart for the collapse is labeled 4,545nm/s. this is the magnitude of the signal. The inset chart for the airplane impact is labeled 273 nm/s. That is the magnitude of the signal for the airplane impact.
The ratio of 4,545 to 273 is about 17 to 1. That is the ratio of the heights of the signal for the airplane impact and the big spike that you claim is from an underground explosion.
That is not from an underground explosion, that signal is from the mass of the tower hitting the earth.
Let me repeat this one more time:
The two big spikes are not before the collapse, they are the collapse.
[edit on 10-11-2004 by HowardRoark]
Originally posted by Muaddib
Again all this talk about the WTC not possibly falling because of just a fire?....... was there just a fire?.....you all seem to want to leave out a few facts.....
I have to ask again...since it seems you all keep ignoring the facts that have been posted time and time again....
Since when have there been any buildings, which had the designs of the WTC and were hit by Boeings?................
Never, but only in 9/11, thats the anwser.
"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused
by pools of burning jet fuel." - Kevin Ryan of Underwriters
Laboratories.
A letter questioning the common theory that fuel fires caused the
collapse of the World Trade Center towers was sent yesterday by Kevin Ryan
to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST).
Ryan directs Environmental Health Laboratories and is one of 23
directors at its parent company, Underwriters Laboratories. UL, the
product-compliance and testing giant, certified the steel components used in the
construction of the World Trade Center towers. Statements that the Twin
Towers collapsed because fires weakened steel beams certified by UL are
obviously of concern to the company.
911Truth.org is publishing Ryan's letter today at
www.911truth.org...
For more than two years, Gayle has headed the team at the U.S.
government agency NIST charged with studying how the trade center was built and
why it fell. A draft of its final report is due in January.
A copy of Ryan's letter was received last night in an e-mail to David
Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor. He asked for and received
permission to forward it for Web distribution.
911Truth.org called Ryan's office several times today. In one of the
follow-up calls, we received assurances from a UL operator that Ryan was
aware of our efforts to determine whether the letter was genuine. He
later called back and confirmed his authorship.
The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that steel
recovered from the towers tested up to its certified standard (i.e., it should
have easily withstood the fuel fires without buckling).
A chemist by profession, Ryan said he took this unusual step in the
hope of receiving a public response from Gayle. Given how the aftermath of
September 11 has changed the world, Ryan said, everyone needs to know
the full truth of what really happened on that day. He added that he
considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports today that the NIST team under
Gayle is planning to hold some of its deliberations on the WTC collapse
in secret...
Read the letter here
www.911truth.org...
This is a big story: If the long-standing story that fuel fires caused
the WTC collapse is as self-evidently false as Ryan claims, why are
experts still repeating it on TV? And what caused the collapse?
Originally posted by micpsi
The tail number of Flight UA 93, which was supposed to have crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001, is 591UA. (as reference, see the beginning of the second paragraph under the header "Background" at:
en.wikipedia.org...
Frequent United Airlines user Mr Friedman kept a log of all the flights he flew on during 2003, including details about their crews and the tail number (N-number) of the planes. He recorded that on April 10, 2003, he flew on a United Airline Boeing 757 with tail/N-number N591UA. See his flight log at:
friedmanfamily.org...
and look under the date column 04/10/03 for the row named "Tail" (the tail number).
Moreover, he correctly lists as a Boeing 757 the type of plane he flew on that day with the same tail number as Flight 93 . Given that, according to his log, he flew on nine different types of planes between 01/02/03 and 04/10/03, the chance of him flying on a Boeing 757 on April 10 is about 10%.
If the story told by the American Government is true, how could a traveller record flying on a plane with the same tail number as that which crashed 17 months earlier? The FAA does not assign the tail numbers of crashed planes to other planes. Either:
1. Friedman's log is a subtle joke to fool 9/11 conspiracy investigators for whom he has no time. If that is the case, 'subtle' is the word, for there would be few such investigators, let alone other people, who would recognise the tail number of Flight UA93 if they read it, whilst the log is a single, obscure webpage and not part of a personal website, so he is not exactly trying very hard to advertise his hoax!;
2. he accidently made a false entry that coincided with BOTH the type of plane that was supposed to have crashed on 9/11 AND with its 3-figure tail number. But what are the chances of that?!;
3. Flight 93 did not crash into a field in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001 and United Airlines was still using this plane in April, 2003.
You decide.