It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Times LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo

page: 21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 06:50 PM
a reply to: neutronflux

What I find ironic, the closest thing to a conspiracy was the EPA air samples. How did that cover-up work out? How much did the government pay out in wrongful deaths. More should have been done, but billions paid out for wrongful death due to the botched EPA air samples.

And yet no radiation in the air samples.

So I guess they have invented a nuke that :
Is silent
Doesn't blow out windows
Leaves no radiation

Sounds more like a fart.

posted on Jul, 10 2016 @ 10:05 AM

originally posted by: LaBTop

Pilgrum, you are making ONE GIGANTIC irrational mistake.

Collapse zones are instigated in fear of TOPPLING OVER.
And ONLY in such cases, when a 1300' building breaks at its base or somewhere higher up, and TOPPLES OVER, we can expect solid debris landing 600' away from a 1300' building collapse. Or even further, up to a little over 1300', when such a building would fall like a, cut at its base, tree.

You HOWEVER neglect the fact, that NIST, FEMA, LDEO, and god knows how many more obedient US Institutes, are defending a NATURAL collapse, HOWEVER all the way straight down into the path of the most resistance.
There's no case to make, to defend even a partial toppling over for the 9/11 ones.

For a building assessed to be at risk of collapsing, there's no way to safely predict exactly how it will collapse until it..... collapses. It's quite apparent that collapse was not even considered likely initially for WTC 1 & 2

Maybe you're suggesting that it was known in advance that it would collapse and precisely how that would happen?
IE which collapse type or combination of collapse types was to be expected and a large proportion of NYC emergency & rescue workers were knowingly sent into the buildings to perish with the innocent occupants trapped above the impact zones. Macabre point of view IMHO that would need major evidence beyond just speculation.

From my own observation of videos of the towers falling I see a combination of all 3 collapse types defined in the firefighters' guidelines. I still don't consider the distance covered by some of the debris as at all remarkable EG the wall sections landing on the Wintergarden building and others a fair distance away in such an event. WTC6 was totally gutted by the heavy wall sections falling on it stripping all the floors down to ground level leaving only the outer walls standing precariously. WTC7 severely crippled to the point where the subsequent fires were enough to seal its fate as well.

I don't see any explosive ejections or even explosions for that matter - even 'thermobaric' ones

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 02:46 AM
Desperately grabbing at excuses, while following your own Flapp's Law.
Show us the calculations to make it possible for the wall sections landing NATURALLY on the Wintergarden building and that piece of Vierendeel exterior that kept stuck in the southeastern corner of the WFC-3 building, without introducing extra energy.
Others have done that, and failed, see Major Tom's site :
Perimeter Wall Collapse Model - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research.
There are many more links to such work there, I just grabbed one of them.

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 02:48 AM
Well, good luck with the last 3 pages of very old, stale news.
Can someone tell that guy at last, after 21 pages, that it's LDEO, and not LEDO.?
Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.
And that he should read more recent literature, not those, hurried out in the days after 9/11, by Lerner Lam and Bazant et al.

Now up to the last, Sun Jul 10, 2016, unnecessary childishly insulting post by tfk in his ongoing Debate on the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7, with Tony Szamboti :

Well, tfk seems to ignore the most appealing oral histories :
13 WTC TT Part 4 Eyewitness Reports of Explosions - ESO - Experts Speak Out

Read the explanation why all the exterior column ends were sheared off so cleanly from their bolts at every three floors, in this thread page nr 2, titled
9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion :
and then you start to understand that they needed the, compared to HE's, relatively slow balloon-blow-up capacity of thermobaric explosives, to keep up even a shimmer of the chaotic effects of real natural collapse scenarios.

Clearly lifted up :

Reinforced thick concrete infill panels were used as floors within the core, and somewhat lighter constructed composite infill panels with long load bearing trusses under them were used in the circa 20 meters office space between the core areas and the periphery columns plus windows.

This is a by me shortened post by our former member ANOK, recalling his arguments :

Sorry but that doesn't explain it at all. There was no reason for the core to collapse from failure of the trusses.
The trusses did not hold up the core, the core held up the trusses.
IF the core failed at some point it would have toppled over, but to collapse straight down, and break up into many pieces, needed energy that was not available from fire and gravity.
Bolts breaking does not explain how sagging trusses put a pulling force on the columns to start the collapse.
The bolts were obviously more than sufficient to hold the floors up, there is no reason for them to all break instantly.
It also does not explain why the core collapsed.
In fact the core started to collapse first...

Also the tops of the buildings were collapsing independent of the bottoms, you can see the top start to crush as it drops before the bottom starts to collapse...
How much of the building do you think was heated to failure by the fire?
How much steel was still able to hold the extra weight that would have been transferred to it?
Do you understand factors of safety, and how much steel could actually fail before global collapse could commence?
Failure of one or two trusses is not going to cause complete failure.

NIST claims the trusses pulled in the columns breaking them.
But that is all just assumptions. You first have to prove the connections could fail.
(LT :See Beck's math for the impossibilities.)

ONE hour of fire is not enough to cause the massive box columns to heat up enough for a smaller lighter truss, also heated up, to be able to pull it in.
You obviously do not understand how it works.
When steel is heated it expands.
The first thing the trusses would do is push outwards against the columns, IF the trusses could effect the columns they would have been pushed out.
Because the heated truss could not push the columns out, they sag, which means they also could not have pulled the columns in either.

Also I am not looking for pics, I want to see a demonstration of a sagging truss pulling in rigidly fixed box columns.
Until you can demonstrate that hypothesis, you will never convince me it is possible.

The steel was over-engineered 3 to 5 times, as a factor of safety.
Charles M. Beck came up with the calculations which proved that a natural collapse initiation-event wasn't possible at all on 9/11, in all three towers.

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 02:51 AM
For those of you who are able to follow the math in Charles M. Beck's 3 papers, here is a feedback from the on his WTC-7 paper.

Start reading at this post by Heiwa, about the early days, one-dimensional theory by Bazant, in this thread, titled
""List of all scientific/research 9-11 papers"" :

Then Major_Tom offers his feedback on Charles M. Beck's WTC-7 paper :

Then OneWhiteEye tunes in :
Follow the two links offered by him in that post, offering also some quite impressive analyzing of the true free fall acceleration period in WTC-7's global collapse period.

Then we have this really excellent PDF by Tony Szamboti, listing a series of twenty-five provable points which clearly demonstrate that the reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) were unscientific and fraudulent. Therefore NIST itself –including its lead authors, Shyam Sunder and John Gross - should be investigated :

Tony Szamboti's white paper about 25 areas of specific concern in the NIST WTC Reports.

To top that off, we have this :

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 02:55 AM
MrBig2430. Are you a member at ISF, and/or were one at JREF, and what's your member name there.
We like to know who we are talking to, no need for real names, a screen name suffices, just your posting history is what I and the rest of us are after.
Since you have the same tendency as most members there, to completely ignore offered evidence.

MrBig2430 : The free fall period of collapse of 7 is easily explained without invoking explosive demolition of the ext columns.

However, ignorant conspiracy believers (LT : believe) that this free fall period is important. Szamboti could no longer stay silent about this issue cuz he realizes it undermines the credibility of himself.

I've proven that Szamboti has corrected Chandler about the free fall period and it's rather ordinary explanation.

Well, do us a favor, and tell us how YOU easily explain that free fall period of collapse of WTC-7, now that we presume that you have read my former posts.
And please, keep it to the WTC-7 event, the two other towers can be dissected in another thread.

You seem to be obsessed by those exterior columns in WTC-7, which are of no importance at all in the analysis of the initiation of its global collapse, just as Tony explained to you all, over there at ISF in his follow-up posts in page 8, after his post #287 which you linked to, a few pages back.

Tony Szamboti :
David Chandler now knows and accepts that only the core columns needed to be removed in WTC 7 to cause its collapse and that it could cause a free fall acceleration shortly after starting to drop. I explained it to him in the last year.

A lot of people initially assumed it would require all columns to be removed to get free fall. It is a nuanced situation where 8 stories of the core are removed and 8 stories of the exterior are then unsupported and being pulled inward at the same time.

The roof dropped about a half meter (20 inches) across the full length and width and then went into free fall.

To get a 20 inch drop, pulling in 8 stories, the pull in would have been about 110 inches, or a little over 9 feet.

The columns would have provided a little resistance at first but once the pull-in became significant the p-delta load would get very large and completely overcome any resistance of the now slender columns.
Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 1st June 2016.

Of course we have no video from those 8 stories being pulled in, they were too low to be able to be seen in the few WTC-7 collapses we know of.
The collapse zone was cordoned off for anyone with a camera to come near to the lower parts of WTC-7.

And yes, this FFA period, combined with the smooth descent of a seemingly intact outer shell, is one of the most important indicators that the collapse of WTC-7 was not a natural occurring one, and no ignorant JREF'er or ISF'er can change that.

Your above remark : ""I've proven that Szamboti has corrected Chandler about the free fall period and it's rather ordinary explanation"" must be meant as a joke, I assume?

The only correction he gave, was the fact that no external columns needed to be demolished by explosives (would have been too obvious) when all or most core columns in WTC-7 were cut, to invoke a 2.25 secs FFA of the whole building.

When you remove suddenly by explosive means, all load bearing capabilities of the core columns over 8 floors, the exterior columns will give way within milliseconds, bending in- or outwards, which tiny time-frames are not to be indicated by video analysis of too grainy videos of the WTC-7 collapse.

After you have read and seen the diagrams in the two links I advised to read in my above post (from the, and the 25 points from Tony Szamboti, you can't be taken serious again, when you are still trying to defend the one column 79 buckling fairy tale by NIST.

So, tell us, what's that ""rather ordinary explanation"" for the FFA period, that Tony gave to David Chandler.
Because I can't find it anywhere in his written words.
The only explanation I see from Tony, is that there was NO NEED to demolish the exterior columns.
You irrationally connect one small-event explanation to a totally different huge-event.
The fact that the exterior columns gave way is a result of the blowing up of all or most core columns. And not of a ""natural"" buckling by heat expansion. Over EIGHT floors.

That whole damn building their lower floors must have been engulfed in flames for many many hours, to ever follow such a ridiculous scenario that ARA, as a subcontractor for NIST, came up with, after the serious investigators at NIST gave up.
After years of trying to come up with a peers-resistant solution for the mystery that WTC-7 was for them, SINCE THEY WERE FORBIDDEN TO INCLUDE ANY SERIOUS RESEARCH INTO DEMOLITION TECHNIQUES.
Clearly, they all refused to surrender to the pressure of their politically appointed CEO's, and thus those appointed LIARS were pressed to outsource their huge internal problem to a subcontractor, ARA, that had multiple huge military contracts and were given many more after they came up with that heat-expansion fairy tale, within a few months time.

And let's not start again about their Disney-like WTC-7 collapse animations, that stopped after a few seconds, when the whole outer shell began folding together in their scenarios, which we of course did not see at all, in reality.

Give me one sane reason why NIST should not release their software programs and the data they fed them with.
On which they build their fantasy fairy tales, beside pure indoctrination of the poorly educated masses.

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 02:58 AM
Title : Verifying Performance of Thermobaric Materials.

Advantages of thermobaric materials.

• Thermobaric materials are low sensitivity materials ideal for use in insensitive munitions
• Thermobaric material performance can be tailored to the target set of interest
--- Output can be tailored from high blast to high thermal output
• Thermobaric materials are best suited to personnel andmaterial defeat
• Thermobaric materials can provide significantly higher total energy output than conventional high explosives
---Majority of additional energy available as low pressure impulse and heat
• Thermobaric compositions are fuel rich high explosives that are enhanced through aerobic combustion in the third detonation event
--- Performance enhancement primarily achieved by addition of excess metals to explosive composition
• Aluminum and magnesium are primary metals of choice
--- 3rd event enhanced by aerobic combustion of fuel rich species in shock front, ie :
• 4Al + 3O2 ==> 2Al2O3
• 2Mg + O2 ==> 2MgO
• 2H2 + O2 ==> 2H2O
• 2CO + O2 ==> 2CO2

• Thermobaric Charge: 1.6 lbs. Talley Mix 5672-10
32% wt Aluminum
40% wt Zirconium
26.75% wt Isopropyl Nitrate
1.25% wt Gellant

Explosives of choice in the WTC collapses should be of a low sensitivity nature, so they will still detonate through radio signals after being exposed to elevated temperatures and pressures, they should have reasonable high blast signatures and having high thermal outputs. That way, it is best suited for material defeat since it has a longer lasting blast duration and higher total energy output than pure HE materials.

This is a Russian TB that misfired when it touched the ground in Chechnya with its 4 legged base plate and that plate plus its firing pins did come loose from the main body, still attached to its parachute.
As you can see, they are just as big as a standard dust bin standing beside elevator doors :

Channel One said that while the Russian bomb contains 7.8 tons of high explosives compared to more than 8 tons of explosives in the U.S. bomb, it's four times more powerful because it uses a new, highly efficient type of explosives that the report didn't identify.

While the U.S. bomb is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT, the Russian one is equivalent to 44 tons of regular explosives. The Russian weapon's blast radius is 990 feet, twice as big as that of the U.S. design, the report said.

Like its U.S. predecessor, first tested in 2003, the Russian bomb is a "thermobaric" weapon that explodes in an intense fireball combined with a devastating blast. It explodes in a terrifying nuclear bomb-like mushroom cloud and wreaks destruction through a massive shock wave created by the air burst and high temperature.

Thermobaric weapons work on the same principle that causes blasts in grain elevators and other dusty places - clouds of fine particles are highly explosive. Such explosions produce shock waves that can be directed and amplified in enclosed spaces such as buildings, caves or tunnels.

Channel One said that the temperature in the epicenter of the Russian bomb's explosion is twice as high as that of the U.S. bomb.

The report showed the bomb dropped by parachute from a Tu-160 strategic bomber and exploding in a massive fireball. It featured the debris of apartment buildings and armored vehicles at a test range, as well as the scorched ground from a massive blast.

Watch that specific mushroom cloud develop in a tower collapse :

That billowing mushroom cloud during the WTC1N demolition is caused by a LOT of external heat, not only the heat from the burning floors, that will be sucked down in a natural collapse :

How the Towers were Demolished (long read, many pics) :

Note also in the above Talley Defense Systems PDF by Ludwig, their 2 Enclosure Test diagrams :
Pressure -Time History.
Thermobaric Mix 5672-10 vs. C-4 Baseline; at page 21 from 22.

Then you see why they had to choose for thermobaric explosives, because of their much longer but less pressurized qualities, against the much shorter but much higher explosive force qualities from standard HE explosives.
When they would have used lots of HE's in the tower demolitions, it would have been too obvious.
Now they could talk their way out of it in the early years, by employing lots of popular mechanics types of journalists with no background in physics, chemistry or mechanical engineering, who loved their jobs and incomes above everything else.
And who knew that their patriotic sauce covered articles, spoonfed to their silent majority audience, would let that obedient audience consume and accept their quasi-physics nonsense without any form of deeper thoughts.

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 03:09 AM
a reply to: LaBTop

What dose this have to do with:
One, there is no physical evidence of explosives used at the WTC. No fragments of bombs, blasting caps, ignition systems. No steel worked on by explosives.
Two, only R waves from the WTC on 911. Need 100 percent accurate model of ground composition to figure travel time to recording station.
Three, R waves not classically used to calculate origin time of seismic activity.
Four, LEDO scientists specifically stated their seismic data does not hold evidence of the detonation of explosives. Anyone claiming LEDO WTC seismic data shows proof of the detonation of explosives is taking their data out of context or misrepresenting thata data.

edit on 11-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 04:47 AM
Bad reader, difficult learner. Teaching totally wasted on this type of poster.

Well, let's find out more about Thermobaric explosives :
Advanced Energetic Materials (2004)
Chapter: 3 Thermobaric Explosives :

Of course, as you can see shimmering through in this text by a Committee that did not know the full extend of US and Russian developments in the field of thermobaric bunker and building busters, there was MUCH more known to the Sandia, Indian Head and other CIA protected institutions, about how to use TB's against civilian high rise targets, as the Russians already demonstrated in their war in Chechnya.

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:27 PM
Here you have an early very basic 1994 US patent on thermobaric devices :

There are far better ones developed before 2001 by Sandia, Indian Head researchers and others.

Let's now concentrate once more on some poster's self declared champion, Dr. Bazant :


All of Dr. Bazant’s papers use free-fall acceleration through the first story and the maximum design load mass of the falling upper section. Neither of these are representative of the actual situation, so this causes an embellishment of the upper section’s kinetic energy in his papers. He also significantly underestimates the energy dissipation due to column deformation during impact. Dr. Bazant has been made aware of these problems with his hypothesis, and in January 2011 he had a paper published by the Journal of Engineering Mechanics where, with a graduate student as his co-author, he tried to claim the deceleration would not be observable. This paper has been shown to use fraudulent values for both inertial and column deformation energy losses. However, NIST continues to use his work.

Recent research using test results versus the three-hinge method for estimating energy dissipation caused by plastic hinge formation in axially-loaded buckling columns has shown the three-hinge method to significantly underestimate it —and this is without using fraudulently low column plastic moment (Mp) values, as Le and Bazant did in their paper.
This research provides even more support for the contention that the lack of deceleration in the descent of WTC 1 is a severe impediment for a natural-collapse scenario.

Let's hope he understands it by now.

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:35 PM
We have to teach non responsive persons that there are heaps of poorly educated people on the internet who clearly still believe this early days fairy tale, that these SINGLE trusses would sag and thus pull the core columns and the exterior columns inwards :

They forget that these trusses were part of a gigantic COMPOSITE floor area, that looked like this :

Which were made composite like this :

And which were connected on one side to the vertical core columns and their horizontal beams and on the other side to the exterior Vierendeel column triplets their spandrel plates with these :

Here are some steel fabrication shop photos and some in-the-work photos :

This is an interesting photo from a hotel fire, where the same kind of trusses under steel plates filled with concrete were exposed to fierce long duration fires, and lo and behold, not the trusses gave way, but that single vertical column buckled partially, while the composite floor above it kept it from axially displacing itself :

Thus, early pictures like this one are a complete joke, they just "forgot" to draw the gigantic top part of that huge composite floor in that drawing :

And when something sags because it is heated beyond its natural stiffness, it EXPANDS while sagging, so what fictitious enormous force would act on these still cold steel inner or outer columns in such a scenario.? NONE, the steel would still hang in between, now a bit bend and longer, that's all.

This is not a sign of floor sagging as NIST tries to let you believe.
But of huge, still straight, composite floors that fell a few meters while still connected at their core column positions, which CORE columns fell after being cut, thus PULLING via the still straight composite floor area those exterior spandrel plates welded to those exterior columns, inwards :

What in reality happened is that the outer CORE columns were breached in the collapse initiation areas, fell a few meters and thus pulled the still intact composite floor areas downwards with them, and that was the enormous force acting on the outer columns, pulling them about a meter inwards, as we saw in video footage from just before the collapse initiations.
Those core columns could not be breached naturally, as Charles M. Beck showed those of you with enough math background, thus, they were cut by unnatural forces = explosives or thermate.

And don't come up with that lame excuse again that ALL steel was inspected at Freshkill Island, it was NOT.
Especially the steel from both towers their initiation floors were as good as completely ABSENT, only 3 pieces of core column steel from those collapse initiation floors were saved by FEMA, NIST, FBI or whatever other obedient US institution. Which is far less than 1 % of all vertical and horizontal steel in those 2 x 2 floors.

Everyone with a tiny bit of logic left in his mind knows what that indicates.
FALSE FLAG operations. Perfectly clear and obvious for those who understand how state secrecy works and usually gets enforced.

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:37 PM

You, well meaning Americans, have to work on bringing an end to the obsessive military agenda of your Warfare State :

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:39 PM
July 17th, 2013. “Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis”.
By Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns.

Since you still can't freely read that paper :
Here is a sufficiently laid out explanation in some posts at and the answers by Tony Szamboti.

Tony :

David Chandler posted a short summary of the paper on his site, part of which was taken from an explanation I had sent out with e-mails.

No reason you couldn't use what was already done, if it works for you. You can see it a third to halfway down the page here

I don't know that you can honestly say the latest developments in peer reviewed civil engineering literature show the towers shouldn't have failed. Of course, you should read Jonathan Cole and Timothy Eastman's survey of all of the peer reviewed literature on the towers here :

It won't include the new paper by G. Szuladzinski, R. Johns, and myself, as it was not out when they wrote that paper, but it will give you an idea of what has been put out in the last few years prior to 2013.

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:41 PM
I like the compact style of this poster :

Controlled demolition proven, why is there a debate?

It's just impossible to be anything other than a controlled demolition by basic physics. There is no debate.

FACT 1 : An object falling under gravity cannot accelerate through resistance greater than the weight of the falling object.

The north tower accelerated through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton's third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it's weight, which means it’s exerting much less force than when supported at rest. This means a large portion of the resistance was removed by explosives.
Also the top section after collapsing the distance of 1 story did not slow at all upon encountering the intact lower section. This is impossible as a falling mass cannot crush MORE resistance and maintain the same speed, it slows. The mass continued to accelerate uniformly proving explosive demolition.

FACT 2 : Newton's third law states that colliding objects exert equal force on each other, which means that for every floor destroyed in the lower section, a floor must be destroyed in the falling section, therefore after 15 floors there is no pile-driver left, it would slow down before then anyway, as the mass of the falling object is reduced and energy is absorbed through disintegration and the superior upward resistance.

FACT3 : The top section of the south tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics shows that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum. The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. Discontinuation of toppling proves the removal of resistance, disproving gravity induced collapse and proving explosives.
An off center, leaning mass CANNOT cause a symmetric collapse.

FACT 4 : The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, and this repeated in sequence for each successive floor.this is impossible in a collapse resulting from structural or fire damage, as such causes result in organic uneven damage. even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.

FACT 5 : The 2.5 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST admits to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.

Sabretruthtiger on Fri, 08/02/2013 - 10:36pm.

There's still a debate, because there are far more under-educated ones than educated ones.
And that unnecessary debate is constantly fired up and kept alive by assistants of the official misrepresentations.
They have to, otherwise there will be massive unrest.

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 12:47 PM
I Searched ATS for : " LaBTop EMT Patricia Ondrovic " and found 2 older threads/posts, but NOT my latest one ( ??? ) :

What Melted Cars 7 Blocks Away From WTC, page 10
Originally posted by LaBTop ... Patricia Ondrovic E.M.T. (E.M.S.) 10/11/01 (See also: 9/11 Rescuer ... Freddy Burgos E.M.T. (E.M.S.) 10/31/01

FDNY Chiefs KNEW WTC 2, 1 and 7 would FAIL, page 1
Apr 9, 2016 ... edit on 9/4/16 by LaBTop because: The first video does not exist. ..... and then reading, to top it off, this female EMS Captain who is telling you this : .... while we know that Patricia Ondrovic was at Vesey Street its street level ...

What's up with that strange bug that neglects my more recent posts ?

posted on Jul, 11 2016 @ 02:35 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

The more you post with out addressing simple questions just shows how lacking you are in understanding science and you lack the comprehension to create elegant and precise answers. If steel looses enough stiffness and drops, no matter how much it expansion and grows, it lost it's ability to expert force and resist strain. What happens when you push a heated bar of steel that lost its ability to resist strain in to an anvil. It buckles and expands out in diameter. The steel holding the floors lost it's ability to hold a load and resist gravity from its straight down pull.

posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 05:54 AM
Some of my answers to you at page 14 have been removed by moderation, thus it could be that you missed the seismology texts in them, when you or someone else reported one word from those posts.
Thus, here's the quintessence of them, so perhaps you stop your senseless posts on the subject you clearly do not understand enough of, after reading it. (Again?)

originally posted by: neutronflux
And how can one broad band seismograph accurately record all data from an event with multiple causes of seismic activity.
(LT : it easily can, read a basics book on why.)
The whole thing if a trough encounters a peak of another wave it results in changing the waves. When the buildings fell, there was different waves traveling at different rates interfering with each other. How does a seismograph receiving all seismic waves at once make an accurate representation of all waves from multiple seismic events occurring at the same time?

What a nonsense : "receiving all seismic waves at once". Did you even understood one word of my somewhat technical explanation up there, above your last post on page 14.?
Go buy a basic book on Geophysics, which has chapters on seismic recording in it.
Then you could correct your nonsensical interpretation of the easiest possible explanation of how seismic waves arise, propagate through a specific earth crust and get measured in order of arrival.
Your notion of seismic waves arriving AT ONCE indicates your utter misunderstanding of even the basic principles of Geophysics and seismology.
Thus my use of the word nonsense, perfectly in place for such utter misunderstanding of the basics, and my advice to buy (or read in a library) a seismology-basics book.

The more you post with out addressing simple explanations just shows how lacking you are in understanding science and you lack the comprehension to create elegant and precise questions.

posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 09:47 AM
A reply to: neutronflux

Well, one simple question to you then :
Did you understood at all, at what presumptive conditioning Charles M. Beck started his WTC Twin Towers engineering and mathematical calculations.?

posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 12:43 PM
a reply to: LaBTop

Then you see why they had to choose for thermobaric explosives, because of their much longer but less pressurized qualities, against the much shorter but much higher explosive force qualities from standard HE explosives.

But you need high explosives to explain the steel beams traveling 600 feet don't you?

Once again the conspiracy crowd cannot settle on one theory as to how the buildings came down.

posted on Jul, 17 2016 @ 01:49 PM
Once again you are showing just one thing, your inability to read diagrams, and the following explanations.
And your inability and reluctance to check your own side their postings.

An explanation why TB's are so effective inside not yet stripped buildings, i.o.w., perfectly closed environments that existing steel high rises are :

Ansley212 :
Not Thermobaric. This bomb is burning off the extra fuel/O2 after the detonation.
A thermobaric explosion CONSISTS of the fuel/O2 detonating itself.
This is merely a OB+ explosion burning off residual fuel.
But if one wants to quibble that it produced "heat" & "pressure" and therefore is "thermobaric", then all explosions are "thermobaric". Impressive, but mislabeled.

A thermobaric detonation can be initiated AFTER a smaller charge disperses the fuel amongst the oxygen, OR.... The thermobaric detonation pressure wave is protracted as the expanding front continues to detonate (as opposed to just deflagration of fuel from a point detonation).

Enhanced blast weapons are devices that incorporate the characteristics of two different devices.
If you are trying to claim this detonation was thermobaric with a deflagration at the end, then I must point out that it is the detonation characteristic I am referring to....NOT THE DEFLAGRATION.
If you don't know the difference between a point detonation (i.e HE), and a protracted detonation (i.e thermobaric) as they cause damage, then I suggest you go back and read the study I was a part of.
Those trees would shake violently if a truck was full of fireworks....that doesn't mean the fireworks were thermobaric.
CLUE: Look at the pressure wave as it passes through the trees. Trees are used by video forensic teams to determine yield and characteristics of video-taped detonations. I did many.

You really don't understand at all what a REAL thermobaric explosive is. I always thought you were just stirring up the pot, to cause havoc in every thread, but now your real capacities shimmer through. You just can't understand it.

top topics

<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in