Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

To those who believe the 911 official story


Zaus

Recommended Posts

Tell me what I said that is so silly in my first post.

You got some issues that I'm not gonna be able to help you with. All of a sudden I'm a racist because someone else made a racist comment....you don't have the best reasoning abilities do you?

BTW, it's rather funny you pick out how no one responded to the racist comment, yet that is the ONLY thing you responded to in this thread. It'd be like a random poster suddenly throwing out that they believe in Santa Claus when the topic of the thread has nothing to do with that and then picking that one comment out as the only thing you are going to focus on.

So, anything on 9/11 you will discuss?

You know why building 7 collapsed?

Do you know why stations were reporting the building collapsed while it was still standing behind them in the background as they reported it?

You know why all the concrete was pulverized to dust?

Why was molten metal in the debris? Why did it stay burning like that for weeks afterwards?

Why is it that there is molten metal dripping down the building before it collapsed? (signs of thermite being used)

How is it that the buildings fell at nearly free fall speed?

Why were there explosions in the basements of the buildings?

Take your pick, or would you rather stick to calling everyone who questions the official version of 9/11 a racist based of one persons response and then ignore the whole point of this thread?

:ph34r: Yeah, let's leave racism out of this discussion. I don't know why the concrete was pulverized to dust, nor why there was molten

metal in the debris (if indeed that is true). It is not so hard to understand why buried portions of the building would burn for weeks. As for the speed of collapse---it doesn't seem so different from deliberately imploded buildings. I didn't know there were explosions in the basements of the buildings. Do you have any references or evidence of that? As for myself, I am perfectly satisfied with the explanations given on PBS or CNN.

~~Cebrakon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • flyingswan

    313

  • Q24

    205

  • turbonium

    180

  • merril

    113

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Repoman, your bowling ball and matchstick analogy is flawed in a simple regard.

As you progress down the floors the support structure is designed to resist much greater weight loads then the upper floors. While the actual floors themselves only bear the weight intended for office utility, the structural supports are the real quandary here. For instance, the 90th floor would be designed to carry any and all loads of the upper 20 floors...but the lower you go, the more the mass load increases.

Each floor is dispensing mass to the central support columns and the outer wall columns...so in turn the amount of mass increases dramatically as you go down...so too does the overall resistance designed into the structural supports. Not to mention the addition of torque to the overall structure in the form of wind resistance in gale force conditions...that and the obvious fact that the towers did not fall from being struck by airliners alone.

The question here should be easily rectified through a series of force equations and stress analyses on the steel constructs based upon the blueprints.

Oh yeah...I forgot...the blueprints to a series of buildings no longer in existence are deemed national security secrets.

Edited by MolonLabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fireball is now "everybody's" theory, no longer his as he then questions it "...elevator operator of the 50A car is alive...He should have been burned alive"

No - you are still misinterpreting what Rodriguez is actually saying. Here's the quote, one more time...

"Last, funny everybody brings the position that the ball of fire went down the center elevator shaft and exploded in the basement.."

Rodriguez isn't questioning the existence of a fireball. He is disputing the assertion that the fireball "went down the center elevator shaft and exploded in the basement".

If he was disputing the existence of a fireball, he would have said something to that effect. For example, if he'd said "Last, funny everybody brings the position that there was a ball of fire...", at least you would have a valid argument (that he disputed the existence of a fireball).

Do you understand the distinction?

Here it is from that link:

WR- Killtown, you guys are great!!, my response is easy. I was there, he was not. I have met with everybody in the government and I doubt he has. I have the respect of my community and of those who were saved that day. I always talk about explosion, not bombs- since I am not an explosives expert. He says-A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators. The fireball exploded onto numerous lower floors, including the 77th and 22nd; the West Street lobby level; and the B4 level, four stories below ground- Very strange indeed ,since there were only one elevator shaft (the 50A car) that went all the way to B6, the operator was inside, Mr. Griffith and he survived with a broken ankles. He should have died burnt since on this theory the ball of fire went down. He is alive and well and I will interview him in the future to clear the disinformation.

It is quite clear that he is now referring to other people's claims of a fireball "He says...fireball...", and he is again now claiming that there was no fireball on the basis of the operator's survival "He should have died..on this theory..."

I note that Roberts has quoted Rodriguez accurately, also giving a link to the original quote, while you denied that the quote was Rodriguez at all. Now what were you saying about Roberts' credibility?

First, a point that needs to be clarified...

I note that Roberts has quoted Rodriguez accurately, also giving a link to the original quote, while you denied that the quote was Rodriguez at all.

That was largely due to the way you first brought it to my attention...

....and I note you leave out this quote, Aug 2006:

“(911myths.com) says 'A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators.' ...Very strange indeed, since there were only one elevator shaft (the 50A car) that went all the way to B6, the operator was inside, Mr. Griffith and he survived with a broken ankles. He should have died burnt since on this theory the ball of fire went down. He is alive and well and I will interview him in the future to clear the disinformation.”

in which he also suggests that there was no fireball.

You started off the 'quote' with “(911myths.com) says.., which makes it look like "911myths.com" is being quoted (ie: the website's author). So that's why I assumed it wasn't a quote from Rodriguez.

It further confused matters when you didn't provide a direct link to the quote on the source you first cited - 911myths.com. You subsequently posted another link for the quote.. http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/...85844162914307/

Anyway, I just wanted to clarify this minor point first.

As for the quote, you've made the same mistake. Again, Rodriguez isn't questioning the existence of a fireball. He is disputing Roberts' assertions ('theory') about the fireball.

Now what were you saying about Roberts' credibility?

That it's sorely lacking.

You have shown no evidence for your (or Roberts') claims against Rodriguez, flyingswan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You admit the lift shafts were in the core area, but deny that anyone working on a lift shaft would be able to see the core structure? I find this very hard to believe, but no doubt you can back this claim up?

Sure...

linked-image

Chart from the link below... (pg. xl)

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-1C.pdf

These were programs that required special inspection by engineers, not standard maintenance crews. The last structural integrity inspection for "Accessible Columns" took place in 1998, and these inspections were very limited -

linked-image

(pg. 49 from above link)

A crew servicing the elevators isn't going to see squat.

I'm only trying to find the logic in your argument. You said it was a separate structure, not me. Is this supposed to mean it will remain in place unless separately demolished? If it is part of the building it will fall whether it has its own demolition system or not.

It was a separate structure added to the original WTC 7 structure. Obviously it's going to fall - the entire building collapses!

So this penthouse could fall 47 floors and hit the ground and emerge without being damaged? And because it was so superstrong it had to be demolished first? This is just getting weirder with each of your posts.

No, I didn't say that it would "emerge without being damaged". But it was structurally reinforced...

The east side of the floor was reinforced to carry the east penthouse and its contents. Specifics of this reinforcement are not available at this time.

The west penthouse roof was framed in steel with the floor slab increased to a 6 in. thickness. The framing and roof reinforcement for the east penthouse and the mechanical equipment screenwall are not available at this time.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

Hmm. There is structural info on the west penthouse, but the structural info on the east penthouse is "not available at this time".

That was from NIST's June 2004 Progress Report.

In 2008, that info is still "not available" !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You disagree with the 100+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals listed on Patriots Question 9/11 and that is fine; it is your opinion. The specific quotes I posted were only to show that your assertion - “Any professional pilot realizes what happed that day and knows that someone with little real training could've done it.” - was ill-informed.

Any professional pilot who analyzed the FDR data I saw couldn't possibly have considered the maneuver impossible, nor professionally executed. If these 100 pilots and aviation professionals you cite are real...they obviously looked at very different data from that which I looked at.

That's the point. The FDR data from FLT 77 is massive, and readily available to look at. Unless this data is faked, which is highly unlikely, someone's seen something else...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't read through the entire thread, but I did want to point this out:

FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission reportLarisa Alexandrovna

Published: Thursday February 28, 2008

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/FBI_document...ssion_0228.html

There is a reason this kind of information doesn't get wide coverage in the M$M.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that this kind of thing could be allowed or even assisted by forces within our government. This has been done before and if we refuse to learn from history I guarantee it will happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A crew servicing the elevators isn't going to see squat.

You've proven nothing. There is no comparison between doing a detailed structural inspection, which probably involves taking off some of the fireproofing to look at the actual steel, and just being in the core area to work and noticing a vast array of explosive charges that wasn't there the last time you looked.

It was a separate structure added to the original WTC 7 structure. Obviously it's going to fall - the entire building collapses!

Quite, so why does it need a separate demolition sequence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No - you are still misinterpreting what Rodriguez is actually saying. Here's the quote, one more time...

"Last, funny everybody brings the position that the ball of fire went down the center elevator shaft and exploded in the basement.."

Rodriguez isn't questioning the existence of a fireball. He is disputing the assertion that the fireball "went down the center elevator shaft and exploded in the basement".

If he was disputing the existence of a fireball, he would have said something to that effect. For example, if he'd said "Last, funny everybody brings the position that there was a ball of fire...", at least you would have a valid argument (that he disputed the existence of a fireball).

Do you understand the distinction?

Quibble as much as you like, it still looks to me as if he is saying, in both quotes, that the survival of the liftman disproves the fireball theory.

That was largely due to the way you first brought it to my attention...

You started off the 'quote' with “(911myths.com) says.., which makes it look like "911myths.com" is being quoted (ie: the website's author). So that's why I assumed it wasn't a quote from Rodriguez.

Perhaps you should have done a little more research before making such a strong statement just on the basis of your own assumption.

It further confused matters when you didn't provide a direct link to the quote on the source you first cited - 911myths.com. You subsequently posted another link for the quote.. http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/...85844162914307/

Roberts' original link was dead, so I googled for the alternate one.

That it's sorely lacking.

You have shown no evidence for your (or Roberts') claims against Rodriguez, flyingswan.

As I see it, you are the one who has made an inaccurate claim about Rodriguez. Roberts has just quoted him accurately and shown that his current story contradicts his original one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you give a link to these “hundreds of thousands” of engineers you say support the official story? If they are independent, rather than affiliated with the government, all the better though that is not a prerequisite. I can list details of well in excess of 300 construction professionals who demand a new investigation into the collapses. I am thinking you are all talk and, when it comes to it, you will not be able to get close to even that number.

Check my quote, I said there were hundreds of thousands of structural engineers in the world. Google for their professional bodies and see how many members each has. How many of your mere hundreds are actually structural engineers?

NIST could come up with a plausible mechanism for a flying pig, also verified by lab tests and computer simulations… so? Getting a mechanism that matches with observable reality is another matter. NIST’s pig, based on the real animal, would not fly as they wanted it to, so they simply gave it wings and problem solved. Some people will not realise how close this scenario really is to NIST's ‘investigation’ but I would suggest those who have not done so should look into it themselves.

Ah yes, your abyssmal ignorance of structural engineering really qualifies you to make that sort of claim. I don't recall your thermite theory having any problem matching observable reality, because whatever that reality is, you can come up with an explanation.

However, the bottom line is that NIST came up with a prediction from the impact that included the observed bowing, while all you have is a lot of handwaving without any technical foundation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The molten steel was admitted, infact the molten steel was there for a month at ground zero... I talked extensively with someone who saw it(the aftermath).

The NIST report is an outright admittance that our government is lying, and popular mechanics has all the means in the world to "debunk" the 911 conspiracy theories.

It is a publication of the Hearst Foundation, heavy ties to the rockefeller's, and a US weapons contractor!!!

This is a link explaining many of the impossibilities of the NIST, showing you all what YOU are calling truth to protect your flawed realities.

This is the Bohemian Grove members who concocted this idea to fool you...

Check out a couple of the "camps" listed and see who stays?

Stowaway (Rockefeller Family Members/Oil Companies/Banking/Think Tanks); Hill Billies (Big Business/Banking/Politics/Universities/Media); Owls Nest (U.S. Presidents/Military/Defense Contractors); Isle of Aves (Military/Defense Contractors).

Those are some... HHMMMM the biggest names in

Military...

US and other Political figures...

Entertainment(Movie stars that want to enslave YOU)...

and the worlds largest bankers the rockefeller's(The head of the Trilateral Commision, owner of our unconstitutional "income tax", Leader of the CFR, which BTW wants to enslave you and has as one of its fine Elite members Angelina Jolie!!! Who goes around looking all hot fighting the "illuminati" in skin tight clothes, time to stop laughing...)

A Confession from John D. Rockefeller from his Memoirs, page 405, you wouldn't believe it, but i bought the damn thing just to see and lo and behold...

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

An all mens group of greedy, powerful satan worshipers having a gay vacation while ruling the world!!!

Rocawear? Nelly, 50 cent, the whole mainstream including all of its permutations glorifying sex, needless drugs and violent "gangsta" behavia, complete with crunk juice...

im sorry i have to break it to you... but...

Does this?

Or this? "Roc la familia?"

Look like this in any way shape or form?

My point, do you think they are joking when they claim rockefeller as their master... I mean the entire "rap" scene IS the embodiment of worshiping money and "what it can get you"

Now, some fun! NOT.

The tower of babel(a most magnificent link, however please turn your speakers down lest the volume startle you...), was usually depicted as massive spiraling building, and was in the book of genesis described as "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech...". The king at the time happened to be "Nimrod".

Another Spiraling building was planned to be built in the 1920's by a Vladimir Tatlin...

It was supposed to be the largest building ever built and it was designed to look like this and dwarf the Eiffel Tower

Why the Spiral? Because the Spiral pattern is present in all things, from galaxies to your DNA and everything in between.

Open your Eyes...

When all the people speak the same language...

The Tallest buildings in the world...

The largest "Pillars" of the financial world...

All on the Island of Manhattan, or Atum?

Take a deep breath, and click here...

This is the "spire" left by the north tower, this is a REAL clip from CNN. In my belief it is faked, but it hardly matter's the smoke was obviously billowing in reverse, because what is more important is the fact that you realize what is going on...

linked-image

The new tallest building in the world...

But, who just took over??? oh jesus, its the Ruling Elite's Egocentric Mongoloid UberMetatropolis Dubai!! [/url]

One World... in dubai...

Scare you yet? Its all the same people behind the whole thing. In fact its always been the same people, and the game is as old as you could possibly imagine...

The subliminal messages using the twin towers as their carrier are everywhere, and have been an image subconsciously recognized so often when the real thing happened, everyone knew the drill...

A Spider man Poster with the twin towers reflected within the eye

The new "Dark Knight" movie, of which one person has already been sacrificed for

Within the windows, stand the twin towers...

We Own the Night Between these shadowy figures stands the two towers...

You really think it wasnt planned?

Enchanted, where the real world and the animated world collide

Transformers... Choose your Side.

Thats just movie posters!!

For more on movements of the "artificial collective consciousness" as i like to call it (because it is manipulated for the purpose of control), i refer you

here and

here.

Open your mind for one moment, check the facts presented about the esoteric significance of symbolism and its roll of late.

I Promise you, this is no joke, this is reality as it is, not as it is believed to be.

I dare anyone to try and refute what is claimed above, any attempt at doing so is simply the complete misunderstanding of ancient symbolism as it has been used for thousands of years...

Some examples...

The pyramid as seen from above(or from outside to inside)

Little did you know it is at work in this ancient depiction

As well as... The Last Supper This shape is alive and kicking?

Escher

Why, a simple reason actually. Sacred Geometry(math, the infinite). Within 2 dimensions it can mimic 3 dimensions, within 3 dimensions you can use it to build structures from stone without mortar and without reducing integrity. Hence "Free" set free by knowledge of mathematics, "Mason" as in can build with stones.

They were the ancient mob that controlled the construction of everything from churches to houses by this method.

It is not my responsibility to teach you anything, but this little bit is too much for most people anyway.

This is how Escher, and many others, stopped seeing what they thought was there, and started realizing what IS there.

Math, and here it is with six equal sides.

A hexagon...

a simple, six sided 2 dimensional representation. What do we have encoded within the mathematics itself? As if the design of the universe wasn't complex enough, its reflection of simplicity is always the most pleasurable.

linked-image

This is what is really there, within the hexagram is the cube, and the impossible cube as seen above.

Treat the center as the foreground and background and you get a cube. Treat the center point as if it IS one point, and connect it to its corresponding points within a plane... and whalla, the mixing of "perspective's" that produces an "impossible" image, yet in all reality, if it is feasible to math, what absurd logic denotes it is still impossible?!?!??

Back to pyramids... Two individuals who made exceedingly great strides throughout their lives... for better or for worse...

Aleister Crowley

Nikola Tesla

Both visited Giza, and were permitted to enter the pyramids. These are documented and verifiable on request, if you so wish to challenge that statement.

Another famous cuboid representation comes from the temple's of Egypt also.

Metatrons Cube

Here is a link explaining more about it

We find it is intimately connected to the "Seed of Life" and the "Flower of Life". These are both ancient Egyptian symbols depicting the growth of consciousness and its beginnings. They are also like the hexagram/cube "more than meets the eye"... They also encompass ALL of the known platonic solids to date, the states matter naturally forms. They didn't have microscope's to my knowledge...

Why then, is "Megatron" searching for the "all spark" which brings "life to all things" in the new movie transformers?

Why do you think?

Now, what is the subliminal message here, or are they really just throwing it in your face?

On the side of Megatron's police car...

Oh yes... the veil of knowledge has always been kept quite close, and quite hidden from your view. If you think this is anything, you are far mistaken, this barely touches the surface of the Mega Ritual's being performed by our luciferian corporate ruling elite.

I hope this has shed some light on the incredibly dangerous time we are living in, and the even more dangerous times ahead.

EDIT: God help us, i hope this living planet has some kind of natural defense against this cancer!!!!

Edited by Zaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scare you yet?

Yes, Zaus, frequently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can argue in circles forever but all I am asserting is the given fact that reduced activity will produce a reduced reading – there is no disputing this; it cannot do anything else. You yourself then deduced the likelihood of the reduced readings being due to chance or reduced activity.

You can argue in circles yourself, but the fact remains that you are trying to find patterns in random variations. You also misunderstand what the probability means, see below.

I am placing my bets on at least an 81% probability whilst you admit your own theory is at best a 19% chance – in the end it really is as simple as that.

Check what that is a probability of: 19% chance that both traces will show an abnormally low reading within one second of a randomly selected time. It does not mean that there is an 81% chance that there really were low inputs at those times, because of the lack of direct connection between the input levels and the trace readings. You are effectively looking at the chances that a coin will come up heads if tossed three times (12.5%) and then saying that a coin that does just that has an 87.5% chance of having two heads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, Pericynthion :)

Your first basic error is that you have completely ignored signal propagation time. The chart above shows the East-West component of ground velocity for the Lamont-Doherty seismometer located at the Palisades, NY station (PAL). It is 34 kilometers north/northeast of the World Trade Center site. According to reference (1) below, the primary signals arriving at PAL during the incidents of 9/11 were short-period Rayleigh surface waves (Rg) which propagate through the local rock structure at 2 kilometers per second:

Your chart shows the seismometer trace beginning at 10:28:30. The collapse begins at 10:28:31, at t=1 second on the chart. With 34 kilometers to travel at 2 km/s, the Rg waves from the START of the collapse don't arrive at the PAL seismometer until about t=18 seconds on that chart, just about where you've drawn your last red line. You're marking off events that can't possibly be seen in the data because the signals haven't yet arrived at the seismometer!

Your first critical error is to presume I ignored the signal propagation time, when in fact it is one of the very first things I considered in marking the graph.

Your second basic error is to assume the time of 10:28:31 is for the initial collapse movement of WTC1. You correctly identify that an event occurring at this time will appear on the graph in the position of my last red line, ie approximately t=18, though this particular event is the main debris field impacting the ground; not the initial collapse movement. See NIST NCSTAR 1-6, pg.298, which states at 10:28:20Tower began to collapse”. Adding a 17s propagation time, readings should then appear on the graph at approximately t=7. The link you provided states for Palisades, “Origin times with an uncertainty of 2 s were calculated from the arrival times of Rg waves at PAL using a velocity of 2 km/s.” The line I inserted indicating the initial collapse movement of the upper block is well within t=7±2

Further, if you are still not convinced and believe the first collapse reading does not arrive until t=18, I would very much like to know why there should be so much activity prior to this. We can see here - http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html - that the readings from t=6 through to t=18 for the WTC1 collapse are at the approximate ML (only slightly below) of those for the airliner impacts; highly indicative that the structure is taking damage during this time.

I will add as well that you are the first person I have come across who believes the greatest readings are those of the collapses beginning. All other sources, whether for or against the official story, agree that the largest readings are of the debris impacting the ground – NIST’s FAQ, speaking of the main reading, “The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground”, or 911 Research, “At about 12 seconds into this event [the beginning of collapse], this signal is eclipsed by the much larger disturbance of thousands of tons of material impacting the ground.” Therefore, timing backwards from the main debris field impacting the ground to the initial collapse movement also supports that my first line is in the approximate correct position.

It is well worth reading this short section, The 'Large Spikes' Were Preceded by Smaller Signals, from the 911 Research article I quoted which analyses and confirms the initial collapse readings are shown on the seismograph prior to that of the debris impacting the ground.

Your second major error is that you seem to be assuming that a seismometer records a perfect signal in which every squiggle can be traced back to some distinct event at the source. That's just not true. Seismic events generate multiple types of waves which travel at different speeds and will arrive at a distant seismometer at different times. Even waves of the same type can reflect around inside the earth, resulting in multiple arrivals of the same signal at different times, like a voice echoing through a canyon. As flyingswan has been telling you, seismic waves are periodic oscillations and when different signals overlap, they can cancel or enhance each other.

Your third significant error is to suppose I am not listening to and accounting for flyingswan’s input. Although every reading is in fact a given of a specific occurrence, even if such as from two signals coming together or a form of seismic ‘echo’, I realise due to the complexity involved this cannot always be realistically traced back to a precise event. In summary, I understand there can be a degree of chance or seeming randomness in the seismic readings. In addition to all of this, I also understand that a reduced reading on a seismograph could well indicate the obvious possibility of reduced seismic activity.

The question then is, as I have been discussing with flyingswan, what is the likelihood of a given reading occurring due to chance or design, not once but in the case of both collapses, in conjunction with a specific observable event? The “given reading” referred to is the reduced activity I have highlighted mid-collapse and the “observable event” being the moment the upper block has fallen through its height. If it happened only once I would be content to write this off as chance. When the reduced reading mid-collapse in both Towers occurs in conjunction with the same observable event in the case of both Towers, I am more inclined to deduce it is by design, ie due to an event, rather than chance.

Indeed, flyingswan has calculated the probability of the readings coinciding with those events by chance to be approximately 19%. Notwithstanding my belief that this probability is generously high, it still leaves the 81% likelihood that the readings were actually caused specifically by reduced seismic activity at that time.

See the comment about constructive interference on the E-W component at PAL? That's the same signal you've been looking at. It's not just a simple, direct record of the collapse. The authors believe it's a mix of at least two overlapping "echoes" of the Rg waves created during the collapse.

Yes, I do see that comment, though there is no indication in the text that it refers to the reduced reading I have highlighted just before 10s. Also here, the authors use terms such as “may well” and “not necessarily”, indicating that discussed above – there is a degree of possibility the readings could be for one reason or another. Anyhow, if you think the comment does refer to the reduced signal I have been looking at, then it contradicts your original assertion that a signal is not received until t=18. Can we have some consistency in your argument please.

So, the half-ton truck bomb detonating below the WTC wasn't detectable at any of the seismic stations in the area, yet the individual blasts of your supposed "stealth" demolition charges high in the towers were clearly recorded at a station 34 kilometers away. Is that what you're claiming?

There is a large difference between the pressure blast of a single truck bomb and the force of demolition charges placed directly against the main structural columns. Do you really need me to explain why? As mentioned above, the increased collapse activity I mark out as perhaps indicative of demolition charges is approximately on the level of the impacts which is to be expected, ie both impacts and demolition charges would cause damage/severing of the core columns. In any case, although the increased activity levels during the second phase of collapse (that of the lower blocks commencing from t=10), could possibly indicate explosives, no, that is not my main claim.

The real claim I am making is that the reduced seismic reading mid-collapse may be indicative of reduced activity and further, a reduction of the collapse momentum – in all, constant activity, followed by reduced activity, moving to increased activity. This is not supportive of the official progressive collapse theory where activity should be at a constant or gradually increasing level throughout. It is though supportive of these two distinct phases of controlled demolition: -

  1. Thermite/thermate charges (apparent from evidence presented by Professor S Jones and visible flowing from WTC2) initiated the collapse.

  2. Further conventional demolition charges (evident through explosive ‘squibs’ during collapse) removed remaining resistance from the structure resulting in a symmetrical, near freefall collapse.
Thank you for your comments, Pericynthion. As you admit to not doing so, it may be useful to read the thread carefully and also compare the seismic records to video evidence if you intend to carry on with this discussion. Edited by Q24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check my quote, I said there were hundreds of thousands of structural engineers in the world. Google for their professional bodies and see how many members each has. How many of your mere hundreds are actually structural engineers?

You implied that "hundreds of thousands" of engineers agree with the official story though when asked for evidence of this, as suspected, you fall short. Silence or no comment does not constitute agreement and by no means does membership of a professional body automatically indicate agreement with publications of such an organisation. The bottom line is I can supply more credentials of construction professionals with accompanying quotes opposing NIST's 'investigation' than you can supply in its favour. Would you like to put that to the test? I didn't think so.

Ah yes, your abyssmal ignorance of structural engineering really qualifies you to make that sort of claim.

It doesn't take a biologist, veterinary surgeon or livestock farmer for me to claim that pigs do not have wings. Though if such a professional did make the claim of a flying pig, I am sure there would be fools who nodded in agreement as they queued to see it.

Check what that is a probability of: 19% chance that both traces will show an abnormally low reading within one second of a randomly selected time. It does not mean that there is an 81% chance that there really were low inputs at those times, because of the lack of direct connection between the input levels and the trace readings. You are effectively looking at the chances that a coin will come up heads if tossed three times (12.5%) and then saying that a coin that does just that has an 87.5% chance of having two heads.

No, in the coin example you give there are multiple outcomes whereas the seismic reading I am concerned with is due to either chance or design only. Reduced seismic activity will produce a reduced reading 100% of the time, therefore removing the 19% probability this could be due to chance leaves the 81% probability it was due to a specific event reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you progress down the floors the support structure is designed to resist much greater weight loads then the upper floors. While the actual floors themselves only bear the weight intended for office utility, the structural supports are the real quandary here. For instance, the 90th floor would be designed to carry any and all loads of the upper 20 floors...but the lower you go, the more the mass load increases.
That is a red herring. Nobody here is trying to say that the WTC couldn't support itself. If someone was to disagree with what you just said, they would have to say that the WTC never existed because it wasn't engineered to hold itself up. Therefore, since everyone here knows that the WTC held itself up just fine for nearly 30 years, it is probably safe to say that your explanation is not overly relevant.

Well then, how come it fell if the lower structures were carefully designed so as to prevent the building from collapsing under its own weight even before the building was finished?

The building was not engineered so as to prevent a collapse when the weight of the building above the impact points (16 floors in the case of WTC1 and 33 floors in the case of WTC2) with the momentum of gravity was suddenly upon it.

Let's take this a step further. How over-engineered do you think the floors of the WTC were? You have already implied that the relatively small metal fasteners which held up the 77th floor should have been able to actually hold up 33 more floor - even when those floors fell on top of it.

OK. Fair enough. But where do you draw the line? Do you think every floor of the WTC should be able to hold up 60 floors? 85 floors? 100 floors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point everyone misses about the floors ability to hold up weight is the simple fact that the designers of the WTC built it to withstand an impact with a plane. Even with the jet fuel burning it was not enough to weaken the structure. The main supports were still intact after the crash and as the world saw, the jet fuel went up in a fireball OUTSIDE the WTC on both crashes. To prove this look at the official footage of people appearing in the hole moments after the crash.

What makes alot of sense is the use of thermite which has been proven by a physicist/researcher and also the firemans accounts of seeing molten metal " running like lava".

Guess whos brother ran security for the WTC complex...thats right...President Bushes brother Marvin Bush. Who also ran security for Reagan National AND United Airlines.

You know what makes even more sense. That 9-11 was orchestrated to create a crisis where there wasnt one to go to war with Iraq. Cheney even had the ability to make the call to shoot the plane down that hit the Pentagon but ordered a stand down.

Let me ask you this....why is it so freaking hard to believe 9-11 was an inside job?

Historical examples of subterfuge: USS LIBERTY

Gulf of Tonkin

Operation Northwoods

Bay of Pigs

Kennedy Assassination

MLK Assassination

Bobby Kennedy Assassination

Each one of these events had an establishment cover story that was full of holes but upon careful examination revealed Government cover-up and complicity. It doesn't mean that our government is bad, only that it's been hyjacked by bad people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your second basic error is to assume the time of 10:28:31 is for the initial collapse movement of WTC1. You correctly identify that an event occurring at this time will appear on the graph in the position of my last red line, ie approximately t=18, though this particular event is the main debris field impacting the ground; not the initial collapse movement. See NIST NCSTAR 1-6, pg.298, which states at 10:28:20Tower began to collapse”. Adding a 17s propagation time, readings should then appear on the graph at approximately t=7. The link you provided states for Palisades, “Origin times with an uncertainty of 2 s were calculated from the arrival times of Rg waves at PAL using a velocity of 2 km/s.” The line I inserted indicating the initial collapse movement of the upper block is well within t=7±2

No, I don't assume that initial movement began at 10:28:31. The seismic signal originates at that time (with an uncertainty of 2 s, as you pointed out). That's plainly stated in the papers I referenced. I agree that the seismic signal does not necessarily correlate with the start of building motion. I thought it was understood that we were talking about the collapse in terms of the seismic response. My apologies if I wasn't clear.

The point I was trying to make is reflected very clearly in the quote you just posted:

"Origin times with an uncertainty of 2 s were calculated from the arrival times of Rg waves at PAL using a velocity of 2 km/s."

Dr. Kim and his colleagues have estimated the seismic signal's origin time by working backwards from the known arrival time of the Rg signals at PAL and the other seismic stations. There's more to this science than just looking at the size of squiggles on a seismogram. By looking at data like the phasing of the signals in all three axes, the experts can identify just what type of seismic wave they're looking at. Their analysis shows that identifiable Rg waves begin arriving at PAL at about t=18 s on your original chart. That's the start point for that seismic signal, as measured by the seismometer. It might very well correspond to debris ground impact at the WTC site. The Rg signal arrivals for all four events are clearly marked on this chart:

linked-image

Any seismometer signals prior to that point are not, according to the experts, Rg waves from the collapse. If they're not Rayleigh waves, then tell me, just what are they? How do you correlate them in time with the events of the collapse? How do you know they're not, for example, other types of faster-traveling seismic waves from the main debris impact? How have you ruled out noise in the system or other non-related signals (e.g. a truck driving down a road near the instrument). It seems to me that you're just seeing squiggles and assuming that they're related to the WTC collapse.

I will add as well that you are the first person I have come across who believes the greatest readings are those of the collapses beginning.

And again, just so we're clear: no, that's not what I believe.

It is well worth reading this short section, The 'Large Spikes' Were Preceded by Smaller Signals, from the 911 Research article I quoted which analyses and confirms the initial collapse readings are shown on the seismograph prior to that of the debris impacting the ground.

Thanks for the link. I did read that analysis. It seems to me that the author is making the same basic error you're making. He's assuming that the low-amplitude oscillations preceding the large signal are actually part of that same signal. As I said above, that directly contradicts the experts' identification of the signal types and arrival times.

Although every reading is in fact a given of a specific occurrence, even if such as from two signals coming together or a form of seismic ‘echo’, I realise due to the complexity involved this cannot always be realistically traced back to a precise event.

What you don't seem to understand here is that even a single, sharp event can excite oscillatory seismic waves -- the ground rings like a bell when you hit it. You're looking at the peaks and valleys of an oscillation and assuming that each one represents an individual event. That's not necessarily the case. Take a look at the trace from the first airliner impact in the chart I posted above. That event was a single, short-duration impact/explosion, yet the signal recorded at PAL shows more than 10 relatively large-amplitude oscillations spread out over a period of more than 10 seconds. Do each of those peaks trace back to an individual event in WTC-1?

Yes, I do see that comment, though there is no indication in the text that it refers to the reduced reading I have highlighted just before 10s. Also here, the authors use terms such as “may well” and “not necessarily”, indicating that discussed above – there is a degree of possibility the readings could be for one reason or another. Anyhow, if you think the comment does refer to the reduced signal I have been looking at, then it contradicts your original assertion that a signal is not received until t=18. Can we have some consistency in your argument please.

I am being consistent. The oscillations you're discussing occur before the identified start of the Rg wave arrivals at PAL. That's very clear from the data I've shown you. If you believe that the experts are wrong and that you're actually looking at Rg arrivals from an earlier portion of the collapse, then you still have to contend with the fact that the terrain in that area has been shown to be prone to multipath propagation of Rg signals. This point also applies in general to any sort of signal analysis. You can't assume that you're looking at one clean signal. Constructive and destructive interference from overlapping waves can easily cause the behavior you're seeing (assuming we're looking at a real signal here).

There is a large difference between the pressure blast of a single truck bomb and the force of demolition charges placed directly against the main structural columns. Do you really need me to explain why?

Of course they're different. Now, how do you know which one will be worse?

As mentioned above, the increased collapse activity I mark out as perhaps indicative of demolition charges is approximately on the level of the impacts which is to be expected, ie both impacts and demolition charges would cause damage/severing of the core columns.

More handwaving with no analysis. How do you know what would be expected?

Thank you for your comments, Pericynthion. As you admit to not doing so, it may be useful to read the thread carefully and also compare the seismic records to video evidence if you intend to carry on with this discussion.

You're welcome. For the record, I did read the thread before responding. I always do. What I meant by "not following this thread carefully" is that I'm not reading it every day, so I was a bit slow in responding to your initial post regarding the seismic data. Hope that clears things up.

To sum things up, here's a quote from Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University (who operate the seismometers we've been discussing). This quote was taken from the Popular Mechanics article:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The experts don't appear to agree with you Q24. Why are they wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You implied that "hundreds of thousands" of engineers agree with the official story though when asked for evidence of this, as suspected, you fall short. Silence or no comment does not constitute agreement and by no means does membership of a professional body automatically indicate agreement with publications of such an organisation. The bottom line is I can supply more credentials of construction professionals with accompanying quotes opposing NIST's 'investigation' than you can supply in its favour. Would you like to put that to the test? I didn't think so.

Generally someone is only likely to produce an input to a debate if they are in disagreement with a previous contribution or if they have something new to add. The lack of any significant (ie greater than 0.1%) adverse response to the engineering papers that have been published so far explaining various aspects of the WTC collapses suggests that the readers of those papers are in general agreement.

However, there are some engineers like myself who are prepared to take the argument to the conspiracists, and if you count us against the very few structural engineers that the conspiracy can muster, you might find your team again in the minority.

This is all immaterial, anyway, technical matters are not decided on a majority vote, but on the evidence. If you ever get any evidence for a controlled demolition you might convince more people.

No, in the coin example you give there are multiple outcomes whereas the seismic reading I am concerned with is due to either chance or design only. Reduced seismic activity will produce a reduced reading 100% of the time, therefore removing the 19% probability this could be due to chance leaves the 81% probability it was due to a specific event reading.

You are for a start neglecting the chance that one trace is a random fluctuation and the other is a real indication of lower input. Your "81%" is not the chance that both are due to lower inputs.

There is a second factor in this, which is that your theory didn't predict "calm points" ab initio, but only after you'd seen the seismograph traces. You then changed your theory to say that CD somehow requires "calm points" at these times (why?). I'm sure that if the traces had shown higher readings at these points you would have interpreted this as evidence for CD charges going off. Given this habit of yours to modify your theory after the evidence, the most I'm prepared to allow you in the way of prediction is the odds on both traces showing the same trend at those times, 50%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point everyone misses about the floors ability to hold up weight is the simple fact that the designers of the WTC built it to withstand an impact with a plane.

The design case was an aircraft at approach speed, ie a likely speed for an aircraft near an airport. The actual impacts were at cruise speed, which meant about ten times the kinetic energy of the design case.

http://www.graingerchallenge.org/nae/bridg...CB?OpenDocument

It is also incorrect to say that the fuel went straight through the building. An airliner carries most of its fuel in the wings, if the wing structure remained in the building, and the exit holes are far to small for it to have gone through, then so did most of the fuel.

The point all you amateur engineers are missing about building strength is the difference between the static loads the building was designed to and the combination of larger static loads due to load redistribution around damaged parts of the structure and the much greater dynamic loads that would have occured in the collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The design case was an aircraft at approach speed, ie a likely speed for an aircraft near an airport. The actual impacts were at cruise speed, which meant about ten times the kinetic energy of the design case.

http://www.graingerchallenge.org/nae/bridg...CB?OpenDocument

It is also incorrect to say that the fuel went straight through the building. An airliner carries most of its fuel in the wings, if the wing structure remained in the building, and the exit holes are far to small for it to have gone through, then so did most of the fuel.

The point all you amateur engineers are missing about building strength is the difference between the static loads the building was designed to and the combination of larger static loads due to load redistribution around damaged parts of the structure and the much greater dynamic loads that would have occured in the collapse.

Ya hoo, Swanny!

That's to the point, I'll say.

Now, you may have to explain static and dynamic loads...and what load redistribution is...your amateur engineeers are likely to be a wee bit imposed upon by such terminology.

But I've got to say, I'm enjoying the reading of your astute posts and analysis!

:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The collapse begins at 10:28:31, at t=1 second on the chart.

No, I don't assume that initial movement began at 10:28:31.

Are you being deliberately inconsistent?

Their analysis shows that identifiable Rg waves begin arriving at PAL at about t=18 s on your original chart. That's the start point for that seismic signal, as measured by the seismometer. It might very well correspond to debris ground impact at the WTC site. The Rg signal arrivals for all four events are clearly marked on this chart:

Any seismometer signals prior to that point are not, according to the experts, Rg waves from the collapse.

You are misinterpreting Dr. Kim’s analysis. There is no mention that t=18 signifies the first “identifiable” Rg waves. All indicated is that the first Rg waves for the reading being focussed on, ie the largest period of seismic activity in this case, proceed from this point. Neither is there any mention that signals prior to that point are not Rg waves. You are making claims that the analysis, taken at its word, simply does not support.

If they're not Rayleigh waves, then tell me, just what are they? How do you correlate them in time with the events of the collapse? How do you know they're not, for example, other types of faster-traveling seismic waves from the main debris impact? How have you ruled out noise in the system or other non-related signals (e.g. a truck driving down a road near the instrument).

With a basic understanding of the causes of various seismic wave types and how they are shown in readings, it is apparent that all of the seismograph readings are Rg waves. The only waves that could be faster than these are P and S waves which are not visible in the WTC readings.

The events I have marked out on the graph are correlated, as discussed, by the signal propagation time from the known initial collapse movement and further through timings of video evidence. Try it yourself and you will see my inserted lines, NIST’s given times, the video evidence and distinct changes in the seismic signal all fit very well together.

In addition to the above, I have ruled out ‘background noise’ in the reading as the activity levels of the Tower collapse, before the main debris field impacts the ground, are close to that of the airliner impacts. Trucks driving down the road will not produce activity equivalent to the airliner impacts, whereas the collapsing Tower will. There is also a distinct visible increase in the signal at approximately t=6 from what is ‘background noise’ into the Tower collapse reading.

What you don't seem to understand here is that even a single, sharp event can excite oscillatory seismic waves -- the ground rings like a bell when you hit it. You're looking at the peaks and valleys of an oscillation and assuming that each one represents an individual event. That's not necessarily the case.

No, the only thing I am assuming is that reduced seismic activity will produce a reduced reading on the seismograph. To use your analogy – after striking the bell, oscillation levels can only decrease, ie reduced seismic activity after the event will produce a reduced reading.

You can't assume that you're looking at one clean signal. Constructive and destructive interference from overlapping waves can easily cause the behavior you're seeing (assuming we're looking at a real signal here).

As already stated, I understand there can be a degree of chance or seeming randomness in the seismic readings. Conversely you cannot assume that you are not looking at one clean signal. The issue then is to determine the probability of a particular signal being produced by chance or design.

Of course they're different. Now, how do you know which one will be worse?

More handwaving with no analysis. How do you know what would be expected?

It is blatantly obvious that the air pressure blast of a truck bomb reaching limited structural columns will not be so severe as numerous demolition charges blasting directly against and through the columns. It is also reasonable to expect demolition charges severing the structural columns to be on the approximate level of the airliners severing the columns. In any case, you are creating a strawman; this is not my real argument here.

This quote was taken from the Popular Mechanics article:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The experts don't appear to agree with you Q24. Why are they wrong?

I do not disagree with the statement. The seismic data shows no direct or conclusive evidence of explosives and neither does it rule them out. Your posts seem to be approaching this with a general argument and are missing the main point of what I have been saying. Before viewing the seismic data, a host of other evidence led me to the following likely controlled demolition process: -

  1. Thermite/thermate charges initiated the collapse – this would cause the fall of the upper block.

  2. Further conventional demolition charges removed remaining resistance from the structure resulting in a symmetrical, near freefall collapse – this would cause the fall of the lower block.

Then, as seen in the seismograph, there is a distinct low reading mid-collapse (circled) specifically coinciding with the moment the upper block has fallen through its height; the change point between the two phases above: -

linked-image

This reduced reading supports the two step hypothesis above and that the upper block was losing momentum before another energy source (step 2) came into play. The reduced reading mid-collapse is not supportive of the official progressive collapse theory where momentum should gradually build.

We have been discussing WTC1 though this finding is suspiciously exactly the same for WTC2. When it happens once we can possibly put it down to chance. When it occurs twice, in both of the only known cases, it is likely due to a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all immaterial, anyway, technical matters are not decided on a majority vote, but on the evidence. If you ever get any evidence for a controlled demolition you might convince more people.

I couldn’t agree more that the majority are not always correct. I will add though, it was you who raised the issue of numbers and only decided it was “immaterial” after conceding you cannot prove your supposed support. Also, evidence of controlled demolition is not the problem – the greatest difficulty is convincing people to look at the evidence in the first place.

There is a second factor in this, which is that your theory didn't predict "calm points" ab initio, but only after you'd seen the seismograph traces. You then changed your theory to say that CD somehow requires "calm points" at these times (why?). I'm sure that if the traces had shown higher readings at these points you would have interpreted this as evidence for CD charges going off. Given this habit of yours to modify your theory after the evidence, the most I'm prepared to allow you in the way of prediction is the odds on both traces showing the same trend at those times, 50%.

I have not changed my controlled demolition theory in the slightest. The theory is, as it happens, supported by the seismic data, though not requiring of it. As I have said before, if the “calm points” did not occur specifically where they did in the case of both Towers’ collapses I would not have an issue.

Anyhow... 50%... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've proven nothing. There is no comparison between doing a detailed structural inspection, which probably involves taking off some of the fireproofing to look at the actual steel, and just being in the core area to work and noticing a vast array of explosive charges that wasn't there the last time you looked.

What makes you think "a vast array of explosive charges" would be in plain view of anyone servicing the elevators? All the explosives would be hidden underneath the fireproofing, and directly in contact with the steel. Even the structural inspection programs required the crew to re-attach any fireproofing they had removed for detailed inspection of the steel.

Quite, so why does it need a separate demolition sequence?

Since it had been built as an addition to the original structure, placed off-center, and was heavily re-inforced, the penthouse would not (or may not) collapse as effectively as the rest of the building. It may have fallen away from the building's footprint, causing damage - or more damage - to adjacent building(s) than the perpetrators sought. Maybe the penthouse contained something(s) that would incriminate the planners, or give clues to a CD, if it wasn't thoroughly destroyed.

Perhaps they had other reasons for demolishing the penthouse first. The point is that there is a valid argument for demolishing it first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quibble as much as you like, it still looks to me as if he is saying, in both quotes, that the survival of the liftman disproves the fireball theory.

Hold on! NOW, you're saying it's the "fireball theory" which Rodriguez is disputing?!!

Your argument is (or was) that Rodriguez disputes the existence of the fireball itself.

So which is it??

As I see it, you are the one who has made an inaccurate claim about Rodriguez. Roberts has just quoted him accurately and shown that his current story contradicts his original one.

No, you seem to be the only one whose story has changed.

Edited by turbonium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hold on! NOW, you're saying it's the "fireball theory" which Rodriguez is disputing?!!

Your argument is (or was) that Rodriguez disputes the existence of the fireball itself.

So which is it??

How typical, Turbs... when your "argument" invariably falls apart, you resort to changing the topic to arguing semantics... :rolleyes:

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.