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

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

You're the only one making typically ignorant comments on a subject, Czero.

Do I really have to show you the relevant posts from flyingswan?

I suggest you review them yourself, so you'll get your facts straight in the future....

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

I suggest you review them yourself, so you'll get your facts straight in the future....

You speak of facts like you actually know what they are. ^_^

Tell us, Turbs, do your argument here have any facts that A: are provable, B: don't contain the words "I think its" or "It looks / seems to me" or C: aren't based on your own misunderstandings or something you learned from a YouTube video?

If you have any actual facts that aren't just your opinions to back up your argument, maybe you should post them...

And for the record, I've followed this thread from the start and happen to agree with Flyingswan and Pericyntheon for the most part since, at least in my estimation, their interpretation of the facts presented appear to be more believable.

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive got loads of facts!

FACT: the passenger lists were incomplete and foney...'

FACT: in this article we find...

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.

FACT: The Official story is a journey into a fairytale land, that makes no sense and makes up its own reasoning...

Edited by Zaus
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??

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

I take this desperate quibble as an admission of defeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Underneath the spray-on fireproofing? That would be a neat trick.

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.

You have still not answered my original question, which is "why did the penthouse have to come down a few seconds before the rest of the building?" All your answers so far would fit just as well to cutting the penthouse supports at the same time as the main collapse.

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Where did I concede anything? You frequently appeal to the authority of the tiny minority of engineers who have fallen for the "inside job" theories. I'm merely pointing out that their "authority" does not come from the actual authority of any engineering institution.

I joined this forum to discuss the Apollo hoax theory and came across the 9/11 threads. I've looked at all the evidence you and your fellow conspiracists have mentioned, and I don't see that any of it is in the least convincing. There is a saying in science - "the plural of anecdote is not data". When you find the data, let me know.

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.

If you haven't changed your theory then you should have no problem showing me any post of yours pre my linking to the seismic traces where you suggest that there should be a "calm point" after the top part of each tower has fallen through its own height.

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have still not answered my original question, which is "why did the penthouse have to come down a few seconds before the rest of the building?" All your answers so far would fit just as well to cutting the penthouse supports at the same time as the main collapse.

The question is flawed – the penthouse did not have to come down before the main collapse, it just happened that it did. In the controlled demolition theory this can be explained due to explosives and/or thermite charges at high levels, local to the penthouse. As can be seen in this diagram, columns are cut at both high and low levels: -

linked-image

The order of detonation shown above is not vital in causing collapse. In the controlled demolition hypothesis I give, there was likely weakening of the structure over time before thermite charges initiated the collapse. The point is that charges are located at the roof level, local to the WTC7 penthouse.

Flyingswan, in searching through the WTC7 thread for the above graphic, I chanced upon an interesting though depressing quote from yourself: -

The puffs coincide with my postulated internal collapse that occurs a few seconds earlier, marked by the penthouse falling and the seismic evidence.

After all your disparagement in this thread of me using the seismic data to support my hypothesis, it is apparent you have previously done exactly the same thing for your own theory. The double standards you employ really are absolutely appalling.

Where did I concede anything? You frequently appeal to the authority of the tiny minority of engineers who have fallen for the "inside job" theories. I'm merely pointing out that their "authority" does not come from the actual authority of any engineering institution.

I thought you said majority/minority votes are “immaterial”? If you wish to carry on with this track - I contend that the number of engineers who have thoroughly studied and fallen for the NIST ‘investigation’ are a fringe minority, far smaller than the group who have come out against the ‘official’ story. As you cannot provide details of as many engineers who support NIST’s work as those that oppose it, you concede by default that the point I make is correct. Remember, all I began with is that “hundreds of construction professionals” oppose the official theory, whereas you are the one that made up claims of “hundreds of thousands” in favour of the ‘official’ story that you now cannot support.

I've looked at all the evidence you and your fellow conspiracists have mentioned, and I don't see that any of it is in the least convincing. There is a saying in science - "the plural of anecdote is not data". When you find the data, let me know.

Although a large body of evidence has been presented that all indicates and is explained by controlled demolition, you have shown you would rather believe these findings are due to a multitude of contentious and coincidental occurrences. I have asked what evidence you would find acceptably indicative of a controlled demolition and it is apparent that short of blatant ‘in your face’ proof such as footage of agents actually placing demolition charges, boxes marked “high explosives” littered throughout the debris pile or perhaps a confession from the perpetrators themselves, nothing is good enough.

The controlled demolition of the WTC buildings and wider false flag operation on 9/11, to meet the purpose of creating a ‘War on Terror’, was necessarily carried out covertly. Covert by definition means to conceal or disguise. The blatant evidence you request, is by definition overt or unconcealed. The evidence you request as proof of a controlled demolition is the very evidence that a covert operation would specifically plan to conceal! It must then be the case that you believe false flag operations you do not already know about could never even in fact exist. How very naïve a mindset this is and what an utter godsend for the perpetrators of such covert operations.

If you haven't changed your theory then you should have no problem showing me any post of yours pre my linking to the seismic traces where you suggest that there should be a "calm point" after the top part of each tower has fallen through its own height.

There has been no “change” to my controlled demolition theory, though you can put the seismic data down as an “addition” to the supporting evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you being deliberately inconsistent?

Nope, but now that I understand your different interpretation of the phrase "origin time," I can see where my wording might be a bit confusing. I was writing about the start of the collapse in terms of the generated seismic signals. My precise statement was:

"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!"

The origin time of the seismic signal from the collapse of WTC-1 was 10:28:31. This is what I'm referring to as the "start of the collapse." I didn't mention anything about the visual timeline. By the way, now that I understand your belief that events were recorded prior to the acknowledged origin time + Rg propagation time, I'll withdraw my criticism that you're ignoring propagation time delay. I will, however, replace it with an equivalent claim that you're misinterpreting the meaning of "origin time." The end result is the same -- you're analyzing a part of the seismometer trace which falls before the time at which the experts say the primary Rg seismic signal arrived.

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.

Please point out a passage in the reports where the authors state they are focusing on one particular portion in the middle of the signal. Please show me in the reports we've been discussing where the phrase "origin time" or "time of origin" is used to indicate anything but the beginning of a seismic event. The USGS Earthquake Center defines origin time this way:

We indicate the date and time when the earthquake initiates rupture, which is known as the "origin" time. Note that large earthquakes can continue rupturing for many 10's of seconds.

Please tell me how the following quote can be interpreted to imply that the authors are writing about anything but the beginnings of the impact and collapse events as indicated by the initial arrivals of Rg waves:

Figure 1 shows seismic signals at Palisades, N.Y. (PAL) for the impacts and collapses, which are labeled by their arrival time order. Note that impact 1 and collapse 2 relate to the north tower, and impact 2 and collapse 1 apply to the south tower. Computed origin times and seismic magnitudes are listed in Figure 1. 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.

Also, please tell me what the "R" markings on this chart represent, if not the initial arrivals of R-waves for each of the four events:

linked-image

If the seismic signals for the two collapses actually began earlier, why haven't the zero times been adjusted to reflect this?

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.

Oh, please. What analysis did you do to come to that conclusion, or are you just good enough that you can identify waveforms on sight? Why didn't the authors of the papers we've been discussing ever mention these signals if they're so easy to recognize?

The only waves that could be faster than these are P and S waves which are not visible in the WTC readings.

Well, they're not visible except for the possible S-wave arrivals marked on the chart I posted above. Oh, and what about short-period L-waves? How have you ruled them out?

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.

Unless, of course, the truck is much closer to the seismometer than the collapsing building. Seismometers record nearby events just as well as they record distant events.

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:

I'm posting here because I specifically wanted to discuss your analysis of the seismic evidence. Since you're now saying that you agree with the experts that " the seismic data shows no direct or conclusive evidence of explosives," then I think we're all in agreement on that point and I'll let you continue on with your other arguments. By the way, I'll also agree with you that the seismic data doesn't rule out the presence of explosives, just as it doesn't rule out the presence of a UFO death beam attack or a swarm of invisible flying monkeys armed with hacksaws. It's never easy to prove a negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Think for one second... oh wait you cant...

Why?

Because if you understood that the Hearst company is a US weapons contractor...

and that the owners of the same company are heavily connected to the rest of the Elite(I.E. the rockefellers, bushes, etc...)

I mean really... the motive, means, and secrecy involved and you will still deny the truth?

You had better figure out who is lying to you quick, because i can assure you we are on the brink of a very dangerous world very soon.

Think global enslavement through high-tech means that was never released to the public...

Don't you know everything you see around you is obsolete compared to what the military(the secret military that is) are researching and developing?

http://www.ep.tc/howtospotajap/howto01.html

Can you say "propaganda?" Governments use it all the time to rally their citizens...

Oh yes... no such thing as "political correctness" there!!!

What should be understood was that when the Japanese were being round up and put in concentration camps this was the norm...

In fact,

EDIT:

here, cartoons are used in an over-obvious way to promote the idea...

Edited by Zaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ep.tc/howtospotajap/howto01.html

Can you say "propaganda?" Governments use it all the time to rally their citizens...

Oh yes... no such thing as "political correctness" there!!!

Hey, thank you for pointing me towards that. That looks entertaining, if a little confusingly laid out. There might be some entertainment value there.

In fact,

... in fact, what?? Where's he gone?

Zaus???!!!! ......

Maybe they've got him at last.

poor Zaus.

:cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zaus,

You put up links that cover a wide range of issues. I assume you completely agree with everything on these sites and understand all the subjects well. Now, let's talk about the air defense response that morning. This is a topic close to my heart, as it was my life pretty much my entire USAF career.

Questions for you..

Battle stations...what is this and what are the response requirements vs standard "alert" status?

What variables can alter scramble airborne times? Who "bites the bullet" for slow response?

What is a "canned" departure?

What is the max speed (roughly) for an Alpha load F16? F15?

How many armed fighters were available in the NE for NORAD to call on?

What is the standard "arm-up" time for a fighter called to alert?

Trick questions, some of them. Much of the info is classified for "capabilities" reasons. It bothers me when Monday morning amature quarterbacks second guess the response that morning, having nary a clue as to the structure, posture, and capabilities of the system. They quote max F-15 speeds, calculate distances, and question why the fighters couldn't get to "target" in xx minutes. It's a little more complicated than that, this wasn't some video game.

The response that morning was exactly what one would expect from a completely unexpected event faced by a "symbolic" air defense force. There weren't fighters sitting around all over armed to the gills. Nor pilots waiting for action. The Pentagon was no more protected from aerial attack than the liquor store down the street.

The 9/11 crowd is woefully ignorant on air defense, they seem to get most of their "knowledge" from movies, depicting flawless C3I and capabilities beyond reality. The real world just isn't that "neat".

I'd like some thoughts on this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is flawed – the penthouse did not have to come down before the main collapse, it just happened that it did. In the controlled demolition theory this can be explained due to explosives and/or thermite charges at high levels, local to the penthouse. As can be seen in this diagram, columns are cut at both high and low levels: -

The order of detonation shown above is not vital in causing collapse. In the controlled demolition hypothesis I give, there was likely weakening of the structure over time before thermite charges initiated the collapse. The point is that charges are located at the roof level, local to the WTC7 penthouse.

The order of demolition is important, because if you start at the top, particularly with a significant delay before the rest, you risk falling debris from the top of the building damaging the CD setup lower down before it can be detonated. Neither you nor turbonium have come up with any explanation for this several second delay.

Flyingswan, in searching through the WTC7 thread for the above graphic, I chanced upon an interesting though depressing quote from yourself: -

After all your disparagement in this thread of me using the seismic data to support my hypothesis, it is apparent you have previously done exactly the same thing for your own theory. The double standards you employ really are absolutely appalling.

The significant point about the seismic data for the WTC7 collapse is the long duration of the high-level signals compared with the traces for the towers. This is consistent with a period of hidden collapse of the internal structure before the visible collapse. There is no double standard because I was looking at the signal length, not picking out random variations in the data and putting significance on them that they do not have.

I thought you said majority/minority votes are “immaterial”? If you wish to carry on with this track - I contend that the number of engineers who have thoroughly studied and fallen for the NIST ‘investigation’ are a fringe minority, far smaller than the group who have come out against the ‘official’ story. As you cannot provide details of as many engineers who support NIST’s work as those that oppose it, you concede by default that the point I make is correct. Remember, all I began with is that “hundreds of construction professionals” oppose the official theory, whereas you are the one that made up claims of “hundreds of thousands” in favour of the ‘official’ story that you now cannot support.

As long as you refer to engineers supporting the conspiracy, the fact that they are a very small minority of their profession needs to be said. No way do they outnumber the supporters of the NIST theory, because the engineers who wrote the NIST report themselves number in the hundreds.

However, I have given you detailed technical reasons for dismissing their ideas, and this is the important thing.

Although a large body of evidence has been presented that all indicates and is explained by controlled demolition, you have shown you would rather believe these findings are due to a multitude of contentious and coincidental occurrences. I have asked what evidence you would find acceptably indicative of a controlled demolition and it is apparent that short of blatant ‘in your face’ proof such as footage of agents actually placing demolition charges, boxes marked “high explosives” littered throughout the debris pile or perhaps a confession from the perpetrators themselves, nothing is good enough.

Nothing is good enough because nothing is actually there. You may call it "contentious and coincidental occurrences", I call it easily explainable physical consequences of the impacts. Beyond these consequences you have nothing at all, no single piece of evidence that says "controlled demolition" unambiguously, so why should I believe your theory?

The controlled demolition of the WTC buildings and wider false flag operation on 9/11, to meet the purpose of creating a ‘War on Terror’, was necessarily carried out covertly. Covert by definition means to conceal or disguise. The blatant evidence you request, is by definition overt or unconcealed. The evidence you request as proof of a controlled demolition is the very evidence that a covert operation would specifically plan to conceal! It must then be the case that you believe false flag operations you do not already know about could never even in fact exist. How very naïve a mindset this is and what an utter godsend for the perpetrators of such covert operations.

Is that an admission that you have no evidence?

This raises the crucial question: how can you tell the difference between no evidence because no CD and no evidence because it was all covered up?

There has been no “change” to my controlled demolition theory, though you can put the seismic data down as an “addition” to the supporting evidence.

In other words, you could have interpreted the seismic evidence as favouring your theory whatever that evidence was, because you had made no prediction of what the seismic evidence should show. If your theory had no concept of "calm points" before you saw the seismic traces, why are "calm points" evidence for your theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think for one second... oh wait you cant...

Why?

Because if you understood that the Hearst company is a US weapons contractor...

and that the owners of the same company are heavily connected to the rest of the Elite(I.E. the rockefellers, bushes, etc...)

I mean really... the motive, means, and secrecy involved and you will still deny the truth?

You had better figure out who is lying to you quick, because i can assure you we are on the brink of a very dangerous world very soon.

Think global enslavement through high-tech means that was never released to the public...

Don't you know everything you see around you is obsolete compared to what the military(the secret military that is) are researching and developing?

http://www.ep.tc/howtospotajap/howto01.html

Can you say "propaganda?" Governments use it all the time to rally their citizens...

Oh yes... no such thing as "political correctness" there!!!

What should be understood was that when the Japanese were being round up and put in concentration camps this was the norm...

In fact,

EDIT:

here, cartoons are used in an over-obvious way to promote the idea...

Dude, seriously, put down whatever CT article your reading, take the foil off your head that you have on so THEY cannot read your thoughts and get out and have some fun. This is truely sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zaus,

You put up links that cover a wide range of issues. I assume you completely agree with everything on these sites and understand all the subjects well. Now, let's talk about the air defense response that morning. This is a topic close to my heart, as it was my life pretty much my entire USAF career.

Questions for you..

Battle stations...what is this and what are the response requirements vs standard "alert" status?

What variables can alter scramble airborne times? Who "bites the bullet" for slow response?

What is a "canned" departure?

What is the max speed (roughly) for an Alpha load F16? F15?

How many armed fighters were available in the NE for NORAD to call on?

What is the standard "arm-up" time for a fighter called to alert?

Trick questions, some of them. Much of the info is classified for "capabilities" reasons. It bothers me when Monday morning amature quarterbacks second guess the response that morning, having nary a clue as to the structure, posture, and capabilities of the system. They quote max F-15 speeds, calculate distances, and question why the fighters couldn't get to "target" in xx minutes. It's a little more complicated than that, this wasn't some video game.

The response that morning was exactly what one would expect from a completely unexpected event faced by a "symbolic" air defense force. There weren't fighters sitting around all over armed to the gills. Nor pilots waiting for action. The Pentagon was no more protected from aerial attack than the liquor store down the street.

The 9/11 crowd is woefully ignorant on air defense, they seem to get most of their "knowledge" from movies, depicting flawless C3I and capabilities beyond reality. The real world just isn't that "neat".

Mr. B...

You are of course absolutely correct.

But boy, I cringe at a challenge put to Zaus like this:

I'd like some thoughts on this...

I cringe because I imagine the "thoughts" that may follow!

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the seismic signals for the two collapses actually began earlier, why haven't the zero times been adjusted to reflect this?

As I said, the authors were simply focussing on the origin times of the largest signals where the debris impacts the ground, not the separate smaller signals of the collapses.

The readings indicative of the collapse beginning from t=6 onwards are on the approximate scale of those recorded during the airliner impacts. The timing of distinct changes in the readings coincide with observable events in the Tower collapses, ie the initial collapse movement, the moment the upper block falls through its height, the first debris reaching the ground and the main debris impacting the ground. The seismic readings from t=6 onwards are blatantly linked to the physical observations of the collapse.

Unless, of course, the truck is much closer to the seismometer than the collapsing building. Seismometers record nearby events just as well as they record distant events.

So let me get this straight… your theory is that as the WTC2 initial collapse movement occurred, a truck nearby to Palisades simultaneously caused ground vibrations and further, at precisely the time the WTC1 initial collapse movement occurred, a repeat happened with another truck. At approximately t=14 for WTC1 and t=12 for WTC2, the readings become distorted and this coincides with the times that the first debris reaches the ground for each collapse. I would say the more distorted reading is in direct relation to this debris but I suppose you believe it was actually these trucks skidding around corners or some such ridiculousness. Honestly, this is by far the most desperate excuse I have ever heard.

The collapse of WTC7 was also recorded by Palisades and even flyingswan agrees that the initial seismic activity begins with the penthouse collapse as he says, “The significant point about the seismic data for the WTC7 collapse is the long duration of the high-level signals compared with the traces for the towers. This is consistent with a period of hidden collapse of the internal structure before the visible collapse.” I would agree with this, yet you say the much larger energy of the Tower collapses were not recorded. :hmm:

Perhaps the WTC7 signal was a truck also? Oh and the airliner impact readings… they could be trucks too. When you have carried out as much research on the seismic readings as I have, by taking the time to correlate all of the seismic and video evidence, rather than reading one paper by Dr. Kim and erroneously extrapolating baseless claims from it, you will understand my analysis better.

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.

Oh, please. What analysis did you do to come to that conclusion, or are you just good enough that you can identify waveforms on sight? Why didn't the authors of the papers we've been discussing ever mention these signals if they're so easy to recognize?

The conclusion was drawn from studying the basic causes of each wave type and also in large part from reading all of the links you provided. I mean, oh please, whatever are you talking about? The authors do identify Rg waves and confirm what I said – “The signals at PAL from Collapse 2 and a small felt earthquake beneath the east side of Manhattan on January 17, 2001 are of comparable amplitude and ML (Fig. 4). The character of the two seismograms, however, is quite different. Clear P and S waves are seen only for the earthquake. The 7-km depth of the earthquake suppressed the excitation of short- period Rg, which is so prominent for the collapse.

I'm posting here because I specifically wanted to discuss your analysis of the seismic evidence. Since you're now saying that you agree with the experts that " the seismic data shows no direct or conclusive evidence of explosives," then I think we're all in agreement on that point and I'll let you continue on with your other arguments.

You have either missed or completely failed to grasp the point of my seismic analysis, which is centred on the anomalous collapse readings not a claim there are direct or obvious readings from explosives; I entered the Pericynthion ‘clinic’ with a broken leg and came out with my arm in cast – congratulations. Have you ever thought about applying for a job with Popular Mechanics? They like their strawmen too. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The collapse of WTC7 was also recorded by Palisades and even flyingswan agrees that the initial seismic activity begins with the penthouse collapse as he says, “The significant point about the seismic data for the WTC7 collapse is the long duration of the high-level signals compared with the traces for the towers. This is consistent with a period of hidden collapse of the internal structure before the visible collapse.” I would agree with this, yet you say the much larger energy of the Tower collapses were not recorded. :hmm:

I am not saying that a "penthouse collapse" alone gives a large seismic signal, I am saying that the penthouse collapse and the long duration of the seismic signal are both signs that there was a major internal collapse of the building before the visible collapse of the outer walls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not saying that a "penthouse collapse" alone gives a large seismic signal, I am saying that the penthouse collapse and the long duration of the seismic signal are both signs that there was a major internal collapse of the building before the visible collapse of the outer walls.

Yes, I understand what you are saying – the longer duration of the seismic signal for WTC7 is due to the longer period of collapse activity. I agree this longer duration is due to the penthouse collapse, or hidden collapse as you interpret it, occurring prior to the main building collapse. Basically put - longer period of collapse activity equals a longer duration of seismic signals.

Incidentally the discernable features of the WTC7 collapse, that is the penthouse fall, main collapse and debris reaching the ground, are as well defined in the seismic recording as are those of the Towers.

My point is though the duration of the WTC7 collapse was recorded and yet Pericynthion believes the much larger Tower collapses were somehow not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The order of demolition is important, because if you start at the top, particularly with a significant delay before the rest, you risk falling debris from the top of the building damaging the CD setup lower down before it can be detonated. Neither you nor turbonium have come up with any explanation for this several second delay.

And just how would the debris of an explosion at roof level, ever reach the controlled demolition setup at the basement level?

As long as you refer to engineers supporting the conspiracy, the fact that they are a very small minority of their profession needs to be said. No way do they outnumber the supporters of the NIST theory, because the engineers who wrote the NIST report themselves number in the hundreds.

It’s becoming quite a habit of yours to make claims you cannot backup. Can you list details even of these “hundreds” who had any significant input to the conclusions of NIST’s ‘investigation’, much less who actually “support” it? Take for instance NCSTAR1-6, which I would say, as it sets out the supposed collapse sequence, is perhaps one of the more obviously important papers of the ‘study’. Last I looked there were only two authors named. Even looking at the entire cast of NIST’s WTC investigation team reveals only 17 members.

Nothing is good enough because nothing is actually there. You may call it "contentious and coincidental occurrences", I call it easily explainable physical consequences of the impacts. Beyond these consequences you have nothing at all, no single piece of evidence that says "controlled demolition" unambiguously, so why should I believe your theory?

That is because you have an unfalsifiable theory – where evidence is clearly out of place in the official theory you invent a story.

For example, the molten flow from WTC2 prior to its collapse could not possibly look more like thermite if it tried… yet you invent a story about shorted batteries. Another example, the iron-rich spheres found in the WTC dust that can only have been formed in a molten state; evidence of temperatures higher than the fires could reach… you create the excuse that it was formed during construction over some 30 years ago. Yet another example, the high temperature steel corrosion indicative of an attack on the structural steelwork, reported by FEMA and stonewalled by NIST… you produce some idea about ‘baking in the ground’. And on and on...

... an individual contentious and coincidental invention for each when the single simple premise of controlled demolition explains the body of observations and findings in one go.

This raises the crucial question: how can you tell the difference between no evidence because no CD and no evidence because it was all covered up?

As stated, in a covert operation, unless something goes wrong, there is never going to be that direct, blatant, ‘in your face’, evidence you request. There will be ‘pointers’ or indirect evidence and it is the sheer quantity of such, that reveals the covert operation. An indicator taken on its own could perhaps be put down as a quirk or coincidence; there can be isolated anomalies in many situations. But excusing the dozens of strong indications that would point to a controlled demolition of the Towers, much less the literally hundreds that point to the wider 9/11 operation... no, there can be only so many coincidences and excuses before they become patterns and lies.

In other words, you could have interpreted the seismic evidence as favouring your theory whatever that evidence was, because you had made no prediction of what the seismic evidence should show. If your theory had no concept of "calm points" before you saw the seismic traces, why are "calm points" evidence for your theory?

The ‘calm points’ are not necessary to my theory. As I said a while back I did not expect or predict to find anything of interest in the seismic data. I thought the change between the steps of the demolition process I have laid out would be seamless. After viewing the evidence and noting it does in fact indicate the step change, I can add it as supportive evidence of my theory.

Rather than initially forming an opinion and then seeking evidence to support that prediction, I view the evidence first and following that, allow the conclusion to fall where it may – it’s called being ‘objective’ or ‘unbiased’. Prediction as validation of a theory can be equally as dangerous as useful. A prediction is in effect a conclusion drawn prior to viewing the evidence; a form of preconception that can blinker individuals, driving them on to a grand fallacy.

The NIST ‘investigation’ demonstrates a prediction at its worst, as it initially concludes the airliners and fire were the cause of collapse and strives on no matter what, flying pigs and all metaphorically speaking, to ‘prove’ the preconception is correct

So, is it really better for the hypothesis or the evidence to come first? I will leave you with a couple of quotes: -

“People mistakenly assume that their thinking is done by their head; it is actually done by the heart which first dictates the conclusion, then commands the head to provide the reasoning that will defend it.”

Anthony de Mello

“The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice.”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You put up links that cover a wide range of issues. I assume you completely agree with everything on these sites and understand all the subjects well. Now, let's talk about the air defense response that morning. This is a topic close to my heart, as it was my life pretty much my entire USAF career.

Hello mrbusdriver :) You asked for thoughts on the air defense issue on 9/11 and there are a few points that come to mind: -

  • Known military training exercises leading up to and on 9/11 caused some confusion in identifying the hijackings as real-world.

  • All four airliners failed to transmit the standard distress code, delaying confirmation of the hijackings.

  • Vice President Dick Cheney and “the orders still stand” controversy as the airliner approached the Pentagon, indicates a ‘standdown’ order in place. Note to all: please read the link in full before claiming this may have been a ‘shootdown’ order.

  • The lowest level that authority had to be obtained from for a shoot down was the Secretary of Defense, at the time Donald Rumsfeld. His response, or lack of, along with Bush and Cheney could have allowed the first three airliners to reach their targets, though in an address in 2004, Rumsfeld referred to the people who, “
    ”.

Anyhow, they are just some indications that there was ample opportunity for the perpetrators of the 9/11 false flag operation to influence air defenses. What I really wanted your opinion on, mrbusdriver, seeing as how you are ex-military, are the following quotes: -

“I'm an old interceptor pilot. I know the drill. I've done it. I know how long it takes. I know the rules. … Critics of the government story on 9/11 have said: ‘Well, they knew about this, and they did nothing’. That's not true. If our government had done nothing that day and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.”

Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)

“Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!”

Capt. Daniel Davis, former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director

“On hearing the military (NORAD/NEAD) excuses for no intercepts on 9/11/2001, I knew from personal experience that they were lying.”

Major Jon I. Fox, former U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot

“a matter that implies either

A. passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down of proper defense procedures that (if followed) would have led US air assets to a quick identification and confrontation of the passenger aircraft that impacted WTC 1 and WTC 2, or worse ...

B. active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East.”

Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret), former Army Intelligence Officer

“How could our national intelligence and defense operations be so inept that they could not communicate; that they could not scramble jets; that they could not take defensive action?”

Col. Ann Wright, U.S. Army (ret)

I am just wondering your thoughts on these former USAF/Army Officers who are just some amongst the 130+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials who criticise the official story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello mrbusdriver :) You asked for thoughts on the air defense issue on 9/11 and there are a few points that come to mind: -

  • Known military training exercises leading up to and on 9/11 caused some confusion in identifying the hijackings as real-world.

  • All four airliners failed to transmit the standard distress code, delaying confirmation of the hijackings.

  • Vice President Dick Cheney and “the orders still stand” controversy as the airliner approached the Pentagon, indicates a ‘standdown’ order in place. Note to all: please read the link in full before claiming this may have been a ‘shootdown’ order.

  • The lowest level that authority had to be obtained from for a shoot down was the Secretary of Defense, at the time Donald Rumsfeld. His response, or lack of, along with Bush and Cheney could have allowed the first three airliners to reach their targets, though in an address in 2004, Rumsfeld referred to the people who, “
    ”.

Anyhow, they are just some indications that there was ample opportunity for the perpetrators of the 9/11 false flag operation to influence air defenses. What I really wanted your opinion on, mrbusdriver, seeing as how you are ex-military, are the following quotes: -

“I'm an old interceptor pilot. I know the drill. I've done it. I know how long it takes. I know the rules. … Critics of the government story on 9/11 have said: ‘Well, they knew about this, and they did nothing’. That's not true. If our government had done nothing that day and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.”

Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret)

“Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!”

Capt. Daniel Davis, former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director

“On hearing the military (NORAD/NEAD) excuses for no intercepts on 9/11/2001, I knew from personal experience that they were lying.”

Major Jon I. Fox, former U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot

“a matter that implies either

A. passive participation by the Bush White House through a deliberate stand-down of proper defense procedures that (if followed) would have led US air assets to a quick identification and confrontation of the passenger aircraft that impacted WTC 1 and WTC 2, or worse ...

B. active execution of a plot by rogue elements of government, starting with the White House itself, in creating a spectacle of destruction that would lead the United States into an invasion of the Middle East.”

Capt. Eric H. May, U.S. Army (ret), former Army Intelligence Officer

“How could our national intelligence and defense operations be so inept that they could not communicate; that they could not scramble jets; that they could not take defensive action?”

Col. Ann Wright, U.S. Army (ret)

I am just wondering your thoughts on these former USAF/Army Officers who are just some amongst the 130+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials who criticise the official story.

The confusion, at the operations level, lasted maybe 10 seconds. The problem was a poor chain of command understanding between FAA and NORAD. Yes, there were LOAs in place to address this situation, and they were not followed by the FAA. Additionally, the procedure as published was onerous, going from controller, up his chain, to DOD upper command and down to the operational air defense facility. This was obviously a poor arrangement, particularly in a confusing situation. Nonetheless, the non-standard call from FAA to NORAD (initially to an obsolete NORAD base) put the Otis birds on battle stations, one step short of runway alert and launch. Mind you, no one at NORAD had received any official information, just a "we need some fighters or something" call. There was no target identified, no location, no mission. The question of "real world" or "exercise" was rapidly answered with the "not a test" answer, but still, NORAD had little information on what they were responding to. They were in "real world" mode at that point.

There was no intel on this event that would have prepared the operators for what was coming. The air defense capability in the northeast sector was symbolic...2 F-16s at Otis, 2 F-15s at Langley. That's all NORAD had in the region. There were no other armed fighters sitting around. They could not quickly order non-NORAD assets to arm up and fly. Now, with some intel, they could ramp that up significantly within several hours, including assuming OPCON of additional airframes, and forward deployment of assets to other bases. There was no intel.

The FAA lost the aircraft that hit the second tower about the time it made it's turn, after turning off the transponder. The system software also mucked up, while the controllers continued looking west, it was heading east. Misinformation was rampant, as no one was sure how many hijackings were going on, what flights, where they were, etc. Not a pretty show like is shown on TV. ATC, while controlling the hundreds of flights in their sector, had lost some.

There was confusion over the shootdown order, but this came very late in the game. There were no fighters anywhere near the lost flights. The SECDEF was out of position, without comms. Now, the NORAD brass talked of being able to take out flight 93 if needed, but I'll call that bad reconstruction and CYA maneuvering. The detailed reconstruction of the day's events show that NORAD was too late across the board. It wasn't a standdown, it was a hip pocket response to unprecedented events, with an unprepared and unresponsive C3 structure. They were out of position, with no tactical data.

The flights did not sqwk 7500, they evaded and tried to disappear. Confusion ensued. Bits of data came in pointing towards, and finally (after some time) confirming a hijacking. Still, the comms with NORAD were bad. Add to that the canned Langley launch to the Whiskey airspace over the ocean, no target for NORAD to aim at, spurious (mis)information, and you indeed end up with an "improvised" response.

The FAA was tring to follow just dots...no flight info. They lost tracking. They were guessing. And they passed this "bad dope" on to NORAD, who had little idea what they were going after, or where it was. They had no targets, nor ROE. The fighters were out of position, and to late getting where they needed to be. Not their fault.

I'm sure the former military folks quoted were quite competent in their fields. But the "fog of war" was in full swing that morning, and I can completely relate to the confusion in those couple of hours. They did their best with inadequare resources and informatiion. To call their efforts a criminal, immoral act is a damning accusation from top to bottom, not to be made lightly. Hell, I'm a private pilot, and that has exactly jack **** to do with what happened that morning. Whoopty-crap.

I really question these "experts" opinions, skilled as they were.. Perhaps the "old interceptor pilot" thought we still had 120 fighters stationed around the US, as we did a decade before 9/11. As for the "Chicago/Milwaulkee" air defense sector, that went away before the '70s...a very dated point of view, when we had literally hundreds of fighters poised to meet a Soviet bomber attack. There were 4 armed fighters ar NEADS disposal that morning. FOUR! Inadequate for the event, hell yeah. But that's how surprise attacks work. NORAD was in peacetime mode, and was certainly not postured for an internal airliner attack.

Finally, Bush had been in the seat for 9 months. That's a very short time to but together such an incredibly complex conspiracy. Was Bill in on it too?

Incidently, have you seen the Vanity Fair account of NORAD's response that morning? I read it, and listened to it...it was a bad day, they did their best. They did not "stand down".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidently, have you seen the Vanity Fair account of NORAD's response that morning? I read it, and listened to it...it was a bad day, they did their best. They did not "stand down".

vanity fair?? google - col donn de grand-pre

oh yeah and there are these facts--

NORAD Stand-Down

The Prevention of Interceptions of the Commandeered Planes

It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. 1 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. 2

There are several elements involved in domestic air defense. The air traffic control system continuously monitors air traffic and notifies NORAD of any deviations of any aircraft from their flight-paths or loss of radio contact. NORAD monitors air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. It has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble.

Routine interception procedures were not followed on September 11th, 2001.

Layered Failures

The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.

Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.

Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds.

Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases to scramble. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters.

Failures to Report

Comparing NORAD's timeline to reports from air traffic control reveals inexplicable delays in the times the FAA took to report deviating aircraft. The delays include an 18-minute delay in reporting Flight 11 and a 39-minute delay in reporting Flight 77. The delays are made all the more suspicious given that, in each case, the plane failed to respond to communications, was off-course, and had stopped emitting its IFF signal.

Failures to Scramble

No plausible explanation has been provided for failing to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion from bases within easy range to protect the September 11th targets. Fighters that were dispatched were scrambled from distant bases. Early in the attack, when Flight 11 had turned directly south toward New York City, it was obvious that New York City and the World Trade Center, and Washington D.C. would be likely targets. Yet fighters were not scrambled from the bases near the targets. They were only scrambled from distant bases. Moreover there were no redundant or backup scrambles.

New York City

Flight 11 had been flying south toward New York City from about 8:30 AM. Yet no interceptors were scrambled from nearby Atlantic City, or La Guardia, or from Langley, Virginia. Numerous other bases were not ordered to scramble fighters.

Washington D.C.

No interceptors were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to protect the capital, at least not before the Pentagon was hit. Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert, and is only 10 miles from the Pentagon.

Failures to Intercept

Even though the interceptors were not dispatched from the most logical bases, the ones that were scrambled still had adequate time to reach their assigned planes. Why didn't they? Because they were only flying at a small fraction of their top speed. That is the conclusion implicit in NORAD's timeline.

Otis to the WTC

The first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52, about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over. This was already eight minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, and just 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at: (153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph

That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph.

At 9:11 the F-15s finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was: 153/(9:11 - 8:52) = 483 mph

That is around 25.8% of their top speed.

Langley to the Pentagon

The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley AFB, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16s were flying at: 130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph

That is around 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph.

Andrews to the Pentagon

Andrews Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of the capital, is just over 10 miles from the Pentagon. One would have expected interceptors to be scrambled to protect the capital within a few minutes of the 8:15 loss of contact with Flight 11. Instead, no fighters from Andrews reached the Pentagon until 9:49, several minutes after the assault.

Failures to Redeploy

Fighters that were in the air when the attack started were not redeployed to intercept the deviating planes. When fighters scrambled to protect Manhattan arrived there too late, they were not redeployed to protect the capital even though they had plenty of time to reach it before the Pentagon was hit.

Long Island to Manhattan

Two F-15s flying off the coast of Long Island were not redeployed to Manhattan until after the second tower was hit. 3

WTC to the Pentagon

By the time the two F-15s from Otis reached Manhattan, the only jetliner still flying with its IFF transponder off had just made a 180-degree turn over southern Ohio and had been headed for Washington D.C. for 12 minutes. It was still 34 minutes before the Pentagon was hit. Had the fighters been sent to protect the capital, they could have traveled the approximately 300 miles in: 300 miles/1875 mph = 9.6 minutes They even could have made it to the capital in time to protect the Pentagon if they had continued to fly at only 500 mph.

Edited by Sunofone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said...

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.

I take this desperate quibble as an admission of defeat.

Perhaps it's asking too much of you to admit your argument has no merit. But you'd have been better off saying nothing at all, instead of spewing out this dreck.

A summary of posts for your argument, with relevant points in bold (and my replies in red)...

The Dec 2006 quote certainly questions the reality of the fireball, 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.

No, it doesn't. He said...

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

He clearly acknowledges that there was a fireball.

Read it again. He mentions the fireball only to question whether it was real.

No, he does not say the fireball wasn't real...

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

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"

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.

William Rodriguez | 08.18.06 - 12:20 am | #

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..."

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.

First point -

These are your repeated claims that he disputed the existence of a fireball (that he questioned whether the fireball was real)....

"questions the reality of the fireball"

"he also suggests that there was no fireball"

"He mentions the fireball only to question whether it was real"

"he is again now claiming that there was no fireball"

As I've told you many times - Rodriguez isn't questioning the existence of a fireball.

Your claim that he did - is false.

Second point -

It seems you consider "the fireball", and "the fireball theory", as being fully interchangeable. You said...

"The fireball is now "everybody's" theory, no longer his as he then questions it"

And most recently, you said...

"...disproves the fireball theory"

This is another mistake, flyingswan. As I've already told you...

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".

In other words, he is disputing a specific theory about the fireball - what created it, where it was, etc.

He is NOT disputing that there was a fireball. He is disputing a THEORY about the fireball.

I'll repeat my question: Do you understand the distinction?

You don't have an argument, and I hope you can finally get a grasp on that.

Edited by turbonium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, the authors were simply focussing on the origin times of the largest signals where the debris impacts the ground, not the separate smaller signals of the collapses.

Yes, I know that's what you said. I asked you to show me a place in the reports where the authors actually said that. You haven't yet done that.

The seismic readings from t=6 onwards are blatantly linked to the physical observations of the collapse.

If these seismic readings are so blatantly part of the collapse signal, then why don't the expert seismologists at Lamont-Doherty ever mention them? Surely those blatant signals would be worthy of at least a little attention in a refereed article titled "Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City," wouldn't they?

Here's a table prepared by Lamont-Doherty showing a "summary of seismic observations of the two impacts and the three collapses," taken from the top of this page.

linked-image

For the collapse of WTC-1, it shows an origin time of 10:28:31 with a signal duration of 8 seconds. Allowing for an Rg propagation delay of 17 seconds to PAL (34 km @ 2 km/s), those numbers cover this approximate portion (t=18 to t=26) of the seismometer trace you've been showing:

linked-image

Neither the listed origin time nor the signal duration is compatible with the squiggles you've been looking at beginning at t=6. If the identifiable Rg collapse signals actually began at t=6, then the signal duration would be much longer than the stated 8 seconds. I've posted other charts and quotes from the papers which support the same conclusion. The only explanation you've been able to come up with is that the experts are simply ignoring the early portion of the signal. What possible reason would they have for doing this?

For the record, I have no idea what those earlier oscillations represent. I do know that they are not part of the seismic signal identified by the Lamont-Doherty seismologists. If you want to claim that they're part of the same, larger amplitude signal that follows, then you need to show some real evidence to prove that (1) they're really seismic waves from the collapse and (2) that they're really time-correlated with the events in the video. All you've done so far is to assume that they MUST be seismic waves and to assume that the MUST have the same propagation delay as the signal identified by the experts because that's what you need to support your theory. That's not science. That's wishful thinking.

So let me get this straight… your theory is that as the WTC2 initial collapse movement occurred, a truck nearby to Palisades simultaneously caused ground vibrations and further, at precisely the time the WTC1 initial collapse movement occurred, a repeat happened with another truck.

Speaking of straw men ... :rolleyes: No, that's not my theory. I'm making no claims of my own about these signals because I just don't have the expertise to identify them. I simply asked how you ruled out possible noise sources as an explanation for your mystery signals and mentioned a truck as an example of a potential source.

When you have carried out as much research on the seismic readings as I have, by taking the time to correlate all of the seismic and video evidence, rather than reading one paper by Dr. Kim and erroneously extrapolating baseless claims from it, you will understand my analysis better.

Not that it really matters, but I actually read six papers by Dr. Kim while doing a bit of research on this subject before posting. I know that's pretty irrelevant when compared to watching a few YouTube videos, but it's the best I could manage.

The conclusion was drawn from studying the basic causes of each wave type and also in large part from reading all of the links you provided.

More handwaving. I'm asking you to tell me exactly what characteristics of those squiggles conclusively identifies them as short-period Rayleigh surface waves. I'll also point out that you reached your conclusion long before I posted those links, so you must have used some other rationale for your identification.

The authors do identify Rg waves and confirm what I said – “The signals at PAL from Collapse 2 and a small felt earthquake beneath the east side of Manhattan on January 17, 2001 are of comparable amplitude and ML (Fig. 4). The character of the two seismograms, however, is quite different. Clear P and S waves are seen only for the earthquake. The 7-km depth of the earthquake suppressed the excitation of short- period Rg, which is so prominent for the collapse.

Well, of course they identify Rg waves -- they just don't identify them as occurring during the time period you're looking at.

You have either missed or completely failed to grasp the point of my seismic analysis, which is centred on the anomalous collapse readings not a claim there are direct or obvious readings from explosives;

Did you write this?

The remainder of the collapse from the 10s mark leading up to the first debris reaching the ground shows increased activity. There are a series of well spaced spikes that I have marked out with red dots. It is this area that seems to be indicative of explosives used to continue the collapses after the thermite initiated fall of the upper block.

The same observations can be made of the WTC2 collapse, with initial activity of the upper block followed by nearly one second of calm before a series of larger spikes.

As well as confirming the near freefall collapse time of approximately 10-14 seconds, the above also fits with the demolition process I have previously stated: -

  1. Conventional explosives (witnessed by numerous firemen, workers and reporters) weakened the structure over time.
  2. Thermite/thermate charges (apparent from evidence presented by Professor S Jones and visible flowing from WTC2) initiated the collapse.
  3. Further conventional demolition charges (evident through explosive ‘squibs’ during collapse) removed remaining resistance from the structure resulting in a symmetrical, near freefall collapse.
It now appears I can add seismic evidence as supportive of the third step.

Perhaps my reading comprehension is slipping in my old age, but that sure sounds like a claim of "direct or obvious readings from explosives" to me.

I entered the Pericynthion ‘clinic’ with a broken leg and came out with my arm in cast – congratulations. Have you ever thought about applying for a job with Popular Mechanics? They like their strawmen too. :rolleyes:

Well, if you tell the admissions staff that you have a broken arm, but then decide while waiting that it's really your leg that's injured, don't blame the doctor if he wants to look at your arm when he begins his examination. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Underneath the spray-on fireproofing? That would be a neat trick.

Re-attached - as in replaced - any fireproofing which was removed during inspection.

You have still not answered my original question, which is "why did the penthouse have to come down a few seconds before the rest of the building?" All your answers so far would fit just as well to cutting the penthouse supports at the same time as the main collapse.

Not necessarily. Consider this CD....

Of particular concern were the post-tensioned, reinforced concrete support shafts which had been added after original construction at either end of the Villa Panamericana buildings. Acting like structural “bookends,” these shafts were designed to bolster the structures against high wind loads imposed by the tropical storm systems prevalent in the region. As these reinforcing shafts were extremely rigid, they could not be "telescoped" like other portions of the structures. CDI's design allowed the towers to separate from the main structures, and "lay out" in pre-determined fall areas, away from Villa Feminina and other adjacent structures. Of the 35 elevator shafts which acted as free-standing structures adjacent to the buildings, all but 5 were felled as planned. The remaining 5 could not be fully prepared for explosives operations due to safety concerns of Drillex as respects placing their workers over the open shaft of that specific style of elevator tower. The 5 elevator towers which stood were conventionally demolished following the implosion.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7

The WTC 7 east penthouse was also...

- reinforced

- added after original construction

- at either end (one end) of the building

So if the east penthouse was "extremely rigid", then it's also possible that it "could not be "telescoped" like other portions of the structure".

The only difference would be in the way it was demolished separately from the main structure.

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.