| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:17 am Post subject: |
 |
|
MM2 wrote:
| Quote: |
| And comments on the lack of seismic evidence for demolition? |
You asked this question in reference to Blanchard's paper, critiqued by Hoffman, here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
Did you read Hoffman's critique?
Hoffmans critique is in bold.
| Quote: |
The only scientifically legitimate way to ascertain if explosives were used is to crossreference the fundamental characteristics of an explosive detonation with independent ground vibration data recorded near Ground Zero on 9/11. Fortunately, several seismographs were recording ground vibration that morning, and perhaps more fortunately, all available data is consistent and paints a clear picture.
The eyewitness reports of the sights and sounds of explosions marking the onsets of each Tower's destruction are abundantly corroborated by the visual records of those events.
Blanchard does not support his assertion that demolition charges would necessarily generate detectable ground vibrations. His assertion contrasts with this description of the Alladin Hotel demolition:
But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust ... the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide.
www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1999/Apr-11-Sun-1999/news/10963838.html
Clearly, a demolition's seismic signature, like its other aspects, is a function of its design. Staggering the detonation of hundreds of charges over time would minimize explosives-induced ground vibrations, which would probably be eclipsed in any case by the relief of strain as tens of thousands of tons of mass of the Towers' upper sections were severed from their bases, and by the much larger vibrations caused by rubble hitting the ground.
Seismographs at Columbia University�s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, recorded the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. This data was later released to the public and currently appears on their website. Additionally, on 9/11 Protec field technicians were utilizing portable field seismographs to continuously record ground vibrations on several construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn for liability purposes. In all cases, these recordings indicate single vibration events when the buildings collapsed. At no point during 9/11 were independent or secondary vibration events documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.
This is false. Close examination of the seismographs form the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory shows that small signals start about ten seconds before the large signals.
The graphic on the right shows a 20-second excerpt from the seismograph that the observatory recorded for the South Tower's destruction. Note the onset of a signal well above baseline about one quarter of the way into the excerpt.
This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.
Blanchard's "compelling argument" combines an unsupported assertion (that charges would generate detectable seismic signals) with supposed evidence that the reader can't see (alleged seismic recordings possessed by Protec) while ignoring public evidence that arguably indicates explosives (seismic signals recorded at Palisades). Wrapping his hollow argument in the pretentious language of "detailed analysis" and the dictates of the "laws of physics" makes it no more compelling. |
Blanchards assertion #1-->demolition would cause independent seismic readings
However, he doesn't support this assertion. In contrast, Hoffman points out one example where a demolition in the past DID NOT show independent seismic readings for each blast.
Blanchards assertion #2-->Seismographs at Columbia University�s Lamont-Doherty Earth did not show any independent explosions.
Hoffman points out that this assertion is false. In fact if one looks closer:
| Quote: |
Close examination of the seismographs form the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory shows that small signals start about ten seconds before the large signals.
The graphic on the right shows a 20-second excerpt from the seismograph that the observatory recorded for the South Tower's destruction. Note the onset of a signal well above baseline about one quarter of the way into the excerpt. |
MM2, the science does not stand up for the official story. Beware of the straw men. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't someone already say that the failure of the upper portions of the towers was transmitted to the seismic sensors prior to the eventual collapse?
I'm tangled in knots over this rapidly ever-more-widely-spiralling web of misinformation. (  )
Can anyone concisely break it down for me? Because I have yet to hear the conspiracy theorists do anything other than try to whip up a crap storm where experts have tested to high heaven already, and couldn't apparently find any indication of governmental malfeasance. Gross negligence, I will give them, but out-and-out malfeasance? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
Didn't someone already say that the failure of the upper portions of the towers was transmitted to the seismic sensors prior to the eventual collapse?
I'm tangled in knots over this rapidly ever-more-widely-spiralling web of misinformation. ( )
Can anyone concisely break it down for me? Because I have yet to hear the conspiracy theorists do anything other than try to whip up a crap storm where experts have tested to high heaven already and couldn't find any indication of governmental malfeasance. Gross negligence, I will give them, but out-and-out malfeasance? |
You are very misinformed.
What would you like to know exactly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
Didn't someone already say that the failure of the upper portions of the towers was transmitted to the seismic sensors prior to the eventual collapse?
I'm tangled in knots over this rapidly ever-more-widely-spiralling web of misinformation. ( )
Can anyone concisely break it down for me? Because I have yet to hear the conspiracy theorists do anything other than try to whip up a crap storm where experts have tested to high heaven already and couldn't find any indication of governmental malfeasance. Gross negligence, I will give them, but out-and-out malfeasance? |
You are very misinformed.
What would you like to know exactly? |
I have the sneaking suspicion that you'll tell me whether I want to hear it or not. But since I asked for the Reader's Digest version (concisely), please bring it on.
Edit: Exactly, the main, and irrefutable points.
Last edited by caniff on Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:42 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
Didn't someone already say that the failure of the upper portions of the towers was transmitted to the seismic sensors prior to the eventual collapse?
I'm tangled in knots over this rapidly ever-more-widely-spiralling web of misinformation. ( )
Can anyone concisely break it down for me? Because I have yet to hear the conspiracy theorists do anything other than try to whip up a crap storm where experts have tested to high heaven already and couldn't find any indication of governmental malfeasance. Gross negligence, I will give them, but out-and-out malfeasance? |
You are very misinformed.
What would you like to know exactly? |
I have the sneaking suspicion that you'll tell me whether I want to hear it or not. But since I asked for the Reader's Digest version (concisely), please bring it on. |
This is an architect speaking at the university of manitoba.
He is presenting his hypothesis for controlled demolition.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will listen and get back to you.......
EDIT: I stopped at 2:05, because these seem to be people promoting what is apparently a burgeoning cottage industry.
I bet that guy has college students working in a sweatshop making bumper stickers, t-shirts, promoting his findings, etc.
Where's the beef? But I will, in the interest of debunking, sacrifice myself to further 'erudition'. The video continues.....
Last edited by caniff on Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| I will listen and get back to you....... |
sounds good! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
| I will listen and get back to you....... |
sounds good! |
Okay, more listening going on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
He comes off in his intro as a very self-aggrandizing speaker with a severe nasal drip.
I am at 3:01.......
Edit: My wife needs me. I'll get back to this tomorrow. Sorry for my lack of scholarly perseverance.
But you can bet dollars to donuts I will be back on this case at some point in the day tomorrow to fully investigate and get to the bottom ( ) of this matter.
Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
He comes off in his intro as a very self-aggrandizing speaker with a severe nasal drip.
I am at 3:01.......
Edit: My wife needs me. I'll get back to this tomorrow. Sorry for my lack of scholarly perseverance.
But you can bet dollars to donuts I will be back on this case at some point in the day tomorrow to fully investigate and get to the bottom ( ) of this matter.
Thank you. |
I'm glad you are looking into this with an open-mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
No, I know I am being sarcastic, but I just don't have time right now. I just gave my initial impressions to the video so far.
My wife is about to get out of the shower, so that is more important.
I'll watch the whole video tomorrow and then say what I think about it.
Have a good night, and I'll talk to you later. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here the most recent blog entry from Dr. Jones
| Quote: |
I wish you all a Merry Christmas season as well.
Interesting that much of the discussion above regards the presence of iron-aluminum spheres in the WTC dust. Particularly for the Delessio-Breidenbach sample collected less than 20 minutes after the collapse of the North Tower, contamination is highly unlikely. Contamination by clean-up operations (cutting of steel by torches, etc.) is strictly ruled out, since clean-up/steel cutting had not begun at that time, within an hour of the North Tower collapse.
Now comes the argument that perhaps effluent from a coal-burning plant somehow contaminated the sample with iron-aluminum-rich spheres. This is not a strong argument IMO, but I will refrain from detailed response until the claim is raised with more rationale than so far presented.
Beyond that, I'd like to point out that the presence of unreacted thermite in the WTC dust would be prima facie evidence that thermite was present during the WTC destruction. That's where this discussion started, and hence my invitation for scientists around the world to participate in this investigation of the composite red/gray chips which do indeed appear to be unreacted thermite.
I have a short video showing the response of a tiny chip being "ignited", [edit -- I have decided to hold that additional evidence for the present, except for several colleagues who are looking at it... ]
Again, the evidence I have presented needs further, independent quantitative corroboration... The needed research will be accelerated as other scientists join in the study. (The red/gray chips are quite abundant, and WTC dust samples are available.)Again, thank you for comments... let's stay focused...
And wishing to all a very happy Christmas season. I agree with LeftWright that, as was said by him whose birth we celebrate, "the truth shall set us free." |
that would be an interesting video to see.
so dr. jones is inviting any and all scientists to analyze this stuff.
i wonder who will be the first to peer review jones' claims and try to replicate his tests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I have a short video showing the response of a tiny chip being "ignited", [edit -- I have decided to hold that additional evidence for the present, except for several colleagues who are looking at it... ]
|
yikes red flag. He needs to present his evidence. Also I agree that going to the media first is a massive red flag also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Quote: |
I have a short video showing the response of a tiny chip being "ignited", [edit -- I have decided to hold that additional evidence for the present, except for several colleagues who are looking at it... ]
|
yikes red flag. He needs to present his evidence. Also I agree that going to the media first is a massive red flag also. |
| Quote: |
| "Red flag" is a semi-official term to denote various attention and awareness indicators and signals, both explicit and implicit. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_%28signal%29
You are using the term "red flag" to denote attention to the validity of Jones work.
Jones wants other scientists to test the validity of his findings ASAP.
Hopefully this "red flag" will speed up the process.
Jones' hope is that the "red flag" will speed up the validity checking process such that it precedes any further false flags.
Jones welcomes peer review from all scientists from anywhere in the world.
So start googling a response to his announcement and let me know if you find it before me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
