| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:53 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html
WTC collapse. Shows up. No explosion before, tho. |
Hoffman writes:
| Quote: |
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. |
Follow the link you gave me to view the graphic he refers to.
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
In both links (Hoffman's critque and the columbia website) small readings are seen just before the large prolonged readings (actual collapse).
Is it unusual that the readings are smaller than the actual collapse?
Hoffman writes:
| Quote: |
| 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. |
So basically,
#1. Seismic events are recorded just before collapse, but are much smaller.
#2. Demolitions can be engineered. Thus it isn't unusual that seismic readings can be controlled. Thus it isn't unusual to see pre collapse seismic readings that are smaller in size than the actual collapse.
Demolitions are engineered. Thus seismic readings can be affected by certain engineering techniques.
Hoffman writes:
| Quote: |
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 |
________________
In conclusion,
Seismic readings show up, but are not as big as the actual collapse.
Smaller seismic readings for pre-collapse explosions are not out of the range of engineering limits for demolition. Hoffman provides at least one example of this reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And about "red flags":
http://youtube.com/watch?v=A0wHeekgPqk
The official hyopthesis was born minutes after the collapse.
Who is this guy?
Why is he so calm?
How did he SEE BOTH towers collapse?
How does he know the building collapsed because of the heat?
Isn't this a little unusual?
_______________
As I pointed out before, Jones is creating a "red flag" in attempts to speed up the scientific process.
All scientists are welcome. WTC dust is available.
So who is gonna be first?
Eagerly wating..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
#1. Seismic events are recorded just before collapse, but are much smaller.
#2. Demolitions can be engineered. Thus it isn't unusual that seismic readings can be controlled. Thus it isn't unusual to see pre collapse seismic readings that are smaller in size than the actual collapse.
Demolitions are engineered. Thus seismic readings can be affected by certain engineering techniques. |
Any demolition experts back up this claim?
| Quote: |
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 |
The Aladdin hotel might not have needed as large amounts of explosives.
| Quote: |
| Ruben Vasquez, president of the Nevada division of LVI, said the Aladdin demolition was made easier because "the building itself was very poorly built." |
http://www.lasvegassun.com/dossier/events/aladdin/implosion.html
Seems to me the amount of explosives you need to bring down 2 110 story buildings designed to withstand 200 mph hurricanes and a 707 hit is a different animal from a 17 floor house of cards.
Consider, the shuttle reentry registers on seismographic instruments.
The Oklahoma City bombing registered:
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eosholzer.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
| Quote: |
FACT: "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 report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.
On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear � misleadingly � as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves � blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower � start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.
|
No weird the seismographs pick up the plane strike but not the explosion. Now maybe you believe you can simply engineer explosives that send their energy into the supports but do not transfer them into the ground, but I'd like to see a demolitions expert that says such demolitions are possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
MM2,
If you source PM you are only going to get into trouble. It is politically driven and very debunkable.
With that said, I've already directed you to one source, provided by Hoffman, that demonstrates demolition doesn't always show up on seismic readings.
The smaller spikes can be interpreted as pre-collapse explosions under the alternative hypothesis. The seismic readings do not reject the hypothesis.
NIST claims that the seismic spikes are the result of debris hitting the ground. Thus it is very debatable as to what exactly caused certain seismic spikes.
______________
Proponents of the alternative theory would of course believe all seismic readings were explosives.
Opponents of the alternative theory would of course believe the seismic readings were all gravity driven collapse events.
I think both claims are equally logical under each hypothesis.
It would be better to focus on observations that aren�t explainable under one of the hypotheses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
MM2,
If you source PM you are only going to get into trouble. It is politically driven and very debunkable. |
I don't agree with your assessment of PM.
| Quote: |
| W[ith that said, I've already directed you to one source, provided by Hoffman, that demonstrates demolition doesn't always show up on seismic readings. |
As I've suggested, it's a poor example. Comparing a 12 story hotel to a 100+ floor building. One requires a lot more explosives.
| Quote: |
| The smaller spikes can be interpreted as pre-collapse explosions under the alternative hypothesis. The seismic readings do not reject the hypothesis. |
Not according to the experts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="mindmetoo"]
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The smaller spikes can be interpreted as pre-collapse explosions under the alternative hypothesis. The seismic readings do not reject the hypothesis. |
Not according to the experts. |
If one accepts that the buildings were brought down by demolition, then seismic spikes would be due to explosives.
Thus small seismic spikes before large seismic spikes would be due to explosions and not just debris hitting the ground.
Remember, seismic spikes are measures vibrations only. What causes those vibrations is up for interpretation.
The seismic spikes are plausible under both hypotheses.
Logic dictates this.
Your appeal to authority is not needed MM2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
And about "red flags":
http://youtube.com/watch?v=A0wHeekgPqk
The official hyopthesis was born minutes after the collapse.
Who is this guy?
Why is he so calm?
How did he SEE BOTH towers collapse?
How does he know the building collapsed because of the heat?
Isn't this a little unusual? |
It reminds me of right after the JFK assassination. The description of Oswald was being broadcast in Australia before he was even named as a suspect!
Then as son as he was named in American media, we had his entire life story in the newspaper. Case solved and closed!
The more things change, ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
And about "red flags":
http://youtube.com/watch?v=A0wHeekgPqk
The official hyopthesis was born minutes after the collapse.
Who is this guy?
Why is he so calm?
How did he SEE BOTH towers collapse?
How does he know the building collapsed because of the heat?
Isn't this a little unusual? |
Have you seen that clip anywhere but on YouTube? During most of the dialogue in question, the camera isn't even showing his face. (Such as for example when he says that he saw both buildings collapse.) And even when the camera is on his face, I have a difficult time seeing if his lips match what he's saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
And I love the sartorial commentary on the YouTube boards...
| Quote: |
| The Harley shirt was to create the impression in the minds of viewers that he was just an average guy on the street. |
So the fact that he was dressed like a million other people dress every day is proof of a conspiracy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
And I love the sartorial commentary on the YouTube boards...
| Quote: |
| The Harley shirt was to create the impression in the minds of viewers that he was just an average guy on the street. |
So the fact that he was dressed like a million other people dress every day is proof of a conspiracy? |
it isn't proof of anyting.
it is just strange that he knew what caused the buildings to collapse minutes after the event while most engineers were still scratching their heads.
| Quote: |
| The collapse of the World Trade Center came as a surprise to engineers. "Before 9/11," wrote the New Civil Engineer, "it had been genuinely inconceivable that structures of such magnitude could succumb to this fate."[36] While the initial damage from the airplanes was severe, it was localized to a few floors of each tower. The challenge for engineers was to explain how local damage could result in the complete progressive collapse of three of the biggest buildings in the world.[26] Interviewed by the BBC in October 2001, the British architect Bob Halvorson correctly predicted that there would be "a debate about whether or not the World Trade Center Towers should have collapsed in the way that they did." The autopsy would involve careful analysis of the plans of the WTC, its construction, eye witness testimony, video of the collapses, and examination of the wreckage. Emphasizing the difficulty of the task, Halvorson said that the collapses were "well beyond realistic experience."[37] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wtc_collapse
| Quote: |
| The collapse of the World Trade Center was a surprise to many structural engineers.[60] No steel-framed skyscraper had ever before or since collapsed due to fire or other local damage, yet it occurred three times on September 11, 2001. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="loose_ends"]
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The smaller spikes can be interpreted as pre-collapse explosions under the alternative hypothesis. The seismic readings do not reject the hypothesis. |
Not according to the experts. |
If one accepts that the buildings were brought down by demolition, then seismic spikes would be due to explosives.
Thus small seismic spikes before large seismic spikes would be due to explosions and not just debris hitting the ground.
Remember, seismic spikes are measures vibrations only. What causes those vibrations is up for interpretation.
The seismic spikes are plausible under both hypotheses.
Logic dictates this.
Your appeal to authority is not needed MM2. |
How do you or I interpret seismic print outs? An appeal to authority seems to me be proper. Someone says "see these spikes are explosions". An expert says "no, it's debris hitting the ground."
Also what are you trying to argue? The hotel case and the "you can engineer explosives" line seems to be saying "there might not be any spikes" and now you're also arguing "there are spikes tell tale of explosives".
Which one? Because the quoted seismic expert says they're not tell tale of explosives. Is he not qualified to make that statement? Well, have any qualified experts in interpreting seismic looked at the print outs and said "yep, tell tale of explosives"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="mindmetoo"]
| loose_ends wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The smaller spikes can be interpreted as pre-collapse explosions under the alternative hypothesis. The seismic readings do not reject the hypothesis. |
Not according to the experts. |
If one accepts that the buildings were brought down by demolition, then seismic spikes would be due to explosives.
Thus small seismic spikes before large seismic spikes would be due to explosions and not just debris hitting the ground.
Remember, seismic spikes are measures vibrations only. What causes those vibrations is up for interpretation.
The seismic spikes are plausible under both hypotheses.
Logic dictates this.
Your appeal to authority is not needed MM2. |
How do you or I interpret seismic print outs? An appeal to authority seems to me be proper. Someone says "see these spikes are explosions". An expert says "no, it's debris hitting the ground."
Also what are you trying to argue? The hotel case and the "you can engineer explosives" line seems to be saying "there might not be any spikes" and now you're also arguing "there are spikes tell tale of explosives".
Which one? Because the quoted seismic expert says they're not tell tale of explosives. Is he not qualified to make that statement? Well, have any qualified experts in interpreting seismic looked at the print outs and said "yep, tell tale of explosives"? |
The experts are saying that the seismic readings do not show anything unusual. That means the seismic readings do match the official story. Seismic spikes = falling debris. That is one explanation.
This does not automatically mean the seismic spikes are impossible under the alternative hypothesis.
Seismic spikes exist and thus can represent either falling debris or explosives.
Thus seismic spikes are not unusual for either hypothesis. Falling debris causes vibrations and so do explosives.
At any rate, I can show you a video with very clear demolition charges just before collapse initiation.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e2_1195549390
-go to the 3:42 mark. watch the upper part of the building above the impact zone. around 3:45 you will see 4 or 5 explosions coming from the top part of the building just before it begins to collapse.
-watch it 3 or 4 times and you will clearly see the explosions just before collapse begins. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
Thus seismic spikes are not unusual for either hypothesis. Falling debris causes vibrations and so do explosives.
|
Let me ask you again, aside from your opinion, is it the opinion of any seismic expert (who I'm quite certain see everything from explosions to sonic booms in these things) find anything consistent with explosives needed to take down two of the largest buildings in the world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
Thus seismic spikes are not unusual for either hypothesis. Falling debris causes vibrations and so do explosives.
|
Let me ask you again, aside from your opinion, is it the opinion of any seismic expert (who I'm quite certain see everything from explosions to sonic booms in these things) find anything consistent with explosives needed to take down two of the largest buildings in the world? |
I will find you a seismic expert that supports the alternative theory.
Did you watch the video I posted. Did you see the pre-collapse explosions above the point of impact? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harpeau
Joined: 01 Feb 2003
Location: Coquitlam, BC
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wonder if anything will be done about it? C'est dommage! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
