ok, heres a question for you, mr physics expert.

assuming each tower had the same potential energy, couldnt the manner in which they fell translate to a different seismic reading, even though they were expending the same amount of energy? are seismic readings really energy-measurements and so easily transferable? i didnt think so.

if one tower spewed more debris outwards, and the other took more debris down to its base/core, couldnt that translate into a different reading?

also, wouldnt .2 on the siesmograph be a relatively small different gizen the size and height of each tower?

edit: also, in that vid you posted, the time for each collapse was different by two seconds. is it possible that a building expending the same amount of energy but collapsing slightly slower would translate into different seismic readings? i mean, if one tower took an hour to collapse, i would assume the force would be greatly reduced?

these are honest questions, like ive admitted, im not a physics expert.

___________________

Last edited by pkcRAISTLIN on Oct-12-2006 at 07:47

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN how is the fact that one tower has a slightly different reading to another evidence of explosives?

The "slight difference" in reading is equivilant to a massive difference in potential energy (which is roughly equivilant to kinetic energy) as the seismic waves are on measured on a logrithmic scale. That implies a massive difference in the total energy of two virtually identical systems (almost double)! There shouldn't be any significant difference whatsoever if the pancake theory was the actual cause for collapse (almost a magnitude of 2 in this case). Explosions (resulting in added KE) could easily cause that.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN they put more tnt in one building than another? they wouldnt have wired the same exact towers in the same exact way?

That doesn't mean they all have to necessarily detonate, or that all of them will effectiely detonate. If you're planning on wiring a builiding with exposives and you can't take any risk of them going off without the desired result of a guaranteed collapse, wouldn't you wire it with far more than theoretically required to achieve that, or take your chances with the exact theoretical amount? And would you go throught the painstaking process of wiring each tower with exactly the same amount, somehow with a guarantee of all explosives effectily detonating? Even if all of them did effectively detonate, they won't all necessarily equally add on to the kinetic energy of the falling towers/debree. There doesn't need to be an even and equal distribution in additional KE from the explosives in the cases of both towers. For that to happen, there would need to be exactly the same number of explosives in each tower, in exactly the same spots, with and eactly equal collective total explosive power, every single one of them sucessfully going off at exactly the same moment in time-space in both collapses, and both towers collapsing in precisely the same manner down to the smallest bit of debree. Any variation of those factor could easily have a dramatic effect on the how much KE due to explosions would effectively be added to the KE of the collapsing tower, hence the total collective KE of the system, which would result in a proportional differnce in PE. It's next to impossible to control every one of those factors, nor is at all necessary to accomplish the desired goal of both towers collapsing.

EDIT: Another fact relevant to my argument, there was a huge chunk separate from the rest of the structure in the collapse for the second tower, which would result in different additional KE due to explosives added on to the KE of the collapse (a significant loss), in turn causing a noticable difference in PE, hence, the total system (as is evident by the seismic data).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN damned straight i have a very limited understanding of physics.

Yup, you do.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN of course this sounds rich coming from the guy that kept going on and on about the madrid fires

I never "went on and on" about the Madrid Fires, I mentioned it once (or a few times at most) and only as an example, perhaps the best, of a modern steel-framed high rise that burned for hours with severe fires engulfing large portions of the building, and it still didn't collapse. Neigther has any other prior to 9-11. But we're supposed to believe that far less severe fires burning for only a few minutes would generate enough heat to weaken the structure of a building far more structually sound, one specifically designed to be able to withstand at least one hit from a 707 will? It doesn't add up, it's an anomoly. If there were absoutely no supportive evidence for the controlled demolition theory, then it would make some sense to accept this anomoly as infact being having occured, and the only possibile explanation for the collapse. That is just isn't the case.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ive shot down plenty of your ideas before.

No you haven't, you've copy pasted material from websites on every single aspect of 9-11, material you have no way of validating or critically analyzing. You haven't presented a single idea or argument of your own, or even expressed it in your own words. That only indicates an inablity to argue it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and no, i cant explain the differences in seismic activity. however simply stating it was due to explosives certainly isnt enough.

There's tons of other evidence (that me and others have posted before) supportive of the controlled demolition theory. So the seismic data isn't being used in isolation as the sole evidence for an argument, but it's certainly very strong supporting evidence. That really has no explanation at all in the absense of an external energy source, which completely contradict the pancake thoery. Evidence contradicting theory? Hmmmm... in science that implies that the theory is bullshit! Evidence supporting theory on the other hand gives more validity to it.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you still havent provided any argument of what explosive was used, which you would logically need to do. but so far not one explosive has been plausibly presented. not one. as mentioned before, thermite certianly wasnt it.

No, you don't. That's question's irrelevant to the fact that explosives were used (assuming a controled demolition is indeed the case, which IS consistent with the seismic data, unlike the pancake thoery). I don't need to tell you what I specifically ate in order for you to believe that I took a shit, all you need to know is that I ate. What I ate has no impact on the fact that I took a shit. If there such a glaring disconnect (more like interchange) of an antacedent and a consequent in your logical framework, you don't have a "logical" framework for analysis or critique to being with.

So it looks like not only do you need a lesson in elementary physics, but also elemetray logic. Here it is:

A - antacedant
B - consequent

A -> B (read as A implies B)

T - means the predicate is true.
F - means the predicate is false.

The first two columbs (left land side, seperated by a '|') are all possible combinations for truth values of A and B.

The third columb (right hand side) is the truth value of the implication given the values for A and B in that row.

the truth table is as follows;

A B | A -> B

F F | T
F T | T
T F | F
T T | T

Let 'A' mean: The WTC collapsed due to controlled demolitions.

Let 'B' mean: We know exactly which explosives were/would be used.

Therefore A -> B reads as: The WTC collapsed due to controlled demolitions implies we know exactly which explosives were/would be used.

Now look at the statement and the truth table.

As you can see, A -> B is not a logically sound statement and the truth value of 'B' has no impact on the truth value of 'A.'

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN youre still grasping at desperate straws that still dont give you the smoking gun.

So a difference of almost twice in total energy of two virtually identical system is a straw? Right.

Now I'm going to be really annoyed if you simply copy paste something that doesn't address anything I've said, having taken the time and effort to actually form my own arguments (basing it on undisputed facts/scientific theory easily intelligible to anyone) as opposed to complex analysis by certain "experts," whose analysis is only meanigfully intelligle to/critiquable by other experts, that I don't have much reason to trust in the first place for an array of reasons I won't get into rightnow.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Last edited by shaolin_Z on Oct-12-2006 at 09:52

Show me a convicing statiscal comparison of steel-framed high rises that collasped on themselves and and one's that didn't where controlled demolitions were not the case, suggesting a likely probability of occurance in the case of the WTC.

EDIT: Perhaps then I'll take the pancake theory more seriously.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

Last edited by shaolin_Z on Oct-12-2006 at 10:23

Shaolin, i just started college physics couple months ago, and what you said does make sense. We'll be getting into that stuff later on ;-)

Good points on government fuck-ups and kinetic energy released by the two towers ;-)

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

its interesting you view your arrogant & condescending tone so very differently from my abusive posts

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z The "slight difference" in reading is equivilant to a massive difference in potential energy (which is roughly equivilant to kinetic energy) as the seismic waves are on measured on a logrithmic scale. That implies a massive difference in the total energy of two virtually identical systems (almost double)! There shouldn't be any significant difference whatsoever if the pancake theory was the actual cause for collapse (almost a magnitude of 2 in this case). Explosions (resulting in added KE) could easily cause that.

i disagree. i dont think you can equate a seismic reading with a definitive calculation for energy. if two identical buildings fall in slightly different ways the seismic reading should be different. the same energy dispersed in a different manner. or at least thats my laymen's understanding of it. you cant state that a different seismic reading necessarily equates to a different level of energy. the collapses of thousands of tonnes of steel & concrete could have been different enough to give the different readings.

if this evidence was so clear-cut, then i doubt its revelations would be ignored by the world's engineers.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z That doesn't mean they all have to necessarily detonate, or that all of them will effectiely detonate. If you're planning on wiring a builiding with exposives and you can't take any risk of them going off without the desired result of a guaranteed collapse, wouldn't you wire it with far more than theoretically required to achieve that, or take your chances with the exact theoretical amount? And would you go throught the painstaking process of wiring each tower with exactly the same amount, somehow with a guarantee of all explosives effectily detonating? Even if all of them did effectively detonate, they won't all necessarily equally add on to the kinetic energy of the falling towers/debree. There doesn't need to be an even and equal distribution in additional KE from the explosives in the cases of both towers. For that to happen, there would need to be exactly the same number of explosives in each tower, in exactly the same spots, with and eactly equal collective total explosive power, every single one of them sucessfully going off at exactly the same moment in time-space in both collapses, and both towers collapsing in precisely the same manner down to the smallest bit of debree. Any variation of those factor could easily have a dramatic effect on the how much KE due to explosions would effectively be added to the KE of the collapsing tower, hence the total collective KE of the system, which would result in a proportional differnce in PE. It's next to impossible to control every one of those factors, nor is at all necessary to accomplish the desired goal of both towers collapsing.

yeah, i agree. however, the significant difference in energy (according to you) makes it look like a significantly higher amount of explosives were discharged in one building when compared to the other, and if you were going to blow both towers im not sure you would get that anomaly. the explosive setups would be almost identical i would have thought, and carrying the detonations out would be also very similar.

either way, the different seismic readings still doesn't give you a helluva lot. you keep stating that the .2 difference is a lot, however in the sheer size of these buildings im not as convinced.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z EDIT: Another fact relevant to my argument, there was a huge chunk separate from the rest of the structure in the collapse for the second tower, which would result in different additional KE due to explosives added on to the KE of the collapse (a significant loss), in turn causing a noticable difference in PE, hence, the total system (as is evident by the seismic data).

but what would it mean if there werent explosives? wouldnt that chunk count for energy but not for seismic reading on the same scale??

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I never "went on and on" about the Madrid Fires, I mentioned it once (or a few times at most) and only as an example, perhaps the best, of a modern steel-framed high rise that burned for hours with severe fires engulfing large portions of the building, and it still didn't collapse. Neigther has any other prior to 9-11. But we're supposed to believe that far less severe fires burning for only a few minutes would generate enough heat to weaken the structure of a building far more structually sound, one specifically designed to be able to withstand at least one hit from a 707 will? It doesn't add up, it's an anomoly. If there were absoutely no supportive evidence for the controlled demolition theory, then it would make some sense to accept this anomoly as infact being having occured, and the only possibile explanation for the collapse. That is just isn't the case.

you mentioned it on several occasions from memory. and its a shitty comparison, as myself and colonel & occ showed you. you simply cant compare the two structures. its intellectually dishonest.

ive stated it before, the various factors that went into the collapses have never been seen before, so arguing that this was the first time isnt a real argument at all.

well, at the moment, this seismic anomaly is the only other supposed supporting evidence you have. and you havent answered my questions relating to whether slightly different collapses can result in slightly different seismic results? and im gonna keep saying "slightly" because given the size of the buidlings i still dont see it as a massive difference.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No you haven't, you've copy pasted material from websites on every single aspect of 9-11, material you have no way of validating or critically analyzing. You haven't presented a single idea or argument of your own, or even expressed it in your own words. That only indicates an inablity to argue it.

]

bullshit. i copy & pasted because im lazy & he has it all nicely laid out there and written much better than i could be bothered to do. and none of you ever responded to any of it. the only stuff im incapable of critically analysing would be the indepth scientific components, but this doesnt prevent me from understanding the principles. ie the structural design of the WTCs certainly cant be compared to the madrid building.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z There's tons of other evidence (that me and others have posted before) supportive of the controlled demolition theory. So the seismic data isn't being used in isolation as the sole evidence for an argument, but it's certainly very strong supporting evidence. That really has no explanation at all in the absense of an external energy source, which completely contradict the pancake thoery. Evidence contradicting theory? Hmmmm... in science that implies that the theory is bullshit! Evidence supporting theory on the other hand gives more validity to it.

what other evidence? you guys (and yes im gonna lump you all in the same category coz you use the same websites and make the same false claims) talked about supposed demolition squibs. of which there are none you talked about thermite, ignoring the sheer literage of thermite that would have been needed. show me some more evidence. coz ive read the same sites as you, and i havent been able to find it.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No, you don't. That's question's irrelevant to the fact that explosives were used (assuming a controled demolition is indeed the case, which IS consistent with the seismic data, unlike the pancake thoery). I don't need to tell you what I specifically ate in order for you to believe that I took a shit, all you need to know is that I ate. What I ate has no impact on the fact that I took a shit. If there such a glaring disconnect (more like interchange) of an antacedent and a consequent in your logical framework, you don't have a "logical" framework for analysis or critique to being with.

no its not irrelvant. explosives arent explosives. the type of explosive is an inherently important fact due to their differences. both in effect and in power & how they are ignited. thus, if you are going to point at the supposed seismic anomaly as an example of demolition, you must therefore have an idea of what explosives were used. if you cant postulate a theory for type & volume of explosive, youre not very credible. and, as yet, i havent seen a single position put forward other than the thermite one, which is just total bullshit.

no, i dont need to have evidence of what you ate to believe you took a shit. but whether or not you took a shit isnt the point. its whether the shit you took happened naturally or was there an artificially-induced bowel movement. to determine which was the case, what you ate is indeed central to the discussion. we're not debating that the towers fell, we're debating what caused it.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z So it looks like not only do you need a lesson in elementary physics, but also elemetray logic. Here it is:

i passed elementary logic when you were still in highschool you arrogant fuck, so you can suck my dick. would you like a refresher course in english?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Now look at the statement and the truth table. As you can see, A -> B is not a logically sound statement and the truth value of 'B' has no impact on the truth value of 'A.'

but thats not what i was saying i was arguing that IF you believe so strongly in demolition, AND you understand the different natures of explosives, THEN you should put forward an argument as to what the explosive in question was. there are many reasons why various explosives couldnt have been used. so im asking you, the believer, to think about the conditions of the buildings following the crashes, and give me a suggestion.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z So a difference of almost twice in total energy of two virtually identical system is a straw? Right.

again, youre making this link that i do not believe is valid. whilst the seismic data might suggest there was twice the amount of energy, it doesnt rule out that the different levels of "energy" occured due to slightly different collapses. and lets not forget this evidence comes straight from the tinfoil brigade, so forgive me if im not gonna take their word for what the .2 seismic difference means.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Now I'm going to be really annoyed if you simply copy paste something that doesn't address anything I've said, having taken the time and effort to actually form my own arguments (basing it on undisputed facts/scientific theory easily intelligible to anyone) as opposed to complex analysis by certain "experts," whose analysis is only meanigfully intelligle to/critiquable by other experts, that I don't have much reason to trust in the first place for an array of reasons I won't get into rightnow.

well i havent found anything specific on the seismic data to post yet but given how everything else you guys have raised has been nicely dealt with by the world's academia, this anomaly which you tied unproven assumptions to, is merely that- an anomaly.

well, if youre not going to trust the world's experts, from all kinds of schools and institutes, then i must wonder if youre just a little crazy im sorry, but theres no way the administration has gotten to all of them. thats just not plausible. anywayz, im sure i can continue this tomorrow at work.

___________________

well ill pm colonel crisp and see what his take is on the seismic stuff. coz im well out of my area of expertise

ooooh! magnetonium thinks it makes sense! more or less sense than diana's murder or roswell?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well ill pm colonel crisp and see what his take is on the seismic stuff. coz im well out of my area of expertise ooooh! magnetonium thinks it makes sense! more or less sense than diana's murder or roswell?

and another thing,,,, whats up with the orange text??
Need an extra boost in your presentation?

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX and another thing,,,, whats up with the orange text?? Need an extra boost in your presentation?

Maybe I just like my posts to stand out.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN well ill pm colonel crisp and see what his take is on the seismic stuff. coz im well out of my area of expertise ooooh! magnetonium thinks it makes sense! more or less sense than diana's murder or roswell?

You idiot ... the amount of energy released should have been similar, or proportionate to the time and speed of the collapse, because the buildings were the same and fell at the same speed. The only difference (in a factor of almost 2, btw), is if there was an artificial energy exerted on the falling structure to produce such a force. If there was no such force, the buildings should have produced similar force on the surface.

If a vehicle/truck/car crashes into a tree at 100 km/hr, based on its mass it was exert a certain force (F=ma). If the same vehicle was laid with explosive material crashed into the tree, the force would spike the readings (Fw=coefficient times mass times acceleration). Same mass, its the external energy force.

___________________
Whenever you go and buy something, you are affecting someone somewhere, be it environment, a person, or a community - you're making a statement with what you buy. So make it a smart choice ... Its a big picture

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Maybe I just like my posts to stand out. You idiot ...

Pssst... the one thing the guy from land down under is not,

much respect for pkcRAISTLIN, I have do I..

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium You idiot ... the amount of energy released should have been similar, or proportionate to the time and speed of the collapse, because the buildings were the same and fell at the same speed. The only difference (in a factor of almost 2, btw), is if there was an artificial energy exerted on the falling structure to produce such a force. If there was no such force, the buildings should have produced similar force on the surface.

but youre comparing different levels in a seismic reading, NOT different levels of energy. youre merely stating that the reading means there was twice the amount of energy in one building. i dont think you can make that assessment from seismic data alone. if you took each brick of a building and threw it down one by one, you wouldnt get anywhere near the same reading than if a building fell completely in one movement. according to that video shaolin posted, there was a 2 second difference in the times it took each tower to fall. if the same amount of energy is dissipated over a slightly longer period of time, then i would guess that the seismic reading would be different. again, its not my area of expertise but you guys havent answered my question.

the tower that exerted the 2.3 reading fell two seconds faster than the tower that gave the 2.1 reading.

oh, and im the idiot! UFO boy

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN also, you still havent argued why you believe you know better than the world's engineers.

You're very selective in which engineers you believe. There are 'experts' on both sides of the story here, but you're only believing the ones who you WANT to believe.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike Social outcasts are often of the opinion that they must have a drink before being able to loosen up with their inhibitions, thus being able to have a good time. There's a word that sums up this sort of behaviour, and that word is 'reject.'