Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im in australia. we're like 2-3 years behind the rest of the world ;)
Well you would have liked it ... not so much others ;)
shaolin_Z
pkcRAISTLIN
come on shaolin. you can do better than that cant you? :rolleyes:
thats not how demolitions work, sorry to break this to you.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
quote:
Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained...
The Palisades seismic record shows that — as the collapses began — a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses. http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm
This story uses the following chart to make its point.
quote:
And indeed, it does look like the spikes occur early on, but that's mostly because the chart is so compressed. If you look at the actual spikes for each collapse ( as recorded at http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html ) then the results are very different.
Here’s the first collapse, for instance...
THE SECOND-
quote:
The original story tells us that “the strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses”, but it doesn ‘t look that way here, does it? What we have, in both cases, is a noticeable build-up lasting a number of seconds, showing a gradual start to the collapse. The strongest jolts are not at the beginning; the claim is simply incorrect.
Do we have the qualifications to interpret these correctly, though? Nope, none whatsoever. Arthur Lerner-Lam, a seismologist at the University that recorded these readings does, though, and his statement to Popular Mechanics doesn’t leave much room for interpretation.
"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." http://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...html?page=5&c=y
Geophysicist Terry Wallace concurs.
"How can geologists catch a terrorist? With their instruments, explains Terry Wallace, a geophysicist at the University of Arizona. There are about 16,000 seismometers installed around the world, many of which offer data on freely accessible Web sites. Seismometers detect motion in the Earth, which can be triggered by an earthquake, or possibly explosions.
By learning how to read these signals, Wallace hopes scientists might catch on to suspicious activity.
"We can study these signals and begin to develop a portfolio of different kinds of signatures of explosions," says Wallace. "It will be like have a set of fingerprints."
Geophysicists have already contributed critical data to terrorist investigations. It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers — but only the impact of the airplanes and subsequent fires — that contributed to the towers' collapse on Sept. 11". http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/n...0527-secure.htm
Not much support for “bombs in the basement” here.
Assuming the pancake theory is indeed the correct explanasion for the collapse of the towers, there should be no significant difference between the total enery in both cases (and since KE = PE). So the laws physics don't apply and were magically suspended for a brief moment of time? Right... :rolleyes:. What was the source of that additional energy of pretty significant magnitude? Was somebody making pancakes for breakfast?
What a load of crap (the conveniently "unexplained" and "unkown" source of the seismic activity [EDIT: that perfectly coincides with the peaks for both collapses :rolleyes:]).
Groundhog Boy
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im in australia. we're like 2-3 years behind the rest of the world ;)
Search youtube tomorrow for south park and urinal or 1009 (the episode number), and you'll probably get it. In case you're looking for any old ones, it seems they're all on there from the looks of it.
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Assuming the pancake theory is indeed the correct explanasion for the collapse of the towers, there should be no significant difference between the total enery in both cases (and since KE = PE). So the laws physics don't apply and were magically suspended for a brief moment of time? Right... :rolleyes:. What was the source of that additional energy of pretty significant magnitude? Was somebody making pancakes for breakfast?
so what? the towers registered different recordings of seismic activity? you do know that each collapse is individual dont you? just because they both pancaked doesnt mean they would be exactly the same collapse.
you got nothing.
pkcRAISTLIN
the simple fact is shaolin, all this data has been examined by people from all over the world. yet you think these CTers are somehow able to see things the recognised experts havent? every single structural engineering firm or employee that i have ever read agrees with the official line. how you can so easily dismiss this actuality is beyond me. especially without any actual evidence, just conjecture and assumptions.
we might never know exactly what went down and how. thats the nature of disasters. but you're still no closer to disproving the substantial body of evidence from recognised experts in their field.
quote:
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."
More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse...
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
Home | Free Fall | WTC 7 | Sagging trusses | The Fire | Quotes | Osama Bin Laden | First time in history | Steven Jones
Massive Conspiracy | Zogby | Real Conspiracy | The Meeting | Explosions | Molten Steel | The Paper
shaolin_Z
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
so what? the towers registered different recordings of seismic activity?
Q: The laws of physics don't apply? A: So what? :eyespop:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
you do know that each collapse is individual dont you?
EXACTLY! That makes it even harder to write off.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
just because they both pancaked doesnt mean they would be exactly the same collapse.
They don't need collapse in the exact same manner. The fact is both towers were virtually identical and the total energy should have been virtually identical. Plus, the total energy in a system is conserved, and Kinetic energy is equal to potential energy. Do you even know a thing about physics?
K.E = (1/2)m(v^2) (this applies to moving object)
P.E = mgh (this applies to objects at rest)
There should have been NO significant difference between the total energy in both collapses and the seismic data shows a HUGE difference. What was the source of that external energy? Didn't you once claim/post in here that it would take a ridiculous amout of explosives to bring the towers down? Well, the seismic data is comletely consistent with that.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
you got nothing.
You got nothing, no explanasion for the source of massive additional energy, which is consistent with tons of explosives, which you youself posted about before. No wonder you believe all the horse you read on "debunking 9-11" sites. You don't even have an understanding of elemntary physics. And when someone points out the the laws of physics magically being suspended, your best response is "so what?" :eyespop: That also explains why you copy paste all of this crap.
EDIT: And this isn't stuff I had to google for, I remember elemtary physics from high school. Here's some more formulas off the top of my head just to rub it in v = u + at and v^2 = u^2 + 2ax
EDIT2: Clearly, the seismic data is completely inconsistent with the pancake theory and IS consistent with the controlled demolition theory.
EDIT3: Have any off you pancake theorist ever taken a physics course and formally studied physics? WHERE THE HELL DID THAT additional massive quantitiy of energy come from?!?!
shaolin_Z
Prior knowledge of attacks? FACT
Failure to take any action (let alone effective action or preventive measures)? FACT
Unusual change in chain of command and interference with standard NORAD protocols resulting in attack on pentagon that would never have happened if standard procedures were allowed to take place? FACT
Seismic data consistent with controlled demolition theory? FACT
Expansion of excecutive branch and tyrannical bills/law butchering constituionaly guaranteed protection from state and abuse of power? FACT
Clear abuse of power and convicted criminals appointed in key governmental positions? FACT
Illegal and unwarranted domestic spying on grassroots organizations, peace groups, and political advesaries? FACT
War based on blatant lies and deliberate manipulation of intelligence considered faulty by agencies in the first place and produced under pressure from executive branch? FACT
Feel free to add to the list guys.
EDIT: Some more additions to that list:
Illegal destruction and removal of forensic evidence from crime scene? FACT
Executive branch blocking independet investigation into 9-11 and 9-11 commission only being formed after families of victims pressuring the Government? FACT
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
They don't need collapse in the exact same manner. The fact is both towers were virtually identical and the total energy should have been virtually identical. Plus, the total energy in a system is conserved and Kinetic energy is equal to potential energy. Do you even know a thing about physics?
K.E = (1/2)m(v^2) (this applies to moving object)
P.E = mgh (this applies to objects at rest)
There should have been NO significant difference between the total energy in both collapses and the seismic data shows a HUGE difference. Where was the source of that external energy? Didn't you once claim/post in here that it would take a ridiculous amout of explosives to bring the towers down? Well, the seismic data indicates exactly that.
how is the fact that one tower has a slightly different reading to another evidence of explosives? they put more tnt in one building than another? :rolleyes: they wouldnt have wired the same exact towers in the same exact way?
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
You got nothing, no explanasion for the source of massive additional energy, which is consistent with tons of explosives, which you youself posted about before. No wonder you believe all the horse you read on "debunking 9-11" sites. You don't even have an understanding of elemntary physics. And when someone points out the the laws of physics magically being suspended, your best response is "so what?" :eyespop: That also explains why you copy paste all of this crap.
damned straight i have a very limited understanding of physics. of course this sounds rich coming from the guy that kept going on and on about the madrid fires :haha:
youre the one believing horse from websites. yeah, the entire investigation missed bombs but shaolin our ever-alert sleuth has cracked the code!
quote:
Originally posted by shaolin_Z
EDIT: And this isn't stuff I had to google for, I remember elemtary physics from high school. Here's some more formulas off the top of my head just to rub it in v = u + at and v^2 = u^2 + 2ax
EDIT2: Clearly, the seismic data is completely inconsistent with the pancake theory and IS consistent with the controlled demolition theory.
EDIT3: Have any off you pancake theorist ever taken a physics course and formally studied physics? WHERE THE HELL DID THAT additional massive quantitiy of energy come from?!?!
no, i dont have the answers for you. but im more than happy to admit that i dont. ive shot down plenty of your ideas before. im not an un-ending wealth of knowledge you know. and no, i cant explain the differences in seismic activity. however simply stating it was due to explosives certainly isnt enough.
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.
so, instead of doing your regular routine of pointing in 1000 directions at once and ignoring the world's structural experts, present me with an explosive that hasnt already been discredited.
id like to know what colonel crisp has to say on the matter.
so, yeah you got me! :haha: i cant explain the .2 change is seismic activity between the towers. mustve been explosives for sure! perhaps the fires reduced some of the potential energy in one tower more than the other. ed if i know, but youre still grasping at desperate straws that still dont give you the smoking gun.
