|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 57)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
So in conclusion, impulse still doesn't adaquetly account a such large variation in magnitude (2 times greater). |
ok maybe this will help.
the manner in which richter values are calcualted are not infact energy based. it is scaled off of a nomograph with outer scales in amplitude and distance from epicenter.
now i can assure you i hate nomograms more than most as they have been the back bone from euler buckling load calculations and flexuarl pavement design systems for years. nothing more humbling that being resorted to using a ruler for "advanced" calculations after a 5 year tenure at university lol
the seismic readings were taken from about 21 miles from ground zero correct? using my lazy converter of 2 that makes aprox 42 Km from the epicenter. at this distance a very small change in amplitude correlates to a change in richter values to the magnitude of a couple of tenths.
what could have caused an amplitude difference in the degree of a tenth of a milimeter, impulse could explain it. if a large mass (such as the collapse of the building) were to at some stage during the collapse, strike the load bearing structure in a way that it ridgidly transmits the load directly to the ground, you could impart a significantly large pressure wave to send a seismometer off the charts...
the reason i dont buy the explosive theory for causing the spike in collapse energy is that a bomb detonated above ground level wouldnt even phase a seismometer especially from 21 miles away.
the origional WTC truck bombing didnt even register on the seismometers if i remember correctly.
so a bomb detonated 100 stories in the air wouldnt even make a twitch on a seismograph
from personal experience being a bit of a hick growing up as a kid. i used to use 1/4 sticks of TNT to get rid of big rocks in the field on my farm. mainly out of boredom beacuse any idiot can use a tractor to move them. even a 1/4 stick shoved under a rock in a field wont create a tremor in the ground, ya its loud as hell but you cant feel it in your feet. while a subterranean blast feels like an earth quake. i was at a quarry here in ottawa a couple weeks ago, i was 3 miles from the blast site (they were blasting the face so they had more rock to crush) that blast only had 6 bore holes and the face was only 3o feet tall and goddamn i almost fell over it shook the ground so hard.
before i get too ahead of myself i want to double check what scale the numbers 2.1 and 2.3 were quoted in, because richter and moment magnitude are two completely different scales |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
no, its intellectually dishonest to compare two completely different structures when its been illustrated time and time again that they are different and incomparable.
"selective"?? the world's engineers are a selective group of experts? wow, id like to know what constitutes a substantial body of experts by your way of thinking.
no, but i am unqualified to debate that. ill leave that up to people like colonel.
link
link |
no offence but this guys calculations are about as trust worthy as an american fighter pilot flying over friendlys..... (ooohhh sorry about the burn, but im a proud canuk)
you cant use a 450 000 tons divide by two technique for kinetic energy generated by a collapsing building.
the only reasonable approximation that you can calculate would be by using an iterative incremental method. and since his analysis wasnt 123542334 pages long, i dont buy it. to be quite honest, his numbers are most likely far short of any real approximation. i dont think any of the estimates out there are close to the real thing because most people who have any sort of a life wouldnt have the time to model that building in matlab and then subdivide it into about 10 milion layers and then calculate the energy generated by the falling mass of each layer....... i had to do it for a monolithic 10m tall concrete cylander and it took me two hours to get the right answer. there are only a few people in teh academic community who could write an algorithm to accuratly calculate the total net energy of each collapse. and for that oyu would need a cluster array to calculate it. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
:stongue: More of "your" copy paste "arguments" and zero independent analysis. Wow, with your debating skills, you could blow anyone out of the water :eek: :nervous:.
I think it's best if I ignore your posts regarding 9-11 from now on (unless it becomes unbearable). You're clearly incapabile of holding your own ground and have no interest making any effort on your own (short of the painstaking effort required to google and paste material). I'm sick of wasting my time, especially since you cuss me out when you have trouble googling for "your" response. Have fun pretending someone else's "infallible expert analysis" is your own :rolleyes:.
I suppose I could easily do the same, but that wouldn't be my arguments, and neigther am I interested in sinking to your level of verbal abuse. If that's what your idea of a debate is, you could easily make your own thread (or you could do this here, doesn't really bother me one way or another), fill it up with copy paste material from eigther side, and mix it up with whatever amount foul language floats your boat. Don't forget to ask for help when you really piss yourself off :tongue2.
EDIT: Post directed @ PKC, not colonelcrisp. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
does anyone know wether the palisaides seismic readings were in richter scale or moment magnitude? this would make a significant difference
as richter scale being a manual graphic method has alot of internal error sources. moment magnitude method was addopted in 1979 and is an equation based scale that is farmore accurate
if they infact used the richter scale which from my quick reaserch they did, then graphical error might very well have caused the difference in values |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
^^ You could try googling for when they were installed, and making an educated guess based on that. Not that it's terribly scientific, especially considering the degree of precison with which you're trying to recreate a virtual model.
EDIT: What exactly would the implications be (as far as strengthening eighter theory goes)? |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
might i again quickly point out that i dont know that the gov't wasnt involved in the 911 fiasco or not, frankly i could care less, the american gov is ed in the head either way. my only arguments are with the controlled demolition / thermite / laser weaponry theories of building collapse... and yes there is a laser weapon theory now too.
the coalition for 911 truth should stick with what they know, political conspiracy, and leave the structural analysis to us engineers. they even discredited the ASCE (american society for civil engineering) report.....
all engineers take an oath, or obligation, in canada its more of a formal affair than in the states but, this oath outlines the duties of the engineer, our primary duty is to the public at all costs. engineers can lose their liscenece if they are found in breach of public trust. we take this oath very seriously
in canada we have the iron ring, which is made from the steel left over from the quebec bridge disaster back in the late 1800's. engineering oversight led to the death of 79 bridge workers. after the accident, the camp of the 12 wardens (12 members of the engineering council of canada also konwn as the CSCE at taht time) performed an inquiry and found the engineers to be negligent in the design of what was at the time the largest cantilevered span bridge in teh world.
then in 1922 the members of the engineering governing body of that time wrote to rudyard kippling in england to create "the ritual of the calling of an engineer" this is where the iron ring was born. each graduating engineer in canada takes part in this secret ceremony (even i dont know what happens yet, 4 months left and i will) and they recieve their iron ring as a symbol of their oath.
it is for this reason i have the utmost faith in the studies done by teh engineering bodies in both the US and Canada over the structural failure of the two towers. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
:stongue: More of "your" copy paste "arguments" and zero independent analysis. Wow, with your debating skills, you could blow anyone out of the water :eek: :nervous:. |
actually, that was more a tongue-in-cheek response to your jones' article. you know damned well i cant take jones on. im not a physicist. i actually thought my response was what you were expecting?
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I think it's best if I ignore your posts regarding 9-11 from now on (unless it becomes unbearable). You're clearly incapabile of holding your own ground and have no interest making any effort on your own (short of the painstaking effort required to google and paste material). I'm sick of wasting my time, especially since you cuss me out when you have trouble googling for "your" response. Have fun pretending someone else's "infallible expert analysis" is your own :rolleyes:. |
like i care. so what youre saying is you can quote anyone you like but i cant? whats the difference between your cut n paste and my own? hypocrite. i could have just noted that jones' paper hasnt received peer review from anyone, but you ignore that fact over and over again.
so, whats your point? pkc cant disprove jones? well you dont say! well done. so what exactly are you trying to achieve? posting information you know im not qualified to assess isnt going to convince me of anything, especially given what the world's engineering faculty has to say about jones' research.
one NON-expert versus dozens of experts :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I suppose I could easily do the same, but that wouldn't be my arguments, and neigther am I interested in sinking to your level of verbal abuse. |
you dont say?!
and, please highlight which part of my last post was the least bit abusive??
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
If that's what your idea of a debate is, you could easily make your own thread (or you could do this here, doesn't really bother me one way or another), fill it up with copy paste material from eigther side, and mix it up with whatever amount foul language floats your boat. Don't forget to ask for help when you really piss yourself off :tongue2. |
oh no. poor shaolin doesnt like foul language. which of course didnt exist in my last post. but its ok to be arrogant and condescending isnt it mate? :rolleyes: in our most recent arguments i was more than civil until your arrogance got the better of you. dont blame me sunshine.
| quote: |
the only reasonable approximation that you can calculate would be by using an iterative incremental method. and since his analysis wasnt 123542334 pages long, i dont buy it. to be quite honest, his numbers are most likely far short of any real approximation. i dont think any of the estimates out there are close to the real thing because most people who have any sort of a life wouldnt have the time to model that building in matlab and then subdivide it into about 10 milion layers and then calculate the energy generated by the falling mass of each layer....... i had to do it for a monolithic 10m tall concrete cylander and it took me two hours to get the right answer. there are only a few people in teh academic community who could write an algorithm to accuratly calculate the total net energy of each collapse. and for that oyu would need a cluster array to calculate it. |
haha, im more than happy to be corrected ;) i accept that. and i wont repeat the innaccurate info again. unlike someone like shaolin that is so desperate to cling to their beliefs because it fits nicely with their world view. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
it is for this reason i have the utmost faith in the studies done by teh engineering bodies in both the US and Canada over the structural failure of the two towers. |
and i would like to hear shaolin's rationale for believing ONE physicist over the world's engineering elite? i cant think of a single good reason you would rationally favour the former. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
colonelcrisp, I'm not sure if this helps you at all, but it's something I found:
| quote: |
Forensic Seismology
Of 911 - Update
By Steve Davis
Geologist & Researcher
7-25-5
The seismographic analysis of WTC 911 is still undergoing research. From the initial reports that these seismographs were recording the buildings as they were hit by the planes and as they hit the ground, to more recent intense scrutiny of events, videos, eyewitnesses by experts and other researchers, a more complex sequence of events and causes for these collapses is developing.
Also initially, the seismographs were studied to determine the timing of events rather than vice versa. This gov't. request didn't make much sense, as seismographs are never used for that, and everyone already knows what time the events happened. The real science is in trying to determine exactly what generated these graphs and other explanations of what really happened. We believe that even with the many difficulties of interpreting unusual seismographs, there is enough historical seismic evidence to make fairly precise and accurate determinations.
We rounded up evidence that shows there were ground motions consistant with the 2+M quakes just before the collapses, rather than as they hit the ground. Videos are also backed up by eye witnesses and reporters of such motions. Plus, testimonies of those who survived the destruction of the sublevels, and those who confirmed all sorts of smaller explosions throughout the building. Just seconds after the ground motions, which are probably due to huge secondary basement blasts, the videos showed huge black plumes shooting up from the roofs. Then within a minute showed the bursting of the impacted floors with an incredible explosion and shattering of steel beams, hurling them upwards and far and wide, plus total pulverization of everything else into fine dust. No other building was ever so completely destroyed, not even the Palaces and Gov't. Bldgs. of Baghdad hit by full shock and awe cruise missiles and bunker busters burned or exploded like the WTC.
The seismographs for the WTC change with distance and geologic conditions, but the analysis of the P and S waves of many of them show such sharp and close arrival times that they are most closely matched with explosions rather than smaller amplitude dispersed waves of the collapses seen after these spikes. Some of the graphs closely match those of some of the largest chemical explosions and the smallest nuclear explosions, mini nuclear explosions. Years of monitoring nuclear test ban treaty events has refined this analysis, but so far the most sophisticated seismic modelling of 911 has not been done. Nevertheless, the graphs which show any extreme spiking are very suspect and the burden of proof is on those who claim that they were not explosions to show how anything can mimic major explosions and also that all the other evidence can be explained away to make the timing fit the initial simpler speculations. More exact seismic matches may lie hidden in the vast CTBT archives to which we do not have access, and researchers should attempt to obtain more data there. Also, the gov't. nuclear labs, LANL & LLNL, have sophisticated nuclear test modelling softwares that can be used to do complete analysis and make quite accurate and precise comparisons.
The witnesses to the major basement explosions were not fully aware of what was happening above, and were not inside at the time of the seismograph spikes, and many witnesses described smaller explosions throughout the buildings, so it is hard to piece this all together, but whatever the full extent, location and timing of the basement and cutter explosions, the seismographs and videos recorded the tremendous grand finale blasts below and above which took the buildings down.
We then tried to find info on mini nuclear tests, of which there have been an increasing munber not only at the Nevada Test Site but worldwide. This new refined nuclear technology is highly desired by the world's military to expand options for destruction and warfare. Such infamous mini nukes as suitcase bombs, artillery shells, mines, mirvs, cruise missiles and the deep penetrating bunker busters and many more are not part of most people's memories of the vast blasts and tremendous mushroom clouds they terrorised the world with in the early days. We found that the photos of mini nukes were far different than our old nuke memories, and the resemblance of these unique 'dredlock' clouds to the 'dredlock' clouds of WTC 911 are so close they are absolutely hair raisingly terrifying.
To further this investigation we are asking that samples of the dusts, that still are all over NYC, be given a whole new range of the most sophisticated tests to determine what unusual contaminants and or isotopes may be present. At the time, the iniital dusts were sampled for asbestos, toxins and so forth, and were not tested for things beyond the usual spectrographic or microscopic work up. Plus, no one ever really got to see the real data, just what the gov't. said it showed, no peer review nor independent tests. We need to do these tests with the finest and widest range of technologies and labs available and compare results. |
>> link <<
EDIT: ^^ Link fixed. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Forensic Seismology?
That's an interesting one...
You'd think those same people would be able find the Lost City of Atlantis by now! :whip: |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Forensic Seismology?
That's an interesting one...
You'd think those same people would be able find the Lost City of Atlantis by now! :whip: |
It's already been found in 1971, off the coast of Bahamas and Cuba, hundreds of feet under the ocean floor, patched in several places across the Atlantic.
I guess you missed all the photo and journalist reports since then ;-) |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: |
New Seismic Data Refutes Official WTC Explanation
By Christopher Bollyn
Exclusive to American Free Press
9-5-2
Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's twin towers immediately prior to the collapse.
American Free Press has learned of pools of "molten steel" found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse.
These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse.
In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.
Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site.
Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."
Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.
AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site.
"Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements."
These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said.
The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.
Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit.
Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."
Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement."
However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.
Eric Hufschmid, author of a book about the WTC collapse, Painful Questions,* told AFP that due to the lack of oxygen, paper and other combustibles packed down at the bottom of elevator shafts would probably be "a smoky smoldering pile."
Experts disagree that jet-fuel or paper could generate such heat.
This is impossible, they say, because the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons like jet-fuel burning in air is 1,520 degrees F. Because the WTC fires were fuel rich, as evidenced by the thick black smoke, it is argued that they did not reach this upper limit.
The hottest spots at the surface of the rubble, where abundant oxygen was available, were much cooler than the molten steel found in the basements.
Five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site's hot spots.
Dozens of hot spots were mapped, the hottest being in the east corner of the South Tower where a temperature of 1,377 degrees F was recorded.
This is, however, less than half as hot at the molten steel in the basement.
The foundations of the twin towers were 70 feet deep. At that level, 47 huge box columns, connected to the bedrock, supported the entire gravity load of the structures. The steel walls of these lower box columns were four inches thick.
Videos of the North Tower collapse show its communication mast falling first, indicating that the central support columns must have failed at the very beginning of the collapse. Loizeaux told AFP, "Everything went simultaneously."
"At 10:29 the entire top section of the North Tower had been severed from the base and began falling down," Hufschmid writes. "If the first event was the falling of a floor, how did that progress to the severing of hundreds of columns?"
Asked if the vertical support columns gave way before the connections between the floors and the columns, Ron Hamburger, a structural engineer with the FEMA assessment team said, "That's the $64,000 question."
Loizeaux said, "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure."
SEISMIC 'SPIKES'
Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.
While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.
The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.
However, 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.
A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.
The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.
Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.
Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated."
Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These "short-period surface waves," reflect "the interaction between the ground and the building foundation," according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute.
"The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on Jan. 7, 1983," the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.
One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away.
These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was "not coupled" to the ground.
"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."
Last November, Lerner-Lam said: "During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage-but not causing significant ground shaking."
Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the towers. The question is: What was that energy source?
While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.
Dr. W. Gene Corley, who investigated for the government the cause of the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, headed the FEMA-sponsored engineering assessment of the WTC collapse.
Corley told AFP that while some tests had been done on the 80 pieces of steel saved from the site, he said he did not know about tests that show if an explosion had affected the steel.
"I am not a metallurgist," Corley said.
Much of the structural steel from the WTC was sold to Alan D. Ratner of Metal Management of Newark, N.J., and the New York-based company Hugo Neu Schnitzer East.
Ratner, who heads the New Jersey branch of the Chi ca go-based company, sold the WTC steel to overseas companies, reportedly selling more than 50,000 tons of steel to a Shanghai steel company known as Baosteel for $120 per ton. Ratner paid about $70 per ton for the steel.
Other shipments of steel from the WTC went to India and other Asian ports.
Ratner came to Metal Management after spending years with a metal trading firm known as SimsMetal based out of Sydney, Australia. |
>> link << |
|
|
|
|
