|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 58)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| colonelcrisp |
interesting article. my main questions are however
- how is 2.1, and 2.3 considered extreeme spiking as they are not even detectable by humans. we cant really feel quakes till they pass the 3rd magnitude usually
- do we have seismic readings from other building collapses to show as a comparison to the seismic readings of the WTC collapses.
my first thought and inclination onto the whole "explosions" in the sub level reports is load shifts. the tube design of the WTC was used to maintain structural ridgidity at the high level floors. for instance, teh CN tower in toronto can have a sway amplitude of 6 feet at the top. if you were sitting in your 110th floor office and you were swaying 6 feet back and forth you would get pretty damn seasick. so by increasing the ridgidity, the building can resist movement generated by the 11 million pound force wind load on each face of the building
in such a ridgid structure, extreemly large load shifts or impulse to the fram may have caused all sorts of consequences in the lower regions of the building from buckling to foundation shearing and a host of other resultants. buildings as tall as the twin towers require increadibly ridgid foundations in order to prevent the sway effect from seismic activity. as such they are very strongly coupled to the earth with a large number of piles (large steel memebers pounded into the ground to the bedrock)the foundation of the buidling would ahve allowed the collapse to generate a better seismic wave while the majority of the structure was still intact as opposed to when the building finally collapsed into the heap of rubble. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
:D
| quote: |
Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible...
Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!
The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.
I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!
Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!
Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!
In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.
In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.
I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.
Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.
The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.
The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!
It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.
Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.
ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:
METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN
WHEN IT HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND IT CREATED A HYDROGEN BUBBLE |
link |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| 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: |
The U.S. Department of Energy is supporting the U.S. National Data Center (USNDC) at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, as it prepares to monitor the treaty. As part of DOE's effort, teams at Livermore and Los Alamost have been working to improve ways to seismically characterize clandestine underground nuclear explosions and differentiate them from other sources of seismicity, such as earthquakes and mining explosions. Much of Livermore's work has centered on developing regional discriminants, which are characteristic features of a seismic waveform (for example, the peak amplitude at a particular frequency, within a specific time frame) recorded at distances less than 2,000 kilometers away. These discriminants are used to differentiate between explosions and other types of seismic sources. (See the September 1998 Science & Technology Review, "Forensic Seismology Supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty," pp. 4-11.)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
| quote: |
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is a premier applied science laboratory that is part of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) within the Department of Energy (DOE). LLNL has been managed since its inception in 1952 by the University of California for the U.S. government.
|
Yeah, clearly "tinfoilhatter" terminology :rolleyes:. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
this is a seismogram for an earth quake and it shows a spike as well
\
this is from the big quake in cali back in 92 again you can see a large spike
if you look at THIS you can see that earth quakes have a vast variety of signatures seismographically depending on the nature of the quake. the difference between a subteranean blast and a quake is the s and p wave time differentials |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
sorry shaolin but i had to lol at this video. he starts off sounding credible.... 40 peer reviewed articles in scientific journals...... then he drops the big one "i was lead investigator for the cold fusion...." once he mentioned cold fusion.......... i loled so hard i almost peed my pants.....
physicists are smart as ..... but they know all about engineering and they know even less about real world systems. essentially they are glorified math geeks that live in a world where everything is built to spec with a tolerance of +- 0 mm. when even with todays technology buildings are often feet longer than they are supposed to be by drawing.....
the difference between a physicist and an engineer is that an engineer understands the physics, but understands complex real world systems.... and also knows that pocket protectors shouldnt be worn out in public |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
I'm only responding to your unfounded accusations and "intellectual dishonesty" ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
actually, that was more a tongue-in-cheek response to your jones' article. |
That wasn't a "Jones" article. Steven Jones is not the author.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
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. |
No, that not what I said at all. I don't quote other people's analysis in response to someone's arguments, I rely on facts and evidence[/c] for basing [b]my arguments on, or atleast demonstrate a logical connection between the two. When I do post other people's analysis, it's not as refutation to any praticular post by any particular person, but something for other's to evaluate for themselves and form their own opinion on.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
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 |
The same is true for the "experts" who's analysis and comments you keep posting which are disputed, as opposed to facts or scientific theory that are not and basing your own arguments on those instead. Arguing for a disputed theory is fine, but you won't convince anyone by presenting analysis they're higly skeptical of in the first place on analysis. If you present facts that aren't dispute, and base an argument on those undisputed facts, that will be recieved quite differently. So far you've failed to do that. Anlysis is not fact.
And that compels me have you apply the exact same question to yourself that you just asked of me, as this is probably the only opporunity I'll have to get my point accross. "So what exactly are you trying to achieve? Posting information you know I'm not qualified to assess isn't going to convince me of anything." Except in your case, it would be more accurate to substitute the word "information" for "analysis."
But I did give plenty of rationale for why I find their conlcusion highly improbable (I don't even really need to do that, as the FEMA reports even admit to it), especially in conjunction with evidence they didn't include or refused to explain, evidence that is consitent with the alternative theory.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
one NON-expert versus dozens of experts :rolleyes: |
There's tons of "experts" supporting both propositions and Steven Jones is more than qualified to determine the scientific plaussibility and possibility by virtue of the fact that he's a highly qualified Phyics P.H.D. Engineering, Arcitechture etc are disciplines based on Physics, and only a sub-section of it, not the other way around. Keeping his credentials in mind, Jones is easily qualified to assess the plausibility and probability of any of the theories about the WTC collapse in accordance with the laws of Physics and available evidence. And it's not like he hasn't consulted engineers, architects, demolition experts, and other relevant experts while conducting his research and performing his analysis. You're not going to convince me of anything repeating by trying to discredit Jones just because he doesn't have a particular professional title/document in possesion.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
you dont say?!
and, please highlight which part of my last post was the least bit abusive??
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. |
And calling people "intellectually dishonest," "conspiracy theorists," "idiots," "heads," and "dicks" etc. is not arrogant, condescending, or uncivil? A subjective claim is not an objective statement, asserting it as one is pretty damn arrogant. You've done that repeatedly to anyone disagreeing with you (wheather it's a PDD poster or professional researcher). Instead of demonstrating how your claims/views are valid, or atleast rationalizing them with something more concrete, you assert them and post lengthy analytical quotes. Not considering any alternate theory that coherently explains and incorperate all the evidence already present in the other and inclusive of evidence the other fails to address, is inconsistent with it, and conveniently leaves out, doesn't come across as very rational, open-minded, intellectualy honest, humble, or a result of critical thinking.
I've ignored/tolerated your abuse and pretencious attitude all this time and tried to tone down my responses as much as possible, so please forgive me if I finally got frustrated after you refused to acknowledge glaring contradictions with elementary laws of physics and clear logical fallicies I demonstrated in great detail (and I spent a while articulating it and making sure the calculasions/proofs etc were correct). I mean, what kind of a response it "so what?" to "hey, the seismic data presents a major problem for this theory, contradicting the laws the laws of Physics!" If that's not arrogance/intellectual dishonesty/shody research (to use your own terms), then I don't what is. Or how about "you've got nothing." Isn't that a fairly arrogant assertion with condecending overtones reflective of "shody research," especially considering it was part of your response to point made by me you didn't address? No offense, but you asked for it. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| well its fri arvo and im getting on the piss and dont have time to address this right now. just know that i do really respect your opinions shaolin and i apologise for, shall we say, my passionate comments, now and in the past :p i always attempt to remain civil, but i guess thats just one of my many flaws :D |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
sorry shaolin but i had to lol at this video. he starts off sounding credible.... 40 peer reviewed articles in scientific journals...... then he drops the big one "i was lead investigator for the cold fusion...." once he mentioned cold fusion.......... i loled so hard i almost peed my pants.....
|
he has also written a paper on jesus' visits to ancient america, lol
behold my hands |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
...
this is a seismogram for an earth quake and it shows a spike as well
\
...
this is from the big quake in cali back in 92 again you can see a large spike
if you look at THIS you can see that earth quakes have a vast variety of signatures seismographically depending on the nature of the quake. the difference between a subteranean blast and a quake is the s and p wave time differentials |
I took a look at it (and a few other with seismographs for earthquakes before you posted that one, some of which had spikes somewhat resembling ones for undergournd explosions). But the spike looks far less pronounced and dense relative to and the spike for an underground blast. I have a question though, how often does you see clearly pronounced and "dense" spikes for seismographs of earthquakes (or 'ground shaking')? More specifically, what's the statistical probability of seeing one like that?
The reason why I'm asking is that there seems to be way too many anomolies/unusal occurances in the edivence for the WTC collapse (this obviously just being one of them). And most of them seem to be explained away by the possibility of their occurance, eventhough they have a very low probability. A large enough collection of a significant number of low probability occurances simoultaneously taking place in one incident makes me rather skeptical of the pancake thoery, especially considering how most of them fit in very well with the controlled demolition theory, as they don't have a low probability of occurance in that case. [EDIT: I guess to summarize, simplify, and clarify what I meant is that new and suppressed evidence that's emerging only makes the pancake theory more and more problematic with time, especially keeping in mind FEMAs original statement of it having a low probability of occurance in the first place (hidden in the appenices), which NIST left out in their final report]
NOTE: The spike in the example you posted was clearly visible, but it didn't seen anywhere near as pronounced or dense in comparison to spikes on seismographs for underground explosions. It was noticeably more spread out. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well its fri arvo and im getting on the piss and dont have time to address this right now. just know that i do really respect your opinions shaolin and i apologise for, shall we say, my passionate comments, now and in the past :p i always attempt to remain civil, but i guess thats just one of my many flaws :D |
That's cool man ;). We might have this exact same conversation a few days from now, since I didn't expect having another one again, especially this soon :stongue: :D ;). |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
sorry shaolin but i had to lol at this video. he starts off sounding credible.... 40 peer reviewed articles in scientific journals...... then he drops the big one "i was lead investigator for the cold fusion...." once he mentioned cold fusion.......... i loled so hard i almost peed my pants.....
physicists are smart as ..... but they know all about engineering and they know even less about real world systems. essentially they are glorified math geeks that live in a world where everything is built to spec with a tolerance of +- 0 mm. when even with todays technology buildings are often feet longer than they are supposed to be by drawing.....
the difference between a physicist and an engineer is that an engineer understands the physics, but understands complex real world systems.... and also knows that pocket protectors shouldnt be worn out in public |
I understand there's somewhat of a gap between theory and practice/science and engineering in general. As a Computer Science major having know plently of Electrical/Computer Engineers, I have some frame of reference to understand that. But as far as my understanding goes, the gap between predictions based on theory and practical results isn't that great, although it's certainly something that needs to be taken into consideration. Bah, I'm pretty tired at this point and can't really properly articulate myself, but hopefully you got what I meant.
Just out of curiosity, why exactly did his mentioning cold fusion make you "pee in your pants?" :D
EDIT: Did you post that response after watching the entire interview (1st video)/lecture (2nd video) or did you pee your pants before you got that far :p ? |
|
|
|
|
