Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

I am a conspiracist. I want my controlled demolition fantasy to be real. I will ignore there is no evidence in the seismic evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns. I will ignore there is no physical evidence of cut columns. I will ignore there was no distinctive demolition’s shrapnel. I will take audio from the WTC of the sounds of expected mechanical failures. I will manipulate that audio to until I manufacture the “evidence” I desired. I will falsely push that manipulated audio as “evidence” of explosions with the force to cut steel columns even though others people’s attempts have been debunked. I am the special one. And I will make no effort to quantify / qualify my manufacturer “evidence” by showing actual comparisons by contrasting/comparing audio from actual mechanical failures vs actual explosions cutting steel. Even when the sounds of mechanical failures are available on line. Whaaaaa I am a conspiracists being called out because I am pushing manufactured “evidence” not supported by the a actual events and not reflected in the seismic evidence.

Thats some pissed off denialistic babble right there. Got more?

I will manipulate that audio to until I manufacture the “evidence” I desired.

Focusing, not manipulating. Basic understanding of sound waves required here, but too much to ask apparently.

And I will make no effort to quantify / qualify my manufacturer “evidence” by showing actual comparisons by contrasting/comparing audio from actual mechanical failures vs actual explosions cutting steel. Even when the sounds of mechanical failures are available on line.

Glad you picked up on that. This be your job eh? You know, debunking. But as we all know by now, you won't and can't. When you state this:

Even when the sounds of mechanical failures are available on line.

Is it true? Compare the sounds available from my audio to yours would you? Since you know where the sounds for mechanical failures are online.

a reply to: democracydemo

So, in short. You only have presented a loud sound that is expected in a fire and /or building collapse. You had to tweak a sound that if it really was from a pressure wave cutting columns, it would have presented an observable pressure transient. Produced observable splinter steel/demolitions shrapnel. Been heard above all other sounds, been awe inspiring, and echoed about Manhattan. Would have been complemented in the seismic evidence as explosions from explosives with the force to cut steel columns.

You made no effort to qualify/quantity your tweaked sound with known explosions cutting steel columns nor with known structural failures. You have made no effort to determine the true loudness and true amplitude of the sound wave before you tweaked it. You have made no effort to compare your tweaked sounds against the frequencies and amplitudes of sound waves produced by know examples of charges cutting steel and known mechanical failures.

And if you really had the “smoking gun” it would be your duty to post it on sites like Metabunk and international skeptics. But your here posting only on one thread. If you have the goods, at least give it its own thread here at ATS. I think you don’t because you know what the sound really is. It’s the sound of structural failures your falsely pushing as detonations with the force to cut steel columns. Your claim is immediately debunked because it is not supported by the seismic evidence.

Again...

The first step is there is no reflection in the seismic evidence of detonation with the force to cut steel columns. Period. Game over dude.

The second step is there is no evidence of a pressure transient with the force to cut steel columns.

The third step. There is no evidence columns were cut by detonations.

Your so intellectually void you will not event state how many core columns had to be cut to make your conspiracy fantasy work. How many charges and what type it would take to make your fantasy work. And you will not state how your manufactured evidence supports your fantasy.

Again..

Don’t have too. Your created evidence and frequencies are not reflected in the seismic data for detonations with the force to cut steel columns. By frequency, how can you tell if a fire cracker sets off vs a pressurized air conditioning unit exploding in a fire. Other then the ac unit exploding would be more forceful. Again, nobody is say there were no explosions. But, keep on making your own reality.


Nobody disagrees there was explosions from closed pressurized systems like refrigeration units and air conditioning units cutting loose in the fires. And nobody disagrees there wasn’t a pop when floor connections failed as in WTC 5 being an example.

All you have is expected sounds of a structural failure.

Crane collapse in New York City kills one: ‘It sounded like 9/11 again’
Two others seriously injured after crane collapses in Tribeca neighbourhood and crushes several cars stretching the length of a city block

www.theguardian.com...

Charlie Jones, 35, a builder at a neighbouring construction site, said the sound of the collapse was so loud that he initially thought it might have been a terrorist attack. He saw many people running out of buildings and up the streets in panic, he said.

“I thought it was a bomb,” Jones said.

Memories still haunt those in Big Blue tragedy at Miller Park

We didn't know if it was a bomb or something.

archive.jsonline.com...

Big Blue crane collapse at Miller Park
m.youtube.com...

Very tragic. But at about the 40 second mark you here booms like the ones in you manufactured evidence.

Now. So? What tool is there to differentiate a loud boom from a mechanical failure vs a detonation with the force to cut steel columns.

Seismic evidence! And the seismic data from the WTC shows there was no detonations that cut steel columns.

If you don’t want to lose a debate, you shouldn’t push crap that you have made no effort to quantify/quality that is not supported by the bulk of evidence like the seismic data.

a reply to: neutronflux

What i asked of you:

Compare the sounds available from my audio to yours would you? Since you know where the sounds for mechanical failures are online.

I was not specific enough:

Compare the sounds available from my audio to yours, as to building collapse - audio evidence.

Very tragic. But at about the 40 second mark you here booms like the ones in you manufactured evidence. Now. So? What tool is there to differentiate a loud boom from a mechanical failure vs a detonation with the force to cut steel columns.

A crane with it's king pin sheared, filmed few feets away.

A Crane 30ft distance from audio origin:



WTC 2 1870ft distance from audio origin:



Compare.

a reply to: democracydemo

So. You still have no proof of explosions cutting columns. And still no proof of explosions from planted charges.

And you cannot go by loudness comparing the potential energy release by a 12” kingpin failing under a 500 short ton load around 500 feet off the ground VS the potential energy of a 500,000 ton building at 110 stories tall failing.

A single

www.google.com...=true

The front tub rotated on the front crawler using a king pin as a pivot. The king pin was 12 inches in diameter, 11 feet long—a solid shaft made of 4340 steel with a yield strength of 103,000 psi.

Vs what? 47 columns failing?

The second structural subsystem was a central service area, or core (Figure 3), measuring approximately 41 m by 26.5 m (135 ft by 87 ft), that extended virtually the full height of the building. The long axis of the core in WTC 1 was oriented in the east-west direction, while the long axis of the core in WTC 2 was oriented in the north-south direction. The 47 columns in this rectangular space were fabricated using primarily 248 MPa (36 ksi) and 290 MPa (42 ksi) steels and decreased in size at the higher stories. The four massive corner columns bore nearly one-fifth

tsapps.nist.gov...

Sooo. Comparing the generated frequencies is the right answer . Not loudness.

But a moot point. Because there is nothing in the seismic evidence that indicates planted charges detonated. And there is especially nothing in the seismic evidence that indicates detonations had the force to cut steel columns.


Again....

So, in short. You only have presented a loud sound that is expected in a fire and /or building collapse. You had to tweak a sound that if it really was from a pressure wave cutting columns, it would have presented an observable pressure transient. Produced observable splinter steel/demolitions shrapnel. Been heard above all other sounds, been awe inspiring, and echoed about Manhattan. Would have been complemented in the seismic evidence as explosions from explosives with the force to cut steel columns.

You made no effort to qualify/quantity your tweaked sound with known explosions cutting steel columns nor with known structural failures. You have made no effort to determine the true loudness and true amplitude of the sound wave before you tweaked it. You have made no effort to compare your tweaked sounds against the frequencies and amplitudes of sound waves produced by know examples of charges cutting steel and known mechanical failures.

And if you really had the “smoking gun” it would be your duty to post it on sites like Metabunk and international skeptics. But your here posting only on one thread. If you have the goods, at least give it its own thread here at ATS. I think you don’t because you know what the sound really is. It’s the sound of structural failures your falsely pushing as detonations with the force to cut steel columns. Your claim is immediately debunked because it is not supported by the seismic evidence.

Again...

The first step is there is no reflection in the seismic evidence of detonation with the force to cut steel columns. Period. Game over dude.

The second step is there is no evidence of a pressure transient with the force to cut steel columns.

The third step. There is no evidence columns were cut by detonations.

Your so intellectually void you will not event state how many core columns had to be cut to make your conspiracy fantasy work. How many charges and what type it would take to make your fantasy work. And you will not state how your manufactured evidence supports your fantasy.

Again..

Don’t have too. Your created evidence and frequencies are not reflected in the seismic data for detonations with the force to cut steel columns. By frequency, how can you tell if a fire cracker sets off vs a pressurized air conditioning unit exploding in a fire. Other then the ac unit exploding would be more forceful. Again, nobody is say there were no explosions. But, keep on making your own reality.


Nobody disagrees there was explosions from closed pressurized systems like refrigeration units and air conditioning units cutting loose in the fires. And nobody disagrees there wasn’t a pop when floor connections failed as in WTC 5 being an example.

All you have is expected sounds of a structural failure.

Crane collapse in New York City kills one: ‘It sounded like 9/11 again’
Two others seriously injured after crane collapses in Tribeca neighbourhood and crushes several cars stretching the length of a city block

www.theguardian.com...

Charlie Jones, 35, a builder at a neighbouring construction site, said the sound of the collapse was so loud that he initially thought it might have been a terrorist attack. He saw many people running out of buildings and up the streets in panic, he said.

“I thought it was a bomb,” Jones said.

Memories still haunt those in Big Blue tragedy at Miller Park

We didn't know if it was a bomb or something.

archive.jsonline.com...

Big Blue crane collapse at Miller Park
m.youtube.com...

Very tragic. But at about the 40 second mark you here booms like the ones in you manufactured evidence.

Now. So? What tool is there to differentiate a loud boom from a mechanical failure vs a detonation with the force to cut steel columns.

Seismic evidence! And the seismic data from the WTC shows there was no detonations that cut steel columns.

If you don’t want to lose a debate, you shouldn’t push crap that you have made no effort to quantify/quality that is not supported by the bulk of evidence like the seismic data.

a reply to: neutronflux

Seismic evidence! And the seismic data from the WTC shows there was no detonations that cut steel columns.

If you don’t want to lose a debate, you shouldn’t push crap that you have made no effort to quantify/quality that is not supported by the bulk of evidence like the seismic data.

Speaking of seismic, you wouldn't know where i could get my "evil, vile and dirty evidence manufacturing/tweaker hands" on a tabular data file, or just a printout, regarding this WTC 2 seismo:


Figure 2b: Signal recorded at Palisades during the collapse of WTC2

I'm intrigued after reading
Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?

And finding a four second interval in seismic waves:

On the other hand, the recording linked to WTC2 (Fig. 2b) does not show the P or S body waves observed for WTC1 but only the surface Rayleigh wave, for which the spreading of the amplitudes over the duration is different from that of WTC1. The propagation speed of 2125 m/s is also markedly different from that of WTC1. Further, this wave seems to be followed by a second Rayleigh wave four seconds later.

Page 4. Last paragraph

The waveforms produced by the collapses of WTC2 and WTC7 were of a different type than that generated by the collapse of WTC1. Based upon the kind of waves coming from WTC2 and WTC7, they each underwent one or more very large subaerial explosions, heard and reported by witnesses. For example, in the case of WTC2, a fireman witnessed an explosion before the building collapsed into an enormous cloud of dust (see Testimony [1], below), apparently not too far from the base of the Tower, accompanied by flashes of light and noise, according to an "Assistant Commissioner" (see Testimony [2]). Another fireman, present at the base of WTC2, stated there was a large explosion about 20 floors below the impact zone of the plane just before the upper portion of the Tower began to collapse (Testimony [3]). These explosions were too high above the surface to generate body waves in the ground, and the Rayleigh wave recorded probably comes only from the explosion closer to the surface.Among the other explosions heard at the base of WTC2 (WhatReallyHappened.com, 2009), one of them generated the second Rayleigh wave recorded four seconds after the first.

Page 8. Second paragraph.

Since we have audio evidence of booms, can we match the audio with seismic data? Four seconds is a start, but we need the precise intervals yes?

a reply to: neutronflux

Your so intellectually void you will not event state how many core columns had to be cut to make your conspiracy fantasy work. How many charges and what type it would take to make your fantasy work. And you will not state how your manufactured evidence supports your fantasy.

Aah what delightful forum this is . Would you be happy with the answer: Not yet determined?

a reply to: democracydemo

What are going on about. You have provide no evidence of explosives with the force to cut columns. Only expected explosions from pressurized systems letting lose in a fire. And expected sounds of collapse.


That’s the problem. There is only Rayleigh waves mostly from objects hitting the ground.

Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City.

Signals at Palisades from Impacts and Collapses
Figure 1 shows seismic signals at Palisades, N.Y. (PAL) for the impacts and collapses, which are labeled by their arrival time order. Note that impact 1 and collapse 2 relate to the north tower, and impact 2 and collapse 1 apply to the south tower. Computed origin times and seismic magnitudes are listed in Figure 1. Origin times with an uncertainty of 2 s were calculated from the arrival times of Rg waves at PAL using a velocity of 2 km/s. The collapse of 7 WTC at 17:20:33 EDT was recorded but is not shown. Three other small signals shown in Figure 1 and ones at 12:07:38 and 12:10:03 EDT may have been generated by additional collapses.
Surface waves were the largest seismic waves observed at various stations. The presence of seismic body waves is questionable even at Palisades for the two largest collapses; they are not observed at other stations. Local magnitudes ML, like those defined originally by Richter for southern California but with distance correction factors appropriate for eastern North America [Kim, 1998], were computed for the two impacts and the three largest collapses. For collapses 1 and 2, values of ML determined from E-W components are 2.1 and 2.3. ML is 0.1 to 0.2 units smaller on the vertical, an observation that we associate later with multipath propagation.
Amplitude spectra for PAL data are shown at the right of Figure 1 for the impacts and the 1

collapses of the twin towers. The spectra of collapses 1 and 2 are above the noise for frequencies from 0.2 to 10 Hz. The two spectra are similar, but the second shows a more pronounced peak near 1 Hz. Seismic signals from both impacts are characterized by relatively periodic motion and their spectra are above the noise only for frequencies from about 1.3 to 1.6 Hz. Those frequencies are more than 10 times the frequency of the lateral fundamental mode of each tower.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

There was no explosives working on the columns as evident by no P and S waves.

An explosion at a gasoline tank farm near Newark NJ on January 7, 1983 generated observ- able P and S waves and short-period Rg waves (ML 3) at PAL.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Sorry. If explosives worked on the columns, the seismic evidence should hold P and S waves. And the frequencies, as in oscillations per second, are too slow for evidence that explosives had the force to cut steel columns.


Epic fail on your part.

a reply to: democracydemo

Again

An explosion at a gasoline tank farm near Newark NJ on January 7, 1983 generated observ- able P and S waves and short-period Rg waves (ML 3) at PAL.

Why would a above ground tank farm have foundations more attached to the ground than WTC columns attached to a foundation.


Again

Sorry. If explosives worked on the columns, the seismic evidence should hold P and S waves. And the frequencies, as in oscillations per second, are too slow for evidence that explosives had the force to cut steel columns.

Which makes the below total crap.

Another fireman, present at the base of WTC2, stated there was a large explosion about 20 floors below the impact zone of the plane just before the upper portion of the Tower began to collapse (Testimony [3]). These explosions were too high above the surface to generate body waves in the ground, and the Rayleigh wave recorded probably comes only from the explosion closer to the surface.

With no evidence core columns failed 20 floors below the impact point. With no evidence of a pressure transient with the force to cut steel columns 20 floors below the impact point.

Just keep digging your BS fantasy into the ground.

And what is the listed evidence of columns being actively cut from the video and audio evidence to suspect explosives with the force to cut steel columns? None. With no support by the seismic evidence.

a reply to: neutronflux

No worries i'll try and find the intervals myself. Wish LaBTop was still around though.

What are going on about. You have provide no evidence of explosives with the force to cut columns.

And the frequencies, as in oscillations per second, are too slow for evidence that explosives had the force to cut steel columns.

BTW what is the seismic signature for this force...to cut steel...columns?

a reply to: democracydemo

You tell me

Anyway

IMPLOSION, EARTHQUAKE, AND EXPLOSION RECORDINGS FROM THE 2000 SEATTLE KINGDOME SEISMIC HAZARDS INVESTIGATION OF PUGET SOUND (SHIPS), WASHINGTON

pubs.usgs.gov...

Now compare this to the WTC collapse.....

a reply to: democracydemo

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINTThe

www.implosionworld.com...

Beyond the above, Protec possesses several additional types of data and experience that place the firm in a unique position to analyze and comment on this event:
1. Protec was operating portable field seismographs at construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11, and these seismographs were recording ground vibration throughout the timeframe of events at Ground Zero. These measurements, when combined with more specific and detailed seismic data recorded by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, help to provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each event.

The only scientifically legitimate way to ascertain if explosives were used is to cross- reference the fundamental characteristics of an explosive detonation with independent ground vibration data recorded near Ground Zero on 9/11. Fortunately, several seismographs were recording ground vibration that morning, and perhaps more fortunately, all available data is consistent and appears to paint a clear picture.
Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, recorded the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. This data was later released to the public and currently appears on their website. Additionally, on 9/11 Protec field technicians were utilizing portable field seismographs to continuously record ground vibrations on several construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn for liability purposes.
In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.
This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

a reply to: neutronflux

Is the author of this "CRITICAL ANALYSIS", Brent Blanchard a geophysics? Where are the credentials for this author?

a reply to: democracydemo

What are you talking abut?
You know people of the truth movement lie?

The context of the whole argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

What are going on about. You have provide no evidence of explosives with the force to cut columns. Only expected explosions from pressurized systems letting lose in a fire. And expected sounds of collapse.


That’s the problem. There is only Rayleigh waves mostly from objects hitting the ground.

Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City.

Signals at Palisades from Impacts and Collapses
Figure 1 shows seismic signals at Palisades, N.Y. (PAL) for the impacts and collapses, which are labeled by their arrival time order. Note that impact 1 and collapse 2 relate to the north tower, and impact 2 and collapse 1 apply to the south tower. Computed origin times and seismic magnitudes are listed in Figure 1. Origin times with an uncertainty of 2 s were calculated from the arrival times of Rg waves at PAL using a velocity of 2 km/s. The collapse of 7 WTC at 17:20:33 EDT was recorded but is not shown. Three other small signals shown in Figure 1 and ones at 12:07:38 and 12:10:03 EDT may have been generated by additional collapses.
Surface waves were the largest seismic waves observed at various stations. The presence of seismic body waves is questionable even at Palisades for the two largest collapses; they are not observed at other stations. Local magnitudes ML, like those defined originally by Richter for southern California but with distance correction factors appropriate for eastern North America [Kim, 1998], were computed for the two impacts and the three largest collapses. For collapses 1 and 2, values of ML determined from E-W components are 2.1 and 2.3. ML is 0.1 to 0.2 units smaller on the vertical, an observation that we associate later with multipath propagation.
Amplitude spectra for PAL data are shown at the right of Figure 1 for the impacts and the 1

collapses of the twin towers. The spectra of collapses 1 and 2 are above the noise for frequencies from 0.2 to 10 Hz. The two spectra are similar, but the second shows a more pronounced peak near 1 Hz. Seismic signals from both impacts are characterized by relatively periodic motion and their spectra are above the noise only for frequencies from about 1.3 to 1.6 Hz. Those frequencies are more than 10 times the frequency of the lateral fundamental mode of each tower.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

There was no explosives working on the columns as evident by no P and S waves.

An explosion at a gasoline tank farm near Newark NJ on January 7, 1983 generated observ- able P and S waves and short-period Rg waves (ML 3) at PAL.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Sorry. If explosives worked on the columns, the seismic evidence should hold P and S waves. And the frequencies, as in oscillations per second, are too slow for evidence that explosives had the force to cut steel columns.


Epic fail on your part.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You tell me

Anyway

IMPLOSION, EARTHQUAKE, AND EXPLOSION RECORDINGS FROM THE 2000 SEATTLE KINGDOME SEISMIC HAZARDS INVESTIGATION OF PUGET SOUND (SHIPS), WASHINGTON

pubs.usgs.gov...

Now compare this to the WTC collapse.....


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINTThe

www.implosionworld.com...

Beyond the above, Protec possesses several additional types of data and experience that place the firm in a unique position to analyze and comment on this event:
1. Protec was operating portable field seismographs at construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11, and these seismographs were recording ground vibration throughout the timeframe of events at Ground Zero. These measurements, when combined with more specific and detailed seismic data recorded by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, help to provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each event.

The only scientifically legitimate way to ascertain if explosives were used is to cross- reference the fundamental characteristics of an explosive detonation with independent ground vibration data recorded near Ground Zero on 9/11. Fortunately, several seismographs were recording ground vibration that morning, and perhaps more fortunately, all available data is consistent and appears to paint a clear picture.
Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, recorded the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. This data was later released to the public and currently appears on their website. Additionally, on 9/11 Protec field technicians were utilizing portable field seismographs to continuously record ground vibrations on several construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn for liability purposes.
In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.
This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

a reply to: neutronflux

Oh. And forgot these part. More questions and facts you ignore.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Again

An explosion at a gasoline tank farm near Newark NJ on January 7, 1983 generated observ- able P and S waves and short-period Rg waves (ML 3) at PAL.

Why would a above ground tank farm have foundations more attached to the ground than WTC columns attached to a foundation.


Again

Sorry. If explosives worked on the columns, the seismic evidence should hold P and S waves. And the frequencies, as in oscillations per second, are too slow for evidence that explosives had the force to cut steel columns.

Which makes the below total crap.

Another fireman, present at the base of WTC2, stated there was a large explosion about 20 floors below the impact zone of the plane just before the upper portion of the Tower began to collapse (Testimony [3]). These explosions were too high above the surface to generate body waves in the ground, and the Rayleigh wave recorded probably comes only from the explosion closer to the surface.

With no evidence core columns failed 20 floors below the impact point. With no evidence of a pressure transient with the force to cut steel columns 20 floors below the impact point.

Just keep digging your BS fantasy into the ground.

And what is the listed evidence of columns being actively cut from the video and audio evidence to suspect explosives with the force to cut steel columns? None. With no support by the seismic evidence.

a reply to: neutronflux

What are you talking abut?

Still about Brent Blanchard, the man behind this "CRITICAL ANALYSIS" www.implosionworld.com....

What's his background.
Geophysics?
Parrot?

a reply to: democracydemo

Sad you don’t have credible evidence of Twin Tower controlled demolition.

Sad your pushing expected sounds of a large building fire and collapse as “explosions cutting steel columns”.

Sad you don’t have evidence of columns being actively cut.

Sad you ignored “ when combined with more specific and detailed seismic data recorded by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, help to provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each event”

Sad you Ignored:
“ Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu..
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...“

What is LDEO again?

The whole argument again

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

What are going on about. You have provide no evidence of explosives with the force to cut columns. Only expected explosions from pressurized systems letting lose in a fire. And expected sounds of collapse.


That’s the problem. There is only Rayleigh waves mostly from objects hitting the ground.

Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City.

Signals at Palisades from Impacts and Collapses
Figure 1 shows seismic signals at Palisades, N.Y. (PAL) for the impacts and collapses, which are labeled by their arrival time order. Note that impact 1 and collapse 2 relate to the north tower, and impact 2 and collapse 1 apply to the south tower. Computed origin times and seismic magnitudes are listed in Figure 1. Origin times with an uncertainty of 2 s were calculated from the arrival times of Rg waves at PAL using a velocity of 2 km/s. The collapse of 7 WTC at 17:20:33 EDT was recorded but is not shown. Three other small signals shown in Figure 1 and ones at 12:07:38 and 12:10:03 EDT may have been generated by additional collapses.
Surface waves were the largest seismic waves observed at various stations. The presence of seismic body waves is questionable even at Palisades for the two largest collapses; they are not observed at other stations. Local magnitudes ML, like those defined originally by Richter for southern California but with distance correction factors appropriate for eastern North America [Kim, 1998], were computed for the two impacts and the three largest collapses. For collapses 1 and 2, values of ML determined from E-W components are 2.1 and 2.3. ML is 0.1 to 0.2 units smaller on the vertical, an observation that we associate later with multipath propagation.
Amplitude spectra for PAL data are shown at the right of Figure 1 for the impacts and the 1

collapses of the twin towers. The spectra of collapses 1 and 2 are above the noise for frequencies from 0.2 to 10 Hz. The two spectra are similar, but the second shows a more pronounced peak near 1 Hz. Seismic signals from both impacts are characterized by relatively periodic motion and their spectra are above the noise only for frequencies from about 1.3 to 1.6 Hz. Those frequencies are more than 10 times the frequency of the lateral fundamental mode of each tower.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

There was no explosives working on the columns as evident by no P and S waves.

An explosion at a gasoline tank farm near Newark NJ on January 7, 1983 generated observ- able P and S waves and short-period Rg waves (ML 3) at PAL.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Sorry. If explosives worked on the columns, the seismic evidence should hold P and S waves. And the frequencies, as in oscillations per second, are too slow for evidence that explosives had the force to cut steel columns.

Oh. And forgot these part. More questions and facts you ignore.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Again

An explosion at a gasoline tank farm near Newark NJ on January 7, 1983 generated observ- able P and S waves and short-period Rg waves (ML 3) at PAL.

Why would a above ground tank farm have foundations more attached to the ground than WTC columns attached to a foundation.


Again

Sorry. If explosives worked on the columns, the seismic evidence should hold P and S waves. And the frequencies, as in oscillations per second, are too slow for evidence that explosives had the force to cut steel columns.

Which makes the below total crap.

Another fireman, present at the base of WTC2, stated there was a large explosion about 20 floors below the impact zone of the plane just before the upper portion of the Tower began to collapse (Testimony [3]). These explosions were too high above the surface to generate body waves in the ground, and the Rayleigh wave recorded probably comes only from the explosion closer to the surface.

With no evidence core columns failed 20 floors below the impact point. With no evidence of a pressure transient with the force to cut steel columns 20 floors below the impact point.

Just keep digging your BS fantasy into the ground.

And what is the listed evidence of columns being actively cut from the video and audio evidence to suspect explosives with the force to cut steel columns? None. With no support by the seismic evidence.

a reply to: democracydemo

What is that other thing you ignore?

Nobody disagrees there was explosions from closed pressurized systems like refrigeration units and air conditioning units cutting loose in the fires. And nobody disagrees there wasn’t a pop when floor connections failed as in WTC 5 being an example.

All you have is expected sounds of a structural failure.

So. Why don’t you state? How charges survived the jet impacts and fire to intimate the collapse of each tower as captured from multiple angles on video?

How many charges were used? Where? What type? And how the video, audio, seismic evidence, and physical evidence is supports such an argument?

Watch this about WTC building 7..

youtu.be...

And this missile hitting the Pentagon....

youtu.be...

a reply to: boatsnhistory

Posting debunked video. Your about want? 10 years behind.