Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: neutronflux

You got proven wrong, then your only resort is personal attacks.

How was i proven wrong? Observing and depicting your behavior once confronted with information non grata over the years is not a personal attack:

Again. There is nothing in the seismic evidence by wave type and by frequency to indicate explosives cut structural members.

Again.
I am addressing Air Waves, not seismic.

They had children participate in 911 ritual.

A Short 1:22 min video on Brighteon that shows what the children where being repeatedly taught in the classroom with George Bush on 9/11.

Kite - Hit - Steel - Plane - Must

a reply to: democracydemo

You

How was i proven wrong?

This is how....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You

FILTERED is the word; getting rid of that chopper frequency Hz, as i kindly instructed you to replicate(which you did not). Seconds from NISTs "collapse inition" is what remains; 8 large booms.

Yeap. And I posted there is no frequencies and waves in the seismic data that indicates planted explosives. As in the total absence of the resultant frequencies and seismic wave types that should be there for the type of explosives with the force to cut structural members as you claim.

Analysis was completed by the seismic data long ago.


Then....

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Seismic? I'm addressing air sound waves.

And the source that would make air waves would make seismic waves. But there is no evidence in the frequencies and wave types in the seismic date to indicate explosives.

The seismic data is more comprehensive than just sound waves. With no indication there was explosions resulting in atmospheric over pressure events indicative of explosives with the force to cut steel columns.

————followed by

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

Sound travels in solids and liquids too

Sound waves travel faster and more effectively in liquids than in air and travel even more effectively in solids. This concept is particularly hard to believe since our general experiences lead us to hear reduced or garbled sounds in water or behind a solid door. There are reasons for this. Most of our everyday experiences are when a sound travels first through air and then through water or a solid. When the sound wave transfers from air into a solid some of it is reflected back into the air and some may be absorbed by the new medium. The noise coming from a room will be reduced if an observer outside closes the door. Sound from within the room will travel to the closed door and start it vibrating. The vibrating door will set the air on the outside vibrating too and a little of the original sound will be transmitted to the observer. However, some of the sound arriving at the door will have been reflected back into the room (actually making the noise inside the room louder!). Also some of the sound energy will have been used up in making the door begin to vibrate so we can say some of the sound has been absorbed by the door.

www.le.ac.uk...

————— then you moved from you fantasy to a personal attack to change the subject.

]originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

And the source that would make air waves would make seismic waves. But there is no evidence in the frequencies and wave types in the seismic date to indicate explosives.

You know full well the complexity within what you are claiming. Overcomplicating the subject i.e. diverting to seismic in this case, is what you do, for your peace of mind. This behavior is repetitive.

You got proven wrong, then your only resort is personal attacks.

Again. There is nothing in the seismic evidence by wave type and by frequency to indicate explosives cut structural members.

Which brings it back to two points.

One. The controlled demolition fantasy is dead on arrival. The controlled demolition systems would not have survived the jet impacts and fire to initiate collapse as captured by video

Two. The core columns collapsed after the floor systems were completely sheared away. Whole lengths of core columns stood whole seconds before tumbling down. The floor connections were either sheared by over loading, or bent down wards. Not cut. Supporting the floor system was sheared from the vertical columns while they still stood. What structural members did the fantasy explosives work on?

a reply to: democracydemo

Conspiracists have no memory capacity, selective memory.

And it makes them look ignorant.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

And the source that would make air waves would make seismic waves. But there is no evidence in the frequencies and wave types in the seismic date to indicate explosives.

You know full well the complexity within what you are claiming. Overcomplicating the subject i.e. diverting to seismic in this case, is what you do, for your peace of mind. This behavior is repetitive.

Too high expectations on you Neutron as it seems, i misread you.
You do not understand the complexity to what you claim, do you really believe
air waves=seismic waves
by default in this scenario? If so, we are talking top shelf ignorance.

originally posted by: democracydemo

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

And the source that would make air waves would make seismic waves. But there is no evidence in the frequencies and wave types in the seismic date to indicate explosives.

You know full well the complexity within what you are claiming. Overcomplicating the subject i.e. diverting to seismic in this case, is what you do, for your peace of mind. This behavior is repetitive.

Too high expectations on you Neutron as it seems, i misread you.
You do not understand the complexity to what you claim, do you really believe
air waves=seismic waves
by default in this scenario? If so, we are talking top shelf ignorance.

What utter nonsense are you babbling about now.

I guess you cannot comprehend sound travels through solids and liquids, and would be part of the seismic evidence. The detonations would work directly on the vertical columns acting as a conduit to the ground. The seismic data shows that explosions did not work on the core columns.

originally posted by: neutronflux

The Jets that hit the towers had around 10,000 pounds of fuel. With large amounts of fuel in the wing tanks.

If you don’t think a 68,000 pound slug of fuel traveling over 400 mph can take out building structures, then you are clueless about physics.


Then you have the landing gear, wing bases, and engines that are made out of more durable alloys than the skin of the jet.

A B-25 bomber weighing 25,000 pounds, and flying 200 mph punched a hole through the Empire State Building. Vs a 767 flying over 400 mph and weighing over 200,000 lbs hitting a building cheaply clad.

The holes punched in buildings like the Empire State Building are between its FLOORS, at points where the plane hits the outer walls of the massive structures. It doesn't go through the flooring itself - look at the photos of the ESB and floors are intact, or nearly so. Planes are not solid metal objects, they are light, thin shells of aluminum, mainly, they are built for flying in air, they aren't built like bombs or missiles, as you seem to think.

Why don't you look at how a 757 is built, what materials it has, how thick it's fuselage is, what the wings are made of, how they're attached to the fuselage, and so forth.

Now look at how the twin towers were built, what materials were used in it, how thick the concrete floors were, how thick the steel columns were, and so forth.


If the wings of a 757 hit across 4-5 floors, of 3 inch thick concrete, each floor, wings would crumple like a tin can, and sheer off the fuselage, and pieces of it would fall to the ground below. That's what would happen if they were real planes, hitting the towers - not projections of planes, which we saw on 9/11.

This nonsense which appeared as 'real planes' which magically sink through concrete floors are so goofy, it's like a Wile E. Coyote cartoon, where the road runner can magically run through a rock mountain, because there's a black 'hole' painted on its side! Nobody would ever try to prove THAT is possible, either. Same as nobody will ever try to prove that aluminum planes could slice right through 4-5 concrete floors like a table saw cutting through wood - it's a silly cartoon.

You have no excuses that attempts to replicate this cannot be done using real models, either...not that you could excuse replicating the collapses with real models, to begin with.

But this does not require a model of the structures, only the same materials and dimensions of a floor, or floors, and a plane to impact across those floors, in the same way as on 9/11. A 757 loaded with fuel, at the same speeds claimed as on 9/11, which hits 3 inch thick concrete slabs along their edges, at ANY angle of choice, would show the world that 9/11 was a cartoon. That the planes were an illusion, images cast on air, which sunk into buildings, because they WERE merely illusions! No sound coming from planes that are illusions, no crushed planes which are illusions.


How could anyone believe that aluminum planes could possibly slice right through concrete slabs like butter?

a reply to: turbonium1

You didn’t answer to:


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

By the way. What does this have to do with the jets and wings breaking welds of the outside vertical columns before encountering floor pans? And the more durable parts like engines and landing gear passing all the way though at least one tower.

If the jests would not pass entirely into buildings 95 percent open space with the floor decking only as strong as the steel floor connections, where should the jets have gone?[

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

And before you go on about jets not passing through a building...



I see lots of concrete.... busted concrete with a large hole....

a reply to: neutronflux

Feels like feeding a toddler, but since information is king, here comes the aeroplane:

Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001? By Dr. André Rousseau

Please do consume it fully, and prove that an aerial explosions would have shown in seismic.
You can start from page 7 for your convenience.

A subterranean explosion might not be heard, but the ground would shake and initiate a series of waves (body and surface waves). If we distinctly hear an explosion, it is either aerial, which does not give a seismic signal, or it is subaerial, in which case surface waves could be generated.

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Feels like feeding a toddler, but since information is king, here comes the aeroplane:

Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001? By Dr. André Rousseau

Please do consume it fully, and prove that an aerial explosions would have shown in seismic.
You can start from page 7 for your convenience.

A subterranean explosion might not be heard, but the ground would shake and initiate a series of waves (body and surface waves). If we distinctly hear an explosion, it is either aerial, which does not give a seismic signal, or it is subaerial, in which case surface waves could be generated.

The paper is crap. Been debunked. Debated on ATS. And debunked by Dr. Wood.

a reply to: democracydemo

You

and prove that an aerial explosions would have shown in seismic.

Is not an “aerial” explosion if the explosives are strapped to the vertical columns connecting to the ground.

Why would the jet impacts create seismic data when they took out parts of the structure, but not your fantasy planted explosives?

And. The seismic data is free of resultant frequencies from explosives settings of during collapse, but registers the start of the building collapse.

a reply to: democracydemo

In other words. The paper you just referenced is a fantasy to try to con people why the seismic evidence that should be there is not in a bid to keep the fantasy of planted explosives alive in the hearts of the blind followers of the truth movement.

And you still have to make your mind up. Is it thermite that cuts to slow and inconsistent for your split timed sophisticated top down CD fantasy.

Or planted explosives that use pressure wanes to cut? Which there is no evidence of explosions with the force to cut steel columns.

And you still have ... again...

One. The controlled demolition fantasy is dead on arrival. The controlled demolition systems would not have survived the jet impacts and fire to initiate collapse as captured by video

Two. The core columns collapsed after the floor systems were completely sheared away. Whole lengths of core columns stood whole seconds before tumbling down. The floor connections were either sheared by over loading, or bent down wards. Not cut. Supporting the floor system was sheared from the vertical columns while they still stood. What structural members did the fantasy explosives work on?

a reply to: democracydemo

So in your “areal” fantasy, what structural members were cut?

a reply to: neutronflux

Had Dr. Rousseau's paper been definitely debunked as claimed, you would have plastered (cited) this information to the next page by now. Yet we see nothing...but the boy who cried debunked!

a reply to: neutronflux

Is not an “aerial” explosion if the explosives are strapped to the vertical columns connecting to the ground.

Subterranean explosion, aerial explosion, subaerial explosions (close to the ground without touching it). No need for quotations when these are facts.

Page 8

Even if standard controlled demolitions do not create seismic waves (because the explosions are aerial), it is useful to compare the data from the World Trade Center on 9/11 with seismic data obtained during the controlled demolition of other buildings such as the Kingdome in Seattle (Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network, 2000) and at Oklahoma City (US) (Holzer et al., 1996).
The case of the Kingdome is particularly interesting because seismologists expressly asked that the explosions be measured (in order to take advantage of the occasion to gather research data), and those in Oklahoma City were part of a reconstruction, using explosives, of the partially destroyed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
These two examples involved a powerful subaerial explosion and the emitting of Rayleigh waves. Furthermore, the falling of the debris had no seismic consequences, even at distances well below 34 km (less than 7 km and 26 km respectively). Only the seismic equipment situated close to the source during the reconstruction of the bombing in Oklahoma City was able to record the seismic energy created by the collapse of the building.

Why would the jet impacts create seismic data when they took out parts of the structure, but not your fantasy planted explosives?

Page 6 please

In conclusion, even if a seismic wave could be created in a steel column, it would hit the ground only in the form of seismic noise, and as the passage from metal to rock is a refraction that absorbs energy, there would not be much left to propagate in the ground.

And. The seismic data is free of resultant frequencies from explosives settings of during collapse, but registers the start of the building collapse.

Odd indeed, do tell more. Expand please since we do have air waves right at that point in time.

a reply to: democracydemo

The paper debunks its self.

What type of “aerial” explosions would cause the infamous conspiracy fable “looks like a normal controlled”, and what structural members were supposedly cut by this “aerial” explosions to trigger the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

a reply to: democracydemo

You

seismic noise

In geophysics, geology, civil engineering, and related disciplines, seismic noise is a generic name for a relatively persistent vibration of the ground, due to a multitude of causes, that is often a non-interpretable or unwanted component of signals recorded by seismometers.

Physically, seismic noise arises primarily due to surface or near surface sources and thus consists mostly of elastic surface waves. Low frequency waves (below 1 Hz) are commonly called microseisms and high frequency waves (above 1 Hz) are called microtremors. Primary sources of seismic waves include human activities (such as transportation or industrial activities), winds and other atmospheric phenomena, rivers, and ocean waves.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

If you missed it, “ Low frequency waves (below 1 Hz) are commonly called microseisms and high frequency waves (above 1 Hz) are called microtremors.”


Explosives cause very specific wave types, and because of the large amount of energy, result in high frequency seismic data that is well beyond 1Hz that would not be confused with “ Primary sources of seismic waves include human activities (such as transportation or industrial activities), winds and other atmospheric phenomena, rivers, and ocean waves.”

The paper is crap. And you are fooled.

a reply to: democracydemo

You didn’t answer the question. The jets hitting the towers created readable seismic data. Why would explosives with the force to cut structural members connected to the ground through foundations not registered like the jet impacts.

a reply to: democracydemo

You

In conclusion, even if a seismic wave could be created in a steel column, it would hit the ground only in the form of seismic noise, and as the passage from metal to rock is a refraction that absorbs energy, there would not be much left to propagate in the ground.

That is a blatant lie from the paper.

It is well known sound travels through solids.

In solids, the molecules are composed in a lattice with a lot of strong intermolecular bonds. This causes the molecules to be really close as solids are very dense, like the mosh pits of the most br00tal bands in existence. Because of this, the waves in a solid travel very very fast, and usually are too fast to be audible, and are considered to be more of pressure waves. Pressure waves are part of the same spectrum as sound waves, but are caused by faster waves. The waves are normally just pressure forces, like pushing an object, your hand pushes some molecules, which push other molecules, which push other molecules... in a wave. So most sound waves in solids are just pressure waves.

socratic.org...

It is well know why and how sound travels through solids.

Why would the sound, frequencies, wave forms, seismic data of high energy explosions with the force directly impinging / cutting steel columns directly, firmly, and soundly packed in to the foundations not direct sound to and through the ground.

If it was really expected that the frequencies would be “ passage from metal to rock is a refraction that absorbs energy” , then it should be easy to name and describe the fantasy “refraction”.

But in reality, solids “ the waves in a solid travel very very fast, and usually are too fast to be audible, and are considered to be more of pressure waves.”

Seems the paper lies in claiming solids are not a conduit for sound waves. When, in reality. Solids are such a better conduit, sounds waves travel faster through solids vs air.

a reply to: democracydemo

I though about my posting. And though I would clarify some.

The paper claims that sound / seismic waves would not pass from the structure to the ground by refraction.

Refraction is not the blocking or filtering of waves if you will. Or the complete reflection of waves back to the source. It is the changing of speed and direction.

One example. It’s a lane shift on the highway. The sound / seismic waves shift direction and speed like a care on a highway when changing from one medium to another. And yet the car still travels on.

Second example. I would dare say the same effect is seen when white light hits a Glass prism. It changes speed and direction. It’s split into it’s different wavelengths. But it continues to travel undeniably, and detectable through the glass prism.

Refraction and the changing of speed and direction is not the same thing as being filtered, blocked, or reflected back.