WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments.

reply to post by leostokes


Really Nutty 9-11 Physics
www.uwgb.edu...

Nutty 9-11 Physics
www.uwgb.edu...

I do not agree with a lot this above professor brings up, his comments regarding toasted cars look reasonable to me however.

This following photo is from the same lot, when you enlarge the photo by pushing Ctrl+ untill it no longer gets bigger, you will see at least three tow or haul trucks pushing or pulling burning cars in that row of already toasted cars. The photo by the way comes from dr Judy Woods website :
drjudywood.com...



I do not know when this photo was taken :

drjudywood.com...


drjudywood.com...


I advice you to read not only page 26 but all the 77 pages of that pro and con link you posted yourself, it's quite amusing.

reply to post by LaBTop

The mass does not hit the ground, it hits the underlaying still intact structure.

Well I thought you would say something like that. We need to get this straight.

The demolition causes the building to collapse. It makes a pile of rubble. All of the materials (steel and concrete) that use to be in the building are now on the ground. How can you say they did not hit the ground. If the material did not hit the ground, where is it? In the air?

You must mean It did not hit as a solid unit (mass). Well that is obvious. You say I think the building topples. No. You are dividing the fall into steps where one layer hits the supporting layers below. No one doubts this happens. This suits your purpose? I am looking at the whole event, from start to end, not the steps between. What ever your purpose is, you cannot deny these facts of the two events from start to finish:

The Kingdome demolition produced an earthquake magnitude 2.3. The WTC north tower did not produce an earthquake. It produced a tremble, a surface wave, magnitude 2.3. Are you going to deny these facts?

reply to post by LaBTop

I zoomed. I do not see tow trucks. Could you circle them for me.

leostokes
reply to post by LaBTop

 

Leo, how did the owners of those cars get out of their cars after "parking" them so ridiculously tight together?

Here is more evidence. Here is the lot showing the cars as their drivers parked them ridiculously tight together.

Here is the lot after the cars toasted sitting where their drivers parked them ridiculously tight together..

It seems clear to me that these two pictures are valid before and after evidence. The toasted cars have not moved from where the owners parked them. I rest my case.

edit on 17-12-2013 by leostokes because: reorder words in the last sentence

reply to post by leostokes


drjudywood.com...
Blow the picture up in Firefox with repeated Ctrl+ pushes.
JPEG 491x396 pixels, scaled 92%.
I count 25 "vertical" cars in the top row from which 6 are possibly not "toasted",and 2 "horizontal" positioned "toasted" cars.

drjudywood.com...
Blow the picture up in Firefox with repeated Ctrl+ pushes.
JPEG 450x329 pixels, scaled 95%.
I count 18 "vertical" cars of the 25 from the overall above picture, and they are exactly the same ones as in that above picture.

drjudywood.com...
Blow the picture up in Firefox with repeated Ctrl+ pushes.
JPEG 192x256 pixels, scaled 81%. B&W-picture.
Here I see in the right bottom side of the blown up picture the exact same row of "vertical" and "horizontal" positioned "toasted" and a few still paint wearing cars.

Now I rest MY case after you have examined the flock of cars in the left top side of this same parking lot for towed away damaged cars in this black and white picture ("above-left" of the smoldering/burning cars their smoke clouds), and the same top left corner cars in this below picture of yours that you think showed the existing situation before anything happened (it did not, those were already towed away cars left there in flocks. See all the streamed out office workers on the street, and the totally empty offices in that building. This picture was taken in between plane-hits and building-collapses, check the shadow angles.! ) :

files.abovetopsecret.com...
Blow the picture up in Firefox with repeated Ctrl+ pushes.
JPEG 419x316 pixels, scaled 99%. Color picture.

Do you seriously think that people park their cars like that before walking to work?


By the way, why in gods name are we bickering about this kind of trivial pursue?
The heavy EVIDENCE I brought to the table in this thread of mine should trigger your interest, not this kind of virtual and unprovable sidestepping.

That evidence should make it clear to you that you do not need the virtual reasoning of Mrs Wood, my and others their evidence gives you enough serious material to bring to the table in any discussions with people who still believe in an 'honest' government or military. Western or eastern hemisphere based.

reply to post by LaBTop

That evidence should make it clear to you that you do not need the virtual reasoning of Mrs Wood, my and others their evidence gives you enough serious material to bring to the table in any discussions with people who still believe in an 'honest' government or military. Western or eastern hemisphere based.

Well we must each look at the evidence and decide on our own. I am not inclined to take your evidence or your friends or that of Dr. JW on recommendation. You want to debate or intimidate?
Why do you think the seismic evidence was so low at the WTC?

reply to post by LaBTop

By the way, why in gods name are we bickering about this kind of trivial pursue?
The heavy EVIDENCE I brought to the table in this thread of mine should trigger your interest, not this kind of virtual and unprovable sidestepping.

If you are suggesting you out rank me forget it.

By the way, why in gods name are we bickering about this kind of trivial pursue?
The heavy EVIDENCE I brought to the table in my replies in this thread of yours should trigger your interest.

Are pulling rank to dodge the question?

Why do you think the WTC seismic data was so small?

reply to post by LaBTop

Blow the picture up in Firefox with repeated Ctrl+ pushes.

You do it for me. I already said I zoomed and saw no tow trucks. You circle them.

You keep giving me suggestions. I read many sites you suggested. Have you watched Dr. JW's 150 minute video?

I suggest you consult with your advisors and friends and come to a consensus about this example:

Suppose we have a stationary hot air balloon 300 feet up. The cargo is a tank with 125 tons of motor oil. It has a drain hole that will allow the tank to empty in only a few seconds (say maybe 10 seconds). We pull the plug. The oil flows out. The column of oil is hitting the ground and splashing for a few seconds. (The balloon remains at the same place and altitude. The wind is calm.)

Listen very carefully. The total mass that hits the ground is 125 tons. It will produce an earthquake. Just like the controlled demolition of a 125 ton steel and concrete building. Just like the Kingdome.

The magnitude of the quake will be maybe 2.3. The duration will be maybe 15 seconds. That is the time the ground shakes. Well I only guess at the numbers. The important thing is that a seismograph like the Kingdome will result.

Let us all know what your wise friends conclude about this virtual example.

I have now read through page 26 till the top of page 39 of that pro and con Dr. Judy Wood's book thread you offered. I'm now on my way to page 90, it seems to me that I will understand a lot more of all these people their inner workings then. Perhaps yours too.?
I must not forget to read the first 25 pages too !

I really hope you are not of that material. I am optimistic, since you stated you do not believe me, my "friends", nor Mrs Wood. You only rely on your own wisdom. That's a good start.
(Are you a participant in that thread? )

The problem I see ahead is, that you lack a lot of conventional wisdom, the kind you collect through years and years of study of specific subjects. It shows by the manner you offer your comparison examples.
They are seriously wrong, bluntly said.
And I don't want to end up in this thread with 90 pages of .......

To save me and you a lot of work, let's agree on one thing, we differ in opinion on many things.
That will save the readers a lot of wasted time too.


I only want to debate serious seismograms like the one I posted from LDEO, no Disney cartoons without any data attached. Keep those for Popular Science classes.
I have not enough precious time left, to waste it anymore on long winded education.

The Kingdome demolition was just what it says, an obvious demolition.
The WTC demolitions were meant to look as obvious gravitational collapses, caused by plane impacts. In fact however, a little help at the collapse onset and a little help to keep the downward pace was introduced in a sneaky manner. Thermobarics.

If you still do not understand that the OFFICIAL time stamping of the photo of the sinking of the eastern part of the roof of WTC 7 by NIST, and the same OFFICIAL time stamping of the LDEO seismogram of WTC 7 its collapse, are both based on the same, IDENTICAL OFFICIAL atomic clocks offered by NIST, and thus are not disputable anymore by BOTH of those institutes, then you missed the whole picture.

NIST in later years, after LDEO had gone on-line within days after 9/11 with their very detailed seismograms, tried to obfuscate as much as they could the grave conclusions this simple comparison of both clocked events showed directly to anyone capable of understanding clocked seismograms and clocked photographs.

It showed that a huge event took place within WTC 7 that acted on the bedrock underneath it, a few seconds BEFORE its global collapse started.
That wouldn't have been damaging to their heinous operation, had it not been a tad bit TOO heavy event. Its amplitude over classed the whole following TOTAL collapse of that 47 stories high building.
And that's not only weird, it does not fit a gravitational collapse.
That would have shown a small pack of amplitude peaks when internal columns broke and then initiated the following global collapse of all core and outer columns and all the beams and concrete floors, shown on a true seismogram as a much bigger pack of following peaks of much stronger amplitudes.

Now you saw this : ->--
and you should have seen this : ->--
The global collapse should have outclassed the initiation. It did not by far.

reply to post by LaBTop

I only want to debate serious seismograms like the one I posted from LDEO, no Disney cartoons without any data attached. Keep those for Popular Science classes.
I have not enough precious time left, to waste it anymore on long winded education.

Listen very carefully. I accept the validity of the seismograph from LDEO.

You are showing your true colors if you are suggesting your seismograph is valid and mine is not. Are you stooping to suggesting I have falsified data? O what a foul act!

Here is the LDEO report, the first page.

To save me and you a lot of work, let's agree on one thing, we differ in opinion on many things.
That will save the readers a lot of wasted time too.

The OP statement above implies that he is not only addressing me and my reply but also the interested readers. I will also address you, the interested reader.

SUMMARY for all interested readers: The LDEO report sited above by the creator of this thread confirms the data that I presented. Namely, the north tower seismic data shows a surface wave magnitude 2.3.

The OP has made the mistake of discounting the data that I presented (he calls it a Disney cartoon). He himself presents the LDEO data and judges it as better. His problem is now this. The two sets of data show the same result (including the seismographs). The OP has debunked himself.

He cannot dispute the fact that the controlled demolition of the Kingdome produced an earthquake magnitude 2.3 (he was ignorant of this fact as shown by his replies to my posts). He has now acknowledged by referring to LDEO that the north tower did not produce an earthquake, but a smaller surface wave of magnitude 2.3.

This is not, to me, a sporting contest that has a winner and a loser. It is a debate about the evidence. When a sports minded member starts being outscored, he will usually divert attention from the score by fouling his opponent. Sports minded members are weak debaters.

I am in this thread because when I started my own new technology thread (to discuss free energy) it was moved and then closed by the moderators. My first post here was a simple question (see page 10). It has not been addressed by the OP.
(In this quote below the OP is not speaking to me but to another poster.)

And there wasn't an earthquake in all of New York, as you try to ridicule my work, there was a trembling a few seconds before collapses, also felt by peoples feet, recorded by many camera's on tripods, I just posted lots of links to all these tremors in this and other threads.

Question: Why is it that the WTC events did not produce larger seismic events than "trembling"?

double post! how did that happen?

reply to post by LaBTop

It showed that a huge event took place within WTC 7 that acted on the bedrock underneath it, a few seconds BEFORE its global collapse started.
That wouldn't have been damaging to their heinous operation, had it not been a tad bit TOO heavy event. Its amplitude over classed the whole following TOTAL collapse of that 47 stories high building.
And that's not only weird, it does not fit a gravitational collapse.
That would have shown a small pack of amplitude peaks when internal columns broke and then initiated the following global collapse of all core and outer columns and all the beams and concrete floors, shown on a true seismogram as a much bigger pack of following peaks of much stronger amplitudes.

The magnitude of the TOTAL collapse of WTC 7 was 0.6. What was the magnitude of the huge event that you refer to?

reply to post by LaBTop

I only want to debate serious seismograms like the one I posted from LDEO, no Disney cartoons without any data attached.

You must be referring to this seismograph that I posted above. It has a PAL label on it. You do not recognize the source of this Disney cartoon? Well then you must have only glanced at it. It comes from the LDEO report. It is on the last page.

reply to post by LaBTop

If you still do not understand that the OFFICIAL time stamping of the photo of the sinking of the eastern part of the roof of WTC 7 by NIST, and the same OFFICIAL time stamping of the LDEO seismogram of WTC 7 its collapse, are both based on the same, IDENTICAL OFFICIAL atomic clocks offered by NIST, and thus are not disputable anymore by BOTH of those institutes, then you missed the whole picture.

You must have me confused with some other poster. Have we been discussing building 7? My focus has been on the north tower. I guess that is how I missed the whole picture.

reply to post by LaBTop


I just saw it. That went wrong in some mysterious way :

LaBTop :
Now you saw this : ->-- and you should have seen this : ->-- The global collapse should have outclassed the initiation. It did not by far.
(Use "Quote" to see my original intact text)

Another try :
Now you saw this :
- < v v V V - w w v v v > > - -

and you should have seen this :
- < v v - V V V V V v > > - -

The global collapse should have outclassed the initiation. It did not by far.

Btw, I'm on page 47 now from your Mrs Wood debate link.

I really hope you bring your faith based free energy belief to another thread, I do not communicate with free energy proponents.
I have the same attitude to them as to religious people.
I hope they are happy with their belief system, but do not flock together like in former ages to slaughter non-believers.

By the way, a seismograph is the machine, a seismogram is the paper it spits out. Get that right at the very least.
I go read further, on page 47.

I still like you, stick to that attitude that you only believe in yourself, that's a good start to get something right.
For example that free energy is selling you snake oil, energy always comes at a cost.

That was all, be happy.

reply to post by LaBTop

By the way, a seismograph is the machine, a seismogram is the paper it spits out. Get that right at the very least.

Thanks, thats helpful. Seismogram is paper. I made a mistake. That means everything I posted was wrong.

reply to post by LaBTop

Btw, I'm on page 47 now from your Mrs Wood debate link.

The recommended video is this one.The seismic data is a good issue because it is quantified. And the sources are third parties (of course they may be biased or corrupt).
But the main issue is not that. Watch and listen with an open mind. Anyone who goes in with preconceived notions based on conventional technology will be handicapped. A good attitude is: why did she say that? It seems strange because it is new. A new vocabulary is used.
Her motivation is to present evidence. Only after the evidence has been examined is a theory possible. Forget the theory for now.
The evidence is in plain sight. But many are not likely to see it.
If you do not see her point (in the first 40 minutes) you might as well stop and go weed your garden.

reply to post by LaBTop

For example that free energy is selling you snake oil, energy always comes at a cost.

I have indeed bought a lot of snake oil in my day.
The word "free" is not used in the economic sense but in the scientific sense.

I have seen 42 minutes of that Mrs Wood presentation.....where to begin....

You have to first understand the concept of a pile driver combined with an harmonica effect as the visible modus operandi for the two first collapses.

The tops of both South and then North towers pushed themselves through the underlaying still intact structures, thereby peeling them apart and pushing huge chunks of exterior paneling (steel PLUS aluminum) outwards on all four sides.

This is not at all the effect you get when you let these buildings (as in your imagination) fall to the ground. They did not follow such a pattern as you describe, they fell-in on themselves (with a bit of help, otherwise we should have seen a totally different picture).

Especially the videos of the North tower collapse show us some interesting events.

The immense heavy and high radio mast on top of the even so immense heavy cap construction on floor 110 (that clamped the whole exterior's top four sides together) was sinking into the inner core of the building with NO RESISTANCE AT ALL (see Chandler's calculations based on one video pixel movement at the rim of the top floor of the North tower), while the exterior band of burning floors JUST above and below the original lowest impact floors did NOT MOVE at all....

Which can only mean one thing, that the inner core columns were ALL compromised, for sure above and probably already under that level, too, but the exterior columns with all the windows in, were still intact as you can see in these videos. The exterior starts moving down and outward for the first time around ONE SECOND later in that initial collapse.
AFTER a ring around the whole building its four sides, of WHITE smoke (explosives, not black smoke from the burning interiors) spat out from that band of floors JUST above and below the original lowest impact floors.

Which more than ONE SECOND is in milliseconds more than thousand of them. And the first milliseconds of a collapse are the most important ones, if you want to decide if it is a natural or man made one. See Chandlers first collapse-seconds free fall reasonings in my huge undeniable evidence posts in this thread.

The harmonica-like and peeling-out manner, in which these two first towers collapsed, is also the reason why the seismic effect of that collapse was of course a lot less than when big chunks of it were fallen off the center of these two first collapsed buildings. Or even heavier, when the two towers would have toppled over with the bottom floor as a hinge.

Let's have a view at the loads of misconceptions Mrs Wood piled up in that presentation in Holland. I feel sorry for her, she should have first peer-consulted more with other 9/11 researchers before setting her heels in the sand.
It looks a lot the same as Mrs Honniger's presentation in Vancouver last year, with those Pentagon clocks misconception, etc.

Starting with this :

files.abovetopsecret.com...


WTC 1 north tower fell secondly, had a Richter scale effect of 2.3 and had a heavier block of 20 floors PILE DRIVING down THROUGH only 90 floors. It also had the extra weight of the radio tower and the reinforced cap.
Compared to WTC 2 south tower's 16 floors pile driver and its resistance of 94 still standing floors, that's why that tower only exerted a 2.1 on the Richter scale in the underlaying bedrock.

files.abovetopsecret.com...


Both towers came down after the initial demolition of all core columns at two or three floors worth of their lengths, in a harmonica like fashion, while that block of initial floors was falling through them. This kind of collapse is slowed down by the underlaying still standing structure, which delivers a kind of slowing damper force on that pile driver pack of floors.

If you attach a huge steel coil under that block of 500 tons of yours and you let it fall down from 300 feet, it already will exert a lot less seismic energy into the bedrock, then when you let that 500 tons weight just ram into the ground.
And when you put that same 500 tons weight on top of a tower of floors of thin steel columns and beams, and then blow out the center portion of those columns over a few floors worth, deeper down, that 500 ton will come CRASHING down through the rest of those thin steel columns and beams, but will exert even a lot less seismic energy into the same bedrock, since all that thin steel breaking will act as a cushion, spreading the shock of the collapse.

Both towers had potential energies of 30 times that of the Kingdome, as stated by Mrs Wood, but that one really was falling to the ground with no resistance since those columns holding that dome up were blown out at ground level and just under the dome structure.
If you observe the Kingdome demolition, you see about 8 huge CONCRETE segments of it, fall to the ground, one after one in a circular fashion around that dome's periphery.

Probably the Kingdome's underground was also not the same as that in New York too. But the sudden thump of 8 huge blocks of concrete smashing in ground level is the huge difference in seismic appearance of that demolition.

And the charges were set off at very low levels, not 90 and 94 floors up.
The distance difference to the ground for placements of those charges is huge, minimizing the seismic effects of those charges for the towers immensely.

And by the way, it still is the amount of time during which a weight or a collection of weights as at the twin towers, thumps to the ground, that defines for the most part its seismic effect.

And those 2 first towers did not come down in 9 to 10 seconds as she repeatedly says, it were 21 to 24 seconds in all....That's not honest reasoning.


Secondly, she creates a HUGE misconception in the minds of her viewers and readers of her book when she tries to implement the thought in their minds that the rubble pile of the two first towers were much too low and too small.
That's not honest reasoning.

That's not true at all, the rubble piled up in a circle of 300 meter diameter around both towers.... And one of the opponents of her book in that link of yours at some page in the thirties offered a calculation of pile height compared to tower steel and concrete masses, and came reasonably near to the real heights of rubble measured by NASA and USGS. Look for the orange colored debris circles around WTC 1 and 2 in the color drawing in his post.
And do not forget the 30 meters deep cellars, where a lot of bottom debris was packed together first.

Mrs Wood shows triumphantly a short video of the huge parking cellars under WTC 3 and 4, which were still intact and empty after collapses, listen to the echo she says.
That's a ridiculous comparison, those parking cellars were far away from the footprints of both towers, where most of the collapse pressures were exerted into. That's not honest reasoning.

I go look at the rest of that video, but do not have high hopes to find something really mind blowing anymore, after seeing her sloppy kind of logic and selective reasoning.