hiper
Active Member
I think we can all agree that seismic equipment doesn't lie.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf
No proof, just more bunk.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 Lam
ont-Doherty Earth Observatory, help to
provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each event.
That's true for WTC 7 - not the "Twin Towers".There are people here who have made a far more detailed study of the collapse than I have, and they will put me right if I'm wrong. but if I recall right, most collapse scenarios show the interior of the buildings falling a few seconds before the collapse spread to the external structure. ...,
But it could be any of:
- Wrong
- Misinterpreted
- Misrepresented
- Low resolution
- Selective
Hi Karl, welcome to metabunk.hmmm....but what about static cameras shaking twice before the actual collapse with a distinctive pause in between...1 second or so...me thinks not enough for any broken off debris to hit ground level
Having monitored a seismic vault back in the 80's I can attest to seeing a reaction from a large tractor moving past the building, from nuke explosions on the other side of the world, and from waves crashing on the shores of Newfoundland during a hurricane(despite my vault being 1500 miles NW of that island). I have no problem believing that thousands of tons of impacting steel and concrete will cause seismic indications.I think we can all agree that seismic equipment doesn't lie.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf
Could you post a link to this occurring in videos please. I don't recall it.hmmm....but what about static cameras shaking twice before the actual collapse with a distinctive pause in between...1 second or so...me thinks not enough for any broken off debris to hit ground level
Having monitored a seismic vault back in the 80's I can attest to seeing a reaction from a large tractor moving past the building, from nuke explosions on the other side of the world, and from waves crashing on the shores of Newfoundland during a hurricane(despite my vault being 1500 miles NW of that island). I have no problem believing that thousands of tons of impacting steel and concrete will cause seismic indications.
Uhm ... you have so-and-so many Joules of potential energy available that get translated intoWhat seismic impact? When the began to collapse.., SOME steel fell away over the side and it took as much as 9 secs or so to reach the ground. There was likely no detectable seismic signal fro, steel facade panels hitting the plaza level and smashing through it perhaps.
The ROOSD took about 10 -14 secs... hard to know because you can't see it and it involved the destruction of floor slabs turning them to lots of small sized rubble and dust... not much seismic impact from that I suspect. Nor from the toppling of the "spire". All admittedly big crashes... but detectable as seismic events? Maybe some earth shaking at the end of it all... a 10 second rain to steel sections?
Uhm ... you have so-and-so many Joules of potential energy available that get translated into
1. plastic deformation, fracture
2. seismic waves
3. a bit of heat
in a matter of 15-20 seconds or so.
At some point, you have so-and-so many tons of building material moving down at average velocity v, and seconds later, all the mass coming to rest on the ground, transfering all that momentum to mother earth.
Just do the math - energy/time, perhaps momentum/time (not sure what physical sense that makes), and it does translate to some seismic impact.
When the compacted stack of ROOSD floors hits the ground, it doesn't do so nice and gently.
EXCEPT to be alert for any truth movement claims that seismic effects resulted from CD.I suppose the point being 1.2 million tons falling would shake the ground... how could it not? Nothing of note here.
Having monitored a seismic vault back in the 80's I can attest to seeing a reaction from a large tractor moving past the building, from nuke explosions on the other side of the world, and from waves crashing on the shores of Newfoundland during a hurricane(despite my vault being 1500 miles NW of that island). I have no problem believing that thousands of tons of impacting steel and concrete will cause seismic indications.
The seismic records are one thing, the interpretation of them is quite another.
BTW, when I saw the mess on the rolls caused by the hurricane, I thought I had broken something and called the guys at energy, mines and resources Canada.
Don't think I've posted this one on this forum. Apologies if I have. ("41" - old timers memory.)A friend who is also an amateur seismologist has a working seismograph in his garage. He was once mystified by a recurring low-level reading which happened only on weekdays during daylight hours. It turned out to be heavy equipment grading a hillside for a housing development.
No. See: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/politeness-policy.1224/p.s: Are we allowed to use the term "twoofer" here?
[...]the explosions in in the basement were from electrical shorts that the plane caused when it severed the 13.8kv risers going up to the sub stations on floor 108 from the switch gear in the sub basement. And that's also what destroyed the lobby.
The author implies that there was a subterranean explosion (around 10 seconds?) prior to the plane impact in WTC1. He also implies that the plane impact itself could not have created a seismic signal. However, the following video
starting at 6:50 shows that the plane DID create a seismic signal. The offset between the thump in the camera and the noise of the explosion is exactly the offset one would expect between sound waves traveling through steel (4500 m/s) and then concrete (3000 m/s), to those traveling through air (343 m/s) at that distance: 1.5 seconds.
...
It is still obvious that enough energy was transmitted to the ground to cause the "thump" in the camera.
For all witnesses near ground level in the towers, we must remember that their vantage point precluded them in almost all cases from knowing that a plane had been approaching and crashesd. That is information they must have learned later, or guessed after the fact, and that they must have fed into their recollection retroactively.Furthermore, the witnesses cited in the paper describe areal explosions, not a subterranean one. One of the witnesses later acknowledges that he must have been mistaken in what he thought he saw, because his testimony of a fiery explosion 20 stories below impact zone is proven to be false by many videos. That shows how unreliable eye witnesses can be.
William nailed it... he said he thought the explosion was a generator in the sub basement below him then he heard/felt the plane hit. The latter took 1 second to reach him. The events were actually simultaneous and the explosions in in the basement were from electrical shorts that the plane caused when it severed the 13.8kv risers going up to the sub stations on floor 108 from the switch gear in the sub basement. And that's also what destroyed the lobby.
Correct me if this has been brought up as and "explanation" of the shake/noise; but, isn't it possible that it was just someone kicking the camera a little?
The camera wasn't moved when it "thumped", the image merely went black, and there was also a noise artefact.
Those aren't "shockwaves", they are simple soundwaves. A shockwave would result from a supersonic event, but the plane crash of course was subsonic.In my opinion, the shockwave transmitted through the steel columns would be enough to give people the impression of a detonation through the ground. In addition to that, steel columns could also bust/pop/crack some of the concrete they are imbedded in while they transmit the shockwave into the ground, or while the building leans over stressing the connections, which could also taken to be an explosion by some people.
If someone had hit the camera, it likely would have moved, as it wasn't mounted. But it didn't.The noise doesn't really sound like an artifact caused by interrupted recording to me, but sounds exactly what you hear through the microphone when you hit a camera while its microphone is on (or if you hit a microphone).
No. I am presenting you with a, IMO, better hypothesis that explains more of the known observations, in particular the image going black for a couple of frames, which wouldn't happen from a mere sound wave travelling through the ground. I also don't think that the sound/seismic wave would arrive as a sharply delimited event of 1/30 s, as the different wave forms travel at different speeds through a ground that is quite heterogenous.Are you saying you don't think the plane impact would be transmitted through the building and the ground like that?
Those aren't "shockwaves", they are simple soundwaves. A shockwave would result from a supersonic event, but the plane crash of course was subsonic.
I also don't think that the sound/seismic wave would arrive as a sharply delimited event of 1/30 s, as the different wave forms travel at different speeds through a ground that is quite heterogenous.
William nailed it... he said he thought the explosion was a generator in the sub basement below him then he heard/felt the plane hit. The latter took 1 second to reach him. The events were actually simultaneous and the explosions in in the basement were from electrical shorts that the plane caused when it severed the 13.8kv risers going up to the sub stations on floor 108 from the switch gear in the sub basement. And that's also what destroyed the lobby.
Hmm. There is generally protective devices installed on such distribution lines, coordinated and timed from load to source to prevent explosions and additional damage caused by faults anywhere in the system. No doubt the faults themselves were violent, but switching and protective devices are designed for the maximum available generator or distribution system current at any point in the system. I believe your explanation might be a bit simplistic. I could make a better analysis if I had the distribution schematics for the building of course but I find the likelihood of these electrical faults destroying the lobby very low. In addition the protective devices are timed to operate VERY quickly while it is possible they produced arcs these would have happened long before any jet fuel had a chance to reach the lobby or the subfloors. There were certainly protective devices on the generator itself (and any transformers) which, if working properly, would have protected it from damage due to line to ground or line to line faults.
As far as the seismic data is concerned, I think the author played a bit loose with the interpretation by jumping much too quickly to a controlled demo conclusion. Perhaps a comparison of seismic data collected from other building demolitions would be helpful to debunk his analysis. The fact that he included witness testimony in his scientific paper seems to me to somewhat discredit his study if his intent was truly based on seismic data.
The plane impact and the exploding/expanding fireball would have pushed air down the elevator shafts, potentially accelerating it faster than free fall acceleration. The fireball (firewall) would have expanded down a tube like an elevator shaft faster than it would in free space too, as it only expands 1-dimensionally in the shaft, where as 3 dimensionally outside. On a sidenote, the noise of the impact would be heard much louder through the shaft as outside at same distance. Noise could even be delayed more in the shaft through multiple reflections and therefore longer path, compared to a wave outside in free air.The explosions could have occurred no earlier than 10 seconds after the plane strike if it were fuel.... as it would take about that time for it to even drop that far...
Well, that is an explanation I've not heard before. Admittedly, it's been a while since I actively pursued seeming discrepancies in the 9/11 narrative,* so maybe I'm just late to the discussion, but it closes out one of my final questions about the Towers.
__________
* Well, at least concerning the events of the day itself; there are questions about related events prior and subsequent to the attack still unanswered and, in my opinion, more worth investigating.
I think we can all agree that seismic equipment doesn't lie.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf