A new theory on 9/11?

[ABCwarrior]

They hate Jesus

Oh, I see where you're coming from pal, hence the lack of rational reasoning or understanding....nice Christian mentality. Get back to the dark ages with your severely tampered with hate book/manual whatever it is.

Anyway- re: the effects of any supposed nuclear reaction and how they would register seismically. This is covered by the bloke quite well. The closest recordings at Palisades observatory 21 miles north of the WTC complex came in at 2.1 and 2.3 on the Richter scale. Yet there's another set of "perceived" seismic indicators(I can't remember the name, it's in the interview) which say that humans cannot detect <3.5 on the scale- yet there's testimonies by loads of people, firemen at the site that the ground prior to the start of each collapse was shaking and rumbling intensely? So how does that work? Also by the time people had set up cameras on tripods to film the event, just a few seconds before the collapse they all show a shaking, even from over the Hudson river. This shaking that can be felt equates to a magnitude of between 5-6 on the Richter scale on this "perceived" scale, and the bloke says that a 150kt explosion gives off 5.7 on the RS.

He categorically states that the RS figures published are an utter lie and the seismic graphs look fabricated(hand drawn). Even the 1kt "mini nuke/bin laden theory" produces 4 on the RS!!

Go on, watch it...you know you wanna

 

[RedHerring2]

They hate Jesus

Oh, I see where you're coming from pal,

Weren't there a few conspiracy theories about that too?

Sorry, off-topic.

 

[TheOriginalTonkaToy]

A nuke under the towers.

The seismic signal would have been picked up *worldwide* and would have been distinctive. The local ground tremors would have been like riding a rollercoaster - watch some of the low yield underground test videos and see what the effect is. There would have been radionuclides released into the atmosphere - underground testing takes place in a predominantly sandstone or carbonate environment and relies on the rock fusing in a massive bubble to contain the gases and particles of vapourised fissiles. Moreover the test sites were always well away from human habitation to avoid contamination. The WTC is in an alluvial area - it would have leaked like a sieve and those releases have a very distictive signature that would have been detected let alone the damage to human tissue that would have occured over the first few weeks. Finally, how would they suppress the NEMP?

Yet another lunatic conspiracy theory. Pass the tinfoil.

 

[RedHerring2]

Moderator 3 wrote

Start another topic for above post, I can split it if necessary

Nah thanks, not for me I was being (well trying to be) a bit humorous.

 

[ABCwarrior]

The WTC is in an alluvial area - it would have leaked like a sieve and those releases have a very distictive signature that would have been detected let alone the damage to human tissue that would have occured over the first few weeks

Oh yeah? Read this(an easy google find)

Schist forms the island’s spine from the Henry Hudson Bridge on its north end to the Battery on its southern tip; it dips abruptly several hundred feet below ground at Washington Square, and makes a gradual ascent beginning at Chambers Street. These dips and rises account for the gap between “midtown” and “downtown” in the Manhattan skyline, since tall buildings had to be anchored on solid bedrock, and not on the glacial till that fills the valleys

http://www.newyorknature.net/Geology.html

As they say up here TOTT, you're talking out of your a*se. The bedrock of the area is schist, which is metamorphic, and not alluvial but a post glacial landscape.
It's also one of the oldest and hardest bedrocks on the planet. In fact, if I remember the Canadian Shield is Pre-Cambrian aged (about 570million years ago and beyond), and they reckon this bit is a billion years old. Not the nice new sedimentary rock(which is largely porous to some extent due to the cementitious nature of it's formation leaving voids within the matrix(I'm a stonemason BTW ).

Hope your Nuclear Physics is a bit sharper than your geology/geomorphology

 

[TheOriginalTonkaToy]

The WTC is in an alluvial area - it would have leaked like a sieve and those releases have a very distictive signature that would have been detected let alone the damage to human tissue that would have occured over the first few weeks

Oh yeah? Read this(an easy google find)

Schist forms the island’s spine from the Henry Hudson Bridge on its north end to the Battery on its southern tip; it dips abruptly several hundred feet below ground at Washington Square, and makes a gradual ascent beginning at Chambers Street. These dips and rises account for the gap between “midtown” and “downtown” in the Manhattan skyline, since tall buildings had to be anchored on solid bedrock, and not on the glacial till that fills the valleys

http://www.newyorknature.net/Geology.html

As they say up here TOTT, you're talking out of your a*se. The bedrock of the area is schist, which is metamorphic, and not alluvial but a post glacial landscape.
It's also one of the oldest and hardest bedrocks on the planet. In fact, if I remember the Canadian Shield is Pre-Cambrian aged (about 570million years ago and beyond), and they reckon this bit is a billion years old. Not the nice new sedimentary rock(which is largely porous to some extent due to the cementitious nature of it's formation leaving voids within the matrix(I'm a stonemason BTW ).

Hope your Nuclear Physics is a bit sharper than your geology/geomorphology

I have a degree in geology thanks

The bedrock may well be metamorphic but it's still an alluvial region with alluvial and glacial deposits. The skyscrapers are piled into the bedrock - there's an area where glacial till predominates and no skyscrapers were built. Metamorphic rocks are hard and brittle and would fracture badly if subjected to the forces and heat involved in a nuclear blast and subsequently leak like a sieve as would the alluvial deposits and the till. The principle is still correct. Radiation poisoning would ensue on a very large scale.

The Canadian shield is indeed precambrian in part but it's also the largest exposed archaean complex in the world and dates to some 4.5 billion years. It's composed of many terranes thought to represent the very earliest tectonic activity and continent building. We have similar geology in the NW highlands.

However you argue it, the idea that a nuclear blast brought down the towers is nonsense for the reasons given in my previous post. Uunless, of course, the aliens invaders running the planet have managed to institute a global coverup from their secret base in area 51

I think I'll buy some shares in Alcan

 

[ABCwarrior]

Metamorphic rocks are hard and brittle and would fracture badly if subjected to the forces and heat involved in a nuclear blast

With the greatest of respect I have to ask why? The bloke argues that the rock type makes no odds in the Soviet nuclear research they did- he says that the rock is vaporised and is essentially turned into a form of volcanic glass which seals up the chamber, and that the Russians used this method to create safe underground gas storage facilities throughout the former USSR....

My house is in a schist area and from the ones I've tried to "work" they're far from brittle! Even splitting the ones in the most obvious planes is nigh on impossible.

I graduated with an MSc in Urban Water and Environmental Management in 2002. Useless. Wish I'd done geology it is actually very interesting!!!

 

[Blasphemous]

I graduated with an MSc in Urban Water and Environmental Management in 2002. Useless. Wish I'd done geology it is actually very interesting!!!

Just out of interest more than anything else ABC, what made you plump for the Urban Water and Enviro Management?

 

[cantaloup63]

I graduated with an MSc in Urban Water and Environmental Management in 2002. Useless. Wish I'd done geology it is actually very interesting!!!

Just out of interest more than anything else ABC, what made you plump for the Urban Water and Enviro Management?

Because he's crazy

 

[TheOriginalTonkaToy]

Metamorphic rocks are hard and brittle and would fracture badly if subjected to the forces and heat involved in a nuclear blast

With the greatest of respect I have to ask why? The bloke argues that the rock type makes no odds in the Soviet nuclear research they did- he says that the rock is vaporised and is essentially turned into a form of volcanic glass which seals up the chamber, and that the Russians used this method to create safe underground gas storage facilities throughout the former USSR....

My house is in a schist area and from the ones I've tried to "work" they're far from brittle! Even splitting the ones in the most obvious planes is nigh on impossible.

I graduated with an MSc in Urban Water and Environmental Management in 2002. Useless. Wish I'd done geology it is actually very interesting!!!

The Americans picked an area rich in sand and sandstone for their test are as they high silica content would give a higher probability of the rock fusing and forming a good seal. Even then there were dreadful accidents and releases of vapourised fissiles and nucleotides. Schist is composed of lamellar minerals such as mica, graphite, hornblende, and talcs. There are types of schist that have a reasonable quartz content, but they're more unusual. Schists are formed at great depth under high pressure and heat conditions caused by tectonic collisions so they have no clearly defined structure compared to a sedimentary rock or even a crystalline igneous rock.

Brittle is a subjective term - I'm not talking about the forces exerted by a rock hammer (although even that can cause some metamorphic rocks, hornblende for instance, to shatter) but the forces from a multi kiloton fission blast. There may be local fusing but the overall structure would shatter. You can't hide the sort of leakage that would cause in a city with a high population density - there would be dreadful health effects.

 

[libby lou lou]

So what do think about frackin?

 

[TheOriginalTonkaToy]

So what do think about frackin?

I think it's a frackin' risky business

 

[ABCwarrior]

Good response TOTT, like it, reasoned and logical. So presumably igneous acidic rocks with plenty of quartz (like granite) would respond to an underground blast more favourably if they haven't been subjected to the same stresses and pressures as metamorphic ones?
Interesting indeed.
5.7 on the RS is pretty high I agree and I'm sure every monitoring station on the planet would have picked this up
This then leaves the Palisades figures of 2.1 and 2.3.
So what caused the shaking cameras and how does this fit with the testimonies of those who felt massive movement below them prior to the collapse. This is some 80 odd storeys below any damage at this point, any impact above would have been easily absorbed by foundation level?
Using the Modified Mercalli Intensity value this registers between a V and VI
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mercalli.php

This Scale goes up to XII, but I'm not sure how the scale equates with the Richter Scale
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/richter.php

Earthquakes with magnitude of about 2.0 or less are usually called microearthquakes; they are not commonly felt by people and are generally recorded only on local seismographs. Events with magnitudes of about 4.5 or greater - there are several thousand such shocks annually - are strong enough to be recorded by sensitive seismographs all over the world.

Even exponentially 2.1 and 2.3 aren't much from this.

This is interesting and worth a read

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_160.htm

It concludes with:

At the moment of the impact by the planes on the Twin Towers and their collapse, as well as that of WTC7, seismic waves were generated.

To the degree that:
seismic waves are only created by brief impulses
that low frequencies are associated with an energy (magnitude) that is comparable to a seismic event, these waves undeniably have an explosive origin
Even if the planes' impact and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude was insufficient to be recorded 34 km away, and they should have been similar

None of the "official story" can give any credible explanation as to why there was molten steel below the debris pile months later

http://www.rense.com/general28/ioff.htm

 

[wobs]

hundreds die when it could be stopped
Have a look at USS lIBERTY.

A US ship gets shot up by Israeli as they were in the wrong place. Israel later paid reperations, and CTers try to claim some underhand err something. OK, so the US getting caught in friendly has a certain irony to it, but hardly a CT.

Is that the best you can come up with?
Oh, it isn't:

And pearl harbour there is clear evidence coming out for years now that days before hand the japanese codes had all been broken and it was clear where was being attacked and when ,

So to say the US government would stop any such plot and could never come up with anything so far fetched is as unbelievable as some of the conspiracy theories that come out.

You're not seriously suggesting that US let Pearl Harbour happen! They lost multiple ships and lives, put them back militarily, and cost them dearly. While there were intelligence reports of an attack, they were not specific enough (well, the ones that high command saw).

 

[wobs]

naturally after reading Judy Woods stuff I'm keen to find out why these buildings did turn to dust

It didn't.
Steel, lumps of concrete, concrete powder, gypsum powder, furniture fragments, body parts.... all collected.

There were a few thousand people involved in the clean up. Surely one of them must have said something by now if it was suspicous. Still waiting for that one.

(please don't regurgitate the- "oooh, it was unprecedented blah blah", physics changed that day nonsense...)

You said physics changed, not me.

, and still think anyone who believes the official story needs their head examined.

Says the person promoting the idea of a nuclear device and/or energy beams.

For the record Wobs:

Funny how WTC1&2 collapses started around the impact zones and not at the bottom

This was one of the points bothering me- if, as he claimed the towers were turned to dust internally from an upwards nuclear explosion then surely we would have seen windows blowing from the bottom up and the building would surely have collapsed instantly in one go if it happened as quick as he thinks it did? If all the walls of your house were turned to dust they couldn't possibly support the roof. This wasn't given any credible explanation IMO

So it points to the idea of a nuclear being nonesense.

Like I say I'd have preferred to have some rational debate, if I wanted a regurgitation of the "official" 9/11 Commission story I could have got that in my library from the fiction section, next to Harry Potter and the Bible

Who said anything about the 9/11 commision? Its a non-technical document.