Originally posted by Aim64C
Um - no.
Force is, typically, measured in units as the SI standard. Grams (and more commonly Kilograms - since it's a unit we can comprehend much easier - much like the difference between pounds and ounces).
Additionally, the metric system is simply easier to work with and requires fewer conversions and makes errors in calculations less likely.
So, you "can" use pounds - but, operationally and when working the math, it's best to use the metric system.
And, as I said before, your issue is one of torque - as it is an expression of the amount of force being applied. Hang a weight on the end of a rod - and all of the forces experienced can be broken down into a function of torque.
We use something similar in electronics to calculate the various voltages and values in a circuit at any given point in time along an AC waveform. Adding multiple 'weights and levers' to the system, even at different angles and lengths is simple - everything will behave according to the same rules and all of the values will follow a sine function.
Same concept - different application. After you've determined the net force at play, all you have left to do is compare it to the material's tolerances (although this is where the geometry of your material being subjected to the force and its relation to the direction(s) of that force come into play more than anything - and that's a whole different ballgame, static strengths of materials based on their geometry).
In the United States, a kip is a unit of force that equals 1,000 pounds-force, used primarily by architects and engineers to measure engineering loads. It is also used as a unit of weight to compute shipping charges. It is equivalent to one half of a U.S. ton. Although uncommon, it is occasionally also considered a unit of mass, equal to 1,000 pounds.
Originally posted by Aim64C
which is why I love computers..... they make complex and dynamic math so much more enjoyable.......
( LT I have posted before on professor Terry Wallace, because he was mentioned in a forensic seismic experiment in Kenya, after the US Embassy bombing in Nairobi, to determine the exact explosion time, which they said was found with a precision of thousands of a second (milliseconds), through the seismic records.
Keep this in mind when you hear or see seismologists trying to tell you that the exact 9/11 seismic times could differ within a 2 SECONDS error frame. That's 2,000 milliseconds above the possible error margin!
It should be obvious to the reader that it's implausible an ANFO bomb parked out in the street would have the force to blow all the way through a huge superstructure like the Alfred P. Murrah Building.
No matter how hard the government tried to lie, obsfucate, and distort the truth, the evidence would come back to haunt them.
On April 19, a tape recording made during a conference at the Water Resources Board directly across from the Murrah Building appears to indicate a succession of blast events, spaced very close together. 
The tape recorder at the Water Resources Board was not the only instrument recording explosions that morning. The seismograph at the Oklahoma Geological Survey at the University of Oklahoma at Norman, 16 miles from the Murrah Building, recorded two waves, or "two events," on the morning of April 19th. Another seismograph at the Omniplex Museum, four miles away from the Federal Building, also recorded two events. These seismic waves, or "spikes," spaced approximately ten seconds apart, seem to indicate two blasts. [See Appendix]
Professor Raymond Brown, senior geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma who studied the seismograms, knew and talked to people inside the building at the time of the blast. "My first impression was, this was a demolition job," said Brown. "Somebody who went in there with equipment tried to take that building down."
Not so, according to the U.S. Geological Survey's analysis. The USGS put out a press release on June 1st, entitled "Seismic Records Support One-Blast Theory in Oklahoma City Bombing."
The bomb that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City produced a train of conventional seismic waves, according to interpretations by scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Oklahoma Geological Survey (OGS).
Scientists from those agencies said the seismic recordings of the May 23 demolition of the building reproduced the character of the original, April 19th seismic recording by producing two trains of seismic waves that were recorded on seismometers near Norman, Okla.
"Seismic recordings from the building's implosion indicate that there was only one bomb explosion on April 19," said Dr. Thomas Holzer, a USGS geologist in Menlo Park, Calif. Holzer is one of several USGS and OGS scientists who analyzed the shock waves created by the April 19 explosion and the May 23 implosion.
Holzer added that the two distinct waves from the April 19 explosion(s) were the result of the same wave traveling at two different speeds through two separate layers of the earth's crust. The "illusion" of a double explosion was simply the result of the building's collapse, he claimed. "So the bottom line then," said Holzer, "is I think these observations are totally consistent with a single explosion. It doesn't require multiple explosions to do it."
Dr. Brown has an honest difference of opinion with folks at the U.S. Geological Survey. "I will candidly say that we are having trouble finding that velocity difference," said Brown. "We have not identified a pair of layers that could account for the ten-second difference.
"Whatever the USGS saw in that data convinced them that the original blast was one bomb," he added. "I find that hard to believe…. What was uncomfortable and might be construed as pressure is that they were going to come out with a press release that says we have concluded that data indicates one bomb. It puts us in the uncomfortable stance of saying that we, too, have concluded that, and we haven't."
Yet the USGS press release said that Dr. Charles Mankin of the OGS, Brown's boss, was "pleased with the work performed by Dr. Holzer and his USGS colleagues in the analysis of the seismic records." Yet Mankin had actually urged Holzer to delay the press release. "Everybody that has looked at the signal has said a refraction (an echo) would really be strange because there's absolutely no loss of energy in the recorded seismic signal. The second event has the same amplitude as the first… The arrival time is wrong for a refracted wave… We've ruled out reflections, refractions, and the air blast… We determined that these two records of these two events corroborate our interpretation that there were two explosions."
The mainstream media, of course, jumped on the USGS's findings, with headlines like "Single Bomb Destroyed Building" and "Seismic Records Shake Murrah Multiple Bomb Theory." "The news media even reported two bomb blasts initially," said Mankin, "but later changed their story."
"The USGS's conclusions are not supported by either data or analysis," added Brown, who asked that his name be taken off the report. Although Brown cautions that his own conclusions are far from conclusive and require "more thorough investigation," the most logical explanation for the second event says Brown, is "a bomb on the inside of the building."
"Even the smallest of those detonations (from the May 23rd demolition of the REMAINS of the Murrah building) had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building," he added, "which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building. So it is very unlikely that one-fourth of the building falling on April 19th could have created an energy wave similar to that caused by the large [truck-bomb] explosion."
One of the problems with the two event theory is that the spikes on the seismic readings were ten seconds apart. With that much difference, most everybody in the vicinity should have heard two separate blasts. But given the traumatic nature of being in the immediate vicinity of a bombing, would witnesses necessarily have heard two explosions? Although the sound of a truck-bomb would certainly have made a loud, roaring noise, complete with lots of smoke and flying debris, experts say that the "crack" of a C-4 cutting charge is "downright disappointing" to hear.
I still to this day have never met any opponent who could prove me wrong on this WTC 7 seismic thesis, showing clear evidence of a false flag on 9/11.
Try to prove that huge first seismic peak wrong, evidence of a huge energy event, taking place before any building movement was visible for the camera's around WTC 7, bigger than the resulting energy from the whole following global collapse of a 47 stories high rise.
You can't. That's why no one seriously tried me over it, over all these past years.
Does anyone seriously believe that ONE column breakage, nr 79, could cause that HUGE seismic peak?
Notice Fig D. In a high rise, when you explode circular thermobaric devices filled with depleted uranium strips to form supersonic, super-hot and super-heavy DU plasma cutting fronts, at every fourth floor, the resulting immense amplified pressure fronts and simultaneous resulting, oscillating enormous shock waves in those corners will cause "peeling off" of the four corners of that high rise, just as we saw when those two towers collapsed.
Just place them in the central shafts, and combined with thermobaric fillings in the hollow thick steel core columns at calculated intervals, they will shatter that steel when ignited, as if it were crystal instead of heavy steel.
One has only to place reasonable small TB devices in the elevator shafts and set them off with radio, electrical or sound signals from a computerized sequencing program. And place also TB's in the hollow core columns.
Professor Raymond Brown, senior geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma who studied the seismograms :
Even the smallest of those detonations (from the May 23rd demolition of the REMAINS of the Murrah building) had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building," he added, "which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building.
, experts say that the "crack" of a C-4 cutting charge is "downright disappointing" to hear.
Aim64 :You're making some strange interpretations of the data.
Did you see any event in the footage of WTC 7 collapse that illustrated a release of more energy than the collapse of the building?
Such a release of energy would have been fairly obvious, one would think.
It's not entirely implausible.
Except that the WTC was mostly empty space.
That's a completely different concept.
Aim64c, we have had this discussion before in other threads, and now you give it again another switch, still wrong.
Column 79 was not rooted in the bedrock. It stood on top of the protective, 3 times overengineerd, immense thick steel beams "cage" covering the whole ConEd electrical station that delivered electrical power for the whole WTC complex.
And snapping of it at one place would not be identical to it being cut over 6 floors, as must have been done to it, to achieve a 2+ seconds freefall period.
The sound of that, relatively small, has been calculated to drown in the sound of the global collapse starting period.
But we still could hear that low frequency rumble before we saw the first movements at the roof line in that video I last year posted. The one with sufficient audio to hear that low sound, seconds before collapse initiated.
You just had to scroll up two posts above my last one to find the explanation why that huge first WTC 7 seismic peak is an indication of high velocity explosives coupled to several columns and beams in the lower levels of WTC 7, which levels we do not have any video reports from, despite the massive occurrence of news agencies and their camera crews.
They were all pushed back behind the 4 block perimeter lines set up by NYFD, which took hours to clean up the area from any people still roaming free in that area.
And I have posted a video of the WTC 7 collapse with sufficient audio, so that you can hear a distinctive but very low rumbling sound before you see the east penthouse roof starting to sink inside the roof top parapet's line.
I still firmly stand by my own remarks under my quote from Prof. Brown.
Huge spikes from the explosives, followed in that seismogram by a set of much smaller spikes from the global collapse of the 2/3 remnants of that already two weeks before bombed Murrah building.
Because explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the remnants of that Murrah Building building.
I think you did not understand the text in my post two posts up.
You do not see any effect of a cutting charge, until, after a slow-motion delay period the building starts to react by crumbling down.
First they cut column 79 over about a height of 6 floors, it sags down taking beams with it down, then we saw the east penthouse roof line sink down after a delay period of 8.3 seconds in which they cut several other crucial columns and cross-beams in those lower 6 floors, and the global collapse initiated, then the huge sound of that covered up the massive blow out of the rest of their calculated columns and beams (isn't that loud at all, lost in the rumble of the start of the global collapse ), which caused the whole top of the building to start falling down in unisome at FREEFALL speed during more than 2 seconds. This can only be achieved when a whole packet of construction parts is going to be removed INSTANTLY.
I do not know of any natural event that could achieve that what happened in those 2+ seconds. Only human intervention with explosives can do that.
You just have to break the backbone of a building with cutter charges at the right places to bring it down at freefall speed, followed by natural gravitational speeds.
High velocity cutting charges however bring a LOT more "excitement" to that bedrock than natural breaking.
You did not grasp the notion of total pressure on all four exterior walls. That caused the peeling out of all 4 wall sections, instantly followed by tearing, rupturing loose of the corner sections. THEN the glass broke.
No, it's not, search in this thread or in others cross-linked in it, to the remarks of Tom of Bedlam, about his find that TB's were developed that would and could shatter thick steel columns like glass.
Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking; a way
of skeptically interrogating the universe with a fine understanding of human fallibility.
If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along.”
- Carl Sagan.
ZeuZZ : On the face of it, Aim64C, that looks like a pretty extensive response. A shame then that everything you have just said is, at best, utterly misleading, and at worst, bare faced lies.
Aim64: The building consists of an almost modular construction with a rigid mesh 'sheath'. Inner parts of the building can, literally, fall away and collapse with little visibility on the outside. Your own seismic data also supports this theory - with large sections of the building falling away 8.3 seconds prior to the visible external collapse of the building (after large portions of the inside had already collapsed).
Aim64: Raw physics disagrees with you. The amount of energy stored within a stressed steel beam can easily exceed the amount of energy in a kilogram or more of C-4. The sound of snapping steel beams is often mistaken for an explosion.