New study supports WTC controlled demolition

And yet another theory that is incompatible with all the other truther theories.

Hey guys, you just don't get it, the idea is to get one comprehensible theory that works.
 
And what is scary is that 9/11 Truth is one of the OP's less insane beliefs.
9/11 Truth is crazy enough, but compared to Holocaust Denial or the Jews are plotting to take over the world..
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/MacQueen_EarlyEarthShake.pdf

A new paper is available at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is from Professor Graeme MacQueen, and is called "Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?" Here are some excerpts.

"In the debate over the collapses of the Twin Towers on 9/11, the shaking of the earth that accompanied these collapses has played an important role. This shaking registered clearly on seismographs. Less clear, however, are its causes and the times it began. The National Institute of Standards and Technology emphasizes the role of the debris from the collapsing buildings in producing the seismic signals. In assessing NIST’s hypothesis I focus on the collapse of the South Tower and attempt to determine the time the collapse began, the time the debris from the Tower struck the ground, and the temporal relation of these events to the shaking of the earth that accompanied the collapse. I consider both the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s seismic evidence and the evidence provided by a less studied form of seismic instrument, the video camera. I also draw on witness testimony. I conclude that key statements by NIST are false. Major shaking of the earth, and corresponding seismic signals, started well before the debris hit the ground. In fact, it seems certain that the shaking of the earth started before visible signs of building collapse. This evidence is incompatible with the official NIST hypothesis of the cause of the collapse of the Towers."
Click to expand...

If there were explosions strong enough to register seismic readings and shake cameras, why was there not a single clip of audio that picked up the sound of an explosion?
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Are there any "papers" in the Journal of 9/11 Studies that don't support the truthers conspiracy theories?
Click to expand...

Well, they all assert in one way or the other that the towers no longer exist, so at least they all have this in common with reality.
 
Does this stunning new work of academia account for the fact that not a single person who witnessed these buildings collapse has expressed a belief it was due to controlled demolition?

No?

Maybe someday a Truther will write a paper explaining how such a cataclysmic event could occur in front of hundreds of people without any of them noticing.
 
Last edited:
carlitos said:
Speaking of psychic abilities, the author of the paper you posted calls one second "12.729 seconds." How does he achieve this?
Click to expand...



And on this note, exactly how does he read a time stamp on a video clip down to 3 decimal places? Considering most video systems film at about 25-30 frames per second, how exactly does he get down to microseconds resolution?
 
Oddly enough, a professor of Buddhism or whatever failed to 'show his work' in this particular math problem. :)
 
9/11-investigator said:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/MacQueen_EarlyEarthShake.pdf

A new paper is available at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is from Professor Graeme MacQueen, and is called "Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?" Here are some excerpts.
Click to expand...

An ellipse ("...") represents some text that as been omitted from long text for some editorial purposes. A search of that PDF shows a couple dozen ellipses in quotes that claim to support whatever it is the paper claims to prove. I haven't read it yet.

Based on my survey of a couple hundred ellipses in other "Truth Movement" documents, I bet that when and if I get to chase down the full text of those citations, we will find that the author has exorcised significant text that contradicts whatever it is that the author wants the quote to make us believe and that the full text quote supports the opposite of "Truth Movement" claims.

So much for intellectual honesty.

So much for the "Truth Movement".
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/MacQueen_EarlyEarthShake.pdf

A new paper is available at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is from Professor Graeme MacQueen, and is called "Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?" Here are some excerpts.
Click to expand...

This paper cites one of the NIST FAQs. I have a question about it.

Does anyone have the number of feet the height of fall was for WTC1 and WTC2, preferably with a source. -- Thanks.


6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1)
and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)? NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)... [2]
Click to expand...
 
jaydeehess said:
Indeed a seismic reading of an actual explosive is easily identified as a much sharper spike than that of heavy vibration. That is to say that the fundemental frequency of the wave is much higher for an explosion.





Anectote time for me.

When I was 24 years old I was an electronic tech on a weather station on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian artic. When the seimology tech went on vacation I filled in for him, changing the phtographic paper on the rollers that recorded seismic activity. This was of course done in the dark and the paper rolls developed in a darkroom then sent to Ottawa by mail(its all done electronically and automatically now). On the second day, when I developed the rolls they were full of huge scrawls lasting several hours. Believing I might have broken the machinery the day before, I called Ottawa and asked about what I was seeing.
I was told that there was a hurricane striking Newfoundland and that what I was seeing was the seismic vibrations caused by the waves crashing on the granite shores (Newfoundland is affectionatly referred to by locals as "The Rock")

I was also shown the difference between a large open pit coal mine 'cap shot' and a nuclear test shot. The wavelength of the recordings of the nuke were much shorter than those of the conventional explosive. Both were smaller amplitude than the waves crashing but the pounding waves produced much longer wavelength recordings than either explosive.

The L-D seismic readings also recorded the aircraft impacts indicating that strong vibrations can indeed be transmitted via the structure to the ground and register on the equipment

I find it no suprise at all that the vibration produced by tons of falling building would be transmitted through the steel structure to the bedrock foundation.

This would occur not only faster than the rate of fall of debris in free fall outside the towers, it would also occur faster than the sound, through the air, of the collapse. (the speed of sound through steel being much faster than through air) Witnesses on the ground would feel the vibration before they heard the sound of the collapse 1000 feet up. These witnesses would include video cameras which could record a shaking before the sound through the air and most certainly before debris, falling outside the towers, hit the ground.

That this is not immediatly obvious to Jones is indicative of his failure as a scientist.



I have brought up the WTC 7 seismic record many times with members of the TM. Supposedly WTC 7 fell in much less than 18 seconds according to them yet they also use the seismic record of the towers collapses to tell us what their collapse time was. Apparently, according to the TM, L-D seismic readings for the towers was much more accurate then, than it was several hours later when WTC 7 fell.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that anecdote. Very interesting. Yeah, truthers have a nasty habit of using the same data to make two contradictory arguments.

They can't even process the WTC7 seismic data, because it's just too glaringly obvious that it tears a hole the size of Manhattan in their fantasy.

The most notable example of their cognitive dissonance is that they require freefall in their CD theory. Yet the towers didn't fall at that rate of acceleration - even according to David Chandler, it was about 64% of freefall (they employ the euphemistic term 'near freefall speed' to cover this fact up).
In other words: not freefall.

Chandler now makes a further, perplexing argument that, since approx 36% of the energy of the upper block was used up in destroying structure (that's incorrect, but another story), then it didn't transfer enough energy to collapse the building...what else would one expect? In fact, in a typical CD, gravity does most of the work, the explosives merely initiate the movement of the structure onto itself. And they don't progress at freefall speed either, since structure needs to be destroyed and momentum needs to be transferred.

What obstinate people.
 
BigAl said:
This paper cites one of the NIST FAQs. I have a question about it.

Does anyone have the number of feet the height of fall was for WTC1 and WTC2, preferably with a source. -- Thanks.
Click to expand...

I know where you're going with this. I've wondered exactly the same thing: don't people realize that the point of collapse wasn't at the top? The collapse front started well below those points in both cases.I don't have the exact numbers, though.
 
alienentity said:
I know where you're going with this. I've wondered exactly the same thing: don't people realize that the point of collapse wasn't at the top? The collapse front started well below those points in both cases.I don't have the exact numbers, though.
Click to expand...

There is an annoying Usenet spammer that posts a faux-physics paper over and over claiming to prove someting or other based on the 9 second time. When I can get a cite for the official distance I'll nail him.

I've tried to egg him into "publishing" to either to j911s or here so it can get "peer reviewed" for the tripe it is. He's a coward. I call him that every chance I get.
 
The above is the best place to look. Unfortunately, my original critique of Ross/Furlong was itself not quite correct. It turns out there is an error in the 9/11 Commission timeline after all, one that I initially missed, but one that is easy to explain as the link above clears up.

This latest "paper" is subtly different. Dr. MacQueen seems to be pushing beyond the limits of experimental error, complaining about possible discrepancies of three seconds or less. We simply are not that accurate. Nor can LDEO correctly estimate the speed of a Rayleigh wave to better than +/- 20% in the first place. The speed varies with depth, among other things.

I will note, however, that were there an actual discharge of explosives, the wave would be unlikely to be a Rayleigh wave in the first place. A Rayleigh wave is a vertical motion in the earth, like ripples on a pond. This is the kind of wave stimulated when things fall on the ground, as this leads to a vertical displacement.

But unless those bombs are exploding vertically, they won't create such a wave. Instead, if we assume they're setting off cutting charges on the columns, it is more likely to create Love waves -- a horizontal displacement transverse to the direction of travel. This is what we saw when the aircraft hit the structures, severing columns as they did so.

This is significant because Love waves travel about twice as fast as slower than Rayleigh waves. So... where are they? They'd have reached LDEO five to ten seconds faster a few seconds later.

They'd also have shown up as sharp discontinuities, just like the impacts did.

They're not there.

Dr. MacQueen is still an idiot. Color me surprised.

ETA: Confused my "P-Waves," "S-Waves," and Love Waves. Above is correct.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so love waves go back and forth, like a snake slithers?? I googled it, and found it, but I just want some clarification as I am NOT an engineer. Thanks!!
 
9/11-investigator said:
Right on the nail! Hard hitting lucid subtle analysis of funky, viewing the arguments from all sides, as usual.

This is the researcher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

(611 comments, the topic really lives!)

Not surprisingly he came out with it after his retirement.

Like most truthers. Just to be on the safe side.
Click to expand...

Do not call me Funky. Its against forum rules.

MacQueen is an idiot. No further comment needed.
 
9/11-investigator said:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/MacQueen_EarlyEarthShake.pdf

A new paper is available at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is from Professor Graeme MacQueen, and is called "Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?" Here are some excerpts.

"In the debate over the collapses of the Twin Towers on 9/11, the shaking of the earth that accompanied these collapses has played an important role. This shaking registered clearly on seismographs. Less clear, however, are its causes and the times it began. The National Institute of Standards and Technology emphasizes the role of the debris from the collapsing buildings in producing the seismic signals. In assessing NIST’s hypothesis I focus on the collapse of the South Tower and attempt to determine the time the collapse began, the time the debris from the Tower struck the ground, and the temporal relation of these events to the shaking of the earth that accompanied the collapse. I consider both the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s seismic evidence and the evidence provided by a less studied form of seismic instrument, the video camera. I also draw on witness testimony. I conclude that key statements by NIST are false. Major shaking of the earth, and corresponding seismic signals, started well before the debris hit the ground. In fact, it seems certain that the shaking of the earth started before visible signs of building collapse. This evidence is incompatible with the official NIST hypothesis of the cause of the collapse of the Towers."
Click to expand...

I thought thermite was an incendiary, not an explosive. How does thermite make the earth shake?
 
Last edited:
9/11-investigator said:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/MacQueen_EarlyEarthShake.pdf

A new paper is available at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is from Professor Graeme MacQueen, and is called "Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?" Here are some excerpts.

"In the debate over the collapses of the Twin Towers on 9/11, the shaking of the earth that accompanied these collapses has played an important role. This shaking registered clearly on seismographs. Less clear, however, are its causes and the times it began. The National Institute of Standards and Technology emphasizes the role of the debris from the collapsing buildings in producing the seismic signals. In assessing NIST’s hypothesis I focus on the collapse of the South Tower and attempt to determine the time the collapse began, the time the debris from the Tower struck the ground, and the temporal relation of these events to the shaking of the earth that accompanied the collapse. I consider both the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s seismic evidence and the evidence provided by a less studied form of seismic instrument, the video camera. I also draw on witness testimony. I conclude that key statements by NIST are false. Major shaking of the earth, and corresponding seismic signals, started well before the debris hit the ground. In fact, it seems certain that the shaking of the earth started before visible signs of building collapse. This evidence is incompatible with the official NIST hypothesis of the cause of the collapse of the Towers."
Click to expand...


Is it just me? :
The Journal of 9/11 Stundies
 
Hey wow, did anybody just feel the earth shake? Somebody must've set off a firecracker somewhere!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom