Seismic event indicating explosion at WTC

[Anders Lindman]

Because random clocks are never exactly synchronized.

The data from the PAL station is specified with margins of error for the time measurement of the seismic event of plus minus one second. See: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

 

[Anders Lindman]

They don't. Your whole record spans 20+seconds.

So did the collapse.

The times indicated from the PAL station are the starts of the seismic events.

 

[DGM]

Wouldn't that depend on how far away from from the source the seismic event was recorded?

Why do you think the 93 bomb was not recorded and heard all over but not yours?

 

[leftysergeant]

The times indicated from the PAL station are the starts of the seismic events.

Which, interestingly, coincides in duration with the collapse times.

 

[Anders Lindman]

How could bombs in the basement brining down the core columns in the basement cause a collapse to start at the impact zone?

I'm not sure about the core columns. But the impact zone was weakened, and the explosions in the basements could have been what caused the weakened floors to become unstable enough to start collapsing.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No, you most certainly have not. Like these:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6343965#post6343965
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6344065#post6344065

And this summary:



And the ones you did answer, you misunderstood.

Please go back and re-read. You might learn something.

ETA: And this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6344190#post6344190

Oops! I missed that. I will take a look at the first of these.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Look, I'll make it really, really easy for you.

You just reproduced Figure 3 from that paper, annotated slightly. What you should have done is included the caption:


Source (Bolding added for clarity)

The researchers at LDEO have already done the time calculation -- that's what the "origin time" refers to. If you run those dotted lines back to zero, where zero is the distance to the WTC Towers, you get the origin time. And that origin time is exactly the same as in the 9/11 Commission Report and in NIST (once you add nine seconds vs. NIST, or six seconds vs. 9/11 Report, from start of collapse to the first impacts on the ground). There is no discrepancy.

They even show it holds for multiple seismographs at various distances, and that the result is consistent with a plausible Rayleigh wave speed of about 2.0 km/s.

Your calculation is wrong.

The part: "Zero corresponds to computed origin time of 10:28:31 EDT." means the origin time as recorded at the PAL station for the seismic event.

 

[uke2se]

I'm not sure about the core columns. But the impact zone was weakened, and the explosions in the basements could have been what caused the weakened floors to become unstable enough to start collapsing.

Can you think of a scenario where bombs weren't required? I mean, you've already admitted that the impact zone was weakened. Do you think it's possible that it could have fallen once it had weakened enough to not support the weight of the structure above?

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm not sure about the core columns. But the impact zone was weakened, and the explosions in the basements could have been what caused the weakened floors to become unstable enough to start collapsing.

The only explosions in the basement that were reported or could have occurred, happened in immediate proximity to the impact of the aircraft, and as any fire fighter can tell just from the description, were fuel-driven. No HE.

There were people who survived on the stairs when the second tower collapsed They had been on the stairs for far more than 10 seconds.

They felt a wind, they heard a rumble. They did not get hit with a shockwave that blew out their eardrums.

There was no HE-related event in the core of the building.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

To bring down the core columns.

The core columns remained standing several seconds after the collapses. Ergo, your mythical explosions never touched them.

 

[Anders Lindman]

The part: "Zero corresponds to computed origin time of 10:28:31 EDT." means the origin time as recorded at the PAL station for the seismic event.

Here is an explanation of that:

 

[leftysergeant]

Here is an explanation of that:

[qimg]http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/9197/seis.gif[/qimg]

Still looks like a gradual builld-up of activity to me.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Can you think of a scenario where bombs weren't required? I mean, you've already admitted that the impact zone was weakened. Do you think it's possible that it could have fallen once it had weakened enough to not support the weight of the structure above?

Possibly. I have even speculated in another thread (Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing) that the towers were constructed on purpose to collapse like they did.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here is an explanation of that:

[qimg]http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/9197/seis.gif[/qimg]

Why do you insist on using the record with then lowest resolution to back up your case?

Use the bottom one from here to show us what you think is happening.

 

[uke2se]

Possibly. I have even speculated in another thread (Controlled demolition vs. the towers collapsing) that the towers were constructed on purpose to collapse like they did.

Do you think it could be possible that planes hijacked by terrorists flew into the buildings, causing fires and eventually causing the structure to weaken enough for it to collapse on its own, without any super sekrit gubmint plan to bring them down?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Still looks like a gradual builld-up of activity to me.

The seismic wave becomes 'smeared out' as it travels through the ground. Compare with an earthquake which is a sharp sudden 'slip' event, yet the seismic wave of the earthquake becomes smeared out when recorded some distance away from the epicenter.

 

[femr2]

Do you know what it does to a light camera on a tripod that is not firmly anchored when a helicopter passes overhead?

Trace data indicates that movement of WTC 1 began in close correlation to the camera shake.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6343867&postcount=309

Here's the horizontal motion during the camera shake...

...and the vertical...

May I suggest that you actually look in detail at events before making definitive delcarations such as stating camera shake was caused by a helocopter.

I have no problem with you saying it may be caused by a helicopter.

There are, however, many other correlated events and factors which lead me to suggest otherwise.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Why do you insist on using the record with then lowest resolution to back up your case?

Use the bottom one from here to show us what you think is happening.

I think this one is more clear:

 

[The Big Dog]

I'm not sure about the core columns. But the impact zone was weakened, and the explosions in the basements could have been what caused the weakened floors to become unstable enough to start collapsing.

Interesting theory.

Tell you what, next time I'm changing my tire, I'll shake the bumper furthest away from the flat tire, and kind of hope a wheel falls off and that it is the correct one.

^^rolls eyes^^

 

[Anders Lindman]

Do you think it could be possible that planes hijacked by terrorists flew into the buildings, causing fires and eventually causing the structure to weaken enough for it to collapse on its own, without any super sekrit gubmint plan to bring them down?

To be honest, I believe tons of Thermite was used on some of the floors where the collapse started in each tower.