• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Seismic event indicating explosion at WTC

DGM said:
Different builds will do different things. I would suspect the difference would come from the way the building were connected to the ground. WTC7 also didn't come down all at once.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's a good point. Depending of how the buildings were anchored to the ground and what kind of rock etc would make a difference for the seismic signals.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I guess I will have to stay open-minded. There's so much information to deal with, so there are many possible alternatives.
Click to expand...

Until you find an alternative theory that fits a large amount of all the evidence, all the science and the eyewitness accounts, you have nothing.

In order to what you propose you have to be 100% familiar with all the evidence and relevant sciences and in your 122 posts you have demonstrated that you are not .
 
Anders Lindman said:
On this page there is a table showing some of that: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html
Click to expand...

That page gives us magnitudes on the Richter (local magnitude) scale, not moment magnitude:

1st pane: 0.9
2nd plane: 0.7
WTC: 0.6

The Richter scale plots the logarithm of the maximum horizontal amplitude of displacement measured by a Wood-Anderson torsion seismometer (says Wikipedia).
Maybe the plane impcts show up stronger because they had lateral momentum, creating a more pronounced horizontal amplitude despite weaker coupling to the ground, than the vertical impacts of a falling building?
Just speculationg here
 
moorea34 said:
Nist's report gives 9:02:59 for the second impact.
This timing is confirmed by several live videos :
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd9ojv_crash-wtc2-09-02-59-09-03-00_news

Then , you can calculate the time for the arrival of the signal : it's 09:03:11
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/Impact_2.jpg

So delay between [event] and [seismic event arriving at Pal] is 12 seconds...

So your 17 seconds are FALSE... Do you understand this (very, very) simple calculation ?
Click to expand...

You should point out that start time for the seismogram in the second link is 9:02:55. So a signal arriviing 17 seconds later would put it at 13 seconds after 9:02:59.
 
moorea34 said:
Good !!

Then you watch this video :
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd9ojv_crash-wtc2-09-02-59-09-03-00_news

And you see that the second impact is at 09:02:59...

So the time travel is 12 sec...
Click to expand...

No, the actual impact of the 'plane' was at 09:02:54, and what was shown on television was a delayed version of the live video feeds needed to automatically insert the crude 2D computer graphic silhouettes of a plane. TV fakery to the core. Or as George W. Bush said: "I saw a plane crash into the building. ... The TV was obviously on."
 
Anders Lindman said:
No, the actual impact of the 'plane' was at 09:02:54, and what was shown on television was a delayed version of the live video feeds needed to automatically insert the crude 2D computer graphic silhouettes of a plane. TV fakery to the core. Or as George W. Bush said: "I saw a plane crash into the building. ... The TV was obviously on."
Click to expand...

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA :D

"Assuming the consequent"
That is a term that you can look up at Wikipedia
 
Anders Lindman said:
No, the actual impact of the 'plane' was at 09:02:54, and what was shown on television was a delayed version of the live video feeds needed to automatically insert the crude 2D computer graphic silhouettes of a plane. TV fakery to the core. Or as George W. Bush said: "I saw a plane crash into the building. ... The TV was obviously on."
Click to expand...

So we have a confirmed no-planer.

Anders, what happened to all the people that boarded those planes on the morning of 9/11? My work-mate, Ed Felt was one of them. His DNA was identified at the crash scene in Shanksville.
 
I feel sorry for everyone who wasted their time in this and other related threads. Hopefully, something good can come from it.
 
BigAl said:
So we have a confirmed no-planer.

Anders, what happened to all the people that boarded those planes on the morning of 9/11? My work-mate, Ed Felt was one of them. His DNA was identified at the crash scene in Shanksville.
Click to expand...

So you are telling me that THIS video: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd9ojv_crash-wtc2-09-02-59-09-03-00_news

Is consistent with the seismic data saying that the time for the second collapse was: 09:02:54 +/- 2 seconds. See: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

You can't have it both ways, you know. You can either choose to believe the scientific data, or you can choose to believe what you saw on television.
 
Anders Lindman said:
So you are telling me that THIS video: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd9ojv_crash-wtc2-09-02-59-09-03-00_news

Is consistent with the seismic data saying that the time for the second collapse was: 09:02:54 +/- 2 seconds. See: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

You can't have it both ways, you know. You can either choose to believe the scientific data, or you can choose to believe what you saw on television.
Click to expand...
You know, I remember looking at my watch and it said 9:04! You might be on something! (not a typo).


:rolleyes:
 
Anders Lindman said:
No, the actual impact of the 'plane' was at 09:02:54, and what was shown on television was a delayed version of the live video feeds needed to automatically insert the crude 2D computer graphic silhouettes of a plane. TV fakery to the core. Or as George W. Bush said: "I saw a plane crash into the building. ... The TV was obviously on."
Click to expand...
You got the quote wrong. Try to be more accurate.

You don't speak pilot do you? Bush and I went to the same pilot training base at different times. Did we pick up our poor English skills in the swamps around the base?

"I saw an airplane hit the tower." You failed to get the right quote.

I woke up on 911 and I also turned on the TV and saw an airplane hit the tower.

You can't understand English; Bush and I both pilots, we saw the first impact, and we can say, "I saw an airplane hit the tower." Our English teacher would correct us and say, "you saw an aircraft had hit the tower".

Too bad you are not able to comprehend what Bush meant, but you need to turn on your biases and political claptrap to lie.

Everyone who saw the first impact hole, saw an aircraft hit the tower. The wings give it away! The sound of a jet ending at impact time is another big clue. Then days later when you get the RADAR tape from DC and see it was flight 11, GEE, it takes away all the idiot rant like you just made.

The actual impact time of the jets is relative to the accuracy of the time kept by the source you use to determine the impact time. To make up the nonsense you imply is stupid.
 
Anders Lindman said:
So you are telling me that THIS video: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd9ojv_crash-wtc2-09-02-59-09-03-00_news

Is consistent with the seismic data saying that the time for the second collapse was: 09:02:54 +/- 2 seconds. See: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

You can't have it both ways, you know. You can either choose to believe the scientific data, or you can choose to believe what you saw on television.
Click to expand...

Physical evidence trumps convoluted logic all the time. We know that 4 hijacked airplanes crashed into three buildings and a corn field.

Comparing disparate clocks is always a problem. Your efforts don't impress me that you are aware of that.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Did you watch this video? http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd9ojv_crash-wtc2-09-02-59-09-03-00_news

Does it look to you that the clocks presented by the television networks show a time around 09:02:54, which is based on hard SCIENTIFIC DATA, or do you see something like the clocks on the news broadcasts show a time around 09:03:00?
Click to expand...
Try an experiment. Flip your TV back and forth between several different networks. Do they all show the same time to the second? I would be willing to bet they don't. These things are set manually by people. Time to the second is not that important for everyday use (broadcast wise)
 
Anders Lindman said:
Did you watch this video? http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd9ojv_crash-wtc2-09-02-59-09-03-00_news

Does it look to you that the clocks presented by the television networks show a time around 09:02:54, which is based on hard SCIENTIFIC DATA, or do you see something like the clocks on the news broadcasts show a time around 09:03:00?
Click to expand...

So what?

NIST describes how much work went into establishing the 09:02:54 time (PAGE 3). Comparing this to something off the TV is silly.


You are a no-planer. By this, you have demonstrated the inability to judge evidence and logic.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I may remember incorrectly, but as recall, the television networks were talking about possible terrorist attacks even before the second plane hit.
Click to expand...

You remember incorrectly.

But by all means do some research to show me that prior to the second plane impacting the other tower people were saying it was terrorism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom