Seismic event indicating explosion at WTC

[alienentity]

You can't keep playing the game after you've already lost.

So right brutha!

 

[TruthersLie]

Sorry for the off topic reply, but I think it's important to show that this is not so far-fetched as it first might seem. Simply rig the explosions like this:

[qimg]http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/8371/sh2u.gif[/qimg]

When the explosives are triggered the upper part breaks off and flies out to the left (indicating the outside of the building) and the lower part bends inwards to the right (representing the inside of the building).

[qimg]http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3033/id2x.gif[/qimg]

did you even look at the REST of the picture? You know, the part where you can see the damage path of a giant jet? the part where you can see the entire inside of the floors missing? Oh wait... it must have been more explosives.

Just a quick question... if there was a powerdown and the rigged the outer wall, how did they drill the holes necessary in the columns w/out electricity?

 

[Anders Lindman]

because the 911CR is a political report and not a scientific document. As such, they are not as accurate as they could be.

They also state that the towers collapsed in 11 to 13 seconds (which is obviously wrong...) Why? Oh because it is a political report and not a scientific/engineering one.

I read on Wikipedia: "The Commission interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some closely guarded classified national security documents."

And they couldn't even get the correct times for important points in the 9/11 attack timeline?! Sorry, I don't buy that. But who knows, maybe that's true, I'm open to all theories. But then how to explain the 17 second different inconsistency in stated time for the second plane impact? Even a child watching CNN could do better than that!

 

[Anders Lindman]

Don't you understand what you read ? "the arrow pointing at the beginning" shows "computed origin time". The first signal arrives at PAL 17s later.

The video I posted shows the beginning of the collapse at precisely 9:58:59.
For the other tower, this video puts the beginning of the collapse at precisely 10:28:23 .

So... We have visual evidence, for both towers, that puts the beginning of the collapse a few seconds before the "computed origin time" from seismic data. Could you explain, please, how these seismic recordings can be a clue of bombs going off to initiate the collapses ?

Did you notice that one of the sources you used on the 1st page (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html) agrees with me, indicating that 10:28:31 is the time when "Rubble starts to hit the ground" ?

So you trust TV Fakery more than seismic data with specified margins for measurement accuracy?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So you trust TV Fakery more than seismic data with specified margins for measurement accuracy?

There was no TV fakery. You've admitted yourself that you can't properly read the seismic data.

I'm not an expert on seismology.

 

[TruthersLie]

I read on Wikipedia: "The Commission interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some closely guarded classified national security documents."

And they couldn't even get the correct times for important points in the 9/11 attack timeline?! Sorry, I don't buy that. But who knows, maybe that's true, I'm open to all theories. But then how to explain the 17 second different inconsistency in stated time for the second plane impact? Even a child watching CNN could do better than that!

Yup.

Do you know the worst thing you will ever hear in private business?

"Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Trust me. They are incompetent.

there is no 17 second difference. You are not a seismologist... and have stated that repeatedly. The experts (who are) have been very emphatic.

And your delusion of no planes is even worse... but keep on repeating it...

btw have you asked your dr if lithium bicarbonate is right for you? Just asking

 

[Anders Lindman]

There was no TV fakery. You've admitted yourself that you can't properly read the seismic data.

LDEO says: "Zero corresponds to computed origin time of 10:28:31 EDT". Origin time means the start of the event at the source, i.e. at WTC (I didn't know that when I wrote the original post but now I do). And the arrow in the diagram shows that they put the origin time at the very beginning of the signal. So the origin time is at the start of the collapse.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

LDEO says: "Zero corresponds to computed origin time of 10:28:31 EDT". Origin time means the start of the event at the source, i.e. at WTC (I didn't know that when I wrote the original post but now I do). And the arrow in the diagram shows that they put the origin time at the very beginning of the signal. So the origin time is at the start of the collapse.

You don't understand what that data means. You've already admitted that you don't have the expertise to interpret the data.

I'm not an expert on seismology.

 

[Anders Lindman]

there is no 17 second difference.

There is. Unless by 'origin time' LDEO means the time at PAL not at the source at the WTC, but I have learned during this thread that origin time is a seismic term for the time of the start of the event at the source.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You don't understand what that data means. You've already admitted that you don't have the expertise to interpret the data.

That's true I admit. What I would like to know is if origin time means the start of the collapse, or some point of the collapse seconds later. It seems to me that origin time means the start of the collapse, but ok I could be wrong about that, but where to find information about this?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You could try contacting the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory directly. Thier staff contact information is available on their website.

However in your case this would be a waste of time as the LDEO already officially stated in an interview with Popular Mechanics magazine that there were no bombs in the twin towers or WTC7 on 9/11.

 

[TruthersLie]

There is. Unless by 'origin time' LDEO means the time at PAL not at the source at the WTC, but I have learned during this thread that origin time is a seismic term for the time of the start of the event at the source.

you have been given direct answers to your questions... but you ignore them to embrace a delusion.

You also have stated your delusion that the twin towers (and wtc7) were designed to "collapse into their own footprint" incase of massive damage or a massive earthquake. Even though there is nothing in the plans to indicate that...

 

[Lak]

So you trust TV Fakery more than seismic data with specified margins for measurement accuracy?

Excuse me ? "TV Fakery" ? What are you talking about ? I don't have to trust anything here. I posted precise sources, relevant to the discussion you started.

Because IIRC, you are the one who wanted to discuss the so-called "inconsistancy"... Why 9:58:59 and not 9:59:04 bla bla bla...

I show you where the data you wanted to discuss comes from, and now you try to dismiss it calling it "TV Fakery". Who do you think you are fooling exactly ?

So, I'll say it again : there is no inconsistancy. There are 2 different times measuring 2 different events.

And I'll ask my question again : We have visual evidence, for both towers, that puts the beginning of the collapse a few seconds before the "computed origin time" from seismic data. Could you explain, please, how these seismic recordings can be a clue of bombs going off to initiate the collapses ?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Excuse me ? "TV Fakery" ? What are you talking about ?

He's a no planer. He believes images of the planes were composited into live TV broadcasts as bombs were detonated inside the towers, simulating the impacts.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You could try contacting the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory directly. Thier staff contact information is available on their website.

However in your case this would be a waste of time as the LDEO already officially stated in an interview with Popular Mechanics magazine that there were no bombs in the twin towers or WTC7 on 9/11.

If LDEO says that there were no bombs, then they cannot be trusted if there really were huge explosions in the basements of the towers. But then the seismic data from 9/11 might not be trustworthy either.

 

[Anders Lindman]

you have been given direct answers to your questions... but you ignore them to embrace a delusion.

You also have stated your delusion that the twin towers (and wtc7) were designed to "collapse into their own footprint" incase of massive damage or a massive earthquake. Even though there is nothing in the plans to indicate that...

The origin time may be unclear when it comes to the collapses, but for the plane impacts the origin times are clear since these were short events at the source, unlike the collapses which went on for several seconds. And the 17 second inconsistency in the official report is about the second plane impact.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If LDEO says that there were no bombs, then they cannot be trusted if there really were huge explosions in the basements of the towers.

Found your problem for you.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Found your problem for you.

But let's assume that the seismic data is correct, then the 17 second inconsistency for the second plane impact in the official 9/11 commission report has to be explained. So how do you explain that?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

But let's assume that the seismic data is correct, then the 17 second inconsistency for the second plane impact in the official 9/11 commission report has to be explained. So how do you explain that?

There is no inconsistency.

this was explained to you earlier in the thread.

 

[T.A.M.]

I read on Wikipedia: "The Commission interviewed over 1,200 people in 10 countries and reviewed over two and a half million pages of documents, including some closely guarded classified national security documents."

And they couldn't even get the correct times for important points in the 9/11 attack timeline?! Sorry, I don't buy that. But who knows, maybe that's true, I'm open to all theories. But then how to explain the 17 second different inconsistency in stated time for the second plane impact? Even a child watching CNN could do better than that!

Stay on topic now...come on, come on.

TAM