Seismic event indicating explosion at WTC

[TruthersLie]

But wouldn't they have had very accurate time measurement at the WTC when the second plane hit? They knew that the first plane had hit. One of the towers was on fire. They must have been calculating that another terrorist attack could happen at any moment, not expecting a second plane perhaps, but bombs going off in the towers and other terrorist events.

Why? Says who?

After the first impact we (the US) was still under the impression that it was an ACCIDENT.

now if they had massive survellience on the towers right AFTER the first tower was struck... that would be suspicious, and would point to foreknowledge...

 

[Oystein]

Oh. I didn't know that the energy released from the collapse of WTC 7 was smaller than the energy released from the plane impacts. That sounds incredible.

Read my post again, please. I corrected a mistake.

Then please note my drift. I clearly give you the numbers, and did NOT say what you say there.
The energy for the WTC7 event of course was much larger than for the plane crashes.
But it was dissipated over a longer period of time: 0.3s vs. 8s-16s
Thus the rate of energy release - energy per time intervall - was about the same order of magnitude for both.

I, being an amateur on this, would predict from this, that the plane event would be very short, and the WTC7 event much longer, but both graphs peaking at about the same amplitude.
In a seismogram, the energy is not the hight of the peak, but the area under the chart.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Ok, I am confused now. Don't remember seeing the seismic signal for WTC7. We have 5 events here, and jumping back and forth.

I'd appreciate it someone could make five post, one for each of the five events (WTC1 plane, WTC2 plane, WTC2 collapse, WTC1 collapse, WTC7 collapse), and present the seismic signals for each, with charts in comparable scales, and explain what is shown in each.
Because I sure lost where we are now.

On this page there is a table showing some of that: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

 

[Anders Lindman]

Why? Says who?

After the first impact we (the US) was still under the impression that it was an ACCIDENT.

now if they had massive survellience on the towers right AFTER the first tower was struck... that would be suspicious, and would point to foreknowledge...

I may remember incorrectly, but as recall, the television networks were talking about possible terrorist attacks even before the second plane hit.

 

[DGM]

I may remember incorrectly, but as recall, the television networks were talking about possible terrorist attacks even before the second plane hit.

Not in the US.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Read my post again, please. I corrected a mistake.

Then please note my drift. I clearly give you the numbers, and did NOT say what you say there.
The energy for the WTC7 event of course was much larger than for the plane crashes.
But it was dissipated over a longer period of time: 0.3s vs. 8s-16s
Thus the rate of energy release - energy per time intervall - was about the same order of magnitude for both.

I, being an amateur on this, would predict from this, that the plane event would be very short, and the WTC7 event much longer, but both graphs peaking at about the same amplitude.
In a seismogram, the energy is not the hight of the peak, but the area under the chart.

Ok, yeah exactly. That's what I thought. That the duration for the energy release very much determines how strong the seismic signal will be. And yes I saw that you corrected the numbers.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Not in the US.

Ok, but at least I remember news anchors at the live U.S. television broadcasts of the second plane impact saying things like: That definitely looks like a terrorist attack. Whoops! Off topic again. I'd better stick to the seismic info.

 

[Anders Lindman]

The energy release was not "smaller" the impulse (peak) was. Do you know the difference?

Yeah, short duration means stronger seismic signal.

 

[DGM]

Yeah, short duration means stronger seismic signal.

Good.

Now what exactly do you think your looking for here? If your looking for a particular signal wouldn't you want to research what that signal should look like first? It looks to me like your looking at anything and trying to fit it into what you want to believe. Is that a good method of finding what your looking for?

 

[BigAl]

I may remember incorrectly, but as recall, the television networks were talking about possible terrorist attacks even before the second plane hit.

And they had a valid concern. Everyone that followed international events knew it. bin Laden declared war on the U.S. as early as 1991 and had killed a few hundred Americans prior to 2001.

The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which killed 17 U.S. sailors a few months earlier would be one event. There were others.

 

[moorea34]

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 ?

 

[carlitos]

And they had a valid concern. Everyone that followed international events knew it. bin Laden declared war on the U.S. as early as 1991 and had killed a few hundred Americans prior to 2001.

The bombing of the U.S.S. Cole which killed 17 U.S. sailors a few months earlier would be one event. There were others.

The World Trade Center bombing of 1993 comes to mind, since this was an attack on the World Trade Center....

Anders, I'll repeat some advice that I gave you earlier in the thread. Step back, stop posting here, and wait to hear how the seismologists reply to your email. It has been 9 years; there is no hurry. Take a break. Relax.

 

[Anders Lindman]

So?

Then there are two 5 second inconsistencies between the official story and the seismic record PLUS an inconsistency of 18 seconds in the seismic record itself. It starts to look really complicated. Could it be that my original post is still correct? That the origin time for the first collapse really should be around 17 seconds earlier?

 

[Thunder]

there is no evidence of any explosions on the seismic data.

 

[DGM]

Then there are two 5 second inconsistencies between the official story and the seismic record PLUS an inconsistency of 18 seconds in the seismic record itself. It starts to look really complicated. Could it be that my original post is still correct? That the origin time for the first collapse really should be around 17 seconds earlier?

You didn't answer my question (as vague as it was). What's this all mean? Are you just looking for oddities in the hope it will lead to confirmation of a preconceived notion?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Good.

Now what exactly do you think your looking for here? If your looking for a particular signal wouldn't you want to research what that signal should look like first? It looks to me like your looking at anything and trying to fit it into what you want to believe. Is that a good method of finding what your looking for?

The signal from the WTC 7 collapse was flat and small. I would expect the signals from the collapses of the WTC towers to also be flat and small.

 

[Anders Lindman]

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 ?

The 09:03:11 is similar to the time in my calculation:

But it shows a time difference of 18 seconds.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You didn't answer my question (as vague as it was). What's this all mean? Are you just looking for oddities in the hope it will lead to confirmation of a preconceived notion?

I guess I will have to stay open-minded. There's so much information to deal with, so there are many possible alternatives.

 

[DGM]

The signal from the WTC 7 collapse was flat and small. I would expect the signals from the collapses of the WTC towers to also be flat and small.

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.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Anders, I'll repeat some advice that I gave you earlier in the thread. Step back, stop posting here, and wait to hear how the seismologists reply to your email. It has been 9 years; there is no hurry. Take a break. Relax.

Exactly my thought too. Too much information for me to deal with without taking a break. My head is spinning.