Siesmic Evidence Proves Inside Job?

quicknthedead said:
but unfortunately there is a problem with this interface and it won't let me have quotes or links or who knows what!
(Like I have to have 15 posts first...never had this problem at other forums...oh well)
Click to expand...

To protect against spammers, new users must have 15 posts before being able to post links, this includes quoting posts that contains links.
 
Responding to apathoid 1937059
quote:
A few more questions.
1. What's your explanation of the lack of a pair of spikes for each Tower?
2. Is it your contention that the impacts were not enough to trigger seismic waves?
3. How could people in the basement know whether the airplane impacted or not? Did they recall hearing a second explosion 14-17 seconds after the basement explosion?
end quote

Sorry, apathoid, I cut your post down a little because I wanted to address your questions:
1. The spikes were caused by the blasts, the planes impacting did not convey enough energy to be picked up seismically.
2. Again, yes.
3. I have only heard and read Willie Rodriguez's testimony where he knew the difference between the lower explosion and the plane impacting later above; but that is not to say others didn't report this also. What is critical is these people in the sub-levels experienced massive explosion(s) below them, not above.

Getting back to your first and 2nd questions, apathoid, here is something you may find interesting and is pertinent because it involves the same topic. It has to do with WTC7.

Regarding WTC7, at 5:20:33 there was an 18 second seismic event that had a dominant signal of .6 Richter per LDEO; however, the FEMA report states that the building visibly began to collapse at 5:21:03 and went down in approximately 6.5 seconds. However, no seismic signal occurred during the 6.5 seconds of this 47-story skyscraper's collapse....???

Now remember, the plane "impacts" as first reported by LDEO were only .9 and .7 Richter. Now compare these seismic readings of .9 and .7 to the WTC7 seismic reading of .6 for a "building collapse".

Can explosives explain this puzzle?

Look at the information gleaned from the OKC bombing, whereby they determined later, when they did a controlled demolition on the building to bring down the remaining 3/4ths, that seismic signals were more prominent resulting from explosives than from that building's collapse:


www thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no16/vo11no16_seismic.htm
-------

"Now I think that there is no longer a question that there was energy activity at the Murrah Building in addition to the original explosion, and we simply need to determine the source of that activity," Brown told THE NEW AMERICAN. The leading contenders for the source of that energy are either another explosion inside the building or the falling of the building debris. But the demolition seismic data from the Murrah site make the latter explanation no longer tenable, says Brown. The demolition charges were detonated in five groups, he notes, and the oscillations on the seismogram from the site correspond closely with those explosions. "Even the smallest of those detonations had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building, which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building. So it is very unlikely that one-fourth of the building falling on April 19th could have created an energy wave similar to that caused by the large [truck bomb] explosion." The most logical explanation for the second event, says Dr. Brown, is "a bomb on the inside of the building."

-------
 
Responding to R.Mackey 1937064
quote:
Once again, "precision" is a different animal than experimental error. TruthSeeker1234 doesn't understand the distinction, but perhaps you can... do you?


That's highly amusing, seeing as how Gordon himself, in his paper with Furlong, is using the radar traces to estimate time of impact -- obviously at an altitude well into the clutter, and below the usual cruising altitude.

You can't have it both ways, Gordon.

Oh, and he still hasn't addressed the issue of potential miscalibration -- miscalibration, I might add, that has been confirmed by the official report.

Not impressive. Though I expected little else from the mind behind that sorry whitepaper.
end quote



You misunderstand. We are not estimating.

What he said, and what I say is the same, and that is there is no argument as to a radar time if you pick the last signal as the time. And this is exactly what happened regarding AA Flt 11 when it crashed into WTC1. The last signal disappeared in front of the eyes of the ATC Bottiglia at 8:46:40 UTC.

Now where is the problem in that?

Craig T. Furlong
 
quicknthedead said:
You misunderstand. We are not estimating.

What he said, and what I say is the same, and that is there is no argument as to a radar time if you pick the last signal as the time. And this is exactly what happened regarding AA Flt 11 when it crashed into WTC1. The last signal disappeared in front of the eyes of the ATC Bottiglia at 8:46:40 UTC.

Now where is the problem in that?

Craig T. Furlong
Click to expand...

Absurd. You are always estimating.

The problem is that you haven't accounted for experimental error. I ask again, do you understand the difference between random and experimental error, or not?

If the answer is "no," you have no business promulgating any paper, let alone one with such a severe and wide-reaching accusation attached.
 
Responding to ktesibios 1937071
quote

A reading of all of chapter 3, "Timing of Photographs and Video Clips" in NIST NCSTAR1-5A would have been a good idea for the PCTists- it would have saved them an awful lot of trouble.

This chapter describes NIST's methodology in working out relative times for the masses of photo and video records they had to work with, and how they subsequently correlated these to absolute time.

Once all of the available visual records are placed on a timeline relative to each other, pinning down one point on that timeline in absolute time means that you can determine the absolute times of all of the events in that body of evidence. For NIST, this reference time was the nose of UA175 striking the south face of WTC2.

The most accurate absolute time reference in the visual material was the timestamps in news broadcasts, called "bugs". Investigating these, NIST found:

Now if you look at table 3-1, which also includes times from LDEO, the WTC1 impact time, adjusted to the television time reference is 8:46:30 a.m. and the time from LDEO's re-analysis of the data is 8:46:29 a.m.

Even if you cling to the original LDEO computed time of 8:46:26, that's still within the combined uncertainties, which which were given in that same original LDEO report as 2 seconds and the uncertainty of NIST's calibration to TV time, which is given as 1 second.

Now if you ask me which is more likely to get a determination of absolute time right, an agency for which the accuracy of measurements is both a profession and a mission (remember that NIST used to be the National Bureau of Standards and is still the top reference for all the calibration standards in the USA) or a blue-ribbon commision full of politicians and things, I'll take the agency full of science and technology geeks, thank you very much.

Looks like the PCTist's "suspicious discrepancy" and whatever it was they were trying to infer from it, have evaporated. There's not much left to quibble about.

end quote




You have not read the paper that this thread is about.
Please read it, especially the section on the NIST times. FYI, NIST created the 8:46:30 out of thin air as in "faked it" as in "artificial" as in "it is not real".

NIST and their pronouncement about ABSOLUTE TIME ACCURACY may have many fooled, but they are being deceitful in this 8:46:30 time.

No question about it.
 
Responding to apathoid 1937074
quote

How is this a discrepancy, pray tell?

There was no sonic boom as UA 175 was sub-sonic. She either heard the "whoosh" or the explosion itself. Then looked out and saw what happened. Battery park is quarter mile from the WTC site.

ETA: Or was this the account of AA11?
That would make even more sense as Battery Park would be more or less under the flight path.

end quote





Here is Jeanne Yurman's testimony again to look at:
-------
I can tell you that I was watching TV, and there was this sonic boom, and the TV went out. And I thought maybe the Concorde was back in service, because I've heard about that sonic boom. And I went to the window -- I live in Battery Park City, right next to the twin towers -- and I looked up, and the side of the World Trade Center exploded. At that point, debris started falling. I couldn't believe what I was watching.
-------

It's not a discrepancy. It's another validation that there was an explosion(s) before the plane hit WTC1. She reported the "sonic boom" probably about 9.2 seconds (per Ginny Carr's audiotape) before the building "exploded" (from the plane hitting it).

She definitely heard two VERY LOUD EXPLOSIVE-TYPE NOISES...and her TV went dead in the moment of the first "sonic boom" (TV antenna lines damaged in WTC1 caused by explosions in the basement?).

These are the facts:
sonic boom...TV died...she got up and walked around to her window...
...............and then saw WTC1's explosion (she did not realize at the time it was an aircraft striking the building)
 
quicknthedead said:
Responding to apathoid 1937059
quote:
Regarding WTC7, at 5:20:33 there was an 18 second seismic event that had a dominant signal of .6 Richter per LDEO; however, the FEMA report states that the building visibly began to collapse at 5:21:03 and went down in approximately 6.5 seconds. However, no seismic signal occurred during the 6.5 seconds of this 47-story skyscraper's collapse....???

Now remember, the plane "impacts" as first reported by LDEO were only .9 and .7 Richter. Now compare these seismic readings of .9 and .7 to the WTC7 seismic reading of .6 for a "building collapse".

Can explosives explain this puzzle?

-------
Click to expand...
Thats FEMA. NIST states 5:20:52. Siesmic events should have been recorded prior to the visible collapse considering that the building started an internal collapse first before it progressed vertically to the penthouse. The time NIST seems to use 5:20:52 is when the total outer frame begins to fall. See NIST 3.5
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf

Nicolas Cianca's photo shows a time stamp of 5:20:46 as the penthouse first starts to collapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC Part IIC - WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf#search=" WTC7 timeline"

Match from Cianca photo, add 14/15 seconds from video that makes about 5:21:00 -+1
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7.demolition.front.wmv

LEDO has 5:20:42, you then add the 18 seconds of seismic activity, which brings the seismic end-time to 5:21:00.

I think everything seems to match well.
 
Last edited:
quicknthedead said:
Responding to apathoid 1937059
quote:

www thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no16/vo11no16_seismic.htm
-------

"Now I think that there is no longer a question that there was energy activity at the Murrah Building in addition to the original explosion, and we simply need to determine the source of that activity," Brown told THE NEW AMERICAN. The leading contenders for the source of that energy are either another explosion inside the building or the falling of the building debris. But the demolition seismic data from the Murrah site make the latter explanation no longer tenable, says Brown. The demolition charges were detonated in five groups, he notes, and the oscillations on the seismogram from the site correspond closely with those explosions. "Even the smallest of those detonations had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building, which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building. So it is very unlikely that one-fourth of the building falling on April 19th could have created an energy wave similar to that caused by the large [truck bomb] explosion." The most logical explanation for the second event, says Dr. Brown, is "a bomb on the inside of the building."

-------
Click to expand...
See later report:

Comparison of timed video coverage of the demolition with the seismogram indicates that explosives were completely detonated about 2.5 s into the demolition and did not generate as much seismic energy as the collapse of the building.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...mograph+of+explosion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6
 
Kent1 said:
See later report:

Comparison of timed video coverage of the demolition with the seismogram indicates that explosives were completely detonated about 2.5 s into the demolition and did not generate as much seismic energy as the collapse of the building.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...mograph+of+explosion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6
Click to expand...

How would explosives stack up against a jet impact as far as seismic signatures?

Craig(apologies for calling you Gordon) above indicated that the impacts shouldn't have created any seismic waves. I wouldnt know, but isnt this something the seismologists might've found unusual?
 
apathoid said:
How would explosives stack up against a jet impact as far as seismic signatures?

Craig(apologies for calling you Gordon) above indicated that the impacts shouldn't have created any seismic waves. I wouldnt know, but isnt this something the seismologists might've found unusual?
Click to expand...

Best thing to do would be to contact someone like Dr. Terry Wallace (I've been trying to find his latest e-mail address) or Dr. Won-Young Kim.
Or possibly this source. Tom Irvine
http://www.vibrationdata.com/Newsletters/November2001_NL.pdf
 
apathoid said:
How would explosives stack up against a jet impact as far as seismic signatures?
Click to expand...
You could work out a good rough approximation from the energy. The Richter Scale translates directly into event energy, which is a complex function of sensed acceleration and timing.

Given that the jet impacts appear to have been flagged as 0.9 MR events, and we know the energy of those impacts, you can work out just how much explosives would be needed to have a similar registration.

It's a lot.
 
Responding to Kent1 1937078
quote

I don't understand why your saying its not real. NIST got their times by comparing the time stamps on the videos.
For example Pavel Hlava's videos are also a good source to use. Although we wouldn't expect them to be perfect a lot can be learned by matching video from other broadcasts.
For example impact times First hit 8:46:28 second hit 9:02:56 plus or minus a half a sec or so.
www terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit2/
www terrorize.dk/911/wtc1hit2/

end quote



What timestamp on Pavel Hlava's video?
When he and his brother were making there travel video, when you look at the stills, there are no timestamps on them.

However, when you look at ABC's Good Morning America showing the video in 2003 it does show timestamping. It looks like they added it to the video because it was the 2nd anniversary when this video was shown.

Can you explain why there is no timestamping on the stills? And if there were, how do we know it was synched to UTC?

NIST made up its time of 8:46:30. They say so in the report where they added 5 seconds onto all the seismic times because they believed they had the right time for UA Flt 175 crashing (per TV station timestamps) of 9:02:59, which is 5 seconds more than the seismic of 9:02:54. So, they added 5 seconds to the seismic times for each of the other 4 major events, one of which was the seismic time for first plane "impact".

However, you can't do this for WTC1. It is a non-sequitur.
Read the paper on this section to understand better.

Also, the FAA, had the UTC radar time of 8:46:40 on its last signal.
We know its timestamp is correct.
 
R.Mackey said:
You could work out a good rough approximation from the energy. The Richter Scale translates directly into event energy, which is a complex function of sensed acceleration and timing.

Given that the jet impacts appear to have been flagged as 0.9 MR events, and we know the energy of those impacts, you can work out just how much explosives would be needed to have a similar registration.

It's a lot.
Click to expand...

Bah! You people and your "facts". Always proving stuff with your "empirical evidence" and your "math"

How is any honest CT supposed to maintain the Truth in the face of such things?
 
Responding to Alareth 1937117
quote

To protect against spammers, new users must have 15 posts before being able to post links, this includes quoting posts that contains links.[/QUOTE]

end quote



Thank you for the explanation. OK--makes sense.
 
R.Mackey said:
You could work out a good rough approximation from the energy. The Richter Scale translates directly into event energy, which is a complex function of sensed acceleration and timing.

Given that the jet impacts appear to have been flagged as 0.9 MR events, and we know the energy of those impacts, you can work out just how much explosives would be needed to have a similar registration.

It's a lot.
Click to expand...

Enough to go "bang" really loud like?

Question to Craig: Has anyone who worked in the Towers, on the lower floors(not the basement), mentioned a very loud explosion before the impact? I imagine nearly everyone up to around the 30th floor as well as folks in adjacent buildings wouldve reported twin explosions 10-20 seconds apart.
 
What timestamp on Pavel Hlava's video?
When he and his brother were making there travel video, when you look at the stills, there are no timestamps on them.

However, when you look at ABC's Good Morning America showing the video in 2003 it does show timestamping. It looks like they added it to the video because it was the 2nd anniversary when this video was shown.

Can you explain why there is no timestamping on the stills? And if there were, how do we know it was synched to UTC?

NIST made up its time of 8:46:30. They say so in the report where they added 5 seconds onto all the seismic times because they believed they had the right time for UA Flt 175 crashing (per TV station timestamps) of 9:02:59, which is 5 seconds more than the seismic of 9:02:54. So, they added 5 seconds to the seismic times for each of the other 4 major events, one of which was the seismic time for first plane "impact".

However, you can't do this for WTC1. It is a non-sequitur.
Read the paper on this section to understand better.

Also, the FAA, had the UTC radar time of 8:46:40 on its last signal.
We know its timestamp is correct.
Click to expand...

If you look at the lower right corner you can see the time stamps.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1hit2/ See...
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit2/
They matched time by various events.

Does anyone not see this?

We don't know if they were synched to UTC. However they are more video evidence of timing.
 
Last edited:
apathoid said:
Enough to go "bang" really loud like?
Click to expand...
Unless you believe in "hush-a-boom" explosives, you bet.

It'd actually be louder than the aircraft impacts themselves. Unlike the crashes, which were inherently subsonic phenomena (subsonic jet vs. fixed object followed by deflagration of jet fuel), the equivalent explosives would detonate supersonically, creating a much sharper pressure shock. If you've ever heard a sonic boom, you understand what I'm talking about.

(ETA: Might be somewhat harder to hear if it was, perhaps, a series of explosives timed slightly apart, as in a string of firecrackers... but if you dilute the explosives too much, you also dilute their destructive potential. In any event, highly unlikely that it would be quieter than the impact itself.)
 
Last edited:
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