It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Times LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo

page: 14
91
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 05:25 AM
link   
And your work is not ground breaking. Everyone and their brother interested in seismology have examined the seismographs from 911. Erroneously reading data is not ground bteaking work. Discovery a new type of seismic wave would be ground breaking work. Hypothesis not submitted for peer review and tested by the scientific method is not ground breaking work.
edit on 7-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 05:38 AM
link   
In your fabricated narritive, the government had the foresight to make the 1993 WTC seismic data disappear but not coordinate the destruction of the 911 seismic data. For example, the seismographs could have been down for maintenance or something? Yet the 911 data does existing. Why destroy 1993 data yet allow 2001 to be recorded? Or the government knows the 2001 seismographs have nothing to hide. Which is it? All power government that controls all data or your conspiracy theories are inconsistent.
edit on 7-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:15 AM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

Keep dreaming, and for sure keep avoiding my friendly advices, to start using the ATS SEARCH engine :

CLICK HERE : www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 7/6/16 by LaBTop because: Resizing ATS SEARCH link, works in Preview, but not in actual post?



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
And your work is not ground breaking. Everyone and their brother interested in seismology have examined the seismographs from 911. Erroneously reading data is not ground bteaking work. Discovery a new type of seismic wave would be ground breaking work. Hypothesis not submitted for peer review and tested by the scientific method is not ground breaking work.


Please use a spellchecker.

You really don't get it, obviously.
It has nothing to do with new types of seismic waves.
It's a very SIMPLE time-stamping-comparison of real-time events, at work.
NIST time-stamp checked camera material, compared to LDEO checked time-stamps on their seismograms.

It's simplicity left NIST speechless, but not you, you keep spouting-up totally unrelated subjects.
Grow up. Stop searching for your idolized geophysics researchers. NOT ONE of THEM dares to touch the subject, they immediately loose their US jobs, thus income, thus bring poverty to their families, if they dare to address the LDEO-NIST quagmire of unfitting events.

SEARCH first, study what you find, then try to attack the message, not the messenger.

By the way, do -you have another explanation why all those truck bombs exploded after 1993 ALL left seismic footprints, but that one from that HUGE WTC-truck bomb in 1993 they couldn't find....... ?



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:49 AM
link   
May I point you to the FACT, that you haven't posted ONE serious rebuttal of my opening posts, let it be to any of my other factual posts.

You only pile up nonsensical opinions, so come up with your spouted publications that link to all those by seismologists written WTC-7 thesis, who all have thoroughly read the LDEO and NIST reports, and are flocking together to write complicated humbug about a SIMPLE comparison FACT....?

REALLY.?

SHOW UP, or SHUT UP.

And, at last start to read the Dr Rousseau WTC-thesis.!
From another life long Geophysicist. Who's not afraid to die, or loose his job, he's over 65.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop



By the way, do -you have another explanation why all those truck bombs exploded after 1993 ALL left seismic footprints, but that one from that HUGE WTC-truck bomb in 1993 they couldn't find....... ?

One: Did not talk about NIST.
Two: Protec technical services was recording seismic data in Manhattan during 911. No seismic activity due to explosives. Backed by Columbia University.
Three, gave an explanation about 1993 twice. Actual ground, rock, sand is more conducive to passing low frequency seismic waves. Is that wrong? Elements of earth as in composition of ground tends to filter high frequencies. Is that wrong? A blast produces a relatively short duration with high frequencies which the earth tends to filter.
Five, seismographs were originally set up to detect seismic activity from shifting in the earth that is low frequency. Not to detect demolition charges.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 07:31 AM
link   
You do know there is a difference in seismographs used for earthquake detection and blasting seismographs? Wonder if Protec was using blasting seismographs in Manhattan during 911.
edit on 7-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Also a difference if a point of seismic activity is entombed and packed by earth or surrounded by air.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Recap. You were talking about a time window of two seconds on a timeline with an error of up to one second? Is that wrong.
The seismographs data was recorded on a seismograph used for earthquake detection from with in the earth, not calibrated for blasting. Better know as a blasting seismograph. Is that wrong.
What peer review group labled you piecing together and counter interpretation of other people's work and research ground breaking?
edit on 7-6-2016 by neutronflux because: Added with in earth



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Here's an idea you may like--change the subject.




posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Here's an idea you may like--change the subject.



Truthers like real science? Giving documentation is science. Use the analogy of a radio. It receives all local stations at once, but dials in to one small spectrum for human perception. I'm just asking if the seismic devices normally used for earthquakes are robust enough and sensitive enough to even pick up seismic activity due to bombs at the WTC. Blasting seismographs are calibrated for the waves generated by blasts and used primarily close to the blasting site. Exaggerating, but it might be like using a cemera designed to capture visible light to produce ultraviolet data. All are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Most devices cannot not process all the spectrum at once. Then add what the earth tends to resonate and filters in seismic activity. Then add the if blasts were generate in the earth, or mostly surrounded by air. Then add you need a modeling program / calculations because the generated waves travel at different speeds and can reach the seismograph at different times. Add that the WTC timeline was created from time stamped videos and photos with incorrect times. So individual photos and videos had to be time corrected. How is talking about the spike and the two second window not part of this thread. Or the accuracy of the equipment in possible blast detection.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

Here's an idea you may like--change the subject.



Truthers like real science? Giving documentation is science. Use the analogy of a radio. It receives all local stations at once, but dials in to one small spectrum for human perception. I'm just asking if the seismic devices normally used for earthquakes are robust enough and sensitive enough to even pick up seismic activity due to bombs at the WTC. Blasting seismographs are calibrated for the waves generated by blasts and used primarily close to the blasting site. Exaggerating, but it might be like using a cemera designed to capture visible light to produce ultraviolet data. All are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Most devices cannot process all the spectrum at once. Then add what the earth tends to resonate and filters in seismic activity. Then add if blasts were generate in the earth, or mostly surrounded by air. Then add you need a modeling program / calculations, because the generated waves travel at different speeds and can reach the seismograph at different times. Add that the WTC timeline was created from time stamped videos and photos with incorrect times. So individual photos and videos had to be time corrected. How is talking about the spike and the two second window not part of this thread. Or the accuracy of the equipment in possible blast detection.
edit on 7-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
You're getting slowly better at the end, improving on the real questions.

A long list of your questions that are slowly numbing my brain cells, the ones you asked over and over again.
Let's start with ONLY the ones on this page 14.

First post by neutronflux :

1. n-f : Everyone and their brother interested in seismology have examined the seismographs from 911.
LT : Correction : it's SEISMOGRAMS. And you examine GRAPHS produced by seismographs. Get your definitions right, to begin with.
Lack of knowledge and/or understanding of the subject at hand, is glaringly leaking through.

2. n-f : Erroneously reading data is not ground bteaking work.
LT : Correction : it's groundbreaking.
Point out for ALL to see here, the errors in my NIST-LDEO time-stamps comparison.
YOU CAN'T. Hint : I'm not reading solely seismic waves data, but time stamps connected to these waves. And not MY time stamps, but those from NIST and LDEO. I add no new seismic interpretations, I point at the discrepancies between both US State-paid Institutions.

3. n-f : Discovery a new type of seismic wave would be ground breaking work.
LT : Correction : It's Discovering a new - -. Or Discovery of a new - -.
Where did I ever, so much as even hinted on, a new seismic wave.? LINKY please.!
My discovery of HUGE imperfections between the time-stamping used by NIST and LDEO for an identical event is not groundbreaking, it's SOLID evidence of tampering with evidence, on a grand scale, by State-paid Institutions. To cover-up the crime of the century.

4. n-f : Hypothesis not submitted for peer review and tested by the scientific method is not ground breaking work.
LT : It's not a hypothesis, it is a simple FACT. No peer review needed, at all.
Every geophysicist will agree with me (and with Dr Rousseau). But they will not touch it, they are AFRAID.
For starters : don't you find it not even a tad bit STRANGE, the behavior of the whole US Geophysics community, that they do not react at all on my hints at them, regarding the complete removal (see O.P.) of ALL of NIST's former seismic research pages from their Final WTC-Reports.?
And begin to inform about that, their superiors, Congressmen/women, their Journals, their peers, their fellow authors, or to begin with, honestly inform their families.?
And excuse me for crying out loud : what is your obsession with the term "ground breaking work".?
Even you, after a tad bit wider opening your blinders, could at last see the simple FACT I discovered already in 2005, and grasp at last the importance of its CLUE :
That the Cianca photo time stamp does not fit AT ALL to any one of the first huge amplitudes ( = seismic energy depictions) on the LDEO WTC-7 time stamped collapse seismogram.
Especially not AT ALL after you would move to the WTC-7-FINAL-NIST-REPORT-position on the seismogram.
Thus after you would add the extra 5 seconds that NIST included in its WTC-7-FINAL-Report about the mysterious collapse of WTC-7, to the Cianca photo time stamp.
And then add its 17 seconds retention time from its resulting seismic signal in the N.Y.State's upper crust, and see the impossible position that signal would turn up on the unchanged LDEO graph, smack in the middle of the global collapse amplitudes signals.
Unchanged seismic signals, since the extra 5 secs added by NIST to all its video/photo times, do not influence anything written by the needles on the LDEO recorded seismogram.
It were still the SAME recorded amplitudes. UNCHANGED.

Second post by neutronflux :

2.1. n-f : In your fabricated narritive,
LT : Correction, it's narrative.
Your degradative use of the term "fabricated" : All the basic-school types of questions you keep repeating, are answered at your, so mistakenly idolized to god like levels, academic level, already in 2012.
Read at last the multiple times already by me offered, geophysical facts which already in 2012 did answer your recent endless basic questions, in your so immensely worshiped academic phraseology, abundantly (plain in sight) idolized by you, and exaggerated, since every scientist is in principle not totally fail safe but always partly or completely fallible by design. They are by design, all human...
Start to READ the Dr Rousseau WTC-thesis.!
CLICK the LINKY. Then READ his arguments.
I doubt you do, since all your questions indicate you did not read my arguments.
Or, perhaps I scale you way too high in, and in such case, sadly so, you don't posses the comprehension skills to reason with logic, since you could be dyslectic, half baked educated, or not at all really capable to comprehend any of the, in fact quite basic arguments.?
I hope not, since that would be an immense waste of my precious time.
Basic question : do you understand the non-existing correlation between the NIST and LDEO time stamps : completely, partly or not at all.? Don't be shy to tell and ask for what you missed.

2.2. n-f : the government had the foresight to make the 1993 WTC seismic data disappear but not coordinate the destruction of the 911 seismic data.
LT : Not the government, but their "Overlords", inherited from many former Administrations.
And who says that "they" did NOT coordinate the official seismic interpretation efforts, regarding these 9/11 seismograms.? To me, it's abundantly clear they did.

2.3. n-f : For example, the seismographs could have been down for maintenance or something?
LT : For starters, they never shut down all seismographs together in a WHOLE State, a really nonlogical proposal and thought exercise. Why get later attention to such illogical mistake, when they clearly had their owned seismologists in their pockets already?
There were many more seismic stations near enough to the seismic sources, with professionals manning/operating them, but it were those specific two (Kim and Lerner-Lam), who directly published their recorded material with THEIR interpretation, the next day, astonishingly and illogically fast, but it made it completely clear to their peers :
do not interfere, such swift reaction always means "State sponsored", written all over it.
Not one other seismologist tuned in, that should raise the hairs in your neck already. Where was the normal peer review process saved; would you ask around, risking your career?

2.4. n-f : Yet the 911 data does existing. Why destroy 1993 data yet allow 2001 to be recorded? Or the government knows the 2001 seismographs have nothing to hide. Which is it? All power government that controls all data or your conspiracy theories are inconsistent.
LT : Corrections : a. does existing must be : do exist. b. Add "data" behind 2001. c. 2001 seismographs : must be seismograms. d. All power government : my guess, "all powerful" ? Or : All power"s in" government ?
They are proposals to offer a solution for glaring inconsistencies, they are not conspiracy theories. The whole day of 9/11/2001 was a conspiracy FACT, a false flag operation, executed and aided by the minions of the Overlords of your Administrations. See and view the videos in my long list of 9/11 related documentaries on page 13, with too much strong evidence in most of them to recall here, point by point, and strong indicators of what was a planned false flag operation on a grand scale, as never seen before (only Pearl Harbor comes to mind).



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Third post by neutronflux :

3.1 n-f : One: Did not talk about NIST.
LT : REALLY.? The whole crux of the matter is about NIST contra LDEO.

3.2 n-f : Two. Protec.
LT : Oh, NO, PROTEC again? REALLY ? (spits on ground)
Let's keep it simple, for simpler minds to grasp :
SEARCH ATS. USE TERMS : LaBTop Protec
You'll find multiple pages with 10 posts each.
You then read the few most recent found posts by your ATS-Search.
It's all explained in there.
That guy from PROTEC, once posting here his lies about those handheld seismographs, did run away from ATS, after I demanded him to show us his Manhattan recorded seismograms.
HE IS A DAMN LIAR. PERIOD.
Protec redacted that guy's first online "advertisement hit piece", after I phoned them and asked them for those seismograms.
Their answer : sorry, but we lost them from our repository. Asked them for tel numbers of involved personnel, they had to ask back, put me on hold, connection cut by them.
They never phoned me back again.
Everybody except you, knows for many years already that this guy was trying to get his firm some needed State contracts. He failed miserably, by not showing up with his precious handheld Manhattan seismograms, when confronted here at ATS by me.

3.3 - 3.4 - 3.5 n-f : Three, gave an explanation about 1993 twice. (LT : Four? ) Actual ground, rock, sand is more conducive to passing low frequency seismic waves. Is that wrong? Elements of earth as in composition of ground tends to filter high frequencies. Is that wrong? A blast produces a relatively short duration with high frequencies which the earth tends to filter.
Five, seismographs were originally set up to detect seismic activity from shifting in the earth that is low frequency. Not to detect demolition charges.


LT : When do you stop to make all these typing errors in your posts? It's tiresome to comprehend, not logical and outright showing your personal sloppiness. I suppose the word Four : had to come in before "Actual".
Three : answered above.
Four : damn, READ the publication by Dr Rousseau, for once in your life. He explains it all to you, all your really really basic questions. I'm not gonna repeat my answers to infinity.
Note his conclusion.
Five : Seismographs detect all earth movements, they do not distinct for certain types, forms, expressions, whatever you think. That needle or coupled electronic device records everything what arrives, it would be quite difficult to explain when a filter is used at forehand. That would be masking, i.o.w. hiding of evidence, and those parts would be lost.
It's the filters used after that, during the machines interpretation phase, that defines what you are looking at.
Since you will never believe me, READ at last the remarks by Dr Rousseau about those filters as used by LDEO, especially the ones for the plane impacts, they couldn't have laid it out any thicker and obvious, what they were trying to hide. They used an obviously wrong filter for 2 plane impacts, ask Dr Rousseau.

Fourth post by neutronflux :

4.1 n-f : You do know there is a difference in seismographs used for earthquake detection and blasting seismographs? Wonder if Protec was using blasting seismographs in Manhattan during 911.
Get informed about Protec first, before going any deeper down. I really have had it with this re-birthing of the Protec subject, showing CLEARLY thus, that you did not do any BASIC research in ATS its HUGE Search-engine page results.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Fifth post by neutronflux (it starts to get interesting):

5.1 n-f : Recap. You were talking about a time window of two seconds on a timeline with an error of up to one second? Is that wrong.
Be more precise. I.O.W. : What are you on to?
I'll try one wild guess. The distance in time from WHAT event? From the back slope of the first huge amplitudes grouping on the WTC-7 seismogram to.? WHERE?

5.2 n-f : The seismographs data was recorded on a seismograph used for earthquake detection from with in the earth, not calibrated for blasting. Better know as a blasting seismograph. Is that wrong.
Fix your typos before posting.
A blasting seismograph will consist of a small (handheld) machine that holds a 3-axis velocity transducer to measure three-dimensionally, all nearby earth movements.
Another transducer to measure any air over-pressure from nearby, which vibrations, in case they are transformed into the earth, could be wrongly interpreted otherwise, as additional earth movements.
And of course a (computing) device for data acquisition and a coupled storage device. With the additional software that comes with it.
Professional seismographs such as the ones operated at Palisades station at the Columbia University, are perfectly capable to measure every spectrum of arriving seismic signals, the only difference is that they most of the times are much further away from the sources, and are thus constructed much sturdier and are far bigger build than a handheld one, which is meant for nearby less refined recording. In short, the professional ones are by design made so sensitive, that they can record very tiny earth movements.
I once build one in a big shed I rented, to the specifications as the ones used at my university.
They asked me to do that, for comparison reasons, and to invite our students to a quite different soil-anchored seismograph. I also incorporated an old school system for educational and nostalgia reasons, that could be inserted at will, with a huge turning drum that I melted up with white candle wax, which I then scorched (carbonized) from far under, thinly with an oxygen/acetylene torch, set on low oxygen and high acetylene, so it gave off lots of greasy black soot. Ahh, those were the days of long long past...

The concrete block which held the 3 meter long needle mechanism arm, was 1 cubic meter in size, to give you an idea of the specs of the older professional ones, probably also still used somewhere in an old shed by LDEO.

5.3. n-f : What peer review group labled you piecing together and counter interpretation of other people's work and research ground breaking?
LT : sigh. Did you perhaps mean with that garbled sentence, this :
""What peer reviewed group, labeled you, piecing together a counter-interpretation of other people's work and research, ground breaking?"" ???
If so, question to you : where did I ever use the word "groundbreaking".? LINKY please.
Well, seems to be news to you : Science ALWAYS builds further on the shoulders (works) of past giant thinkers.
Do you slowly start to think you are responding to some sort of Science Journal, acting as a one man's single peer reviewing army.?
This is a Conspiracy web site, we tend to see lots of all sorts of government and associated scientists their conspiracies, we also tend to show hard evidence of it. Get used to it.



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 04:53 PM
link   
So your whole argument is geologists are afraid to counter what they have already explained. We have only your word the guy from protect was lying. Only your word data is missing. We have only your word you are right because people lie. And only your word seismographs primed for earthquakes can accurately record data from a blast. And you skipped the difference in a blast with in the earth vs in the air. And there is no physical evidence of explosives at the WTC. And how you proclaim how great you are and the only one this and that makes it impossible for people to deal with you. The guy from protect being competent probably got tired of being called a lair, your convenient narritives, and lack of scientific method. There is no point in debating with you because you will use assumptions with no evidence and produce fasle narritives to change the argument. And why would other geologists be afraid. You keep ranting about what you think is true and nothing has happened to you?



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Your last sixth post, just before my next first one :

Are you mocking me ? (By the way, we are DOUBTERS, not your derogative term Truthers)
That is all thoroughly explained by me in the above posts, and by Dr Rousseau, it seems that most of your remarks you picked up from there, so why are you playing innocent in all the other posts, as if you did not read his publication.?

Your last, sixth remark :
n-f : Most devices cannot process all the spectrum at once. Then add what the earth tends to resonate and filters in seismic activity. Then add if blasts were generate in the earth, or mostly surrounded by air. Then add you need a modeling program / calculations, because the generated waves travel at different speeds and can reach the seismograph at different times. Add that the WTC timeline was created from time stamped videos and photos with incorrect times. So individual photos and videos had to be time corrected. How is talking about the spike and the two second window not part of this thread. Or the accuracy of the equipment in possible blast detection.

The LDEO ones can. They use specific sensors and filters for ground vibrations, on specific direction oriented seismograms. (f.ex. a Freq.range of 0.5 to 250 Hz, a sensitivity range of 0-10 or 10-100 nanometers/s, filters for 0.5 to 6 Hz or filters for greater values)
Note that blast seismometers have a sensitivity range based on only millimeters/second, that's 1000 times less sensitive, because they are operated very near to the blast source, so too sensitive equipment would render such a far to sensitive sensor useless.

Dr Rousseau explains the air, subterranean, and surface oriented blasts he noted in the LDEO seismograms, and their subsequent indicators.

The different speed interpretations when traveling through the upper strata of the N.Y. State's crust are processed by standard digital calculations, that are refined (fine tuned) by years of recordings-data. These strata have practically the same geological formation and a significant amount of rock volume, over geological time periods (eons), so the known traveling times through those strata layers for the different wave form-speeds traveling them, are very precise, the longer the involved period and amount of measurements.
Many comparable measurements = greatest time stamp accuracy per arriving waveform.
That's why the 2 seconds uncertainty of the recorded signals as noted by Kim & Lerner-Lam is so suspicious.

The waveforms-analysis software provides features for a graphical output of the arriving waveforms in each of the three axis of motion, and a comparison of measured peak velocities and frequency content, with various ACCEPTED standards.
Each of the recent standard transducers used in seismometers, measures velocities on three mutually perpendicular axes, Vx, Vy and Vz, corresponding to a longitudinal, transverse and vertical component.
Study the many LDEO seismograms I gave already a link to, to comprehend the various filters used, and the velocities measured in various directions. (f.ex. East West)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
And how can one broad band seismograph accurately record all data from an event with multiple causes of seismic activity. The whole thing if a trough encounters a peak of another wave it results in changing the waves. When the buildings fell, there was different waves traveling at different rates interfering with each other. How does a seismograph receiving all seismic waves at once make an accurate representation of all waves from multiple seismic events occurring at the same time?
edit on 7-6-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

So your whole argument is geologists are afraid to counter what they have already explained.

That's evidently totally made up. You are a disgrace to civil forum debate.
I don't care what they think or do, I know for sure I am right, and the whole NIST team knows it too, that's why they removed all that seismic humbug from their site. My time-stamps comparison is my whole SIMPLE argument.
It's time you get that in your gray mass up there


We have only your word the guy from protect was lying.

Blatantly wrong. Ask around here at ATS, better, phone PROTEC, but you won't, you're one of those who want to keep living in their own protective bubble of false security.

Only your word, data is missing.

Utterly strange, ain't it.? ONLY my exchange with that LIAR is missing from this database.
And you know what? I don't blame the ATS owners, it was for sure one of those former hackers, regrouped by the CIA, as forum attackers, after serving their reduced sentence for hacking banks etc.. There were many more very strange online erasures noted.


We have only your word you are right because people lie.

Getting pretty desperate now, ain't we? Calling me 3 x a liar, how gross can you be, since you just have to start a new thread, with the title :
How many of you remember, or even better, recorded the Protec guy versus LaBtop exchange in the 9/11 forum. Where that coward from Protec left the ATS premises after being confronted by LaBTop, to show up his handheld seismograms from Protec, recorded on 9/11 in Manhattan. Or shut up, just as he asked neutronflux recently.


And only your word seismographs primed for earthquakes can accurately record data from a blast.

You are the most dishonest new poster of this year by now. AGAIN, READ Dr Rousseau's piece de resistance, you stubborn denouncer of facts, presented on a plate to you.

And you skipped the difference in a blast with in the earth vs in the air.

Great, what about ALL these remarks by me :
1. Four : damn, READ the publication by Dr Rousseau, for once in your life. He explains it all to you, all your really really basic questions. I'm not gonna repeat my answers to infinity.
Note his conclusion.
2. Since you will never believe me, READ at last the remarks by Dr Rousseau about those filters as used by LDEO, especially the ones for the plane impacts, they couldn't have laid it out any thicker and obvious, what they were trying to hide. They used an obviously wrong filter for 2 plane impacts, ask Dr Rousseau.
3. That is all thoroughly explained by me in the above posts, and by Dr Rousseau, it seems that most of your remarks you picked up from there, so why are you playing innocent in all the other posts, as if you did not read his publication.?
4. Dr Rousseau explains the air, subterranean, and surface oriented blasts he noted in the LDEO seismograms, and their subsequent indicators. (you got impatient, you posted too fast)
5. This one's for free :
So we're talking at least 6 loud potential explosions in the minutes before and after 11:00 a.m. which NIST hasn't addressed. Peskin: -- much more --
6. Just a polite reminder :
, when I told you to go look up the reports from, then Dr, Brown, that he recorded that EVERY charge that was detonated during the Murrah building remains demolition as FAR MORE ENERGETIC than all the following, thundering down of huge concrete debris blocks, into the ground.
7. This needs really re-rubbing under your nose, since you never address those far more important subjects :
Now take notice of what NIST and ARA explained as the initiation event, namely the breakage of all connections to horizontal beams over 10 floors, from column nr 79, a SINGLE column thus.
First question you should ask yourself : why don't we see then during the seismic recording of the following total global collapse of that WHOLE building, AT LEAST the same high amplitudes when the rest of all those vertical steel columns broke also loose from their supporting horizontal steel beams.? And on top of that the whole building debris heap that impacts the bedrock after the first 2.25 seconds, and starts massively decelerating on that rock hard bottom, sending additional amplitudes through the New York State upper stratum.
Which we don't see at all. All following amplitudes are smaller than that first huge pack of peaks.
Next. What do you think caused 2.25 seconds of near absolute free fall acceleration during the onset of the global collapse of WTC 7.?
Do you have any other explanation, based on solid physics, math and engineering rules, than EXPLOSIVES causing an implosion.?
8. One first hint to reconsider : READ THIS thread's opening posts, it explained the Twin Tower seismograms partially in there too.
See the two, by me 1-10 nm/s "amplitude-blown-up" seismograms for WTC2S and WTC1N, do observe the two, comparable in AMPLITUDE to the WTC-7 collapse, pre-collapse amplitudes for both Twin Towers their ten times less sensitive 10-100 nm/s seismograms, now recalculated to the same sensitivity of 1-10 nm/s as the other three seismograms (the 2 plane impacts, and the WTC-7 collapse, all three were posted by LDEO in 1-10 nm/s sensitivity) .
Further on, that is a work written in 2006, we are 10 years further and many revelations further too. Read Dr Rousseau's seismic study, to begin with.
9. Conclusion : NIST made an even greater joke of their seismic studies, and after realizing that, after reading my swift retaliation, they withdrew immediately ALL there seismic studies from all their websites.......If that ain't peculiar, what is not; you should ask your self.
10. While LDEO doesn't come further than a amazingly wide spread 1 to 2 secs = 1000 to 2000 ms accuracy for the starting TIMES of all 9/11 seismograms, which I said in 2005 already, is VERY suspect in geophysics circles, see also the recent remarks about that in Dr Rousseau's publication. (see REFS)
11. We all would really like to have seen that FIRST 1993 WTC-blast seismogram, recorded FOR SURE ALSO by LDEO, as originating from the same WTC tower position.
Do you really believe their fairy tale, that a 1993 blast that blew a gigantic hole in the parking garage and base floors of that WTC Tower, did not register on their LDEO seismograms, while a 2001 near-miss plane impact, high up in WTC2S, its steel shearing- and impacting amplitudes strongly deafened by 300 m descending in thick steel before reaching the bedrock, did however cleanly register. (enough for now).

And there is no physical evidence of explosives at the WTC.
So, I presume you checked that all by your own self.?

And how you proclaim how great you are and the only one this and that makes it impossible for people to deal with you.

Well, it's worth another try : LINKY PLEASE to those words.?

The guy from protect being competent probably got tired of being called a lair, your convenient narritives, and lack of scientific method. There is no point in debating with you because you will use assumptions with no evidence and produce fasle narritives to change the argument. And why would other geologists be afraid.

Fix your TYPOS.! That Protec guy was a WRITER of articles for them in their self promoting magazine, in dire need of a place in the 9/11 hall of fame.

-- more --



posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Or maybe, just maybe, it's you that is lying and making things up without any evidence to back yourself up with?

But yeah, let's believe a random guy on an Internet forum who doesn't know how seismic activity is recorded.
/sarcasm
edit on 762016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
91
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join