It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Six, your dear doctor's work is debunked by Wood, and ignored by Gauge and Jones. If the work was credible, the movement would be rubber everyone's nose in it. Seems in large ignored, and not embraced by any large group.
Five, completely ignoring the type of seismic waves. Waves that are not exclusive to collapse or demolitions.
Show where Gauge, Jones, or any other major groups of conspiracists push audio of the detonation of demolitions.
The only thing sadly comical is no proof the cited seismic records holds any wave activity exclusive to demolitions.
One, no physical evidence of demolitions shrapnel.
Two, no fragments of charges, blasting caps, nor remains of a detonation system.
Three, how would an elaborate system of bombs and thermite maintain its system integrity and sophisticated timing scheme through extensive fires and building damage.
Four, no steel worked on by demolitions or thermite.
Five, no evidence steel and concrete prepared for CD.
Six, no 140 db sound of detonation that would be easily filtered and isolated from audio.
Seven, no corresponding atmospheric blast waves that should accompany a bomb that could create seismic activity at LDEO 26 miles away.
Eight, no sound of explosions that corresponds to a blast that could create measurable seismic activity 26 miles away.
Nine, no calculations on the size of an explosive that could create the implied seismic spike to create recordable seismic activity 26 miles away. The 1993 WTC 900 pound TNT equivalent bombing produced no measurable seismic activity at LDEO.
Ten, no proof the seismic data was only noise from the gradual increase in seismic activity while WTC 7 was going under structural failure that lead to its collapse.
11, LDEO seismologists and other experts quite clear in their statements their is no seismic evidence of demolitions.
12, LabTops seismic data seems fictitiously zoomed in to exaggerate seismic activity.
13, Labtop not very specific on the seismic wave types.
14, there is no wave types and seismic activity that would exclusive to detonation of explosives recorded at LDEO. All captured wave types are normal to a building collapse.
15, the seismic data is so lacking the major conspiracy groups do not cite it as evidence. Dr Wood flat out states their is no seismic proof of CD.
Bottom line, seismic proof of CD is only LabTop's interpolation and opinion with no supporting evidence.
With an overwhelming majority of seismologists and experts on the record stating there is no seismic proof of CD.
Even more damaging, major personalities in the conspiracy movement do not embrace the seismic proof of CD.
originally posted by: LaBTop
That's all you need to know after all these massive seismic misconceptions posted by member neutronflux. He shows not to be able to read texts which go against his personal belief systems.
It's after all this time spend since 9/11, a well known disability shown among official story believers.
Thoughts from a Former NIST Employee.
I was a member of the NIST technical staff during the period 1997-2011. I initially joined the High Performance Systems and Services Division and later became a member of what was, at the time, the Mathematical and Computational Sciences Division of the Information Technology Laboratory. My fellow NIST employees were among the finest and most intelligent people with whom I have ever worked.
I did not contribute to the NIST WTC investigation or reports. But in August of this year, I began to read some of those reports. As I then watched several documentaries challenging the findings of the NIST investigation, I quickly became furious. First, I was furious with myself.
How could I have worked at NIST all those years and not have noticed this before? Second, I was furious with NIST. The NIST I knew was intellectually open, non-defensive, and willing to consider competing explanations. The more I investigated, the more apparent it became that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence.
Among the most egregious examples is the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 as an elaborate sequence of unlikely events culminating in the almost symmetrical total collapse of a steel-frame building into its own footprint at free-fall acceleration.
I could list all the reasons why the NIST WTC reports don't add up, but others have already done so in extensive detail and there is little that I could add.
What I can do, however, is share some thoughts based on common sense and experience from my fourteen years at NIST.
First, if NIST truly believes in the veracity of its WTC investigation, then it should openly share all evidence, data, models, computations, and other relevant information unless specific and compelling reasons are otherwise provided. For example, would the release
of all files and calculations associated with the ANSYS collapse initiation model jeopardize public safety to an extent that outweighs the competing need for accountability?
Second, in its reports, NIST makes a great show of details leading to collapse initiation and then stops short just when it becomes interesting.
The remainder of the explanation is a perfunctory statement that total collapse is inevitable and obvious.
It is easy to see through this tactic as avoidance of inconvenient evidence. In response to any challenges, NIST has provided curt explanations from its Public Affairs Office.
There were many contributors to the NIST WTC investigation: Why not let them openly answer questions in their own voice with the depth of knowledge and level of detail that follows from the nuts and bolts of their research?
Lastly, awareness is growing of the disconnect between the NIST WTC reports and logical reasoning.
The level of interest in the "15 years later" article is a good example.
Due to the nature of communication in today's world, that awareness may increase approximately exponentially. Why not NIST blow the whistle on itself now while there is still time?
Tr u t h i s w h e r e o u r h e a l i n g l i e s .
Peter Michael Ketcham, USA