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: 28
91
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   
Very good discussion on WTC time stamps.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

When considering WTC timing:

Is it the 9/11 commission time stamping?
Is it the original NIST time stamping?
Is it the corrected NIST Time Stamping.

The time error due to radar time stamping?
The time error of up to 2 seconsds in LDEO seismic calculation time stamping?

The error between time resolution of radar sweeps and the error associated with seismic calculations that are only as good as the understanding of ground composition?


Bottom line, seismic data is not a precise science in its only as good the understanding of area ground composition and the collected historical seismic data for that area.
edit on 2-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed timing




posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I offered you three important links to the seismic characteristics of blasts and explosives in this post :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
You totally ignored them.

While everything you "seem" so interested in, is self-explanatory when you just study Fig 2 from this paper by Kafka I linked already to in that post from days ago :
Rg AS DEPTH DISCRIMINANT FOR EARTHQUAKES AND EXPLOSIONS: A CASE STUDY IN NEW ENGLAND.

First you see three quarry blast seismograms, (a), (b) and (c), with their frequency diagrams, then you see an earthquake aftershock seismogram (d), with its freq. diagram :



Especially the quarry blast seismogram (a) and its freq. diagram (a) is compatible with regards to the distance to the source and the preceding P-rimary and S-ecundary shear waves, with the WTC-1N collapse seismogram from 9/11 (see page 19, Rousseau paper) which shows the same features :



The WTC-1N collapse was recorded by LDEO at 34 km from its source, and this Kafka blast example at 36 km, they are thus very comparable.
They also look eerily the same, when Rg frequencies (5 to 12 Hz) and amplitudes are compared.

Which you can't say at all when you compare (d) with (a), especially their freq. diagrams differ enormously.
The natural event, the earthquake (d), has a far broader spread out range of frequencies than the man-made event, the quarry blast (a).

The same goes for a gradual natural collapse as proposed by NIST et al, where debris hits the ground and would result in seismic vibrations as registered at LDEO ( not! ) over a period of several seconds, which (d)-type seismogram we clearly do not see.

Compare such a not recorded (d)-type seismogram then to the 1 plus 9, man-made (a)-type events, like all these explosions which are essentially very brief but highly energetic events, that result in huge steel/rock vibrations in/under WTC-7 (see/hear all videos I linked to, all over this place, see also my 5 links under each of my posts. Btw, only members can see them), and which 10 explosive events resulted in the (a)-type WTC-7 collapse seismogram, we do know so well by now.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

Page 5 of that JREF thread, (from the guy who wrote Siesmic.. in the title), post #163:
www.internationalskeptics.com...


TruthSeeker1234 : No, the clocks are not incorrect. They are time stamped with UTC. The 12-second sweep time could create a margin of error of +/- 6 seconds (LT : NO ), which is still not enough to explain the 17 second discrepancy. However, the data are not based on a single radar, they are based on 5 radars, with independent sweeps. This data is processed through software logic to arrive at accurate event times. The data of impact times comes from FAA, and they are accurate to within 1 second.


And then a whole excerpt of a NTSB-link that is not accessible anymore.
Try The Internet Archive site, archive.org... and put this link in :
www.ntsb.gov...

A JREF thread from 2006, that's 11 years and 3 month ago. It's done to death on several forums, including here (Search ATS for the word "Siesmic"). I believe I spend a whole thread on the RADES subject.

If a MAIN military radar picks up a plane, it registers its blip after every amount of seconds that the radar dish needs to make one 360 degrees revolution. The accompanying software calculates any increase or decrease in speed between dish revolutions and thus it is a simple extrapolation by that software (or by you when you have those data) from the few last dish returns its positional and speed data, until the point of impact, to establish the exact moment the plane hit a tower side, which position was also known exactly.
Radar data is clocked by atomic clocks, and it seemed to be the norm around 9/11 in the military, if you believe that excerpt, to set your radar clock wrong. Do you really believe such nonsense? It was all part of the camouflage cloud of misty data offered by numerous US Institutions to hide criminal intentions.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I saved this page for History :
Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network. Special Kingdome Implosion event information.
www.geophys.washington.edu...
I put this dead link into the Archive.org search URL box, and found at Jan. 09, 2007 one saved page by them (other tries re-placed me constantly to the recent Washington.edu site), with this saved text and links :


Kingdome implosion seismograms

The implosion of the Kingdome on March 26, 2001 (News Coverage : put this link in Archive.org : seattletimes.nwsource.com... ) generated seismograms at many seismographs in the Seattle area and farther. Detectable signals can be seen as far away as Mount Rainier (station FMW) and in the north Cascades (station RPW). The signals generated are more similar to those generated by a large rockfall than to those generated by an earthquake. Thus determining an earthquake magnitude for this event is not valid. However, using the same techniques for determining magnitude we can estimate an "equivalent" magnitude of 2.3, which matches fairly well with how the event was perceived by people in the area and how far away the seismic waves were recorded. Seismic source appears to start at 08:32 PST.

Webicorder of stations SP2 Seward Park broad-band record.
(Put this link in Archive.org: web.archive.org...://www.geophys.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/WEBICORDER/KINGDOME/SP2.webi.kd.gif ) (LT : and you see it's not saved in 2007, a pity.

Webicorder of station QAW, Queen Anne Hill accelerometer instrument.
(Put this link in Archive.org: web.archive.org...://www.geophys.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/WEBICORDER/KINGDOME/QAW.webi.kd.gif) (LT : and luckily it's saved in 2007.
It's the only big one at 08:32 PST on the 7th (blue) line from the top. As you see, Seattle is a busy seismic spot, a risky place to live near that brewing hot spot under that National seismic park :
)



Multichannel seismograms filtered to standard WA response. (used to calculate equivalent Magnitude: 2.3)
(Put this link in Archive.org: web.archive.org...://www.geophys.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/WEBICORDER/KINGDOME/kd.gif) LT : and luckily it's saved in 2007 :



Different version of multichannel records at compressed time scale and more stations.
(Put this link in Archive.org: web.archive.org...://www.geophys.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/WEBICORDER/KINGDOME/kd2.gif) LT : and you see it's not saved in 2007, a pity.


Archive.org : archive.org... Choose their Jan. 9, 2007 web crawl.!!!
The first 2 seismograms are nearby registered. The third one is a filtered one, while the fourth one is from multi channel records and more station sources.
Only the 2nd and 3rd ones are saved on the 9th of Jan, 2007 by Archive.org.
The third one, the multichannel seismogram is comparable to the three WTC collapse seismograms, and very much so.[

edit on 3/1/17 by LaBTop because: I did put "blue" in ( ) . Changed it to : The 7th (blue) line. I expected otherwise some snarky remarks from the usual suspects..



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
I also saved this page for History :
The above Seattle Kingdome Implosion, News Coverage link, its text :


The implosion: pushing the button

The implosion will take place in two phases, collapsing the Dome in six sections. Explosives in three sections will be detonated, followed several seconds later by detonations in the remaining three sections. Detonation will begin when an electric pulse is sent through two wires encircling the Dome, setting off six electric charges. The charges will ignite the network of orange detonation cords that will burn up instantaneously in a bright flash lighting the fuses to the explosives. Timed groups of explosives will then go off at different intervals.



Phase one
A sequence of small explosions in the first three sections will fracture the concrete in the ribs, columns and supporting tension ring. The flexible rebar that runs through the concrete will remain intact. As the heavy concrete roof drops, the rebar will act like ropes pulling the columns down and toward the center.



Phase two
As the first sections fall, the next three sections will be detonated and collapse, bringing the center compression ring down with them.



Gravity takes over
The entire procedure will take nearly 20 seconds, with about 12 seconds of actual explosion time. The structure will have collapsed inward, with the pile of debris at the center as high as 25 feet and the perimeter debris, including columns, as high as 60 feet.



After the implosion
Three work crews will clear the remaining pile of rubble. Large pieces of material will be broken down further and the top of the pile will be brought to grade level. Steel reinforcements will be separated from the heap for recycling. Foundations that conflict with new construction will be removed.

Of the initial 130,000 tons of material that made up the Dome, 80,000 tons were recycled onsite or hauled away before the implosion. Of the remaining 50,000 tons, most of which will be concrete, 35 percent will be used onsite as backfill for the new stadium. The rest will be sold as recyclable material.

Graphics and text: Phil Loubere; Reporting and text: Whitney Stensrud; Reporting: Jeff Hodson / © 2000 The Seattle Times


8/13th of the initial material weight was removed BEFORE the implosion, as prep.work for the actual explosions. What was left after that, was 5/13th or 50,000 tons of mostly concrete.

The WTC towers were not prepped like this AT ALL, they had to break their core backs with a lot more localized force, and not so sophisticated. They just cut the outer row of core columns diagonally, then the above top mass and gravity would, and did take over, slowly, over a period of about 20 minutes.
Those cutter charges, when detonating, were not really audible for the near cameras on ground levels, since it was far too high, far too deep inside with all the inner infrastructure still intact, and all explosive vibrations would have been deadened on the long way down in all that vertical and horizontal steel and will spread out on every floor into all those reinforced concrete decks, that way loosing energy at every floor.
I.o.w., there will be no seismic vibrations left over, energetic enough, to be registered 34 km away from this initial backbone breaking event.



posted on Jan, 3 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux


Bottom line, seismic data [collecting] is not a precise science in its [own, it's] only as good [as] the understanding of area ground composition and the collected historical seismic data for that area.


First, I corrected your strange text.

Second, do you even read first my former 15 years of seismic posting here at ATS?
As every good researcher would do before going head first in a discussion.?
Try the ATS Search function, fill in "LaBTop seismic" and hundreds of posts in tens of threads will roll out.
I advice you to start doing that first, before constantly repeating very old news here.

I wrote a long time ago already, that LDEO has hundreds of seismograms from earthquakes in the Manhattan area, collected over more than hundred years, and thus they know very well what the propagation speed for the Primary, Secondary and Rg waves are in the soil in between Manhattan and Palisades. They also know quite well the composition of the soil, from numerous tests.

This makes seismology a very precise science, and that's why you should ask yourself WHY on earth Dr. Kim came up with that crazy broad uncertainty of 2 seconds for the WTC seismograms.
Normally that's in the order of MILLISECONDS.
Search ATS for examples I gave for that fact. Try to use the words "LaBTop Wallace". Or ad : "Dr. Brown" to "LaBTop".



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

So sad you use pseudoscience to believe what you want to believe.


So? What is the minimum size CD charge to create measurable seismic activity 26 miles away again? As historically recorded for manhatten at PAL?

What is the expected P, S, L, Rayleigh wave signatures and ratios for the New York area again for a CD blast in manhattan?


You have two choices.

A, mangatten CD implosions historically do not register at PAL.

B, Or something like this. From past CD using explosive single charges of 1,000 pounds TNT equivalent, or greater, create measurable seismic activity at PAL.
edit on 4-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Added last paragraphs



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

And prove military radar uses atomic clocks. Which type of atomic clock? Which radar stations?

How many atomic clocks in use on the ground in the world during 2001?

Radar is only as good as fast as it can sweep and time resolution is dependent on that sweep. Also, radar is dependent on object distance and amount of time it takes the signal to return.

Your are so full of misconceptions.
edit on 4-1-2017 by neutronflux because: Changed first and third paragraph.



posted on Jan, 4 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

The atomic clock or quarts time is not the issue.

One, the time resolution of the radar. If it only updates every few seconds, then you only get a snapshot of position every few seconds. Margin of error greater than atomic clock.

Two, seismic calculations are not as accurate as atomic clocks. You would have to know the precise ground composition, have models of all known ground irregularities, know the exact travel path to the seismic station through faults and ground structure, and know if the waves would bounce off irregularities and cause interference to even come close to an accurate time calculation. And it still would have a margin of error greater than an atomic clock.


Do you not understand that? The time calculation is only as accurate as the most limiting calculation. If the least accurate model has an error of four seconds, then the model is never going to be more accurate than four seconds.

If radar only updates positions ever four seconds, then it will never be more accurate than 4 seconds.

If the seismic time calculation has an error of -/+ 2 seconds, it will always have a possible error of four seconds.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop

It's far simpler than you want to imply.
We have two FACTS :
1. A seismogram with two very distinct Rg amplitudes groups depicting the full collapse period of WTC-7, from before the Cianca photo event, during, and from after that event.
2. Registration of a 2.25 seconds period of free fall acceleration at the onset of its global collapse.

Which leads us to the only sane conclusion : When FFA is clearly registered during a building collapse, it is always evidence of removal by a (series of) blast(s), of all structural resistance underneath a still intact above structure, which consequently will fall down with FFA since "there is no structural resistance left under it", over a height of 32 meters during 2.25 seconds of collapsing.
As Shyam Sunder, director of the NIST investigation into the collapse of WTC-7, said so eloquently after David Chandler confronted him with that 2.25 seconds period of FFA at the onset of global WTC-7 collapse.

Quod erat demonstrandum : there WAS a blast registered in Manhattan during the collapse of WTC-7, since there was a FFA period registered of 2.25 seconds (an eternity in seismology).
And the whole seismic event period containing these 2.25 seconds of FFA was beautifully and very distinct registered 34 km further NNE of Manhattan, at Palisades seismic station of Columbia University.

====================

So sad you use pseudoscience to believe what you want to believe.
Starting off by insulting your opponent is a clear sign of uncertainty and lack of decorum.

So? What is the minimum size CD charge to create measurable seismic activity 26 miles away again? As historically recorded for manhatten at PAL?
What is the expected P, S, L, Rayleigh wave signatures and ratios for the New York area again for a CD blast in manhattan?

Not at all interesting for this discussion, since David Chandler + NIST both gave you the loud and clear evidence of free fall acceleration, THUS there were one or more blasts involved to create those 2.25 seconds of FFA. Which was perfectly registered at LDEO as the WTC-7 seismogram.

But if you are so interested, why don't you ask LDEO, the keeper of all those quarry blasts and of all building demolitions seismograms in the past for the New York and Manhattan areas, for their saved seismograms data of such events.?
One thing is sure, you won't get them, during this Administration's last period, and I don't have my hopes high for the next one too. Perhaps the next president will open a new investigation into 9/11/2001, then that will be one of the first things to do : a thorough investigation into all seismograms at various Earth Science institutes.
I also didn't get those handheld seismograms that reportedly registered in New York on the day of 9/11, from that famous PROTEC company its editor, who said they had them. When I phoned them, they suddenly had "lost" them....

One tiny remark of Dr. Kim from LDEO seems not to get through to you. He said in his latest 2016 interview I linked to and quoted from, that he was amazed to find out that quarry blasts were carried on during the day of 9/11, and he seems to retract his first days after 9/11 remarks as printed on the LDEO full 9/11 day seismogram, where he indicated three other seismic spikes groups after the WTC-1N collapse as "further collapses", but now, 15 years later, he tries to correct that by declaring them to have been still ongoing quarry blasts. STRANGE indeed, since he should have investigated at those quarry companies for sure already in the days after 9/11.
Whatever Dr. Kim's intentions are, there you have your registered quarry blasts. Smaller than the two first collapses.
And I hope you do understand that ANFO blasts as in those quarries, will not be used in Manhattan during officially endorsed building demolitions. They will use HE cutter charges, just as in WTC-7. And those were perfectly registered; see the WTC-7 collapse seismogram and its 2.25 seconds of FFA.

You have two choices.
A, mangatten CD implosions historically do not register at PAL.
B, Or something like this. From past CD using explosive single charges of 1,000 pounds TNT equivalent, or greater, create measurable seismic activity at PAL.

You are looking in the wrong direction, trying to change the meat of the matter, the answers are right in front of your eyes, but you can't see them, since you do not want to see them.

By the way, as I advised, did you even try to look up my posts about the research by Dr., now Professor Raymond Brown into the demolition of the remnants of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.?
His firm conclusion : Explosives are far far stronger recorded on a seismogram, than the whole following gradual collapse of a demolished building.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop

And prove military radar uses atomic clocks. Which type of atomic clock? Which radar stations?
How many atomic clocks in use on the ground in the world during 2001?

Told you already, try to read. MAIN military radars. All military and FAA radars are based on atomic clocks, use Google. By the way, so are seismographs also based on atomic clocked times.

Radar is only as good as fast as it can sweep and time resolution is dependent on that sweep. Also, radar is dependent on object distance and amount of time it takes the signal to return.
Pure nonsense.
Perhaps you believe a plane flying at top speed has brakes like in a car?
When a radar dish revolts, it picks up a re-bounced signal from the hull of a plane every X seconds, depending on the sweep time X of that dish. And those seconds are measured by atomic clocks.
The 9/11 flights their re-bounced signals were f.ex. registered every 12 seconds by one radar.
So, you know the exact speed and position of that plane every 12 seconds, but you also know the exact position of the side of a Twin Tower where that plane in the end dived into.
Take the speed during the last 3 sweeps, and the 3 positions, and correlate those data to the known position of the side of a tower. If you can't understand what I mean, try to educate yourself to a higher degree.

Your are so full of misconceptions.
Try a mirror, it can be quite helpful.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Originally posted by: neutronflux
A reply to: LaBTop

The atomic clock or quarts time is not the issue.
One, the time resolution of the radar. If it only updates every few seconds, then you only get a snapshot of position every few seconds. Margin of error greater than atomic clock.

The time is clocked with atomic clocked precision, the margin of error for radar times is, as stated before, +/-1 second. Try to read what was already offered.

Two, seismic calculations are not as accurate as atomic clocks. You would have to know the precise ground composition, have models of all known ground irregularities, know the exact travel path to the seismic station through faults and ground structure, and know if the waves would bounce off irregularities and cause interference to even come close to an accurate time calculation. And it still would have a margin of error greater than an atomic clock.
Do you not understand that? The time calculation is only as accurate as the most limiting calculation. If the least accurate model has an error of four seconds, then the model is never going to be more accurate than four seconds.

Accurate time on a seismogram is registered by atomic clocks with an error margin of milliseconds. It's not "calculated" as you think so, it's registered.
The vibrations depicted on it, their amplitudes and frequencies are written as cycles per second (time). Which cycles are easily measurable from the registered electronic data and as "translated" on the resulting seismogram. They do not use rotating drums with soot on it anymore, if you thought so.
By the way, the least accurate error model as introduced by Dr. Kim from LDEO is easily to be read from my remarked seismogram for the WTC-7 collapse, it's +/- 2 seconds, and not your huge 4 seconds "example".
Sneakily introducing exaggeration does no good to your arguments.

If radar only updates positions ever four seconds, then it will never be more accurate than 4 seconds.
Incorrect, it will still have its inherent error margin of +/- 1 second, especially when you measure planes flying at 550 M/hr. - 800 km/hr = 222 m/s.
Your WTC example : I'll keep it simple, without acceleration nor deceleration, since higher math involving interpolation is clearly not your forte, as shown by your next erroneous remark (but that's luckily build-in in the radar interpretation software) :
4 s to impact : 888 m to go
3 s to impact : 666 m to go
2 s to impact : 444 m to go
1 s to impact : 222 m to go
impact : 0 m to go
Distance known as measured by radar with its inherent 1 s max. error margin, so divide that measured 888 m by your proposed, thus well known and constant 4 seconds dish revolution, while those 4 seconds are measured by the radar software with an atomic clock its milliseconds error margin, gives 222 m/s speed. And thus it gets not expressed as speed in milliseconds, because the 1 second error margin is bigger than the milliseconds error margin.

If you however use the real 12 seconds dish revolution time from the nearest radar dish at Reagan Airport, and include a speed acceleration up to the last partial second of flight, you can extrapolate the speed in that last partial second from the former 11 seconds measurements, because you then know the acceleration rate. Exactly what the radar software does for its radar screen operator at the 84RADES group. And the error margin is still 1 second, + or -.

If the seismic time calculation has an error of -/+ 2 seconds, it will always have a possible error of four seconds.
Another one, stuck at basic school calculus. I had the same discussion before, Search this ATS forum for it.
You can not ad the + value to the - value. It still will be a 2 seconds error margin. If the error is upwards, it will be a 2 seconds margin, if downwards, it will be a 2 seconds margin.
You can't sneakily ad them together and suddenly enlarge the real error margin by an extra 100 %.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 02:39 AM
link   
All those posts by you, to basically say one simple thing :
"I don't believe that there is evidence for explosives."
Which is the standard "ostrich denial" example.

That indicates you do not understand the quintessence of my O.P. thesis in this thread, and this other thread's O.P. HERE, or don't want to discuss that, and you do not understand, or don't want to discuss what Dr. Rousseau brings to the seismic subject table regarding the Twin Towers (not the subject of this thread btw).
He shows you on page 1 already :


top page 1 : . The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official explanations which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.
First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic sources of different magnitudes. We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies.
According to the nature of the recorded waves (body and surface waves),
(LT : P(rimary) and S(econdary) shear waves, and Rg (Rayleigh) surface waves)
we can propose a location of each explosive source. According to the presence of shear waves, or the presence of Rayleigh waves only, we hypothesize a subterranean, or a sub-aerial explosion.
The magnitude of an aerial explosion is insufficient to provide seismic waves at 34 km.
(LT : The other two (subterranean and/or sub-aerial explosion), do provide them. But the collapse initiation aerial explosions high up, above the plane impacted floors, did not.
--snip--
Top page 5 : In the three cases, the bell-like form points to an impulsive source of energy, not percussion on the ground due to the (LT : gradual) fall of debris.
--snip--
Referenced article at the center of page 16 :
Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network (2000): "Kingdome implosion seismograms, special Kingdome Implosion event information," University of Washington Department of Earth and Space Sciences.
( www.geophys.washington.edu... )


You seem unwilling to read, or can't understand, what is offered to you.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 02:46 AM
link   
I feel obliged to tell you, in the same simplistic manner :
"I don't believe that no explosives were used, after reading, hearing and viewing all the evidence for explosives, in this thread and others and from numerous other sources."

Give me a logical answer :
Why is the first group of (Rayleigh; Rg surface) wave amplitudes, more energetic than the second group of Rg waves in the WTC-7 collapse seismogram.

After you admit of course, that the Cianca photo event arrives at the PAL seismograph station, smack in the middle of both groups.


And if it's so much more energetic, why do you keep telling us that there are no sound recordings known, while I inundated you with exactly those?

And if you were right, why do most officially released WTC-7 videos have no sound of the whole WTC-7 collapse event in them.?
Ever asked yourself that nagging question.?
Was it all removed, or are we dealing here with a silent collapse of a 47 floors high, steel building.?

The only two that slipped through their radar, were the Ewing-Smith one with the deep sound, and the Ashley Banfield video with its 9 distinctive thunderclaps in it.

The only explanation NIST came up with was the breakage of one single column nr 75.
ROTFLMAO.

Ridiculous, did you hear the thundering noise of those two Twin Towers coming down? And WTC-7 was half as high....so what's it, did "they" (NIST) try to remove all sound from nearly all WTC-7 collapse videos.?
Because that's the only sane conclusion. PERIOD.

Let the readers decide what evidence they believe.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Page 11/23 by Dr. Rousseau : Note that in accordance with the degree of dispersion of the surface waves (i.e., their speeds depend upon their frequencies), the duration of the recorded signal is not representative of the duration of the signal at the source.


An explosion is a very brief impulse (milliseconds), while its registered resulting seismic vibrations in steel and rock can last seconds on a seismogram, depending on the soil-consistency between source and seismograph; the source-distance; the frequency and the magnitude.

The excerpted Rousseau remark should have triggered your attention, since it 'could' be the basis for the only perhaps somewhat viable attack on my seismic energy discrepancy remarks on my WTC-7 seismogram posted before, if certain conditions were fulfilled.

Were it not that those conditions are not fulfilled, since you first have to study the implications, for my WTC-7 time stamps remarks on my above posted WTC-7 seismogram, on the following LDEO diagram of the WTC-1N collapse (Fig. 3 at page 22/23 Dr. Rousseau), with those by 5 different seismic stations registered seismic waves dispersions :
PAL 34 km: 17s retention time, and MANY 58 km : 25s retention time.

PAL shows a 2.0 km/s propagation speeds for the first arriving Rayleigh - Lg surface waves with a frequency of +/- 1 Hertz (1 cycle per second), while MANY shows a 2.3 km/s propagation speed.
This is caused by the the fact that the MANY station is situated on (see page 3, Rousseau) crystalline and metamorphic rock formations.
And PAL station and the other 3 on softer, sedimentary terrain.

This is Rousseau's article's Fig. 3 at page 22/23, the registration of the collapse of WTC-1N by 5 seismic stations at different distances from Manhattan :



Then you have to compare the duration (13 secs) of the Surface waves (Rayleigh (Lg) waves) on Dr. Rousseau's Fig. 2a (page 19/23); which is the WTC-1North Tower collapse seismogram posted by LDEO in Sept. 2001; with the durations of the Rayleigh (Lg) surface waves for station PAL (East of Hudson River on sediment; 34 km; 14 seconds long) and station MANY (West of Hudson River on rock; 58km; 20 seconds long) in the above Fig 3.
This is Rousseau's article's Fig. 2a at page 19/23, the WTC-1N collapse seismogram :



You see that the duration of Lg signals at PAL for the WTC-1N collapse (13 seconds) was stretched out only a mere 1 second at Palisades station, PAL (14 seconds), and some full 7 seconds at MANY station, that was 24 km further from Manhattan situated than PAL station.
The three other, east of the Hudson River on sediment situated stations, further away than PAL station, registered distinctively shorter Rg waves durations.

So we can conclude that the same stretch of no more than 1 second will adhere to my time stamps remarks on the by PAL recorded WTC-7 collapse seismogram, that only shows Rg surface waves.

A mere 1 second stretch of all those Rayleigh (Rg) surface waves, registered on that WTC-7 seismogram that I used to make my many remarks on, is of no significant importance, since Kim et al gave a 2 seconds fault margin (huge for seismic registrations) for their seismogram timings.

Especially when you realize that we have to take in account one (possible) sub-aerial explosion (a brief impulse) which was recorded in that Charles Ewing-Smith video as that first, deep 'Boooomm' explosion sound, from a sub-aerial TB explosion in WTC-7; and those next occurring 9 explosions their brief impulses in the Ashley Banfield video.
For which 10 brief explosive impulses we of course do not know the exact vibrations durations to the 10th of a second, but we can view their effects on the seismogram, that is thus stretched over its whole Rayleigh Rg waves length of 20 seconds long as received at the PAL station, only a mere 1 second more, just as the WTC-1N collapse diagram was stretched 1 second more there.
Thus, the originating Lg-vibrations period in Manhattan was originally 19 seconds long.

Which changes nothing for my WTC-7 thesis :
The two unexplainable by NIST, seismic energy amplitudes groups and their displacement discrepancy, when compared to a NIST time stamped photo shot by Nicolas Cianca.
The denting of the eastern penthouse roof starts at least 2 to 3 seconds after that first biggest seismic event is registered and its vibrations are already deadened out again, on the WTC-7 collapse seismogram.

Which is not al all a thesis anymore, but a solid fact, after other researchers like David Chandler (8 explosions audio in Banfield video, 2.25 s of FFA), Charles Ewing Smith (Deep sound explosion 2 s before Cianca photo), Furlong & Ross, McQueen (radar times inconsistencies) and lately Dr. Rousseau posted their own research into the matter of the WTC-7 collapse its explosive audio signals and by them found seismogram inconsistencies (2.25 seconds free fall acceleration at the start of its global collapse) in the official explanations by LDEO, FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST.
My WTC-7 seismogram with my remarks on it :



And neutronflux, of course those academics do not publish my 2005/6 research as theirs, that's very not-done in those circles. That would be plagiarism. An end-of-career sin.
What's amazing, is the non-existence of my WTC-7 research as a reference in their references lists.
Somehow they are reluctant to use an anonymous ATS member as reference.
Amazing indeed.
Since Rousseau and all the others, do use many other internet references.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Aha, you are the same guy who keeps nagging me with simplicity all through this thread.
Read my posts on page 14 of this thread, and that resulted on top of page 15 in me getting banned for a few days from posting.
Now it's clear.
Your posts will not be answered anymore, as anybody can see, you are only repeating and insulting, hoping to get me banned. Standard predicable JREF technique.

Go on, keep posting, this thread is done and end of the line for me.
Total waste of any more of my and other readers their precious time.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

You have no idea how seismology works.

If you had real research:

One: You would immediately give a calculated charge size without page after page of ratings backed by historical seismic data for Manhattan and PAL.

Two: Use historical data and historical seismic records to prove the size of charge you calculated has created seismic activity at PAL. Or recreate the events using the size charge figured in a controlled experiment in Manhattan.

Three: has nothing to do with just Rayleigh waves. Collapsing buildings create Rayleigh waves. Collapsing mines create Rayleigh waves. It's the historical record of explosions and collapse for the area and how much lead time and amplitude ratio for P, S, L, and Rayleigh waves.

Five, if you would use Manhattan seismic historical data from explosives, you could prove the travel time to PAL by seismic events.

Six, the five other seismic recording stations in the New York area does not confirm your seismic spike.

If you cannot create this simple statement in one post, You have a false narrative.

The PAL data was supported by the five other seismic stationds in the New York Area. Historic seismic data shows TNT equivalent explosions of x pounds is the minimum explosive load to create measurable seismic activity at PAL. The movement calculates a TNT equivalent explosive load at WTC 7 was x pounds, and thus over the threshold to create measurable seismic activity in Manhattan at PAL.

If you cannot answer simply and within the format of the above example, your supposed seismic spike is a false narrative from people milking 9/11 for personal gain.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

And by the way, the March 12, 2014 East Harlem Gas explosion that destroyed a building and could be heard 40 blocks away did not create measurable seismic data at PAL.

Good luck on finding supporting historical data to support the size of blast it takes to make a measurable impact at PAL from Manhattan Island.

Hope this link gets you back to PAL data from 9/11....
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
There is a nifty way to confirm the over pressure event from an explosion as outlined in this examination of natural gas explosions. It uses building damage and blown out windows.

preserve.lehigh.edu...


What was the radius of blown out windows from the false narrative of a bomb at WTC 7 that created seismic activity 26 miles away and across a body of water that limits surface seismic waves?

Especially in the historical context PAL seismic records did not receive recordable seismic activity from Manhattan during the WTC bombing of 1993 and the East Harlem Gas Explosion of 2014?



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 25  26  27    29 >>

log in

join