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.

 

Federal Grand Jury To Hear Evidence - World Trade Center 9-11 Was Controlled Demolition.

page: 19
33
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

Ok champ, show me a proper chart. When you do also show me how to read it.

When you are done, I can actually teach you how to read a seismic graph like the ones we are discussing.



Again, by definition a P wave would create its own amplitudes and frequency, and a S wave would create its own frequency and amplitudes, and the Rayleigh wave would create its own frequencies and amplitudes. All three would repeatedly intersect each other.




posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Should be easy for you. Even just link it, I can navigate to your sources. No worries.

I promise you won't have to post it more than once.

Post a proper chart. Show me how to read it.

Still want to keep going? Then post the proper type of graph you speak of.

With instructions accompanying the graph. You got this.
edit on 1 17 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 10:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

And just to drive it home to you just how foolish you look.



Are we done?


If all three waves were present, the S, P, and Rayleigh waves would all intersect each other. It’s is clear that there is only one wave component because it is never intersected by a second wave component. Is that false.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

So no graph like the one you speak of?

Why do you keep posting my inferior graph?

Do you not have an example of the type of graph you speak of with which to show us that you are not in fact just pretending.?



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   
I retract that reply, it does show very much materials hitting the ground, but what about the hurricane that was 20 miles offshore? NY literally shouldve been evacuating, with wind speeds higher than the towers were built to withstand. Perhaps they knew the hurricane path would 180 and fizzle out in the Atlantic? Or what about magnetic north dipping far below the surface of the earth at the time the first plane hit? I never see either of these discussed here. reply to: Swollenamygdala



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

You cannot read it because...


Forensic Seismology

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

The analysis of seismic waves provided also insights on what happened September 11, 2001 in New York. Seismograph stations around the city recorded the signals generated by the aircraft impacts and the subsequent collapse of the two towers of the World Trade Center (the Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network provides a rich collection of datasets of the seismic activity around N.Y.). The collapse of the south tower generated a signal with a magnitude of 2.1 and the collapse of the north tower, whit a signal of magnitude 2.3, was recorded by 13 stations ranging in distance from 34 to 428km.
Also these seismograms show a distinct pattern if compared to the pattern caused by a natural earthquake. There are no P or S Waves, but the impacts of the buildings on the ground generated a sudden peak of short-period Rayleigh Waves.


What do you not get about “There are no P or S Waves, but the impacts of the buildings on the ground generated a sudden peak of short-period Rayleigh Waves.”



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

This is spam at this point.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

So no graph like the one you speak of?

Why do you keep posting my inferior graph?

Do you not have an example of the type of graph you speak of with which to show us that you are not in fact just pretending.?



Then post a seismic chart not with one wave component. Then post a WTC chart that shows one wave component being intersected by a second wave component if you believe there is more than just surface waves.
edit on 17-1-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You are wrong. There were S and P waves. You probably know less than crispy tips over here



edit on 1 17 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Show me an example of what to post.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

What do you not get about


The analysis of seismic waves provided also insights on what happened September 11, 2001 in New York. Seismograph stations around the city recorded the signals generated by the aircraft impacts and the subsequent collapse of the two towers of the World Trade Center (the Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network provides a rich collection of datasets of the seismic activity around N.Y.). The collapse of the south tower generated a signal with a magnitude of 2.1 and the collapse of the north tower, whit a signal of magnitude 2.3, was recorded by 13 stations ranging in distance from 34 to 428km.
Also these seismograms show a distinct pattern if compared to the pattern caused by a natural earthquake. There are no P or S Waves, but the impacts of the buildings on the ground generated a sudden peak of short-period Rayleigh Waves.


There are no P and S waves.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes, there were look:



I guess you are just wrong. About everything.

We both helped construct a sound argument in favor of the nuclear demolition theory of the WTC.

I thank you and you illustrious tag team bro for persisting in official story propaganda. It is more revealing to others than anything I could do.


edit on 1 17 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

It doesn’t get more specific than


www.scientificamerican.com/
There are no P or S Waves,



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes there were look:



I guess you are just wrong. About everything.


What. You just posted a single wave that is a Rayleigh wave. Please show where a second wave intersects the Rayleigh wave. The only thing the arrows are pointing to are different amplitudes on a Rayleigh wave.
edit on 17-1-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Wait, show me an example of what you are talking about.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Thats not a working link.

Also, it does get more specific. To the second actually, and the graph shows the first and second wave hitting the seismograph and their propagating surface wave arriving after at a much higher amplitude.

You can't find a single example of the type of graph that you speak of?

Does it even exist? Was that a lie?

edit on 1 17 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

Wait, show me an example of what you are talking about.



Don’t have to. You keep posting a seismic chart that only contains a single wave component that is Rayleigh wave. The chart mislabels amplitudes of the Rayleigh wave something they are not.



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Again
It doesn’t get more specific than
“www.scientificamerican.com/
There are no P or S Waves”



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You do have to. Because if not you would be a liar.

Post such an example. If it exists and you aren't lying.

a reply to: neutronflux

a reply to: tadaman


edit on 1 17 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2019 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

You are the one that keeps posting a single Rayleigh waves with amplitudes mislabeled, and try to act like it’s three different waves. When by definition P, S and Rayleigh waves cannot be a single wave.
edit on 17-1-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 17-1-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 17-1-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixec



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join