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: 22
33
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



Specifically there is no P and S waves

Yes, there were looking:



If that type of graph is not to your liking just show me an example of the type you prefer and I will get right on that.

If you can't, then I guess you need to find another counter-argument to the nuclear demolition theory.

As it stands, it is the most plausible explanation for the mounting evidence, as I have shown.

edit on 1 18 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:34 AM
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?


There is no P or S wave in the above chart. The arrows are pointing to amplitudes along a Rayleigh wave. Again, by definition a P wave, a S wave, and a Rayleigh cannot be the same wave. They all move through the earth at different frequencies and direction of motion. If there was more than one wave, a second wave would cross or intersect the Rayleigh wave. Therefor the above only shows a single Rayleigh wave.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Oh, my apologies. Could you post a picture of the type of graph you speak of?

If not are you lying?


edit on 1 18 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman




You do have to. I just said you lied and that would prove you did not.


Again, how is the cited source a lie


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.


As in there are no P and S waves


(post by tadaman removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

Oh, my apologies. Could you post a picture of the type of graph you speak of?

If not are you lying?



I don’t have to, because the graphs you posted are the surface waves from the WTC on 9/11 without the P and S waves. You cannot label the amplitudes of a single wave at its own frequency and call those amplitudes another wave. Again, by definition, P waves, S waves, and Rayleigh waves for the same seismic event are not going to be on a single wave. They by definition are going to be three separate waves at different frequencies.


(post by tadaman removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

So you are lying. Ok.

Looks like the 2 underground nuke looking signatures in the seismic data might be caused by underground nukes huh.




Again how is the cited source below a lie



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 there are no P and S waves from the WTC on 9/11.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

You do have to. You made a claim that was a lie, got called out on it, and can not prove you were being honest.

No such graph exists. You lied. Your entire counterargument is bunk.


Quote what I claimed was a lie.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

You do have to. You made a claim that was a lie, got called out on it, and can not prove you were being honest.

No such graph exists. You lied. Your entire counterargument is bunk.


Then quote what is the lie I made.


(post by tadaman removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Again
I don’t have to, because the graphs you posted are the surface waves from the WTC on 9/11 without the P and S waves. You cannot label the amplitudes of a single wave at its own frequency and call those amplitudes another wave. Again, by definition, P waves, S waves, and Rayleigh waves for the same seismic event are not going to be on a single wave. They by definition are going to be three separate waves at different frequencies.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

You said there exists a different type of seismic graph. Produce an example of such you liar.


Then quote the post



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You do if you want to prove you didn't lie.

As it stands the most staunch opponents of the nuclear demo theory lie and pretend to be able to understand the raw data.

When faced with someone who can, they spam and pretend alternate special charts exist that would disprove what is offered, but refuse to produce such.

If no such claim was made then the seismic data I presented was complete and the analysis was accurate in so fsr as it is absolutely based on known, scientifically accepted facts.


edit on 1 18 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Again how is this cited source a lie.




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.


As in there are no P and S waves from the WTC on 9/11
edit on 18-1-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

You said there exists a different type of seismic graph. Produce an example of such you liar.


Again, then quote the post


(post by tadaman removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 12:59 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Show me an example of the type of seismic chart that proves the ones I posted are inaccurate.

You can't because they were.



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

And that doesn't help your case. Since I showed the waves in question.

You are so dumb you can't realize that what you quoted is talking about ONE of man signatures in the seismic data and is a highly disputed ANALYSIS.

Disputed by people who can read the raw data.

People much smarter than you.


A rant is not an argument

Again, how is the below cited source a lie?


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.


As in there was no P and S waves from the WTC on 9/11



posted on Jan, 18 2019 @ 01:03 AM
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?


You


Disputed by people who can read the raw data.


Are you referring to people that label the amplitude of a Rayleigh wave as a different wave?



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join