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: 8
33
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

You


The Columbia University articles not linked which I simply read, you can too, go on to explain how most of the energy VIBRATED up the building and "rang it like a bell".


The actual article as printed



A Morning That Shook the World: The Seismology of 9/11
blogs.ei.columbia.edu...

The seismologists determined that the planes hit the towers at 8:46:26 and 9:02:54, give or take a few seconds. Their calculated time for the first strike was about 2 minutes earlier than had been reported by media. To make the calculation, they had to account for the 17-some seconds it would have taken for the waves to travel from the shocked towers down through their foundations and then outward through complexes of shallow crustal rocks. First, the hard schist and amphibolite of lower Manhattan; then the gneisses of upper Manhattan; on to the sandstones and shales underlying the Hudson River; and finally up through the great sill of volcanic rock that forms the towering Palisades on the river’s west bank, where Lamont sits. Much of the energy also traveled through the river itself.

The jet strikes generated seismic waves comparable to small earthquakes of magnitudes 0.9 and 0.7 respectively—probably only a small part of the total energy of the collisions. Kim believes most of it was released in fireballs and airborne shock waves. This helped explain my wife’s testimony: Intervening buildings largely blocked the waves (and her view) of the first, which she felt only weakly. For the second, she was in a direct line. The seismic waves looked quite unlike those of natural earthquakes, which originate under the surface, said Kim. These had started from above. “More like ringing a bell,” he said.

According to the seismic signals, the collapse of the south tower came at 9:59:04 and that of the north tower at 10:28:31. Some federal investigators put the times about 10 seconds earlier, but they apparently measured from when the buildings began pancaking from the top; the seismologists pinpointed when they hit bottom. The first collapse, of the south tower, generated seismic waves comparable to a magnitude 2.1 earthquake. The fall of the north tower, a half-hour later, generated the most powerful wave—corresponding to a magnitude 2.3 earthquake. This was recorded by 13 seismic stations in five states, including one at Lisbon, N.H., 266 miles away


Funny how things change when you quote in context




posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
1/14/2019

High-profile people are elated about the Federal Grand Jury.

Source: www.ae911truth.org...

But when does this Grand Jury convene and proceed to receive evidence? I can't find anything.



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Already spoke to this

And? Your point?

The "pancaking from the top" HAPPENED AFTER the video recorded TREMOR many eyewitnesses explicitly say came BEFORE the collapse. Which also registered separately from the plane impacts.


edit on 1 14 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

It's not limited to fire fighters

Or even just rescue personnel. Residents, workers and clean up crews.


It has everything to do with the WTC pile was a big bowl of chemical carcinogens with no evidence of radiation above background.



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

You got this


Ten seconds, repeat, TEN seconds apart from the 2 recorded impacts, 2.1 and 2.3 I think, before those known seismic registers when the planes hit, there was a tremor.


From this


. Some federal investigators put the times about 10 seconds earlier, but they apparently measured from when the buildings began pancaking from the top; the seismologists pinpointed when they hit bottom.

blogs.ei.columbia.edu...



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Ok. I disagree with your statement based on all the cited and explained reasons yet to be adequately contested.
edit on 1 14 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

The "pancaking from the top" HAPPENED AFTER the video recorded TREMOR many eyewitnesses explicitly say came BEFORE the collapse. Which also registered separately from the plane impacts.



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

And you have not shown the seismic waves were generated from under Manhattan Island, and you have not produced the seismic data holds any evidence of P and S waves that would be indicative of a blast with the force to cut steel columns.



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You have yet to make an argument which shows why that is even relevant.

All you have done is say it's absurd and decry it debunked.

I did provide a seismic analysis of the 911 events.

Did you read it?

Have you read ALL that I linked?

LoL

You just do this in 911 threads. It's old. Contest the argument with your own and show me why you think what you do.
edit on 1 14 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

So? Do you have any evidence it’s was anything other than surface waves triggered by the failing of the structure from buckling. Any evidence it was P and S waves from a detonation with the force to cut steel columns? Or the activity came from under Manhattan island, not from above the surface?

The actual quote


The seismic waves looked quite unlike those of natural earthquakes, which originate under the surface, said Kim. These had started from above. “More like ringing a bell,” he said
blogs.ei.columbia.edu...



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

I have laid out more than enough facts to show there is no evidence of a nuclear CD
Again, just for you.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nukes are so ridiculous.

One, there was nothing indicative of a nuclear blast.

Two, no evidence nukes placed under the towers.

Three. The bottoms of the core columns were cut from the WTC foundations to be removed.

Four, The collapse of the twin towers clearly stated at the point of jet impacts.

See video for WTC 2 collapse initiation in link below.



the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...


Five. The cores for the towers fell last. The core offered resistance at the base of the twin towers.


www.skeptic.com...

The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.



Six. There is no indication of collapse initiation from the base of the WTC buildings up.
Read below link


A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
By Brent Blanchard
August 8, 2006
c-2006 www.implosionworld.com
www.implosionworld.com...


Seven, the slurry wall around the WTC foundation was not breached.

Eight, there is zero seismic evidence nukes were detonated under Manhattan islands.

Nine, how would the bedrock under Manhattan islands be stable enough to build new skyscrapers after three underground nukes were set off.

Ten, no indication a shockwave originated under the WTC.



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

You don't know what you are even reading.

That section was explaining the nature of the shockwave and how the surrounding buildings played a part in reverberating the waves back.

And what is your point? You are just posting things with no explanations as to WHY they negate my argument.

I provided everything. Read.

Anything I post you say doesn't exist and wasn't posted so there is no point in talking to you anymore.

I posted it for others to digest and consider. Not to argue with your lame, lying ass.


edit on 1 14 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

I have read, and cited numerous sources that debunks what you call “evidence”



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

No you have not.



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

What you not get about the seismic activity was generated above ground and into the ground.



said Kim. These had started from above. “More like ringing a bell,” he said
blogs.ei.columbia.edu...



What do you get there is no seismic evidence the epicenter was from under Manhattan Island and went up the towers?



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Then if an underground detonation started the collapse of WTC 2, how did its core fall after the floor system. How did the buckling occur at the point of the jet impact some eighty floors up with no visible failure of the the core failing or dropping. If it was an underground detonation, how did the core offer resistance to slow down the upper 30 or 29 floors falling into the building below.



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 06:56 PM
link   
More to add:




A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of Univ. of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

The two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These "short-period surface waves," reflect "the interaction between the ground and the building foundation," according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute.

"The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on January 7, 1983," the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.



911review.com...

2 nukes, 2 anomalous spikes recorded before the separately recorded collapse.

Edit to add:
Maybe 3 nukes. WTC7 may have had one too. Detonated with one of the pair sent down the delivery tunnels.

First tower struck was the last to fall. Why?

If it was exploded first it would have destroyed the delivery tunnel to the south tower. That could be why.

So south, last hit was blown first.

Then

North and Building#7 may have been blown together and last.

That scenario matches the time table and seismic data.


edit on 1 14 2019 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman



I don’t believe in energy beam weapons used at the towers. But it is funny DR. Wood makes short work of other CD theories.



Dr. Judy Wood - 9/11 Seismic Data
m.youtube.com...


Quick paraphrase.

Dr Wood shows an earthquake seismograph the shows an earthquake from under Manhattan. It shows the bedrock can carry P and S waves. The WTC 1 seismic readings shows only surface waves. WTC seismic data lakes high frequencies that would be generated by an explosion. Seismic data from WTC were surface waves the travel on the surface. There where no P or S waves that traveled through the bedrock.

Supposed WTC 7 seismic data matched background noise of the seismic data.

Then she shows what the seismic data looks like from an implosion which generates P and S waves. And waves with higher frequencies.



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 07:14 PM
link   
The job of a grand jury is convened to decide whether or not there is sufficient probable cause to support criminal charges being laid.

Will everyone generally support their Yes or No finding is the question.



posted on Jan, 14 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Again, you provide no evidence of
One, higher frequencies that would be indicative of a detonation.
Two, no proof a seismic event originating from the bed rock.
Three, no proof of seismic activity that traveled through the bed rock.
Four, there were no P or S waves that would be indicative of a underground detonation.
Six, you use part of a quote out of context that actually states


The seismic waves looked quite unlike those of natural earthquakes, which originate under the surface, said Kim. These had started from above. “More like ringing a bell,” he said
blogs.ei.columbia.edu...




top topics



 
33
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join