WTC Seismic spike hoax.

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:41 PM
Lets go back over the seismic data and WTC.

I know that this was covered once before in a thread, but I'd like to start fresh, so that those who are unfamiliar with the old thread won't be put off trying to read through 20 pages or so.

The whole hoax that the seismic data somehow indicates an underground explosion prior to the collapse was started by Chistopher Bollyn, in this article which he published on Rense, AmericanFreePress, and a host of other sites dedicated to the lack of editorial oversight.

In this article, Bollyn claims: "Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's twin towers immediately prior to the collapse."

He fails to offer any proof of this, but instead publishes misleading statements attributed to the authors of the seismic report.

It is clear, however, from the context of Bollyn's article, that these statements have been taken out of context in such a way so as to confuse the reader of Bollyn's article and to suggest that there was something there that was not.

As "proof" of his claims, Bollyn included the following graphic

yet it is verry clear from reading the actual report that no such evidence is present in the seismic data.

I am not a seismologist. I do not intend to refute Bollyn's claims based on seiesmology, but rather a simple examination of the graphs and charts that he uses.

In addition to the above report, the scientists at Columbia have also released other versions of the charts of the data.

can be found here


found here.

Note in the two above charts, the two areas boxed off are THE SAME SIGNALS.

They are a different shape in the lower chart because the time scale has been expanded and the amplitude has been attenuated to show the details of the signals.

This signal was caused by the impact of the building with the ground.

There is no evidence of a seismic spike before the collapse.

or as the head of the Columbia seismology department put it, "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

To their credit, the site 911review does not support this hoax.

There appears to be no basis for the claim that the large spikes preceded the collapses, nor that the energy indicated by those spikes was more than could be accounted for by the approximately 110 megawatt-hours of gravitational energy stored in the elevated mass of each tower. And there is stong evidence contradicting the idea that the seismic spikes indicated underground explosions

In addition, they also have a couple more detailed charts of the collapse signals.

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:19 PM
i dont want to read the reports because i dont have the ability to work out the lies from the truths.

i dont understand though how there can be 2 different charts scale wise.
in relation to each other the charts are totally different.

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:38 PM
I posted this also under the thread titled "WTC Hero janitor blows 'official 9/11 story' sky high." because we got off on this tangent over there.

I don't know Howard about this whole seismic data thing. I'm in the process of gathering all the data I can about this and I'm going to present it to a professor at a local college here in Dallas and see what he has to say about it. The 40 second display doesn't really dispell the first one from my limited viewpoint.. I mean.. this 40 second timeline. Where does the collapse really fit in? Sorry HR but that PM artilcle is really off base. In the article it says:

"same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs."

Really? When I look at the 40 second graph it looks flatline.. Starts off BIG.. then tapers off with much less energy involved on the tail.. (building hitting the ground?) AND.. Notice the energy levels involved in the peak of the collapses and the peak showing when the planes hit? they are very similar in amplitude.. Notice the readings of the airplane strikes, the energy showing up BEFORE they peak? This is not the case concerning the readings of the buildings collapsing. IT's basically FLATLINE right before the PEAK. VERY SUSPICIOUS.

I'm also going to inquire about the different types of waves and what kind's of different waves explosions can produce.

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:05 PM

Originally posted by AdamJ
i dont want to read the reports because i dont have the ability to work out the lies from the truths.

i dont understand though how there can be 2 different charts scale wise.
in relation to each other the charts are totally different.

Well first of all you have to realize that rotating drum and pen type of seiesmograph

is a museum piece.

Modern seismographs capture and store data digitally, so it is possible afterwards to adjust the printout of a seismic signal.

If you look at the two different charts you will notice that they are set to different time scales. One chart is set so that the distance from the left side to the right side of the chart is thirty minutes. Thus a signal that only lasts ten seconds is only a few pixels wide, thus it appears to be a spike. On the other chart, the time scale is expanded, so that it is only 40 seconds from the left to the right edge.

As for the magnitude of the signal, if you look at the left side of the following:

you will see under the words 1st Impact it says 288 nm/s (nanometers per second), and under 2nd Impact it says, 206 nm/s.

Under 1st collapse, it says 4,204 nm/s and under 2nd collapse, 5,777 nm/s.

Hope this helps.

TX, look at the scale on the left also.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by HowardRoark]

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:34 PM
It doesn't help Howard.. Elaborate in a little more detail, particulary about what the sidebar acronyms mean.. I understand the time line and that the graph illustrates "released energy/waves of one type passing through" but my questions from my prior post still stand..

Also, the graph showing the collapse building 1 and 2.. If the peak is not a bomb going off then what is the energy showing in the tail roughly between 24 and 40 seconds?

What say you?

[edit on 26-6-2005 by TxSecret]

posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:57 PM
I hate double posting but I'm pasting this from another thread because it pertains here as well and of course I'm not going to retype it all..

"Howard.. I have to reiterate this really quick.. I'm reading this report..:

In it it says"A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which appoximately 0.5 tons of explosives were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away.

in an earlier post of yours you said this concerning the above "WOW a half ton explosion in 1993 and it wasn�t picked up by the seismograph that was even closer then the ones that were in operation on 9/11. Logically, then that must mean that your �seismic spikes picked up BEFORE each collapse� were the result of even larger blasts. Please explain how this can be."

I responded in kind with this

"I CAN explain.. and easily I might add.. I'm not going to post links to substantiate this, you will just have to go read prior posts but it is a WELL KNOWN FACT that the explosives in the truck bomb WERE NOT connected to any part of the structure connected -directly- to the ground. *Bottom Line*..I don't even think the truck was really that close to any box collumns. You don't have to be an "expert" to understand the implications of this fact. AND I'll bet my bottom dollar that the -alleged- bombs in 911 were directly connected somehow to the box collumns (which were in turn connected DIRECTLY with the ground. )"

In a nutshell, I meant that an explosion "coupled" directly with the ground is going to show up more intensely on a seismograph than one that ISN'T. (A strong explosion that might not be quite stong enough to show up on a seismograph would indeed show up if "coupled" to the ground. The explosion that happened at WTC in 93 was not coupled directly to the ground, the explosives were in a truck supposedly not too close to any box collumns. Quite simple to grasp really. Of course those -alleged- explosions on 911 right before each tower collapsing are a mystery still. I'm just speculating that if major bombs were used in such an instance (I really think they were) I think I could safely assume that whoever did this learned from -past mistakes- and placed these bombs directly onto box collumns which were in turn -coupled- to the ground hence the -showing- on the seismograph. I believe that there were smaller bombs as well used in different places.

I know I said you could not refute the fact and effect of ground coupling and it's implications concerning explosions but that's the question I'm asking you.. I want you to comment on this.. ????? AND who are these people again who wrote the afformentioned report? Sounds like he's not taking into consideration important facts like the explosive that were in the truck bomb from 1993 were not coupled to the ground.

I may not be a seismologist but I do understand that an explosions "relationship" to the ground does affect that way it's going to show up on a seismograph.

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:19 AM
It seems that the crux of the claim is this

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.

Firstly....what experts? The people that recorded this whole series state that there isn't anything that needs to be explained here.

Indeed, the guy posting at rense misleads the reader by stating this

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

When the seismo group is saying that its got nothing to do with 'bombs in the building'. He doesn't include any statements like that.

It looks like the real problem is that there is a 'spike' in the first illustration, and that this is supposed to be the start of the collapse process. But, its not, and its not really a spike at all. The collapse process is occuring before the 'spike' in the first illustration, we just can't really see it, because the data is 'compressed'. Infact, you kindof can see it. And with the data uncompressed, you can see that there is a lot of seismic activity throughout the collapse process.

Also, I am thinking that, as the rense poster is quoting the seismo group, that the collapse is looking weird becuase of this 'coupling' effect in the early stages, which is not present later.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Nygdan]

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Nygdan]

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:42 PM
you will see under the words 1st Impact it says 288 nm/s (nanometers per second), and under 2nd Impact it says, 206 nm/s.

Under 1st collapse, it says 4,204 nm/s and under 2nd collapse, 5,777 nm/s.


But you have just demostrated that using 288/nms or 4,204/nms appears to make no difference to the relative scale of the spikes in relation to each other.
Also you said that digital ones can be manipulated.

So i still think my question remains, why is there such a relative scale difference between the different seismographs?
And if you dont know then how can you debunk them?

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 01:16 PM
The time frame is different, but the SIZE of the event would probably be very similar as you are collapsing two buildings of the same size, and same amount of steel. The biggest difference would probably be in how fast the collapse began. The difference in size of the impacts would be caused by the fact that one plane was moving at 500mph, and the other closer to 600mph.

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 02:46 PM
But could you say the energy released by the plane strikes was similar to the energy released during the biggest spike in the collapse? (Explosive device?) I find this very strange as I believe that the actual collapse of the buildings didn't convert alot of energy to ground motion, this has been mentioned in a couple of reports.. (I'm not going to go look for a cut and paste at the moment) I'm still looking further into this but I as understand, the collapse of building 7 didn't register "substantially" on any seismograph. The box collumns in WTC1 and 2 were EXTREMELY large and overengineered. It would take ALOT of energy to knock these all out all at once. What IS the relative energy release depicted in the second graph spikes.. How much energy does it represent and what can it be compared to? To me it would be difficult to quantify the energy released by the towers collapsing because alot of it is being used up by the destruction of the rubble involved. Quantifiying the energy released by the planes and a explosive device? THAT's much easier. I understand the second graph being a time slice of 40 seconds and not as compressed as the first one (30 minutes) I'm not that dumb. When "I" look at the graph concerning the BUILDINGS collapsing you have this flatline until about the 17 second mark then this "rumble" just "spikes" for roughly 5 seconds and then what looks like a minor disturbance between the 27 second and 40 second mark. (About 13 seconds, about as long as it took for the buildings to come down).. What I'm trying to say is the meaty part of the graph which shows the building collapses is not the building coming down yet.. comprende'? Could this be the "rumble" felt by many eyewitnesses right before each town collapsed? But I ask again.. what is the exact time stamp for this graph??? I hope you guys get where I'm going with this. At this point that "spike" could very well have been an explosive. I mean.. as far as I can tell the energy it represents is similar to the energy the planes released when they hit the buildings. Keep in mind that the planes hit the builidings, it was the supporting collumns that bore the brunt of the energy released.. and guess what? those box collumns are connected with the GROUND.. hence the -grand- showing on the seismograph. The buildings collapsing? It's pretty obvious the stored gravitational energy being released was not any where near focused on those support collumns, the building just kinds of disintegrated -around- the core with the core just -coming apart- Get the gist? As far as I'm concerened, whatever caused those "spikes" (Graph one OR two) involved the MAIN support collumns, before they came apart.

[edit on 27-6-2005 by TxSecret]

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 03:23 PM
I figured this out in another thread, JUST the airplane/fuel without passenger/crew/cargo weight would have weighed 231,000 pounds. Now you have a 231,000+ pound object travelling at 500+ and 600mph, impacting a concrete and steel building. That's going to be a fairly significant impact, that's going to travel straight down into the ground, through the beams that are attached to the ground (as has been pointed out in other posts) and register as a significant seismic event, as well as shatter the concrete and steel in the building. Another thing to look at is that when you change the time scale on the readings, the spike gets bigger and smaller, because you are looking at a smaller, or larger time frame. If you were to scale that to a "real time" setting, you would probably have the impacts be a smaller spike, then the collapse being the big spike that you see.

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 09:33 PM

Originally posted by TxSecret
It doesn't help Howard.. Elaborate in a little more detail, particulary about what the sidebar acronyms mean.. I understand the time line and that the graph illustrates "released energy/waves of one type passing through" but my questions from my prior post still stand..

Also, the graph showing the collapse building 1 and 2.. If the peak is not a bomb going off then what is the energy showing in the tail roughly between 24 and 40 seconds?

What say you?

[edit on 26-6-2005 by TxSecret]

Again, I am not a geologist or a seismologist.

nm/s = nanometers per second. a unit of speed. Since the graphs are charted on a time axis, it is also the unit of amplitude.

The charts are "normalized' to the rame relative dimensions to each other. This is becuase, like an EKG to a cardiologist, it is the shape and pattern of the signals that is of interest, not just the absolute magnitude.

ML (local magnitude)
A measure of the strain energy released by an earthquake within 100 kilometers of its epicenter. Strictly defined by Charles Richter as the base-10 logarithm of the amplitude, in microns, of the largest trace deflection that would be observed on a standard torsion seismograph at a distance of 100 km from the epicenter

and more here:

Note that that is a logrithmic scale.

Also, look at the original report, one of the figures clearly shows how the signal time span spreads out as the impulse moves away from the source.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 01:40 AM
Checking into some stuff but this is a good site: I'm currently looking for some other graphs depicting collapses, explosions, underground and otherwise so that I may compare them to the ones from WTC 1 and 2 and learn more about s and p waves.

Also, take a look at this:

What's interesting about the last link are these statements.

"The catastrophic events at the World Trade Center, as might be expected, produced much larger seismic effects than the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the EXPLOSIONS AT A GASOLINE TANK FARM AT NEWARK on January 7, 1983, which were detected up to 130 miles away."

As might be expected, produced much larger seismic effects than the bombing of the World Trade Center 1993??? No KIDDING.. Like I'm been thumping all along, the bombs that were in the truck (1993) were NOT "coupled" to the ground.

Here are some facts to keep in mind: This stuff also seems to be consistant throughout all the sources I've been looking at.

The readings of WTC 1 and 2 collapsing were on the order of about 2.1 - 2.3 (equivalent seismic)

The Plane strikes were not even half of this. (0.7 to 0.9)

***The colllapse of building 7 was 0.6. (AGAIN not even half of the WTC 1-2 and less than the strikes even)***

MOST importantly.. the DURATION of each events is follows..

Impact 1 at North Tower 12 seconds

Impact 2 at South Tower 6 seconds

Collapse 1, South Tower 10 seconds

Collapse 2, North Tower 8 seconds

Collapse 3, Building 7 **18** seconds

Ok.. why is the duration of the building 7 collapse nearly TWICE as long as the duration of the WTC 1 and 2 collapse? Physically, building 7 took about 6 seconds to fall with WTC taking about 11. (Obviously because they were taller) Keep in mind: just like the WTC 1 and 2, building 7 was deffinitely in "free fall".

So far fishy indeed.

Going further.. You will notice that the time stamp on the graph (30 second) starts right at exactly the time the buildings 'actually' started to fall. After this point it takes 16.95 seconds for the "spike" (WTC1) to show up on the graph (Well after the building is physically done collapsing). After the point building 1 started to fall.. (09:59:04.0) It's pretty obvious it took a few seconds (almost all of the collapse time) for the debri to hit the ground and thus generating the alleged ground movement showing up on the graph. QUESTION.. 1st plane hit at 08:46.26.0 You will notice IT ALSO took exactly 16.95 seconds to show up on the graph after it hit the building. HOW could there be a spike starting exactly 16.95 seconds after the building started to fall (according to the time stamp correlation) when it's obvious that's not possible (Using the plane strikes as a reference) because even though building 1 "started" to fall at 09:59:04.0 debri didn't have the chance to relate appreciably to the ground until an additional 10 seconds (roughly) had gone by. You can't escape this correlational evidence. Looking at the 30 second graph, using the (silence) between 0 and 16.95 seconds as a reference, the time between 25 seconds and 40 seconds is QUITE noisy.. (Of course not as -noisy- as the "spike" that started suspiciously at *EXACTLY* 16.95 seconds and ending at 25) Could 25 to 40 be the actual collapse itself? I'm telling you HR.. I'm having a hard time buying into this "hoax" thing. The more I learn about seismology, the more damning these graphs are!

ALSO, keep in mind building 7 barely showed up on the seismograph when it collapsed..

VERY VERY fishy indeed. Holes holes and MORE holes.


[edit on 28-6-2005 by TxSecret]

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 01:54 AM
It's not the debris causing the seismic event. It's the collapse itself. As the floors were collapsing onto each other the energy of the fall was being transmitted through the steel beams inside the building, and those beams go right into the ground, which is what it was detecting. That's why the planes impacting registered at all, because the energy and vibration from the impact went through the steel into the ground. If it was just debris causing the event, it wouldn't have been nearly as big. I don't know where exactly the graph was located, but it would have taken 16.95 seconds for the "sound" to reach the graph, which explains how there was nothing until 16.95 seconds later. That would have been the INITIAL collapse, but it would have gone on until the building had finished collapsing. So even though the building had finished collapsing long before, it would have taken up to 40 seconds for all the sound waves to make it to the graph, hence all the noise between 25 and 40 seconds.

As far as Building 7, it's POSSIBLE that the oil/fuel tanks in the basement went up after the debris came down ontop of them, which would have triggered a longer event. I don't know if that IS what happened just saying it's possible.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:09 AM
Zaphod, your making absolutely no sense whatsoever..

"It's not the debris causing the seismic event. It's the collapse itself"


I'm not even going to respond to everything else you said. Go back and read your post.. I mean REALLY read it.

I will comment on this however,

When those buildings started to fall 'everything' they were made of became 'debri' . I will never buy into the "pancake" theory and that's the only thing that could 'even' come close to support the point you are trying to get across.

Watch the videos again because it's obvious WTC 1 and 2 just *disintegrated* and came apart in free fall.. As far as debri 'thumping' the core collumns to the tune of 2.1 richter as it came down? I'M not buying it for a second. Several eyewitness accounts state a stong tremor occuring BEFORE each tower collapsed, NOT during. When WTC came down there are accounts of some low level rumbling but not the "shaking" that occured right before each collapse. One account in particular was a lady that lived several blocks away. She felt a pretty wild shaking several seconds before each tower collapsed but didn't really comment on any shaking during or after the collapses.. Curious eh?

[edit on 28-6-2005 by TxSecret]

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:15 AM
Sorry for trying to contribute to the thread. I'll stop now and let you two discuss it.

[edit on 28-6-2005 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 02:18 AM
Zaphod, I wasn't trying to be an arse.. Ok? Every angle is apprecitated.. don't expect everyone to agree with you however. That's one of the gems of being able to post in a forum like this.

posted on Jun, 28 2005 @ 09:32 PM
I am surprised that no one has noticed or commented on a unique feature of these graphs



If you look closely, you will see that just prior to the collapse of both buildings, there are regular periodic signals.

I suspect that these are the death throes of the buildings. As the columns started to fail, the building loads shifted back and forth, causing regular vibrations. These vibrations appear to be somewhat less then the vibrations caused by the impacts.

This has been documented before:

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 12:27 AM
I'll humor you HR and wade through this "report". Just took a cursory glance and I get the gist of it but... The energy levels they are dealing with are obviously no where near what were are seeing on the graphs showing WTC1 and 2 falling.

Could these periodic signals and regular vibrations be caused by explosives?

Is the energy depicted in the graph inline with the stored gravitational energy that was in the towers?

Most of all.. You still have not addressed my -timing- issue with this graph.

You said:

"These vibrations appear to be somewhat less then the vibrations caused by the impacts. "

Umm.. The "spike" shows up at 16.95 seconds..SAME as the spike from plane strike 1. These earlier periodic signals show up at about 12.8 seconds.. There is an S and a question mark after the 12.8. P waves always show up before s waves, I'm not sure what this means.

I ask again HR.. and you just admitted that these "earlier" periodic waves appeared to be somewhat less than the vibrations caused by the IMPACTS..

Problem: After the buildings started to fall, how long do you think it took for all that debri to cause ground motion? Why does the spike from building 1 collapse show up at pretty much exactly the same time as the spike from plane strike 1? (The timeline for the graph of building 1 collapse starts when the building starts to fall.. NOT at the point the debris hit the ground.) Don't you find that odd saying that the -impacts- caused the large spike but knowing that the debri hadn't quite made it to the ground yet?

In a nutshell.. If you will notice.. all the "big action" of EVERY event shows up at about the 16.xx mark.. NOT 12.XX.. What I'm trying to say is the 16.95 second mark is when the building actually started to fall.. NOT when it was hitting the ground. Thats pretty obvious using the plane strikes as a reference.. You do understand this don't you? It's pretty obvious it took roughly 16.5 seconds for -all- the energy relating to the big spikes to "show up"

Help me out here.. I may be out in left field and I will not be insulted if I'm wrong.. Focus on this please.

[edit on 29-6-2005 by TxSecret]

posted on Jun, 29 2005 @ 12:38 AM
Because it took 16.95 seconds for the vibration to travel through the ground to where the sensors were located. The vibrations weren't being caused by the debris hitting the ground, they were being caused by the floor collapses, which transmitted the vibration straight down the support columns into the ground, where they took 16.95 seconds to travel to the seismograph. The plane impacts hitting the support columns caused the same effect. The vibration travelled down the support columns into the ground, to the seismograph. The vibration that HR is talking about is PROBABLY the steel deforming before the collapse. As it twisted, it would put more load on other beams and set up a harmonic which would be picked up by the seismograph.

new topics
top topics
<<   2 >>

log in