Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited.

For starters, I challenge CaptainObvious to prove me wrong.
That will keep him busy for a refreshing change of his world-view.

If he can't, he must admit that all his ideas about 9/11 were wrong from the start.

Damocles, no sound of you, my friend?

You might want to explain why Silverstein would then change his story and declare months later during the taping of an interview for NOVA, that WTC 7 was "pulled" down.

I think you've further confirmed that Silverstein never meant the building was "pulled" in the NOVA interview.

The "sounds" were never determined to be from "low frequency bomb signatures" and never recorded by any of the other hundreds of microphones recording the events near and far. Since explosions produce sounds in a wide frequency range, it would have been both possible to hear them close up (never reported) and correlation of sounds from different microphones could have easily resolved the matter within days of 9/11.

Directly after 911 Eyewitness got out on the Net, wecomeinpeace and I u2u'ed each other about the possibility this was all a scam, to make money by selling DVD's.
We both came to the conclusion later on in the online discussion about Rick Siegel's footage, that there is a high possibility that his footage is genuine.
We examined Siegels original footage of BOTH tower collapses, and found in first instance no low frequency sounds in the other tower collapse.
But when we read that Siegel's production team used enhancement software, we found faint low frequency signals also in the other collapse footage.

Then I found a website of a British guy, an audio interpretation expert, who explained in a very convincing manner, how you could find and compare these low frequency sounds from Siegel's footage with demolition sounds.
It's all here archived at this forum, search and thou will find, with all the links provided.

Anything to say about my proof of 911 being an inside job?

The problem is, as I explained, that there should be corroborating evidence in the sounds recorded by other microphones, of which there were many all around WTC both professional and amateur, as well as explosive sounds reported by the thousands of eyewitnesses in and around WTC since explosive sounds cover a huge range of audible frequencies.

Correlating sounds supposedly recorded by Siegel with demolition sounds is insufficient as evidence of explosions in and of itself. Correlation is not causation.

The lack of corroborating evidence from sounds recorded by other equipment is the most compelling fact throwing Siegel's claims into doubt.

Another odd thing to me is NIST and LDEO times for the collisions are within 2 seconds, but for the collapses of the towers are 9 to 11 seconds apart. NIST claims this is because of the 9-11 seconds for the debris to hit the ground for it to register on the graph. Are they claiming that a plane hitting the building will register on the graph but the first 9-11 seconds of the collapse wouldn't? I would assume the initiation of the collapse would have released a lot more energy than a plane collision.

reply to post by jthomas

---

Then consider the following five points :

1. Rick Siegel came out years later with his material, due to confiscating of his original footage by the FBI, so there was no case to ""easily resolve the matter within days of 9/11.""

2. I am convinced the bulk of the microphones you have in mind, have indeed recorded those sounds. They however drowned in them.
That's a new thought for most of you, I'm sure.

Have you EVER seen a 9/11 video, taken from within a radius of half a mile of the events, not spitting out the deafening sounds of hundreds of sirens of NYFD, NYPD and various other departments? And multiple other very loud noises, passing cars, yelling people, loud radio footage, shouting firefighters, motors running, horns blowing, and so on and on.
There was literally no quiet recording possible until late in the evening. And even then, you still have the well known New York sound concert waltzing over you, as usual, and of course during that evening a tad bit more.
So how on earth would you ever recognize the faint low frequency sounds as in Rick Siegel's video in all those very loud video material shot from nearby?

Have a good look at Rick Siegel's recordings, taken from two reasonable quiet spots, first at a pier a bit nearer to the Twin Towers, then after being whisked away, from a bit further pier, but both at the other side of the Hudson River bank. And pay attention to the radio broadcast playing from his transistor radio, in the background, which delivered a perfect atomic clock reading of all Rick's recordings, since you can hear the hourly sound signals from that broadcast loud and clear through all his footage.
His video recorder had a directional microphone, so he picked up most of his audio package from the direction he pointed his microphone to.
You can certainly notion, that he was one of the very few, if not the only one, who is coming out of the woodwork with 9/11 footage from a quiet spot.
It is also noteworthy, that Rick has told us, that the FBI raided his office and confiscated all his original audio/video from 9/11, after he started broadcasting his footage over his radio station. Luckily he had saved a copy in another place.
He has tried to get his original material back from the FBI, without result.
It has never been mentioned as in the possession of the FBI, or NIST. They effectively "buried" it.
What other reason for such erronic official behaviour than trying to dump revolutionary footage, contradicting all the aired Media footage-audio material.

3. Do not neglect the two videos posted at this forum, from camera's mounted on professional tripods, where damn clear shaking of that tripod can be observed, within seconds only from collapse initiation of both towers.

4. Ever heard from Moire-pattern comparison of video footage which includes reflections in stationary window glass?
Such as the technique to proof with that Moire-pattern change, just before initiation of tower collapses, the seismic effects of ground shaking on those window panes in video footage.
Something not one 9/11 researcher ever thought about. I did. You need high resolution footage. Many of us, conscious citizens, have that saved, luckily.

5. Low frequency sound emanating from the soil will be difficult to hear or feel nearer to the source, but better from a greater distance, especially if it travelled first through a massive body of water. Like the Hudson river.
VLF, very low frequency, rings a bell? Very long wave pattern. You feel it in your stomach, when you don't hear it anymore. Look up the hearing range of adults, in what frequency range it is embedded.
VLF lays NOT in that range!


Again, still nothing to say about my seismic proof of 911 being an inside job?

reply to post by NIcon

---

NIcon, cleverly paying attention to my sermon there!
There are many controversial remarks, like those, all over the NIST reports.
I will go over them one by one, the seismic evidence is the best example to address now, anyone with basic calculus skills can follow my argumentation for an inside job.
Even an US Representative or Senator.

NIcon and others, read ""The Seismic Records as Evidence of Controlled Demolition"" at the bottom of this essay by Jim Hoffmann :
911research.wtc7.net...
That whole essay is very worth reading, and his end conclusion too.

Labtop; you know i have respect for your work but, to ME at least it seems a little confrontational from you. just becuase i disagree with some of your thesis shouldnt be taken as a personal attack on you. i wont speak for anyone else but i am here to discuss, debate and share ideas and information. a disagreement isnt and shouldnt be taken as a personal attack.

oh, and ive been in bed the last few days which is why i dont reply much.


moving on:

im not sure how you would acheive such a feat. we're talking about releaseing a LOT of engergy here are we not? seems that MIGHT get someone, or everyones attention.


first i need to make sure we're using the same terminology for thermobaric. from what i know of them, and could be wrong of course, those are more like fuel/air mixture bombs (which often have magnesium etc in them) or some other type of explosive gas/powder in air explosive (again i wont describe how i used to do them cuz its too simple and this isnt demo 101 on ats) but even the ones i know how to make wouldnt do significant damage to a structure like we're discussing here.

also, i could be wrong but i think long ago BSB posted a video of a FAB doing about no damage to freestanding structures, so to me thermobarics are out for 2 reasons. they dont do significant structural damage AND they would have been noticed by everyone in manhattan at the time of detonation.



but is that even worth discussing? i mean if we're going to speculate...how about magic?


those wouldnt produce any significant audio or seizmic signatures. those would probably sound like a bunch of 4th of july sparklers going off at once, only faster.

the one video that still makes me scratch my head, though it could have been anything. a ruptured gas main filling a basement room and catching a spark. we have no frame of reference for that video so all we're left with is "hmm, that is interesting..."




well man, sorry but this isnt really a contest for me, i find your siezmic data very intriguing, and i cant explain it. but i have to ask if youve ruled out EVERY possible mundane answer for these discrepencies and if you say you have how have you as so much of the information we'd need to do that is simply unavailable.

from my personaly point of veiw, the evidence doesnt support the detonation of HE of the magnitude required to cause the siezmic spikes and go unnoticed everywhere else.

as to the frequency waves causing a stronger "feeling" further away, this isnt "proof" but simply a personal observation. ive heard 40lb cratering charges from 300m and from a mile and a half and even the vibrations were stronger from 300m. adn those were buried 5ft deep in dense wet clay when we set them off.

so in conclusion, i applaud your hard work on this but it does seem like youre more interested in defending your work than discussing other possibilities. just an observation and not an attack on you by any means.
however, i just dont have the energy today to "prove you wrong" because i think the only thing i COULD do to "prove" you wrong would be to take you into the desert, build some structures and blow them up while you watched. dont see that happening this week lol (explosives arent real cheap for the avg joe)

so ill contribute here where warranted but i think ive built my case as well as i can and while youre data is good, im just not convinced im wrong.

[edit on 16-12-2007 by Damocles]

[edit on 16-12-2007 by Damocles]

This was a private conversation, passed on, not a public utterance with the TV cameras rolling. For all intents and purposes it doesn't exist and can be easily denied, so there is no "change of story" since, as far as Silverstein is concerned, this was never public.

And as for the infamous "pull it" comment, well there he actually spoke the truth. Freudian slip. He was more interested in concocting a plausible reason for it--"the terrible loss of life" set-up just preceding--to justify the demolition. Working too hard on juggling all the lies and let slip the truth.

[clean up]

[edit on 17-12-2007 by gottago]

Freudian slip? Nah. There were firefighters in the building. He gave the order to get them out when Deputy Fire Chief Hayden reported that the building was bulging dangerously.

No conspiracy.

Never reported? Oh...you mean disregarded from the 9/11 "official" investigation. That makes better sense IMO. Because, they DEFINITELY were reported.

LaBTop, I've read the link you supplied and I am now more confused. On that page it's stated that the PAL graph's large spikes (from 17 - 27 seconds) were spread by four seconds and represent an actual event in New York lasting 5-6 seconds. If that's the case, can't we assume that the preceding signal from 5 - 17 seconds was also spread out from an actual event in New York that lasted 6-8 seconds. But he's stating it took 12 seconds for debris to hit the ground and, if that's the case, wouldn't a 12 second event equal 20 seconds on the graph? Or would we just add the 4 second spread and come up with 16 seconds? The way I'm interpreting it is that every 10 seconds on the graph will represent 5-6 seconds in actual events in New York... is this wrong?

Please prove that.



Chief Daniel Nigro.

911guide.googlepages.com...



Larry Silverstein

Now, if Chief Nigro didn't call the owner, who is Larry talking about when he says he got a phone call from the...errr.....fire department commander?

BTW, usually the use of ....errrr....is an indication that he is thinking on the spot and most likely lying IMO.

One of these two men are lying. Which is it? IMO it's Slitherstein (misspelling intented).





[edit on 12/17/2007 by Griff]

eh for what its worth i think larrys statements were nothing more than him trying to set himself up as the plucky here who's more worried about the firefighters (who had supposedly been pulled out of the building hours earlier) than his building.

but thats just me

reply to post by NIcon

---

Nicon, he used (two) totally different TYPE of graphs for his arguments, than the (five) LDEO graphs I have reported on.
So you can't use his arguments, for my graphs and argumentation.

He used these two graphs :
911research.wtc7.net...
(Fig 3, vertical components records, filtered for 0.5 to 10 Hertz, which is a very broad range of the Hertz range.)
911research.wtc7.net...
(Fig 4, east-west components, without mentioning how they were filtered)
911research.wtc7.net...
(Open these graphs in a new window, 911research website-software doesn't allow direct linking to their pages.)

The five LDEO graphs I used for my argumentation were filtered for one specific Hertz region, namely 0,6535 Hertz, thus excluding all the other amplitudes present in his two graphs.
That's why I can present a distinct time line connected to these five graphs, since they also picture one distinct amplitude region.

And the most important difference :
I concentrate on the WTC 7 graph,
while he concentrated on the WTC 2 and especially WTC 1 collapses.


This is his conclusion based on his arguments for both the Twin Tower collapses, he doesn't address WTC 7's collapse :



What he says there, is that the whole, still intact tower construction under the point of collapse initiation, did not offer any substantial resistance to the downward movement of the collapse front of the upper tower part, plus the increasing added weight of the destructed floors which of course also crashed to the ground, through the remaining intact floors.
There is no distinct seismic activity during the period the rubble fell through the building, until the first chunks of debris reached ground level.

He wants to prove to us in his essay, that the breaking, crushing and impacting of all this mass onto the underlaying structure, officially declared as a naturally occurring, gravity driven collapse, does not show up as significant seismic signals in the two WTC 1 collapse seismograms he used from the LDEO website.

Some external source must have removed the normal resistance of the core columns, cross beams, floor trusses and perimeter wall column packets.
That source must have been explosives, removing that resistance, as is usually done during a professional demolition.

In my opinion, he used the wrong seismograms for his essay.
He should have used the ones I did use.

reply to post by LaBTop

---

Thanks LaBTop. I figured out where I was wrong in my interpretation as I was driving to the office that day. I think I'm getting a handle on all this by reading your posts over and over and also playing in Photoshop with color coded timeblocks on top of the graphs.

reply to post by Griff

---

I already proved it here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Everything else you've put forward above is weak and relies on ambiguity.

Therefore is of no use.

*Added proper reply-to*

[edit on 19-12-2007 by dbates]

So, you've proven that Larry Silverstein was talking about "pulling" out the firefighters, even when Chief Nigro says he made that decision without consulting the owner? Interesting logic.

i am still of the opinion that larry said what he said so that he could look like he was part of the decision making process. i mean for some lowly firefighter to decide his building wasnt worth the risk must have been emasculating for him (we could only hope) so larry tries to make himself look like he was part of the decision making process and tries to look good by implying that he was more worried about lives than his building.

i mean if we want to look for the simplest answer...just my opinion though, no facts to back it up.

reply to post by Damocles

---

My thoughts coincide with yours on this one. See, we don't always have to disagree.