It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Seismic Signals Reveal Explosives Were Used at the WTC on 9/11

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:26 AM

Seismic Signals Reveal Explosives Were Used at the WTC on 9/11

Seismic signals were recorded on September 11 2001 during the period when the North and South Towers (respectively WTC1 and WTC2) were penetrated and collapsed, as well as during the collapse of Building 7 of the WTC (also known as WTC7), a building which had not been hit by a plane.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:26 AM

Seismologists are puzzled in their analysis of signals recorded at this time, as the contradictions are significant. They are particularly intrigued by the presence of seismic "peaks" before the collapses (see figure 4). This text focuses on the study of seismic signals and aims to demonstrate that consistency only appears once we leave the official version of events. It gives rise to a new interpretation that renders the assertions of the "official version" null and void.

*Even if they were considerably amplified, these signals could not have been generated by the crashes into the Twin Towers - the actual waves generated by the crashes were deadened before hitting the ground (assuming that we were dealing with the same (low) frequencies). Frequencies of waves generated by explosions are on the order of Hertz - which is the case here - while those of crash impacts are above 10 Hertz, often around 100 Hertz.

*As to the theory of the oscillation of the Towers to explain these signals, as defended by Irvine (2001), it doesn't hold water because in such a case we would have had a "square" signal of long duration and a constant amplitude, while in actuality we observe a "bell" signal, representing a strong and brief explosion, which is particularly evident in the case of WTC2.

*there is a hiatus of 15 seconds between the plausible time of the origin of the Rayleigh wave and the time - afterwards - of the crash of the plane into WTC1. What else but an explosion could be the origin for this seismic wave in the absence of an earthquake?

*Concerning the generation of the seismic waves following the crash into the Towers by a Boeing, the transformation of the kinetic energy into seismic waves would only make sense if we were dealing with a crash between two full, solid, and in-deformable objects.

Figure 4

About the researcher:

André Rousseau, Docteur d'État, is a retired researcher at CNRS where he studied the relations between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology. He published numerous peer-reviewed articles on geophysics and participated in numerous conferences, including selection committees. In this article he puts forward evidence that the seismic waves recorded on September 11, 2001 in New York are the result of subterranean and subaerial explosions that were part of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC7.

He has conducted pretty strong research and I'm curious to see if people can debunk it, but does it matter? Until those in the know remain silent, it remains a conspiracy and no criminal investigation will be started.
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 9-6-2010 by Mdv2]

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:42 AM
Wow. Pretty damning evidence by itself, not to mention the small mountain of facts just like it. Another thing to be added to the newest version of loose change, I suppose. Could be a pretty massive find, all in all.

A quote from one of my favorite webcomics- "Correlation does not imply causation, but it does gesture and waggle it's eyebrows suggestively while pointing and mouthing, "Over there!" "

I think you can see the relevance.
When you have insanely massive amounts of things doing that to the same conclusion... It's kinda obvious, IMO.

posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 08:56 AM
Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist
Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director
Mary Tobin, senior science writer

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."


There were two sets of seismographs. The staff at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University made it clear when they said
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers". Time for a second opinion!

Brent blanchard Senior editor for and director of field operations at protec documentation services

Protec employees:
earl garder
gary mcgeever
michael golden
john golden

"For over 30 years, Protec personnel have studied the effects of vibrations on structures as related to construction, demolition and blasting operations. From the world’s largest building implosions to the smallest road-reconstruction jobs, Protec has performed critical documentation and vibration monitoring services on thousands of domestic and international projects. "


"Several seismographs were recording ground vibration"

"all data is consistent and appears to paint a clear picture"

"This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation pwerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitve enough to record the structural collapses"

The only thing the experts don't disagree on is that the WTC towers were no longer standing at the end of the day.

[edit on 9-6-2010 by iamcpc]

top topics

log in