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.

 

New Study of Seismic Data Reveals Explosives Were Used at WTC on 9/11

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Doctor André Rousseau, former researcher in geophysics at CNRS and specialist in sound waves, presents us with the results of his analysis of the seismic signals recorded on September 11, 2001 in New York and gives his point of view as a specialist on the question of the destruction of the three towers at the World Trade Center.
Source

This article is pretty spot-on with what the truth movement has been saying for so long. There were seismic waves reported as each plane hit the buildings and those corresponded with simultaneous explosions being detonated with the plane impacts. Dr. Rousseau concludes, as I have all along, that any vibration from the plane impacts would have dissipated long before traveling a quarter-mile down to the ground. You can see some of the many witnesses talk about the lower-level explosions here:

www.youtube.com...

When the first plane impacted the north tower, you can see ejections, likely from explosives timed with the impact, coming from at least two sides up near the antenna, some 15-20 floors away from the impact zone:

www.youtube.com...


The structure of the top of the north tower was super-reinforced with hat-trusses for holding the antenna:






Further reading of the above article will conclude that what the seismic data shows is the recording of the actual explosives being detonated, not the simple impacting of debris on the ground. The loud roaring as the towers were collapsing was hundreds of smaller explosives being detonated while larger explosives helped take out the cores.







[edit on 10-6-2010 by _BoneZ_]




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Just one more tidbit we can add to the heap of evidence!

I also would agree about the buildings "dispersing" a lot of the force. thats how modern structures are built incase anyone didnt know this.

they are built so that any energy or "tension" that could cause damage gets dispersed all along the structure so that no one point of the building experiences the full force.

Anyone who does not understand this concept should go back to 7th grade tech class.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Great research!

Another note for the Columbia University Seismology department, for having an active ear out that day listening as one would say.

I noted again that the author of the article surmized that the impact frequencies would have attenuated before traversing the ground. This would make sense if the buildings were to withstand high winds (140mph).

Another good note was that another person with credentials steps forward and speaks out about 9/11 and the fairy tale behind this horrible day.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Dr. Rousseau concludes, as I have all along, that any vibration from the plane impacts would have dissipated long before traveling a quarter-mile down to the ground.


Too bad for truthers that he has zero support for this, other than his assertion.

But I guess that's good enough, right?

What a sad lot truthers are. Absolutely trusting of what your told when it's what you want to hear......



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Too bad for truthers that he has zero support for this, other than his assertion.

In case you hadn't noticed, this is a new study. There hasn't been any time for "support". Why don't you give it some time. And in the mean time, try to refute it. You know, show some kind of evidence to the contrary instead of your continued rudeness that does nothing for the topic. Thanks.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Absolutely trusting of what your told when it's what you want to hear......

You must not have read my OP. Nor have you done any research into 9/11 as the 9/11 truth movement has been saying what Dr. Rousseau has been saying all along. He just confirmed our theories with his expert analysis.

But don't forget, NIST's "calculations" are mere opinions and theories. And you accept them because it's what you want to hear.






[edit on 10-6-2010 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 



Too bad for truthers that he has zero support for this, other than his assertion.

Well he has a PHD and you have ???






[edit on 10-6-2010 by theability]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   
Jerome Quirant has a PhD and has published a paper that strongly disagrees with Rousseau's findings. The bottom line is that if you want this stuff to be real you're going to believe Rousseau, and if you don't you'll find Quirant more compelling (although you'll have to read him in French, as far as I can tell). But dick measuring about who has a PhD is not going to carry the day.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Great post. I recall reading a while back another analysis that focused on the seismic data relating to the impacts (figures 1a and 1b in the source article). It pointed out that the seismic evidence contradicted the official narrative because the amplitude of the first impact is appreciably greater than the second. This is the opposite of what might be expected because the second plane was travelling much faster than the first at the time of impact and so would have hit the building with greater force.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The bottom line is that if you want this stuff to be real you're going to believe Rousseau, and if you don't you'll find Quirant more compelling

You call yourself a "scholar" and then say something like that. It has nothing to do with wanting stuff to be real or not. It has to do with where does all available evidence point to.

All available evidence has always pointed to the controlled demolition of the WTC. And anyone who believes otherwise is either in full denial, and/or has not done any in-depth or serious research. It's just as simple as that.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
We have more than egnought to demand a full independant investigation and for those reponcible to be executed when it comes to 9/11 but first we need to deal with the zionist cancer spread throughout the world that is going to collapse the banking system.

Time for action is fast approaching.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

In case you hadn't noticed, this is a new study. There hasn't been any time for "support". Why don't you give it some time.


8 1/2 yrs isn't enough time? OK.


And in the mean time, try to refute it. You know, show some kind of evidence to the contrary


OTOH, he can provide evidence that the impact wouldn't register. While I respect his views about geology, and the speed of the seismic waves to reach the LDEO, etc, I've seen zero, zip, nada, bupkus, to support his claim that the impacts wouldn't register.

Do you?


He just confirmed our theories with his expert analysis.


LMAO. Yep, like I said, he states exactly what you want to hear, and it's obvious that truthers will accept what he says about the impacts not registering without any support at all.

He still might provide that, or perhaps you have a technical paper from someone else? That would suffice. I doubt you have it though.....


But don't forget, NIST's "calculations" are mere opinions and theories. And you accept them because it's what you want to hear.


Wrong.

To date, they have the most complete analysis available, AND it's supported by accepted engineering facts.

I listen to what truthers have to say, it's just that none of it passes the smell test. Like your assertion of hundreds of explosives going off during the collapse. That's a real laugher, dude.

ANd as I've pointed out, other truthers have discounted this. This is because they want to keep some level of credibility. It's obvious you do not.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


If you trust the Government and believe the stuff said on MSM i dont understand why you are here deliberately derailing the thread instead of seeing that many credential men including the men talk about this defects of official version. Why are you even reading this or being in ATS if you dont want to know all the possibilities and what the truth really is? Besides what evidence does the government version has? How did another tower collapsed in a similar manner without a plane going through it? You should either look around for actual expert reports with no bias or just stay away from the thread rather than personally attacking truthers saying truthers believe what they want to....Its actually you guys doing that,,,ATS is not a place for sheeple i guess



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You call yourself a "scholar" and then say something like that. It has nothing to do with wanting stuff to be real or not. It has to do with where does all available evidence point to.

All available evidence has always pointed to the controlled demolition of the WTC. And anyone who believes otherwise is either in full denial, and/or has not done any in-depth or serious research. It's just as simple as that.






Can you explain to me why Quirant's analysis of Rousseau's findings is flawed?

I don't call myself a scholar by the way. It just says that automatically, I think.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

To date, they have the most complete analysis available, AND it's supported by accepted engineering facts.


Come again? NIST has not made public the models for its report, nor has it produced computer visualisations to corroborate its conclusions (both are standard practice in engineering analyses). As a result the NIST report cannot be rigorously assessed by peer review. Until NIST produces its models and visualisations its report must remain very much a 'work in progress'. I would point out also that NIST doesn't even attempt to address how or why the collapse of the buildings occurred. It concludes just as the interesting stuff starts...



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by chaosinorder

If you trust the Government and believe the stuff said on MSM


I don't.


i dont understand why you are here deliberately derailing the thread


The claim that the impacts wouldn't register is an important point, and I've pointed out that it's unsupported. That's not a derail. It's a challenge for someone to supply that support.


instead of seeing that many credential men including the men talk about this defects of official version.


Many have better credentials than I, this is true. BUT, none of them have published anything of enough weight to stand the world onits collective ear. I see 2 problems with this. 1- they aren't really qualified. 2- they know they're wrong, and aren't gonna embarass themselves like anonymous truthers do on a daily basis.


Why are you even reading this or being in ATS if you dont want to know all the possibilities and what the truth really is?


I commented on his geological knowledge, and admit he brings up interesting questions about seismic propagation speeds. This is his area of expertise, and I respect that. However, if you are TRULY looking for truth, then you SHOULD admit, at least to yourself, if not on this forum, that he provides no support about dampening of the impacts. THIS is truth as how it should be.


Besides what evidence does the government version has?


Collectively, about 15,00 pages worth from NIST alone. More is found elsewhere.


How did another tower collapsed in a similar manner without a plane going through it?


Read the explanation, then be specific. Incredulity will not get you any respect or answers.


You should either look around for actual expert reports with no bias


I've done that.. I've never found anything of any significance or scientific weight, from any country, that supports truther versions.


or just stay away from the thread


I'll do as I see fit, okthx.


rather than personally attacking truthers saying truthers believe what they want to


I'm not attacking anyone to anger them. I'm pointing out the obvious to any lurkers. Bonez even admitted it. This prof said what he wanted to hear, with no support about the impact stuff, and he fully endorses it.


ATS is not a place for sheeple i guess


Wrong.

Truther outnumber realists by a far margin.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



Jerome Quirant has a PhD and has published a paper that strongly disagrees with Rousseau's findings.


So what! You debunkers always find somehting that suites your point of view. This doesn't mean his research is invalid.

Just because your wish it was that way, doesn't make it so!

Wishing and wanting won't change the facts.

Have a great day!



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 



But dick measuring about who has a PhD is not going to carry the day.


A perfect example of why I do not believe the OS.

The OS pushers resort to name calling and slander when the heat is on.

Tisk tisk, again deception from the OS pushers, name calling llies cheating scandals, they all go hand in hand.

Have a great day!



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Jerome Quirant has a PhD and has published a paper that strongly disagrees with Rousseau's findings.


Do you have a link to this paper? My understanding is that Quirant is a structural engineer of some sort, not an acoustics expert.

I've looked at Quirant's website and though I haven't read it in detail, it seems to simply be a rehash of the explanation put forward by NIST to explain the collapse of the towers. This explanation relies heavily on assumptions about the cause of the initial structural failure of the building at the impact zone due to the application of heat to the trusses attached to the exterior columns of the building.

This assumption has been highly debated and is by no means a slam dunk. The structural engineers and physicists are the ones to settle this question, but from what I've seen most of those who have supported a version of the pancake theory have all based their explanations on unrealitic or incomplete grounds.

This stuff has been gone over ad infinitum in this forum by people more qualified than me, but I am curious to see Quirant's paper on acoustics. I do read French. Please give a link to this paper.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability

So what! You debunkers always find somehting that suites your point of view.


Yeah, well it's quite easy. There's a lot of evidence that does suit my point of view.

Oh, and I love the way you think that because I used the word "dick" a vast, risible, ludicrous fantasy must therefore be true.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Looking it up now... am not on my computer so don't have the historical link. It is admittedly quite hard to find via google but when I get it I'll post.




top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join