It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Be careful about calling others work 'yellow journalism''.
Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics
Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.
It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.
The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?
Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairy-tale.
Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
Then you should talk about Steve Jones credibility......
Steve Jones is what ever yellow journalism is and his Thermite hoax.
Steve Jones was caught submitting doctored photos as proof of molten metal at the WTC.
page 1/23 : ABSTRACT
The seismic signals propagating from New York on September 11, 2001, recorded at Palisades (34 km) and published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), have here been subjected to a new critical study concerning their sources. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official explanations which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.
First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that identical events (percussion of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic sources of different magnitudes. We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies.
According to the nature of the recorded waves (body and surface waves), we can propose
a location of each explosive source. According to the presence of shear waves or the
presence of Rayleigh waves only, we hypothesize a subterranean or a subaerial explosion.
The magnitude of an aerial explosion is insufficient to provide seismic waves at 34 km.
The witnesses and video observation confirm our conclusions of subaerial explosions close to the times of aircraft impacts on WTC1 and WTC2, a strong subterranean explosion closely correlated with the WTC1 collapse, and subaerial explosions closely correlated with the WTC2 and WTC7 collapses, WTC7 not having been hit by a plane. As a consequence, we draw the conclusion that the three buildings were demolished by a controlled process.
(1) Dr. Rousseau is a former researcher in geophysics and geology at the National Center
for Scientific Research (CNRS) of France and a specialist in acoustic waves.
He is also a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth.
page 2/23 : INTRODUCTION
Some authors have been puzzled in their analysis of signals recorded for the events at the
World Trade Center, as the contradictions are significant. They are particularly intrigued by the presence of seismic "peaks" before the collapses. (See MacQueen, 2009). This text focuses on the study of the seismic signals from Palisades. The new interpretation
presented here renders the assertions of the seismic analysis of the events at the WTC, as
presented by the government in the NIST and other reports, null and void. On the contrary, all the documented evidence points to explosions as the source of the recorded seismic signals.
page 3/23 : Determination of the Timing of the Signals' Origins
Normally in this type of study the time of origin is known with great precision (to the millisecond), which is necessary in order to calculate the propagation speed of the different waves.
Unfortunately, that precision is not possible for the events at the WTC. In this case, timing of the waves must be correlated, as well as possible utilizing video evidence.
--I snipped a chunk of IMPORTANT text, READ that text also--
Finally, the enormous indeterminacy of 2 seconds in the calculations attempting to fix the time of origin of each of the signals, admitted by the LDEO authors themselves (Kim et al., 2001), oblige us to view the official conclusions critically.
page 3 and 4/23 :
A more serious difficulty with LDEO's attribution of the waveforms to plane impacts at the Twin Towers is that even if the impacts had been considerably more energetic, these signals could not have been generated by such impacts. The actual waves generated by the crashes had to have been deadened before hitting the ground.
Frequencies of waves generated by explosions are on the order of 1 Hertz (1 Hz, or one cycle per second)
which is the case with the Rayleigh waves shown in figures 1a and 1b (LT : the two plane impacts)
while those of crash impacts are above 10 Hz and are often around 100 Hz.
Furthermore, the range of the recording instruments cited (0.6-5 Hz) does not allow for the recording of the high-frequency waves that would be created by plane impacts.
As to the theory of the oscillation of the Towers to explain these signals, as defended by Irvine (2001), it is inadequate 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-like" signal, representing a strong and brief explosion, which is particularly evident in the case of WTC2.
Given that it is geophysically impossible to have two different propagation speeds for two waves of the same type at the same frequency traveling the same path only a few
minutes apart, one must bow to the evidence that the supposed origins of the recorded
waves are incorrect, and that they are not linked to the plane crashes but to another origin.
The waveform data, far from suggesting the conclusion of LDEO that they were caused by plane impacts into the Towers, suggest instead two explosions with different time displacements separated from the moments of plane impact at each building. Further, the difference in the magnitude of the two signals can only be linked to differences in the volume of explosives and/or their distance from the surface.
In this letter, we have proposed a novel seismic time–frequency analysis approach using the EWT. The EWT approach ﬁrst estimates the frequency components and then adapts the scaling function and wavelets based on the detected boundaries to decompose the signal. No prior information regarding the signal is required in this decomposition process, and thus, EWT can be a fully adaptive approach for conveniently analyzing the time–frequency information of seismic data. The EWT-based instantaneous frequency spectra can produce much sparser representation and much higher time–frequency resolution than the traditional CWT approach. We demonstrate the superior performance of the EWT approach in better depicting the stratigraphic features (such as the thin beds) and structural features (such as the faults) over the traditional CWT approach using synthetic, 2-D, and 3-D real data examples.
Seismic Time–Frequency Analysis via Empirical Wavelet Transform (PDF Download Available). Available from: www.researchgate.net... [accessed May 25, 2016].