1. hiper

    hiper Active Member

  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    But it could be any of:
    1. Wrong
    2. Misinterpreted
    3. Misrepresented
    4. Low resolution
    5. Selective
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    There are other seismic graphs in the area. Why are they only looking at one set? A major explosion would have shown up on multiple seismic graphs in the area around NYC.

    The gentleman that did this analysis is heavily involved in the 9/11 Truther movement. He is not a non biased source. One does not ask the coach of the losing team to analyze the controversial ruling by the game officials. Why should we do that here?
     
  4. hiper

    hiper Active Member

    or this could just be a coincidence.
     
  5. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    How can it be 'coincidence' that his analysis supported his point of view? Why have many other experts, just as competent as him not seen it? This is not hidden information or something newly revealed.

    That still fails to explain why the seismic records of other seismographs are being ignored by him, like the ones that are mentioned here.


    http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

    No proof, just more bunk.
     
  6. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    analysis of the seismic traces for the Pentagon and Flight 73 attacks can be read here - it's fairly short & not hard to understand (IMO)

    the Columbia Uni traces from Palisades can be seen here

    As might be expected Rousseau's "new" paper gets a thorough lambasting on JREF. One of the JREF links in that thread goes to here - in which someone links to the Popular Mechanics with a link that doesn't work anymore - but the PM article on seismic spikes is still readable here....it analyses the actual wave forms and says "rubbish".
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2014
  7. Karl Valentin

    Karl Valentin New Member

    hmmm....but what about static cameras shaking twice before the actual collapse with a distinctive pause in between...1 second or so...me thinks not enough for any broken off debris to hit ground level
     
  8. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    What about them - what's the actual evidnce?
     
  9. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    There are people here who have made a far more detailed study of the collapse than I have, and they will put me right if I'm wrong. but if I recall right, most collapse scenarios show the interior of the buildings falling a few seconds before the collapse spread to the external structure. The weight of 10 or so internal floors pancaking downwards is going to hit the rest of the structure with some considerable force and the structure will transmit the shock waves down to ground level and shake stuff.

    All the camera shake proves is that something happened internally to the WTC structure just before the whole thing fell, it is not proof that there was deliberate internal explosions as there are other factors that could also cause the same effect,
     
  10. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    That's true for WTC 7 - not the "Twin Towers".

    The whole issue is moot - a consequence of following truth movement arse-about logic based on single issue anomalies.

    The extant hypothesis reached by statutory due process is that there was no CD. Anyone challenging that has to produce a counter hypothesis in the appropriate venue/context that meets prima-facie standard. No one has done so.

    So the valid position for any of these single anomaly based claims is:
    1) They do not overturn the key points of the accepted narratives; WHILST
    2) they may be of inters t for discussion as scientific details BUT NOTHING MORE.

    Mick's comments need to be kept in mind:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    Hi Karl, welcome to metabunk.

    If you think that the camera shaking is significant, or an indicator of a controlled demolition, how is it that the sound of this demolition is not picked up by the same camera's microphone, or indeed any microphone in Manhattan that day?

    It would cheer me up no end if someone could invent a way to silence explosions, but to my knowledge no-one yet has.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Having monitored a seismic vault back in the 80's I can attest to seeing a reaction from a large tractor moving past the building, from nuke explosions on the other side of the world, and from waves crashing on the shores of Newfoundland during a hurricane(despite my vault being 1500 miles NW of that island). I have no problem believing that thousands of tons of impacting steel and concrete will cause seismic indications.

    The seismic records are one thing, the interpretation of them is quite another.

    BTW, when I saw the mess on the rolls caused by the hurricane, I thought I had broken something and called the guys at energy, mines and resources Canada.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2015
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Could you post a link to this occurring in videos please. I don't recall it.
     
  14. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Hmm, the towers had their cores oriented 90degrees from each other. One was hit into the short distance to core side while the other the opposite. One plane hit lower down and impacted more floors than the other. One was going faster, one was descending faster than the other...
    and yet the seismic indications of each impact are different.
    Was any of that taken into account?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  15. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    What seismic impact? When the began to collapse.., SOME steel fell away over the side and it took as much as 9 secs or so to reach the ground. There was likely no detectable seismic signal fro, steel facade panels hitting the plaza level and smashing through it perhaps.
    The ROOSD took about 10 -14 secs... hard to know because you can't see it and it involved the destruction of floor slabs turning them to lots of small sized rubble and dust... not much seismic impact from that I suspect. Nor from the toppling of the "spire". All admittedly big crashes... but detectable as seismic events? Maybe some earth shaking at the end of it all... a 10 second rain to steel sections?
     
  16. Playing Games

    Playing Games Member

    Absolutely, 100% there was seismic activity. A few I know were down there reported during collapse the sensation felt like an earthquake.

    How would it be indicative or evidence of a CD? People come up with strange notions.

    Also, my question is did they pick it up at USGS in Golden, Colorado?
     
  17. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    It's a matter of magnitude...isn't it? What would be considered unusual for the collapse of 1.2 million tons of building in 3 brief episodes?
     
  18. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Uhm ... you have so-and-so many Joules of potential energy available that get translated into
    1. plastic deformation, fracture
    2. seismic waves
    3. a bit of heat
    in a matter of 15-20 seconds or so.
    At some point, you have so-and-so many tons of building material moving down at average velocity v, and seconds later, all the mass coming to rest on the ground, transfering all that momentum to mother earth.
    Just do the math - energy/time, perhaps momentum/time (not sure what physical sense that makes), and it does translate to some seismic impact.
    When the compacted stack of ROOSD floors hits the ground, it doesn't do so nice and gently.
     
  19. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    "Full Definition of SEISMIC
    1
    : of, subject to, or caused by an earthquake; also : of or relating to an earth vibration caused by something else (as an explosion or the impact of a meteorite)
    2
    : of or relating to a vibration on a celestial body (as the moon) comparable to a seismic event on earth "

    "
    What is seismic impact mean?
    Tremors caused by rock movements in ground "

    sort of stuff
     
  20. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    I suppose the point being 1.2 million tons falling would shake the ground... how could it not? Nothing of note here.
     
  21. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    EXCEPT to be alert for any truth movement claims that seismic effects resulted from CD.

    The seismic effects of any explosive use for CD would be swamped by the actual collapse effects. Both magnitude and timing BTW.

    AND the collapse impacts are no different whether it was aircraft and fire induced collapse or CD ASSISTED collapse.

    (Only "ASSISTED" Because the aircraft and fire damage was present CD or not - despite the "single factor thinking" we see with truth movement claims.)

    A falling building hitting the ground will shake the ground. Whatever caused it to fall.
     
  22. Redwood

    Redwood Active Member

    A friend who is also an amateur seismologist has a working seismograph in his garage. He was once mystified by a recurring low-level reading which happened only on weekdays during daylight hours. It turned out to be heavy equipment grading a hillside for a housing development.
     
  23. econ41

    econ41 Active Member

    Don't think I've posted this one on this forum. Apologies if I have. ("41" - old timers memory.)

    At one stage (Ooops - actually four stages) of my career I managed the largest water supply dam for Sydney.

    https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...Fdjt8AXTkIDoBQ&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=1482&bih=1024

    400 ft high concrete gravity dam on sandstone strata.

    And on one occasion a scientific experiment placed a "precision tilt meter" in the dam. Inside one of the "galleries" or tunnels which allow for monitoring and drainage of the dam and foundations. The one used was some 300ft above the base.

    The instrument was a glorified spirit level all same as builders carpenters use. Only "several degrees" more precise. It was standing on the solid concrete floor of the gallery - hundreds of feet of concrete below it.

    I recall walking towards it and stopping about 8-10 feet away so I could see the local read out of tilt. As I got a pace closer say 6 feet the "tilt" registers and as I stood alongside the instrument it went fully off scale. Me compressing a block of concrete 300 ft thick. (Yes I know - local compression - but the physicist engineers can forgive me for presenting it with a bit of hyperbole-drama)

    They were reading earthquakes across the world. The actual experiment IIRC was related to plate tectonics but I cannot remember the details.

    So a different approach but related phenomena to seismographic measurement.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
  24. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Pretty much exactly what an old time mechanical seismic chart recorder was monitoring, econ, except there safe three of them , one in each dimension.
     
  25. Hierophant

    Hierophant Member

    The author implies that there was a subterranean explosion (around 10 seconds?) prior to the plane impact in WTC1. He also implies that the plane impact itself could not have created a seismic signal. However, the following video



    starting at 6:50 shows that the plane DID create a seismic signal. The offset between the thump in the camera and the noise of the explosion is exactly the offset one would expect between sound waves traveling through steel (4500 m/s) and then concrete (3000 m/s), to those traveling through air (343 m/s) at that distance: 1.5 seconds. Although the video unfortunately starts 10 seconds prior to impact, one can assume that if there was another thump in the camera 10 seconds before, the twoofers who cut the video would have included that too, without cutting it out.

    Furthermore, the witnesses cited in the paper describe areal explosions, not a subterranean one. One of the witnesses later acknowledges that he must have been mistaken in what he thought he saw, because his testimony of a fiery explosion 20 stories below impact zone is proven to be false by many videos. That shows how unreliable eye witnesses can be.

    His argumentation that the debris that hit the ground was small and could not have created seismic signals is also strongly contradicted by video recordings of the collapse (very large intact steel column wall sections can be seen falling) and photos of the rubble. He says most of the kinetic energy of the plane impact turned into "heat", as if the fireball was thee result of kinetic energy, and not of jet fuel burning. The kinetic energy transmitted into the tower was enough to sway it several meters during the impact. Saying that is not enough to cause a seismic signal is rather ridiculous. The transmission of the waves from steel columns into the ground is sure to cause secondary waves and release energy during refraction, and this released energy is part of the reason why the lobby looked "like the plane hit the lobby". It is still obvious that enough energy was transmitted to the ground to cause the "thump" in the camera.

    The author also neglects to mention what would be the point in setting off subterranean explosions prior to plane impacts or collapses, since the collapses clearly started at the impact zones, and the lower parts of the buildings don't budge until the progressive collapse reaches them from top down.

    p.s: Are we allowed to use the term "twoofer" here?
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2015
  26. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    William nailed it... he said he thought the explosion was a generator in the sub basement below him then he heard/felt the plane hit. The latter took 1 second to reach him. The events were actually simultaneous and the explosions in in the basement were from electrical shorts that the plane caused when it severed the 13.8kv risers going up to the sub stations on floor 108 from the switch gear in the sub basement. And that's also what destroyed the lobby.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  27. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  28. mazoola

    mazoola Member

    Well, that is an explanation I've not heard before. Admittedly, it's been a while since I actively pursued seeming discrepancies in the 9/11 narrative,* so maybe I'm just late to the discussion, but it closes out one of my final questions about the Towers.
    __________
    * Well, at least concerning the events of the day itself; there are questions about related events prior and subsequent to the attack still unanswered and, in my opinion, more worth investigating.
     
  29. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    Correct me if this has been brought up as and "explanation" of the shake/noise; but, isn't it possible that it was just someone kicking the camera a little? I remember seeing footage shot from across the river that showed a little camera shake just before collapse of one of the towers. This was used as "proof" that a bomb went off, or something like that. It seems to me to be a waste of time to research the science to prove that it was a seismic shock or something like that, when it was probably just someone kicking the tripod. Or, in the case of the above video, it looks like the camera is just sitting, with tape rolling, on the sidewalk; someone could have been standing with his foot near it and turned to see what was going on; he then shifts his foot into the camera.
     
  30. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    I believe that the plane strikes ALSO caused problems in the Con Ed sub station of 7wtc. Con Ed published reports that at the precise moment the AA11 hot the north tower they lost something like 14 (can't remember the number) of main feeder lines in lower Manhattan... and they were originating from the Vesey Street Sub station under 7twc. There were also reports of witnesses in 7wtc who evacuated the building because they "experienced" explosions AND you will recall that Jennings and Hess when then got to the 23rd floor ERC found no one there... everyone had scooted out probably because they experience "explosions" in the building. By the time Jennings and Hess decided to leave which was before 10am 7wtc was running on back up power... the building had for some reason lost its main power coming from the Con Ed substation. THAT is a fact... why the sub station went down is not reported. My guess is that the AA11 severing the mains in 1 wtc caused an "effect" up stream right back to the sub station below 7wtc which probably had gear explode... release boiled off cooling oil, causes probably some sorts and so on in the power supply of 7wtc and thus began the problems for 7 which relied on pumps to replenish its sprinkler system. Speculation yes... but it makes sense to explain the cascading failures. Perhaps the collapse of 2wtc triggered additional shorts, arcing and even more exploding gear in the sub station. We just don't know. If Jennings and Hess are to be believed... they experienced and explosion which could have come from the Con Ed or the mech floors which were just below them when they were in the east stair case at about 10 am. Go figure.
     
  31. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    The camera wasn't moved when it "thumped", the image merely went black, and there was also a noise artefact.
    Here's what happened:
    This is the film crew of news reporter Dick Oliver on the sidewalk outside of City Hall Park. They were there to report on the local primary elections on that day. The camera is on the ground as they are taking a break or perhaps preparing a shoot.
    Now you need to realize that this recorded footage was broadcast by the studio "3 hours and a few minutes later", as the announcer says at 6:41. He continues: "Let's get back to that moment when we were on the air and the first crash took place". I am pretty cerain they didn't actually broadcast that scene life at 8:46, with the camera showing feet and no one speaking - why does the announcer say "when we were on the air"? Because that footage was fed live to the studio through the air, read through radio transmission. It was recorded in the studio, and they are now replaying that studio recording. It's the studio recording that has the thump. The studio is probably somewhere in midtown Manhattan.
    Many studios had dedicated antennas for such live broadcasts on the WTC1 antenna mast! When the plane crashed, it most likely intervened with the power and/or signal feeds to and from the antenna mast. In this case, I'd think power outage was the key; the camera crew would probably send their feed to equipment on the mast that relays it towards the studio right there, without the need for any data cables going down the tower. I'd guess that the plane crash cut network power - image goes black - then backup (battery?) power on or near the tower roof takes over - images returns - studio has missed a couple of frames or so. (Alternatively, the news crew has a routine secondary transmission route that the signal was switched to)

    For all witnesses near ground level in the towers, we must remember that their vantage point precluded them in almost all cases from knowing that a plane had been approaching and crashesd. That is information they must have learned later, or guessed after the fact, and that they must have fed into their recollection retroactively.
    At the time the event took place, they were surprised by a series of highly unusual sounds and sights that happened within seconds of each other. Surprising, unusual, frightning and emotionally stressing.
    Some of the witnesses in the video are pretty clear on the real sequence of events at ground level:
    1. Plane crashes
    2. Seconds later: Debris falls to the ground including elevator cars
    3. In the wake of the elevator cars, jet fuel explodes (conflagrates) out of the elevator shafts and damages lobby.
    All three events caused audible sounds that can reasonably be described as "explosions", even though they aren't all.
    In addition, secondary effects of the plane crash may have caused additional bangs: Jeffrey's transformer blowouts; floor slabs crashing; columns breaking as a result of being overloaded; etc.

    So witnesses hear bangs, then see and smell smoke, fuel, dust, debris. Then injured people. They struggle to make sense of this - probably form some initial hypothesis (perhaps "bomb attack"). A considerable time later, they learn that a plane had crashed. Now they struggle to reconcile that information with their experiences and initial hypothesis - smll wonder that some witnesses would stick with the "bomb" idea! Small wonder that they would misinterprete, perhaps misremember, the sequence of events.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  32. Hierophant

    Hierophant Member

    I know Willy Rodriguez (I assume you're referring to him) said he at first thought the generators exploded, but did they really explode? I mean, did he see them damaged later? In my opinion, the shockwave transmitted through the steel columns would be enough to give people the impression of a detonation through the ground. In addition to that, steel columns could also bust/pop/crack some of the concrete they are imbedded in while they transmit the shockwave into the ground, or while the building leans over stressing the connections, which could also taken to be an explosion by some people.

    It would be interesting to make an exact timeline of reported explosions. The "bomb" allegedly hitting the lobby a second before the sound of the plane impact can be explained by sound delay, but there were probably other explosions that could be linked to power generators and the like.

    I guess its possible, but seems unlikely that it should happen within milliseconds of the plane impact.


    The noise doesn't really sound like an artifact caused by interrupted recording to me, but sounds exactly what you hear through the microphone when you hit a camera while its microphone is on (or if you hit a microphone). Are you saying you don't think the plane impact would be transmitted through the building and the ground like that?
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2015
  33. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Those aren't "shockwaves", they are simple soundwaves. A shockwave would result from a supersonic event, but the plane crash of course was subsonic.

    If someone had hit the camera, it likely would have moved, as it wasn't mounted. But it didn't.

    No. I am presenting you with a, IMO, better hypothesis that explains more of the known observations, in particular the image going black for a couple of frames, which wouldn't happen from a mere sound wave travelling through the ground. I also don't think that the sound/seismic wave would arrive as a sharply delimited event of 1/30 s, as the different wave forms travel at different speeds through a ground that is quite heterogenous.

    I am convinced that the plane impact was transmitted through the building and the ground - the seismic recordings plotted it.
     
  34. Hierophant

    Hierophant Member

    With shockwave I didn't mean a (super)sonic boom, but the ensemble of impact waves traveling through the steel from the plane impact. That would be the sound wave whose speed only depends on the type of material, then the lateral wave which also depends on the thickness, length and tension of the material (think of different guitar strings all made of different materials but which vibrate at different frequencies due to other factors).

    Again, I'm being sloppy in formulating. There will be different wave types traveling at different speed, but since the distance to the impact is still fairly short, the waves will arrive not to spread apart, since they are still very much faster compared to sound in air. The longer duration of the sound in air is mainly caused by the sound being reflected on multiple obstacles like other buildings, and possibly by the expansion of the fireball in air (which will not be transmitted through the ground, such as the very short impact of the plane).
     
  35. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Still, a seismic signal wouldn't make the camera or the studio to record a couple of black /blank frames. An interruption of the video feed can explain this.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  36. Engineer

    Engineer Active Member

    Hmm. There is generally protective devices installed on such distribution lines, coordinated and timed from load to source to prevent explosions and additional damage caused by faults anywhere in the system. No doubt the faults themselves were violent, but switching and protective devices are designed for the maximum available generator or distribution system current at any point in the system. I believe your explanation might be a bit simplistic. I could make a better analysis if I had the distribution schematics for the building of course but I find the likelihood of these electrical faults destroying the lobby very low. In addition the protective devices are timed to operate VERY quickly while it is possible they produced arcs these would have happened long before any jet fuel had a chance to reach the lobby or the subfloors. There were certainly protective devices on the generator itself (and any transformers) which, if working properly, would have protected it from damage due to line to ground or line to line faults.

    As far as the seismic data is concerned, I think the author played a bit loose with the interpretation by jumping much too quickly to a controlled demo conclusion. Perhaps a comparison of seismic data collected from other building demolitions would be helpful to debunk his analysis. The fact that he included witness testimony in his scientific paper seems to me to somewhat discredit his study if his intent was truly based on seismic data.
     
  37. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    I don't know about how the circuit protection and switch gear worked. It wouldn't surprise me if it arced and overheated and caused some other gear to explode down there. This is speculation... but the timing seems to link this to the actual plane strike... and I find it hard to believe that these were two isolated but time coordinated events. Whatever exploded did not structural damage to the massive columns at the sub basement level.

    The explosions could have occurred no earlier than 10 seconds after the plane strike if it were fuel.... as it would take about that time for it to even drop that far... I suspect the times and what happened when were not something that people recorded or remembered with accuracy... who looks at their watch at these moments? And of course the plane strike would be experienced a second or so after it happened from down in the lobby. I would trust the time memory stuff too much.
     
  38. Hierophant

    Hierophant Member

    The plane impact and the exploding/expanding fireball would have pushed air down the elevator shafts, potentially accelerating it faster than free fall acceleration. The fireball (firewall) would have expanded down a tube like an elevator shaft faster than it would in free space too, as it only expands 1-dimensionally in the shaft, where as 3 dimensionally outside. On a sidenote, the noise of the impact would be heard much louder through the shaft as outside at same distance. Noise could even be delayed more in the shaft through multiple reflections and therefore longer path, compared to a wave outside in free air.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2016
  39. trevor

    trevor Active Member

    I've never heard that one before either.

    But i've always been sure it wasn't the magical/Silent/Invisible/non-traceable/non existant technology bombs that did it.
     
  40. trevor

    trevor Active Member

    Journal of 9/11 studies is edited by Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan who are both CT's themselves. i posted a link to this a while ago because i actually couldn't BELIEVE what i saw. Basically, Ryan and Jones couldn't get their work published by anyone within a 5,000 mile radius, so they decided to create their own journal.

    Translation = They created their own journal so they could call their work "published". They use water engineers, Electrical engineers, Marine Engineers, etc...to talk about building structure. they have about 70 articles in that journal, and only 3 or 4 of them are written by people who actually qualify, and the other 50% are written by kevin and Steven themselves.

    So, what do we have here? not that im trying to discredit the article in the link you posted (because Ryan and Jones have already done that themselves), because i know nothing about seismic activity, but it's published by jones and ryan. What im trying to say is, "Do i have to say it"?
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1