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.
"Now I think that there is no longer a question that there was energy activity at the Murrah Building in addition to the original explosion, and we simply need to determine the source of that activity," Brown told THE NEW AMERICAN. The leading contenders for the source of that energy are either another explosion inside the building or the falling of the building debris.
But the demolition seismic data from the Murrah site make the latter explanation no longer tenable, says Brown.
The demolition charges were detonated in five groups, he notes, and the oscillations on the seismogram from the site correspond closely with those explosions. " Even the smallest of those detonations had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building, which demonstrates that the explosives were much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than the collapse of three-fourths of the building. So it is very unlikely that one-fourth of the building falling directly after it was bombed on April 19th could have created an energy wave similar to that caused by the large [truck bomb] explosion." The most logical explanation for the second event, says Dr. Brown, is "a bomb on the inside of the building."
hellobruce : Here are what some real demolition experts said who actually examined the wreckage, had portable field seismographs set up in the surrounding area -snip- So real experts who were there, as opposed to an expert who watched youtube video's say there is zero evidence explosives were used, including the evidence of their own portable field seismographs.!
LaBTop : There were a LOT of 'handheld' seismic instruments at several Manhattan spots operating during 9/11.
The all seeing and knowing government has decided we don't need to see these, they are "too vague" to be applicable.
YEAH, RIGHT! The only ones which were operating, so to say, on top of the events !
And were designed to read P-WAVES, because they monitored EXPLOSIONS at building sites in the middle of NEW YORK !
LaBTop, May, 21 2007 : This guy from Protec has written some sort of rebuttal on a debunking site.
However, he NEVER EVER delivered the seismic graphs from these hand held devices to the public domain.
He keeps talking and expect us to believe, about no seismic proof for standard demolitions, while we saw with our own eyes, a televised event, which definitely did not look as a standard demolition. That were 2 top down demo's, and 1 bottom up.
And I suspect him to have them NOT offered to dr. Kim from LDEO, to be included in dr. Kim's 2006 second seismic report, written for NIST, who hired dr. Kim to do so.
Or perhaps, he did, and then NIST was "not amused" with it?
And then NIST removed every hint to dr. Kim's 2006 ""NIST"" second seismic report from all their sites.! Kim's first one was his Sept. 2001 one for LDEO.
Just as they did for a thorough report from an engineering firm they also hired in 2006 to write a report on the causes and effects of the 9/11 collapses.
That report, by the way, did not fit AT ALL in the NIST "picture", so they removed it.
BTW, in my view, NIST is not an entity, made up by thousands of honest scientists.
The NIST I see and mention all the time, is a cluster of politically approved CEO's, who prescribe those honest researchers what to look at, and what to ignore. And if they step out of line, their career is toast.
LaBTop, posted on Jan, 30 2013 :
It is in fact exactly this Brent Blanchard who happened to visit this 9/11 forum around 2006. I have told you to search, then read all my ATS Search - "LaBTop" seismic - and - "LaBTop" thermobaric - posts. You did not !
You would have found my interaction with Mr Blanchard here at ATS.
I challenged him to produce those damn important hand held PROTEC seismograph's seismograms he is bloating about in his point 3. He disappeared.
So, I did some off-line investigation at PROTEC, and lo and behold, what a pity sir, but by some strange accident, all these seismograms have been absent from our repository for a long time already.
Mr Blanchard was a PLANT, and I dare say, he still is.
LT : Same goes for that guy from that demolition firm who came to this forum and said they had lots of hand-held seismic devices seismographs from the events in New York on 9/11.
I challenged him to directly post just one of them, since I really would like to get my hands on a real one, because I am sure I can prove then even better how clear it is that there were explosions registered as seismic events, before any tower moved a millimeter.
Never heard from the guy anymore. He got whipped by his bosses probably, for going on-line with such damming potential evidence. Later you could read that all the seismograms from those handhold seismographs got lost.....How convenient.
originally posted by: LaBTop
if he really ever saw these non-existing PROTEC seismograms
hellobruce : Here are what some real demolition experts said who actually examined the wreckage, had portable field seismographs set up in the surrounding area -snip- So real experts who were there, as opposed to an expert who watched youtube video's say there is zero evidence explosives were used, including the evidence of their own portable field seismographs
What clinches it for me is that the WTC7 pre-collapse signal was larger in peak energy than the collapse of the entire building, so it simply cannot be explained away by a partial collapse inside the building.
It is part of a Tera-byte (huge) of video footage that was confiscated by the government from the media after Sept 11th. The International Center for 9/11 Studies sued the government under the freedom of information act. They had to sue because the government refused to give it to them on request. They won and I believe around 46 gigs of video they received. some of which was edited.
iBlindGame : My apologies for this being a little jumpy at the beginning.
NIST's WTC7 simulation does a lot of hand-waiving before the descent of the northeast corner begins. However, if you ignore that and look only at the portion of the video that matches the descent, you can see that they modeled only 3 floors collapsing. You can see also that the general shape of the building (on the left in this view) looks nothing like WTC7. This is apparently due to the use of "thermally thin" parameters, as NIST claimed. (In other words, NIST used unrealistic parameters for the conductivity of heat, which is why their simulation looks nothing like reality.) They chose not to release the simulation data, as explained in another film on this channel "We Have the Results and Only We Have the Results."
Incidentally, the simulation video that was used (and the only one they released?) had a low number of frames per second, so that's why it seems choppy.
B.2 Thermobaric munitions.
The thermobaric weapon works by propelling a warhead that scatters an aerosol explosive on or before impact with the target and then immediately igniting this to create a high-pressure blast wave.
The effect is a much more rapidly expanding blast than a conventional explosion.
Compared with a fuel-air explosive, the thermobaric weapon has a much higher expanding concussion effect and lacks the degree of vacuum implosion produced by fuel air weapons. Primarily, this is because fuel air weapons take time to distribute the aerosol explosive widely before ignition.
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
LaBTop, this dovetails nicely with the public statements by Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority), He has repeatedly told his story of hearing explosions on the 20th and 22nd floor while trapped inside. He stated that not only did an explosion demolish the stairway he was descending leaving him dangling for his life, but that he and his co-worker saw afterward that BOTH twin towers were STILL STANDING.
Assertion #4 : -snip-
The only scientifically legitimate way to ascertain if explosives were used is to cross-
reference the fundamental characteristics of an explosive detonation with independent
ground vibration data recorded near Ground Zero on 9/11.
Fortunately, several seismographs were recording ground vibration that morning, and perhaps more fortunately, all available data is consistent and appears to paint a clear picture.
Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades,
New York, recorded the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7. This data was later released to
the public and currently appears on their website.
Additionally, on 9/11 Protec field technicians were utilizing portable field seismographs to continuously record ground vibrations on several construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn for liability purposes.
In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.
Clarification posted by Blanchard 9/3/06 :
In attempting to simplify technical references, we described vibration monitoring activities in a manner that could benefit from further clarification to provide context and minimize confusion.
As our report states, Protec was engaged in vibration monitoring activities on private construction sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9/11. Because these portable field seismographs were not physically installed and manned on the Ground Zero site, we do not feel it is appropriate, nor scientifically possible, to categorically state that data from these monitors alone can specifically prove or disprove the existence of an explosive catalyst.
In general, portable field seismographs are far less technologically advanced than permanently installed instrumentation such as the monitors at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, which is why we chose to comment in detail on the Columbia University data before commenting on the Protec data.
For example, the Columbia seismographs can pinpoint a relatively accurate geographic location for a vibration event, (i.e., “this event likely occurred at or near Ground Zero”), whereas portable field seismographs do not possess this capability.
However, that said, the fact that the Protec monitors were activated and recording does appear to have some value in that they did not record vibration spikes that could be even remotely associated with explosive events during the time-frame in question.
Therefore, our specific clarification reads as follows;
a) The Columbia University vibration waveforms recorded on 9/11 do not appear to indicate that explosives were used,
b) To the contrary, our interpretation of these waveforms – and the interpretation of many (LT : he does not dare to state the word "every" instead ) other experts – is that they clearly indicate explosives were not used, and
c) Protec’s vibration data recorded during the same time-frame, while far less specific, does not show any vibration events that contradict the data recorded by Columbia University.
To this end, clarifying text modifications, not affecting our original conclusions, have been made to Protec Experience Point #1, Protec Comment to Assertion #4, and Protec Comment to Assertion #7, Point #3.
Dr. André Rousseau : On the contrary, all the documented evidence points to explosions as the source of the recorded seismic signals.
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
LaBTop, this dovetails nicely with the public statements by Barry Jennings (Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority), He has repeatedly told his story of hearing explosions on the 20th and 22nd floor while trapped inside. He stated that not only did an explosion demolish the stairway he was descending leaving him dangling for his life, but that he and his co-worker saw afterward that BOTH twin towers were STILL STANDING.