Federal Grand Jury To Hear Evidence - World Trade Center 9-11 Was Controlled Demolition.

a reply to: tadaman

I am guessing P waves at least travel through sand?

Laboratory P-wave measurements in dry and saturated sand

www.researchgate.net...
Abstract

We measure the P-wave velocity in a clean medium sand subject to very low stress in a large-scale laboratory cross-hole experiment for frequencies less than 10kHz. In dry sand the velocity is depth-, and therefore, stress-dependent according to a power law. The velocity in partially saturated sand is essentially the same as in dry sand, which confirms the analytical result of the Biot–Gassmann theory. At 100% saturation, the velocity largely exceeds that in dry and partially saturated sand, once again in accordance with the Biot–Gassmann theory. However, the theory under-predicts velocities by up to 12% in some cases at full saturation. The maximum attenuation determined from spectral analysis of the measured signals closely matches the characteristic frequency predicted by the Biot model.

North Korean underground detonation



911 seismic data

a reply to: tadaman

Nice nuclear detonation showing at least three different waves judging by the color scheme. With the WTC showing only surface waves at lower frequencies.

Thank you.

a reply to: neutronflux

The pattern is the same.

In every one. The characteristics don't change.
Look up others.


PDF long version supporting arguments for large explosives having been used

CONCLUSION
Near the times of the planes' impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated.

To the degree that
(1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and

(2) low frequencies are associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin.

Even if the planes' impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another.

As we have shown, they were not.

The types and magnitudes of the seismic signals show significant differences. The greatest differences occur in their propagation speeds, even though their paths were essentially identical under identical conditions.

This difference is physically unexplained in the interpretation of the events offered by the LDEO researchers, the 9/11 Commission and NIST.

Therefore, we must question their calculations of wave propagation speeds based on their assumption that the wave origins are shown on the video images of impacts and collapses.

We can only conclude that the wave sources were independently detonated explosives at other times, thus accounting for the variable discrepancies for each wave origin in relation to the videos.

The composition of the waves is revealing both in terms of the location of the source and the magnitude of the energy transmitted to the ground.

The subterranean origin of the waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S body waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves.

The placement of the source of the four other explosions is subaerial, attested by the unique presence of only Rayleigh waves

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

The pattern is the same.

In every one

No it’s not. The nuclear detonation (top graph) is scaled In seconds. The WTC data is scaled in minutes. The blowup of the seismic data for the WTC in seconds does not have that large instant spike. Both WTC waves scaled to seconds has a slower build up compared to the sudden spike of the top seismic graph. The top seismic data indicates more energy by being at higher frequencies than the WTC data scaled to seconds. It looks like the top graph has three wave components. The WTC seismic data scaled to seconds only shows one type of wave.

a reply to: tadaman

Also. It’s shows the velocity scale for the top graph, what is the WTC seismic data scaled to in velocity?

a reply to: tadaman

How far away was the Korean seismic data capture from the blast? I think the WTC data could only be discernible from background up to six hundred miles away?

a reply to: tadaman

Therefore, we must question their calculations of wave propagation speeds based on their assumption that the wave origins are shown on the video images of impacts and collapses.

Based on what?

Give it a break.

The seismic waves from the WTC showed no characteristics of a detonation.

The seismic data from the WTC was too low of a frequency, were only surface waves, and had no P or S waves. Is this false?

The Seismic data you posted from the Korean Nuke had a three wave components, the WTC seismic data you posted only has a surface wave component. Is this false?

The WTC seismic data showed a slower build up, the Korean data showed an instantaneous spike. Is this false.

The Korean data shows a much higher frequency for all three of its wave components vs the lower single wave frequency for the WTC. Is this false.

The subterranean origin of the waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S body waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves.

The above quote is blatantly false, there is no proof or published study that shows the epicenter of the seismic data stated at the bed rock. All WTC seismic activity is surface waves from the initial failure of the buildings above ground, then the amplitude of the surface waves increasing as larger pieces of buildings hit the surface. Is this false?

You have been caught posting a picture debunked. Been burnt by using truth movement misquotes, you have been shown how truth movement claims WTC seismic data shows underground detonations are blatantly false, and the WTC seismic data shows no characters of detonations.

WTC nukes are a fantasy based on pseudoscience and is lies. Sorry.

a reply to: tadaman

The subterranean origin of the waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S body waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves.

The placement of the source of the four other explosions is subaerial, attested by the unique presence of only Rayleigh waves

How, there was no P or S waves. Please show seismic data from the WTC that shows P and S waves. There was only Rayleigh waves.

Rayleigh waves are a type of surface acoustic wave that travel along the surface of solids.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: tadaman

Forensic Seismology
blogs.scientificamerican.com...

The analysis of seismic waves provided also insights on what happened September 11, 2001 in New York. Seismograph stations around the city recorded the signals generated by the aircraft impacts and the subsequent collapse of the two towers of the World Trade Center (the Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network provides a rich collection of datasets of the seismic activity around N.Y.). The collapse of the south tower generated a signal with a magnitude of 2.1 and the collapse of the north tower, whit a signal of magnitude 2.3, was recorded by 13 stations ranging in distance from 34 to 428km.
Also these seismograms show a distinct pattern if compared to the pattern caused by a natural earthquake. There are no P or S Waves, but the impacts of the buildings on the ground generated a sudden peak of short-period Rayleigh Waves.

Also, if the seismic evidence was an event “used to create an Earthquake”, the 2.3 magnitude seismic event shows it would not have damage buildings.

How do you get seismic waves, 34 kilometers away?

You keep saying the same things while ignoring the actual meat of what I post.

2.3 on a richter scale is INSANE for a recorder dozens of kilometers away. P and S waves traveled to be recorded.

The two signatures match the frequency and duration for subterranean detonations like I showed earlier.

You are being belligerent.

Based off what?! Read the scholarly article I linked, oh master scholar.

S and P waves. LoL

There are two huge spikes in the seismic data that the towers could not create.

Spam at this point. Read.
Do you get it?

Two identical towers falling would not create varied seismic signatures. The collapse would barely be detected by seismic recorders 34 kilometers away.

The two signatures are seen as being explosive in nature by analysts who saw the raw data and wrote the report I linked.

You can't make that variance of seismic waves unless 2 large and different explosions erupted underground.

You would barely detect the collapse by recorders that far away.

Got it. Who cares. S waves right?

I have explained it many times. Do you finally understand? Can you explain anything I speak about?

Will you copy and paste the same already answered questions?

The actual collapse was recorded though. It barely registered in the Palisades where the readings come from.

originally posted by: carewemust
I thought it was settled (by the "911 Commission") that only airliners were directly, and in-directly, responsible for the horrific NYC building collapses on Sept 11, 2001.

Yes it is.

Apparently, there's enough evidence to prove the 911 Commission findings as errored/wrong!

No there isn't.

a reply to: MrSporkster

It is not settled as agreed by a myriad of professionals from many disciplines.

Yes there is evidence. I linked it.

You may disagree with it but it does exist.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: MrSporkster

It is not settled as agreed by a myriad of professionals from many disciplines.

A bunch of random guys with largely irrelevant experience and qualifications, pushing a debunked conspiracy theory.

Yes there is evidence. I linked it.

You may disagree with it but it does exist.

That was not evidence. Also, if the 'official story' is so wrong, why can't conspiracy theorists agree on what happened to the Twin Towers? They all have different stories.

* drones
* directed energy weapon
* controlled demolition
* missiles
* etc.

If conspiracy theorists all agreed on the evidence and all agreed on a single explanation, I could take them more seriously. But the fact that they argue bitterly amongst each other is proof that the evidence for their claims is not at solid as they believe.

a reply to: MrSporkster

They come up with different explanations for the unanswered oddities.

Like how a tower collapse sends underground seismic waves of the magnitude recorded so far away. There were no seismic recorders in NYC

Professionals ask this. Not random guys.

originally posted by: tadaman
How do you get seismic waves, 34 kilometers away?


2.3 on a richter scale is INSANE for a recorder dozens of kilometers away.

Interesting, How far away could a 2.3 be picked up?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: MrSporkster

They come up with different explanations for the unanswered oddities.

THey come up with different explanations for EVERYTHING, not just 'unanswered oddities.' Why are all the explanations so different, if the evidence is so clear?

Like how a tower collapse sends underground seismic waves of the magnitude recorded so far away. There were no seismic recorders in NYC

Professionals ask this. Not random guys.

Here's a professional who explains the seismic activity.

The seismic waves created by the impact of the planes were only magnitudes of 0.9 and 0.7 respectively.

a reply to: mrthumpy

Thats not how it works. More and closer instruments to the event may have recorded increased magnitude than what was recorded. Its crazy that much energy was detected so far away.

2.3 and 2.1 were recorded by instruments 34 kilometers from NYC.

Two identical tower collapses don't send different shock waves. We see that.

The signatures match those of underground explosions.

We have other recordings that show the actual collapses. They barely registered but coincide with video evidence as far as when which reading corresponds to which event.

The 2 sharp, powerful underground shockwaves were precursors to the collapse.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: mrthumpy

Thats not how it works. More and closer instruments to the event may have recorded increased magnitude than what was recorded. Its crazy that much energy was detected so far away.

2.3 and 2.1 were recorded by instruments 34 kilometers from NYC.

Two identical tower collapses don't send different shock waves. We see that.

The signatures match those of underground explosions.

We have other recordings that show the actual collapses. They barely registered but coincide with video evidence as far as when which reading corresponds to which event.

The 2 sharp, powerful underground shockwaves were precursors to the collapse.

So there's nothing insane about a 2.3 being picked up dozens of km away

a reply to: mrthumpy

For a tower collapse? Yes that's odd. The characteristics as explained are for subterranean explosions

The impacts and collapses were different and recorded as such properly.

The 2 huge spikes are the oddity.