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

a reply to: tadaman

Link below contains a seismogram of a earthquake with P and S waves, and then shows the seismogram for the North tower that only captured surface waves.

earthalabama.com...

World Trade Center North Tower Collapse Seismograms at Five Local Stations
(from: 911research.wtc7.net...)

The signals at PAL from the North Tower collapse and a small felt earthquake that had occurred beneath the east side of Manhattan
on January 17, 2001 were of comparable magnitude (see Figure 5). However, the character of the two seismograms is quite
different. Note that distinct P and S body wave responses are seen only for the earthquake; this is usually the case in comparing
the seismic signatures of man-made ground disturbances and those recorded in earthquake events.

archive.usgs.gov...=524.html

A small earthquake, preliminary magnitude 2.5 according to the U.S. Geological Survey, occurred between the southern tip of Manhattan and Queens, near Newark, New Jersey, at 7:34 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 17. Shaking was felt in New York City. The USGS has received no reports of damage at this time.

The 2.5 magnitude earthquake off manhattan resulted in no collapsing skyscrapers.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

No, this has been addressed. The two spikes happen before the registered collapse of the towers.

The nuclear theory is the only theory that explains all the observed damage at WTC. And it explains the radiation sicknesses so prevalent in the first responders.

Waste of time and effort trying to convince a Grand Jury that it was nano thermite then

a reply to: mrthumpy

Are "Grand" Juries composed of people who specialize in the subject being presented?

a reply to: carewemust

Grand Jurors need only be considered fair and impartial but may call for expert analysis of technical aspects relating to the case. They have as much as 5 years to issue an indictment so I wouldn't get too excited just yet.

Thanks for this

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux


www.newsweek.com...

In a report issued just months after the attacks, the National Resources Defense Council, a New York–based environmental advocacy group, noted that the World Trade Center’s north tower contained as much as 400 tons of asbestos. That, along with burning office furniture, mainframe computers and the thousands of fluorescent lights in the buildings, led to the release of lead, mercury, volatile organic compounds and other deadly poisons. “An environmental emergency such as this, with hundreds, if not thousands, of toxic components simultaneously discharged into the air on the scale of September 11th is unprecedented,” the organization wrote, and the effects “unknown.”

New research confirms that this toxic cocktail caused heightened rates of cancer.

Prezant also found that firefighters at Ground Zero had a substantial reduction in lung capacity. “Normally with lung exposure, you recover,” he says. “I found that their lung function did not recover, despite treatment and despite time. I attribute it to the extremely inflammatory nature of the dust found at the World Trade Center site. When you look at [the dust particles] under a microscope, they are very jagged, and they are coated with carcinogens.”

a reply to: mrthumpy

Except we are not talking about just respiratory illness.

We are talking about radically increased cancer rates for people who were not exposed to the dust or were not part of the cleanup crews.

As in the people in surrounding areas and from working in downtown Manhattan after the attacks.

The area is STILL creating more cancer victims.

What we are seeing is not correlated in other mass tragedy events.

You don't get these levels of cancer, in the order of magnitude as seen in other radioactive fallout events without a clear cause like radiation.

What you propose is not an adequate explanation nor is it something many medical professionals believe is the cause.

They are holding out for the other many studies to be completed.

Hardly any of them agree with you very convincingly.

Why should I?

a reply to: tadaman

You claimed you had a medical study linking WTC cancers to radiation from fission and fission decay products, not WTC dust. Can you cite that study?

You

We are talking about radically increased cancer rates for people who were not exposed to the dust or were not part of the cleanup crews.

As in the people in surrounding areas and from working in downtown Manhattan after the attacks.

I don’t think you understand how much of Manhattan was covered or contaminated with WTC dust.

en.m.wikipedia.org...
In the five months following the attacks, dust from the pulverized buildings continued to fill the air of the World Trade Center site. Increasing numbers of New York residents are reporting symptoms of Ground Zero respiratory illnesses.[1]

Anyone and everything down wind of the collapse buildings would be contaminated when ever the WTC dust was disturbed. Also along routes where WTC rubble was hauled and stored.

a reply to: tadaman

9/11 Toxic Dust Exposure Zones
www.911benefits.com...

a reply to: tadaman

Because the actual physics of the WTC collapsed buildings does not support your nuke fantasy, you have to drag your misinterpretation of medical studies into your false narratives?

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: mrthumpy

What you propose is not an adequate explanation nor is it something many medical professionals believe is the cause.

I didn't propose anything. YOU posted it

a reply to: neutronflux

Quoted geophysicist and his analysis.

Frankly you can not say a thing to me. You have not read any of the material referenced, so I do not value your psychic perception of it.

a reply to: neutronflux

So there were S and P waves associated with the attack. They were generated and what caused them is debated. Not that these standard seismic waves were detected, along with surface sound waves which were recorded separately.

Finally you admit what only you denied

Only you

And that's the point. You can't generate these forces above ground or by a tower collapsing into a foundation, or by a building swaying.

a reply to: mrthumpy

And you replied with an erroneous explanation for radically high cancer rates for downtown Manhattan and the surrounding areas.

What you propose as an alternative explanation has no merit or basis in known examples.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

So there were S and P waves associated with the attack. They were generated and what caused them is debated. Not that these standard seismic waves were detected, along with surface sound waves which were recorded separately.

Finally you admit what only you denied

Only you

And that's the point. You can't generate these forces above ground or by a tower collapsing into a foundation, or by a building swaying.

Quote where I said anything of the like.

The fourth source cited that includes a picture of the seismogram of the collapse of the north tower states.

The signals at PAL from the North Tower collapse and a small felt earthquake that had occurred beneath the east side of Manhattan
on January 17, 2001 were of comparable magnitude (see Figure 5). However, the character of the two seismograms is quite
different. Note that distinct P and S body wave responses are seen only for the earthquake; this is usually the case in comparing
the seismic signatures of man-made ground disturbances and those recorded in earthquake events.
earthalabama.com...

What do you not get about”Note that distinct P and S body wave responses are seen only for the earthquake” for the January Manhattan earthquake? What do you not get the WTC North Tower collapse produced one wave type, Rayleigh waves.

I have quoted or cited four sources that state there was no P and S waves and/or no seismic waves indicative of explosives from the WTC.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: mrthumpy

And you replied with an erroneous explanation for radically high cancer rates for downtown Manhattan and the surrounding areas.

What you propose as an alternative explanation has no merit or basis in known examples.

YOU posted it, not me

a reply to: mrthumpy

Yes and you replied with an erroneous explanation. What I posted did not conclusively link the fire retardant materials to the high cancer rates.

The study was not about that. It established at what rate cancer was prevalent.

Which it establishes as abnormally high.

a reply to: neutronflux

And what don't you get that I referenced the spike BEFORE the collapse and after the plane impacts.

Please link anyone not Mrs woods that makes such an asinine claim as "no S and P waves"

2.3 and 2.1 on the Richter most certainly produced primary and secondary waves.

In fact, they were similar to those recorded in the earthquake you mentioned, which I quoted earlier from one of the seismic analysis offered that said as much.

a reply to: tadaman

Again.

earthalabama.com...

The signals at PAL from the North Tower collapse and a small felt earthquake that had occurred beneath the east side of Manhattan
on January 17, 2001 were of comparable magnitude (see Figure 5). However, the character of the two seismograms is quite
different. Note that distinct P and S body wave responses are seen only for the earthquake; this is usually the case in comparing
the seismic signatures of man-made ground disturbances and those recorded in earthquake events.

Forensic Seismology
By David Bressan on January 23, 2012

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.

Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City.

Authors
Won-Young Kim, L. R. Sykes1, J. H. Armitage, J. K. Xie, K. H. Jacob, P. G. Richards1, M. West1, F. Waldhauser, J. Armbruster, L. Seeber, W. X. Du1 and A. Lerner-Lam1, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, N.Y. 10964, USA; 1also Dept. Earth and Envi- ronmental Sciences, Columbia University.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT
By Brent Blanchard
August 8, 2006
c-2006 www.im
www.implosionworld.com...

The above cited and referenced sources are DR Wood free. They show the seismic activity from the WTC was of a single wave component of Rayleigh was and / or there is no seismic evidence of detonations from Manhattan on 9/11.

a reply to: tadaman

2.3 and 2.1 on the Richter most certainly produced primary and secondary waves.

Then it should be easy for you to produce a seismic graph from Manhattan that shows more than one wave component from Manhattan for 9/11.

The seismic charts you have posted so far in this thread of the WTC on 9/11 only shows one seismic wave component that are Rayleigh waves.

Why couldn’t you have a seismic event that only produced Rayleigh waves with a magnitude of 2.3, or 2.5, or even 3.

And a 2.5 magnitude seismic spike historically does no cause serious damage to structures.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: mrthumpy

Yes and you replied with an erroneous explanation. What I posted did not conclusively link the fire retardant materials to the high cancer rates.

The study was not about that. It established at what rate cancer was prevalent.

Which it establishes as abnormally high.

Why did you post an article with an erroneous explanation?