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

a reply to: tadaman

If the seismic chart you keep posting is not a single Rayleigh wave, please show where the P wave intersects the Rayleigh wave.

a reply to: neutronflux

You can not provide an example of the type of graph you speak of.

I say it doesn't exist and you do not even know how to read the one I posted.

Because you are not being honest. You can not post a graph. Is it not ironic?

For pages you badgered me for not posting figures that were already included in the links I referenced.

And here now, you can not do what ultimately I did.

Post your example or spam on. That would mark you as shill.

Your choice.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

You can not provide an example of the type of graph you speak of.

I say it doesn't exist and you do not even know how to read the one I posted.

Because you are not being honest. You can not post a graph. Is it not ironic?

For pages you badgered me for not posting figures that were already included in the links I posted.

And here now, you can not do what ultimately I did.

Post your example or spam on. That would mark you as shill.

Your choice.

Again.

you keep posting a seismic chart with a single wave. By definition, the P wave, the S wave, and Rayleigh cannot be on the same wave.

a reply to: neutronflux

So spam it is for the shill. You did not post an example.

Thanks. Now I am done. You are more charred than I intended but I am satisfied all the same.

Ruined.

a reply to: tadaman

Again.

The below article contains a seismic chart for an earthquake with three waves vs the single wave of the WTC

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.

Again doesn’t get more specific than “there are no P and S waves”

a reply to: neutronflux

Thats spam, not an example of the type of graph you speak of that doesnt exist.

Because you lied and dont even know how to read a seismograph.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

Thats spam, not an example of the type of graph you speak of that doesnt exist.

Because you lied and dont even know how to read a seismograph.

Because you don’t get what is a single wave with amplitudes mislabeled?

a reply to: neutronflux

So post an example of a "proper" graph.

a reply to: tadaman

Sad you don’t get the nuclear fantasy is debunked on many levels


What are you babbling about.

So? what did your fantasy nuclear detonation supposedly initiate.

We know it didn’t fracture the bedrock at Manhattan, they built new skyscrapers at the WTC.

We know the slurry wall was not breached.

We know the twin tower cores were not compromised from the foundation all the way up to the points of buckling at the points contracting floors trusses caused bowing in the vertical steel columns. The core columns had to be cut from the foundation to be removed during cleanup. And there no frozen pools of steel at the foundation.

We know the cores from just under the points of jet impacts down to the foundation offered resistance during collapse, the core fell at 40 percent the rate of free fall, and the core fell last after the complete collapse of the floor system. This also rules out a void under the twin towers causing a drop core.

Minutes before each tower collapsed, there was structural buckling and leaning. Was this before supposed detonations?

There is no evidence of dust rising off the ground, dust being shaken from the towers, or evidence of a shockwave raising up through the twin towers before collapse.


Please explain how a magical detonation causes no effect in the twin towers, no foundation damage, and with the collapse initiation starting at the points of jet impacts?

a reply to: neutronflux

You just copied an old post.

You really can't form a single thought. If I check that for plagiarism, would any of that post even be yours originally?

Because you can't post an example of what you speak of, I think you dont even know where to look. So why even try with original thought.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

So post an example of a "proper" graph.

I said post a WTC seismic chart that had three waves intersecting each other, not the same chart with a single wave with mislabeled amplitudes.

a reply to: neutronflux

And I said post an example. You can't because you dont even know where to look.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

You just copied an old post.

You really can't form a single thought. If I check that for plagiarism, would any of that post even be yours originally?

Because you can't post an example of what you speak of, I think you dont even know where to look. So why even try with original thought.

You are the one that cannot figure out the chart they posted is a single wave with mislabeled amplitudes.

And you have done nothing to debunk the four sources that specifically show there are no P and S waves from the 9/11 WTC seismic data and / or there is zero evidence of CD.

All you can do is blatantly and falsely claim the WTC seismic chart show three different waves when it clearly shows only one wave. It shows a single Rayleigh wave.

a reply to: neutronflux

So just sidestepping the actual posting of an example of the type of graph you speak of.

You have failed miserably at disproving the nuclear demolition theory.

You can't even read the seismic graphs and you have the nerve to question others who can.

Post your example or spam on like some sort of crazed anti 911 truth movement shill.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

And I said post an example. You can't because you dont even know where to look.

Blatantly false.
I cited a source that explains the difference between the 2001 Manhattan earthquake vs the WTC seismic data.
I will post this again. The article contains the WTC seismic chart and explains it shows only surface waves.

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.

Again
Doesn’t get more specific than “There are no P or S waves.”

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: neutronflux

So just sidestepping the actual posting of an example of the type of graph you speak of.

You have failed miserably at disproving the nuclear demolition theory.

You can't even read the seismic graphs and you have the nerve to question others who can.

Post your example or spam on like some sort of crazed anti 911 truth movement shill.

How? When you cannot even cite credible proof. You cannot get past the twin tower cores fell last.

a reply to: neutronflux

Your reply was:
Blatantly not an example of the type of graph you speak of and blatantly not helping to show that you can even read the seismic graphs in question.

Post an example if it's so easy.

If not, you have helped me tremendously in exposing the ignorance of the counter-argument to a nuclear demolition.

a reply to: neutronflux

Proof or evidence? You do know the difference right?

Where is your evidence that I posted the wrong type of seismic data?

Elaborate and show us an example of a proper graph. If you were not lying through your teeth.

originally posted by: tadaman
Ok one more

In fact, the recording for WTC1 (Fig. 2a) demonstrates the three types of wave characteristic of a brief explosive source confined in a compact, solid material: a P wave with a speed of 6000 m/s, the typical value for a very consolidated crystalline or sedimentary terrain (which is the case in the bedrock of Manhattan), an S wave with a speed of 3500 m/s, and a surface wave with a speed of 1800 m/s (a Rayleigh wave). These values match with those registered from an earthquake or seismic prospecting (see for example Kim et al. 2001).

On the other hand, the recording linked to WTC2 (Fig. 2b) does not show the P or S body waves observed for WTC1 but only the surface Rayleigh wave, for which the spreading of the amplitudes over the duration is different from that of WTC1. The propagation speed of 2125 m/s is also markedly different from that of WTC1. Further, this wave seems to be followed by a second Rayleigh wave four seconds later.

We find the same thing for WTC7 (Fig. 2c), where the calculation of the speed of the wave according to the determined origin time indicates a Rayleigh wave with a 2200 m/s speed. Note that the amplitudes are comparable to those of the waves emitted at the time of the crashing of the airplanes into the Towers. This wave seems to be followed by a second Rayleigh wave 6 or 7 seconds later.

In the three cases, the bell-like form points to an impulsive source of energy, not percussion on the ground due to the fall of debris. The total mass and the average mass of individual building fragments were relatively small and fell to the ground over a period of more than ten seconds (which is a very long time in geophysics). Also note that the duration of a seismic signal does not tell anything about the source, contrary to the amplitude and particularly the frequency

911truth.org...

You really want to keep going?

Edit to add:
Here are the figures from the analysis I posted again that just you can't be bothered to look at before debating.

Again. Every WTC seismic graph you posted above are only surface waves. If any of them had a second or third wave they would intersect or cross the Rayleigh wave. None of the WTC waves you posted is crossed or intersected by a second wave. Since a P wave, S wave, Rayleigh wave cannot be on the same wave by definition, then the only wave components from the WTC are Rayleigh waves.

a reply to: neutronflux

Again, post an example of the "proper" type of graph. You can not because you have lied here, and possibly in every post on this forum.

Then you made it worse by lying more. Like a liar does.