Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited.

Somethings bothered me for a while about everyone who claims that they can spot exlosives being detonated during the collapse of the WTC towers on 911 in the seizmic graphs, and therefore it MUST be a CD. What bothers me the most is that well, I dont see any evidence, least of all in the seizmic data, that supports this assertion.

Now I know why it bothers me. First lets look at some of the data and the interviews with the scientists that go along with them shall we?



this is the infamous trace from the seizmograph that day.

now the impacts rate at a less than 1 and the collapses rate at 2.1 and 2.3.

now most of the "alternative theory" sites that discuss this data will focus on the quotes about how most of the energy of the collapse didnt shake the ground etc and asking what caused the seizmographs to register etc, and as so many people seem to want to do, they just fill in the blanks with "explosives".

but, lets really put some of this into context shall we?

One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away.

These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2.

source

80,000lbs of anfo. rather 40 tons of anfo. thats enough to fill the trailer of a standard 18wheel semi trailer.

Rules governing the maximum size and weight of vehicles differ among the States in the US. However, since the majority of hauling is done on the interstate system, the vast majority of trucks and trailer made in the US are built to the specifications of the Department of Transportation which governs the use of the interstate system. The D.O.T. has established vehicle limits of: 102 inches wide, 13.5 feet in height, and 80,000 lbs gross weight.

source: wiki

ok, now, im sure NO ONE is going to claim that they used 40 tons of anfo to drop the buildings (thats each btw) so lets do some math.

anfo=ammonium nitrate fuel oil. i wont tell you how to make it but its so ridiculously simple its not even funny. making it isnt the challenge setting it off is. but, its relative effectiveness factor (RE factor) when compared to TNT is .42.

so, normally on a demo job you figure out the math, calculate for TNT then divide by the RE factor to obtain the yeild you need for your chosen ordinance.

so, working backwards we take 80000*.42=33,600lbs of TNT to register a 1-2magnitude shockwave from 20 miles which if you notice the distance on the graph from the WTC its 34km which is just a hair over 20m (unless my math totally sucks today)

well, 33,600lbs of tnt is still a lot of ordinance. so, what bout C4? C4 has an RE of 1.34 so since we know the tnt yeild we can just divide by C4's RE factor and we get 33600/1.34=25,075lbs

so, i guess what my point is is this: did anyone see 12.5 tons of explosives going off in the instant the towers started to collapse?

if not, then does this seizmic data really prove anything sinister?


THATS what bothers me. About this topic anyway.

[edit on 3-12-2007 by Damocles]

Here's a Q-

Can you tell the difference whether tnt or C4 is used, if the equivalency is the same?

I'm talking blast effect, over pressure, heat release, etc.

I know different gunpowders burn at different rates, and give diff effects. I was wondering if the same held true for explosives.

Or are the diff burn rates, etc taken into account when you talk of equivalency (RE?)...

the detonation velocities are different.

tnt=23,000fps
c4=26,000fps

id link my sources but its an actual on paper book. but if anyone cares its FM 5-35

Hi, Damocles.
Please take the time to read (several times) this link :

Interpretation of Seismic 9/11 charts from LDEO, compared to NIST photo time stamp - Studyof911 Board :
www.studyof911.com...#

The seismic chart you linked to is a very poor example, posted in the media shortly after 911 to feed the ones who like to be informed in comic book style.
Anything more detailed will blow their minds, since they are not used to thorough research anymore.

Since I know you do not fall in that category, i hope you will start to understand what I wrote there, years ago already.

I have had no challenge up to today of my thesis posted there.

I do not count the short blurb on the JREF forum from the beginning of this year, since all of their participants didn't even notice the main problem I have with NIST and/or LDEO, the 17 seconds relay time for seismic signals to travel from New York on 9/11 to the seismic apparatus's needles at Palisades NY.

For me the collapse breaks down to simple laws of physics.


The energy from gravity has a choice:

A) It can accelerate the mass of the building downward at the rate a free-falling object accelerates,

B) Or it can tear the building apart.


If it tries to do both, it can only do each half as well. Therefore, the fall must slow down if the building is being destroyed.


In other words, you can't have free fall AND destruction. If the energy of the destruction came from the fall, then the fall can't happen at full speed.


Picture a brick crashing through horizontal planes of glass. Either the brick and glass fall rapidly together and break only when they hit the ground, or the brick crashes through the glass, while the glass slows down the brick's fall.


Also, picture a gallows. A person stands there with a noose around their neck, and a drap door below them. The only way for the person's head to reach the floor at free fall is for their feet to move out of the way.


In terms of a building, there was no trap door under it. Yet, the top floor reached the ground at free-fall. Only way for this to happen is for the whole building to change from 1 solid piece to a million tiny pieces in a split second. Only then could the whole thing come to the ground so quickly.




[edit on 3-12-2007 by dionysius9]

reply to post by LaBTop



ill certainly take a look at in later tonight or tomorrow, im too fried to put a lot of mental energy into something that deserves the attention.

but also i dont want you to think, and i may be saying this prematurely as ive not read your thesis yet, that im trying to challenge or refute what you may be saying (though as ive not read it maybe i am? dunno yet) simply looking at an established piece of "proof" among the CT community and presenting where i personally have a problem with it.

but without spoiling the suprise for me as it were...does your thesis preclude mine from being accurate?

oh, im sure theres much better graphics out there, i just wanted to make sure i used one thats from an "alternative theory" site so that i cant get hounded for using a doctored graphic. just trying to keep the playing field level as it were.

looking forward to reading your post labtop. despite some commonly held theories about me, i am rather open minded


reply to post by dionysius9



um....what? does anything you posted have anything to do with what ive presented in my OP?

ive yet to look over labtops stuff but in response to JUST your post i have to repeat myself...

so, i guess what my point is is this: did anyone see 12.5 tons of explosives going off in the instant the towers started to collapse?

Damocles, no need for apologies in advance.
Most people interested in 911 make the same error, they look at the main seismic spikes from LDEO, and then conclude that those depict explosives.
They can not be further from the truth.

The signs of explosives lay much earlier in the graphs of the 3 collapses.
Edit : of the 2 WTC 1 and 2 collapses, but also the WTC 7 collapse. End Edit.
But are camouflaged/minimized by changing the sensitivity of both WTC 1 and 2 collapse graphs to a ten times less sensitivity, compared to the plane crashes.
From 10 nm/sec to 100 nanometer/second.

Thus the graphs look the same at first sight, but they are not.

Both WTC 1 and 2 collapse graphs are depicted in 100 nm/sec, while both two plane crashes are depicted in 10 nm/sec, which is ten times more sensitive.

If you change these 2 WTC collapse graphs to the same 10 nm/sec sensitivity, you will suddenly see in both collapse graphs, that the main spikes (now immense on the graphs) are precluded in them by identical big SEISMIC spikes, which have nearly exactly the same height, thus magnitude, as the main spikes in the plane crashes graphs.
And the WTC 7 collapse chart has an identical, big seismic spike, with the same magnitude, also precluding its global collapse. But this one is the biggest spike on the chart of WTC 7.

In short :
The three COLLAPSES begin ALL three with an IDENTICAL event, comparable to the head-on IMPACT of a nearly fully jet-fuel loaded commercial airliner.

[edit on 3/12/07 by LaBTop]

dionysius9, you wrote :
""Yet, the top floor reached the ground at free-fall.""

This is pertinently not true.

Since I have posted 2 years ago, a BBC video from a running camera man who had his camera by chance, pointed back at the collapse front from WTC 2, which nearly landed on top of him, you could easily count the seconds from the moment the first perimeter wall parts broke out (at about the plane impact point), up till they reached the ground behind him.
Twelve seconds.
At that moment at least half of the building still stood firm, while you saw the collapse front smashing through the building.
So at least 12 more seconds were needed for all of the debris to reach the ground and come to rest.
That's 24 seconds or more, counting no resistance from the building itself.

So please do not simply copy the many mistaken assumptions of 911 websites, that the buildings fell in free fall.
They did not, by far.

This does not mean however, that I do not believe in planted explosives.
I firmly do.

The sequence of detonation, and the placement (at the four mechanical floors, on the core columns), and the use of state of the art thermobaric devices, is what I believe, was used, to offer the world media a picture of a gravity driven collapse.

Deception was the name of the game.

In New York, at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

ok labtop, despite the fact im not mentally fully up to the challenge today, i read your post on the studyof forums. and reading it confirmed one thing to me; i am way too fried to understand all of it in the detail it deserves. you put a lot of time into it and it really shows

but, and please feel free to correct me if i am wrong, most of your thesis rests on the time discrepancies yeah?

IF thats the case then we're both addressing different aspects of the question albeit from different points of view.

i cannot, nor shall i try to, refute any of your findings. i dont have the knowledge to claim any expertise in the field nor do i have a basis to form a thesis wherein you are wrong about your findings.

lol though if i were really a prick id just ask how many of the clocks on various measureing devices, cameras, etc were synched to the atomic clock then challenge you to compare your wristwatch to 10 random people on the streets to find an avg discrepancy lol. but, in retrospect that might be a little childish of me so ill avoid that minefield all together as im sure youve considered this and i dont need anyone else making me look foolish i do that well enough on my own thank you

HOWEVER: there are some things ive presented in my OP that i didnt find an explaination for in your thread, though ill admit as of this moment ive only given them a once over and could have missed just about anything.

IF large scale explosions 20 miles away from the station show magnitude 1-2 quakes

and IF we recalculate for the same yeild in a smaller package to make a 1-1 comparison to the seizmic events that are listed on the graphs

THEN how can anyone look at any video and point to explosives when it is obvious that the equivalant of 12.5 tons of tnt did clearly NOT go off at any time from impact to collapse?

now, having said all that, if i did misinterpret your findings and the scale of the quakes was in fact much smaller than has been represented in popular media (both oct and ct alike) then thats another matter. if this is the case based on your findings i would love a more direct link to that particular area of your research as i obviously missed it and would love the opportunity to read it in its proper context.

PS if youve not read it and have an interest, u2u me and ill send u the link to my debate on the CD issue in the h2h debate areas. its informative if nothing else

Originally posted by LaBTop
Damocles, no need for apologies in advance.
Most people interested in 911 make the same error, they look at the main seismic spikes from LDEO, and then conclude that those depict explosives.
They can not be further from the truth.

The signs of explosives lay much earlier in the graphs of the 3 collapses.
But are camouflaged/minimized by changing the sensitivity of these collapse graphs to a ten times less sensitivity, compared to the plane crashes.
From 10 nm/sec to 100 nanometer/second.

Thus the graphs look the same at first sight, but they are not.

All three collapse graphs are depicted in 100 nm/sec, while both two plane crashes are depicted in 10 nm/sec, which is ten times more sensitive.

If you change the collapse graphs to the same 10 nm/sec sensitivity, you will suddenly see in all three graphs, that the main spikes (now immense on the graphs) are precluded in ALL three graphs by identical big SEISMIC spikes, which have a magnitude nearly exactly the same height, thus magnitude, as the main spikes in the plane crashes graphs.

In short :
The three COLLAPSES begin ALL three with an IDENTICAL event, comparable to the head-on IMPACT of a nearly fully jet-fuel loaded commercial airliner.

I suggest you revisit your own links to ldeo.

The collapse of 7 is recorded using 10 nm, not 100. It's printed right there on it.....

Damocles,

First off, it's not a challenge at all.
I offer my thoughts, you offer yours, then we see where we meet, or disagree.

Btw, I did read your CD debate already a long time ago, and enjoyed it.
That's why I react on your worries.
Because I know you are a reasonable person with an open mind.

And we are not addressing different aspects of your question, we both ask ourself if the seismic charts depict the eventual use of explosives, their form known or perhaps unknown to us, or some or all of us.

I mean, if one can accept the possibility of a military based game of deception, with huge political and economic gains at stake, one could expect the use of even exotic, unknown devices, to try to portrait to the worlds cameras, three gravity driven collapses.

The atomic clock subject is addressed by me.
NIST and LDEO both synchronized to the same atomic clocks.


""IF large scale explosions 20 miles away from the station show magnitude 1-2 quakes ""

This subject can not be compared to where we talk about.
The Richter scale seismic readings were from the total collapse magnitude of each of the three buildings, not from the initiating events, be it explosives, or (in your opinion perhaps) gravity driven failures of main columns.
I do not know what your opinion is on the collapses, so it's a guess on your opinion from me, no more.


""THEN how can anyone look at any video and point to explosives when it is obvious that the equivalent of 12.5 tons of TNT did clearly NOT go off at any time from impact to collapse?""

That's an easy one, and I think you know it intuitively.
12.5 tons of TNT were needed at the quarry to blow up massive amounts of SOLID rock, to crunch that to movable smaller parts. And were placed in holes, drilled deep in the rock.

Far, far less amounts of HE are needed to break the back of an essentially hollow construction, held together by steel beams and columns, to initiate and then START a GRAVITY DRIVEN collapse.

A very tall, hollow construction standing upright on a comparatively small footprint, already fighting against gravity for 40 years, and doing that very well, by the way.

And then during that collapse, to be sure, give it a few more blows to overcome the resistance of the mechanical floors.

Haroki,
my bad, a typo/mistake of mine in my post here, but if you look at my link, and scroll to post #4 from bsbray there, you see the 2 collapses of WTC 1 and 2 at the same sensitivity of 10 nm/sec depicted as the collapse of WTC 7, which was already noted by LDEO at the 10 nm/sec scale.

Edit : thus no need at all to revisit my own links to LDEO. EndEdit.

It is in fact that event at WTC 7 which is clearly the BIGGEST magnitude event in that graph, but taking place before the global collapse of WTC 7, which alerted me to dig deeper in the whole seismic events subject.

[edit on 3/12/07 by LaBTop]

ok, i THINK i see your point of view on this. and i will agree that once you put the building in motion its probably only going to need the slightest bit of help to keep it giong typically but what we witnessed on 911 certainly wasnt typical.

i stand by my previous calculations as to what it takes to sever the core columns, and i have to disagree with you but i just dont see it.

of course it is possible im totally misunderstanding you too. pretty much disregard anything i post here after this until tomorrow. (unless it makes sense )

Originally posted by LaBTop
Haroki,
my bad, a typo/mistake of mine in my post here, but if you look at my link, and scroll to post #4 from bsbray there, you see the 2 collapses of WTC 1 and 2 at the same sensitivity of 10 nm/sec depicted as the collapse of WTC 7, which was already noted by LDEO at the 10 nm/sec scale.

Edit : thus no need at all to revisit my own links to LDEO. EndEdit.

It is in fact that event at WTC 7 which is clearly the BIGGEST magnitude event in that graph, but taking place before the global collapse of WTC 7, which alerted me to dig deeper in the whole seismic events subject.

[edit on 3/12/07 by LaBTop]

Typo - ok, ha ha, I have those problems too.

So explain why you're multiplying the 7 collapse record by 10 again?

When I read the graphs, 1 and 2 moved the needle - max deflection - around 200. The scale is given right there how far it moves.

7 gives a max deflection of 22 or so. 22

Damocles, you wrote :
""i stand by my previous calculations as to what it takes to sever the core columns, and i have to disagree with you but i just dont see it.""

You base your calculations on this assumption, as far as I see it :

When we need XXXXX pounds of ANFO to cause an earth quake of 1-2 on the Richter scale at a quarry, then we need as much ANFO, recalculated to TNT or other HE brands, to cause the same earth quake at the WTC towers.
Because we see a certain earthquake strength, then there must have been used a comparable amount of HE which I, Damocles, just calculated, to severe the WTC columns.

But you can't compare these events.
One is inside solid rock, the other is -probably- outside, relatively (to solid rock) thin columns and beams.
You need far less explosive power for the last one.
And we are assuming by now, after years of research, that the job was done over a period of time between impact and collapse.
There are strong indications that the first blow was dealt to the understructure in the basements.
Then some core columns were severed at the mechanical floors, and when it became clear from heli-reports that the first tower was tilting, but the fires were smothering, the final blow was dealt to the mechanical floor under the point of impact.
Then within seconds, the rest of the column packets were blown at the remaining mechanical floors, in concert with the descending debris front.

And do not forget, if we have been confronted with a military style deception, we can't take for granted any source of info, which has gone first through the hands of the military, FBI, FAA, NSA, White House, NIST, LDEO and any other government institution, controlled or pressed by the formerly mentioned institutions. Because all of them will handle the case as if they were under National Security laws.

Then it has become a game of revolving story shells, where you can only try to address glaring discrepancies in officially pushed stories, until an army of experts on their side comes up again with new counter arguments to sew doubt under the readers of your thoughts.
There are however some stories they can't bent anymore, I believe the seismic story is one of them.

It all comes down to the question if Americans are satisfied with the status quo at the moment, at whatever costs; calculated in human costs or economic costs.
Do you stand behind rulers who keep using utterly cruel deeds to provide you with a seemingly "better" life than the rest of the world's population?
----------------------

Apropos, there is another glaring discrepancy story resurfaced at Shanksville, found by a member of the CIT team, Domenick DiMaggio
(please address it in a new thread if you want to discuss this, I just want to note here, one of the latests cracks in the official story) :

This uncut interview footage with Shanksville Eyewitness Susan McElwain debunks the Official Story and exposes The History Channel's heavy editing of her eyewitness account.
She definitely saw an all plastic, white ultralight plane with a wingspan of a few meter dip over a few trees in front of her, and then disappear, followed by the explosion at the crater site at Shanksville, where she was very near to.
And not what the media after 911 printed what she supposedly saw. They lied knowingly and willingly, to cover up her very strong story about a deception, so deep, it is becoming chilling to the bones.
See her very emotional interview :

YouTube - 9/11 Shanksville Eyewitness Susan McElwain
www.youtube.com...



z3.invisionfree.com... :

This was the kind of white all-plastic ultralight she described :

reply to post by Haroki


Please, have the civility of reading my total postings in that link first, reread it several times, and then come back to shout your childish "debunked!" again, if you dare.

My only advice:
Look at your own use of the word MAX, real intense, look at the graphs, and read my work, until you understand that I do not talk at all about the maximum magnitudes.

PROTEC is a demolition company who monitors construction and
demolition sites to insure they comply with envirnomental regulations.
Several of their members were at WTC later in the day and watched WTC7
come down. Also their sesmic instruments did not record any signals
corresponding to explosives.

(Excerpts) "Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

"Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale 'spike' or vibratory anomaly was recorded by any monitoring instrument."

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...

reply to post by LaBTop


wow, lol somewhere in here theres a disconnect in communication and i think im responsible. so, ill attempt to be more articulate, if i fail, ill try again tomorrow when i feel better. but to be clear, this dissertation like post (and it will be, i apologize now) is simply to try to clear up my lack of articulation and to see if i can make it clear just what the hell im trying to say.

when i said i stand by my calculations to sever the core. i was referring back to the debate i had on this topic in which i calculated 172lbs/floor for all 47 columns. now the problem is that when i made the statement in THIS thread, i didnt specify WHICH calculations i was standing by.

in honesty i stand by the ones in this thread as well but those are not the ones to which i was referring with that quote.

my apologies to all for this oversight.

so to clarify further, if i can lol:

the 80,000lbs causing a 1-2magnitude quake was NOT my assertation but that of the guy i quoted in the OP. what i did was take that 80k number and convert to tnt and c4 becuase 80k would be the capacity of a standard semi trailer and i dont think anyone is giong to argue that they drove a semi trailer into the parking garages of the WTC towers and set them off.

further more, i calculated that the C4 equivilant to 80,000lbs of anfo would be 25,075lbs of ordinance. or, 12.5tons. and i did this more as a matter of practicallity. its a lot more plausible that they moved in 12tons of ordinance than that they rolled in 40tons of ordinance. its just a smaller (relativly speaking) package.

but, can we agree on those numbers so far?

OK, so, the contention with most CT's (using ct's in a general sense as a way to identify them vs OCTs and mean it in no way to be demeaning or offensive) is that the seizmic data clearly shows an explosive going off at the moment of initiation of the collapse.

the collapse registered as just over 2 for each of the collapses.

to generate a shockwave of that magnitude there would have had to have been a blast equivilant to 12.5 tons of C4 going off if it was not in fact caused by the collapse itself.

the planes are claimed to have registered as just under 1 which, following with basic math means around 6.25 tons (im just shotgunning that as i dont know if shockwaves would increase or decrease in direct proportion or exponentially so this part is just speculative)

now, MY contention based on actual seizmic data, NOT considering the time discrepencies, but just basing off the shockwaves is that there is no way possible that the seizmic shockwaves were generatec by any type of explosive device conventional or otherwise.

im going to do something uncharacteristic for me and im going to say something absolute. AND if someone is willing to pay to rebuild even the parking structure and the first few floors of the wtc out in the desert and test this theory, if im wrong, ill cut off my left pinky finger and present it to them. (though id appreciate it if they gave it back so i could get it reattatched lol) so what im going to say is this: there is no way that 6.25-12.5 tons of c4 (or equivilant) went off in the basement of the wtc towers on 911-01. because im betting my pinky finger on this, if that size bomb HAD gone off? there is not one single person anywhere in manhattan that would doubt it was anything BUT a bomb. off the top of my head i think taht the okc bomb was around 4 tons of anfo which is just a smidge over 1.25 tons of C4 equivilant

ive said many times that with the 172lbs i calculated it would take to cut the core columns its unlikely it would have been able to remain covert, but, i cant say that one with enough certainty to bet parts of my anatomy on it. while i find it unlikly, professionalism demands that i concede i could be wrong about that.

but any bombs big enough to create the seizmic shocks witnessed in the data would have been, if you dont mind me saying, pretty bleedin obvious.

Now, labtop...YOUR take on the seizmic data is somewhat different than the average CT'r. it is much more educated and articulate. (even though im too fried to really follow all of it...it is still a very impressive body of work) to be honest, im not sure where your theory of explosives ties in with the seizmic data, but i do plan to go over everything again tomorrow with a clearer head i hope. though, honestly, if you'd care to explain it again in detail for me, this time using small words in deference to my current mental situation (if there were 11 commandments the 11th woudl be " tj shalt not post on ats while on pain meds") i would appreciate the opportunity to continue this discussion.

so, as it stands, i pretty much think i still disagree with you about the causes of the seizmic data, becuase i dont think its any secret ive yet to see any evidence of HE in the wtc's that is compelling enough to overcome my personal objections to such theories.

i just ask that you labtop keep one thing in mind. just becuase i dont think the wtc's were a CD doesnt mean i buy the govts story 100% either.


[off topic]
lastly, as to the shanksville bit, i admire CIT's determination but ive yet to see any of their evidence that supports their theories, but thats just me. the exception to that is that i find it totally within reason that UA93 could have been shot down and that the story about the passengers fighting back was a spin the govt put out cuz lets face it, it is a very good story if its true. and if its false it is much more compelling and inspiring to the rest of us than telling us of a shootdown. this way they die hero's and the fighter pilot doesnt have to live with the GP knowing he had to pull the trigger on an airliner.

but thats just me
[/topic]

hmm...just for fun should i piss people in the no plane at the pentagon crowd by doing a bomb damage assessment and point out the flaws in the missile theories based on observed damage? lol maybe not tonight

reply to post by thedman


thanks for the exerpt.

personally im trying to avoid as much web based content as i can for references here. im trying to present my own interpretations of the event based on my experience. i post calculations and show my math so that anyone who doesnt believe i know what i say i do can do their own research and do the math and come up with the same numbers on their own.

the exception to this initially was an alternative theory website cuz then no one can claim i used an oct biased site. now im slowly learning and referring to labtops work becuase despite haroki's opinion of it, i find it to be a very comprehensive and solid research resource.

besides, ive myself given reasons why i take eyewitness testimony with a grain of salt, though these guys wouldnt be exactly laymen. i havnt read fuly through the lnk yet but did they by anychance publish their seizmograph data? that would be something nice to have for comparison

Thedman,
as usual we are running in the same old circles again, this is a lame feature of ATS, there is a wealth of info and knowledge hidden in past posts, but it's damn near impossible to dig it up pronto.
I'll ask it for the umptiests time:
Please provide me with copies of ANY of those seismic hand helds from PROTEC.
Because I know that the guy, who wrote that piece of disinfo, when confronted with the same question, suddenly had not one copy saved anywhere in his premises.
Isn't that a tidbit strange?
The most impressive historic event in his short lifetime, and he can't produce a single graph?
Who is he trying to fool anyway with those unsubstantiated press releases.
After that, he disappeared btw from the 911 scene.