A New Study of the Seismic Signals on September 11, 2001 in New York

Just saw this on 9/11 Blogger:
911blogger.com...

Seismic Signals Reveal Explosives Were Used at the WTC on 9/11, according to geophysicist André Rousseau (*) Doctor André Rousseau, former researcher in geophysics at CNRS and specialist in sound waves, presents us with the results of his analysis of the seismic signals recorded on September 11, 2001 in New York and gives his point of view as a specialist on the question of the destruction of the three towers at the World Trade Center.

about the scientist who did this....

(*) André Rousseau, Docteur d'État, is a retired researcher at CNRS where he studied the relations between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology. He published numerous peer-reviewed articles on geophysics and participated in numerous conferences, including selection committees. In this article he puts forward evidence that the seismic waves recorded on September 11, 2001 in New York are the result of subterranean and subaerial explosions that were part of the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC7.

I believe the evidence keeps mounting and that there is still a lot more to be uncovered. What are your thoughts?

[edit on 8-6-2010 by talisman]

reply to post by talisman


Dear talisman

I believe that they will be brought to justice in the end, it may take a few years yet but they will answer for the crimes.

However have you given a thought to what will happen then?? The power structure of the USA will be in tatters.

In fact it will change the nature of the world as we know it.

reply to post by MAC269


Maybe so, but it will certainly be a change for the better.

I really think he makes his case.

I'll refrain from specific quotes so to not allow the usual spurious arguments, but it's very clearly proved a demolition.

Originally posted by talisman

I believe the evidence keeps mounting and that there is still a lot more to be uncovered. What are your thoughts?

Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University

Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist
Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director
Mary Tobin, senior science writer

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."


There were two sets of seismographs. The staff at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University made it clear when they said
"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers". Time for a second opinion!

Brent blanchard Senior editor for implosionworld.com and director of field operations at protec documentation services

Protec employees:
earl garder
gary mcgeever
michael golden
john golden

"For over 30 years, Protec personnel have studied the effects of vibrations on structures as related to construction, demolition and blasting operations. From the world’s largest building implosions to the smallest road-reconstruction jobs, Protec has performed critical documentation and vibration monitoring services on thousands of domestic and international projects. "


Protec also had seismographs and they said this about them:

"Several seismographs were recording ground vibration"

"all data is consistent and appears to paint a clear picture"

"This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation pwerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitve enough to record the structural collapses"


Sources cited on:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My thoughts are that the mounting evidence suggests that experts disagree.

There is a good paper by Jerome Quirit, a PhD from Montpellier University, which disagrees with Rousseau's findings.

It is in French though.

So does your homey explain how subterranean explosions caused the towers to collapse 900' up?

Cuz that would take an awesome display of cognitive dissonance to try it......

When engineers from the top demolition firm in the world were asked they said that the wtc was demolition.

Larry Silverstien said he blew up building seven on natioal television
(pbs interview with Kevin Spacey).

Originally posted by Danbones
When engineers from the top demolition firm in the world were asked they said that the wtc was demolition.

Do you have a source for this?

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Danbones
When engineers from the top demolition firm in the world were asked they said that the wtc was demolition.

Do you have a source for this?

Won't you have an excuse anyway?

LDEO didn't explain how they were able to determine there were no signs of explosives in the seismic signals. If you ever take an engineering class you will learn that showing your work is the most important part of any analysis, as it allows your work to be reviewed by others so its accuracy can be checked and re-checked. Now we have another study that comes to a different conclusion. Since LDEO never showed their work, they offer nothing for any real scientific debate between these two theories.

To the degree that it is geophysically impossible to have two different propagation speeds for the same wave at the same frequency - because the surface waves are dispersive, which means that their speed depends upon their frequencies - travelling the same path at a few minutes interval, one must bow to the evidence that the supposed origins of the recorded waves are incorrect, and that they are not linked to the crashes but to another origin, such as an explosion, with a non-identical time displacement for the two towers in relation to the impacts of the two planes. As well, the difference in the magnitude of the two signals can only be linked to different parameters relative to the volume of explosives and/or their distance from the surface.

Ironically, mechanical engineer Gordon Ross had already concluded this and published the information online with Craig Furlong. They were able to compare plane impact times with the seismic signals associated with those impacts, and show enough of a time discrepancy to prove it was not the planes causing the seismic signals. Anyone still confused as to the source of these signals, if not the planes, should go and re-read testimonies to underground explosions and damages to the basement levels. FBI agents spoke with CNN reporters live on 9/11 and told them they had reason to believe a vehicle bomb or some other device had been detonated in the underground parking garage recreating the 1993 bombing, except coinciding also with plane impacts.

Originally posted by AquariusDescending

Originally posted by iamcpc

Originally posted by Danbones
When engineers from the top demolition firm in the world were asked they said that the wtc was demolition.

Do you have a source for this?

Won't you have an excuse anyway?

LDEO didn't explain how they were able to determine there were no signs of explosives in the seismic signals. If you ever take an engineering class you will learn that showing your work is the most important part of any analysis, as it allows your work to be reviewed by others so its accuracy can be checked and re-checked. Now we have another study that comes to a different conclusion. Since LDEO never showed their work, they offer nothing for any real scientific debate between these two theories.

To the degree that it is geophysically impossible to have two different propagation speeds for the same wave at the same frequency - because the surface waves are dispersive, which means that their speed depends upon their frequencies - travelling the same path at a few minutes interval, one must bow to the evidence that the supposed origins of the recorded waves are incorrect, and that they are not linked to the crashes but to another origin, such as an explosion, with a non-identical time displacement for the two towers in relation to the impacts of the two planes. As well, the difference in the magnitude of the two signals can only be linked to different parameters relative to the volume of explosives and/or their distance from the surface.

I will not have an excuse. It will just be more experts disagreeing with experts. That's why I ask that you cite your source. So I can be well informed about what the experts disagree with.

Originally posted by iamcpc
Protec also had seismographs and they said this about them:

"Several seismographs were recording ground vibration"

"all data is consistent and appears to paint a clear picture"

"This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation pwerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitve enough to record the structural collapses"


Sources cited on:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My thoughts are that the mounting evidence suggests that experts disagree.

I have bolded a portion of the quoted statement above which is a good example of a typical debunker tactic, that is, telling a scientifically valid sounding lie.

It sounds like science. It makes reference to the famous "laws of physics", but it ignores the variety of conditions that might cause one to deviate from such a dogmatic conclusion. It assumes that enough of the force of any detonation strong enough to sever a steel beam would be transmitted down the beam to the earth to activate a seismic detector. That is nonsense.

Demolition experts tell us that specially prepared "shaped charges" which include thermite/mate in their mixture, cut through steel like a hot knife through butter because they act chemically to reduce the melting point of steel. Most of the force of such a charge is going to be dissipated into the air behind the beam.

Dissipating forces of demolition is important to the demo industry because they don't want to damage other buildings, just as it is in auto racing where carbon fibre vehicles are ripped apart in crashes without transmitting the forces to the driver of the vehicle.

I can't believe that the person quoted is stupid enough to believe what he is saying. These kind of statements come up over and over again. I'm forced to conclude that a lot of the so-called scientific defenders of the Bush administration's version of 9/11 are liars.


[edit on 13-6-2010 by ipsedixit]