New Study of Seismic Data Reveals Explosives Were Used at WTC on 9/11

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Oh, and I love the way you think that because I used the word "dick" a vast, risible, ludicrous fantasy must therefore be true.

You said it not me!

And I never said you present evidence, I said you find something to support your view.

Big difference.

Have a great day!

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Voila!!

www.bastison.net...

The above is a link to Quirant's paper in .pdf format. It was on a website where other studies, opinions, arguments, etc., emanating from him regarding the collapse of the WTC on 9/11 are found.

This page should be translatable with Google translator for those who can't resist a good argument.

www.bastison.net...

Just to clue people in a little, who might not have heard of this guy. From what I have been able to gather at a very cursory glance at webinfo en français he is a legit civil engineer, he subscribes to a version of the "pancake theory", and (very heartening to truthers in America and elsewhere), our French counterparts are going at his arguments hammer and tongs on some very well produced web pages.

He is regarded as a guy with a "tude", someone who likes to throw a little pepper on his statements and, otherwise as a typical "how to lie with science" debunker.

Personally, I think 9/11 was an inside job. I think there is a huge amount of evidence that the WTC was destroyed by some sort of controlled demolition. (I think that scientists who argue otherwise are either dishonest or are blockheads, basically.) Trying to nail it down with some sort of scientific paper in which the famous Holy Grail, THE MATH, is produced is not going to make a damn bit of difference to anything.

But . . . . I will take valuable time out of my life to look at Quirant's paper, even though it would better be left to a technical expert. I can still detect BS in a technical paper sometimes.

Food for thought:

9/11 is like Rubik's cube. There are people out there who can solve it in less than thirty seconds twenty times a day and other people who can jumble it up again in four or five seconds as many times as they have to.


[edit on 13-6-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by theability

You said it not me!

And I never said you present evidence, I said you find something to support your view.

Big difference.

Have a great day!

There's a big difference between evidence and something that supports a given viewpoint?

What is it?

reply to post by ipsedixit


Well found, sorry I couldn't get it for you last night.

Quirant is certainly unpopular with French Truthers, and he is often impatient (whether that's typically French or not I'll leave up to the reader...). However, let's try not to discredit him before you read him.

Also, as a small adjunct: I enjoyed your quote above. It seemed to me broadly descriptive of some of the TM's tactics. Bullsh1t is a lot harder to dispel than create.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Dr. Rousseau concludes, as I have all along, that any vibration from the plane impacts would have dissipated long before traveling a quarter-mile down to the ground.

Too bad for truthers that he has zero support for this, other than his assertion.

But I guess that's good enough, right?

What a sad lot truthers are. Absolutely trusting of what your told when it's what you want to hear......

Please advise me as what I should be absolutely trusting of, since you didn't really offer any alternatives in your attack on a general population of people.

I would've been more impressed and inclined to listen to your opinion on the matter of the seismic data, had there been one.

BoneZ, great post.

Originally posted by Big Trouble in Little Chi

Please advise me as what I should be absolutely trusting of

Nothing.

since you didn't really offer any alternatives

Yep. I pointed out that he gives zero support for his statement that the impacts wouldn't register. Do you agree or not?

in your attack on a general population of people.

Only that they're a sad group for not seeing what I saw.

I would've been more impressed and inclined to listen to your opinion on the matter of the seismic data, had there been one.

That I respect his opinions in his area of expertise, and that he may have a valid question about propagation speeds/timing?

Ok, ignore that then.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

I have read part of Quirant's paper criticizing the work of Andre Rosseau, the seismologist who links the seismic readings from 9/11 to explosive detonations rather than falling debris. Both of these guys are Phd's in their respective disciplines, so it is not going to be easy dissecting their arguments. In fact I have decided to defer responding to Quirant's paper until I have had a chance to go over Rosseau's paper (also in French) too.

With one exception. I think Quirant has made a big mistake in one of his appendices to the paper. In the section called Post Scriptum 2, he refers to the work of a student who has compared the seismic wave spectrums of ten avalanches (real world avalanches for which there are seismic records) with the seismic wave spectrums of the two large WTC towers.

Quirant relays the findings of this student, which are that the spectrums of the collapses of the towers are uncannily like the spectrums of the ten avalanches (which themselves are strikingly similar).

I think this is a fatal error because the mechanics of an avalanche, as explained in Quirant's paper are different from the mechanics of the collapses of the two towers. The fact that the wave spectrums of the two types of incidents are so similar raises a red flag for me.

Quirant sees it as confimation of a simple building collapse on the analogy of a mountain avalanche. But to me, a simple building collapse, at least in the case of the twin towers should be much different from a simple avalanche and therefore it's seismic spectrum should be different, not the same or highly similar.

In the classic avalanche, according to Quirant and his student correspondent, a section of a mountain will (1) break off, (2) free fall to an impact point (3) tumble down the mountain and finally (4) accumulate in a deposit at some lower level.

Applying this paradigm to the WTC (which Quirant does not do) we have:

(1) structural failure of the tower at the aircraft impact point.

(2) the first collapse to the floor below the impact point.

(3) the ensuing cascading collapses.

(4) the accumulation of the debris at the end of step 3.

The simple fact is that the failure of each floor in the building (in a classical pancake collapse) is analogous to a repetition of steps 1 and 2 over and over again until step 4. There is no step 3, or tumbling of loose debris in the tower collapses, if they are considered to be simple pancake collapses.

Therefore, the seismic profile should not be the same as in the typical avalanche.

And very importantly, if it is similar to an avalanche, another explanation must be determined for this.

Suppose the towers did not simply collapse but were brought down with explosives. Suppose the detonation of shaped charges, dissipating their forces laterally was not detected by seismographs but was lost in the seismic clutter of falling debris.

Then, having the supports of the building cut by explosives that left no discernable seismic signature, the seismic signature that was recorded did in fact give an appearance of a typical avalanche because, what was happening to the cut and tumbling steel beams is analogous to the missing step 3 of the typical avalanche, i.e., the tumbling down a slope of loose debris.

To my mind the similarity of the seismic profiles of the WTC tower collapses to those of an avalanche, suggests that explosives/shaped charges are a necessary component to any explanation of the collapses.

I think this is fairly cogent reasoning and I'm neither a civil engineer nor a seismologist.


[edit on 15-6-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Dr. Rousseau concludes, as I have all along, that any vibration from the plane impacts would have dissipated long before traveling a quarter-mile down to the ground.

Too bad for truthers that he has zero support for this, other than his assertion.

But I guess that's good enough, right?

What a sad lot truthers are. Absolutely trusting of what your told when it's what you want to hear......

This guy, MikeLee (something), and a few others can be found here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am noticing a trend for them as being disinfo/misinfo types.