Seismology

[Hornit]

Someone want to please tell me whats wrong with this.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm

I thought there was no woo concerning the seismological data and the building collapses. Is there a link to a thread here debunking said woo?

Thanks, too many topics to keep track of and I'm learning as fast as I can.

[TriskettheKid]

Well, your first clue should be that it's written by Cristopher Bollyn.

This link might prove helpful:

http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_events_at_the_wtc.html

[CurtC]

Hornit, that web link doesn't work for me.

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, your first clue should be that it's written by Cristopher Bollyn.

This link might prove helpful:

http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_events_at_the_wtc.html

Well, specifically this sub-link:

http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_record.html

That directly discusses they Bollyn article.

ETA: "Discusses..." pah. I should've said "refutes". It pretty much directly shows how Bollyn is wrong.

[Hornit]

Thanks as usual...

EXCELLENT!!!! You guys make this too easy, Im very familiar with 9/11 myths but did not see this stuff there.

[Swing Dangler]

Hornitt you may want to examine this paper before relying solely on Bollyn and and 9/11 filled with myths website.

The paper in discussion can be read here (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf).
as it examines the contradictions in time by the various agencies.

[ElMondoHummus]

And while you're at it, to put the Journal of 911 Studies paper into perspective, read Gravy's links regarding Willie Rodriguez's claims.

http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

Read also Gravy's site "Descriptions of Jet Fuel Dispersion in the Towers (http://911stories.googlepages.com/descriptionsofjetfueldispersioninthetowe)". As well as the forum threads on the topic of basement explosions, such as this one: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=92099

Also, in previous threads, discussions of the "merits" (yes, scare quotes) of the JO911S paper. Here's one from engineer rwguinn:

Ok, I've read it. It's garbage. Neither individual is qualified to read seismic data, and the assertion is simply that-an assertion. Nary a single equation to back it up, and they obviously have no knowledge of seismic data acquisition. Unlike myself, they are unwilling to admit that fact.
I do know, from growing up in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico, and working oilfields as summer jobs, plus having a number of relatives who were "doodlebuggers" that a large weight (on the order of a ton) bounced off the ground will send a wave through several thousand feet of rock and can be picked up by a seismograph recorder several miles away.
They used to use a 1/2 stick of dynamite dropped down a hole to do this, now they drive a truck with a "Thumper" on it around, shaking the ground.
If THAT can be picked up, an impact to the tower certainly can.
The energy of the collision was indeed absorbed (mostly--there's a large amount of escaped debris evident in the photos), but to absorb the energy, it must move that motion will be absorbed by the foundation as a sine function--with the peak occurriung 1/2 wavelength of the fundamental mode of the structure after the strike.

... and another comment from defaultdotxbe:


Well, propagation times are relevant, in that LDEO needs to take them into account when giving their time reading. The waves take x time to get to the station. But they are expert in that, and the time readings are theirs, not Ross and Furlong's.


but due to the amount of variables invoved there is always a margin of error, times are given as HH:MM:SS +/- x seconds, since the discrepencies appear to each be under 5 seconds, and no seismologists have reported anything odd about the times wi would assume they fall into this margin or error

And lastly, R. Mackey's astute summary:

Here's a serious comment. TruthSeeker1234, read and learn.

From the whitepaper you've linked above, pp.1-2:


And both seismic events were 12 and 6 seconds duration, respectively. It is therefore reasonable to expect errors of perhaps 3 seconds. Nonetheless, we see a timing discrepancy between the two sources of 14 seconds for the north tower, 17 seconds for the south tower.

The similarity of these discrepancies suggests perhaps it's a simple calibration error in somebody's clock. If so, we should see this type of discrepancy in every measurement. So how about if we look at the collapse times, shall we? This isn't discussed in the whitepaper, for some reason. The 9-11 Commission Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm), in Chapter 9, lists the collapse times as 9:58:59 for the south tower, and 10:28:25 AM for the north tower.

From the whitepaper, these events showed up on the seismograph as 9:59:04 and 10:28:31 (from the imported table on pg. 2). The timing discrepancies are now -5 seconds for the south tower, and -6 seconds for the north tower.

Well, that's not close to 14 and 17 seconds, right?

Ah. We've forgotten something. That's the collapse time itself.

The aircraft impacts -- assuming that's what these 0.9 MR readings are, and that's quite faint -- would be transmitted through the intact structures to the ground as a compression wave in steel, which travels at roughly 5100 meters per second. That's a fraction of a second.

By contrast, the building collapses, which show as vastly stronger 2.1 and 2.3 MR events -- strong enough to obscure weaker signals, and also possibly transmitted faster through the ground -- will peak when the bulk of material hits the ground. The compromised structure doesn't transmit a strong signal as the collapse progresses, you don't see a big spike until that upper block hits something extremely solid.*

So that's why the discrepancy. Let's call it 15 seconds.

Add up the discrepancies and compare:

South Tower
Aircraft Impact: 9-11 Commission is 17 seconds later than seismograph
Collapse: 9-11 commission is -5 + 15 = 10 seconds later than seismograph

North Tower
Aircraft Impact: 9-11 Commission is 14 seconds later than seismograph
Collapse: 9-11 commission is -6 + 15 = 9 seconds later than seismograph

It appears that every measurement on the seismograph doesn't line up with the 9-11 Commission time. NOT just the ones they're talking about.

Why did Ross and Furlong neglect to mention this? What are they trying to hide? Why include the collapse times on the seismograph, and not the collapse times from the 9-11 Commission Report? Is it because it casts doubt on the presumed accuracy of their measurements?

Now that we've added some detail to this calculation, I hypothesize that the seismograph clock is offset from the 9-11 Commission's clock by approximately 12 seconds. Yes, there are still discrepancies of a few seconds, but remember there's uncertainty in all of this as well. We're now within two sigma. This is surely not enough -- not with only four measurements -- to cry foul play.

All of this assumes that everything else presented in the paper is the unvarnished truth. I note that they didn't bother to show us the traces themselves. Those things are not that easy to interpret, particularly when considering such weak seismic events. (I live in California, I have some first-hand experience with earthquakes.)

Furthermore, even if there were a couple of 0.9 MR shocks uncorrelated to the aircraft impacts, so what? What mechanism explains this devious turn of events?

From the whitepaper's introduction:



It seems unlikely that Middle Eastern terrorists could have overcome the WTC security and managed this kind of high-level, technological coordination.




It also seems unlikely that anyone in the world could have coordinated such a thing, namely bombs synchronized with airliner impacts. Bombs, I might add, that served no obvious purpose whatsoever.

File this one under "debunked." And in the future, only bring me papers that have been competently reviewed.

*: Don't believe me? If you transmit a large shock, that means the falling mass suffers an equal and opposite impulse. Watch the collapse tape and show me that upper block getting jerked to a halt. Doesn't happen, huh? That's why you don't see a strong seismic event until it hits ground.

In short, the Furlong & Ross paper has severe flaws, pointed out in the links and excerpts above. You can click on the arrow links next to the "Originally posted by" cites to go to the threads those are pulled from. Once there, you can garner the context of the full discussions.

[ktesibios]

There's also this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63740) about Furlong and Ross, in which it is demonstrated that their claims are based on a mistake in graph-reading of such magnificent dumbnitude that it would have gotten me flunked right out of Mr. Smolsky's 7th grade math class.

While reading it one might also note how Furlong ("quicknthedead") presents no defense of their claims, preferring instead to repeat the assertions, fling a few insults and run away.

[DC]

conclusion from that topic:

Don't like the message? Shoot the messenger!

[LashL]

Actually, didn't it turn out that Ross and Furlong simply didn't know how to read the graphs, thus rendering the entire thing not only utterly wrong but embarrassing?

Why, yes. Yes, it did.

And didn't Arkan Wolfshade and ktesibios provide evidence of this?

Why, yes. Yes, they did.

Referring to Flight 11 [bolding mine]
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf)

The 9/11 Commission report, section 1, footnote 39 indicates that they are referencing the above document when they cite 8:46:40 as the time of impact in their report.

Last aircraft to ground communication was a 8:33:59 EDT (12:33:59 PM GMT). http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc05.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc05.pdf)

Seismographic readings from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University show impact time of 08:46:26.0 EDT + 16.95 seconds => 8:46:42.95 EDT http://www.popularmechanics.com/cont...u/lcsn%3C/a%3E (http://www.popularmechanics.com/content/imageview.cfm?img=http%3A//media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-graph2-lg.jpg&caption=Seismograph%20readings%20by%20Lamont-Doherty%20Earth%20Observatory%20of%20Columbia%20Un iversity/Won-Young%20Kim%20%28senior%20research%20scientist%29/Arthur%20Lerner-Lam%20%28associate%20director%29/Mary%20Tobin%20%28senior%20science%20writer%29/%3Ca%20href%3D%22http%3A//www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn%22%20target%3D%22_new%22%3Ewww.ldeo.columbia. edu/lcsn%3C/a%3E)

As ktesibios showed in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1961046#post1961046), the margin of error for the radar sweep was 8:46:31 +/- 4.8 seconds. This is consistent with the Commission's approximated time and LDEO's recorded seismic event.

Now, what is the issue?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1962470&postcount=393


Once again, nice work, and thank you.

Looking at your plots for the seismographic traces -- do you mean that all this time, Ross and Furlong were looking at the time tag at the start of the sample... and not the time tag at the start of the event? Is that where the offset comes from?

If this is so, this is even more pathetic than I imagined possible.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1962535&postcount=394


Yep, horizontal axis runs from 0-40 seconds with a start time of 08:46:26.0 EDT and the reading marked at +16.95 seconds on the graph.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1962586&postcount=395



ETA: Oops, I see that ktesibios beat me to it :)

[beachnut]

Hornitt you may want to examine this paper before relying solely on Bollyn and and 9/11 filled with myths website.

The paper in discussion can be read here (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf).
as it examines the contradictions in time by the various agencies.
lol, a paper by truthers for truthers who can not form rational conclusions, a good example, great post SD.

If you have any knowledge, rational thought, and logic, you will know that paper is a failure, and you can figure it out real quick if you understand how to read. Funny paper, thanks for posting it, I need a laugh this morning. Good job

[ElMondoHummus]

conclusion from that topic:

Don't like the message? Shoot the messenger!

In all due respect, sir, the information provided for the rebuttal deals not with the messengers, but with the claims they make.

[DC]

links to bollyn --> atack bollyin
links to Journal of 9/11 Studies --> atack Journal of 9/11 Studies

kind regards
:)

[Slayhamlet]

To address the OP directly, Popular Mechanics debunked this very article long ago. link (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5)

As it turns out Christopher Bollyn doesn't have a clue about how to read a seismograph. And, as LashL and ktesibios pointed out, Furlong and Ross (in the paper linked to by the perpetually benighted SwingDangler) also don't have a clue about how to analyze seismic data. Surprise!

[ElMondoHummus]

links to bollyn --> atack bollyin
links to Journal of 9/11 Studies --> atack Journal of 9/11 Studies

kind regards
:)

Links to Bollyn --> Discuss flaws in the material Bollyn presents
Links to Journal of 9/11 Studies --> Discuss flaws in the material Journal of 9/11 Studies presents.

And kind regards to you too sir.
:)

[Slayhamlet]

links to bollyn --> atack bollyin
links to Journal of 9/11 Studies --> atack Journal of 9/11 Studies

kind regards
:)

People who profess such disgusting opinions as Chris Bollyn has deserve to be attacked. Fraudulent journals which get nearly everything wrong deserve to be attacked.

Can you tell us which conclusions of either of these articles stand up to scrutiny?

[R.Mackey]

Pointing out verifiable flaws in written works is not "shooting the messenger." The message is wrong, end of story.

I wrote a more succinct overview of the Ross / Furlong whitepaper in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2506914). Anyone who can read a graph can follow along and recreate their mistake -- even getting the same numbers -- in seconds.

I don't believe I'm exaggerating when I say that Swing Dangler has chosen to hide behind the stupidest, most embarrassing, and most thoroughly debunked bit of nonsense ever to come from the entire Truth Movement. They're not even trying anymore.

[ElMondoHummus]

That's right. Hornit, I'd compare what we've presented here, especially Mackey's critique, with the info at the Journal of 911 Studies.

And DC, sir, I respectfully suggest you read what Mackey has written. He explains clearly the mistake Furlong and Ross made in their paper. As pointed out above, that is hardly shooting the messenger. On the contrary, it's dealing with the substance of their work.

[WildCat]

And DC, sir, I respectfully suggest you read what Mackey has written. He explains clearly the mistake Furlong and Ross made in their paper. As pointed out above, that is hardly shooting the messenger. On the contrary, it's dealing with the substance of their work.
Strawman!

/truther

[ElMondoHummus]

Strawman!

/truther

:p

[Swing Dangler]

I wrote a more succinct overview of the Ross / Furlong whitepaper in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2506914). Anyone who can read a graph can follow along and recreate their mistake -- even getting the same numbers -- in seconds.
Read a graph? I read their paper, there is no graph. There is a table, the same one that can be found at the LDEO website. Are you suggesting the LDEO data is wrong? On the other hand, I never would have suspected that waves from a plane impact would have a greater duration than the actual collapse.


I don't believe I'm exaggerating when I say that Swing Dangler has chosen to hide behind the stupidest, most embarrassing, and most thoroughly debunked bit of nonsense ever to come from the entire Truth Movement. They're not even trying anymore.

Hiding behind? That paper is neither theory nor hypothesis, but a statement of
publicized facts regarding the timing of the aircraft impacts.

Your long quote reposted below you:
1. Focus on the 9/11 Commission time and avoid the discrepancies by LDEO, NIST, FEMA, FAA, NTSB, and TV, as well as the Commission. The authors didn't avoid that at all as you claim. You of course avoid and in no way include the other various times presented. Good work or should I say dodge.

2. You then based the difference on "error" or a bad clock.:newlol
Again with absolutely no factual data to support the statement. Try using the numbers presented by the Federal Agencies instead of your own illogical examination of their varying numbers. That is just turrible. There is no question regarding the precision and accuracy of the instruments used to record both data time sets, since their entire function depends and relies upon temporal accuracy, and therefore there can be no doubt that both data time sets are correct.The problem is the data sets have different impact times.

3. You bring up the actual collapse times and state that it isn't discussed in the paper. Well of course not! The paper was not about the time it took for the building to collapse but you allude to the fact that this discussion not found in the paper should have been. I do find it interesting that the duration of the impact signals was actually longer than the collapse signals according to LEDO's table. This is most interesting and most likely can be contributed to something else other than impact.

And the best statement of all...
It seems unlikely that Middle Eastern terrorists could have overcome the WTC security and managed this kind of high-level, technological coordination.
It also seems unlikely that anyone in the world could have coordinated such a thing, namely bombs synchronized with airliner impacts. Bombs, I might add, that served no obvious purpose whatsoever.

Can't manage that but they can manage to infiltrate the country and avoid the FBI, CIA, and the military, take years of planning, take over 4 airliners without issue, avoid the greatest air defense system in the world, and strike three out of the 4 targets. They can accomplish all of this but it seems unlikely anyone could plant some bombs in a building by overcoming security at the WTC. T

o quote the great Mr. Barkley, "That's just turrible!"

[CHF]

Swing,

the McPadden WTC7 countdown was bad enough. And now you buy into this crap as well? Good lord!

Next I suppose you're going to claim that several hijackers are still alive....

[R.Mackey]

For anyone who wants to play along:

Here's the graph: Click Me (http://www.popularmechanics.com/content/imageview.cfm?img=http%3A//media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-graph2-lg.jpg&caption=Seismograph%20readings%20by%20Lamont-Doherty%20Earth%20Observatory%20of%20Columbia%20Un iversity/Won-Young%20Kim%20%28senior%20research%20scientist%29/Arthur%20Lerner-Lam%20%28associate%20director%29/Mary%20Tobin%20%28senior%20science%20writer%29/%3Ca%20href%3D%22http%3A//www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn%22%20target%3D%22_new%22%3Ewww.ldeo.columbia. edu/lcsn%3C/a%3E)

Look at the top two traces.

See if you can figure out why the correct impact times are 8:46:43 in the top trace, rather than 8:46:26; and 9:03:10 rather than 9:02:54 in the second trace. Feel free to ask for help if you need it, from anyone you like.

Time yourself, and score against the following chart:

0-5 Seconds ..................... NWO Overlord
5-30 Seconds ................... JREF Stalwart
30-60 Seconds .................. Critical Thinker
1-10 Minutes ..................... Novice
10-60 Minutes ................... Distracted
1-24 Hours ........................ Go ask your parents for help
> 24 Hours ........................ Truther
> 1 Year ........................... Craig T. Furlong

Thanks for playing! :D

[ref]

For anyone who wants to play along:

Here's the graph: Click Me (http://http://www.popularmechanics.com/content/imageview.cfm?img=http%3A//media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-graph2-lg.jpg&caption=Seismograph%20readings%20by%20Lamont-Doherty%20Earth%20Observatory%20of%20Columbia%20Un iversity/Won-Young%20Kim%20%28senior%20research%20scientist%29/Arthur%20Lerner-Lam%20%28associate%20director%29/Mary%20Tobin%20%28senior%20science%20writer%29/%3Ca%20href%3D%22http%3A//www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn%22%20target%3D%22_new%22%3Ewww.ldeo.columbia. edu/lcsn%3C/a%3E)

Look at the top two traces.


Here (http://www.popularmechanics.com/content/imageview.cfm?img=http%3A//media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-graph2-lg.jpg&caption=Seismograph%20readings%20by%20Lamont-Doherty%20Earth%20Observatory%20of%20Columbia%20Un iversity/Won-Young%20Kim%20%28senior%20research%20scientist%29/Arthur%20Lerner-Lam%20%28associate%20director%29/Mary%20Tobin%20%28senior%20science%20writer%29/%3Ca%20href%3D%22http%3A//www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn%22%20target%3D%22_new%22%3Ewww.ldeo.columbia. edu/lcsn%3C/a%3E) is a working link ;)

[R.Mackey]

Only took you four minutes... but you did have a bum link to deal with, so I'll let it go. ;)

[Dave Rogers]

Four seconds. Does this mean I get a better office at NWO Central?

Dave

[gumboot]

What has always amazed me, and continues to amaze me, about 9/11 CT claims is not that they are always wrong, but that it is so easy to determine they are wrong.

[rwguinn]

Only took you four minutes... but you did have a bum link to deal with, so I'll let it go. ;)

It took me 15 seconds to get the actual number, but only about 20uS to know why--
But I already new the anser. I'd seed it afore..:D

[Mel Odious]

On the subject of seismology, I know absolutely nothing. On that subject, I am an idiot, a dweeb, a bonehead, a numbskull, an imbecile, a moron, an obtuse, empty-headed, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, shambling excuse for an uneducated ignoramus.

I figured out Mackey's graph in about three seconds. What do the truthers not understand about it?

[Jonnyclueless]

links to bollyn --> atack bollyin
links to Journal of 9/11 Studies --> atack Journal of 9/11 Studies

kind regards
:)


Criminals --> police attacking criminals.
Person jumping off cliff --> person falling to their death
Links to 419 scams --> attack 419 scamers
Links to rapists ---> attack rapists.

Life just isn't fair is it? Liars and con artists just can't get a break these days and everyone has to attack them.