Rousseau's newly published study proves controlled demolitions

zorro99 · 3rd December 2012, 07:50 AM

Seismic Evidence Implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11

Yet Another Line of Evidence Shows Demolition

André Rousseau is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, a former researcher in the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), who has published 50 papers on the relationships between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology.

Dr. Rousseau is an expert on measurement of acoustic waves.

Rousseau says that the seismic waves measured on September 11th proves that the 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, in a new scientific article published by the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Rosseau writes:

The seismic signals propagating from New York on September 11, 2001, recorded at Palisades (34 km) and published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), have here been subjected to a new critical study concerning their sources. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official explanations which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

***

First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic sources of different magnitudes. We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies. According to the nature of the recorded waves (body and surface waves), we can propose a location of each explosive source. According to the presence of shear waves or the presence of Rayleigh waves only, we hypothesize a subterranean … explosion.

***

Near the times of the planes’ impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and (2) low frequencies are associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes’ impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another.
As we have shown, they were not.

***

We can only conclude that the wave sources were independently
detonated explosives ….

***

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/...on-on-911.html

Oystein · 3rd December 2012, 08:24 AM

Direct link to paper: http://www.journalof911studies.com/r...vember2012.pdf

Foolmewunz · 3rd December 2012, 08:35 AM

Is this the same guy who published a paper more than two years ago on the same subject? Are the trials of the guilty who the Truth Movement brought to justice as the result of that earth-shattering article over? The new investigation launched?

In short, what's different about this "seismic proof" from the previous "seismic proof"?

Animal · 3rd December 2012, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Direct link to paper: http://www.journalof911studies.com/r...vember2012.pdf

Reads like a typical troofer paper....the conclusion is set, and the "facts" get twisted to match the conclusion.

DGM · 3rd December 2012, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

In short, what's different about this "seismic proof" from the previous "seismic proof"?

The date.

I have to giggle everytime I read this line:

Quote:

.......in a new scientific article published by the Journal of 9/11 Studies,

Oystein · 3rd December 2012, 09:19 AM

There was a thread started on 5th June 2010 here, but it was debunked by post #3, derailed at post #4, and then never recovered. The article linked to in the OP is no longer available, but from the quote, it seemed Rousseau had argued from seismic records for subterranean explosions prior to plane impact.

ozeco41 · 3rd December 2012, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

There was a thread started on 5th June 2010 here, but it was debunked by post #3, derailed at post #4, and then never recovered. The article linked to in the OP is no longer available, but from the quote, it seemed Rousseau had argued from seismic records for subterranean explosions prior to plane impact.

And the collapses which actually occurred bore no relationship to any underground explosions whether or not such explosions did in fact occur.

So just another example of a "single issue anomaly" which does not fit into any real context.

No different to:
"We heard loud bangy noises THEREFORE CD THEREFORE Inside job";
"You cannot prove no thermxte on site THEREFORE there was thermxte THEREFORE it was used in demolition THEREFORE inside job...."
Or the R Gage nonsense of "I assert that it looked like CD even though it didn't THEREFORE it was CD THEREFORE inside job...."

And, AFAIK, those are level of the best arguments the truth movement had put forward.

Makes me wonder who is the most gullible:
"Them" for making silly claims; OR
"Us" for spending effort dealing with them.

Africanus · 3rd December 2012, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

There was a thread started on 5th June 2010 here, but it was debunked by post #3, derailed at post #4, and then never recovered. The article linked to in the OP is no longer available, but from the quote, it seemed Rousseau had argued from seismic records for subterranean explosions prior to plane impact.

The JONES-Article is nearly identical to your linked article, Oystein, there are only some cosmetical changes. The original article is still available in the internet archives (http://web.archive.org/web/201006080...01-in-New-York). For comparison I quote the conclusions of both articles:

Originally Posted by old article

Conclusion

At the moment of the impact by the planes on the Twin Towers and their collapse, as well as that of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are only created by brief impulses, and (2) that low frequencies are associated with an energy (magnitude) that is comparable to a seismic event, these waves undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes' impact and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude was insufficient to be recorded 34 km away, and they should have been similar.

However, the composition and magnitude of the seismic signals show significant differences, above all in their propagation speed, even though their paths were identical under identical conditions. This last difference being physically unexplainable in the official version, we must put into question the calculation of the speeds effectuated from the origin shown on the video images. We can only conclude that in reality, the (explosive) source was manually detonated, thus accounting for the variable shift for each origin in relation to the videos.

The composition of the waves is revealing both in terms of the location of the source and the magnitude of the energy transmitted to the ground. The subterranean origin of the waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S volume waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves, which are present in all five explosions. The placement of the source of the four other explosions is subaerial, attested by the unique presence of Rayleigh waves. The aerial explosions visible on the videos of the upper floors of the Twin Towers do not produce seismic waves 34 km from the source.

There is a factor of ten between the power of the explosions at the time of the impacts on the twin Towers (as well as at the time of the collapse of WTC7) and the strength of those more powerful ones at the time of their collapse, the subterranean explosion under WTC1 being the one that transmitted the most energy to the ground.

Note as well that the degree to which the surface waves disperse (their speed depends upon their frequency), the duration of the recorded signal is not representative of the duration of the signal at the source.

Finally, the controlled demolition of the three towers, suggested by the visual and audio testimony, as well as by observations of their collapse, is thus demonstrated by the analysis of the seismic waves emitted at the moments of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapse.

Originally Posted by JONES-Article

CONCLUSION

Near the times of the planes' impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and (2) low frequencies are associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes' impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could
have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another. As we have shown, they were not.

The types and magnitudes of the seismic signals show significant differences. The greatest differences occur in their propagation speeds, even though their paths were essentially identical under identical conditions. This difference is physically unexplained in the interpretation of the events offered by the LDEO researchers, the 9/11 Commission and NIST. Therefore, we must question their calculations of wave propagation speeds based on their assumption that the wave origins are shown on the video images of
impacts and collapses. We can only conclude that the wave sources were independently detonated explosives at other times, thus accounting for the variable discrepancies for each wave origin in relation to the videos.

The composition of the waves is revealing both in terms of the location of the source and the magnitude of the energy transmitted to the ground. The subterranean origin of the waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S body waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves. The placement of the source of the four other explosions is subaerial, attested by the unique presence of only Rayleigh waves.

The aerial explosions visible on the videos of the upper floors of the Twin Towers do not produce seismic waves 34 km from the source.

There is a factor of ten between the power of the explosions at the time of the plane impacts on the Twin Towers (as well as at the time of the collapse of WTC7) and the strength of those more powerful explosions at the times of their collapses, the subterranean explosion under WTC1 being the one that transmitted the most energy to the ground.

Note that in accordance with the degree of dispersion of the surface waves (i.e., their speeds depend upon their frequencies), the duration of the recorded signal is not representative of the duration of the signal at the source.

Finally, controlled demolition of the three towers, suggested by the visual and audio witness testimony as well as by observations of video recordings of their collapses, is thus confirmed and demonstrated by analysis of the seismic waves emitted near the time of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapses.

Same procedure as every year, James!

Spanx · 3rd December 2012, 10:25 AM

I'm obviously no expert in this but have question.

Would the sound waves sound different after each collapse due to one of the buildings not being there.

A bit like sticking your head in a box and shouting and standing in the middle of a field and shouting ?

ergo · 3rd December 2012, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Africanus

The JONES-Article is nearly identical to your linked article, Oystein, there are only some cosmetical changes. The original article is still available in the internet archives (http://web.archive.org/web/201006080...01-in-New-York). For comparison I quote the conclusions of both articles:

Yeah! OR... you could have just referred to this:

Originally Posted by very first line in linked Rousseau paper:

We would like to thank Tod Fletcher, who provided editorial assistance by revising an earlier version of this article.

phunk · 3rd December 2012, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by zorro99

First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic sources of different magnitudes.

Well, that's just wrong. The buldings were hit in different locations at different velocities, and the collapses started at different locations.

Spanx · 3rd December 2012, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by ergo

Yeah! OR... you could have just referred to this:

Thanks Ergo

I will remember to never believe a truther headline.

Oystein · 3rd December 2012, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by Africanus

The JONES-Article is nearly identical to your linked article, Oystein, there are only some cosmetical changes. The original article is still available in the internet archives (http://web.archive.org/web/201006080...01-in-New-York). For comparison I quote the conclusions of both articles:

A good! I ran my link through Archive.org and came up empty - hmmm - anyway, good you found it.

Truth Movement, moving at the speed of glaciers

Originally Posted by Africanus

Same procedure as every year, James!

Marvelous! An ENGLISH reference that only GERMAN members are ever going to get!

Toke · 3rd December 2012, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Marvelous! An ENGLISH reference that only GERMAN members are ever going to get!

Wrong, it runs every new year evening on Danish TV.

Ape of Good Hope · 3rd December 2012, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Marvelous! An ENGLISH reference that only GERMAN members are ever going to get!

I also get the reference

...but only because they showed a clip from it on QI.

beachnut · 3rd December 2012, 12:42 PM

Another idiot makes up more nonsense for those who can't, for those who refuse to think for themselves.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/r...vember2012.pdf

Quote:

What else but an explosion could be the origin for this seismic wave in the absence of an earthquake?

I suspect a gravity collapse of the biggest buildings in NYC, releasing the energy of over 130 TONS of TNT twice would create seismic waves.

Where do these idiots come from? How can someone be so stupid and fool so few?

Where can you post idiotic papers that can't be published in rational Journals? At Jones' journal for woo on 911.

At least you can use this paper as a litmus test for woo; web sites that use this paper, hold up this paper as proof of CD, are idiot web sites.

Africanus · 3rd December 2012, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Toke

Wrong, it runs every new year evening on Danish TV.

In Denmark, too? "Dinner for one" is a classic on german tv, being broadcasted every new year's eve in several 3rd programs.

cjnewson88 · 3rd December 2012, 03:20 PM

I printed it off. It's now with the jones paper in the latrine..

tsig · 3rd December 2012, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

Is this the same guy who published a paper more than two years ago on the same subject? Are the trials of the guilty who the Truth Movement brought to justice as the result of that earth-shattering article over? The new investigation launched?

In short, what's different about this "seismic proof" from the previous "seismic proof"?

This one is more down to earth.

Justin39640 · 3rd December 2012, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

This one is more down to earth.

I see what you did there

StankApe · 3rd December 2012, 05:52 PM

we need a CT, DERP!!! emoticon , it would save me some typing when I read things like this

LashL · 3rd December 2012, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

The date.

Indeed. Wasn't the 2010 version of this article itself a rewrite of an earlier article (perhaps circa ~2006) by a fellow who used to post here and who eventually came around to realizing that his own "paper" in JONES was garbage and resiled from the whole 'seismic evidence proves explosives' nonsense?

NoahFence · 3rd December 2012, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by StankApe

we need a CT, DERP!!! emoticon , it would save me some typing when I read things like this

That one works....

Axxman300 · 3rd December 2012, 08:59 PM

I'm studying geology in college now. Allow me to list the problems:

1. Lack of volume of background data (i.e. comparisons of known demolition of buildings over 80 stories in height with data from 80 story+ tall buildings brought down from jetliner impact.)

2. Lack of comparative data between the garden variety collapse of an 80+ story building, and it's twin within a similar time frame.

3. Report ignores the fact there were internal structural failures well before the collapse, especially of WTC7.

4. Seismic Data is great for telling you how powerful a disturbance is, but stinks for telling details of the cause. This is why geologists are always taking deep core samples along earthquake faults, and even then it's not always clear. The physical evidence showed no used of explosives of any kind.

It does give me hope that I can get into a PhD program since they seem to hand them to just about anybody.

StankApe · 3rd December 2012, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

That one works....

aha!!!! yes, yes it does!!!

Oystein · 3rd December 2012, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

Indeed. Wasn't the 2010 version of this article itself a rewrite of an earlier article (perhaps circa ~2006) by a fellow who used to post here and who eventually came around to realizing that his own "paper" in JONES was garbage and resiled from the whole 'seismic evidence proves explosives' nonsense?

I'd like to get an answer to this (but am too lazy to search now...)

Oystein · 3rd December 2012, 11:39 PM

If anyone feels this post is off topic and should be split off, feel free to report. I don't want to open a new topic, and simply redefine the topic here as "Newly published articles at the Journal of 9/11 Studies" (JoNES)

For there's another new article - a letter - at JoNES, as Blogger "Orangutan" (who, I believe, is also the author of "Washington's Blog" that is linked in the OP) announces at 911Blogger:

"The Pentagon Attack in Context: a Reply to John Wyndham." by Tod Fletcher and Timothy E. Eastman.

This letter ends with a section titled "Summary and Conclusion", even though the authors don't commit to any conclusions. An excerpt:

Originally Posted by Fletcher and Eastman

We join David Ray Griffin in the hope that future research on the deadly events at the Pentagon will build on the robust case already established against the official account of 9/11, all major dimensions of which have now been demonstrated to be clearly false. For agreement concerning the issue of “what hit the Pentagon” to be reached, deeper analysis of the whole range of evidence will be needed.

What they really seem to be saying is "we hope that future research will find a better theory than the official one, because we sure as hell can't".

After some of the usual shoulder-patting at the 911Blogger echo chamber, one poster there, gallenk (who I haven't noticed so far, no idea who that is) posted a detailed critique of the letter:

Originally Posted by gallenk

I found the Wyndham reply to be of little substance in arguing pro-flyover or pro-no-plane-attack. That may or may not have been the primary purpose.
...
From my examination:

In the 1st 8 pages, the author(s) offered no real arguments.

[several paragraphs with at least six specific contentions follow - snipped]
...
I did not find any new evidence or revelations to counter the argument that it is most likely that a large plane impact occurred at the Pentagon. No amount of pure speculation regarding massive problems with witness reliability, unconfirmed flight path anomalies, etc. can counter the highly one-sided witness testimony (many for an impact vs none for a flyover, despite a potential witness pool of hundreds of thousands for a flyover), physical debris evidence, flight path damage, even frames of a video, which although unclear, certainly argue more for a craft of some type and probably a large one, etc.

Countdown till that post gets voted down by the Twoofer community...

Redwood · 4th December 2012, 04:29 PM

He seems to be arguing that underground explosions can't be heard at the surface (demonstrably false), and that verinage-method demolitions produce no seismic waves (obviously false from the laws of physics, perhaps someone has access to data from actual cases).

DGM · 5th December 2012, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by LashL

Indeed. Wasn't the 2010 version of this article itself a rewrite of an earlier article (perhaps circa ~2006) by a fellow who used to post here and who eventually came around to realizing that his own "paper" in JONES was garbage and resiled from the whole 'seismic evidence proves explosives' nonsense?

Yes, (sort of). This is the paper:

Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)
by Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ongAndRoss.pdf

It had more to do with the timing of the seismic returns.

Quote:

SUMMARY
On September 11, 2001, the seismic stations grouped around New York City recorded seismic
events from the WTC site, two of which occurred immediately prior to the aircraft impacts upon the
Twin Towers. Because these seismic events preceded the collisions, it is clear they were not
associated with the impacts and must therefore be associated with some other occurrence. None of
the authorities charged with the responsibility for the investigation of the events of 9/11 have
proposed a source for these seismic events, nor have they given a valid reason for the difference in
times between the seismic events and the aircraft impacts. Only by consideration of the evidence of
basement explosions before the aircraft impacts, as experienced by William Rodriquez and 36
others, can an explanation be found for the fact that the seismic stations recorded seismic events
originating from the WTC sites prior to the aircraft impacts. It seems unlikely that Middle Eastern
terrorists could have overcome the WTC security and managed this kind of high-level, technological
coordination. Do the facts presented here, simple and few, raise the possibility of inside
involvement in 9/11/01, both before and after the attack?

IIRC the confusion turned out to be something really simple (and obvious).

ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63740 Read posts by quicknthedead

catsmate1 · 5th December 2012, 06:48 AM

Originally Posted by LashL

Indeed. Wasn't the 2010 version of this article itself a rewrite of an earlier article (perhaps circa ~2006) by a fellow who used to post here and who eventually came around to realizing that his own "paper" in JONES was garbage and resiled from the whole 'seismic evidence proves explosives' nonsense?

So it'd doubly recycled, previously disproven, nonsense that's been "published" in a vanity journal with peer review.
How many lies can you cram into one title?

George152 · 5th December 2012, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by phunk

Well, that's just wrong. The buldings were hit in different locations at different velocities, and the collapses started at different locations.

Physical evidence and kook claims are worlds apart.

R.Mackey · 5th December 2012, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

Yes, (sort of). This is the paper:

Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)
by Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross

http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ongAndRoss.pdf

It had more to do with the timing of the seismic returns.

IIRC the confusion turned out to be something really simple (and obvious).

ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63740 Read posts by quicknthedead

It was, but make sure you go to the end of the thread. The confusion wasn't the simple one we thought (I thought, at least) that it was at first, and it took a long time for the correct answer to surface.

That correct answer is that the 9/11 Commission Report timing of aircraft impacts is not accurate to the second. Impacts in those reports -- and only those reports, not in the later NIST study, for instance -- appear to have been based on the time of last RADAR contact with the aircraft, or extrapolation from RADAR of aircraft reaching zero altitude.

Problem is that the RADAR still can give an echo from aircraft debris, and that the impacts didn't occur at zero altitude, but more like 700 to 1000 feet up. The anomaly is resolved as soon as you realize the 9/11 Commission Report is off by about ten seconds due to this mistake. All other sources of impact time, including the seismic records, are consistent.

Oystein · 6th December 2012, 06:10 AM

Rousseau claims that the tower collapses could not have caused the measured local Magnitudes (M_L - 2.3 for WTC1, 2.1 for WTC2), but that "a few tons" of ammonium nitrate would do:

Originally Posted by Rousseau

The local magnitudes (ML) that the LDEO seismologists calculated from the surface waves ... were higher than 2 on the Richter scale for the waves emitted at the moments of the collapses. It is impossible to get such a magnitude from the falling of the building debris alone, especially falling over a duration of ten seconds.
...
...similar seismic waves are commonly recorded from mining operations, generated by subterranean blasts of ammonium nitrate, and a few tons are enough to develop a magnitude of 2 to 2.5 on Richter scale.

A few tons are enough? Hmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosebur...Roseburg_Blast

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

George Rutherford, had parked his explosives truck in front of the building, a fact which went unnoticed until shortly before the truck exploded at around 1:14 a.m., destroying buildings in an eight-block radius and severely damaging 30 more blocks. ... The truck was loaded with two tons of dynamite and four-and-a-half tons of the blasting agent nitro carbo nitrate.

Other notable AN explosions involving not too many tons are listed here:

Kansas City, MO, 1988: 23 tons cause two craters, each 30m wide and 2.4 meters deep (volume of cone: approx 2x550 m³)
Porgera Valley, Papua New Guinea, 1994: 80 tons create crater 40 meters wide, 15 meters deep (ca. 6000 m³)
Barracas, Spain, 2004: 25 tons create crater 5 meters deep
Mihailesti, Romania: 20 tons form crater 6.5 meters deep and 42 meters in diameter (3000 m³)
Monclova, Mexico, 2007: 22 tons form crater 9.1 m wide and 1.8 m deep (39 m³)

So it seems that ammonium nitrate is very prone to move many many tons of solid material. At least 1.8 cubic meters per ton of explosive, usually much more.

Some intentional large scale bombings:

Last year, Anders Breivik exploded 950 kg of ANFO in front of the Prime Minister's office in Oslo, destryoing windows ina radius of 1 km, killing eight people and injuring more than 200 more. Damage 300 meters away.
Timothy McVeigh's Ryder truck held ca. 2.300 kg of mixed explosives, much of it AN, when it destroyed the Murrah Building, damaged 323 more buildings in 16 blocks around, and created a 9.1 m wide and 2.4 m deep crater (52 m³).
When Ramzi Yousef detonated 606 kg of the chemically similar urea nitrate in the WTC basement in 1993, smoke rose up to the 93rd floor and led to many smoke inhalation injuries. The plast killed 6, and it is known that 15 people received traumatic injury.

Rousseau wants us to believe that not one bomb but five, all on the order of McVeigh stuff, at least 2 of them many times larger than Yousef's, were exploded under the WTC on 9/11, with many witnesses around - but they were not recorded on video (remember, Naudet was running his video camera when the South Tower started collapsing), didn't cause traumatic injuries, caused no crater that anyone noticed, did not bring any building down from the bottom up, didn't even break windows?

Why on earth would anybody ignite such blasts? Just to have something on seismic records???

Oystein · 6th December 2012, 08:04 AM

Can anybody discern from the Rousseau paper how he times these supposed subterranean/subaerial detonations relative to plane impact and onset of collapses? Either he omits that bit, or my scan-reading skills are sub-par today...

In particular, I would think that Jules Nauder would have captured an explosion under WTC2, as he was in the WTC 1 lobby at the time, rolling film, but I want to have a limit to the seconds where Rousseau'd detonation would be expected.

3rd December 2012, 07:50 AM	#1
zorro99 Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Africa Posts: 281	Rousseau's newly published study proves controlled demolitions Seismic Evidence Implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11 Yet Another Line of Evidence Shows Demolition André Rousseau is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, a former researcher in the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), who has published 50 papers on the relationships between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology. Dr. Rousseau is an expert on measurement of acoustic waves. Rousseau says that the seismic waves measured on September 11th proves that the 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, in a new scientific article published by the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Rosseau writes: The seismic signals propagating from New York on September 11, 2001, recorded at Palisades (34 km) and published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), have here been subjected to a new critical study concerning their sources. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official explanations which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. * First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic sources of different magnitudes. We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies. According to the nature of the recorded waves (body and surface waves), we can propose a location of each explosive source. According to the presence of shear waves or the presence of Rayleigh waves only, we hypothesize a subterranean … explosion. * Near the times of the planes’ impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and (2) low frequencies are associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes’ impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another. As we have shown, they were not. * We can only conclude that the wave sources were independently detonated explosives …. * http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/...on-on-911.html
	__________________ There is nothing as deceptive as an obvious fact.

3rd December 2012, 08:49 AM	#5
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,299	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz In short, what's different about this "seismic proof" from the previous "seismic proof"? The date. I have to giggle everytime I read this line: Quote: .......in a new scientific article published by the Journal of 9/11 Studies,
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

3rd December 2012, 10:01 AM	#8
Africanus Scholar Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Germany Posts: 76	Originally Posted by Oystein There was a thread started on 5th June 2010 here, but it was debunked by post #3, derailed at post #4, and then never recovered. The article linked to in the OP is no longer available, but from the quote, it seemed Rousseau had argued from seismic records for subterranean explosions prior to plane impact. The JONES-Article is nearly identical to your linked article, Oystein, there are only some cosmetical changes. The original article is still available in the internet archives (http://web.archive.org/web/201006080...01-in-New-York). For comparison I quote the conclusions of both articles: Originally Posted by old article Conclusion At the moment of the impact by the planes on the Twin Towers and their collapse, as well as that of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are only created by brief impulses, and (2) that low frequencies are associated with an energy (magnitude) that is comparable to a seismic event, these waves undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes' impact and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude was insufficient to be recorded 34 km away, and they should have been similar. However, the composition and magnitude of the seismic signals show significant differences, above all in their propagation speed, even though their paths were identical under identical conditions. This last difference being physically unexplainable in the official version, we must put into question the calculation of the speeds effectuated from the origin shown on the video images. We can only conclude that in reality, the (explosive) source was manually detonated, thus accounting for the variable shift for each origin in relation to the videos. The composition of the waves is revealing both in terms of the location of the source and the magnitude of the energy transmitted to the ground. The subterranean origin of the waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S volume waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves, which are present in all five explosions. The placement of the source of the four other explosions is subaerial, attested by the unique presence of Rayleigh waves. The aerial explosions visible on the videos of the upper floors of the Twin Towers do not produce seismic waves 34 km from the source. There is a factor of ten between the power of the explosions at the time of the impacts on the twin Towers (as well as at the time of the collapse of WTC7) and the strength of those more powerful ones at the time of their collapse, the subterranean explosion under WTC1 being the one that transmitted the most energy to the ground. Note as well that the degree to which the surface waves disperse (their speed depends upon their frequency), the duration of the recorded signal is not representative of the duration of the signal at the source. Finally, the controlled demolition of the three towers, suggested by the visual and audio testimony, as well as by observations of their collapse, is thus demonstrated by the analysis of the seismic waves emitted at the moments of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapse. Originally Posted by JONES-Article CONCLUSION Near the times of the planes' impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and (2) low frequencies are associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes' impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another. As we have shown, they were not. The types and magnitudes of the seismic signals show significant differences. The greatest differences occur in their propagation speeds, even though their paths were essentially identical under identical conditions. This difference is physically unexplained in the interpretation of the events offered by the LDEO researchers, the 9/11 Commission and NIST. Therefore, we must question their calculations of wave propagation speeds based on their assumption that the wave origins are shown on the video images of impacts and collapses. We can only conclude that the wave sources were independently detonated explosives at other times, thus accounting for the variable discrepancies for each wave origin in relation to the videos. The composition of the waves is revealing both in terms of the location of the source and the magnitude of the energy transmitted to the ground. The subterranean origin of the waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S body waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves. The placement of the source of the four other explosions is subaerial, attested by the unique presence of only Rayleigh waves. The aerial explosions visible on the videos of the upper floors of the Twin Towers do not produce seismic waves 34 km from the source. There is a factor of ten between the power of the explosions at the time of the plane impacts on the Twin Towers (as well as at the time of the collapse of WTC7) and the strength of those more powerful explosions at the times of their collapses, the subterranean explosion under WTC1 being the one that transmitted the most energy to the ground. Note that in accordance with the degree of dispersion of the surface waves (i.e., their speeds depend upon their frequencies), the duration of the recorded signal is not representative of the duration of the signal at the source. Finally, controlled demolition of the three towers, suggested by the visual and audio witness testimony as well as by observations of video recordings of their collapses, is thus confirmed and demonstrated by analysis of the seismic waves emitted near the time of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapses. Same procedure as every year, James!
	Last edited by Africanus; 3rd December 2012 at 10:06 AM.

3rd December 2012, 10:25 AM	#9
Spanx Muse Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 618	I'm obviously no expert in this but have question. Would the sound waves sound different after each collapse due to one of the buildings not being there. A bit like sticking your head in a box and shouting and standing in the middle of a field and shouting ?
Spanx Muse Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 618

3rd December 2012, 10:29 AM	#10
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,849	Originally Posted by Africanus The JONES-Article is nearly identical to your linked article, Oystein, there are only some cosmetical changes. The original article is still available in the internet archives (http://web.archive.org/web/201006080...01-in-New-York). For comparison I quote the conclusions of both articles: Yeah! OR... you could have just referred to this: Originally Posted by very first line in linked Rousseau paper: We would like to thank Tod Fletcher, who provided editorial assistance by revising an earlier version of this article.
ergo Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,849	__________________ . http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=256404 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=256438

3rd December 2012, 08:24 AM	#2
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,731	Direct link to paper: http://www.journalof911studies.com/r...vember2012.pdf

3rd December 2012, 08:35 AM	#3
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,497	Is this the same guy who published a paper more than two years ago on the same subject? Are the trials of the guilty who the Truth Movement brought to justice as the result of that earth-shattering article over? The new investigation launched? In short, what's different about this "seismic proof" from the previous "seismic proof"?
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

3rd December 2012, 08:38 AM	#4
Animal Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: SE Michigan Posts: 1,368	Originally Posted by Oystein Direct link to paper: http://www.journalof911studies.com/r...vember2012.pdf Reads like a typical troofer paper....the conclusion is set, and the "facts" get twisted to match the conclusion.
	Last edited by Animal; 3rd December 2012 at 09:05 AM.

3rd December 2012, 09:19 AM	#6
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,731	There was a thread started on 5th June 2010 here, but it was debunked by post #3, derailed at post #4, and then never recovered. The article linked to in the OP is no longer available, but from the quote, it seemed Rousseau had argued from seismic records for subterranean explosions prior to plane impact.

3rd December 2012, 09:37 AM	#7
ozeco41 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia Posts: 3,655	Originally Posted by Oystein There was a thread started on 5th June 2010 here, but it was debunked by post #3, derailed at post #4, and then never recovered. The article linked to in the OP is no longer available, but from the quote, it seemed Rousseau had argued from seismic records for subterranean explosions prior to plane impact. And the collapses which actually occurred bore no relationship to any underground explosions whether or not such explosions did in fact occur. So just another example of a "single issue anomaly" which does not fit into any real context. No different to: "We heard loud bangy noises THEREFORE CD THEREFORE Inside job"; "You cannot prove no thermxte on site THEREFORE there was thermxte THEREFORE it was used in demolition THEREFORE inside job...." Or the R Gage nonsense of "I assert that it looked like CD even though it didn't THEREFORE it was CD THEREFORE inside job...." And, AFAIK, those are level of the best arguments the truth movement had put forward. Makes me wonder who is the most gullible: "Them" for making silly claims; OR "Us" for spending effort dealing with them.

3rd December 2012, 10:34 AM	#11
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908	Originally Posted by zorro99 First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic sources of different magnitudes. Well, that's just wrong. The buldings were hit in different locations at different velocities, and the collapses started at different locations.
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,908

3rd December 2012, 10:37 AM	#12
Spanx Muse Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 618	Originally Posted by ergo Yeah! OR... you could have just referred to this: Thanks Ergo I will remember to never believe a truther headline.
Spanx Muse Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 618

3rd December 2012, 11:26 AM	#13
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,731	Originally Posted by Africanus The JONES-Article is nearly identical to your linked article, Oystein, there are only some cosmetical changes. The original article is still available in the internet archives (http://web.archive.org/web/201006080...01-in-New-York). For comparison I quote the conclusions of both articles: A good! I ran my link through Archive.org and came up empty - hmmm - anyway, good you found it. Truth Movement, moving at the speed of glaciers Originally Posted by Africanus Same procedure as every year, James! Marvelous! An ENGLISH reference that only GERMAN members are ever going to get!

3rd December 2012, 12:09 PM	#14
Toke Godless Socialist Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 7,600	Originally Posted by Oystein Marvelous! An ENGLISH reference that only GERMAN members are ever going to get! Wrong, it runs every new year evening on Danish TV.
	__________________ From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

3rd December 2012, 12:18 PM	#15
Ape of Good Hope Muse Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Brizzle Posts: 663	Originally Posted by Oystein Marvelous! An ENGLISH reference that only GERMAN members are ever going to get! I also get the reference ...but only because they showed a clip from it on QI.

3rd December 2012, 12:42 PM	#16
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,881	Another idiot makes up more nonsense for those who can't, for those who refuse to think for themselves. http://www.journalof911studies.com/r...vember2012.pdf Quote: What else but an explosion could be the origin for this seismic wave in the absence of an earthquake? I suspect a gravity collapse of the biggest buildings in NYC, releasing the energy of over 130 TONS of TNT twice would create seismic waves. Where do these idiots come from? How can someone be so stupid and fool so few? Where can you post idiotic papers that can't be published in rational Journals? At Jones' journal for woo on 911. At least you can use this paper as a litmus test for woo; web sites that use this paper, hold up this paper as proof of CD, are idiot web sites.
	Last edited by beachnut; 3rd December 2012 at 12:49 PM.

3rd December 2012, 02:38 PM	#17
Africanus Scholar Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Germany Posts: 76	Originally Posted by Toke Wrong, it runs every new year evening on Danish TV. In Denmark, too? "Dinner for one" is a classic on german tv, being broadcasted every new year's eve in several 3rd programs.

3rd December 2012, 03:20 PM	#18
cjnewson88 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: The van with the big antenna Posts: 1,284	I printed it off. It's now with the jones paper in the latrine..
	__________________ Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

3rd December 2012, 04:46 PM	#19
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,622	Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Is this the same guy who published a paper more than two years ago on the same subject? Are the trials of the guilty who the Truth Movement brought to justice as the result of that earth-shattering article over? The new investigation launched? In short, what's different about this "seismic proof" from the previous "seismic proof"? This one is more down to earth.

3rd December 2012, 05:50 PM	#20
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,646	Originally Posted by tsig This one is more down to earth. I see what you did there
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

3rd December 2012, 05:52 PM	#21
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	we need a CT, DERP!!! emoticon , it would save me some typing when I read things like this
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

3rd December 2012, 06:54 PM	#22
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,174	Originally Posted by DGM The date. Indeed. Wasn't the 2010 version of this article itself a rewrite of an earlier article (perhaps circa ~2006) by a fellow who used to post here and who eventually came around to realizing that his own "paper" in JONES was garbage and resiled from the whole 'seismic evidence proves explosives' nonsense?
	Last edited by LashL; 3rd December 2012 at 06:56 PM.

3rd December 2012, 07:24 PM	#23
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,286	Originally Posted by StankApe we need a CT, DERP!!! emoticon , it would save me some typing when I read things like this That one works....
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

3rd December 2012, 08:59 PM	#24
Axxman300 Scholar Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 108	I'm studying geology in college now. Allow me to list the problems: 1. Lack of volume of background data (i.e. comparisons of known demolition of buildings over 80 stories in height with data from 80 story+ tall buildings brought down from jetliner impact.) 2. Lack of comparative data between the garden variety collapse of an 80+ story building, and it's twin within a similar time frame. 3. Report ignores the fact there were internal structural failures well before the collapse, especially of WTC7. 4. Seismic Data is great for telling you how powerful a disturbance is, but stinks for telling details of the cause. This is why geologists are always taking deep core samples along earthquake faults, and even then it's not always clear. The physical evidence showed no used of explosives of any kind. It does give me hope that I can get into a PhD program since they seem to hand them to just about anybody.
Axxman300 Scholar Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 108

3rd December 2012, 09:33 PM	#25
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643	Originally Posted by NoahFence That one works.... aha!!!! yes, yes it does!!!
StankApe Banned Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 4,643

3rd December 2012, 11:20 PM	#26
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,731	Originally Posted by LashL Indeed. Wasn't the 2010 version of this article itself a rewrite of an earlier article (perhaps circa ~2006) by a fellow who used to post here and who eventually came around to realizing that his own "paper" in JONES was garbage and resiled from the whole 'seismic evidence proves explosives' nonsense? I'd like to get an answer to this (but am too lazy to search now...)

3rd December 2012, 11:39 PM	#27
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,731	If anyone feels this post is off topic and should be split off, feel free to report. I don't want to open a new topic, and simply redefine the topic here as "Newly published articles at the Journal of 9/11 Studies" (JoNES) For there's another new article - a letter - at JoNES, as Blogger "Orangutan" (who, I believe, is also the author of "Washington's Blog" that is linked in the OP) announces at 911Blogger: "The Pentagon Attack in Context: a Reply to John Wyndham." by Tod Fletcher and Timothy E. Eastman. This letter ends with a section titled "Summary and Conclusion", even though the authors don't commit to any conclusions. An excerpt: Originally Posted by Fletcher and Eastman We join David Ray Griffin in the hope that future research on the deadly events at the Pentagon will build on the robust case already established against the official account of 9/11, all major dimensions of which have now been demonstrated to be clearly false. For agreement concerning the issue of “what hit the Pentagon” to be reached, deeper analysis of the whole range of evidence will be needed. What they really seem to be saying is "we hope that future research will find a better theory than the official one, because we sure as hell can't". After some of the usual shoulder-patting at the 911Blogger echo chamber, one poster there, gallenk (who I haven't noticed so far, no idea who that is) posted a detailed critique of the letter: Originally Posted by gallenk I found the Wyndham reply to be of little substance in arguing pro-flyover or pro-no-plane-attack. That may or may not have been the primary purpose. ... From my examination: In the 1st 8 pages, the author(s) offered no real arguments. [several paragraphs with at least six specific contentions follow - snipped] ... I did not find any new evidence or revelations to counter the argument that it is most likely that a large plane impact occurred at the Pentagon. No amount of pure speculation regarding massive problems with witness reliability, unconfirmed flight path anomalies, etc. can counter the highly one-sided witness testimony (many for an impact vs none for a flyover, despite a potential witness pool of hundreds of thousands for a flyover), physical debris evidence, flight path damage, even frames of a video, which although unclear, certainly argue more for a craft of some type and probably a large one, etc. Countdown till that post gets voted down by the Twoofer community...

4th December 2012, 04:29 PM	#28
Redwood Muse Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 542	He seems to be arguing that underground explosions can't be heard at the surface (demonstrably false), and that verinage-method demolitions produce no seismic waves (obviously false from the laws of physics, perhaps someone has access to data from actual cases).
Redwood Muse Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 542

5th December 2012, 06:26 AM	#29
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,299	Originally Posted by LashL Indeed. Wasn't the 2010 version of this article itself a rewrite of an earlier article (perhaps circa ~2006) by a fellow who used to post here and who eventually came around to realizing that his own "paper" in JONES was garbage and resiled from the whole 'seismic evidence proves explosives' nonsense? Yes, (sort of). This is the paper: Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II) by Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ongAndRoss.pdf It had more to do with the timing of the seismic returns. Quote: SUMMARY On September 11, 2001, the seismic stations grouped around New York City recorded seismic events from the WTC site, two of which occurred immediately prior to the aircraft impacts upon the Twin Towers. Because these seismic events preceded the collisions, it is clear they were not associated with the impacts and must therefore be associated with some other occurrence. None of the authorities charged with the responsibility for the investigation of the events of 9/11 have proposed a source for these seismic events, nor have they given a valid reason for the difference in times between the seismic events and the aircraft impacts. Only by consideration of the evidence of basement explosions before the aircraft impacts, as experienced by William Rodriquez and 36 others, can an explanation be found for the fact that the seismic stations recorded seismic events originating from the WTC sites prior to the aircraft impacts. It seems unlikely that Middle Eastern terrorists could have overcome the WTC security and managed this kind of high-level, technological coordination. Do the facts presented here, simple and few, raise the possibility of inside involvement in 9/11/01, both before and after the attack? IIRC the confusion turned out to be something really simple (and obvious). ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63740 Read posts by quicknthedead
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley Last edited by DGM; 5th December 2012 at 06:36 AM.

5th December 2012, 06:48 AM	#30
catsmate1 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland) Posts: 7,087	Originally Posted by LashL Indeed. Wasn't the 2010 version of this article itself a rewrite of an earlier article (perhaps circa ~2006) by a fellow who used to post here and who eventually came around to realizing that his own "paper" in JONES was garbage and resiled from the whole 'seismic evidence proves explosives' nonsense? So it'd doubly recycled, previously disproven, nonsense that's been "published" in a vanity journal with peer review. How many lies can you cram into one title?
	__________________ Yes I gave in and configured an avatar.

5th December 2012, 11:30 AM	#31
George152 Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hamilton New Zealand Posts: 2,041	Originally Posted by phunk Well, that's just wrong. The buldings were hit in different locations at different velocities, and the collapses started at different locations. Physical evidence and kook claims are worlds apart.
	__________________ Unemployment isn't working

5th December 2012, 08:51 PM	#32
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by DGM Yes, (sort of). This is the paper: Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II) by Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ongAndRoss.pdf It had more to do with the timing of the seismic returns. IIRC the confusion turned out to be something really simple (and obvious). ETA: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63740 Read posts by quicknthedead It was, but make sure you go to the end of the thread. The confusion wasn't the simple one we thought (I thought, at least) that it was at first, and it took a long time for the correct answer to surface. That correct answer is that the 9/11 Commission Report timing of aircraft impacts is not accurate to the second. Impacts in those reports -- and only those reports, not in the later NIST study, for instance -- appear to have been based on the time of last RADAR contact with the aircraft, or extrapolation from RADAR of aircraft reaching zero altitude. Problem is that the RADAR still can give an echo from aircraft debris, and that the impacts didn't occur at zero altitude, but more like 700 to 1000 feet up. The anomaly is resolved as soon as you realize the 9/11 Commission Report is off by about ten seconds due to this mistake. All other sources of impact time, including the seismic records, are consistent.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

6th December 2012, 06:10 AM	#33
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,731	Rousseau claims that the tower collapses could not have caused the measured local Magnitudes (M_L - 2.3 for WTC1, 2.1 for WTC2), but that "a few tons" of ammonium nitrate would do: Originally Posted by Rousseau The local magnitudes (ML) that the LDEO seismologists calculated from the surface waves ... were higher than 2 on the Richter scale for the waves emitted at the moments of the collapses. It is impossible to get such a magnitude from the falling of the building debris alone, especially falling over a duration of ten seconds. ... ...similar seismic waves are commonly recorded from mining operations, generated by subterranean blasts of ammonium nitrate, and a few tons are enough to develop a magnitude of 2 to 2.5 on Richter scale. A few tons are enough? Hmmm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosebur...Roseburg_Blast Originally Posted by Wikipedia George Rutherford, had parked his explosives truck in front of the building, a fact which went unnoticed until shortly before the truck exploded at around 1:14 a.m., destroying buildings in an eight-block radius and severely damaging 30 more blocks. ... The truck was loaded with two tons of dynamite and four-and-a-half tons of the blasting agent nitro carbo nitrate. Other notable AN explosions involving not too many tons are listed here: Kansas City, MO, 1988: 23 tons cause two craters, each 30m wide and 2.4 meters deep (volume of cone: approx 2x550 m³) Porgera Valley, Papua New Guinea, 1994: 80 tons create crater 40 meters wide, 15 meters deep (ca. 6000 m³) Barracas, Spain, 2004: 25 tons create crater 5 meters deep Mihailesti, Romania: 20 tons form crater 6.5 meters deep and 42 meters in diameter (3000 m³) Monclova, Mexico, 2007: 22 tons form crater 9.1 m wide and 1.8 m deep (39 m³) So it seems that ammonium nitrate is very prone to move many many tons of solid material. At least 1.8 cubic meters per ton of explosive, usually much more. Some intentional large scale bombings: Last year, Anders Breivik exploded 950 kg of ANFO in front of the Prime Minister's office in Oslo, destryoing windows ina radius of 1 km, killing eight people and injuring more than 200 more. Damage 300 meters away. Timothy McVeigh's Ryder truck held ca. 2.300 kg of mixed explosives, much of it AN, when it destroyed the Murrah Building, damaged 323 more buildings in 16 blocks around, and created a 9.1 m wide and 2.4 m deep crater (52 m³). When Ramzi Yousef detonated 606 kg of the chemically similar urea nitrate in the WTC basement in 1993, smoke rose up to the 93rd floor and led to many smoke inhalation injuries. The plast killed 6, and it is known that 15 people received traumatic injury. Rousseau wants us to believe that not one bomb but five, all on the order of McVeigh stuff, at least 2 of them many times larger than Yousef's, were exploded under the WTC on 9/11, with many witnesses around - but they were not recorded on video (remember, Naudet was running his video camera when the South Tower started collapsing), didn't cause traumatic injuries, caused no crater that anyone noticed, did not bring any building down from the bottom up, didn't even break windows? Why on earth would anybody ignite such blasts? Just to have something on seismic records???
	Last edited by Oystein; 6th December 2012 at 06:12 AM.

6th December 2012, 08:04 AM	#34
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,731	Can anybody discern from the Rousseau paper how he times these supposed subterranean/subaerial detonations relative to plane impact and onset of collapses? Either he omits that bit, or my scan-reading skills are sub-par today... In particular, I would think that Jules Nauder would have captured an explosion under WTC2, as he was in the WTC 1 lobby at the time, rolling film, but I want to have a limit to the seconds where Rousseau'd detonation would be expected.