Query Results from the Physics Database
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QPUrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7WwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3987%2C4548440
Question: How many subtitles contain the word Nuclear when referring to 9/11 by Won-Young Kim?
"Nuclear explosion seismology, 7260 Theory and modeling"
"It is not possible to infer (with detail sufficient to meet the demands of civil engineers in an emergency situation) just what the near-in ground motions must have been." Won-Young Kimhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFM.S11D..03K
"Urban Earthquakes, Nuclear Bombs and 9/11"
Won-Young Kim
"He is one of the leading researchers in the United States in methods of
using seismic waves to discriminate between earthquakes, industrial
explosions in mines and quarries, and underground nuclear explosions. "http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/urban-earthquakes-nuclear-bombs-and-911
Is Won-Young Kim trying to tell us something about 9/11?
|
6/15/13
 | |||
| ||||
Guns n Butter Indira Singh 9/11 mold, earthquake damage report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
"So,if the data is not absolutely precise" location data has been truncated and depth was removed completely because its a criminal cover up. All the databases don't contain 9/11 data and that was reason why I asked Paul. Won-Young Kim didn't have the expertise until later i.e "Urban Earthquakes, Nuclear Bombs and 9/11" "developed methods of monitoring nuclear-bomb tests;" October 7, 2008 sound like he got mega dollars from DOD after his 9/11 cover up Basement levels would have removed all spikes.
Reply
Dan
Dan I have no idea what you are doing with this data, but if you are seriously pursuing research, please contact the head of the network, won-young kim: wykim@ldeo.columbia.edu
(If you are pursuing conspiracy theories regarding the 2001 collapse of the World Trade Center, I do not think it is useful to contact him.)
Cheers Kevin Krajick
(212) 854-9729
kkrajick@ei.columbia.edu
More run around continued ...... No exact data offered ...
Dear Chaikinoy,
I have
been writing to Columbia’s The Earth Institute for 9/11 details for a
very long time and Won-Young Kim and all employees have been
stonewalling. We also have this Lava Rocks on display in museums and
found in World Trade Center 6, which all point to nuclear event. http://s1222.photobucket.com/user/danp5648/media/lavarock.jpg.html
Columbia’s The Earth Institute duplicate and missing 9/11 data
http://investigatesandyhook.blogspot.com/2014/06/size-of-911-wtc-seismic-summary-by-ldeo.html
http://investigatesandyhook.blogspot.com/2014/03/911-nuclear-explosion-seismology-and.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pxVbXyB9OLb042a3p2X2VqYmM/edit?usp=sharing
Ron Morales What's the point of that message from a USGS guy Dan. Sounds like he's acknowledging that it's hard to read such seismic signals. So what?- Ron Morales "A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of Univ. of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph."
So what? A tornado sounds like a train but that's not evidence that trains are hidden in tornadoes. Are you claiming that the only thing that can create a sharp spike of short duration are underground explosions? And why would an underground explosion on 9/11 cause a building to start collapsing an hour later at precisely the point of plane impact high in the building? 
Dan Plesse He is avoiding the answer and 100% of of all other blasts received ALL 4 floating point numbers. Never has a blast NOT received ALL the data. They are hiding, just like you.
seismologist Thorne Lay is looking at 9/11 seismograph, that's so what. No more "so what's".
Stop avoiding and concede already.February 9 at 11:34pm · Like
"In fact, the recording for WTC1 (Fig. 2a) demonstrates the three types of wave characteristic of a brief explosive source confined in a compact, solid material: a P wave with a speed of 6000 m/s, the typical value for a very consolidated crystalline or
sedimentary terrain (which is the case in the bedrock of Manhattan)"
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf
5 kilotons (KT), because "low-yield nuclear weapons
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm
Kevin James Thanks Dan. Excellent analysis of the seismic signals. "Only a powerful explosion at the base of WTC2 and a subterranean one under WTC1 could have produced the observed seismic waves. These basal explosions would facilitate the total, rapid
disintegrations of the buildings."
Kevin James And that's a great article on subterranean nukes. Of course, there was no missile penetrating the ground at WTC in order to place such a device. So there would have to have been tunnels through into the granite bedrock, yes? Is this then a vindication of (or at least some support for) Dimitri Khalezov's theory of a nuclear demolition system already installed when WTC was built?
9/11 low frequency boom witnesses
9 11 nuclear fallout Evidence and Cover up with EMT Indira Singh Download
9/11 Static on TV from an Electromagnetic pulse from the nuclear reaction
Maxwell Bridges I hate it when people post comments that reflect they didn't read.
Mr. Cal Amyotte dropped the hypnotic suggestion: "No radiation was detected. moot"
Let's see, Mr. Amyotte's proof of no radiation detected was the government report that promptly, systematically, and thoroughly measured radiation all over the WTC and found all points at or below trace background levels, right? Oh, snap! That's right. No such report, if it existed, was ever published.
Then Mr. Amyotte's proof of no radiation must be the Paul Lioy report that used only three samples, all East of the WTC and did its measurements several days and then over a week after 9/11. Not only do we ~not~ know what exactly they measured, we do ~not~ know what trace/background levels were expected to be when they explained the mystery measurements away as being at trace levels.
No wait! Mr. Amyotte's proof of no radiation must be the tritium report that also did ~not~ promptly take samples, did them haphazardly (with not near hot-spots), and then stopped taking samples when their measurements were below EPA thresholds for what constitutes a health risk, in keeping with the limited scoping of the report that was framing tritium as coming from building content as opposed to what caused the destruction. Moreover, in order to explain away what they did measure as at or below trace/background levels, the very definition of trace/background levels was juked to be 55 times greater than it was prior to 9/11.
Oh snap! By its very definition, tritium is radiation and blows away Mr. Amyotte's hypnotic suggestion of "no radiation."
Furthermore, the nature of the neutron devices in question has its radiation dissipate within 24-48 hours, which is why the lack of prompt and thorough measurements (that were made public) is a red flag.
//
No comments:
Post a Comment