Tuesday, June 17, 2014

9/11 Shear wave elastic S-wave Waves UPDATE



40.711 /n and 74.013 /w is too short..
More hints of bigger then reported explosion and cover-up Two articles New York Times ''It was pretty good sized,'' said Lynn R. Sykes, a seismologist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, which tracks global earthquakes from its base 10 miles north of Manhattan. The destructive energy of the January earthquake was magnitude 2.4, a minor earthquake. It was felt in Manhattan and Queens. Dr. Sykes said the twin tower collapses were slightly larger in destructive energy. Key here is "were slightly larger in destructive energy" greater then 2.4 but the report is 2.3, 2.1, .09 , .07 .06 from PAL.. Longitude and latitude 40.711 74.013 is too short for exact location. http://www.latlong.net/c/?lat=40.711484&long=-74.011481 My guess is the exact location is between the towers. http://911truthout.blogspot.com/2014/06/size-of-911-wtc-seismic-summary-by-ldeo.html Jim Donaghy was shaving inside his Upper East Side apartment when he felt a boom, followed by a slight shaking. "You know those big construction Dumpsters they use when doing work on a building? It sounded like someone dropped one of those," Donaghy said. "That's what I thought it was." The other earthquake seem more like a test explosion, deep underground and getting ready for the real deal.. 

The question is: Why did Kim Young hide the all the other data points? 

How did the Truth Movement complete not see this issue? 




So I found more precise data I forgot I had! 40.711 74.013 and added Dutch, Steven email replies. 
He is now retired.

Columbia’s The Earth Institute duplicate time columns and missing 9/11 data

  • Steve Smith Are you saying the seismic readings are irrelevant because they're outside the box??
    5 hrs · Like
  • Dan Plesse Steve Smith. Both depth information and epicenter data was replaced by useless extra time zone columns which was used as back-fill to fill in Columbia’s The Earth Institute's table with additional "remar"k column which is unprofessional to say the least.

    South Tower epicenter data was located however and its between the towers to the left.
    Just now · Like



Seismic  information is time/date, depth and location, all of that was replaced, went missing or was incomplete. Somehow and for some reason A&E, Judy Wood, and most 9/11 Truthers  thought it was a good idea to cover up and demand the missing data. Judy Wood never says why seismic spike exists at all.  If the 9/11 Talking Heads don't talk about it, it does not exist. 9/11 Talking Head Example #1: Judy Wood

The answer to the missing column question (which no one answered ) is  epicenter data which was removed and replaced by extra time zone information which is never done and propaganda in the form of remarks.  Epicenter data is included with every single seismic records ever recorded and depth information. Epicenter data includes two points which precisely pin points the location of the event.  The only thing they (LDEO) provided as far as epicenter information was a giant probability box (below)  which only cover half of the World Trade Center.





Dutch, Steven

Jul 6 (8 days ago)


to me
I don't know what you're trying to say with the LDEO reports, which I'm already familiar with. The first two M<1 events are the plane impacts. The second two M=2 events are the towers falling. That last M=0.6 event is probably WTC 7. What does this prove? What's the point of arrows to the UTC and EDT columns? UTC is Greenwich and EDT is Eastern Daylight. Of course they're several hours apart. So what?

I saw the video. So what? Tell me specifically, step by step, what that proves. The flashing lights are at the time of the fireball, not at the time of building collapse. So they have nothing at all to do with the collapse. And we know the buildings were hit by planes. BFD.

Steve Dutch

Daniel Noel

Jul 7 (7 days ago)


to me, Steven
Dan:
The only people who will be willing to examine and be convinced by your data are people who have a high degree of skepticism and open-mindedness or who are already well aware of institutionalized mendacity. You’ll get nowhere with most 9/11 skeptics, not to mention 9/11 fanatics and 9/11 censors, unless you start teaching them the elementary 9/11 baby step or some equivalent.
Love,
Dan
From: Dutch, Steven [mailto:dutchs@uwgb.edu]
Sent: Sunday, 2014-Jul-13 12:55
To: Daniel Noel
Subject: RE: weeehhh

So I take it that you have no first-hand personal experience to justify believing in conspiracies? It's all second and third hand? Because you persist in not answering my questions.

Do you have any idea how easy it is simply to delete a column in a table on a web site? Why would LDEO have to insert dummy data?

.001 degrees is 110 meters. Seismographs just don't locate events any more precisely than that. Most large earthquakes are reported to a tenth of a degree or so.

Steve Dutch

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
Emails from Columbia
http://investigatesandyhook.blogspot.com/2014/03/911-nuclear-explosion-seismology-and.html
I might have the 9/11 data files
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pxVbXyB9OLb042a3p2X2VqYmM/edit?usp=sharing
but they need to loaded into specialized software program from the 90's.
American scientist might be under restrictions to talk about 9/11. I can't even find the event inside databases. Can you help?

  • Steve Smith Dan Plesse just a suggestion, if you spent the time you do injecting your cheap shots at folks and used that energy to focus on the issue, maybe more people wouldn't sound like a broken record...asking you over and over and over to clarify what you are saying.
    31 mins · Like
  • Atahan Ganduu Dan is into cheap shots for sure
    23 mins · Like · 1
  • Atahan Ganduu He called us cult members right off the bat before he even got to the point he thought he was making
    23 mins · Like · 1
  • Steve Smith "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." Mark Twain I think I'm done with this thread.
    18 mins · Like
  • Dan Plesse The surface seismic waves missing epicenter data points and Aquiess weather modification are research results and are connected because both are easily discovered if that is if discovery is your goal. However somehow these results were missed by Judy Wood and her cult members for 13 years and don't recall one single interesting point from a single cult member during my time researching 9/11. They all seem walled in and controlled.

    If these people were NOT walled in and controlled it would be impossible to NOT find hundreds of known unknowns however the misses will continue for some reason.

    I will offer a challenge now to the Judy Wood cult since they are all here and doing nothing. Locate and detail a known unknown or a unknown unknown with regard to 9/11! For example: Name of the Boston ticket agents for Flight 11 or Flight 175 or the name of the women Alan Wallace discovered inside the Pentagon. Or the other missing epicenter data points and depth information Jim Young refuses to give out.

    So prove me wrong cult wonder kids.
    8 mins · Edited · Like





  • George Leonard Yes, that is an interesting point, and I thought you were heading that way, but that still does not explain why you would contend that all the academia and government then conspired to prove their own official story wrong. I also don't see how this makes you different from Dr. Wood since her litigation was based on the fact that science fraud was committed based on the data they produced. Seems like a distraction that you bought into and in researching your point, I have discovered that you are not correct in the fact that epicenter data is always provided for any other event. Why did it take you 3 days and 2 comment threads to make your point? The conversation would have been a lot more helpful without the waste of time. Based on the content of your discussion, it only tells me that you are not familiar with the depth of the research in Dr. Wood's book, never mind the content of the litigation. When are you taking NIST to court on the basis of this argument and what is your guarantee that this data which was not based on consensus is not corrupt as well if everyone else's is? There are still many holes in your argument. It is because I am thinking for myself that I do not subscribe to any particular "movement" and you must forgive me for being skeptical of your information based on your pompous nature in the previous thread. I have many questions that are unanswered by a number of researchers, including yourself and Dr. Wood in my eyes. Again, that is an interesting point, but I think you make a mistake in claiming that you've solved 9/11 and identified the "evil ones" because you found data that did not corroborate with others. I think if you research the other evidence, like the questions I raised before, you will find that your point here, is not opposing with some of the conclusions that you've avoided talking about.
    18 hours ago · Like

    • Kevin James That's very interesting, Dan. Afraid I didn't work it out, though I did wonder why TWO time entries were really necessary.
      13 hours ago · Like
    • George Leonard So your contention is that Columbia and FEMA (nevermind the 11 other academic institutions who provide data for this) conspired to prove their own official story wrong, and the disclaimer of that data being the consensus as per Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 being the basis for Dr. Judy Wood's litigation against NIST for science fraud negates the point of the data? If the data is somehow corrupt by omission of the other data points you have cited, (never-mind the point of cross-examination I previously mentioned) then again, your observation would require refutation and an actual proposition of the data that shows obstruction (not opinion). I would note, that In the book, and the lawsuit, (both of which you have apparently not familiarized yourself with) this data is also provided, and cited as being naturally exempt from the investigation since it is irrelevant to the point. (The old "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" argument.) Either you are contradicting yourself yet again, or you inherently actually agree with Dr. Wood since the nature of her litigation and investigation was proving science fraud, but disagree on the basis of your own argument since it is inherently fallacious by its nature. If you contend that data is being omitted by conspiracy, then you would therefore have to provide thesis explaining how the omitted data is relevant. Again, your very argument is a fallacy by putting the burden of proof on begging the question, also never mind the fact that the foundation of your argument is based on your own omission of data. Again, to be clear, proposing circular arguments is neither helpful, nor impressive to those of us who actually seek truth, and not arguing for the sake of arguing and protecting pre-conceived notions and belief-systems. You are either being vague in your argument on purpose of division being your agenda, or you are "cherry-picking" your own data to uphold your belief, (which again) would be inherently fallacious since your original contention was that the data itself was being "cherry-picked."
      June 17 at 5:30pm · Like
    Posted by at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

    Search