The Missing Seismology Mystery of 9/11

World Trade 9/11 Earthquake Catalog 

9/11 BRNJ Verses 9/11 PAL Station 5 -  6  HZ

Dan Plesse

17h ago

They wrote “local explosion” write on the 9/11 seismic graph and only large explosions could only be explosives showing up 29 miles away so Dr. Wood is wrong.

...

(more)

Reply

Carlo Landolfi

3h ago

Again, explosions does not mean EXPLOSIVES at the WTC !! Do you understand this simple fact!?

I suggest you read carefully NIST NCSTAR 1–9 Vol.2 beginning from page of 311 of 382 (pdf format) in which the sesmic data is discussed. You will learn many useful concepts. The direct download link is here: https://ws680.nist.gov/publicati...

This seismic chart is from page 314 of 382.

Below the copy & paste from page 312 of the Report which explains the graph above and the purpose of this study:”

So, with this study NIST was trying to identify the sources of the signals between WTC 1 destruction and .

The seismic chart below is taken directly from Dr. Wood’s book on page 67. It is the same chart adapted from figure B-2 of the pdf Report (the same chart you see above).

So, the signal YOU SO STRONGLY INSIST BEING ABSENT from PAL but present in BRNJ is clearly visibile in both the original and adapted charts at 15:15 EDT.

Furthermore, the source of the signal is identified as a distant earthquake (event #6) with a magnitude of 6.5 almost superimposed with a quarry blast (event #8) with magnitude 1.3.

All those events (from #6 to #22) are recorded on the chart and reported on table B-3 of page 323 of the pdf Report which I paste here below and explained starting on page 322:

So, again, no mysteries here !!! The “local explosions” are indeed local quarry blasts !! And, note that events #6 and #8 are registered almost at the same time but event #6 actually originates almost 20 minutes before event #8. The same applies to event#17, the distant Fox Islands earthquake.

You can 1) acknowledge to yourself you need more in depth research and study or 2) you can continue on your tracks spreading your disinformation. It’s up to you…

And it’s not even clear wht you are trying to prove with your claim of the alleged missing 15:15 EDT signal at PAL: that explosions caused by planted explosives went off after the collapse of WTC !?!? And what for, if the building where already destroyed!?! With what purpose, to destroy WTC 7

By the way, I took the time to write this comment and retrieve the information for all the curious readers who are willing to study and take time to understand what happened on 9/11. I did not do this for YOU, as you just seem interested in discrediting Dr. Wood with nonsense and ridiculous claims. What is your agenda may I ask?

Reply

· Upvote

· Downvote

· Report

Dan Plesse

20m ago

One problem with your data is that every quake should have a detailed GPS location. For Example 40.711??? and 74.013??? the question marks are missing details. Your data shows 40.71 -74.01 Broadway & Cortlandt another “1″ on each data point array would have placed you under the towers. Notice they cropped off numbers or trimmed off location details but only for the towers. 40.711 and -74.013 gives you WTC Cortlandt, New York, NY 10006, USA basically
you are under the towers. problem #2

no “quarry” exists at 40.71 -74.01 Broadway & Cortlandt St, New York, NY 10007, USA more details numbers would place the blast right on top of the World Trade Center location i.e the explosions i.e explosives and not “quarry blasts” on 9/11. “quarry blasts” use explosives! The starting time #18 at 11:00 AM is after the trade center fell.

Problem #3 No oxide was reported the USGS in their dust study.
A search of that document returned ZERO RESULTS!!

The chips however DID contain Copper Oxide. So the Judy is conflating Chips with dust, why would she do that?

Reply

Carlo Landolfi

6h ago

I’m afraid you need to do your reaserch more thoroughly !!

The patent you are referring to is not for Thermite, as it does not use iron oxide as main ingredient, but for Nano-engineered Explosives as the title indicates. Please check here: United States Patent: 5505799. There is no mention of iron oxide in that patent, however iron oxide (which is the main ingredient of thermite/thermate) and aluminum were found in the dust !! So stop claiming such nonsense and spreading disinformation please!

In the video Dr. Wood is not claiming thermite was used or found on 9/11.

What Dr. Wood is explaining is that the “ingredients of thermite” (iron oxide and aluminum powder) were indeed found in the dust because the buildings were made of iron oxide (rusted steel) and aluminum powder (aluminum cladding) !!.

Basically, she observes that the building’s main constituents were found in the dust and that it would be very strange if they weren’t !! She is speaking against the use of thermite on 9/11. I hope you do get it…

I see you don’t comment on the photos/article debunking the incorrect claims that the angle cut columns were done using thermite and not thermic lances/oxyacetylene torches. Nor do you comment on my observations regarding the alleged extremely hot rubble. Interesting…

Reply

· Upvote

· Downvote

· Report

Dan Plesse

just now

Dr. Judy Wood is wrong because No iron oxide powder was found by the USGS dust study or Nano sized Aluminum . The only object that was found and was studied was layered chips that contained copper oxide which should not have been found. The copper oxide is included in the patent Nanoengineered explosives US-Patent Nr. 5.505.799. US5505799A - Nanoengineered explosives - Google Patents

ingredients of thermite was never found in the dust, since the chips are separate objects and the dust studied by USGS http://file:///C:/Users/zilo5648/Downloads/fs-050-02_508.pdf

Search results Iron Oxide was zero! Dr. Wood never talks about the chips because she is a fraud!

angle cut columns was seen by first responders so they existed before the iron workers got to the site. Another false claim by you!

Reply

What caused the “thud”? Why are you using official account from PAL station? What about the draft reports? What did they say? What did the other stations say about the event?

9/11 Determining the source characteristics of explosions near the Earth

Reply

Carlo Landolfi

1h ago

The seismic signals from Palisades, NY, are the official data used by NIST in their report. Palisades is also the closest seismographic station to the WTC complex so the choice is a natural one as the signals would be larger and hold more information as they would be less dampened compared to farther seismic stations such as BRNJ.

I have not checked what the draft reports say compared to the final (official report) but I don’t think they changed the location of the data source.

I don’t know if Dr. Wood analysed the signals from other seismic stations, but as she filed a Request for Corrections to NIST, and later sued the contractors appointed by NIST to help draft the report, it is normal she addresses the data that NIST present and discuss.

I see you have written Michael Pasyanos a question, did you get an answer? And what are you trying to prove? What is your point? I believe you support the nuclear demolition theory.

Please read this report by Columbia University which is running the 34 seismographs including BRNJ: https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/.../WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf.

I quote from the report: “The modern stations record over a broad frequency band; some like PAL sample three components of ground motion, but others, only the vertical.” So PAL is probably the best choice for analysis.

Quote “Seismic waves from Collapse 2 were recorded by at least 13 stations ranging in distance from 34 km to Lisbon, NH at 428 km. The magnitude of the event was only 2.3. The predominant signals at distances greater than 200 km are short-period surface waves.”

Quote “Surface waves were the largest seismic waves observed at various stations. The presence of seismic body waves is questionable even at Palisades for the two largest collapses; they are not observed at other stations.” They are saying that not even the nearest station, that is PAL, picked up the body waves and that practically only surface waves were measured. Surface waves do not travel through the earth as body waves (that is, shear waves and transverse waves). Surface waves are generated when you remove the load from a surface, for example, as happened with the two Towers when they were turned mostly to dust in 10 seconds. Simply, the earth will react to the weight being removed by oscillating on the surface just like when you get out of bed each morning and your mattress recoils and waves propagate on its surface (ok, a mattress is an extremely damping medium).

Quote “Six stations within the greater Metropolitan New York region (Fig. 2) recorded the two tower collapses. Vertical-component records are shown in Figure 3 as a record section of distance as a function of travel time. The dotted lines indicate velocities from 1.5 to 2.5 km/s assuming propagation along straight paths from the WTC to the stations. Unlike signals at distant stations, the predominant waves are surface waves of short period (about 1 s)…” and:

“Relatively simple and similar pulses with durations of about 5 to 6 s arrive at stations BRNJ, TBR and ARNY starting at a group velocity of 2.0 km/s.” So BRNJ signal was indeed considered and:

“Thus, we conclude that the pulse duration at those four stations reflects mainly that the generation of seismic energy from the collapse was delivered over 5-6 s.” So the main energy from the collapse lasted just 5–6 s, consistent with little mass slamming to the ground and the buildings disappearing into dust.

Quote “The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower is at least 10^11 J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for ML 2.3 is about 10^6 to 10^7 J. Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy went into deformation of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust. The perception of people in the vicinity of the collapses as reported in the media seems to be in full accord with the notion that ground shaking was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings.” So again, the buildings did not slam to the ground!

Dr. Wood not only questions the relatively small magnitude registered at Palisades but also questions the nature of the seismic signals.

Reply

· Upvote

· Downvote

· Report

Dan Plesse

44m ago

“but others, only the vertical.” Simply not true and I posted a video to this effect.

So PAL is probably the best choice for analysis.” This is also wrong.

You don’t have anything right.

pulse duration has nothing to do the topic. surface waves are the first 20 miles, so all explosions fall inside this zone. They write “local explosion” on the draft reports.

“Relatively simple and similar pulses with durations of about 5 to 6 s arrive at stations BRNJ, TBR and ARNY starting at a group velocity of 2.0 km/s.”

TBR is Table Rock, NY 132 miles away
ARNY Arden House, NY 41.680 miles away

I see you have written Michael Pasyanos a question, did you get an answer? If I did you would see the email response.

PAL is not the closest. BRNJ is only 9 miles more then PAL. If your facts are wrong even at the most basic level, what makes you think you have anything right? NIST did not model the only connection they modeled for WTC 7 correctly, so that’s a reason NOT to use their data, but as Judy Wood guy you would not know about the NIST modeling issues would you?

AMNH 5.15 miles away
CPNY 6.15 miles away
CNY 8.37 miles away
CUNY 10.19 miles away
 FOR 12.51 .19 miles away
MONJ 13.25 miles away
N61a 13.25 miles away

draft reports say “local explosive”

Everything is missing. The exact location of these earthquakes can’t be found!

Lisa A Wald

4:21 PM (2 hours ago)

to me, archive

I asked the head of the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) about this, and he said:

The Sept 11 2001 events are not in the NEIC catalog because our station spacing was too sparse to get a good location and magnitude. We do not have classified information about the events. The events were carefully studied by the local seismic network at Lamont-Doherty. Reference: Kim et al., EOS Transactions, American Geophysical Union, volume 82 no. 47 November, 20 2001.

-Lisa

--------------------------------------------------

Lisa A Wald

Geophysicist & Web Design,Content,IA,UX

USGS Earthquake Hazards Program

--------------------------------------------------

The Missing Seismology Mystery of 9/11

Reply