Monday, November 10, 2014

World Trade Seismic Data Missing and Graphs Showing Explosions

to Lisa, bcc: astaneh, bcc: Arthedaink, bcc: David, bcc: Matt, bcc: 9/11
Dear Lisa,

Who at NIST do I ask?  

The catalog data is missing from  WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf.  So that's the data I am looking for.

They told me they don't have it and so I just showed them they do have catalog  data for 9/11.

They replied with go ask NIST for the data.

Who at NIST do I ask?

Table b-3 version.jpg





Christopher A. Brown But the USGS refused to release the analog seismograph recordings because an FFT analysis of the data would show the frequency of high explosives.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply4hEdited
" In addition, many smaller signals were registered at Palisades throughout the rest of the day that may have originated from the further collapse of the Twin Towers and the fall of walls and other debris in the surrounding area."

Nope the towers were gone, the only thing remaining is explosions.http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm

Graphs Showing Explosions 

No data for 9/11

   Date    Time (UTC)    Lat      Lon  Dep   Mag   [Web Page] [Phase Data] [Record Section] [WF] 
2001-12-24 16:58:21.0  46.850  -76.500  18 3.8 M   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 
2001-10-27 05:42:21.0  40.790  -73.970   5 2.6 M   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 
2001-10-25 00:24:29.8  45.200  -68.670   9 3.2 M   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 
2001-10-02 23:40:19.0  44.360  -71.824   0 2.3 M   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 
2001-09-22 16:01:20.5  38.026  -78.396   2 2.5 M   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 
2001-09-16 21:24:54.4  44.945  -72.155   9 1.9 M   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 
2001-08-19 22:47:21.4  42.584  -74.010   6 1.8 M   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 
2001-08-15 14:44:35.4  41.899  -72.236  15 1.9 M   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 
2001-08-05 04:12:10.2  43.824  -74.129   9 1.5 M   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 
2001-07-17 14:41:20.2  39.937  -76.340   1 1.8 M   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 
2001-07-14 20:08:29.4  40.946  -74.366   7 1.9 M   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 
2001-06-13 09:15:48.6  38.241  -60.611   0 4.0 M   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX 
2001-06-03 22:36:46.5  41.905  -80.767   5 3.0 M   XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX

World Trade Seismic Data Missing and Graphs Showing Explosions

Seismic Station AMNH 5.15 miles away  No 9/11 data
Seismic Station CPNY 6.15 miles away  No 9/11 data
Seismic Station CNY 8.37   miles away No 9/11 data
Seismic Station CUNY 10.19  miles away No dataSeismic Station FOR 12.51 .19  miles away No 9/11 dataSeismic Station MONJ 13.25  miles away No 9/11 dataSeismic Station N61a 13.25  miles away No 9/11 data

Seismic Station PAL is 20.86  miles away YES 9/11 data
My question is how did Prof Kim manage to avoid all these other closer stations and way pick the one station 20 miles away and what happened to thousands of other seismologist at these other locations seeing the explosions and opted to say silent for cash 
Seismologist say silent for cash on 911 and forever after





Lynn R. Sykes reports higher numbers then official reported i.e 9/11 Cover up

''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. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/12/us/a-day-of-terror-the-measurement-columbia-s-seismographs-log-quake-level-impacts.html
Graphs Showing Explosions Local Explosion

Abstract 
Seismologists sometimes do their work of data acquisition and analysis against a tragic background. Usually, the context is fieldwork far from home, in an area subjected to the natural but sometimes devastating effects of an earthquake. But in the present case, we are in our own New York City area; that is, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, in Palisades, N.Y; and the context is inhuman actions against people and the fabric of our society.As the appalling events of September 11 unfolded, we found that we had recorded numerous seismic signals from two plane impacts and building collapses of the two World Trade Center (WTC) towers, often at times different than those being reported elsewhere. Collapses of the two WTC towers generated large seismic waves, observed in five states and up to 428 km away The north tower collapse was the largest seismic source and had local magnitude ML 2.3. From this, we infer that ground shaking of the WTC towers was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings. But unfortunately, we also conclude that from the distance at which our own detections were made (the nearest station is 34 km away at Palisades) 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.  (how about bombs?)


 Draft Report includes "local explosions"

Keywords:   
6605 Education, 7219 Nuclear explosion seismology
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFM.S11D..03K

"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."
(page has been removed or blocked)
" In addition, many smaller signals were registered at Palisades throughout the rest of the day that may have originated from the further collapse of the Twin Towers and the fall of walls and other debris in the surrounding area.http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm
Phase composition of regional seismic waves from underground nuclear explosions
Hong, T. K.; Xie, J. K.
Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth(2005) Issue: 

B12 Pages: 
- Volume: 
110 Doi 10.1029/2005jb003753

Other 
"The destructive energy of the January earthquake was magnitude 2.4, a minor earthquake. It was felt in Manhattan and Queens. Dr. Sykes sykes@ldeo.columbia.edu said the twin tower collapses were slightly larger in destructive energy. "


Second collapse ML=2.3
11:01:07 Further collapse
1 0 0 0
11:15:04 EDT, Further collapse
1 0 0
15:10
11:29:46 EDT, Further collapse

1 0

9/11 Data Could look like this 
“Latitude and Longitude data
South Tower:
 Latitude:40.711044436950424 Longitude:-74.01313304901123
North Tower:
 Latitude:40.71207726282092, Longitude:-74.01320815086365

WTC building 7
 Latitude:40.71319952788825, Longitude:-74.01155591011047

Does  this folder contain the data for creating the Digital Catalog Attributes and the unreported details for 9/11?
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B0pxVbXyB9OLSGZ2SE1EVXJ0WDQ

 Thanks 




https://norfidid.wordpress.com/part-2-of-4-were-mini-nuke-bombs-the-cause-of-the-wtc-destruction/




















USGS Answers noreply@answers.usgs.gov

9:47 AM (18 minutes ago)
to me
Thank you for contacting the U.S. Geological Survey. Your message has been sent.
If you are using a filter to block unwanted email ("spam"), please set it to allow messages from usgs.gov

Reply will be sent to: dxx.xxxxx@gmail.com
Topic: Other
Subject: catalog formatted data for the events of September 11th
Message: Hello I am looking for Historical catalog formatted data for the events of September 11th. If the information is classified, please yet me know that too..
U.S. Geological Survey
Science Information Services
Toll Free 1-888-ASK-USGS
You can contact us live on Webchat
Find us on Facebook and Twitter and see other USGS social media accounts.



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

An explosion at a gasoline tank farm near Newark N.J. on January 7,1983 generated observable P and 5 waves and short-period Rg waves (ML 3) at PAL. Its Rg is comparable to that for WTC collapse
 

Lisa, 

Station AMNH is in Manhattan... 5.21 miles away..

Station listings

Station CUNY also is a USGS Member Google earth shows 5 member stations within 5 miles - 12 miles range..

Kim said the South Tower had a range of  "13 seismic stations in five states, including one at Lisbon, N.H., 266 miles away." 

 None of the catalogs contains any data.. 


Would all these stations collect data.. Why didn't Kim use the closest stations? 

  Kim only studied PAL Station which subtracted the largest recordings found at BRNJ Station and the rest were not operational..

Fordham University FOR Station was 12 miles away?  


Lisa  the head of the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) must have assumed and reasoned away the problem and 
does not seem factual..

People are saying "they are blowing up buildings, go home, go home" Did you missed that? He also said "how can a bomb blow up the building, must be very strong" the guy replied like a dick, like you just did. Anyway 1993 bombs did nothing.. The bomb was very strong. So strong I asked USGS about the data and they said it had to be an error (from BRNJ).. The earthquake magnitudes from BRNJ went beyond the machines ablities I have a few USGS emails with no answers to Hello I am looking for Historical catalog formatted data for the events of September 11th. (below)





9-11 seismogram Select BRNJ, vertical and Short-period 

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/LCSN/WebSeis/24hr_heli.pl?id&year=2001&jday=254

Click
View Archive Seismograms Recorded at LCSN in 2001.

Pick Date 9/11/2001

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/.../WebSeis/24hr_heli.pl...
Like · 3 mins · Edited

DID THE EARTH SHAKE
BEFORE THE SOUTH TOWER HIT THE GROUND
? YES!  via Seismic witnesses &  Testimonies and Etienne Saure videos

9 11 Seismic witnesses &  Testimonies Version 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N-EL4_K4jA
9 11 Seismic witnesses &  Testimonies Version 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWIr5-YUrXU

Yes a complete report matters decimal points are concerned they the only means to locate a point on a map via Longitude and Latitude. MacQueen, Judy Wood +plus 100% her followers and whole A&E truth movement, including yourself developed a strange blind spot for the missing Longitude and Latitude coordinates and I am guessing became fooled by the truncated coordinates (+40.71 -74.013) as a stand-in for complete data. Seismic data normally exists in rows and columns inside USGS Catalogs in decimal format which as far as I know 100% of the 9/11 recording in NYC are completely missing and replaced by wavy lines on graphs which means completely nothing inside NIST, FEMA and 9/11 Truth responses. 

  • Rod Champers To be quite honest, Dan, I'd never paid any attention to the coordinates. Forgive me my ignorance, but can you explain the significance please?
    17 mins · Like
    • Daniel M. Plesse Significance of any undisclosed data remains the same, correct? All undisclosed data SHOULD BE the target for any Truth movement. If a movement can't figure out what is undisclosed it means that its not a truth movement now is it? The significance of everyone having the same blind spot is so odd I can't image a way define it.




                           Getting the time right matters  

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/irc/docs/00013655.pdf

In 2006, engineers Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross showed that the plane impacts could not have caused the seismic signals attributed to them by LDEO, because they originated several seconds before the 9/11 Commission’s radar-based times of impact.http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-7/


Earthquakes were reported BEFORE anything happened to the towers!

More 9/11 earthquake witnesses. Hospital lost power too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-WUfrnPh2M

9 11 Underground Demolition Earthquake Rumble Witnesses Testimonies 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N-EL4_K4jA

Earthquakes were reported BEFOREhttp://youtu.be/pOhVucl_QUQ?t=2m30s


Dan Plesse dan.plesse@gmail.com

Jan 12 (3 days ago)
to Gerald
Dear Gerald Ginsberg, would 3:15 P.M fit? I am trying match up to one of this marks. The 3:15 P.M looks like big blast but it looks too late.

looks like a 1:00 P.M.and a 1:30 P.M. The other are too soon. 9:20 A.M.

Gerald Ginsberg

Jan 13 (2 days ago)
to me
Dan,
I agree with your guesses. 3:15 is too late and 9:20 too early.
Dr. G.

Jennifer, 

     Do you see anything strange ? the BRNJ blasts seem larger. One blast at the 15:15 or 3:15 P.M seems like the WTC 7 explosion and the mark does not even show up in the PAL graphic and what magnitude is that? Thanks







Dear Gerald Ginsberg, would 3:15 P.M fit? I am trying match up to one of this marks. The 3:15 P.M looks like big blast but it looks too late. 

It looks like a 1:00 P.M.and a 1:30 P.M. The other are too soon. 9:20 A.M.


Hi Dan,

The ANSS catalog available at the NCEDC website is being replaced soon by the ANSS Comprehensive Catalog, still under development. You can read more about it here:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/doc_aboutdata.php

But, the ANSS catalog search returns earthquake locations, magnitudes, and other parameters rather than seismic waveform data.

Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University put out a paper on seismic waves generated by aircraft impacts and building collapses on 9/11. It may have the information you are looking for. Here is the link:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf




9/11 curator died of multiple myeloma, thus all curators should be checked for cancer from 9/11 DU exposure
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/obituaries/articles/2008/11/14/david_shayt_eclectic_smithsonian_curator/
There are various types of Nuclear Fusion, depending on the fuel sources and any additionally added elements. Depending on what's desired, more or less heat, more or less neutrons, many factors can be controlled be the additions of other elements, to include uranium.
THEORY OF MOLECULAR DISSOCIATION INDUCED BY NEUTRONS.pdf

4th generation Nuclear weapons
Pure Fusion Weapons.pdf
I had seen some info to that effect a couple of years ago. Decontamination of people at 9-11.

Someone posted a 9-11 article on the Face Book "9/11 Truth Movement - All Theories welcomed" , in the guys article he shows a picture of this from the Lawrence Livermore Labs, and talks about 9-11 as a Nuclear Event.
Evidently he knows more than he saying, this is part of my video on 9-11
4339.pdf
drive.google.com
The Fusion Fuel container or "Hohlraum", before and after implosion.

No one ever said they HAD to be "Micro" in size, Fusion Weapons would require a larger "Fuel Pellet"
its very telling

I remember Clare Kuehn talking about someone who stated , part of floors of the WTC Towers were never installed or missing

This would be pretty handy when installing a similar device like this.

Then there was the Power outage, prior to the event, needed to wire in a Laser Fusion device possibly?

Large scale KFl Laser Fusion projects

Table -Top Petawatt Lasers were available as early as 1998



I am NOT proving Khalezov theory because Khalezov’s 150 kt big nuke theory fails on several counts but BRNJ seismic does show a readout of a very large spike not reported by "Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory" i.e SEISMIC MONITORS around NEW YORK on 9/11. Burn victims ave pattern which outline their T-shirts i.e like a bad sun burn and people have reported being hit by rays thus a neutron weapon.

9/11 Underground Demolition Earthquake Rumble Witness Testimonies 3
September 11th  Burn Patterns Like a Sun burn 
Close to 10,000 remains found after the 2001 terrorist attack were damaged by extreme heat
 
Lets start with the Truth and then start an new 9/11 investigation.

Strange discrepancy between two Lamont Doherty seismic stations

1. PAL Palisades, NY
2. BRNJ Basking Ridge, NJ


  • Jana "official published seismic readings" HOW MANY WERE PUBLISHED? There are more seismograph stations which "catch" the wawe - not?
    16 mins · Like
  • Dan Plesse Jana

    One official published seismic readings papers might be inside "Nuclear explosion seismology, 7260 Theory and modeling" but I can't get past the requirements.

    Question #2 I have been publishing seismographs  from BRNL  the only other station which "caught" the wave ouside of PAL station. 

"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 Kim

"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."

9/11 Nuclear Fallout, Decontamination Documents and Witnesses
http://911truthout.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-nnsa-started-2000-and-ready-for.html?q=sun+rays



BRNJ 49.647 Miles from the World Trade Center or 79.788991016 KM


Dan Plesse dan.xxxx@gmail.com

Jan 25
to ykim, Cedric, srl, srled, srminfo, Frederic, Anthony, Frank, bcc: grustic

BRNJ 49.647 Miles from the World Trade Center or 79.788991016 KM

Noooo Replies and don't know, never looked 

3 minutes ago

Dan do you have handy the time the seismic time record of the impacts to the towers both N and S on 9/11.
I have the raw data but need someone to look at it with the right tools.
9-11EarthquakeData.zip - Google Drive
drive.google.com

Nuclear explosion seismology, 7260 Theory and modeling might have data too
check out 9/11 Dr. Rousseau
New videos every day too
September 11th Micro Nukes New Photographs
www.youtube.com
Chat Conversation End
Seen 2:33pm


I will be doing a series next Monday - Friday on Blogtalk Wake up to the Truth Radio (FB group) blogtalkradio/911falseflags with Mike Serour and Eric.


Dan Plesse dan.plesse@gmail.com

6/7/13
to pearle, bcc: lisa
Hello Paul Lisa Wald said to contact you.
     I am looking for data on 9/11, data that is not associated with Seismologist Won-Young Kim because his data chart has multiple  columns for  time zones and I would assume most people know how to translate time zones correctly. The depth column is also missing and location data has been truncated and generalized and precision cut off.. I would think depth and location are the two most important data elements in earthquake reporting.  If you have higher degree if precision that the original public documents it be much appreciated . P.S I was warned not contact Won-Young Kim directly by his students at his center for some reason.  Lisa Wald gave me a web page which was limited to 30 days.      
Thanks Dan

Earle, Paul pearle@usgs.gov

6/8/13
to me
Hi Dan,

I have not done any work on the 9/11 explosion and have not personally looked at the data. But I can comment generally on the depth and location estimates from seismic data. A more accurate estimate of the location and depth of the blasts will come from just using the location of the buildings that were attacked. There are inherent uncertainties in estimates from seismic data and the seismic signals produced by a surface explosion can be hard to read, although I have not looked at them myself.

best regards,
Paul

Earle, Paul pearle@usgs.gov

6/14/13
to me
I'm on anual leave and will not be checking e-mail until Monday June 17th. Please contact Harley Benz or Gavin Hayes with any urgent NEIC response issues.

cheers,
Paul


Dan Plesse dan.plesse@gmail.com

6/17/13
to Paul
Paul have you located the 9/11 earthquake data yet?  Can you send whatever you have?

Earle, Paul pearle@usgs.gov

6/18/13
to me
Good morning Dan,

As I mentioned in my last e-mail, I have not done any work on the 9/11 explosions. Retrieving and analyzing these data would take considerable time and has been done by another researcher (Kim). I do not plan to follow up on this. A large archive of seismic data can be found here: http://www.iris.edu/dms/nodes/dmc/data/types/waveform-data/ perhaps the data you are looking for is there. I'm sorry I do not have time to explain how to analyses and process these data.

Given the small coupling of seismic waves into the ground from non-buried surface exposions, I do not think anymore useful information can be extracted from them.

Earle, Paul pearle@usgs.gov

6/19/13
to me
Hi Dan,

Thanks for information. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone beyond Kim that has looked into these data or that would feel there is any information to be obtained from seismology beyond what was already derived from the observations. I will save your contact and if I hear of anyone working on this problem I will direct them to you.

Best regards and good luck with your studies,
Paul





How far away ware those stations? Do they have the same sensitivity?

A basement is empty space, why bomb it?

Especially if you're trying to give the impression a building collapsed from much higher up?

SO the 25 & 20 represent second passed, right?
15 20 25 is minutes

around 20 km
Bomb the basement area to get the top moving. Its basic.
Chat Conversation End

Stream






















































Gordon Liddy

1 day ago
LINKED COMMENT
The basement of WTC 6 is also where the highest tritium levels were recorded, 55 x normal next to the crater. 35 x normal in the sewer.
Reply
 · 


Gordon Liddy
1 day ago (edited)
+danp5648  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141

There's also a link to the entire Lawrence Livermore WTC tritium study in the discussion section of my channel. The NNSA did the tests but that info is no longer posted on their website as far as I know. 
Reply
 · 


Gordon Liddy
3 hours ago (edited)
+danp5648 No samples were taken from near WTC 1, 2 or 7. On 9/21 those areas were likely inaccessible. I'd love to know what the reading for those areas would have been.

The Lawrence Livermore paper is essentially intended to say 'nothing to see here folks move along' but their methods expose their motives. First it was implied the exit signs in the buildings were the # 1 source. Only after finding out there were no tritium exit signs in the old WTC complex did they switch it to the signs on the planes & elevated the broken/melted gun scopes in WTC 6 to the #1 source.

They started out with a requisite number of scopes they'd need to explain the levels. As time went on they weren't finding enough compromised scopes & then began to lower the necessary number until it fit what they actually found so the numbers could all fit together nice & neat with no loose ends.

The signs in the planes weren't considered much of a source as the fireball would've dissipated almost all the tritium. Since the PANYNJ confirmed only photo-luminescent signs were used in the old WTC they're scrounging for every unit of tritium they can find.

We saw the same dishonest method used to explain the melting of metals in the WTC. Stretching the numbers & circumstances as much as possible to get every single degree they possibly can just to create plausibility.

The whole damn cover up is being conducted like this as was JFK's assassination cover up. It's the magic bullet all over again!
Show less

I emailed a few people for comment.

 

Dear Terry J. Allen

Do you really think these large spikes documented here
http://911truthout.blogspot.com/2014/11/looks-like-ldeo-did-some-editing-on-911.html

and the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory Discrepancy between two seismic stations (PAL showing smaller degree of the larger spikes however a higher degree of smaller spikes then BRNJ)

was really caused by falling material?

I dare you to manage an interview with someone who is an expert, or at least a high-level student, of seismic activity. and show them the data without mentioning 9-11 at all, (change the dates if need be on the charts) and ask if they notice anything strange or what would explain it.
Like · ·
  • Dan Plesse Joe Citizen All those things were explained away years ago right? 

    "Building 7 is enough ..." Nope ! 

    This year 
    "Court Rules Against the High-Rise Safety Initiative" etc. WTC 7 

    "put options is enough ..." Nope ! 

    Was explained away by FBI insider put newsletter. 

    Read FOIA #1 
    http://911truthout.blogspot.com/.../911-explosing...

    American Greed - S04E004 - "The Mad Max of Wall Street" Newsletter publisher.

    "military stand down is enough" you mean air force ?? 

    Jeff Hill calls "Do the orders still stand?" guy Nope no confession
    13 hrs · Like · Remove Preview
  • Joe Citizen A court order does not explain away anything ... only scientific evidence does ... how do you figure building 7 falling at almost freefall speed was "explained away" by a court order refusal of "high rise safety initiatives".

    Not to mention the eleph    ant in the room ... how in the hell do you pretend to assume that if all the other evidence has been "explained away" ... that your little thesis and thought processes is going to advance anywhere?

    Your nuke theory has "MUCH WEAKER" evidence ... 

    You are wasting your's and everyone else's time. 

    I see you trying to exaggerate with "court rulings" etc. etc. Just to try and make your nuke crap viable. 

    You need much more than a "possible" discrepancy of 2 different seismograph reading ... 
    Really? Seriously? Everything else has been "explained away" ... yet this "smoking gun" evidence is going somewhere? 

    And yes the last time I checked ... the air force is still a military branch.

    Keep up your stuff ... and I'll tell you how I really feel about you.
    5 hrs · Like
  • Dan Plesse Joe Citizen building 7 falling is well known. freefall speed was "explained away" by NIST right? other people by now? oldest theories in the world. 

    "high rise safety initiatives". failed because the same believes you are selling to me failed. Lets stop kicking the old dead horses. 

    You have not identify any "scientific evidence" yet. Your list is a bunch of emotional pleas which are 13 years old, covered for years and years and many years.

    Give it a rest. 

    "MUCH WEAKER" evidence ... You need much more than a "possible" discrepancy of 2 different seismograph reading ... 

    Can you see the seismograph? 

    Did you review all the witnesses? 
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N-EL4_K4jA

    New witnesses are coming forward every day. 
    Human car washes for example. 
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3g4SGTBJTw

    museum curator dying from cancer. 
    http://911truthout.blogspot.com/.../the-nnsa-started-2000...

    WEAKER I think not.
    9 11 Underground Demolition Earthquake Rumble Witness Testimonies 3
    Seismic Evidence Implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11...
    YOUTUBE.COM
    1 min · Edited · Like · Remove Preview

At the heart of 9/11 Truth is one universal belief (Judy Wood and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth both agree!) is the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory fraudulence!  

Journalists may call these contacts for information.
Kevin Krajick
Senior Science Writer
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Office: 212-854-9729
Cell: 917-361-7766
kkrajick@ei.columbia.edu
Kim Martineau
Science Writer/Media Relations
Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory
Office: (845) 365-8708
Cell: 646-717-0134
kmartine@ldeo.columbia.edu 
Writer / Content Manager
The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Office: (212) 854-8050
Cell: 347-753-4816
dfunkhouser@ei.columbia.edu

Do you think its connected to all the witnesses to earthquakes on 9/11? 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N-EL4_K4jA

9/11 Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals 9/11 Dr. Rousseau? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO7EBTAGA1M

9/11 Electronic interference evidence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PXWxkT9ZhQ


  • Philip Joy Dan please can you explain the implications. Does the data discrepancy suggest a lower or higher seismic reading, and if higher, how high - up as much as 1 on the Richter scale?
    10 mins · Like
  • Dan Plesse Philip Joy BRNJ shows higher seismic readings then PAL . Larger quakes matches up with cracks the federal building and surrounding area. 1 on the Richter scale would be 3.2. range and could be more. Its clear we have been duped by 9/11 leaders all along. Nuke theorists don't even bother to use half the available evidence making sure their evidence is nice and weak to be dismissed. set up to fail theory. 

    Guns n Butter Indira Singh 9/11 mold, earthquake damage report 
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjIPEunSC40
    Guns n Butter Indira Singh 9/11 mold, earthquake damage report
    Guns n Butter Indira Singh 9/11 mold, earthquake...
    YOUTUBE.COM|BY DANP5648
    Just now · Edited · Like · Remove Preview


about an hour ago

Sorry Dan, I tried but failed to find the point in the discussion so can I ask you again personally, re the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory Discrepancy?

Are the seismic readings for WTC 1+2 Dr Wood quotes now revealled to have been too LOW?

And if they were too low, and some significant magnitude was the fact, why is it that we do not see large waves running across the Hudson from the disturbance of the bedrock.

what is the reading for WTC 7?
"Are the seismic readings for WTC 1+2 Dr Wood quotes now revealled to have been too LOW?" AND one spike
NOT accounted for
Woods low activity seems higher

Interesting. Does Dr Wood appear to know that there are contradictory seismic records and that someone got to them?
core point is the missing spike from PAL station.

Which should coincide with what?
I have know idea, maybe WTC 6!

Interesting, WTC 6 is generally assumed to have happened during the dust cloud roll-outs, though no-one actually says.
I only have seen the graphs, I am not sure if the details will ever be public.
It could be WTC 7 also

That would be easy to decide timewise, as WTC7 was much later in the day.
Do you see the large spike at 5:15 ?
I emailed a bunch of people but no replies for comment.

which of the graphs on your blog would I be looking at for this?
The New Jersey Station.
PAL is New York they look above the same distance.
about the same distance.
Each graph is a little different. They are not clones.
the BRNJ looks like something happened

at "20"
at 15 yellow box

My problem is that I don't understand seismology graphs. Clearly the BRNJ appears to record something missing in the PAL. And your image of Indian nuke test suggests the shape is nuke not quake.
That's what
i got

So do you link this with the rumblings?
Its all connected. The body part map, rumblings witnesses etc. DOE WTC Tritium Report - 911

I am worried about the absence of effects on the surface at these points. I would expect to see a significant seismic reading doing something to the water on the Hudson. What size reading is required to set off a tidal wave?
Update: Evaluation of the DOE WTC Tritium Report - 911 | This is the next level red pill, you...
911truthout.blogspot.com
"What size reading is required to set off a tidal wave?" I think those are caused by underwater collapses .

Common sense tells me that seismic activity in the bedrock - which is underwater by virtue of being below sea level, would be expected to produce some effect on the water of the Hudson. The only thing is I don't know what degreee of sudden seismic shock is required to disturb water. I know from the amateur footage of rumblings, taken from islands opposite, that no such disturbance of water was manifest.
CNN Fakes from Youtube claims these waves happened.

7.5 is required for a tsunami, but lower values must cause disturbance. How high is the new reading you have spotted?
I actually have no idea what that spike magnitude is
I would love to get the catalog details
Why don't you ask the USGS for comment

I'm going to have to go back to Dr Wood's chapter. She quotes only PAL recordings. I suppose the absence of an entire reading in the PAL is disturbing, but it only throws doubt on whatever was removed, rather than on the values which are the same as New Jersey.

I might do that! Meanwhile comparison with 911 timeline would be valuable. Since I'm so thiick at reading these graphs can you tell me what time the PAL erased event occured?
look like 5:15 but its in military time.
hour 15:00 and 15 minutes
24-hour clock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK. quarter past three in the afternoon local time?
15:00, 3:00 p.m.. 16:00, 4:00 p.m.. 17:00, 5:00 p.m.
haha yeah
That fits with god knows what.

I'm going to check Thomson's timeline. He's generally considered to be an uncontrolled source.
however if that is UTC
15:00 UTC is 10:00 in your local time
15:00 UTC
time.unitarium.com

Thompson is in New York local time I thiink.
its says GMT times
GMT too
look at the far left top

Are you saying the 15.00 is GMT?
15:00 (3pm) 10:00 (10am)

so are you saying that I should look for an event at 10 am local time. I will check Thompson.
Yeah

kk

In Dr Wood's book however, the seismic chart records a "further collapse" at 11.01 local time, and another at 11.15. These are tiny, though larger than background. She gets her info from PAL.

I have compared the NJ and the PAL and my comparisons are highlighted:
yeah that's the difference

These are both at 15.15 GMT. NJ and PAL both have similar bulges, but NJ has a spike not there in PAL?
yeah
going for run

These seismic charts which I now understand are print outs in vertical format of what was originally a continuous horizontal scroll. So it is a little difficult to see how large the spike is in NJ at 15.15. Especially as it seems to be superimposed on a vertical demarcation line. But as I say Dr Wood records the 15.15 data, and it has a spike on it. So I'm not quite sure what the fuss is about since its not like one of the sources fails to record at that point in time, there is just a difference in the record of the initial spike. I would be interested to hear what your correspondence reveals, Dan. Thanks.


What exactly did Wood say?
3 hours ago


I hope that scan is readable. There are three events labelled 'further collapse'. Dr Wood is primarily concerned in this chapter to use seismic data to disporve progressive collapse. She suggest that what seismic data is available shows insuffuciently LONG and insufficiently HIGH readings for two buildings of mass

What does Wood say? OK. Wood uses PAL to show NIST analysis incomplete. This is the main context. But on p72 she does question the data source: could it have been filtered, or completely manufactured? She concludes that even if massaged, the signals are too low! So you see she's pursuing an argument with NIST. Rather like her use of hotspots info: not hot enough, even if correct. People take Wood out of context and present her data as prooving something outside of the context of an argument with NIST. She never forgets the data may be tampered with.

If you want to know what she supposes to have caused the three events marked "further collapse" and whether she trusts PAL data at all, you must ask her directly. I think she'd be quite honest about it.

What does she say about the three further events: nothing either way. She admits they are there, but doesn't draw any particular conclusions from them. As I have shown, by reference to Thompson's timeline, there is no readily available evidence of any observable events at the times of sesimic activity. See if you can get her to suggest something. Let me know what she thinks, I'd be interested. PS you really ought to get yourself a copy of WDTTG, even if you disagree with it, so that you are not making a straw man argument. Ciao, Philip
a few seconds ago
"'further collapse" that's the official image everyone uses and has to look at.

"She suggest that what seismic data is available shows insuffuciently LONG and insufficiently HIGH readings for two buildings" she's right but only because the readings have nothing to with buildings. She dust theory contracts anything large enough to hit the ground.

"She admits they are there but doesn't draw any particular conclusions from them." Can you write to someone and get a conclusion? thanks

Thompson's timeline does not seem very detailed. I am sure why anyone would bother to use that.


Posted by at 1 comment:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Search