French Geophysicist says there were powerful explosives at the WTC

[spooked911]

Seismic Signals Reveal Explosives Were Used at the WTC on 9/11, according to geophysicist André Rousseau

Doctor André Rousseau, former researcher in geophysics at CNRS and specialist in sound waves, presents us with the results of his analysis of the seismic signals recorded on September 11, 2001 in New York and gives his point of view as a specialist on the question of the destruction of the three towers at the World Trade Center.


http://www.reopen911.info/11-septembre/des-signaux-sismiques-revelent-l-utilisation-d-explosifs-au-wtc-le-11-9-selon-le-geophysicien-andre-rousseau/

English translation here:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/209899-A-New-Study-of-the-Seismic-Signals-on-September-11-2001-in-New-York

[whatchamacallit]

1. OCT: What do you expect from a cheese eating surrender monkey? (nt)

[spooked911]

2. *crickets*

not so easy to refute...

[zappaman]

3. crickets

cuz people know bullshit when they read it

[SDuderstadt]

5. Why, yes...

it looks "hard to refute" when neither you nor the author knows what the fuck they're talking about.

[spooked911]

15. Do you know more about seismographs than the author?

I didn't know that was your specialty.

(Thought it was something else)

[SDuderstadt]

26. One of my many specialties...

Dude. My biggest specialty is exposing your confirmation bias.

[deconstruct911]

4. I guess that fits in

with Jim Gartenberg saying the core was blown out on plane impact.(and all the sub-level damage)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2I3vRbxMWo
Also to the smoke rising from the base shortly before the south tower collapses?

[Ohio Joe]

6. Strange

Your first link does not appear to exist so I assume the translated page came from thin air. I also cannot find anything except for this regarding Doctor André Rousseau, does he actually exist? Lastly, I can find no other researcher in geophysics that agrees with this supposed conclusion, why would that be? Are they all in on it as well?

[Make7]

7. The first link needs that final forward slash that wasn't included by DU's link creation algorithm.

Try this:

Une nouvelle étude des signaux sismiques le 11 septembre 2001 à New York
 

[Ohio Joe]

8. ahhh yes, that works

Thanks!

[Nathan_Hale]

9. This is cool....

Spooked posts a lot of over-the-top stuff but this article seems to be the real thing.

Interesting here is that the seismic records are probably the best records of what happened that day. Better than hand held digital cameras or eyewitness testimonies. The machines don't lie.

I remember writing one of the fellows there at the Palisades station in 2002 and asking why the spikes occurred at the start of the collapse. Never got an answer. I'm glad a scientist finally went after it.

[LARED]

10. It's pretty amazing

Not a single seismologist has suggested explosives generated the seismic signal of the 9/11 impacts and collapse, yet after nearly nine years a "former researcher in geophysics" (sounds like weasel words for a guy with no credentials to evaluate the seismic signal, but we have to make him sound credible to get any respect for the countless ignorant BS addicts) has determined explosives were used.

A non peer reviewed "paper" drawing conclusions based on wishful thinking like;

Even if they were considerably amplified, these signals could not have been generated by the crashes into the Twin Towers - the actual waves generated by the crashes were deadened before hitting the ground (assuming that we were dealing with the same (low) frequencies). Frequencies of waves generated by explosions are on the order of Hertz - which is the case here - while those of crash impacts are above 10 Hertz, often around 100 Hertz. Furthermore, the range of the recording instruments cited does not allow for the recording of such waves

is not going to convince anyone other than existing true believers.

And spooked I will leave it up to you to figure out the problems with my excerpt.

[Nathan_Hale]

11. The paper's less than 30

days old....guess no peer's waiting on pins & needles. No suprise it hasn't been reviewed yet, or?

Pray tell oh expert, what are the problems with the excerpt?

[LARED]

12. Typically papers are peer reviewed prior to being published

and I seriously doubt it was submitted for review to anyone expect the public.

[ryan_cats]

44. Hertz?????

Frequencies of waves generated by explosions are on the order of Hertz - which is the case here - while those of crash impacts are above 10 Hertz, often around 100 Hertz. Furthermore, the range of the recording instruments cited does not allow for the recording of such waves.

I would assume any sound would be on the 'order of hertz' since that's how we determine the frequency of sounds, radio waves and the NWO waves that are protected by tinfoil.

If fact, most items have a natural resonant frequency which, guess what, it's also measured in hertz. A perfect example of this is the Tacoma Narrows bridge (galloping girdy). When the wind hit the correct speed, the bridge started to resonate as can be seen in the video and as it resonated, it fed back and the movement got bigger and bigger until it failed.

I think that was the basis of Tesla's earthquake machine.

[eomer]

45. It's the concept of an "order of magnitude".

Successive orders of magnitude:
0-9
10-99
100-999
1000-9999

So by saying 'order of hertz' the writer means somewhere in the range of 0-9 hertz.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. Why would the government cover up an underground explosion?

If Al Q had planted nukes underground why would the government cover this up?

They have been a long time in rebuilding the WTC.

[tetedur]

16. The government didn't even test for explosives residue

in the basements. You'd think they would have just to rule out the possibility, after all, they had tried in 1993. Perhaps this time
al Qaida could have tried a bomb in the basement to take out the core and then an airplane crash to topple the building.

That this was never even tested never made any sense to me. I realize now our government is a non-functioning, non-investigatory, non-protector, and non-truth telling entity. Expect nothing but CYA and you won't be disappointed.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

17. The terorists could have planted something underneath the basement?

why wasn't that thought of?

[William Seger]

20. Mabe because explosives underneath the basement...

... is a silly theory, regardless of who you propose planted them: The buildings collapsed an hour to an hour-and-a-half after these presumed explosions, and both collapses began near the plane-crash damage.

Not only does this "expert" make unsubstantiated claims about the seismograph readings, he doesn't even attempt to make his speculations sound like a plausible hypothesis. This is exactly the same approach we saw with the "red-chip nanothermite" nonsense.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

21. I think he maintained that the 'peak' in seis activity was just before the collapse.

I think it is possible that Al Qcould have planted a bomb underneath?

[zappaman]

22. yes it is possible

it also possible that a group of yetis, trained by alien overlords all farted at the same time in the basement causing both the spike on the seismograph and the toppling of the buildings.
possible? yes.
unlikely? yes.
thinking anything other than planes brought down those buildings? sad.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

23. well most people don't know

my neighbor was in the Marriot but got out and he said that there was this awful ground shaking before the collapse of each WTC? Were you there?

[zappaman]

24. nope.

wow.
you know one person who says the ground shook.
case closed, eh?
maybe it was an earthquake caused by EMPs sent out by the evil US government.

[spooked911]

32. One witness says the ground north of the WTC shook strongly

between 8:30 and 9.

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/02/breakthrough-story-of-cathy-t-large.html

[terrafirma]

43. And hundreds of people...

... saw planes hit the buildings with their own eyes.

But you've been able to "explain" that away for almost a decade now.

Tell me. What kind of explosive is powerful enough to shake the streets around the WTC but stealthy enough to not be heard?

[William Seger]

25. He claims there were explosions at the same time as the plane crashes

Wave Graphs Attributed to the Planes Crashing Into the Towers

In the first place, we must pose a question about the meaning of such signals' function with the cause attributed to them. Although the cause of the two signals is similar, the crashing of a plane, the magnitude (reflected by the amplitudes) of the two signals is different and the wave generated by the two do not have the same apparent speed (see figures 1a and 1b), even if the Twin Towers could be considered identical in terms of the spatial origin relative to their distance from the recording sites. The calculation of the propagation speeds, as shown in the graphs of figures 1a and 1b, where the origin was fixed according to the corresponding crash, indicates 2900 m/s for WTC1 and 2150 m/s for WTC2: we are obviously dealing with Rayleigh waves.Even if they were considerably amplified, these signals could not have been generated by the crashes into the Twin Towers - the actual waves generated by the crashes were deadened before hitting the ground (assuming that we were dealing with the same (low) frequencies). Frequencies of waves generated by explosions are on the order of Hertz - which is the case here - while those of crash impacts are above 10 Hertz, often around 100 Hertz. Furthermore, the range of the recording instruments cited does not allow for the recording of such waves. As to the theory of the oscillation of the Towers to explain these signals, as defended by Irvine (2001), it doesn't hold water because in such a case we would have had a "square" signal of long duration and a constant amplitude, while in actuality we observe a "bell" signal, representing a strong and brief explosion, which is particularly evident in the case of WTC2.

To the degree that it is geophysically impossible to have two different propagation speeds for the same wave at the same frequency - because the surface waves are dispersive, which means that their speed depends upon their frequencies - travelling the same path at a few minutes interval, one must bow to the evidence that the supposed origins of the recorded waves are incorrect, and that they are not linked to the crashes but to another origin, such as an explosion, with a non-identical time displacement for the two towers in relation to the impacts of the two planes. As well, the difference in the magnitude of the two signals can only be linked to different parameters relative to the volume of explosives and/or their distance from the surface.

(Emphasis in original)

And as I said, he makes no attempt to explain how that hypothesis makes any sense whatever.

As for the seismic waves at the time of the collapse, no, he does not maintain that the peak was just before the collapse. He claims that the two sets of wave patterns are too different to have the same cause, and that collapses couldn't generate those kinds of waves anyway. It appears that he doesn't realize that any top-down controlled demolition theory would have the exact same problems, unless he's proposing that the two buildings were really demolished in different ways, but neither by explosives up where we see the collapses happening. Again, even without delving into the technicalities of his argument, it doesn't seem that he's really thought things all the way through.

Regardless of his credentials, he seems to be a pretty fuzzy thinker.

[zappaman]

27. no shock

Fuzzy thinking is part and parcel of the troofers.
Actually, FUZZY thinking would be a step up for them...

[Bolo Boffin]

14. And Brent Blanchard, controlled demolitions expert, has seen the seismographs

and says NO explosives conclusively.

[Xenotime]

18. This is 100% proof positive Bush had something to do with it.

[zappaman]

19. yes 100% proof!

now we know for sure cuz one scientist out of thousands, thinks so!

[deconstruct911]

28. He knew

but it was taken care of by others.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Then you should be easily able to....

prove that. It's been nearly 9 years and you still have dick.

As hard as it is to believe, "truthers" have even less credibility than W.

[deconstruct911]

30. sure it is

you got it!

[SDuderstadt]

31. Dude...

think this through...W has almost no credibility whatsoever and you guys have even less tham that. Nine years later, all you have is conjecture and half-baked supposition that you, nonetheless, embarrass DU with.

Did it ever occur to you that, if you had any concrete evidence whatsoever, a number of us would join your cause?

[deconstruct911]

33. Did it occur to you

that the 93 bombing was preventable? In fact it was so preventable that in hindsight it was a success?

That intelligence was a major assistance in the global drug trade. Air America, Mena, Barry Seal, Iran Contra, the Medellin Cartel, Carlos Lehder, Pablo Escobar, Souther Air Transport? Can you honestly dispute all this evidence of the CIA role in the global drug trade?


Any convictions in the government for this activity dude? So do you suggest I just believe all the shit on TV about the drug trade and 9 11? Should we all believe there is no correlation between drugs and 9 11? Should we all believe if there was a correlation we are being told 100% everything?

I could care less what cause you join, some of us here are just trying to have a reasonable discussion about the events of 9 11. Honestly you have done jack to change a single mind.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Dude....

If I've not done jack to change a single mind, why is it that only a handful of you left posting your goofy bullshit here? More importantly, why aren't people flocking to your cause, dude?

[zappaman]

35. "Should we all believe there is no correlation between drugs and 9 11?"

drugs took down the WTC?
you have zero evidence of the drug trade connecting to the WTC.
show me otherwise.
love to see your "evidence"

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

37. calling me a "retard"

is not evidence.
guess you have none...

[deconstruct911]

38. LMAO

there is no evidence Afghanistan produces more heroin since 9 11? (That is if you haven’t heard of U.N.) Did you know Afghanistan produced virtually no heroin in 2001? Now think critically. Is it a coincidence Mullah Omar called for a ban on cultivation and 9 11 just happened to follow? If it wasn’t an “Al Qaeda” attack why would we invade Afghanistan only for it to produce MORE heroin that funds terrorism? If it was “Al Qaeda” why was there an invasion which has failed to stop the Taliban, but prevailed in producing MORE opium?



Afghanistan=opium
9/11=Afghanistan
2+2=4

[SDuderstadt]

39. Here's the part you left out...

dude.

By November 2001, the collapse of the economy and the scarcity of other sources of revenue forced many of the country's farmers to resort back to growing opium for export.(1,300 km² in 2004 according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_production_in_Afghanistan

You really ought to take a Logic class and pay particular attention to the logical fallacy, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc", dude.

[deconstruct911]

40. As I already pointed out

The drought played a significant role in Afghanistan. Could the opium ban also significantly explain why the economy collapsed?
Sure weather may justify the post 9 11 opium levels, the invasion does not. You may also note a relation between production and demand?


http://levin.senate.gov/issues/index4.cfm?MainIssue=CrimeandJustice&SubIssue=MoneyLaundering
Allow the logical thinking to begin. PLEASE!

[SDuderstadt]

41. If you have any logical thinking....

please share it with us, dude.

[zappaman]

42. you are right

2+2=4