Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

To-do list for World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-09-11

Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : *The citations have got out of hand. The various variations of the {{cite}} template need to be used, but there seem to be a great number which are imperfectly cited. Please pick up any that simply show as a url and visit (eg) cite web to determine the most appropriate template to put inside the ref. This is reinforced by the most recent Peer Review comment about consistency. The full set of templates are at Misplaced Pages:Citation templates The ref for In response to concerns about the destruction of evidence, W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team on the site, stated, that "The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples." at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm does not lead to the expected story This article makes no reference to the only cited scientific examination of actual materials for the presence of explosive materials claimed by supporters of the controlled demolition theory. That study by Harrit et al. found the presence of unexploded nanothermite materials. Copyedit : * From Peer Review One thing I would note is that grammar and phrasing are very important for "Featured Articles." I noticed a few phrases in the introduction that were awkward at best. Example: "The collapse of 7 World Trade Center (not hit by any plane)..." In this case, the interjection would flow much better if it was "which was not hit by a plane", or perhaps it should be removed entirely. The whole article should be examined for tone by a seasoned editor. Expand : *Fix this reference: Griffin, David Ray in The Hidden History (will fix ref). Other : *Continually monitor the Peer Review feedback, discuss it and incorporate the agreed items, making sure feedback is left on the Peer Review page Examine these references and determine whether they fit and where they fit. and add them if appropriate, giving feedback on completion

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

• ] The anchor (Opinion on 9/11 attacks) has been deleted.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Seismic

A sentence is incorrect and needs reediting: In the section "Proposals...", the sentence now reads, "There are many noises...seismic..." Additional seismic analyses from 2010 and 2012 render the statement false.

It needs correcting and reediting to read as :

___________________________

Seismic signals

Seismic signals on 11 September 2001 were collected from the Columbia University's Palisades station, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO), whose data and report was used by FEMA and NIST in their reports. The 9/11 Commission Report also used LDEOs report, but replaced LDEOs seismic event timestamps with timestamps from National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) ground radars tracking the planes that impacted WTC1 and WTC2, but not WTC7.

The LDEO station is 34 km (approximately 11 miles) from WTC, and additional seismic signals were registered in neighboring states. By 2006, Craig Furlong, Ross Gordon and J. Hoffman were reexamining the seismic event information, as did Graeme MacQueen in 2006 and again in 2009.

In 2010, French geologist and geophysicist Dr André Rousseau of the National Center of Scientific Research (Centre national des recherches scientifiques, CNRS), whose speciality is acoustic wave signals, reanalysed the raw seismic data from LDEO. He found major descrepancies in the timing of the seismic signals, as compared to the timing of the impacts of the planes; in the different magnitudes of signals for the identical twin towers; and in the wave frequencies of the signals, which do not correspond to plane impacts nor to falling debris from buildings.

Rousseau's seismic analysis, which states LDEOs claims as to the causes of the seismic events are "geophysically impossible", was republished in 2012 and entitled, "Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?". His conclusions in the seismic signal events also correspond to four testimonials compiled by the New York Fire Department, which are eyewitness accounts of apparent controlled demolitions, and which Rousseau states are confirmed:

Finally, controlled demolition of the three towers, suggested by the visual and audio witness testimony as well as by observations of video recordings of their collapses, is thus confirmed and demonstrated by analysis of the seismic waves emitted near the time of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapses.

It's reported that Rousseau's seismic signal analyses from 2010 and 2012 have not been refuted in academic journals as of 11 September 2021. ____________________________

93.23.198.36 (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Kim W.Y., Sykes L.R., Armitage J.H., Xie J.K., Jacob K.H., Richards P.G., West M., Waldhauser F., Armbruster J., Seeber L., Du W.X. and Lerner-Lam A. 2001. "Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City," EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Vol. 82, No. 47: 565, 570-571, 20 November 2001.
2. André Rousseau (18 février 2010)."Des signaux sismiques révèlent l’utilisation d’explosifs au WTC le 11/9, selon le géophysicien André Rousseau", Agoravox, 12 mars 2010.
3. André Rousseau, 2012. "Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?" Edited by Tod Fletcher. Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol 34:1-23.
4. "Oral Histories from Sept 11". Compiled by the New York Fire Department. New York Times, 12 August 2005.

Nor have they been endorsed, or received significant notice over the past ten years, probably because they were published in a fringe journal dedicated to publishing material that supports conspriacy theories. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

With the subject being 9/11, which has rendered changes to modern life as we know/knew it, it seems more likely that no self respecting geo scientist could disagree with Rousseau's analyses. Glad to see it's an accepted change, and including the information is a good editorial decision.

Also, the NYFD's testimonies include those from EMT personnel and cops. Those that loosely toss around the term "fringe/conspiracy theory" would likely be shocked to know this fact.

What are you talking about? Acroterion (talk) 04:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

What? Acroterion

This discussion is about correcting the error and editorializing in the following sentence: "There are many types of loud sharp noises that are not caused by explosives, and seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions." . I was checking and noticed it hasn't been corrected yet.

That's because this article is about a conspiracy theory which has received no support in serious journalism or scholarship. The Journal of 9/11 Studies is solely devoted to promoting conspiracy theories. There is nothing to "correct." Acroterion (talk) 20:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a confusion - the edit request has been accepted, Acroterion, as in, "edit semi-protected|World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories|answered=yes" Additionally:

• The author, Rousseau, is a "serious" scholar and serious geophysicist, a specialist in acoustic wave signals. An almost identical article by him was first published in Agoravox, 2010 (ref above). Not the Journal in 2012. Thus, Rousseau's report is again valid for this page.
• Despite the characterization of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, the page's subject is the "conspiracy theory", which by default renders those sources characterized as conspiracy theory sources completely usable, since they are the best sources for the page's subject.
• The entertainment mag Popular Mechanics is not a source written by a serious academic nor scientist, but is used. This also means the interpretation of the reliability of sources is not logical nor valid.
• Rousseau has other publications in scientific journals, further heightening his reliability as an author of an important analysis.
• Including an independent review of LDEOs seismic analysis is what the issue is here. Readers can decide for themselves.

Here's additional edits for the necessary Seismic signals subsection, added directly to the last sentence provided above: __________________________ Additionally notable, eyewitness accounts of apparent explosions above the lower floors would not register as seismic events, and thus were not a focus of Rousseau's report.

Among Rousseau's major discoveries is the 9/11 Commission's decision to change LDEOs timestamps from the moments of recorded seismic events, and to replace those records with the FAAs radar-generated moments of plane impacts. The Commission's decision creates a timing disconnection between the seismic event records from WTC, and the plane impact and collapse events.

The first major seismic signal arrived at LEDO at 8.46.25+/-1 (8:46am and 25 seconds; 08h46m25s) per Rousseau's analyses, 1 second earlier than LDEOs time of 8.46.26+/-1. Both timestamps of seismic events are earlier than the FAAs ground radar timestamp of 8.46.40, used by the 9/11 Commission's report. The difference is 15 seconds - between the recorded major seismic events, and the impact of the first plane into WTC1. During and after these 15 seconds, subterranean and subaerial (slightly above ground) seismic events occurred. Along with these events are several frequency 'pics', or bursts, which occur before and after plane impacts. More low frequency waves accompanying the seismic events are recorded, but are not caused by the plane impacts that produce higher frequency waves that are not recordable at a distance of 34km nor recordable by LDEOs equipment.

Rousseau's seismic analysis compares these low frequency waves to those emmited from underground blasts for mining operations, to those recorded during the demolition phase of the reconstruction of a federal building in Oklahoma City, and to those recorded during a controlled demolition of a sports arena in Seattle. He further equates the magnitudes and frequencies of LDEOs seismic wave data from WTC to the sampled seismic data, and again concludes that LDEOs data is from explosive origins.

With Rousseau's report, the theory of controlled demolitions of all three WTC buildings is confirmed. The report also negates the 'conspiracy theory' negative characterization, and replaces it with a geophysically thorough, scientifically accurate and logical explaination of the events which occured on the morning of 11 September 2001 at the World Trade Center. __________________________ As you can read, the seismic analyses (and corrections here to the page) are especially important since the 9/11 Commission report replaced LDEOs seismic data timestamps, which ocurr before the plane impacts, with FAAs ground radar timestamps that were not registering seismic events but registering only the time of plane impacts. Not a theory, it's a documented fact, see the refs. The analyses state that the disconnect of seismic data is created by the replacement of LDEOs timestamps by the Commission, which resulted in a 14 to 15 second period where seismic events were recorded by LEDO before the FAAs time of plane impact; 15 seconds per Rousseau at 8:46:25seconds, and 14 seconds per LDEO itself at 8:46:26seconds. The FAA ground radar timestamp is 8:46:40seconds. All of which has been thoroughly documented by multiple governmental and independent sources, and is deserving of inclusion here, obviously. As its own section entitled Seismic signals, preferably.

References

1. 9/11 Commission Report, p7.
2. Holzer T. L., Fletcher J. B, Fuis G. S., Ryberg T., Brocher T. M. and Dietel C. M. 1996. "Seismograms offer insight into Oklahoma City bombing," EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 77(41), pages 393, 396-397.
3. Pacific Northwest Seismograph Network. 2000. "Kingdome implosion seismograms, special Kingdome Implosion event information," University of Washington Department of Earth and Space Sciences.