Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

Error/false statement re seismic info
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)


 * 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,[57] and seismographic records of the collapse do not show evidence of explosions.[58]" . 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: 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.
 * 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.

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.


 * A procedural clarification: the "yes" means tbat your comments have been read and answered. It doesn't mean they're "accepted." To the contrary, as the responses make clear, they have been rejected. Please stop reposting the same conspiracy promotion.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(talk) You still seem to be confused.
 * This page is about a "conspiracy theory". A major part of the theory includes the seismic data. Including the theory's views of the seismic data is not "promotion", but a valid editing issue addressing the subject.
 * The sentence and extremely brief mention 'seismic' (which needs correcting) could be moved to the "Criticism" section, where a vast majority of the repetitive text could also be shifted.
 * It appears that whichever editors have been sitting on this protected page have possibly lost sight of the subject, which is describing the "conspiracy theory" of the controlled explosion/demolition.
 * Criticism, again, of the theory also has a neat little section all to itself.
 * A reminder: the documents and site of the ae911 group clearly depict that it is comprised of professional architects, engineers, doctors, scientists, and geophysicist(s) among others. Their Journal is peer reviewed. They're not extremist holocaust deniers, nor 'birthers'.
 * The "conspiracy theory" is still led by this group of professionals, making all of their documents (and doubtlessly the peer reviewed ones as well) reliable sources on aspects of the theory. Just like any other page on wikipedia. 93.23.196.5 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not confused - you need to provide reliable secondary sources that have discussed this, not a primary source published in a publication exclusively dedicated to conspiracy theories. Wikipedia covers conspiracy theories, hoaxes and other fringe subjects in proportion to their coverage in reliable secondary sources.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Diaries are primary sources. Rousseau analyses are defined as secondary sources, since they're also analyses of LDEOs published research. With LDEOs charts; and NYFDs testimonies. I've already explained to you above why ae911 is a reliable source, the most reliable source, on this page's subject. Did you read it? 93.23.196.5 (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:FRINGE and WP:RS. Fringe theories are covered according to the discussion in reliable secondary sources. You've offered no evidence that that has happened.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)