Try this.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA519669

So, i wrote to the author, here are responses, he is in bold.

Just focussing on figure 1, those waveforms look very different - you can't correlate them - just packets is all. Is there a sensitivity to source mechanism? Must be because there is no repeatability.

I do not understand the meaning of this question, particularly here the word correlate. Besides, I have explained in my paper the relations between the wave parameters (frequencies) and the nature of the sources.

http://www.mendeley.com/research/source ... ps/#page-1

This publication does not concern the data of my study because, as explained, it concerns earthquakes deeper than 25 km and wave frequencies lower than 0.1 Hz, when my data deal with frequencies higher than 1 Hz.


Rayleigh waves are dispersive multi-mode and complex. Are there two modes interfering here? Too bad that P and S are not interpretable. Too bad there's no spread, to interpret move out velocity but that's the nature of earth geophysics.

I don't know if there are two modes interfering here, but it is not a problem. As for P and S waves, the most important point is their presence, as I have explained, for the indications of the source.

Airplane heading? Was the surrounding soil and foundation of WTC2 weakened by the impact at WTC1?

Not at all !

I suppose that the guy has a story about the timing accuracy?

????

Was this study peer-reviewed? There's a lot that can happen that needs an expert's attention.

The paper was submitted to reviews which refused to provide any comment....!


Well I did deal with the velocities : a measurement of velocity depends critically on the correlation of two waveforms.

No, Velocity=distance/propagation time

The waveforms in figure 1 cannot be correlated - they are just too different. So why are they different? I proposed the possibility of a different source mechanism coupled with dispersion, which is reasonable, but really I do not know.

These waveforms have the same shape, but they have not the same amplitude, probably because the explosion energy of their source was a bit different.

Are the WTC foundations identical in there coupling? It is the job of the author to discuss these issues and how they can be reconciled with known science. In a functional peer review, this type of thing gets pointed out and corrected.

In view of the proximity of both towers, the similarity of their building, and the same geology of their base, we can consider that their coupling is identical.

No, I'm not a frequent poster; far from it.But after the recent wild events surrounding online publication of science, I think it's appropriate to be honest about doubts. And I like geophysics.

In my paper, I have only given an analysis of seismic data which demonstrates that the official version is wrong. The ain is to obtain a new inquiry.

Let me explain what I mean by correlation. We are looking at the difference in the two velocities as evidence for something. How do we measure those velocities? As he says, we take distance divided by time. Distance should be the same for the two measurements because they are sourced at the same place (although this is not crystal clear for complex surface waves, lets just assume it or we'll be back to the source mechanism). But how do you measure the time? is it just time to first break - the first time you see any wiggles? Or is it the time to the centre of the observed waveform? It matters because the waves are long. If they looked the same, it would not be such a big problem - just measure to the same place on each of them. In that case, the waveforms are "well correlated" and comparison of velocity can be made. For the data as presented, I do not know where to pick the time and so I can't say I know the velocity.
I could not access the paper - it brings up mendeley, which I have, but no obvious link to the paper.

The airplane heading would explain differences in amplitude, at least. For example, if wtc2 heading was orthogonal to the line between wtc and lamont, surely there would be very small amplitudes for surface waves. This is disingenuous of me though because I know that the headings were nearly 180 degrees different. Still, the effect of this difference in heading is not addressed. Weakened foundation: unlikely but who knows?

It is a pity that the reviewers did not answer. It is rude and the paper does at least merit a review.

I disagree that the waveforms have the same shape but different amplitudes. But I don't see a way of converging on that one.

My first thought would be the the coupling is very similar (though wasn't one building heavier than the other? probably not relevant because the coupling may saturate at some tonnage but it's way outside my expertise). But, given the differences in the data, we have to explore all possibilities including that the official story is wrong. As there is no empirical evidence that the coupling is the same, I don't rule out that "the coupling is different". It's a messy problem!

My apologies for misspelling of "there". It's very grating.

Absolutely ZERO evidence of weakened foundation due to plane impacts, in fact the buildings absorbed the impacts quite well, as they were designed to do. You keep bringing up this red herring as if trying to establish it as fact via repetition. And there is ample evidence regarding the foundations, the coupling is the same. Another attempt to establish via repetition.
Also noticed that you did not at all respond to my response to you regarding your statement that explosions were not needed to be set off due to plane impacts and "final explosions," followed by the use of the derogatory term "truther."

I am not pushing the weakened foundation - just trying to address all the points of your guest speaker. But it's not a red herring, just one of the billions of unknowns. If you don't have the data, it's pointless to make it up.

I thought truther was the right word because I do not follow this issue.

The final explosion thing - I no longer know what you are talking about. Sorry. Ask me a full self contained question and il try to answer.

I thought you had given up on the velocities yet the gp is still adamant.

What do you mean "don't have the data""? That there weren't millions of sensors in the foundation sending signals at the moments of impact, collapse,..? Because there are ample data about the foundations.


Yet you knew the word "truther"? It's NOT a word one sees in mainstream media, it's pretty much jargon from the "debunker" brigades. Right, tell us you learned it from the New York Times.


Your statement construction was pretty shoddy, made little sense. I think what you meant is that you couldn't understand why explosions would have been set off during plane impacts. The point is that these explosions probably initiated the "collapses," and were done with plane impacts as covers. In fact, there are reports of explosions BEFORE the plane impacts, e.g. an account by Willie Rodriguez, a janitor in WTC1, who was awarded for heroic behavior in rescuing people and was briefly on media till he started talking about his experience.
In any event, your complete failure to react to the official story's debunking due to severe inconsistency is pretty glaring.


I have not given up on anything, i didn't write this, and i think the author is defending his perspective well.

Response from the author, likely the last one.