Hoffman takes a look at the seismic spikes

[KJF]

Jim Hoffman has a new essay about the "seismic spikes", which is quite good and can be found here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/demolition/seismic.html

It begins:

The total destruction of each of the Twin Towers produced seismic signals that were recorded by at least 5 seismic observatories within 60 miles of lower Manhattan. The published charts from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, have been cited as evidence supporting the following two claims:

* Each Tower fell completely in 10 seconds or less
* The largest seismic spikes preceded the fall of each Tower

Both of these claims can be found in a large cross-section of literature challenging the official story. The first claim is also accepted by many defenders of official collapse theories, and is even found in the 9/11 Commission Report . In this essay I will examine these widely-repeated claims and show that, despite their popularity, they both lack supporting evidence and are contradicted by verifiable evidence. I will, however, also show that the seismic records do support the case for controlled demolition, but in a way that has been overlooked.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/demolition/seismic.html

Unfortunately, he doesn't look at the claim the initial impacts were preceeded by spikes, which is sometimes cited as evidence of no-planeism.

[LARED]

1. Small Problem

Assuming that displacement magnitude is proportional to power, it follows that there was about 24 times as much energy being released at the peak of rubble hitting the ground than was being released at any one time in the 12 seconds before the rubble started to reach the ground.

My understanding is that displacement on a seismograph is absolutely not proportional to power. It's logarithmic.

[KJF]

2. What sort of proportionality

It is unclear to me whether he means directly proportional or logarithmically proportional. If he means directly proportional and it should be logarithmically proportional (which I have a feeling it might be), then would the error not be in his favour?

In any case, the main problem here is that Hoffman is comparing signals from debris hitting the ground and signals from debris hitting, say, floor 50 seven hundred feet above the ground. My understanding is that the intervening 56 floors of building could have a dampening effect on the signal, which Hoffman doesn't seem to be taking into account.

[LARED]

3. I agree

It would be unusual to describe a logarithmic scale to a linear scale as proportional. And you are quite correct about dampening. Signal noise is another issue Mr. Hoffman fails to address. I cannot tell the difference between signal noise and what he call signals from the collapsing building.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[carlvs]

5. No, he just got science and rationality on his his side,

whilw you, Hoffman, and the rest of the 9/11 conspiraloons out there have nothing but psudo-scientific B***S**T...

[Nozebro]

6. Did you major in English?

FYI- the ONLY "conspiraloons" here are people such as yourself. 9/11 was a False Flag operation that was blamed on longtime CIA asset and boosh family business partner from the bin Laden family - Osama & his Merry Pranksters.

Where in the world have you been? Besides not becoming informed about 9/11?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[AZCat]

12. In other words you have no legitimate criticism of the NIST or MIT.

Other than your poor attempt to link the employees of both organizations to the events of September 11th there appears to be no substantive argument in your post that would deter someone from accepting them as legitimate authorities. Perhaps you could include a little more content in successive posts?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about regarding the so-called "Lareds". This has been pointed out time-and-time again, yet you persist in misconstruing, misunderstanding, or outright lying about what has been posted. Please desist.

[RedSock]

13. a simple discussion

Why is it impossible to have a simple and serious discussion without some posters writing sentences like:

"Did you major in English?" and "Can you put two and two together?"

My advice: If you think someone is a troll, or they will not back up what they are saying, ignore them. Or refute their statements with sourced facts.

[AZCat]

14. I try to do what you advise...

but somedays my self-control isn't so good. I apologize, because I know it brings down the tone of the entire forum, but sometimes I can't resist responding.

It's unfortunate because I believe that absent such childish back-and-forth the two "sides" would be able to work together much more harmoniously.

[AZCat]

7. I didn't realize we were concerned about "street cred" here.

Silly me - I thought we might actually focus on the evidence.

Out of curiousity, why do you think you get to determine a poster's "street cred" anyway? What qualifications do you have for such a position?

[Nozebro]

8. The CT'ers here are good canaries for that purpose. Thanks for asking.

"Silly me". Yes, indeedy. Too silly. Quite silly. Silly goose.

Partisans are automatically suspect, but they do make good canaries. Or geese, if you prefer.

[mirandapriestly]

9. how 'bout "passing the smell test?"eom

[AZCat]

11. How 'bout sourcing your quote?

It would be a lot easier to understand what you are saying if you included a little more information. You see, responding to posts like this becomes tiring. Is that your point?