Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (9650)	1/10/2005 5:37:13 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Searle, What is the source for your .gifs? When I look at the same data on this website: ldeo.columbia.edu what I see is that there is a very high likelihood that the reason the seismic signal from WTC 1 is not as large as that of WTC 2 is simply that the chart editor cut off the top and the bottom of the data. *** Other than that, I think you are immersing yourself way too deep in minutiae. The two charts are essentially the same, as far as I can tell. You state: Why the records from the two "demolitions" differ in amplitude and intensity with WTC2 being the higher and stronger? Yet when you get an expert interpreting the data, he concludes the opposite, that the WTC 2 collapse generated an earthquake of 2.1 on the Richter scale, and the second collapse, that of WTC 1 had a 2.3 Richter Scale rating. (see URL above) I see only very limited gain from further discussion of this minor piece of evidence. Ciao!