listen here

Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

Seismic Evidence Implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11

Washington’s Blog

André Rousseau is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, a former researcher in the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), who has published 50 papers on the relationships between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology.

Dr. Rousseau is an expert on measurement of acoustic waves.

Rousseau says that the seismic waves measured on September 11th proves that the 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, in a new scientific article published by the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Rosseau writes:

The seismic signals propagating from New York on September 11, 2001, recorded at Palisades (34 km) and published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), have here been subjected to a new critical study concerning their sources. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official  explanations which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.


First of all, we show the contradictions in the official explanation between the seismic data and the timing of the events. Then we point out that it is strange that identical events (percussions of identical towers on the one hand, and collapses of identical towers on the other hand) at the same location would have generated seismic sources of different magnitudes. We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies.  According to the nature of the recorded waves (body and surface waves), we can propose a location of each explosive source. According to the presence of shear waves or the presence of Rayleigh waves only, we hypothesize a subterranean … explosion.


Near the times of the planes’ impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and (2) low frequencies are associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin.Even if the planes’ impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another.
As we have shown, they were not.


We can only conclude that the wave sources were independently
detonated explosives ….


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.

This seismic analysis is just one of multiple lines of scientific evidence implying that 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition:

Watch 9/11: Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out on PBS. See more from CPT12 Presents.

This entry was posted in News, Videos. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Seismic Evidence Implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11

  1. Jolly Roger says:

    Yes, but where was Dr. Rousseau ten years ago? This seismic data isn’t new. If it took Dr. Rousseau a decade to finally pull his head out of the mud what is his analysis worth?

    “While it is true that I was a blind, and arrogant moron for the last ten years, I still think that everyone should listen to me now” — Dr. Rousseau

    Are you sure your tin foil hat isn’t too tight, doctor? Maybe you should see a psychiatrist to determine whether or not you’re a “whack-job, wing-nut, paranoid, crazy conspiracy theorist.”

    • mike says:

      Give the guy a break. He is a world expert so I imagine he was in school studying while 9/11 and its afermath were unfolding. He has perfected his method, so lets not dicredit the guy before he has a chance to explain himself.

      • beijingyank says:

        The scientific peer reviewed paper speaks for itself. It’s evidence and it is scientifically factual.
        Ten years ago the argument was over the correct time. If this problem has been rectified; yes, indeed this is an historic important paper.
        Justice turns slowly, but imagine all the 911 Neocons lined up in a row. Short drop, long ride for the war criminal traitors.

  2. CJ says:

    Read “Where Did The Towers Go?” by Dr. Judy Wood. This piece here is nothing but disinfo.

    • # 1 NWO Hatr says:

      In what way, pray tell?

    • Howard T. Lewis III says:

      Judy Woods book is misinfo spoken from the point of view of an experienced mechanical engineer. Her corrupt logic and misleading statements serve someone. But not the truth. My family was in the group to secure the bids for WTC I and II. The preset demolition system was added a few months into construction and dad bailed out immediately. Somebody got in there and added newer vintage(1998) nanothermate. The Chicago Sears(Willis) tower was set up likewise. Woods’ theories do not directly apply but would be relevant if energy beams had been used. They were not. Nukes, thermitic materials, and other explosives brought them down. NO THEORY HERE. Undeniable facts. for details. Also Veterans Today comments dealing with 9-11 as Howard T.Lewis III.

      • Bob says:

        “Judy Woods book is misinfo spoken from the point of view of an experienced mechanical engineer.” Nice appeal to authority.

        “Her corrupt logic and misleading statements serve someone. But not the truth” Quote one misleading statement from her book. I bet you can’t.

        “The preset demolition system was added a few months into construction and dad bailed out immediately. Somebody got in there and added newer vintage(1998) nanothermate.” Where’s your evidence for this extraordinary claim?

        “Woods’ theories do not directly apply but would be relevant if energy beams had been used. They were not. Nukes, thermitic materials, and other explosives brought them down.” Nukes that didn’t burn paper? How’s that?

        “Undeniable facts.” Hardly.

        • # 1 NWO Hatr says:

          The dust from the WTC was RADIOACTIVE.

          Explain THAT being from conventional charges.

          Try a little research on micro-nukes before opening your yap.

  3. Jenna B says:

    Jolly Roger, I think the point you are missing is that science is showing proof of what we’ve all known or assumed all along. You’re throwing mud at a man who is on your side. He’s say there is hard evidence to support what you and I already believe. This is beneficial in helping others understand what really took place on that terrible day, rather than accept the media spin doctor indoctrination.
    What does it matter if its 10 years after the fact? Who cares. Accurate information is of great worth. Its not like this information would have done anything to correct the problem 10 years ago. There was a college professor from a Utah university that came forward before the dust settled and said that satellite imagery showed free fall and other characteristics that proved “without a doubt” that the 3 buildings were “in fact dropped squarely within their own footprint through use of controlled demolition”. So, did that change anything? No. True and accurate information is good, no matter when it comes our way, but it doesn’t seem to change the course were on.
    Jolly, I guess what I’m trying to say is don’t crucify the messenger.

    • Jolly Roger says:

      Jenna B…..The point is that he’s NOT on our side, or we would have heard from him a decade ago, as we heard from many other scientists who are sincerely on our side, and aren’t just rats jumping off of a sinking ship.
      There were very few people who were not exposed to this information, and for a doctor to only be catching on a decade after the fact proves to me that he’s one of the rats.
      Everyone will beg to be on our side when they’re looking up at the guillotine blade, but why was he lying for the last ten years?

  4. KEITH MILLER says:

    I will make this short.
    Why aren’t we hearing about this bird-ass owner suing the airline for the crash that caused the destruction of World Trade Center bldg 7.
    I will tell you why…the media is doing their bidding, thinking that they will be immune from the result of the deceit. We know from the engineer’s findings what occurred but no media discussion or discovery.
    We are accused of being ignorant, but if the media is deceiving us, and that is where we need to get info from, then we will see them with us when…the groups controlling this decide it is time. What will happen….
    you fill in the blank.

  5. # 1 NWO Hatr says:

    “We demonstrate that only strong explosives could be the cause of such seismic waves, in accordance with the observed low frequencies. According to the nature of the recorded waves (body and surface waves), we can propose a location of each explosive source. According to the presence of shear waves or the presence of Rayleigh waves only, we hypothesize a subterranean … explosion.”


    Micro nukes.

  6. fred says:

    The U.S. Government’s official conspiracy theory wants it every which way – they need the shredder to become the shredded one split-second and the shredded to then become the shredder the next split-second. They want us to believe that a 159-foot-long 160+ ton airliner, plus humans and cargo, was totally shredded (apart from some blatantly planted parts well away from the alleged impacts) in less than a second – 0.23 secs to be precise, according to NIST. This alleged shredding took place at the same speed as the airliner through air, because there was no deceleration whatsoever of the aircraft at impact and during the laughably absurd shredding: it was as if the building was not there. Of course, what was not there was a real airliner. The South Tower and North Tower impacts violate Newton’s 3rd law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    Further, according to the 2nd law, deceleration must be proportional to the force applied. The steel/concrete Twin Towers would administer a massive blunt force against a wide-body aluminum airliner flying at high speed. Since NIST contractors insist that a 159-foot-long Boeing 767 disappeared into the North Tower within 0.25 seconds and into the South Tower within a “corrected” 0.23 seconds, up from 0.20 seconds, almost the same as the alleged 767 speeds through the air, NO FORCE was imposed by the buildings on these planes according to Newton’s second law.

    Further, the official velocity of the airliner at near sea level is also impossible:

    The [alleged] airliner was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, which [allegedly] crashed into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots.

    Greater than this velocity of 414 mph (360 knots) at near-sea level, the airliner would start to shake, rattle and roll and eventually break apart well before the official impact velocity of 587 mph (510 knots) is reached.

    Further, fuel ignition in a REAL crash, based on evidence from scores of airliner crashes throughout aviation history, should have occurred immediately on impact – on the first spark and rupture of the fuel tanks in the wings or the fuel lines in the engines.

    It does not matter if there are a million videos of a crystal-clear Boeing 767-200 with United Airlines livery slicing seamlessly into the South Tower and disappearing, an aluminium airliner cannot slice through steel and concrete and leave no aircraft debris whatsoever. Same for the North Tower impact. PERIOD.


  7. fred says:

    Who said anything about holograms?

    No airliner hit the North Tower; no airliner hit the South Tower, no airliner hit the Pentagon. There were no airliners involved in the 9/11 hits. Try missiles. Or just explosions in the buildings themselves. And a mainstream media (mostly TV and video) deception.

    The airliners were CGIs on videotape, sunshine.

    • # 1 NWO Hatr says:

      So it is your contention that what manifested itself as a “plane” seen by tens of thousands of New Yorkers (conservative estimate) was nothing more than a mass hallucination?

      Or was the entire city of New York in on the conspiracy too, nightshade?

    • Angel-NYC says:

      Sorry fred, I Heard the first one fly over and Saw the second one hit from my roof, Not the TV.

  8. fred says:

    WOOOOOHOOOOO!!!! The plane-huggers or shekel-shills are again slithering out of the slime. Pathetic.


    Assuming they didn’t know from what direction the hit was coming, they had only SEVENTEEN MINUTES MAXIMUM to set up their gear in a chaotic NYC; and why would they be focusing on the SOUTH side of the SOUTH Tower? All the action was on the NORTH side of the NORTH Tower. 450mph = 220 meters per second, so they would have had very little time – SECONDS – to see, never mind locate and focus on, the missile from ANY southerly vantage point. What a miraculous CNN video that was! And good ‘eavens Evan’s! Et les “Naudet Freres”! C’est Impossible! You won the lottery thrice-over there, boyos. QUICK, TAKE A CAMERA SHOT OF THAT MISSILE, Y’ALL ! TOO LATE. YOU MISSED IT, BOYS.

    As any psychologist will tell you, eyewitness testimony must always be taken with a dollop of salt, especially when – in shock and well after the event they are recalling – the meme of planes-planes-planes has been thoroughly implanted. And where were the 100+ Israeli spooks and FEMA that morning? I would bet my bottom dollar they were playing their roles as false-eyewitnesses (and fake-evidence planters) at the WTC – just like the ubiquitous, impossibly-located “Naudet brothers” – and at the Pentagon. Assume the missile (or no missile at all, just explosives in the building itself) comes in from the south. Most people are looking, if they are looking at all, directly at the gaping hole and smoke on the north side of the North Tower. So, like us watching the live transmission, they cannot possibly see it. Witnesses at ground level have hardly any chance of seeing it, even from the south, east, or west, what with all the obscured views and so little time; and they don’t have the deafening roar a giant airliner, 250 meters away, flying at an impossible 550+ mph, would make in the thick air of Manhattan to aid their senses. This is a very fast moving air-to-surface (White jet, anyone?) or surface-to-surface missile (Woolworth Building anyone?) we’re talking about; maybe one of these “small planes” : ; perhaps a modified cruise missile :
    The eyewitness reports are all over the shop: some saw nothing but the explosion; some saw a “small plane”; some saw a “small military or cargo plane”; and some saw “a missile”. Only two eyewitnesses – as far as can be ascertained – interviewed on TV, saw a “commercial airliner” – and one of these plants worked at CNN. And who told us that “many hundreds” of witnesses saw the Towers hit by airliners? Why, one of the main perpetrators of the hoax, the MSM, my dear Virginia.

    See also:…saw-no-planes/ and

  9. fred says:

    HAHAHA! The murderous Israelis are far too devious for you, sunshine!

    • # 1 NWO Hatr says:


      BTW ferd, do you do weddings and bat mitzvahs?

      Good comedians are SO hard to find these days!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *