Seismic evidence

Much has been made of the so-called "seismic evidence" of a controlled demolition. There are two versions of the seismic evidence theory. The first holds that the seismic spikes recorded by nearby observatories preceded the towers hitting the ground, implying that massive bombs at the base of the towers accounted for the spikes, not the falling towers. This one seems to have originated with investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn, and it has been repeated widely as a sort of seismic gospel. I nearly repeated it here uncritically myself. But Jim Hoffman argues against that theory, stating that Bollyn asserts but offers no evidence that the spikes came at the beginning of the collapses, and offering some evidence that they came at the end.

Still, Hoffman says, this is actually evidence for a planned demolition, because if these giant plummeting floors were hammering and hammering on their way down, it should have meant bigger spikes before hitting bottom than were actually recorded. Instead, the seismic data show they encountered little resistance until hitting ground level -- data that are entirely compatible with a planned demolition.

So, like, either way.

Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/demolition/seismic.html

I think Hoffman's theory makes a bit of sense, but, I mean, what do I know from seismic??? I would need a trustworthy and utterly disinterested man in glasses and a labcoat assessing these graphs in plain English before my very eyes before I could have any confidence in any sort of seismic evidence. Plus, it seems like, whatever the data are, somebody finds some way to have it support the planned demolition scenario. I just don't find it all that suspicious.

Bottom line, me, I give it: