Siesmic Evidence Proves Inside Job?

[TruthSeeker1234]

guys, the propogation times of sound through different media is interesting, but not relevant. The point of this thread is that the data show a seismic spike that occurs 17 seconds before the aircraft hit. Even if you allow for the maximum possilbe error in radar time, 12 seconds, you still have the spike occurring 5 seconds before impact.

Your attempts to fudge the numbers are just that, fudging. You are ignoring evidence that contradicts your hypothesis, a violation of scientific method. The voluminous eyewitness testimony states that an explosion went off in the sub-basement. The seismic record agrees with this.

All your fudging disagrees with the eyewitnesses, and disagrees with the seismic and radar data. You are going to elaborate lengths to attempt to cast doubt on something which is quite simple. Explosions went off in the basement, just like all those people said they did.

[DavidJames]

guys, the propogation times of sound through different media is interesting, but not relevant. The point of this thread is that the data show a seismic spike that occurs 17 seconds before the aircraft hit. Even if you allow for the maximum possilbe error in radar time, 12 seconds, you still have the spike occurring 5 seconds before impact.

Your attempts to fudge the numbers are just that, fudging. You are ignoring evidence that contradicts your hypothesis, a violation of scientific method. The voluminous eyewitness testimony states that an explosion went off in the sub-basement. The seismic record agrees with this.

All your fudging disagrees with the eyewitnesses, and disagrees with the seismic and radar data. You are going to elaborate lengths to attempt to cast doubt on something which is quite simple. Explosions went off in the basement, just like all those people said they did.

Pay attention to this closely

You have not shown the clocks were synchronized


You have not shown the clocks reporting the crash and the seismograph clocks were synchronized.


Do you understand that?

[Regnad Kcin]

guys, the propogation times of sound through different media is interesting, but not relevant. The point of this thread is that the data show a seismic spike that occurs 17 seconds before the aircraft hit. Even if you allow for the maximum possilbe error in radar time, 12 seconds, you still have the spike occurring 5 seconds before impact.

Your attempts to fudge the numbers are just that, fudging. You are ignoring evidence that contradicts your hypothesis, a violation of scientific method. The voluminous eyewitness testimony states that an explosion went off in the sub-basement. The seismic record agrees with this.

All your fudging disagrees with the eyewitnesses, and disagrees with the seismic and radar data. You are going to elaborate lengths to attempt to cast doubt on something which is quite simple. Explosions went off in the basement, just like all those people said they did."Guy," repeating something that is false one-hundred times does not make it even a little bit more true.

And you, yourself, going on and on about science and the scientific method is humorous in the extreme. Jolly good!

[uruk]

guys, the propogation times of sound through different media is interesting, but not relevant. The point of this thread is that the data show a seismic spike that occurs 17 seconds before the aircraft hit. Even if you allow for the maximum possilbe error in radar time, 12 seconds, you still have the spike occurring 5 seconds before impact.

Your attempts to fudge the numbers are just that, fudging. You are ignoring evidence that contradicts your hypothesis, a violation of scientific method. The voluminous eyewitness testimony states that an explosion went off in the sub-basement. The seismic record agrees with this.

All your fudging disagrees with the eyewitnesses, and disagrees with the seismic and radar data. You are going to elaborate lengths to attempt to cast doubt on something which is quite simple. Explosions went off in the basement, just like all those people said they did.

The calculation was to show that the "explosion" heard in the sub basement by witnesses before they heard the plane impact coming from above may have been due to the vibrations traveling faster through the support structure than the air.

Besides you still haven't shown where the siesmic event of the plane impact are. A plane hitting the steel support structures that are imbedded in solid granite will cause an event of some sort. It would be roughly akin to tapping a tuning fork with its base imbedded in wood or plaster.

[defaultdotxbe]

Pay attention to this closely

You have not shown the clocks were synchronized


You have not shown the clocks reporting the crash and the seismograph clocks were synchronized.


Do you understand that?
isnt LDEO 30 miles from manhattan? truthseeker1234 also fails to account for inaccuracies in calculating propagation times, especially in an urban setting

[stateofgrace]

TS, it is amusing to eat pop corn and stand on the sides lines and see your theories being torn apart but simply going right back to the beginning of the thread and asking people to keep on addressing what as already been addressed is silly. You may as well ask those that have explained it to you just copy and paste their replies.

Listen pal, you’ve been shown the false thinking behind these theories. What has been said to you makes far more sense than bombs going off 17 and 14 seconds before the planes hit the Towers.

I didn't happen TS, accept it, move on and wait for your demi gods to put forward yet another theory.

[Bell]

TS, it is amusing to eat pop corn and stand on the sides lines and see your theories being torn apart but simply going right back to the beginning of the thread and asking people to keep on addressing what as already been addressed is silly. You may as well ask those that have explained it to you just copy and paste their replies.

Listen pal, you’ve been shown the false thinking behind these theories. What has been said to you makes far more sense than bombs going off 17 and 14 seconds before the planes hit the Towers.

I didn't happen TS, accept it, move on and wait for your demi gods to put forward yet another theory.

BS101's fear must be along the lines of the CT's claim "if one occurance on 9/11 proves to be an inside job, isn't everything an inside job?"

If the WTC didn't pulverize into a mushroom cloud and leave a crater, so therefor wasn't an inside job, then maybe... WTC 7 wasn't 'pulled' ? And passengerjets actually did crash into the Pentagon and at Shankville?

[gumboot]

Time differential of 1.24 and 1.14 seconds respectively.


Personally, I doubt very much they actually heard the impact itself through air. I suspect the second noise was the explosion of the Jet Fuel. For that you'd add an extra 1.5-2 seconds.

-Andrew

[gumboot]

guys, the propogation times of sound through different media is interesting, but not relevant. The point of this thread is that the data show a seismic spike that occurs 17 seconds before the aircraft hit.


You have no evidence whatsoever that these spikes originated at the WTC.

Video evidence already clearly proves there was no explosion at the WTC just before UA175 hit WTC2. Therefore the second of these "spikes" did not come from the WTC. Therefore only the spike before AA11's impact is in issue.

The only evidence of explosive before AA11's impact are the testimonies of a few people who were below ground and cannot see the impact. Their testimonies have either been misrepresented or they themselves have repeatedly changed them. They did not report an explosion. They reported noises.

We have demonstrated an explanation that does NOT require explosives, but matches their testimonies.

It is up to you to provide evidence that the siesmic spike before AA11's impact originated at the WTC. Do this, or withdraw your claims.

And are you aware that blasting occured regularly in a quarry near the LD Observatory? Are you aware that blastings are recorded on 9/11?

-Andrew

[CurtC]

I assume the clocks used to identify the times for each of these events were all calabrated to the same time source.
I'm still catching up with this thread, but my career involves accurate measurements and metrology. Pretty much every clock in the world is calibrated to UTC, including the clock on your grandmother's end table. Most have a corresponding offset added for time zone and summer time / DST. The accuracy of those calibrations varies tremendously.

[DavidJames]

I'm still catching up with this thread, but my career involves accurate measurements and metrology. Pretty much every clock in the world is calibrated to UTC, including the clock on your grandmother's end table. Most have a corresponding offset added for time zone and summer time / DST. The accuracy of those calibrations varies tremendously.Perhaps I'm using the incorrect terminology, maybe I should have said synchronized.

I'm pretty sure the clock on my grandmothers end table would be (if she were alive and had an end table) at least 12-15 seconds different from the atomic clock in Boulder

[LashL]

William Rodriguez and 36 other people report being blasted by a huge explosion in the basement of tower 1, and report then hearing the jet impact seconds afterwards.

36 others? The number seems to grow each time a CTer tells the story. Please name the 36 others that you cite and provide evidence of their reports.

There are credible reports of elevators being blown off their hinges in the lobby, and these particular elevators did not go all the way up to where the plane hit.

Yes, there are numerous credible reports of elevators being blown out (elevators do not operate on hinges, by the way.)

So? What is your point?

The only elevator that did go all the way to where the plane hit had a person in it, the elevator operator, and he only had broken ankles, and was not burned.


It is not true that there is only one elevator that went all the way up, as I pointed out earlier in this thread. It is not surprising that you ignored the facts that were presented to you. You are misrepresenting the actual events surrounding Mr. Griffith and the elevator he was in, and ignoring the fact that it fell to the sub basement, among other things.

[CurtC]

I'm pretty sure the clock on my grandmothers end table would be (if she were alive and had an end table) at least 12-15 seconds different from the atomic clock in Boulder
You betcha. But this hypothetical grandmother's clock was still calibrated, eventually to a primary standard such as what they have in Boulder. But since very few clocks get set directly off that primary standard, almost every clock in the world is set indirectly, some through more layers of indirection than others, and many of those layers can be done with very little care, resulting in gross inaccuracies. But it still goes back to UTC and primary standards eventually, unless your grandmother set her clock by the position of the Sun.

[CurtC]

There are many other things very wrong about 9/11 that push one way past reasonable doubt if one only looks into the matter.
You remember when you first appeared, and someone called TruchSeeker1234 a dipstick (and you thought it was directed to you)?

The reason he was called a dipstick is because of his pattern here - he makes a claim that he can't back up with facts, then moves on to a completely different topic without admitting that he could not support his claim.

And here you've done exactly the same thing. I'm just pointing this out now, so that you can try to avoid behavior that might result in your getting called a dipstick yourself.

[DavidJames]

You betcha. But this hypothetical grandmother's clock was still calibrated, eventually to a primary standard such as what they have in Boulder. But since very few clocks get set directly off that primary standard, almost every clock in the world is set indirectly, some through more layers of indirection than others, and many of those layers can be done with very little care, resulting in gross inaccuracies. But it still goes back to UTC and primary standards eventually, unless your grandmother set her clock by the position of the Sun.Thank you, my orginal choice of terminology was wrong. :)

Now for a bit of derail related to your comments. I used to be an MVS systems programmer on IBM big iron. I would often be around when the computers were "IPL'd". Part of that process was to actually set the system clock. The clock that would then be used, at whatever high level of precision the 360/370 was capable of. When it came time to set the highly precise clock, one of us would look at our watch and say "hmm, it's about 7:30".

[Mashuna]

Thank you, my orginal choice of terminology was wrong. :)

Now for a bit of derail related to your comments. I used to be an MVS systems programmer on IBM big iron. I would often be around when the computers were "IPL'd". Part of that process was to actually set the system clock. The clock that would then be used, at whatever high level of precision the 360/370 was capable of. When it came time to set the highly precise clock, one of us would look at our watch and say "hmm, it's about 7:30".

Sorry to continue the derail, but I remember doing this kind of thing. IPLs when the clocks changed were especially fun, doing 18 images in an hour. We'd only run into problems in the autumn, when the clocks went back and we set the clock to a time that it thought had already elapsed, then wondered why all the databases were failing.

[Loss Leader]

Yes, there are numerous credible reports of elevators being blown out (elevators do not operate on hinges, by the way.)


First of all, I lived at 227 Have Avenue in New York City a while back and that crappy apartment building had an elevator whose outer doors were just ... doors. Regular hinged outward-swinging doors. They were held shut by a magnet. When the elevator got to your floor, you opened the door, stepped in, shut the door and then the elevator moved with nothing between you and the moving wall.

I believe the WTC probably had more modern elevators than my apartment in Washington Heights.

Second, we are way the heck through the looking glass on this one. We're now relying on seismographic equipment 30 miles away to tell us what thousands of people actually witnessed? That's just nuts.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You have not shown the clocks were synchronized

You have not shown the clocks reporting the crash and the seismograph clocks were synchronized.

Do you understand that?
The linked paper, does indeed show that both clocks are calibrated to UTC on a daily basis. Neither could possibly be off by anything more than a fraction of a second.

Loss Leader accidentally stumbles close to the truth with We're now relying on seismographic equipment 30 miles away to tell us what thousands of people actually witnessed? That's just nuts.
Right, LL. Eyewitness testimony is important, not to be dismissed, especially when corroborated by other types of data. Eyewitnesses saw a plane hit the south tower. Eyewitnesses also reported massive explosions in the basement, BEFORE the jet impact. The radar data and the seismic data support the eyewitness testimony perfectly.

What's "nuts", LL, is concocting a story at odds with both the eyewitness testimony AND the seismic data, and the radar data. Yet this is exactly what you and the others have done. This is anti-science. There is no other way to put it. You are just tossing out data because it doesn't fit your hypothesis.

Ross-Furlong are right, and the fact that this thread, like so many others, is 90% ad hominem attacks, well this is just reassuring.

[defaultdotxbe]

The linked paper, does indeed show that both clocks are calibrated to UTC on a daily basis. Neither could possibly be off by anything more than a fraction of a second.
what are you basing this on? the clock in my PC gets off by more than 5 minutes in a 24 hour period, calibrated to UTC doesnt mean anything, we went over this already


Eyewitnesses also reported massive explosions in the basement, BEFORE the jet impact.

and how do witnesses in the basement judge when the jets hit? im reasonably certain they couldnt see them down there

[R.Mackey]

The linked paper, does indeed show that both clocks are calibrated to UTC on a daily basis. Neither could possibly be off by anything more than a fraction of a second.
Show us where in the paper it says that. What page, and quote the paragraph.

Or else you're lying again.

[rwguinn]

Show us where in the paper it says that. What page, and quote the paragraph.

Or else you're lying again.

You mean "Still", I think....

[DavidJames]

Show us where in the paper it says that. What page, and quote the paragraph.

Or else you're lying again.These are the relative quotes making the basis for his claim. I found no footnotes, links, quotes to substantiate the claims in (my) bolding. For all we know, he made it up. The word calibrate does not appear in the document

There exist two separate precision data time sets that address when the aircraft crashed into the Towers. Both data time sets are based on UTC (Coordinated Universal Time, the world’s atomic clock system) and the sources that determined these times were prestigious, reliable and credible.

. All of this radar and accompanying Air Traffic Control data was recorded to UTC timestamping. These stations utilized primary radar return tracking with all times to the second. Also, an Air Traffic Controller replied to this investigation stating that a time-check is done daily by all stations to make sure that all radar tracking is precisely coordinated to UTC.

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/SeismicFurlong.doc

[defaultdotxbe]

i just thought of another question: why does furlong only use LDEOs seismic data? surely other seismometers picked up the events, brent blanchard says protec had several in manhattan, why not compare all data and times?

i suspect furlong simply found the one dataset with the largest time offset and decided to run with it

[LashL]

First of all, I lived at 227 Have Avenue in New York City a while back and that crappy apartment building had an elevator whose outer doors were just ... doors. Regular hinged outward-swinging doors. They were held shut by a magnet. When the elevator got to your floor, you opened the door, stepped in, shut the door and then the elevator moved with nothing between you and the moving wall.

I believe the WTC probably had more modern elevators than my apartment in Washington Heights.

Second, we are way the heck through the looking glass on this one. We're now relying on seismographic equipment 30 miles away to tell us what thousands of people actually witnessed? That's just nuts.

You are correct, of course. I have seen a weird old elevator with an outward opening door in the past, now that I think about it. However, that was most certainly not the case in the WTC towers.

BS1234 made the ludicrous claim that the WTC tower elevators were blown off non existent hinges by non existent explosive charges and he fails to acknowledge the numerous credible reports of witnesses who saw the fireballs and he fails to acknowledge the numerous credible reports of victims who died in elevators from those fireballs, I was just pointing out that, as usual, he fails to get even the most basic facts right. It is no wonder that he cannot get any of his ultimate conclusions right.

And yes, as is the case with every BS1234 thread, it is indeed through the looking glass.

[R.Mackey]

These are the relative quotes making the basis for his claim. I found no footnotes, links, quotes to substantiate the claims in (my) bolding. For all we know, he made it up. The word calibrate does not appear in the document.
I should have been more specific, I was referring to the seismographs. The uncertainty in the radar has been shown to be large enough that its timestamp is irrelevant. Having gone through that hash of a paper again, I can confidently say that there is no such statement for the seismographs.

I'd also like to know more about this alleged "Air Traffic Controller" who responded to their investigation. JohnDoeX, perhaps? :D

[DavidJames]

I should have been more specific, I was referring to the seismographs. The uncertainty in the radar has been shown to be large enough that its timestamp is irrelevant. Having gone through that hash of a paper again, I can confidently say that there is no such statement for the seismographs.Yup, conspicuously absent, isn't it.

[DavidJames]

II'd also like to know more about this alleged "Air Traffic Controller" who responded to their investigation. JohnDoeX, perhaps? :DNotice the "Air Traffic Controller" says a "time check", not terminology one would associate with clock synchronization. Sounds more like what I used to do with the old IBM 370's :D

[TruthSeeker1234]

The observations of an elevator blown off its hinges comes from Lt. Walsh.

Lt. Walsh- Answer: What else I observed in the lobby was that – there’s basically two areas of elevators. There’s elevators off to the left-hand side which are really the express elevators. That would be the elevators that’s facing north. Then on the right-hand side there’s also elevators that are express elevators, and that would be facing south. In the center of these two elevator shafts would be elevators that go to the lower floors. They were blown off the hinges. That’s where the service elevator was also.

Chief Congiusta- Question: Were these elevators that went to the upper floors? They weren’t side lobby elevators?

Answer: No, no, I’d say that they went through floors 30 and below.

Question: And they were blown off?

Answer: They were blown off the hinges, and you could see the shafts. The elevators on the extreme north side and the other express elevator on the extreme south side, they looked intact to me from what I could see, the doors anyway…….
…….So I headed for the B stairway. I did not want to deal with elevators. So Ladder 1—

Question: Were there any elevators working or no? Probably no, I assume.

Answer: I couldn’t tell about the express elevators. The elevators that I mentioned before that were on the extreme north end and the extreme south end, I don’t know about those elevators. But I headed for where the service elevator was, which was in the center where the lower floor elevators were, the ones where the doors were blown off them.


A blown out elevator, with or without hinges is evidence of some type of explosion. The fact that the blown out elevator went down to the basement, but did not go up to the impact area, is strong evidence that the explosion came from below.

Again, as with this entire paper, you anti-science guys are tossing out data simply because it conflicts with your hypothesis.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1943195#post1943195)
The linked paper, does indeed show that both clocks are calibrated to UTC on a daily basis. Neither could possibly be off by anything more than a fraction of a second.

and Mackey taunted

Show us where in the paper it says that. What page, and quote the paragraph.

Or else you're lying again.
From the Ross/Furlong:

Also, an Air Traffic Controller replied to this investigation stating that a time-check is done daily by all stations to make sure that all radar tracking is precisely coordinated to UTC.
page 3

[Brainache]

The observations of an elevator blown off its hinges comes from Lt. Walsh.



A blown out elevator, with or without hinges is evidence of some type of explosion. The fact that the blown out elevator went down to the basement, but did not go up to the impact area, is strong evidence that the explosion came from below.

Again, as with this entire paper, you anti-science guys are tossing out data simply because it conflicts with your hypothesis.

You are aware aren't you that although the actual elevator cars only went to certain floors, the shafts themselves went all the way up the towers?
This has been pointed out before.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Dogtown, you live in L.A. How about a televised debate with me on the WTC "collapses". You can insult me just like you do here, no one will stop you. You can use your time anyway you want. Wouldn't that be fun?

[defaultdotxbe]

From the Ross/Furlong:


page 3
says nothign about them being "no more than fraction of a second off"

and how about those seismos?

[R.Mackey]

From the Ross/Furlong:
Also, an Air Traffic Controller replied to this investigation stating that a time-check is done daily by all stations to make sure that all radar tracking is precisely coordinated to UTC.

page 3
This is pretty darn shaky. No source.

And again, I was talking about the seismographs. The name of the paper is "Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)" is it not? So where's this seismic proof? Show me those clocks were calibrated.

I've been saying this for six pages now.

[Dog Town]

Dogtown, you live in L.A. How about a televised debate with me on the WTC "collapses". You can insult me just like you do here, no one will stop you. You can use your time anyway you want. Wouldn't that be fun?

Besides the fact, I go on the road soon, I would never waste that much of my time on the likes of you. Words of wisdom; pray that we never meet in person. I am not near as calm and nice as the folks here.No "threat" just the truth! My assistants will keep me up todate on here, and slc, as I will have little time.
I am sure when I do though, you will still be here, getting your negative attention fix. I hope no one wastes much more time on you! You bring nothing to the table, but a rehash of nonsense, that you never answer!!

[LashL]

The observations of an elevator blown off its hinges comes from Lt. Walsh.



A blown out elevator, with or without hinges is evidence of some type of explosion. The fact that the blown out elevator went down to the basement, but did not go up to the impact area, is strong evidence that the explosion came from below.

Again, as with this entire paper, you anti-science guys are tossing out data simply because it conflicts with your hypothesis.

Ahem. The elevator doors in the WTC towers most assuredly were not hinged doors. The fact that you accept unquestioningly the use of a common metaphor that you found in one of hundreds of interviews conducted as "proof" of something that is demonstrably false, while you simultaneously completely and consistently ignore actual facts is very telling of who here is "anti-science". Actually, I suspect that you are incapable of comprehending science rather than being opposed to it, but you are obviously oblivious to facts and evidence to such an extreme that one can only reasonably conclude that you are anti-facts and anti-evidence.

The fact that fireballs blew out elevator doors is not evidence of planted explosive devices. There were numerous elevator doors damaged and numerous fires in numerous shafts. As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, there was more than one express elevator in each tower, and there was not only one shaft that ran from the top to the bottom.

The paper that you cite is hopelessly inadequate, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Your choosing to ignore and run away from the evidence presented to you by others here is apparent to all.

For crying out loud, man, give your head a shake.

Edit to add: and I'm still waiting for you to name those 36 witnesses and provide evidence of their statements that you claim support William Rodriguez' story. I wasted 50 minutes of my life watching the video and there is only person identified who tells a story about being in the sub basement and the account (as translated by Mr. Rodriguez himself) does not actually support his story very well at all.

[hellaeon]

TS, do this. Burn down your house. First, turn everything electrical on. All appliances. Count the number of things that explode starting with perspirant cans. Also, dont plant explosives for the purpose of this experiment. We can do that next house.

This may help you understand simple concepts about how fire works and such before exploring the vast complicated theories the guys around here are well versed in.

Edit: Even Better! Go buy a heap of flammable items, like cleaners and solvents, more perspirant cans etc etc. Put them everywhere before you burn down the house. This way you can be sure to understand that

fire + explosions != explosives

[Regnad Kcin]

...the fact that this thread, like so many others, is 90% ad hominem attacks, well this is just reassuring.Says the guy who likens those who have repeatedly refuted his claims to Holocaust deniers.

[TruthSeeker1234]

In response to an eyewitness who stated on the record that he observed a particular elevator had been blown out


LashL contended The elevator doors in the WTC towers most assuredly were not hinged doors. The fact that you accept unquestioningly the use of a common metaphor that you found in one of hundreds of interviews conducted as "proof" of something that is demonstrably false
Lash, please demonstrate that Lt. Walsh's observations and testimony are false. Whether this particular elevator literally had hinges or not is beside the point. Clearly the man was describing an elevator that had been blown out. Just as clearly, he notes that this particular elevator went down to the basement, but not up to the damage area.

Lash, please demonstrate that Lt. Walsh's observations and testimony are false, or else retract your allegation.

[Bell]

In response to an eyewitness who stated on the record that he observed a particular elevator had been blown out

BS101, could you explain to us what standard you employ as to which witnesses and testomonies are to be believed and which not?

Or do you only believe evidence when it fits your BS freefall pulverisation myth? You can answer this question with yes.


LashL contended
Lash, please demonstrate that Lt. Walsh's observations and testimony are false. Whether this particular elevator literally had hinges or not is beside the point. Clearly the man was describing an elevator that had been blown out. Just as clearly, he notes that this particular elevator went down to the basement, but not up to the damage area.

Lash, please demonstrate that Lt. Walsh's observations and testimony are false, or else retract your allegation.

Are you the same BS101 that said Todd Beamer called 911 and accused Lisa Jefferson (of GTE ofcourse, not 911) of lying? And after you have been shown that you where wrong, you said she 'could' be lying? (edit: here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1934985&postcount=195))

I find it troubling that you want LashL to retract his remark, while all you are doing is lying, which btw is proven, even by yourself. (edit: here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64164))

BS101, in what kind of dillusional world do you live?

[smother]

Regarding the elevator system/shaft layout....

The elevator system was (as some will know) delivered by Otis elevator systems:

http://www.otis.com/otis150/section/1,2344,ARC2495_CLI41_RES1_SEC5,00.html

I have not found anything conclusive about the elevator shafts so I wrote Otis this email:


Hi,

I have an inquiry about the the elevator systems in WTC. The thing is I am spending some time debunking all the outrageous lies and claims that conspiracy nuts are spewing on a daily basis.

I am not sure you are aware of this but a movie called Loose Change is claiming that 9/11 was an inside job. An outrageous claim - but still it is a claim that needs to be debunked. One of the claims in this movie is that WTC was brought down with explosives and the same group of people also claims that the fireball that shot down the elevator shafts all the way to the basement never existed, simply because none of the elevator shafts went all the way from the top to the basement.

I have tried to find all the information about this issue - but there seems to be only a limited amount of information out there. So my next step was to go to the supplier of the elevator systems in WTC, that would be Otis.

My question to you is: as far as I can see there was one freight elevator in each tower going from top to bottom, but were there any express elevators going all the way or were they simply connecting the lobby with the sky lobbies on 44th and 78th floor? I can also see that the local elevators were stacked in the same elevator shafts, but were these elevator shafts separated in any way?

I would really appreciate your help on these questions and also if you have any other information that could be used regarding the elevator systems in WTC. I hope you will agree with me that the 9/11 victims deserve the truth and not these fabricated lies made by a group of conspiracy nuts.

Thank you very much in advance

Regards


They should know.

[cloudshipsrule]

WOW. This 'special' controlled demolition is getting even more special as the conspiracy evolves.

So, say explosives were in place, somewhere in the lower nether regions of the towers, before the planes struck. They were set off just as the plane struck, or perhaps 17 seconds before impact.:rolleyes:

So, the experts who wired this CD put just enough explosives down their to blow out an elevator door, making it look like it was just the plane's burning jet fuel/explosion traveling down an elevator shaft. This was done to add validity to the 'plane taking down the building' theory that the gub' shills would leak to the press later in the day.

The building then remained 'upright' for the next 90 or so minutes before the final explosives were set off at approximately the same level as the plane strike. (Of course these upper level explosives were 'specially' rigged so that the impact of a 757, laden with 60,000 pounds of jet fuel, and subsequent fire wouldn't detonate the explosives prematurely, because then it would have looked as if the plane actually took down the building. (That would have been pretty suspicious!)

I have an old barn in my backyard. Wonder if these same CD specialist guys are for hire? I'd like to run my riding lawn mower into the side of the barn (full of gas, mind you), then have the barn collapse in on itself about an hour and a half later. I'd like to see if I can fool my neighbors into thinking the lawn mower actually took down the barn.

[CurtC]

Lash, please demonstrate that Lt. Walsh's observations and testimony are false. Whether this particular elevator literally had hinges or not is beside the point.
Beside the point? You state Walsh's off-the-cuff statement that the elevator doors were blown off their hinges as a completely accurate account, we scold you because everyone knows elevator doors don't have hinges, and now you defend your statements while saying that whether they have hinges is beside the point? It was the point we were talking about!

To summarize, Walsh described the doors being blown out, and chose words that he probably wouldn't have had he thought his statement through beforehand. That's OK, we all know what he means. Except you.

Then we describe why elevator doors being blown out is not a sign of explosives, the description of events by Willie Rodriguez does not sound like explosives, and the injuries reported to people there do not sound like explosives, but all are much more consistent with a jet fuel fireball. You blithely ignore all of this.

[rwguinn]

In response to an eyewitness who stated on the record that he observed a particular elevator had been blown out


LashL contended
Lash, please demonstrate that Lt. Walsh's observations and testimony are false. Whether this particular elevator literally had hinges or not is beside the point. Clearly the man was describing an elevator that had been blown out. Just as clearly, he notes that this particular elevator went down to the basement, but not up to the damage area.

Lash, please demonstrate that Lt. Walsh's observations and testimony are false, or else retract your allegation.

Where is the link that shows the seismographic recordings were syncronized to a standard.
We want evidence, not assertions.
Don't bother changing the subject. No responses will be made until this is cleared up.
You have made an assertion. Back it up.
Lying %^$#ole.

[twinstead]

troothydude you imply with every post that all evidence and every observation and testimony that is contrary to your position, no matter if it was from the Pentagon, flight 93 or the WTC, is false.

I'd expect you to deal with that before you get on your high horse about Lt. Walsh's observations and testimony. It just makes you look like a biased, hypocritical fool.

[rwguinn]

Bumped so that SFB1234 can answer the questions:
Where is the link that shows the seismographic recordings were syncronized with a standard?
We want evidence, not assertions.
Don't bother changing the subject. No responses will be made until this is cleared up.
You have made an assertion. Back it up.

[LashL]

In response to an eyewitness who stated on the record that he observed a particular elevator had been blown out


LashL contended
Lash, please demonstrate that Lt. Walsh's observations and testimony are false. Whether this particular elevator literally had hinges or not is beside the point. Clearly the man was describing an elevator that had been blown out. Just as clearly, he notes that this particular elevator went down to the basement, but not up to the damage area.

Lash, please demonstrate that Lt. Walsh's observations and testimony are false, or else retract your allegation.

Mr. Walsh was using a common metaphor, as should be obvious even to an anti-intellectual such as yourself. I made no allegation that his testimony was "false" and I have nothing to retract.

As I have said repeatedly, there were elevators blown out. That is not, however, evidence of pre-planted explosives.

Do try to read for comprehension.

And, by the way, where is the link that shows the seismographic recordings were syncronized to a standard? Please provide evidence, not merely assertions.

[TruthSeeker1234]

As I have said repeatedly, there were elevators blown out. That is not, however, evidence of pre-planted explosives.

Sure it is, Lash. I have not "ignored" the claim that a fireball caused the observations of the elevator, and the blown out windows, and the explosion experienced by Wiliam Rodriquez and the others. I consider this claim. The elevator in question did not go up to the impact zone. Therefore there is no shaft to conduct the fireball down to where it is alleged to have caused all this damage. The elevators which did go up to the impact zone were not, blown out. Thus the evidence is consistent with an explosion in the basement, and is inconsistent with a fireball travelling down the elevator shaft.

When you combine this evidence with the eyewitness testimony which states that the basement explosion occurred before the jet impact, then corroborate all of that with the seismic data and the radar data, you have a very compelling case for an explosion in the basement.

This thread has clearly touched a nerve with you anti-science guys. The only thing you have come up with is the possibility that LDEO's clocks were behind by 17 seconds! This is a huge accusation. This is a scientific observatory whose accuracy crucially depends on correct timestamping.

So to believe the official account, we have to believe that LDEO's clocks were behind by 17 seconds, and Wiliam Rodriguez (and the others) were mistaken about the timing and location of the explosion, and these mistaken recollections match the mistaken timings of LDEO (quite a coincidence), and that Lt. Walsh is mistaken about which elevator was blown out, and this mistake coincidentally corroborates the mistaken eyewitness testimony and the mistaken seismic times?!??! This is what I am supposed to believe ???

[Oliver]

Sure it is, Lash. I have not "ignored" the claim that a fireball caused the observations of the elevator, and the blown out windows, and the explosion experienced by Wiliam Rodriquez and the others. I consider this claim. The elevator in question did not go up to the impact zone. Therefore there is no shaft to conduct the fireball down to where it is alleged to have caused all this damage. The elevators which did go up to the impact zone were not, blown out. Thus the evidence is consistent with an explosion in the basement, and is inconsistent with a fireball travelling down the elevator shaft.

When you combine this evidence with the eyewitness testimony which states that the basement explosion occurred before the jet impact, then corroborate all of that with the seismic data and the radar data, you have a very compelling case for an explosion in the basement.

This thread has clearly touched a nerve with you anti-science guys. The only thing you have come up with is the possibility that LDEO's clocks were behind by 17 seconds! This is a huge accusation. This is a scientific observatory whose accuracy crucially depends on correct timestamping.

So to believe the official account, we have to believe that LDEO's clocks were behind by 17 seconds, and Wiliam Rodriguez (and the others) were mistaken about the timing and location of the explosion, and these mistaken recollections match the mistaken timings of LDEO (quite a coincidence), and that Lt. Walsh is mistaken about which elevator was blown out, and this mistake coincidentally corroborates the mistaken eyewitness testimony and the mistaken seismic times?!??! This is what I am supposed to believe ???

Could someone quote me - i think i´m on his "ignored because false truth"-list.

What are you going to do if the CD-Theory is true because some Vids, Pics, Seismos and Dust?
What is the truth-movements next step?

[stateofgrace]

I am curious and I genuinely cannot find the information I am looking for.

Could anybody help out here?

TS maintains that explosions took place 17 and 14 seconds before the planes hit as it was recorded by seismologists.

My question is does anybody know the official time that each Tower started to collapse? And do they compare and tie in with seismic readings or is there a discrepancy also?

Just curious.

[R.Mackey]

So to believe the official account, we have to believe that LDEO's clocks were behind by 17 seconds, and Wiliam Rodriguez (and the others) were mistaken about the timing and location of the explosion, and these mistaken recollections match the mistaken timings of LDEO (quite a coincidence), and that Lt. Walsh is mistaken about which elevator was blown out, and this mistake coincidentally corroborates the mistaken eyewitness testimony and the mistaken seismic times?!??! This is what I am supposed to believe ???
Yet you would have us believe the alternative?

"Accusing" LDEO of being 17 seconds (my guess is 12, actually) off, compared to "accusing" the entire US Government of carrying out mass murder? You're saying we are levying a "huge accusation?"

Believing a simple calibration error and reinterpreting a couple of badly quoted witness statements, versus believing the presence of hidden bombs that detonated before impact, and a similar discrepancy upon collapse suggesting even more hidden bombs brought the buildings down?

Darn right that's what we expect you to believe.

By the way, you have a debate to run. I've bet that you won't. Prove me wrong about that, too.

[R.Mackey]

I am curious and I genuinely cannot find the information I am looking for.

Could anybody help out here?

TS maintains that explosions took place 17 and 14 seconds before the planes hit as it was recorded by seismologists.

My question is does anybody know the official time that each Tower started to collapse? And do they compare and tie in with seismic readings or is there a discrepancy also?

Just curious.
The answer is yes, I followed the same line of reasoning in my criticism (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917866#post1917866) of the paper.

All of the seismograph readings show significant discrepancies. I believe with a more thorough estimate of collapse times, the offset could be quantified more exactly.

I'd have been a lot more receptive of the paper's conclusions if the seismograph readings showed double-spikes, i.e. indicating that there were additional events, but they don't. In order for Ross and Furlong to be correct, not only must there be no time offset, but the aircraft impact and building collapses must have somehow escaped seismometrical detection.

[LashL]

Sure it is, Lash.

No, it is not. It is evidence of fireballs in elevator shafts.

The elevator in question did not go up to the impact zone. Therefore there is no shaft to conduct the fireball down to where it is alleged to have caused all this damage.

Which elevator are you talking about? Be specific. Each of the elevators were numbered - which one are you talking about? Please provide evidence that the elevator you are talking about was not in a shaft that rose further above than the floors the elevator stopped on?

The elevators which did go up to the impact zone were not, blown out.

Please provide evidence to support this assertion.

Thus the evidence is consistent with an explosion in the basement, and is inconsistent with a fireball travelling down the elevator shaft.

You have provided no evidence except the use of a metaphor in one account by one person and some unsourced assertions about an insufficiently identified elevator and an insufficiently identified shaft. Your conclusion, therefore, is unsupportable as it currently sits.

When you combine this evidence with the eyewitness testimony which states that the basement explosion occurred before the jet impact, then corroborate all of that with the seismic data and the radar data, you have a very compelling case for an explosion in the basement.

Again, your conclusion is faulty because all of your premises were faulty. And you still have not provided proof of your seismic assertion, despite being asked repeatedly. Here is the question again:

Where is the link that shows the seismographic recordings were syncronized to a standard? Please provide evidence, not merely assertions.

This thread has clearly touched a nerve with you anti-science guys.

You are foolish to call others here anti-science when it is obvious to everyone reading these threads that you have no knowledge, education or qualifications in any relevant scientific field of study. No, google-engineering and unskilled analysis of photos you find on the internet does not count as "science".

The only thing you have come up with is the possibility that LDEO's clocks were behind by 17 seconds! This is a huge accusation. This is a scientific observatory whose accuracy crucially depends on correct timestamping.

Still waiting for you to provide that evidence that the seismographic recordings were syncronized to a standard.

Wiliam Rodriguez (and the others)

Still waiting for you to provide the names and statements of those "36 others" that you have referred to several times.

And as you know full well, Mr. Rodriguez' story has changed several times, most spectacularly after bringing a lawsuit against all and sundry. Have you read the claim? I have. It is quite delusional.

Lt. Walsh is mistaken about which elevator was blown out,

I have not seen where you have established which specific elevator he was talking about. If you have earlier identified which one it was, please repeat the elevator number.

Edit to add: and please provide a link to Lt. Walsh's statement that you are relying upon.

[Oliver]

Because you named it and because i dont want to start a new thread about a rumor:

Sheen and Rodriguez working on a CT-Movie...
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/last_man_out_of_wtc_regionalnews_philip_recchia.ht m

[stateofgrace]

Thanks R.Macray.

Just so I can get this right is this you think happened troothy ?

WTC 1

8:46:26. There is a massive explosion in the basement of WTC 1. Nobody notices, it goes totally unreported. At this point there as been no plane hit anywhere and no attack is underway. But it is recorded by seismologists.

8:46:40. (14 seconds later) Plane hits Tower. This is not recorded by seismic records as the Tower absorbs the noise

10:28:25.Tower starts to collapse in total silence.

10:28:31. Six second after the Tower had started to collapse seismologist’s record noises coming from WTC 1. This clearly is not the sound of the collapse, since at this point is has been collapsing in total silence for six seconds.

WTC 2

9:02:54. Another massive explosion takes place, presumably in the basement of WTC 2. In the confusion nobody notices. But it is recorded by seismologists

9:03:11. Seventeen seconds later, incredibly another plane hits the second Tower where this massive explosion has taken place. This impact is not picked up by seismologists; again the Tower absorbs the noise.

9:58:59. This Tower starts to collapse in total silence.

9:59:04. Five seconds after this Tower starts to collapse seismologist’s record noises coming from WTC 2. This is not the sound of the collapse as it has been underway for some five seconds by this point and has been totally silent.

Ok troothy is that about the sum of your theory ?
Or maybe you would like to throw a few seismic records from WTC 7 into the mix as well.

I just want to be sure you’re not making this up,that’s all.

[TruthSeeker1234]

State of grace issued strawman arguments, beginning with 8:46:26. There is a massive explosion in the basement of WTC 1. Nobody notices, it goes totally unreported.
William Rodriguez and the others certianly noticed the huge explosion, and they certainly reported it. Rodriguez testified to the 9/11 commission, who ignored him and left him out of the report. Rodriguez also arranged for others who were there to testify to the 9/11 commission. The Commission refused to hear their testimony at all.

Have you not seen the video clips of the news reporters talking breathlessly about a "huge explosion"?

[R.Mackey]

William Rodriguez and the others certianly noticed the huge explosion, and they certainly reported it. Rodriguez testified to the 9/11 commission, who ignored him and left him out of the report. Rodriguez also arranged for others who were there to testify to the 9/11 commission. The Commission refused to hear their testimony at all.

Willaim Rodriguez's statements (http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html)

A very credulous article containing their statements (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/130705claimbombs.htm)

[Felipe David:] “That day I was in the basement in sub-level 1 sometime after 8:30am. Everything happened so fast, everything moved so fast. The building started shaking after I heard the explosion below, dust was flying everywhere and all of a sudden it got real hot."

[Salvatore Giambanco:] “Later they told me it was an airplane that hit the towers, but how could it just be an airplane? I know all the newspapers were saying that, but it was just too incredible to believe if you heard and experienced what I did. It had to be a bomb.”

Never mind that the phenomenology they describe ("gust of wind," fireball, burn damage) is utterly inconsistent with explosives... but the timing is pretty damn tight. Certainly no evidence of 14 to 17 seconds delay! Their testimony is inconsistent with your story. Read carefully and stop cherry-picking.

TruthSeeker1234, are you next going to tell us these unfortunate people had watches synchronzed to UTC as well? You still haven't addressed that question about the seismographs.

In short, you've got nothing. Nothing at all.

[uruk]

In William Rodrigues's own word in this video he states that he heard an "explosion" one or two seconds before the plane impact:
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/10/william-rodriguez-and-greg-szymanski.html
Here's the link to the video itself from the above site:
http://www.archive.org/download/inn/innrodriguesisdnsept05snow.wmv

2 minutes and 13 seconds into the video Mr. Rodrigues says that there was an explosion "one or two seconds" before the airplane impact. It has been shown how sounds of the impact can be heard in the basement via the support structures before sounds from the impact arrive from the outside .
Some simple calculation found the times to 1.14 and 1.24 seconds.
This would seem to coincide with Mr. Rodrigues's statement

Here's the page where the times were worked out:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63740&page=7

[stateofgrace]

Since you choose to address one statement I made, not very successfully by the way. Other members have already addressed your witness. Am I now to take it that you therefore agree with the rest? In fact since you don't disagree am I to assume you agree with this.

I will amend my "straw man" statements for you to address fully.

WTC 1

8:46:26. There is a massive explosion in the basement of WTC 1. Nobody notices. Except William Rodriguez and the others( as yet unknown persons) who heard what they thought sounded like explosions a few seconds before the plane hit. Although this as been thoroughly explained to you, you still refuse to accept it. At this point there as been no plane hit anywhere and no attack is underway. But it is recorded by seismologists.

8:46:40. (14 seconds later) Plane hits Tower. This is not recorded by seismic records as the Tower absorbs the noise

10:28:25.Tower starts to collapse in total silence.

10:28:31. Six second after the Tower had started to collapse seismologist’s record noises coming from WTC 1. This clearly is not the sound of the collapse, since at this point is has been collapsing in total silence for six seconds.

WTC 2

9:02:54. Another massive explosion takes place, presumably in the basement of WTC 2. In the confusion nobody notices. But it is recorded by seismologists

9:03:11. Seventeen seconds later, incredibly another plane hits the second Tower where this massive explosion has taken place. This impact is not picked up by seismologists; again the Tower absorbs the noise.

9:58:59. This Tower starts to collapse in total silence.

9:59:04. Five seconds after this Tower starts to collapse seismologist’s record noises coming from WTC 2. This is not the sound of the collapse as it has been underway for some five seconds by this point and has been totally silent.

Ok troothy is that about the sum of your theory?
Or maybe you would like to throw a few seismic records from WTC 7 into the mix as well.

I just want to be sure you’re not making this up, that’s all.

Oh just out of interest how do these explosives 14 and 17 seconds before the planes hit actually contribute to the pulverization of concrete?
Did I miss out a few more events is your special theory?

[quicknthedead]

Since you choose to address one statement I made, not very successfully by the way. Other members have already addressed your witness. Am I now to take it that you therefore agree with the rest? In fact since you don't disagree am I to assume you agree with this.

I will amend my "straw man" statements for you to address fully.

WTC 1

8:46:26. There is a massive explosion in the basement of WTC 1. Nobody notices. Except William Rodriguez and the others( as yet unknown persons) who heard what they thought sounded like explosions a few seconds before the plane hit. Although this as been thoroughly explained to you, you still refuse to accept it. At this point there as been no plane hit anywhere and no attack is underway. But it is recorded by seismologists.

So, Rodriguez and company don't know an explosion coming from below as opposed to one coming from above?

Well, what was the explosion he heard a few moments later that sounded like it came from way-high above?

That's two explosions with an interval of time in between. Did Rodriguez lie about the second explosion? Was it an echo? Was it jet fuel fire continuing to snake it's way through the building? (The Ginny Carr audiotape indicates it was about 9.2 seconds later.)

On another item, I don't have to show LDEO was synched to UTC. NIST acquired the services of LDEO's Dr. Kim in 2005 to "firm up" their bogus 8:46:30 time of "impact". So, by inference, NIST qualified the seismic to UTC. (Either that or NIST is wrong, which is not palpable to you).

The official 9/11 story has a problem:
NIST comes out with its time for WTC1 at 8:46:30; however, the FAA had one last radar signal from AA Flt 11 that occurred at 8:46:40, when it disappeared in front of the controller's eyes. To whomever asked for the flight study, it's in the report (if you could only read), but here it is again:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

That's still 10 seconds difference in the world of precision timing, all backed by numerous witnesses.


Remember when I said there is more information out there to cast reasonable doubt on the official 9/11 story?

Forgive me for getting off topic, but why don't you chew on this, since so many Americans are being played for suckers by Bush and by those who control him. Here is more evidence of the inside job, uncontested facts that have been essentially buried by the US media:
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2558/Five_Years...ory_Falls_Apart

Five Years Later: The Official Story Falls Apart
Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:38:41 -070 by Sander Hicks

EXCERPT.......
---------------------

The most relevant example of the whole guilty lot of them is Richard Armitage. In 1989, he couldn’t get a job in President Bush the First’s Department of State, because of his odious Defense Department work with Iran/Contra criminal Oliver North. Skip ahead a scant 12 years later, to the summer of 2001: Armitage sails into a position as Assistant Secretary of State, without a peep from the media or Senate Foreign Relations Committee. After a lifetime in CIA/DIA circles, Armitage happens to hold the highest civilian decoration from the Pakistani military, and has deep social ties there, from his work in the Afghan/Soviet civil war.

Remember that one? That was the 1979-1988 operation where bin Laden, the Mujahedeen, and the Pakistani intelligence group, ISI, were used as proxies for the U.S. military, a mix that later created the Taliban, which helped create Al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission Report distored all this, because it’s at the core of understanding 9/11.

Also noticeably missing from the Report is Richard Armitage’s close relationship to the Pakistani funders of 9/11. The Report incredibly states that discovering the funding for 9/11 is “of little practical significance.” However, the FBI, the Wall Street Journal, and the Times of India have all acknowledged that Pakistani ISI Chief Mahmood Ahmad wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta on Sept. 10, 2001. Ahmad had met extensively that May with the State Department’s Richard Armitage, and CIA Director George Tenet, in Pakistan. On the morning of 9/11, Ahmad was in D.C., meeting with Representative (and later CIA director) Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham. When news of Mahmood Ahmad’s wire transfer reached his home country, he was let go, a month after 9/11. The Pakistani ISI works very closely with the U.S. State Department, and handlers like Armitage. Ahmad was fired quietly, when he should have been arrested, extradited, and served up to the American public as a culprit for the attacks. Remember how high the passions flared in October, 2001? Instead, the whole incident was buried. Ahmad walked.

Asia Times called the Ahmad scandal 9/11’s “real smoking gun.” There’s been zero coverage in the U.S. media. The White House edited Ahmad’s name out of the official transcript, the one time Condi Rice was asked about the scandal at a press conference. Instead of prosecuting Ahmad, the U.S. gave Pakistan an aid package of $3 billion over five years, right after 9/11.

---------------------

These are known facts. The CIA has been working through Pakistan's ISI with Al Qaeda all along. The funding of same has been done through the opium trade. This has been going on since the beginning when the CIA set up Al Qaeda back in the '80s during the Afghan-Soviet War. THIS HAS NEVER STOPPED.

Yes, the US gov't WAS highly involved in 9/11. It is the linchpin for the "War on Terrorism"--a "war" that is a total fabrication with no end, a means to global hegemony & empire, and is Satanic in nature as is the New World Order. Unfortunately, most of America has been dumbed-down, and as a result, the hatred for America has grown immeasurably throughout the world because of crimes of war, aggression, and torture.

Or maybe you just like your government lying to you all the time?

Research the above excerpt from Sander's article for yourself and learn what a sucker you've been.

And if you don't, well, you simply prove the point about being a sucker.

Remember, real patriots are for America AND the truth.

[Jono]

and is Satanic in nature as is the New World Order.

Still my heart and please tell me you do not purport any "reptilian dna" or "Seed of Cain" in this satanic nature creating a new world order of cloak n dagger and secret handshaking sob's??

David Icke??

[R.Mackey]

On another item, I don't have to show LDEO was synched to UTC. NIST acquired the services of LDEO's Dr. Kim in 2005 to "firm up" their bogus 8:46:30 time of "impact". So, by inference, NIST qualified the seismic to UTC. (Either that or NIST is wrong, which is not palpable to you).

What a bunch of crap.

Your entire paper is based on this bogus assertion. We have shown that, if it was true, there are a number of other consequences that don't agree with any other observed evidence, including the witnesses that you trotted out as a diversion.

Fix your paper or get lost. You are a fraud.

[uruk]

The report says 'about" and "approximately" each and everytime it mentions time. It also states that the USAF radar had "less precise" information concerning altitude info since the aircrafts transponders were shut off.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

Gee, do you think " or "about" and "approximately" means "precisely" or "exactly"?

[stateofgrace]

Or maybe you just like your government lying to you all the time?

Research the above excerpt from Sander's article for yourself and learn what a sucker you've been.

And if you don't, well, you simply prove the point about being a sucker.

Remember, real patriots are for America AND the truth.


I am not American. I do not care what your Government says. I make up my own mind on the evidence that is presented by real scientists, experts and academics unlike pseudo researchers like you.

Don't you dare call anybody a sucker because they don't subscribe to your garbage. Stop hiding behind your self righteous mask of savoir of humanity and show yourself for what you are. That being a loser who would prefer to accuses fellow Americans of mass murder than accept reality. Reality being Islamic extremism is real. Accuse away you slime ball but expect no civility from me. You are the repulsive creature that suckers naive teenagers into believing your nonsense. Making out you are some sort of scholar, when the reality is you are one of lives losers who has nothing better to do that jump on ridiculous theories, make a load of garbage up and try to suck your way to the top of this pathetic movements tree.

You are not accusing the US government you are accusing Americans of not only planning but executing and covering up mass murder of their fellow countrymen. You do so on the slenderest of evidence, tied together with some insane form of rational.

You are not "just asking questions” you are pointing the finger, distorting the truth and lying for your own benefit. It makes you feel important; it makes you feel you are empowered with some divine knowledge and gives a great buzz that other loony’s look up to you. You like the hero worship you feel you are getting and glory in accolade of the limelight.

You do this on the backs of the innocent victims who died in the most appalling circumstance and their families, who you wrongly believe you represent and support you. You call those that tried to help liars and those that witnessed it all liars.You twist and distort statements to squeeze them into your theories.You call those experts that trash your theories shills or neocons and those that don’t agree with you suckers.

And no it’s not because I have run our of debunking stuff to throw at you, I am hurling insults at you because; you and your fellow creature Ross deserve it. You deserve much more but for this moment I am simply happy that your life is so miserable that you have to resort to such nonsense to fill the void. You richly deserve your pathetic existence and long may it continue. Now scuttle off back to your precious movement, spout your garbage and continue to make a mockery of this event.

You make me sick.

[twinstead]

It gets so tiring being accused of being a 'sucker' or brainwashed by these idiots.

How arrogant can people be?

[Oliver]

State of grace issued strawman arguments, beginning with
William Rodriguez and the others certianly noticed the huge explosion, and they certainly reported it. Rodriguez testified to the 9/11 commission, who ignored him and left him out of the report. Rodriguez also arranged for others who were there to testify to the 9/11 commission. The Commission refused to hear their testimony at all.

Have you not seen the video clips of the news reporters talking breathlessly about a "huge explosion"?

Did some of the eyewitnesses agree with the "2 second - 2 explosions" story of Willy?

[rwguinn]

hey, everybody--
Next meeting you are in, have everybody simultaneously look at their watches and wrIte down the time, to the nearest second. Whatcha wanna bet the differences will be anywhere from a few seconds to a couple of minutes--and every one of them will have "set my watch with the..." radio station, cell phone, tv--WHATEVER...within the last few days....

[uruk]

The CT'ers seem to be ignoring the fact that Rodriguez's one or two seconds testimony does not coincide with the 10 second siesmic discrepency.

[LashL]

blah blah blah CT bullcrap blah blah blah phony pseudo research blah blah blah cherry picking witnesses blah blah blah misrepresenting facts blah blah blah just for good measure drag out "patriotism" blah blah blah.

Your poor research skills and unsubstantiated nonsense might pass muster at DU, quicknthedead, where you are simply preaching to the choir, but it doesn't pass here.

[LashL]

What a bunch of crap.

Your entire paper is based on this bogus assertion. We have shown that, if it was true, there are a number of other consequences that don't agree with any other observed evidence, including the witnesses that you trotted out as a diversion.

Fix your paper or get lost. You are a fraud.

1) Indeed.
2) Exactly.
3) Exactly.

[LashL]

I am not American. I do not care what your Government says. I make up my own mind on the evidence that is presented by real scientists, experts and academics unlike pseudo researchers like you.

Don't you dare call anybody a sucker because they don't subscribe to your garbage. Stop hiding behind your self righteous mask of savoir of humanity and show yourself for what you are. That being a loser who would prefer to accuses fellow Americans of mass murder than accept reality. Reality being Islamic extremism is real. Accuse away you slime ball but expect no civility from me. You are the repulsive creature that suckers naive teenagers into believing your nonsense. Making out you are some sort of scholar, when the reality is you are one of lives losers who has nothing better to do that jump on ridiculous theories, make a load of garbage up and try to suck your way to the top of this pathetic movements tree.

You are not accusing the US government you are accusing Americans of not only planning but executing and covering up mass murder of their fellow countrymen. You do so on the slenderest of evidence, tied together with some insane form of rational.

You are not "just asking questions” you are pointing the finger, distorting the truth and lying for your own benefit. It makes you feel important; it makes you feel you are empowered with some divine knowledge and gives a great buzz that other loony’s look up to you. You like the hero worship you feel you are getting and glory in accolade of the limelight.

You do this on the backs of the innocent victims who died in the most appalling circumstance and their families, who you wrongly believe you represent and support you. You call those that tried to help liars and those that witnessed it all liars.You twist and distort statements to squeeze them into your theories.You call those experts that trash your theories shills or neocons and those that don’t agree with you suckers.

And no it’s not because I have run our of debunking stuff to throw at you, I am hurling insults at you because; you and your fellow creature Ross deserve it. You deserve much more but for this moment I am simply happy that your life is so miserable that you have to resort to such nonsense to fill the void. You richly deserve your pathetic existence and long may it continue. Now scuttle off back to your precious movement, spout your garbage and continue to make a mockery of this event.

You make me sick.

That was a most righteous and utterly enjoyable rant, stateofgrace. Well done, indeed. :)

[quicknthedead]

Still my heart and please tell me you do not purport any "reptilian dna" or "Seed of Cain" in this satanic nature creating a new world order of cloak n dagger and secret handshaking sob's??

David Icke??

Not at all.

Satanic as in the Bible.

Read the Book of Revelation for "current events".

[quicknthedead]

What a bunch of crap.

Your entire paper is based on this bogus assertion. We have shown that, if it was true, there are a number of other consequences that don't agree with any other observed evidence, including the witnesses that you trotted out as a diversion.

Fix your paper or get lost. You are a fraud.


You have shown nothing.

Drown in your morass. It's your choice.

[R.Mackey]

Read the Book of Revelation for "current events".
I hesitate to ask... but...

Is the Book of Revelation synchronized to UTC?

All kidding aside, your sources of information are getting more and more disputable as you go along. I think a career in science is not for you.

[R.Mackey]

You have shown nothing.

Drown in your morass. It's your choice.
Ah yes, the infamous "I'm Ignoring You" defense.

This also won't fly in science.

As I said, your whitepaper is a fraud -- and by inference, so are you.

But thank you for coming here in an attempt to defend your whitepaper. It's a rare occasion that I get to take on and vanquish the "minds" behind the "truth movement" themselves. Ordinarily I'm restricted to sparring with the unquestioning oafs who follow your work because, for whatever reason, fantasies of bizarre and horrible conspiracies appeal to them. Having seen the best your movement has to offer, I am much more at ease.

[quicknthedead]

I hesitate to ask... but...

Is the Book of Revelation synchronized to UTC?

All kidding aside, your sources of information are getting more and more disputable as you go along. I think a career in science is not for you.


No, the kidding is to be expected from you and your little group. You seem to think you have all the answers. It's too bad, since you wouldn't know a fact if it hit you on the head.

Adios

[Brainache]

Not at all.

Satanic as in the Bible.

Read the Book of Revelation for "current events".

Umm Is this guy seriously suggesting the Book of Revelations as a guide to current events?

You mean to tell me there are people walking around in the 21st century who actually believe that stuff?

Is he about to mention the rapture?(I don't mean the Blondie song).

How is it possible for people to let themselves be fed such BS? Why would they swallow it?
It both sickens and saddens me.

[R.Mackey]

No, the kidding is to be expected from you and your little group. You seem to think you have all the answers. It's too bad, since you wouldn't know a fact if it hit you on the head.

Adios
Be that as it may, the record clearly shows that (a) you arrived here to defend the whitepaper that you authored, (b) you failed to even address the criticism, which is quite simple to explain, and (c) upon failing to do so, this is the best argument you can muster.

I never claim to have "all the answers," but you could stand to learn quite a few things. You never will if your response is to run away.

In the real world of science, you will face much, much stiffer criticism than this, and if you continue to react as you have done here, you will not be employed long. The choice is yours whether to grow as a scientist, or cower as a self-assured malcontent.

As a wise man once said, "the student is not ready."

Until another time, then.

[LashL]

You have shown nothing.

Drown in your morass. It's your choice.

R. Mackey did, in fact, show your paper, and you by extension, to be a fraud.

It seems obvious that your refusal and failure to defend your own work in the face of a strong and persuasive rebuttal means that you concede defeat and means that you concede that you cannot defend your paper.

Pretty straightforward, really.

And the result:

Score another one for R. Mackey!

[stateofgrace]

No, the kidding is to be expected from you and your little group. You seem to think you have all the answers. It's too bad, since you wouldn't know a fact if it hit you on the head.

Adios

I will not wish you farewell nor will I offer the hand of friendship as you go. I hope you leave this forum with the same distaste for me as I have for you. I genuinely hope you dislike me and I genuinely hope I have annoyed you. If so it is but a tiny fraction of the disgust and revulsion I feel towards your movement.

This "small" group as you call those here are only those that can be bothered to accord you any curiously at all and read your rubbish. There is an even bigger group that simply doesn’t give you the time of day. That is the vast majority of the scientific and engineering community. They simply dismiss your deranged idiotic movement.

Like everybody else here I don't pretend to have all the answers that is your domain, “the great pretender.”

[Hellbound]

Not at all.

Satanic as in the Bible.

Read the Book of Revelation for "current events".

Revelations...revelations...

Oh, you mean the fictional account that many actual religious scholars believe described the fall of the Roman empire?

Why not Lord of the Rings? Chronicles of Narnia? Where the Wild Things Are?

[uruk]

I am not American. I do not care what your Government says. I make up my own mind on the evidence that is presented by real scientists, experts and academics unlike pseudo researchers like you.

Don't you dare call anybody a sucker because they don't subscribe to your garbage. Stop hiding behind your self righteous mask of savoir of humanity and show yourself for what you are. That being a loser who would prefer to accuses fellow Americans of mass murder than accept reality. Reality being Islamic extremism is real. Accuse away you slime ball but expect no civility from me. You are the repulsive creature that suckers naive teenagers into believing your nonsense. Making out you are some sort of scholar, when the reality is you are one of lives losers who has nothing better to do that jump on ridiculous theories, make a load of garbage up and try to suck your way to the top of this pathetic movements tree.

You are not accusing the US government you are accusing Americans of not only planning but executing and covering up mass murder of their fellow countrymen. You do so on the slenderest of evidence, tied together with some insane form of rational.

You are not "just asking questions” you are pointing the finger, distorting the truth and lying for your own benefit. It makes you feel important; it makes you feel you are empowered with some divine knowledge and gives a great buzz that other loony’s look up to you. You like the hero worship you feel you are getting and glory in accolade of the limelight.

You do this on the backs of the innocent victims who died in the most appalling circumstance and their families, who you wrongly believe you represent and support you. You call those that tried to help liars and those that witnessed it all liars.You twist and distort statements to squeeze them into your theories.You call those experts that trash your theories shills or neocons and those that don’t agree with you suckers.

And no it’s not because I have run our of debunking stuff to throw at you, I am hurling insults at you because; you and your fellow creature Ross deserve it. You deserve much more but for this moment I am simply happy that your life is so miserable that you have to resort to such nonsense to fill the void. You richly deserve your pathetic existence and long may it continue. Now scuttle off back to your precious movement, spout your garbage and continue to make a mockery of this event.

You make me sick.

I just wanted to bump this post up again. I think stateofgrace nails it right in thier pointy little heads.

[Belz...]

Satanic as in the Bible.

Did someone call me ?

[Jono]

Not at all.

Satanic as in the Bible.

Read the Book of Revelation for "current events".

Every good story needs an villain, I guess you've already chosen the book and villain to project unto current events, that's how it is done.
Fortunately, scientific coherence and examining logic doesn't have that cross of fiction to bare.

[Gravy]

I've just finished taking notes on over 14,000 pages of transcripts of interviews and radio transmissions from people who were involved in the WTC incidents. These include Port Authority WTC Police, WTC security, WTC fire wardens, FDNY 10-House members, and maintenance, elevator, structural and mechanical technicians on many levels in both towers and around the complex.

Number of these people who report massive explosions, or any explosions, before the airplane impacts, besides Willie Rodriguez? Zero.

[Abbyas]

I've just finished taking notes on over 14,000 pages of transcripts of interviews and radio transmissions from people who were involved in the WTC incidents. These include Port Authority WTC Police, WTC security, WTC fire wardens, FDNY 10-House members, and maintenance, elevator, structural and mechanical technicians on many levels in both towers and around the complex.

Number of these people who report massive explosions, or any explosions, before the airplane impacts, besides Willie Rodriguez? Zero.

Save your energy, my friend, because I can debunk that in one sentence.

Firemen technically work for the gov't.

I'm just asking questions.

[Kent1]

"That's two explosions with an interval of time in between. Did Rodriguez lie about the second explosion? Was it an echo? Was it jet fuel fire continuing to snake it's way through the building? (The Ginny Carr audiotape indicates it was about 9.2 seconds later.)"

They did hear two explosions. In fact in the Biography Special: The Anatomy of September 11th one person interviewed stated that they heard the impact as one explosion and the explosion of the fireball shortly after.
http://www.biography.com/listings/episode_details.do?episodeid=164291&airingid=184111

I would also suggest checking out Debunking 9/11 Myths page 33
(I've edited a little bit out)
A three year study into the collapse of the towers found that airplane debris sliced through utility shafts in both towers' core, creating conduits for burning jet fuel and fiery destruction throughout the buildings.
Supplement to the report notes that elevator lobbies throughout the building were particularly affected by the airplane impacts, likely by the excess jet fuel ignited by the crash pouring down the elevator shafts.
NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder explains that the burning jet fuel simply followed the path of least resistance. The core of the building is where a large number of elevator shafts and stairwells were damaged. These provided an easy path for jet fuel to traverse down," Sunder tells Pop Mech.
NIST investigators spoke with more than 1,000 survivors and witnesses of the attack as part of their attempt to determine the progression of damage to the buildings. A number of witnesses reported seeing pockets of fire in locations far from floors directly affected by the aircraft impacts. Our survivor NIST granted all witnesses anonymity in exchange for their cooperation-near an elevator between the 40th and 50th floors of the North Tower recalled, "I saw the elevator in front of me had flames coming out of it. The elevator was closed but the flames came from the front where the doors meet and on the sides...I saw a chandelier shaking; it was really moving...black smoke started filling the corridor, it got really dense fast." And a survivor in the basement of the North Tower at the time of the attack recalled, "I saw a big bright orange color coming through the basement with the smoke...A fireball came shooting out the basement door."

Investigators heard additional reports that some elevators "slammed right down" to the ground floor in loud violent crashes. The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died", says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. On the day of the attacks, the french brothers were making a documentary about Tony Benetatos, a rookie NY City firefighter blocks from the WTC. Beneatos became one of the first responders to the N Tower. As Jules Naudet followed him into the lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, the filmmaker saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to record.

The Empire State Building accident in 1945 also generated damage far from the impact area.

The fuel in the core of the WTC towers was not the only cause of disturbances on the lower floors. The violent swaying of the buildings following the crashes also caused sever damage. The vigorous shaking of the building associated with the impact was enough to casue what we call secondary damage. Sunder says in this case we had extensive damage to the ceiling tiles, walls, and partitions throughout the building.

Here is the portion of the video where they first enter the towers.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6932.htm

I would highly recommend watching this video.

[LashL]

I've just finished taking notes on over 14,000 pages of transcripts of interviews and radio transmissions from people who were involved in the WTC incidents. These include Port Authority WTC Police, WTC security, WTC fire wardens, FDNY 10-House members, and maintenance, elevator, structural and mechanical technicians on many levels in both towers and around the complex.

Number of these people who report massive explosions, or any explosions, before the airplane impacts, besides Willie Rodriguez? Zero.

Rodriguez doesn't come across as credible to me in many respects. Yes, yes, I know about his rescue stories and all, but his own story has changed so many times that I find myself, in full lawyer mode, saying that if I can't trust the messenger, I can't trust the message.

He keeps adding more and different details to his story years after the fact, and his story just seems to grow with each passing telling from his own lips.

He has for the past couple of years been touting his duplicate explosion story, but that all came after he got a taste of media fame and became the plaintiff in a lawsuit that reads like an incredible delusional alternate universe sort of story.

Going back, though, he initially described the sound as a rumbling like furniture being moved and described a man being burned by a fire shooting down an elevator shaft.

A year later, he is on record as saying that fireballs came down the elevator shafts and burned people, including the man he initially described (presumably David Filipe, but it's hard to know for certain).

He only changed his story to include multiple "explosions" and to add that he heard explosions coming from below, and to add that the elevators appeared to be blown out from below, etc. etc. etc. AFTER he got involved with those suffering from conspiranoia and after he agreed to be a plaintiff in the alternate universe lawsuit mentioned above.

More recently, for instance in the video that some troofy conspiranoid posted a link to a video of him at the troofy conspiranoid conference, his story just gets better and better.

As many have pointed out before, the "truth" doesn't require do-overs. William Rodriguez seems to have been doing multiple do-overs these past five years. And every time he adds further layers of alleged "detail", he undermines himself because the new "facts" don't fit with the old "facts".

From my perspective, sitting back and collecting data on his numerous inconsistent stories, it's like a slow motion train wreck, but combined with another metaphor, which is handing someone enough rope to hang himself.

The guy just doesn't know when to stop embellishing his story, and I predict that his penchant for self-aggrandizement and his desire for fame will be his undoing.

[quicknthedead]

AA Flt 11 WTC1

9/11 Commission - 8:46:40 [UTC; updated daily is standard protocol; this time is based upon the LAST PRIMARY RADAR CONTACT- a GIVEN]

Seismic/LDEO - 8:46:29 ± 1 sec [approved by NIST, infers UTC]

10 sec differential



Question: We know the plane hit at 8:46:40, so what was the 8:46:30?
Answer scientifically this time. No more BS or politics.

WHAT CAUSED THE SEISMIC SPIKE AT 8:46:30? [IT CAN'T BE AA Flt 11]

[Gravy]

WHAT CAUSED THE SEISMIC SPIKE AT 8:46:30? [IT CAN'T BE AA Flt 11]
If there was one prior to the flight 11 impact, it wasn't an explosion at the WTC, as anyone who was there can tell you.

[defaultdotxbe]

AA Flt 11 WTC1

9/11 Commission - 8:46:40 [UTC; updated daily is standard protocol; this time is based upon the LAST PRIMARY RADAR CONTACT- a GIVEN]

Seismic/LDEO - 8:46:29 ± 1 sec [approved by NIST, infers UTC]

10 sec differential



Question: We know the plane hit at 8:46:40, so what was the 8:46:30?
Answer scientifically this time. No more BS or politics.

WHAT CAUSED THE SEISMIC SPIKE AT 8:46:30? [IT CAN'T BE AA Flt 11]
says 8:46:40 is based ont he last radar contact, what was the time of the last actual radar contact?

as apathoid has pointed out, radar times can be off by at least 4.6 seconds and by as much as 12 seconds, because the tracking is not continuous

[R.Mackey]

AA Flt 11 WTC1

9/11 Commission - 8:46:40 [UTC; updated daily is standard protocol; this time is based upon the LAST PRIMARY RADAR CONTACT- a GIVEN]

Seismic/LDEO - 8:46:29 ± 1 sec [approved by NIST, infers UTC]

10 sec differential



Question: We know the plane hit at 8:46:40, so what was the 8:46:30?
Answer scientifically this time. No more BS or politics.

WHAT CAUSED THE SEISMIC SPIKE AT 8:46:30? [IT CAN'T BE AA Flt 11]
Already answered (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917866#post1917866). And there's not a shred of politics in that answer. The only BS is your whitepaper.

If what you're claiming is true, the seismograph should have recorded TWO events, not one. One for the crash -- unless you deny any plane hit at all -- and one for your mythical explosives. But there's only one.

You have yet to address the answer. So don't bother asking it again, hoping we'll forget. Your own politics are achingly clear.

[quicknthedead]

If there was one prior to the flight 11 impact, it wasn't an explosion at the WTC, as anyone who was there can tell you.

Then what was it?

[Gravy]

Then what was it?
Hey, you're on to something! It was a seismic spike in your imagination.

[quicknthedead]

says 8:46:40 is based ont he last radar contact, what was the time of the last actual radar contact?

as apathoid has pointed out, radar times can be off by at least 4.6 seconds and by as much as 12 seconds, because the tracking is not continuous

The 8:46:40 WAS the last actual radar contact.
Look at the NTSB report. It shows one last final primary radar return at 8:46:40: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

The 9/11 Commission took this as the time because of this fact.

There was no "radar refresh/sweep" problem here as you and apathoid alude to. I have pointed this out before.

The plane crashed at 8:46:40, so what caused the seismic spike at 8:46:30?

[Gravy]

The 8:46:40 WAS the last actual radar contact.
Look at the NTSB report. It shows one last final primary radar return at 8:46:40: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf)No, it shows that as the approximate time of the impact with the north tower. ETA: Note that the primary returns in the second diagram do not appear for the last part of the flight (interference by Manhattan buildings?), and the last data point shows the altitude as zero, not 1200+ feet. It seems likely that this data point was added manually to complete the track.

The 9/11 Commission took this as the time because of this fact.

There was no "radar refresh/sweep" problem here as you and apathoid alude to. I have pointed this out before.

The plane crashed at 8:46:40, so what caused the seismic spike at 8:46:30? What about the word "approximately" don't you understand?

[apathoid]

The 8:46:40 WAS the last actual radar contact.
Look at the NTSB report. It shows one last final primary radar return at 8:46:40: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

The 9/11 Commission took this as the time because of this fact.

There was no "radar refresh/sweep" problem here as you and apathoid alude to. I have pointed this out before.

The plane crashed at 8:46:40, so what caused the seismic spike at 8:46:30?

I asked you this before and didnt get an answer, so I ask again:

Give me an exact quote/page/paragraph that says that 8:46:40 is the time of last known contact. I read thats an approximate impact time. Do you have a reading comprehension disorder, or are you being dishonest?

I'm just asking questions.

[quicknthedead]

Already answered (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1917866#post1917866). And there's not a shred of politics in that answer. The only BS is your whitepaper.

If what you're claiming is true, the seismograph should have recorded TWO events, not one. One for the crash -- unless you deny any plane hit at all -- and one for your mythical explosives. But there's only one.

You have yet to address the answer. So don't bother asking it again, hoping we'll forget. Your own politics are achingly clear.


I am claiming nothing. I am simply presenting the facts.

The 9/11 Commission's time is based upon FAA radar and ATC software logic, and the FAA network has standard protocol for updating to UTC daily.

No one has questioned the time of this last primary radar contact. If you believe otherwise, that is your prerogative, but you have yet to present any evidence (you once pointed out to me something about science; perhaps you need to take your own words to heart). If you have hard facts to the contrary, please present them. However, theory is one thing; hard facts are something else.
Look at the last primary radar contact; it is 8:46:40: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

The seismic time is accurate as well. It was revised and accepted by NIST in 2005, and is also UTC (their chapter on the times is entitled "ABSOLUTE TIME ACCURACY").

Don’t you think it ridiculous that NIST not once referenced the 9/11 Commission’s time that is at a DIRECT VARIANCE to their time? Not one mention of this contradiction! Such disregard for the facts (and to the American people, as the NIST report belongs to us).

Me address the answer? I already told you my answer.

What is your answer? What caused that seismic spike (other than explosions)?
Please be honest.

[quicknthedead]

Hey, you're on to something! It was a seismic spike in your imagination.

You have no answer.

Here is what a lot of people said: EXPLOSIONS!

By not addressing the question, you have yielded to them; and personally, I believe them over you...they were there that morning!

And the firefighters saw evidence of the explosions in the Lobby that could have only come from below.

8:46:40
8:46:30

This indicates COVERUP also.

NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time.
NIST avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the seismic data.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.

And you are avoiding the question as well. You are either stubborn, misguided, a government shill, or something else, but one thing you are not is intellectually honest.

Gravy...I will no longer respond to you because of this.

I'm sure it doesn't matter to you; and it certainly doesn't matter to me!

[Qubit]

What is your answer? What caused that seismic spike (other than explosions)?
Please be honest. Maybe it was an Alien space craft hitting the ground at that very moment? That is just as plausible as your CD theory, is it not? I admit to not knowing the answer and it's not because I am not smart enough, but because I don't know all the facts and don't have all the evidence at hand. I am willing to bet you don't either.

[R.Mackey]

I am claiming nothing. I am simply presenting the facts. [...]

The seismic time is accurate as well. It was revised and accepted by NIST in 2005, and is also UTC (their chapter on the times is entitled "ABSOLUTE TIME ACCURACY").

Don’t you think it ridiculous that NIST not once referenced the 9/11 Commission’s time that is at a DIRECT VARIANCE to their time?

No, this is what's ridiculous. I will explain why your paper is crap again.

And again, I was talking about the seismographs. The name of the paper is "Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)" is it not? So where's this seismic proof? Show me those clocks were calibrated.


Here's your response:


On another item, I don't have to show LDEO was synched to UTC. NIST acquired the services of LDEO's Dr. Kim in 2005 to "firm up" their bogus 8:46:30 time of "impact". So, by inference, NIST qualified the seismic to UTC. (Either that or NIST is wrong, which is not palpable to you).


Yes, you do. It's your claim. If you won't defend it, you are a fraud. Case closed, again.

Not one mention of this contradiction! Such disregard for the facts (and to the American people, as the NIST report belongs to us).

Me address the answer? I already told you my answer.

What is your answer? What caused that seismic spike (other than explosions)?
Please be honest.
There is only one seismic spike in that entire time period, miscalibrated by about 12 seconds (taking other uncertainties into account). That spike corresponds to the aircraft impact. That's what LDEO concluded, that's what NIST agreed to, that's what PROTEC confirms.

There are no other events.

If that spike is your phantom explosives, explosives that nobody saw, since not one person, not even Rodriguez, says went off 17 seconds before the plane impact, then where did the plane impact go on the seismograph? There's only one event, not two.

And you expect this same thing happened again on the other tower, with a similar timing discrepancy?

And you haven't explained why the tower collapses also show the same timing discrepancy, like I showed on page 2, and reminded you just above.

Why do you even bother trying to defend yourself?

[apathoid]

I am claiming nothing. I am simply presenting the facts.

The 9/11 Commission's time is based upon FAA radar and ATC software logic, and the FAA network has standard protocol for updating to UTC daily.

No one has questioned the time of this last primary radar contact. If you believe otherwise, that is your prerogative, but you have yet to present any evidence (you once pointed out to me something about science; perhaps you need to take your own words to heart). If you have hard facts to the contrary, please present them. However, theory is one thing; hard facts are something else.
Look at the last primary radar contact; it is 8:46:40: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf


:bwall

Good Christ! How many times are you going to repeat yourself? Have you read that document you keep linking?

Its not the last radar contact, its the estimated time of impact!

You might want to read the section on time correlation in the radar study for all 4 flights. It will tell you that the clocks were all in disagrement and had to be adjusted. It also talks about the sweep times, which are important because only one radar was used for time tracking purposes?

Pop quiz for Craig. Which radar site was that?

[quicknthedead]

No, it shows that as the approximate time of the impact with the north tower. ETA: Note that the primary returns in the second diagram do not appear for the last part of the flight (interference by Manhattan buildings?), and the last data point shows the altitude as zero, not 1200+ feet. It seems likely that this data point was added manually to complete the track.

What about the word "approximately" don't you understand?

You do not understand primary radar returns. They do not give altitude, but do provide time and location, and the last 8:46:40 radar return is sitting on 8:46:40.

Approximate is used by the NTSB as standard nomenclature for flight path studies as the reports are always subject to higher authority for approval.

That authority, the 9/11 Commission in this case, confirmed the time as 8:46:40.

You are the one who doesn't understand primary radar returns, especially a final one. You need to check what you’re saying.

[apathoid]

You do not understand primary radar returns. They do not give altitude, but do provide time and location, and the last 8:46:40 radar return is sitting on 8:46:40.

Approximate is used by the NTSB as standard nomenclature for flight path studies as the reports are always subject to higher authority for approval.

That authority, the 9/11 Commission in this case, confirmed the time as 8:46:40.

You are the one who doesn't understand primary radar returns, especially a final one. You need to check what you’re saying.

Yes, they do give altitude, look at Figure 2. The triangles are primary hits with altitude data. The circles are Mode C (altitude reporting).

And are you looking at that last triangle on the Figure 2? Thats not a return, thats note "I" (and it shows up on Figure 1 as time of impact)and its sitting at ZERO ft. Flight 11 hit at around 1000' up.

[Gravy]

You have no answer.My answer was serious. You want to believe that there was a huge explosion at the WTC before flight 11 hit. However, to the real people who were really there, there was no explosion. It is in your imagination.

Here is what a lot of people said: EXPLOSIONS! William Rodriguez reported hearing a noise from below, thinking it was a generator blowing, and before he could finish his thought, hearing a noise from above.

Name a person who claims that there was a huge explosion prior to flight 11's impact, corresponding to your claim.

Let's go, quick. Who are they?

And the firefighters saw evidence of the explosions in the Lobby that could have only come from below. You either didn't read, or didn't understand, my compilation of numerous quotes that show the elevator explosions were due to jet fuel from above. Even Willie Rodriguez acknowledges the jet fuel. Why don't you? By the way, those jet fuel explosions happend in the elevator shafts of both towers.

And you are avoiding the question as well. You are either stubborn, misguided, a government shill, or something else, but one thing you are not is intellectually honest. Not at all. I addressed your question directly with abundant evidence that refutes your claim. Where's your evidence that refutes mine?

Gravy...I will no longer respond to you because of this.Typical CT response when confronted with hard evidence.

I'm sure it doesn't matter to you; and it certainly doesn't matter to me!You're quite wrong. In fact, my 9/11 email address is itmatters@mail.com.

[quicknthedead]

I asked you this before and didnt get an answer, so I ask again:

Give me an exact quote/page/paragraph that says that 8:46:40 is the time of last known contact. I read thats an approximate impact time. Do you have a reading comprehension disorder, or are you being dishonest?

I'm just asking questions.


You have the flight path study and the 9/11 Commission Report. These are prime documents! What is wrong with your comprehension of the facts?

Do your own research and learn about primary radar returns if you like.

However, you avoid the question, so I am done with you.

You lose because you are the one who is intellectually dishonest.

Adios.

[Pardalis]

Adios.

Funny, I seem to remember seeing geggy and Killtown use the same word. Is that a new CT trend?

[R.Mackey]

You have the flight path study and the 9/11 Commission Report. These are prime documents! What is wrong with your comprehension of the facts?

Do your own research and learn about primary radar returns if you like.

However, you avoid the question, so I am done with you.

You lose because you are the one who is intellectually dishonest.

Adios.

Aaand there he goes again.

If you decide to come back again, bring someone who's actually got the physics under his belt to pose a worthy debate, mmm'kay? Bring Ross, bring Dr. Jones, bring the whole ruddy family, I don't care. We're more than ready on our side.

[Gravy]

Yes, they do give altitude, look at Figure 2. The triangles are primary hits with altitude data. The circles are Mode C (altitude reporting).

And are you looking at that last triangle on the Figure 2? Thats not a return, thats note "I" (and it shows up on Figure 1 as time of impact)and its sitting at ZERO ft. Flight 11 hit at around 1000' up.
Thanks for replying to that. Kept my blood pressure at a reasonable level.

[apathoid]

You have the flight path study and the 9/11 Commission Report. These are prime documents! What is wrong with your comprehension of the facts?

Do your own research and learn about primary radar returns if you like.

However, you avoid the question, so I am done with you.

You lose because you are the one who is intellectually dishonest.

Adios.

Figures :rolleyes:
Don't let the door knob hit you in the butt.

[Pardalis]

Thanks for replying to that. Kept my blood pressure at a reasonable level.

You need to buy yourself a budgie. :D

[quicknthedead]

Maybe it was an Alien space craft hitting the ground at that very moment? That is just as plausible as your CD theory, is it not? I admit to not knowing the answer and it's not because I am not smart enough, but because I don't know all the facts and don't have all the evidence at hand. I am willing to bet you don't either.


These facts are so simple my 13 year-old grandson understands them.

And you avoid the question with your flippant UFO remark. So you don't have all the facts, huh? They're all right here (again):
Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)
by Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross (Member, Scholars for 9/11 Truth)
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Seismic_Proof___9.11_Was_An_Inside_Job.doc

What about all the families of the survivors who want a new investigation because they know they have yet to receive a credible one? They care; they care an awful lot.

Do you?

BTW, these are only simple facts presented...no theory.
I simply asked what caused the seismic spike and no one can answer it.

Can anyone? What caused the seismic spike at WTC1 at 8:46:30?

[apathoid]

Thanks for replying to that. Kept my blood pressure at a reasonable level.

Mine was starting to boil too. Anyone else notice that all of Craigs posts were saying exactly the same thing over and over, and he never actually backed anything up despite our pleas to do so? That tactic seems all too familiar......

[defaultdotxbe]

Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)

now we are on version 2? this thread started on version 3.1, and it was quickly pointed out the actual paper was on version 4

but i guess given the oct 2001 news articles truthers like so much this is just par for the course

[R.Mackey]

BTW, these are only simple facts presented...no theory.
I simply asked what caused the seismic spike and no one can answer it.

Can anyone? What caused the seismic spike at WTC1 at 8:46:30?
Back so soon? And with nothing new?

I answered your question. Again.

You answer these. They're very, very simple.

1. What was the precise, UTC-calibrated time of the start of the seismic event? Include your uncertainty.

2. How did you establish the calibration? How did you compute the uncertainty?

[quicknthedead]

No, this is what's ridiculous. I will explain why your paper is crap again.



Here's your response:




Yes, you do. It's your claim. If you won't defend it, you are a fraud. Case closed, again.


There is only one seismic spike in that entire time period, miscalibrated by about 12 seconds (taking other uncertainties into account). That spike corresponds to the aircraft impact. That's what LDEO concluded, that's what NIST agreed to, that's what PROTEC confirms.

There are no other events.

If that spike is your phantom explosives, explosives that nobody saw, since not one person, not even Rodriguez, says went off 17 seconds before the plane impact, then where did the plane impact go on the seismograph? There's only one event, not two.

And you expect this same thing happened again on the other tower, with a similar timing discrepancy?

And you haven't explained why the tower collapses also show the same timing discrepancy, like I showed on page 2, and reminded you just above.

Why do you even bother trying to defend yourself?


You obfuscate and bring out nothing but smoke and mirrors, and you certainly avoid the question, R.Mackey. FYI, there were two spikes, and you clearly don't understand what LDEO and NIST did (you should have tried reading the paper). And BTW, the 17 seconds has to do with WTC2, but tonight has all been about WTC1.

So you need to focus better as well as get the basic facts straight, as you are starting to look like a plain ol’ liar at this point (if I were a gambling man, I’d bet you were a shill for sure, but no matter).

These are facts:
8:46:40
8:46:30

And you didn’t answer the question (because you won’t…because you can't)!

So, you lose! And because you lose, I will not address you further and waste time with the intellectually dishonest.

And BTW, you can keep your "crap" remarks to yourself, as this seems to be the entire substance of your "science". The next time you get into a debate or discussion, try bringing facts. They do a lot more than spouting—which is the only thing you brought to the table.

Adios

[defaultdotxbe]

These are facts:
8:46:40
8:46:30


wrong, you have not show the first time to be the last actual radar CONTACT, it is the impact approximated based on radar, and could be as much as 12 seconds off

but lets move on to the next step, ill concede that the seismic event was not the plane impact

given that no witnesses in manhattan reported any seismic events other than the plane impact, what could it be?

my guess would be something not even local to manhattan, that LDEO happened to pick up near the same time

[quicknthedead]

:bwall

Good Christ! How many times are you going to repeat yourself? Have you read that document you keep linking?

Its not the last radar contact, its the estimated time of impact!

You might want to read the section on time correlation in the radar study for all 4 flights. It will tell you that the clocks were all in disagrement and had to be adjusted. It also talks about the sweep times, which are important because only one radar was used for time tracking purposes?

Pop quiz for Craig. Which radar site was that?



Regarding your last statement (before your pop quiz remark), please provide the reference and link. Let's look at it and find out how the 9/11 Commission, the FAA, and the NTSB got it wrong.

NB: This is regarding exclusively the 8:46:40 time for AA Flt 11, because that is all I am talking about here--nothing else.

Thanks.

[Kent1]

Back so soon? And with nothing new?

I answered your question. Again.

You answer these. They're very, very simple.

1. What was the precise, UTC-calibrated time of the start of the seismic event? Include your uncertainty.

2. How did you establish the calibration? How did you compute the uncertainty?

He just repeats the same thing over. Yet he can't address the problems with his paper. He's also spamming other forums right now with the same garbage. I see he also can't deal with the video evidence. He just posts scripture.
If you note everyone keeps explaining to him the same problems in all of the other forums.
Here's DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=105267&mesg_id=110373

Here's the PhysOrgForum
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=1770

He's like Christophera. Except its not concrete core, it's his silly paper.

[R.Mackey]

You obfuscate and bring out nothing but smoke and mirrors, and you certainly avoid the question, R.Mackey. FYI, there were two spikes, and you clearly don't understand what LDEO and NIST did (you should have tried reading the paper). And BTW, the 17 seconds has to do with WTC2, but tonight has all been about WTC1.
Is that so.

In that case, perhaps you'd like to explain the following:


Why your own paper doesn't even mention the double spikes
Why NIST and LDEO don't mention double spikes
Where the double spikes are in the seismic records themselves, found here (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html)*



So you need to focus better as well as get the basic facts straight, as you are starting to look like a plain ol’ liar at this point (if I were a gambling man, I’d bet you were a shill for sure, but no matter).
It might indeed appear that way, to one so deeply, irrevocably wedded to delusions that he'd rather conclude a global conspiracy then check to see if a clock was synchronized.

Not my problem.


These are facts:
8:46:40
8:46:30

And you didn’t answer the question (because you won’t…because you can't)!

So, you lose! And because you lose, I will not address you further and waste time with the intellectually dishonest.
I did. The spike is entirely consistent with the aircraft impact. All you have to do is recalibrate the LDEO clock, which is completely consistent with the behavior of all of the other seismic events.

Run away if you want, doesn't bother me. I can see I've already gotten as much intelligent communication out of you as I ever will.


And BTW, you can keep your "crap" remarks to yourself, as this seems to be the entire substance of your "science". The next time you get into a debate or discussion, try bringing facts. They do a lot more than spouting—which is the only thing you brought to the table.

Adios
Your paper is crap. It will instantly fail peer review. I exposed a critical flaw, one you still have not answered, in under 30 minutes after first hearing about it.

Prove me wrong, if you're as bold and "scientific" as you claim you are. Just give it a try. Submit it to a real journal, and share with us just how it went.

* ETA: Those links seem to have gone bad, I'll find them again. They show the collapse seismo but not the impacts. Back in a bit.
ETA II: Found some nice graphs straight from LDEO. Happy hunting for those double spikes, tough guy.

[Gravy]

Glad you're back, quick. For the second time, please name a person at the WTC who reported a massive explosion that corresponds to your claim, prior to flight 11's impact.

You haven't named one yet. Please do so now.

[R.Mackey]

He just repeats the same thing over. Yet he can't address the problems with his paper. He's also spamming other forums right now with the same garbage. I see he also can't deal with the video evidence. He just posts scripture.
wow. Pretty sad.

The PhysOrg guys make a good point about the difference between Rayleigh waves and Love waves... a point that, I'm sure, is several levels too technical for Mr. Furlong to grasp. But here, for now, I'm perfectly happy to debunk him with the very simplest of reasoning.

This is really yet another tragedy, and why I find the whole 9/11 Denial movement so depressing. Mr. Furlong is clearly not getting the education he needs. He is also never going to get that education, because, encouraged by Ross and Jones and the rest of that ragged little band of pariahs, he's decided to attack any and all criticism rather than listen to it.

Real scientists make LOTS of mistakes. I know because I am one. Criticism isn't easy to take sometimes, but it is the best teacher you will ever get. Face your critics. If your critics are wrong, don't just stick your fingers in your ears, do the work and prove that you are right.

If you don't have the stones to do this, then you're definitely no match for a hard-bitten experimentalist. Like me.

[quicknthedead]

Yes, they do give altitude, look at Figure 2. The triangles are primary hits with altitude data. The circles are Mode C (altitude reporting).

And are you looking at that last triangle on the Figure 2? Thats not a return, thats note "I" (and it shows up on Figure 1 as time of impact)and its sitting at ZERO ft. Flight 11 hit at around 1000' up.

Primary radar returns do not provide altitude.

The triangles in the graph, figure 2 of the flight path study, are primary radar returns; the Mode C returns (showing altitude from the beginning of the flight) stopped at Point D when the transponder was turned off. The dotted line after Point D is the assumed altitude.

The last primary return, the triangle, occurred at 8:46:40.
It is a real return.
Altitude? Try the 93rd Floor. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf


http://team8plus.org/september11th/NATIONALCOMMISSIONTERRORISTATTACKS.html
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
Twelfth Public Hearing

Thursday, June 17, 2004


(excerpt)
Controllers track airliners like the four aircraft hijacked on 9/11 primarily by watching the data from a signal emitted by the aircraft's transponder equipment. The four aircraft hijacked on 9/11, like all aircraft traveling above 10,000 feet, were required to emit a unique transponder signal while in flight. On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With the transponder turned off, it may be possible, although more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. A primary radar return occurs when the signal sent from a radar site bounces off an object in the sky and indicates the presence of that object. But primary radar returns do not include the transponder data, which show the aircraft's identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely on transponder signals and usually do not display primary radar returns on their scopes. But they can change the configuration of their radar scopes so they can see primary radar returns. And in fact, the controllers did just that on 9/11 when the transponders were turned off in three of the four hijacked aircraft. Tower or terminal approach controllers handle a wider variety of lower-flying aircraft; they often use primary radar returns as well as transponder signals.


-----------------------------------------------------------


More on the subject of primary radar and altitude:
http://avcan.blogspot.com/2005/08/atc-radar-primary-surveillance-radar.html

[Gravy]

Ah, no altitude data from the primary radar then. Obviously, this is a minor point, and a distraction from the main issue, which is that there was no explosion at the WTC prior to flight 11's impact. I see from this document (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa6.pdf%20%20Boston) that Boston Center contacted several nearby airliners for to get a visual estimate and received some feedback on AA11's altitude. I didn't check for similar info out of New York.

ETA: I was just looking at the "Primary Returns Height Measurement" here (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf), which indicates that the FAA did have a way of roughly determing altitude, but I see Apathoid is addressing this already.

This FAA document (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf) says the last radar contact for flight 11 was at 8:46:31 and the time of impact was 8:46:35.

Now, quick, please provide the eyewitness testimony of the massive explosion that corresponds to your claim, prior to flight 11's impact. If you cannot, please have your 13-year-old grandson do so.

[apathoid]

Primary radar returns do not provide altitude.

The triangles in the graph, figure 2 of the flight path study, are primary radar returns; the Mode C returns (showing altitude from the beginning of the flight) stopped at Point D when the transponder was turned off. The dotted line after Point D is the assumed altitude....Blah Blah Blah. Same ole. Same ole.

Wow, you dont even know how to interperet a simple X-Y graph. Not that its really relevant here, but I think its important to show how inept you are interpereting your own "evidence".

The position of the triangles correspond to the altitude of the return. Hint:the altitude is on the left, notice how the triangles match the circles up until the circles stop, then keep going? They are returning altitude after Mode C stops reporting. But how can that be? Let me back that up with some evidence(something you havent done yet).

The ARSR-4 long-range radar systems utilized by the FAA and USAF have the capability to estimate the altitude of primary targets with a certain degree of accuracy...

The published root mean square accuracy of the height estimated by the radar system is +/- 3000 ft. After 0821 EDT, American Airlines Flight 11 no longer contained transponder altitude information. However, primary returns in the 84th RADES data contained radar-derived heights for the remainder of the flight.
http://www.911myths.com/Recorded_Radar_Data_Study--all_four_aircraft.pdf

Now then, will you be a man and admit your mistake here? Its a simple one that really doesnt hurt your precious paper.....I'm guessing no.

Regarding your last statement (before your pop quiz remark), please provide the reference and link. Let's look at it and find out how the 9/11 Commission, the FAA, and the NTSB got it wrong.

NB: This is regarding exclusively the 8:46:40 time for AA Flt 11, because that is all I am talking about here--nothing else.

Thanks.

So, I take it you dont know the answer to the quiz I posted - if you were well researched about the source of your impact times, you'd know the answer.

[Gravy]

You go, apathoid!

[quicknthedead]

JREF Forum,

I have been answering your posts one at a time in sequential order, and that is why it appears that I came back in some instances.

However, no one answered the question.

Near as I can tell you believe the 8:46:40 FAA time is fuzzy.
(ATC Dave Bottiglia saw that return disappear before his very eyes.)
And apathoid sees it sitting at zero altitude on the graph...it's just that he did not know that primary radar returns don't give altitude.

But they give location and time.

Good luck on the NIST time for the seismic at 8:46:30. Fat chance you can disprove this one, they being the “Keepers of the Absolute Time Accuracy” vault. Yeah, right. (They actually make up times as they go (it’s in the paper; another fact).

Now, you all can talk about how sure you are about those CT'rs, blah, blah, blah,...only problem, I am not a CT'r. I don't like theories. Way too much guesswork. I just try to find facts.

As far as Mackey and his spikes, the two "impacts" reported by LDEO were considered spikes due to the small Richter reading. And yes, I will not respond to him any longer. As a matter of fact, you can all go back to your sedate life because I learned what I needed to know.

And that is: No one could answer the question. That's why I came here tonight. I needed to know if anyone could answer the question. I got answers of UFO’s, my imagination, “I told you your paper was crap” post-from-the past, primary radar returns give altitude, and on and on…but I never got anyone to really answer this simple question.

Guys, what if you are wrong?

Imagine that for a second. You think I’m a CT’r, but I’m not. Keep labels out of this. We just want the truth, right? If I’m wrong, I will admit it. (Of course, if you are shills for the gov’t, I am wasting my time, but I still bear you no malice).

Just imagine, as a hypothetical, that “The Two Times Are Right”!

With that thought in your head, see if you can now answer the question: What caused the seismic reading at 8:46:30?

Try it. You all seem scientifically bent.

One last thing...apathoid, if you can post that link about the radar I will look at it...but it must disprove AA Flt 11’s last primary radar contact at 8:46:40. Nothing else will suffice.

If it does, I will apologize to all of you, I'll pack up my tent, and I'll go home (on this whole issue).
And if I don’t see it posted over the next few days, well, I will understand.
Thanks for your time, guys.

Adios! (Go with God)

[Gravy]

This FAA document (http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf) says the last radar contact for flight 11 was at 8:46:31 and the time of impact was 8:46:35.
Third time: what are you afraid of, quick?

Now, quick, please provide the eyewitness testimony of the massive explosion that corresponds to your claim, prior to flight 11's impact. If you cannot, please have your 13-year-old grandson do so.

[apathoid]

You go, apathoid!

Right back at'cha pardner!

...and the final score is JREF 63 and BS1234/Furlong 0.

:cheerleader2 :cheerleader1
:wave1

[apathoid]

Third time: what are you afraid of, quick?


The truth.

[MRC_Hans]

My pdf reader is wacky can't read this now, but it has experts that were near GZ running seis equip. Check it out!

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf

Absolutely awesome! TS1234, read this, and come back when you can refure it.

Hans

[quicknthedead]

Wow, you dont even know how to interperet a simple X-Y graph. Not that its really relevant here, but I think its important to show how inept you are interpereting your own "evidence".

The position of the triangles correspond to the altitude of the return. Hint:the altitude is on the left, notice how the triangles match the circles up until the circles stop, then keep going? They are returning altitude after Mode C stops reporting. But how can that be? Let me back that up with some evidence(something you havent done yet).


http://www.911myths.com/Recorded_Radar_Data_Study--all_four_aircraft.pdf

Now then, will you be a man and admit your mistake here? Its a simple one that really doesnt hurt your precious paper.....I'm guessing no.



So, I take it you dont know the answer to the quiz I posted - if you were well researched about the source of your impact times, you'd know the answer.


Cool stuff, apathoid! I just catalogued this. I had run across information similar to this, but I have never seen this report. Thanks!

However, the 84th RADES provided the ASSUMED ALTITUDE dotted-line in the flight path study, and BTW, I provided this concept to you in my post #372 (it's in the link at the bottom, about the latitude-longitude-altitude method).

But the last primary return had nothing to do with altitude, because it was PSR.

And it WAS a return, with a time of 8:46:40!

Now what do you think that means?
It means no apology, and...

8:46:40 is good.
8:46:30 is good.

Thanks again,

Adios!

[ktesibios]

Page 9 of the FAA document Gravy referenced shows what appears to be an image of the radar reconstruction of the last part of AA11's ground track. While the black and white image is horribly difficult to read, the end of the trail is labeled "Last radar return, unknown altitude, ground speed (illegible) at 8:46:31 ET". The caption indicates that this data is from Newark airport's ASR-9 radar.

The Recorded Radar Data- all four aircraft document Apathoid referenced has this to say about Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR): "ASR radar normally records data approximately every 4 1/2 seconds".

Looking around for information on the ASR-9, I turned up a document on the usefulness of surveillance radar to weather monitoring, called "FAA SURVEILLANCE RADAR DATA AS A COMPLEMENT TO THE WSR-88D NETWORK " at http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~rfisher/Radar/WW-10147.pdf . It has this to say about the ASR-9 system: "The WSP provides full resolution reflectivity and velocity imagery out to the ASR-9’s instrumented range of 60 nmi; the images are updated every antenna sweep (4.8 seconds) out to 15 nmi where the wind shear detection algorithms operate."

I think that means that you can only tell if a contact is still there every 4.8 seconds; if it disappears on one particular sweep it could have gone down at any time between that sweep and the last time the antenna pointed in the same direction 4.8 seconds previously.

If so, there's an uncertainty of up to 4.8 seconds in the 8:46:31 time, that is, the plane could have crashed at any time between 8:46:26.2 and 8:46:31.

Add in the unknown uncertainty of the setting of Newark airport's clock and there seems to be enough slop in the measurements to bode rather ill for CT claims that depend on assumptions of one-second (or better) accuracy.

[MRC_Hans]

TS123½ kept chanting:
No. The basement explosives evidently went off 14 and 17 seconds before the planes hit.Wrong. About 50 posts in this thread point out that this is not at all evident. TS, if you are to even pretend to be debating you need to stop ignoring the arguments of the other side.

Hans

[stateofgrace]

JREF Forum,..........................
Guys, what if you are wrong?

Imagine that for a second. You think I’m a CT’r, but I’m not. Keep labels out of this. We just want the truth, right? If I’m wrong, I will admit it. (Of course, if you are shills for the gov’t, I am wasting my time, but I still bear you no malice).

Just imagine, as a hypothetical, that “The Two Times Are Right”!

With that thought in your head, see if you can now answer the question: What caused the seismic reading at 8:46:30? (Go with God)

And what if you are wrong?

Will you apologies to those you wrongly accuse of mass murderer?
Will you admit your paper is fraudulent?
Will you denounce your movement?
Will you stop dancing on graves?
Will you finally stop these ridiculous conspiracies?
Will you stop doubting those who tries to help?
Will you stop twisting and distorting witness statements?
Will you finally allow everybody to move on from this dreadful event?
Will you stop stroking your own ego?
Will you openly admit to your naive teenage audience you are a fraud?
Will you allow the victims to rest in peace?
Will you condemn those that desecrate GZ with this rubbish?
Will you support the genuine questions that still need answers?
Will you condemn your movement for mocking the victim’s final words?
Will you call for your movement to leave the families of the victims alone?
Will you stop calling those who opposed you shills?
Will you stop calling those who opposed you suckers?
Will you stop pretending you are the savoir of humanity?

Will you just for the love of god,stop?

Hey just asking questions.

[uruk]

Maybe it was an Alien space craft hitting the ground at that very moment? That is just as plausible as your CD theory, is it not? I admit to not knowing the answer and it's not because I am not smart enough, but because I don't know all the facts and don't have all the evidence at hand. I am willing to bet you don't either.

IT WUZ ALEE-INS!!!!!
Looky here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5070226144647203934

It wuz them clingons from Uranus!!

[CurtC]

Guys, what if you are wrong?

Imagine that for a second. You think I’m a CT’r, but I’m not. Keep labels out of this. We just want the truth, right? If I’m wrong, I will admit it. (Of course, if you are shills for the gov’t, I am wasting my time, but I still bear you no malice).

Just imagine, as a hypothetical, that “The Two Times Are Right”!

With that thought in your head, see if you can now answer the question: What caused the seismic reading at 8:46:30?
R.Mackey, apathoid, and Gravy have a good handle on the technical issues with your paper, but I'll play along with your hypothetical. If you can indeed show that there was a major seismic event in the North Tower ten seconds before Flight 11 hit, then we have major problems that would have to be resolved.

There were a huge number of people around the tower who would have noticed, yet none of them did. Even Willie Rodriguez heard something from the basement a very short time before he heard the explosion from above, not ten seconds. And Willie is your only witness that supports anything like a pre-impact explosion. Unfortunately for you, his description of the events is completely compatible with the standard model, and inconsistent with your idea of a 8:46:30 explosion.

The other problem to be resolved is that there is only one seismic spike on that record, and Flight 11 surely would have registered a major spike. How could the explosion ten seconds before cause a very discernable spike, but the airliner impact not be there at all?

So even if you could somehow demonstrate this ten-second-before seismic event (which it's abundantly clear by now you can't), you still have giant problems trying to show that that could be an explosion ten seconds before.

And by the way, calling your interlocutors "government shills" just makes you sound stupid. You might want to remove that bit from your act.

[Brainache]

JREF Forum,
Guys, what if you are wrong?

Imagine that for a second. You think I’m a CT’r, but I’m not. Keep labels out of this. We just want the truth, right? If I’m wrong, I will admit it. (Of course, if you are shills for the gov’t, I am wasting my time, but I still bear you no malice).

Just imagine, as a hypothetical, that “The Two Times Are Right”!

With that thought in your head, see if you can now answer the question: What caused the seismic reading at 8:46:30?

Try it. You all seem scientifically bent.

One last thing...apathoid, if you can post that link about the radar I will look at it...but it must disprove AA Flt 11’s last primary radar contact at 8:46:40. Nothing else will suffice.

If it does, I will apologize to all of you, I'll pack up my tent, and I'll go home (on this whole issue).
And if I don’t see it posted over the next few days, well, I will understand.
Thanks for your time, guys.

Adios! (Go with God)

Umm well I guess it means these are the end times and the world is topsy turvy. Explosions are invisible to all but seismographs, planes hit buildings without causing shock waves and the Beast is loose in the world.

The whore of Babylon is doing her dance on the graves of the righteous.

The rapture is a commin to town and all the wretched sinners will burn in hell.

So I spose it's all OK then coz that's the way God planned it. Might as well go get a burger, rent a hooker and buy a bag of coke for kicks because noone's gonna save me now.

OTOH it might just be possible that a couple of clocks were slightly out of sync, so maybe I'll think twice about that burger.

[uruk]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
No. The basement explosives evidently went off 14 and 17 seconds before the planes hit.
This is also for you Quickandthedead.

Not according to the CT'rs chief wittness.

In William Rodrigues's own words in this video he states that he heard an "explosion" "one or two seconds before the plane impact:
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/10/wi...szymanski.html
Here's the link to the video itself from the above site:
http://www.archive.org/download/inn/...sept05snow.wmv


2 minutes and 13 seconds into the video Mr. Rodrigues says that there was an explosion "one or two seconds" before the airplane impact. It has been shown how sounds of the impact can be heard in the basement via the steel support structures before sounds from the impact arrive from the outside .
Some simple calculation found the times to be roughly 1.14 and 1.24 seconds.
This would seem to coincide with Mr. Rodrigues's statement. ( Here's the page where the times were worked out: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63740&page=7 )

Here's another video showing Mr. Rodriguez stating that the time between the two sounds is in a space of time of where he was going to verbalize a thought.:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8536008651248732897&q=william+rodriguez+wtc+explosions

Based on testimony from Mr. Rodriguez himself, the spikes on the siezmograph, which are 10 to 14 seconds before the WTC collapse, could not have been caused by the alleged "explosion in the basement" that was reported by Mr. Rodriguez.

[cloudshipsrule]

Alright. Say there was some seismic event before the impact of the planes.

Are you saying it was a bomb?

If so, what was the point of this event? Neither building fell until over an hour after the impact of the planes. What did this first explosion accomplish?

I'm sure all this has been said before, but.....If there was a bomb in the basement of either WTC, it did nothing. The buildings fell from the TOP down, not all at once, and not bottom to top. What did this elusive basement explosion accomplish exactly?

[R.Mackey]

As far as Mackey and his spikes, the two "impacts" reported by LDEO were considered spikes due to the small Richter reading. And yes, I will not respond to him any longer. As a matter of fact, you can all go back to your sedate life because I learned what I needed to know.

So if you won't respond to me any longer, that means you promise never to clear up the lies you've told.

Here's what you said:

You obfuscate and bring out nothing but smoke and mirrors, and you certainly avoid the question, R.Mackey. FYI, there were two spikes, and you clearly don't understand what LDEO and NIST did (you should have tried reading the paper).

And here's the data: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

Show me those double spikes. Or else, you lied.

And they're considered spikes because they are spikes. Check the spectral plots at right for the two events. They are spikes. They did not call them that solely because of the small magnitude. Another lie.

And that is: No one could answer the question. That's why I came here tonight. I needed to know if anyone could answer the question. I got answers of UFO’s, my imagination, “I told you your paper was crap” post-from-the past, primary radar returns give altitude, and on and on…but I never got anyone to really answer this simple question.

Guys, what if you are wrong?

Imagine that for a second. You think I’m a CT’r, but I’m not. Keep labels out of this. We just want the truth, right? If I’m wrong, I will admit it.

I answered your question, twice. I'll do it again. The seismic record shows the aircraft impact. There are no other events within 10 minutes of the impact, therefore that is what it is.

The same thing happens for the other tower.

It's very simple to understand.

You are wrong, you will not admit it, and that's still another lie.

If you're not a Conspiracy Theorist, then why do you lie, ignore criticisms and corrections, and blindly cling to your delusionary, absolutely unsupported hypothesis? What other explanation is there?

Since you're such a man of scripture, how do you feel about "bearing false witness?" That's what you're doing.

[juryjone]

These facts are so simple my 13 year-old grandson understands them.

This is what bothers me. Not only is this man delusional, but he forces his delusion on his impressionable grandson. A young man for whom Mr. Furlong bears some responsibility. And Mr. Furlong is teaching him that scientific endeavor consists of coming up with a hypothesis and repeating it ad nauseam while disregarding the facts. He's teaching his grandson that the cherry-picking of quotes is the proper way to get at the "truth" in an argument.

Let me ask you something, Mr. Furlong. You've mentioned your grandson, who seems to buy into your crap. What about your son/daughter? Is it that they refuse to talk to you on the subject, so you feel that your grandson is the proper receptacle for your lies? Does the rest of the family buy into your delusions, or just this one impressionable young man?

[Loss Leader]

Just imagine, as a hypothetical, that “The Two Times Are Right”!


I have imagined this. It would mean that after the last radar return for American Airlines 11, it veared off and failed to hit the World Trade Center while simultaniously becoming invisible to radar.

It would mean that you have given hope to the families of 11 crew and 76 passengers that were thought to have died that day. And it would mean that you have not degraded and defiled the memory of:

Anna Williams Allison, 48, Stoneham, Mass.
David Angell, 54, Pasadena, Calif.
Lynn Angell, 52, Pasadena, Calif.
Seima Aoyama
Barbara Arestegui, 38, Marstons Mills, Mass.
Myra Aronson, 52, Charlestown, Mass.
Christine Barbuto, 32, Brookline, Mass.
Carolyn Beug, 48, Los Angeles, Calif.
Kelly Booms, 24, Boston, Mass.
Carol Bouchard, 43, Warwick, R.I.
Neilie Anne Casey, 32, Wellesley, Mass.
Jeffrey Collman, 41, Novato, Calif.
Jeffrey Coombs, 42, Abington, Mass.
Tara Creamer, 30, Worcester, Mass.
Thelma Cuccinello, 71, Wilmot, N.H.
Patrick Currivan, 52, Winchester, Mass.
Brian P. Dale, 43, Warren, N.J.
David DiMeglio, Wakefield, Mass.
Donald Ditullio, 49, Peabody, Mass.
Albert Dominguez, 65, Sydney, Australia
Alex Filipov, 70, Concord, Mass.
Carol Flyzik, 40, Plaistow, N.H.
Paul Friedman, 45, Belmont, Mass.
Karleton D.B. Fyfe, 31, Brookline, Mass.
Peter Gay, 54, Tewksbury, Mass.
Linda George, 27, Westboro, Mass.
Edmund Glazer, 41, Los Angeles, Calif.
Lisa Fenn Gordenstein, 41, Needham, Mass.
Andrew Curry Green, 34, Los Angeles, Calif.
Paige Farley Hackel, 46, Newton, Mass.
Peter Hashem, 40, Tewksbury, Mass.
Robert Hayes, 37, Amesbury, Mass.
Ted Hennessy, 35, Belmont, Mass.
John Hofer, 45, Bellflower, Calif.
John Hofer, 45, Bellflower, Calif.
Nicholas Humber, 60, Newton, Mass.
John C. Jenkins, 45, Cambridge, Mass.
Charles Jones, 48, Bedford, Mass.
Robin Kaplan, 33, Westboro, Mass.
Barbara Keating, 72, Palm Springs, Calif.
David Kovalcin, 42, Hudson, N.H.
Judy Larocque, 50, Framingham, Mass.
Natalie Janis Lasden, 46, Peabody, Mass.
Daniel John Lee, 34, Los Angeles, Calif.
Daniel C. Lewin, 31, Brookline, Mass.
Sara Low, 28, Batesville, Ark.
Susan MacKay, 44, Westford, Mass.
Karen Martin, 40, Danvers, Mass.
Thomas McGuinness, 42, Portsmouth, N.H.
Christopher D. Mello, 25, Boston, Mass.
Jeff Mladenik, 43, Hinsdale, Ill.
Antonio Montoya, 46, East Boston, Mass.
Carlos Montoya
Laura Lee Morabito, 34, Framingham, Mass.
Mildred Naiman, Andover, Mass.
Laurie Neira
Renee Newell, 37, Cranston, R.I.
Kathleen Nicosia
Jacqueline Norton, 60, Lubec, Maine
Robert Norton, 82, Lubec, Maine
John Ogonowski, 52, Dracut, Mass.
Betty Ong, 45, Andover, Mass.
Jane Orth, 49, Haverhill, Mass.
Thomas Pecorelli, 31, Los Angeles, Calif.
Berry Berenson Perkins, 53, Wellfleet, Mass.
Sonia Morales Puopolo, 58, Dover, Mass.
David Retik, Needham, Mass.
Jean Roger, 24, Longmeadow, Mass.
Philip Rosenzweig, Acton, Mass.
Richard Ross, 58, Newton, Mass.
Jessica Sachs, 22, Billerica, Mass.
Rahma Salie, 28, Boston, Mass.
Heather Smith, 30, Boston, Mass.
Dianne Snyder, 42, Westport, Mass.
Douglas Stone, 54, Dover, N.H.
Xavier Suarez
Madeline Sweeney, 35, Acton, Mass.
Michael Theodoridis, 32, Boston, Mass.
James Trentini, 65, Everett, Mass.
Mary Trentini, 67, Everett, Mass.
Pendyala Vamsikrishna, 30, Los Angeles, Calif.
Mary Wahlstrom, 75, Kaysville, Utah
Kenneth Waldie, 46, Methuen, Mass.
John Wenckus, 46, Torrance, Calif.
Candace Lee Williams, 20, Danbury, Conn.
Christopher Zarba, 47, Hopkinton, Mass.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Referring to Flight 11 The aircraft impacted the North Tower at approximately 8:46:40 (point I) [bolding mine]
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

The 9/11 Commission report, section 1, footnote 39 indicates that they are referencing the above document when they cite 8:46:40 as the time of impact in their report.

Last aircraft to ground communication was a 8:33:59 EDT (12:33:59 PM GMT). http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc05.pdf

Seismographic readings from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University show impact time of 08:46:26.0 EDT + 16.95 seconds => 8:46:42.95 EDT http://www.popularmechanics.com/content/imageview.cfm?img=http%3A//media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-graph2-lg.jpg&caption=Seismograph%20readings%20by%20Lamont-Doherty%20Earth%20Observatory%20of%20Columbia%20Un iversity/Won-Young%20Kim%20%28senior%20research%20scientist%29/Arthur%20Lerner-Lam%20%28associate%20director%29/Mary%20Tobin%20%28senior%20science%20writer%29/%3Ca%20href%3D%22http%3A//www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn%22%20target%3D%22_new%22%3Ewww.ldeo.columbia. edu/lcsn%3C/a%3E

As ktesibios showed in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1961046#post1961046), the margin of error for the radar sweep was 8:46:31 +/- 4.8 seconds. This is consistent with the Commission's approximated time and LDEO's recorded seismic event.

Now, what is the issue?

[R.Mackey]

Referring to Flight 11 Seismographic readings from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University show impact time of 08:46:26.0 EDT + 16.95 seconds => 8:46:42.95 EDT http://www.popularmechanics.com/content/imageview.cfm?img=http%3A//media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-graph2-lg.jpg&caption=Seismograph%20readings%20by%20Lamont-Doherty%20Earth%20Observatory%20of%20Columbia%20Un iversity/Won-Young%20Kim%20%28senior%20research%20scientist%29/Arthur%20Lerner-Lam%20%28associate%20director%29/Mary%20Tobin%20%28senior%20science%20writer%29/%3Ca%20href%3D%22http%3A//www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn%22%20target%3D%22_new%22%3Ewww.ldeo.columbia. edu/lcsn%3C/a%3E

Once again, nice work, and thank you.

Looking at your plots for the seismographic traces -- do you mean that all this time, Ross and Furlong were looking at the time tag at the start of the sample... and not the time tag at the start of the event? Is that where the offset comes from?

If this is so, this is even more pathetic than I imagined possible.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Once again, nice work, and thank you.

Looking at your plots for the seismographic traces -- do you mean that all this time, Ross and Furlong were looking at the time tag at the start of the sample... and not the time tag at the start of the event? Is that where the offset comes from?

If this is so, this is even more pathetic than I imagined possible.

Yep, horizontal axis runs from 0-40 seconds with a start time of 08:46:26.0 EDT and the reading marked at +16.95 seconds on the graph.

[quicknthedead]

R.Mackey, apathoid, and Gravy have a good handle on the technical issues with your paper, but I'll play along with your hypothetical. If you can indeed show that there was a major seismic event in the North Tower ten seconds before Flight 11 hit, then we have major problems that would have to be resolved.

There were a huge number of people around the tower who would have noticed, yet none of them did. Even Willie Rodriguez heard something from the basement a very short time before he heard the explosion from above, not ten seconds. And Willie is your only witness that supports anything like a pre-impact explosion. Unfortunately for you, his description of the events is completely compatible with the standard model, and inconsistent with your idea of a 8:46:30 explosion.

The other problem to be resolved is that there is only one seismic spike on that record, and Flight 11 surely would have registered a major spike. How could the explosion ten seconds before cause a very discernable spike, but the airliner impact not be there at all?

So even if you could somehow demonstrate this ten-second-before seismic event (which it's abundantly clear by now you can't), you still have giant problems trying to show that that could be an explosion ten seconds before.

And by the way, calling your interlocutors "government shills" just makes you sound stupid. You might want to remove that bit from your act.



Here's your order for accounts of explosions. Are all you shills happy now?

I didn't think so! (You all are so plastic.)

LOL

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/08/21/ward.htm

Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it,
But the discipline of fools is folly.

Proverbs 16:22

[defaultdotxbe]

Here's your order for accounts of explosions. Are all you shills happy now?

I didn't think so! (You all are so plastic.)

LOL

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/08/21/ward.htm

Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it,
But the discipline of fools is folly.

Proverbs 16:22
both articles seem to rely on the same 3-4 quotes likening the collapse to a controlled demolition (CTers never learned what a simile is apparently) but none of them state any explosions were before the plane hit

you should be happy i even read the second one with the title "Bombs in the WTC Buildings Proves Nothing to Racist-Fascist Bigots" i almost didnt

[Dog Town]

Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it,
But the discipline of fools is folly.

Don't like you atall,... but I feel embarrassed for ya! O' the irony...

[Gravy]

Here's your order for accounts of explosions. Are all you shills happy now?

I didn't think so! (You all are so plastic.)

We are not shills, and we are not happy with your stupidity. I asked for a witness who claims there was a massive explosion that corresponds to your claim.

Of the thousands of people who were right there, you have been unable to provide a single account of this huge explosion. Why do you think that is, quick? Are you going to claim mass amnesia now? C'mon, quick, what's your excuse?

Okay, I'll make it easier for you: how about an alarm that went off, an emergency call made, a mechanical systems malfunction? Nada? Zilch? What's your excuse?

And why didn't you use this graph in your ridiculous paper? It's from the same site where you got your other information. Could it be because it proves there was no second impact from flight 11? What's your excuse?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790451dc56a13d7f.jpg

[stateofgrace]

Here's your order for accounts of explosions. Are all you shills happy now?

Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it,
But the discipline of fools is folly.

Proverbs 16:22

Next time I see you, remind me not to talk to you.
Groucho Marx (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/g/grouchomar109306.html)

[Loss Leader]

you should be happy i even read the second one with the title "Bombs in the WTC Buildings Proves Nothing to Racist-Fascist Bigots" i almost didnt

It was written by Ed Ward, MD. It might be worth the time to look into which state he's licensed in. His state medical board's ethics policies might have something to say about his writings. He also claims to be on the Board of Advisors of the Men's Health Network. They might like an email informing them of whom they have working with them.

[R.Mackey]

Hey Gravy, if you haven't already, check out the link that Arkan found.

The graphs are even better. And it shows the source of the ~16 second error in their computation.

They read the ruddy graph wrong. They didn't plug in the event time, they plugged in the time marker at the left edge of each segment. The chart they cribbed their numbers from listed the segment times, not the actual event times. I'm sure they talked to LDEO in person to make sure they got everything right, and correctly represented LDEO's results...

Is there a such thing as an anti-Nobel prize? I think we have a shoo-in..

[Brainache]

Here's your order for accounts of explosions. Are all you shills happy now?

I didn't think so! (You all are so plastic.)

LOL

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060118104223192
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/08/21/ward.htm

Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it,
But the discipline of fools is folly.

Proverbs 16:22

So correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you talking about explosions before the planes struck the towers? Not just as the towers were collapsing?

The guys in the basement seem to be talking about a fuel air explosion like what might happen from lots of jet fuel pouring down lift wells(elevator shafts).

[Dog Town]

Next time I see you, remind me not to talk to you.
Groucho Marx

My fave;
And I want to thank you for all the enjoyment you've taken out of it.

[Dog Town]

Is there a such thing as an anti-Nobel prize?

Hell... there should be! CTers have decades of awards, at the least!

[Gravy]

Hey Gravy, if you haven't already, check out the link that Arkan found.

The graphs are even better. And it shows the source of the ~16 second error in their computation.

They read the ruddy graph wrong. They didn't plug in the event time, they plugged in the time marker at the left edge of each segment. The chart they cribbed their numbers from listed the segment times, not the actual event times. I'm sure they talked to LDEO in person to make sure they got everything right, and correctly represented LDEO's results... Oh, I didn't see that! Okay, quick, let me add another: what's your excuse now?

Is there a such thing as an anti-Nobel prize? I think we have a shoo-in..Sort of. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ig_Nobel_Prize)

I'm definitely going to take nominations and have a year-end award ceremony for this foolishness. So far, it looks like most of the nominees will be "Scholars" papers. I'll have to come up with a bunch of other categories.

[Dog Town]

I'll have to come up with a bunch of other categories.

I'll take" Crazy With a Christophera" for a thousand, Alex!

[defaultdotxbe]

you can quote groucho marx on anything, lol

TS1234 on the NIST report:
Why a four-year-old child could understand this report. Run out and find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head nor tail out of it.


CTers in general:
Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?
Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted.

"stand down"
Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms.

[Dog Town]

Military intelligence

Jumbo Shrimp?!?

[Senor_Pointy]

Jumbo Shrimp?!?

Minor Catastrophe?

[R.Mackey]

Scholar for Truth?

I mean, really, is there a such thing as a "Scholar for Falsehood?"

[Dog Town]

Minor Catastrophe?

Lazy Mexican!

[uruk]

I was doing some looking around and found out that time discrepancies can and do happen in siezmic data.
According to this site the LDEO uses the CNG-5TD strong motion accelerometers.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/intro.html

According to thier data sheet:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/News/CMG-5TD_rev2.pdf#search=%22CMG-5TD%22

The sensors use GPS time not UTC. (See page 15 in the link to the manual for proof that the sensors are synced to GPS and not directly to UTC)

And there is a 13 second time difference between GPS and UTC.
According to NIST who oversees UTC :
http://tf.nist.gov/service/acts.htm

"GPS time differs from UTC by the integer number of leap seconds that have occurred since the GPS time scale begam on January 6, 1980. This difference equaled 13 seconds at the end of 2004.The integer-second difference is included in the GPS broadcast message, and is usually applied automatically so that GPS clocks display the same hours, minutes, and seconds as UTC clocks." (that is unless somebody makes an error in setting up the equipment)

Here's the manual for the CNG-5TD:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/News/CMG-5TD_Manual_rev_B.pdf#search=%22CMG-5TD%22
on page 21 you see a statement that the synchonizaton to a time standard has to selected.
So there is a possiblity that an installer may have set a wrong option. and the time discrepancy deemed incosequential because the relative difficulty or distance in returning to the sensor site.

As a matter of fact this does occur at times.
This report shows that a systematic timing drift can occur in the CNG-5TD if a power setting in the GPS reciever is incorrectly set.

http://www.ess.washington.edu/SEIS/PNSN/REPTS/Quarterly2003A.pdf#search=%22CMG-5TD%20problems%22
See page 3 paragraph 3

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf
The chart shows UTC, but the sensors use GPS. So there had to be a conversion going on; probably in the software used to analyse the data.
And if is a timing drift going on in the sensor you will get a time discrepancy. I'm not saying that is what happened. But there is a definit possibility for it to happen

[Gravy]

I was doing some looking around and found out that time discrepancies can and do happen in siezmic data.

Facts, schmacts, uruk. You're forgetting that when a paper is co-authored by a Scholar Forsooth, and peer-reviewed by my 13-year-old grandson, it is by default true.

There is a time to tuck your head between your legs
And kiss your credibility goodbye.
Ecclesisassies 13:13

Adios, muchachos! No kidding this time!

–iquicklyfled

[uruk]

Yea well, We gotta be the iresistable force to thier immovable deep hatred for America.

[defaultdotxbe]

unstoppable force:
http://home.att.net/~raidcon/juggernaut.jpg
unmovable object:
http://www.marveldirectory.com/pictures/individuals/b_1d/blob.gif


WHO WILL WIN???

[Dog Town]

Juggie, the Blob's a woo-see!

[Kent1]

Facts, schmacts, uruk. You're forgetting that when a paper is co-authored by a Scholar Forsooth, and peer-reviewed by my 13-year-old grandson, it is by default true.

There is a time to tuck your head between your legs
And kiss your credibility goodbye.
Ecclesisassies 13:13

Adios, muchachos! No kidding this time!

–iquicklyfled


Don't you know yet? We're 98% government shill and totally dishonest.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=3720

Oh, and Sgt Lauro Chavez has a very high probability rating of being genuine......

[Bell]

I know I am.

[twinstead]

...and nutritionally part of a well-balanced breakfast...

[Kent1]

...and nutritionally part of a well-balanced breakfast...

This is interesting, It seems even quicknthedead believes TS1234 is getting his butt kicked here. So much in fact he thinks TS1234 may be a "setup"

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=3795

"TS1234’s posts always seemed so ineffectual; shoot, HE WAS ineffectual; after a while I felt he was actually working with them (as in "setup"); I could be wrong, but that's the way it looked; all of the posters except TS1234 (supposedly) were OCTs, and also everytime I was there, he was never anywhere to be seen.

But you are right about him getting a trouncing, though."

[R.Mackey]

Now that's just embarassing.

[Alareth]

From the recently quoted thread at PsyOrg

When you barbecue, does yourBBQ pit suffer a global collpase from the impact of the brisket slamming down on the grill, followed by a half a can of lighter fluid and a pound of charcoal heating it up?The brisket'll taste like $4*#, but the barbeque pit will stand! Don't call yourself a scientist and make all these air headed rediculous claims. I know experts lied in thier claims about 911. The evidence does not back up what youre claiming at all.

That is on par with the chickenwire model made by that other CT loon.

I'm left speechless at times by the thought(less) process at work in a CT mind.

[defaultdotxbe]

Don't call yourself a scientist and make all these air headed rediculous claims.

oh wheres that iron-e-meter when you need it....

[Alareth]

oh wheres that iron-e-meter when you need it....

Wait.

From the same poster, IMHO one of the funniest CT posturing posts I've ever come across:

http://tinyurl.com/funet

[Loss Leader]

Wait.

From the same poster, IMHO one of the funniest CT posturing posts I've ever come across:

http://tinyurl.com/funet

Oh my lord, that is some Grade A Certified Organic crazy. From that post:

If you persist in continuing to claim what you MUST know is a misrepresentation of the facts by this point (which is why I am here, to deny you plausable deniablity), you are placing yourself in the crosshairs of an ongoing investigation into what is known by federal law enforcement officials to be a cover up in this serious crime.
Nomatter what your motivation, you are not guiltless. I highly recommend that you cease and desist at this point from hindering the truth from being revealed and understood by the people of this country, and this forum itself .

...

Participating knowingly in a cover up of the murder of 3000 Americans is a crime, no matter who employs you to protect the guilty, and nomatter who it was who committed the crimes.

So, first of all, he's wrong. There is no such crime as "participating knowingly in a cover up." These people aren't under oath; they're not government employees. They're just other posters on a message board. It's just lunacy to believe that there is any crime being committed.

Second, he strongly implies that he is some sort of law enforcement official. That, on the other hand, is illegal.

Third, what a fruitloop.

[Alareth]

Oh my lord, that is some Grade A Certified Organic crazy. From that post:



So, first of all, he's wrong. There is no such crime as "participating knowingly in a cover up." These people aren't under oath; they're not government employees. They're just other posters on a message board. It's just lunacy to believe that there is any crime being committed.

Second, he strongly implies that he is some sort of law enforcement official. That, on the other hand, is illegal.

Third, what a fruitloop.

If what he says were true, Gravy and MarkyX are marked men who will be the first against the wall when the whole "coverup" comes crashing down on our heads.

:jaw-dropp

[Bell]

Wait.

From the same poster, IMHO one of the funniest CT posturing posts I've ever come across:

http://tinyurl.com/funet

OMFG! I just cracked under the pressure.
Sorry galls and guys. As of now, I'll fight for the Truth, not against it.

I'm out of here! Bye!

[stateofgrace]

This is interesting, It seems even quicknthedead believes TS1234 is getting his butt kicked here. So much in fact he thinks TS1234 may be a "setup"

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=3795

"TS1234’s posts always seemed so ineffectual; shoot, HE WAS ineffectual; after a while I felt he was actually working with them (as in "setup"); I could be wrong, but that's the way it looked; all of the posters except TS1234 (supposedly) were OCTs, and also everytime I was there, he was never anywhere to be seen.

But you are right about him getting a trouncing, though."

Wow not a very good 24 hours for TS, suspended from here and trashed by one of his own on another forum.

Hey TS, if you are reading this, take my advice, get over there and register on the physics forum. Start clearing your good name, after all you’re not going to be posting here for a little while.

[sleahead]

Hey TS, if you are reading this, take my advice, get over there and register on the physics forum. Start clearing your good name, after all you’re not going to be posting here for a little while

Yes, TS, do that. And when you're over there, tell quickandthedead there's a post here by Arkan Wolfshade that he needs to respond to.

[Gravy]

Bump for quicknthedead, who is posting again after a prolonged absence, during which he has no doubt invented an interesting story to tell about why his paper is still online.

ETA: I checked, and it's still online and uncorrected, although it's apparently been through three revisions. Mr. Furlong, do explain why this blatantly wrong paper remains online!

[quicknthedead]

Bump for quicknthedead, who is posting again after a prolonged absence, during which he has no doubt invented an interesting story to tell about why his paper is still online.

ETA: I checked, and it's still online and uncorrected, although it's apparently been through three revisions. Mr. Furlong, do explain why this blatantly wrong paper remains online!

Mark Roberts, the paper still stands.

You are mistaken. No one, including you, has shown the radar crash time of AA Flt 11 to be in error, which occurred ~10 seconds after the NIST seismic time (the other event), and to say the Hlava video overturned this radar crash time is absurd (Hlava is based in fraud and also lost in obscurity).

This is my last word to you on this...and also that 9/11 WAS an inside job.

[Gravy]

This is very simple, Craig Furlong: you and Ross and the JONES reviewers didn't read a graph properly. Refer to post 393 and forward in this thread, to which I previously directed you and to which you still have not responded.

Further, as you know, there were no explosions 14 or so seconds before either aircraft impact, and not a single person who was there claims there were.

Your paper is simply wrong. Your refusal to acknowledge that and pull the paper, as any rational adult would do, is dishonest and dishonorable.

Sadly, I expect nothing less from a member of the "truth" movement.

[Pardalis]

and also that 9/11 WAS an inside job.

Quite the researcher aren't you?

Starting with the conclusion...

[LashL]

Mark Roberts, the paper still stands.

You are mistaken. No one, including you, has shown the radar crash time of AA Flt 11 to be in error, which occurred ~10 seconds after the NIST seismic time (the other event), and to say the Hlava video overturned this radar crash time is absurd (Hlava is based in fraud and also lost in obscurity).

This is my last word to you on this...and also that 9/11 WAS an inside job.

No, your *cough* paper does not stand at all. It was annihilated more than a year ago and you ran away from this thread because you could not defend your assertions.

You still cannot defend your paper, as is apparent by your most recent hit and run post above. It is not sufficient to say "na na na na boo boo" and run away again, in the face of legitimate and detailed refutations that you have not even attempted to address, Craig.

Interestingly, even after more than a year, quicknthedead chose not to address this thread about his *cough* paper after it was annihilated, but instead posted on an unrelated thread and made reference to it.

From the other, unrelated thread where quickndead reared his head tonight (some of the following might be slightly modified in order to more appropriately fit this thread):

I did not "flee" that thread.

Oh, yes, you did. More than a year ago, right after your *cough* paper was shown to be utterly wrong. You ran away with your fingers in your ears and your tail between your legs.

Your *cough* "paper" was exposed here as wholly unfounded and nonsensical because you made fundamental errors in your *cough* "analysis" that led you astray, and caused you to come to a conclusion that is completely and utterly unsupported by facts, evidence, or reality.

Perhaps you should stick to quoting the bible passages that you are so fond of. Apparently, there are a whole lot more people who buy into bible nonsense than there are people who buy into 9/11 conspiracy nonsense.

Your *cough* paper was and remains unsupported by facts, evidence, or reality. Stop pretending otherwise. You fled this thread, which was devoted to the subject of your paper more than a year ago and now you've returned to post about it in an unrelated thread, only to flee once again with a hit and run, silly, unsupported post. Who do you think you're kidding? Hell, even most of your tinhat colleagues have long since realized that your *cough* paper was complete and utter nonsense, thanks to the work of rational people here.

So, what on earth makes you think that rational people will be convinced by your nonsense?

[The following was not part of the prior, unrelated thread]
And here you are again, after running away more than a year ago without being able to defend your *cough* paper, now saying, in essence, "I am right, you are wrong, but I am not going to provide any facts or evidence, I am not going to address the legitimate points that have been raised here, I am just going to wallow in my own ignorance and I am not going to post here any more." Yeah, that's a terrific way to defend your *cough* paper, ignore facts, evidence and reality, and address legitimate criticism, Craig. :rolleyes:

88.

[uk_dave]

That's a nasty cough you have there! You need someone to rub something soothing on your chest.....

[twinstead]

That's a nasty cough you have there! You need someone to rub something soothing on your chest.....

Hey, I thought this was a kid-friendly forum? :rolleyes:

[Pookster]

Referring to Flight 11 [bolding mine]
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

The 9/11 Commission report, section 1, footnote 39 indicates that they are referencing the above document when they cite 8:46:40 as the time of impact in their report.

Last aircraft to ground communication was a 8:33:59 EDT (12:33:59 PM GMT). http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc05.pdf

Seismographic readings from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University show impact time of 08:46:26.0 EDT + 16.95 seconds => 8:46:42.95 EDT http://www.popularmechanics.com/content/imageview.cfm?img=http%3A//media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-graph2-lg.jpg&caption=Seismograph%20readings%20by%20Lamont-Doherty%20Earth%20Observatory%20of%20Columbia%20Un iversity/Won-Young%20Kim%20%28senior%20research%20scientist%29/Arthur%20Lerner-Lam%20%28associate%20director%29/Mary%20Tobin%20%28senior%20science%20writer%29/%3Ca%20href%3D%22http%3A//www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn%22%20target%3D%22_new%22%3Ewww.ldeo.columbia. edu/lcsn%3C/a%3E

As ktesibios showed in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1961046#post1961046), the margin of error for the radar sweep was 8:46:31 +/- 4.8 seconds. This is consistent with the Commission's approximated time and LDEO's recorded seismic event.

Now, what is the issue?

Once again, nice work, and thank you.

Looking at your plots for the seismographic traces -- do you mean that all this time, Ross and Furlong were looking at the time tag at the start of the sample... and not the time tag at the start of the event? Is that where the offset comes from?

If this is so, this is even more pathetic than I imagined possible.

Yep, horizontal axis runs from 0-40 seconds with a start time of 08:46:26.0 EDT and the reading marked at +16.95 seconds on the graph.

And the Ross/Furlong paper is still on the Scholar's site? Too funny.

[Pookster]

Mark Roberts, the paper still stands.

You are mistaken. No one, including you, has shown the radar crash time of AA Flt 11 to be in error, which occurred ~10 seconds after the NIST seismic time (the other event), and to say the Hlava video overturned this radar crash time is absurd (Hlava is based in fraud and also lost in obscurity).

This is my last word to you on this...and also that 9/11 WAS an inside job.

(emphasis added)

Fortunately for you, your Hlava misadventure is available for all to read over at Physorg ...

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=7444&st=10215&#entry161612

Comedy gold. :)

[uk_dave]

Hey, I thought this was a kid-friendly forum? :rolleyes:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1229547a1d3e69318b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10478)

:eusa_angel:

[stateofgrace]

Mark Roberts, the paper still stands.

You are mistaken. No one, including you, has shown the radar crash time of AA Flt 11 to be in error, which occurred ~10 seconds after the NIST seismic time (the other event), and to say the Hlava video overturned this radar crash time is absurd (Hlava is based in fraud and also lost in obscurity).

This is my last word to you on this...and also that 9/11 WAS an inside job.

Translation.

"Even though my paper has been proven to be absolute rubbish and 100% incorrect I will keep it on line and hopefully fool others into believing I know what I am talking about. I do so because I like to feel important and will never accept that I am wrong.I could not care less.

My last word on this matter, is that I could not care less for the truth because I know that if I keeping saying 911 was an inside job people will give me the attention I desperately crave."

[pomeroo]

Mark Roberts, the paper still stands.

You are mistaken. No one, including you, has shown the radar crash time of AA Flt 11 to be in error, which occurred ~10 seconds after the NIST seismic time (the other event), and to say the Hlava video overturned this radar crash time is absurd (Hlava is based in fraud and also lost in obscurity).

This is my last word to you on this...and also that 9/11 WAS an inside job.



So, your blatant errors have been corrected and you blindly refuse to acknowledge them. The overwhelming stupidity animating your evil movement has consigned it to the dustbin of history.

[twinstead]

Well, if repeating something over and over and over and over again DOES indeed change something from false to true, then 911 certainly WAS an inside job.

[quicknthedead]

So, your blatant errors have been corrected and you blindly refuse to acknowledge them. The overwhelming stupidity animating your evil movement has consigned it to the dustbin of history.


Mackey and anyone who agrees with him on this point is wrong.

Mackey provides "fallacious debunking" by writing absurd misinformation about Ross' and my paper in regards to the definition of seismic "origin time" on page 79 in his work:
http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf

Mackey writes:

"As it turns out, the seismic event times quoted by Ross and Furlong are inaccurate. Returning to the November 2001 Vibration Data article <111>, Table 1 on page 5 lists the same times as Ross and Furlong, but it lists them as the origin times. This is a critical detail. The “origin time” refers to the start time of an individual seismic record, and not the time of an event located within that record precise to the second, as they assumed."


This is an incorrect definition of seismic "origin time"; I posted the following at JREF that explains from authorities the exact definition, which refutes this gross error:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3400115#post3400115

The correct definition for the "origin time" of a seismic event is exactly that: the precise time that an earthquake rupture occurs.

Origin time is simple to understand: It is what it is.

Mackey responded to my post with another attempt to turn the truth "on its head", so I responded again with this:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3400485#post3400485

To repeat, "the time of origin" for a seismic event is the time the actual rupture occurs (and in UTC, down to the second).

Read what the US Geological Survey states as the definition of the origin time of a seismic event:
http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/glossary.html
Time and Date
"We indicate the date and time when the earthquake initiates rupture, which is known as the "origin" time. Note that large earthquakes can continue rupturing for many 10's of seconds. On the individual text page for each earthquake we provide time in UTC (Coordinated Universal Time)."


This does not include any run-up time provided on a seismic graph before the seismic event occurs as Mackey claims, and the above USGS definition is held by everyone in the science of seismology.

The seismic origin time compared to the radar time is what this is about:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf

No one has yet shown the radar time for AA Flt 11 or the seismic origin time for the same event (as accepted by NIST) to be inaccurate. The fact is AA Flt 11 impacted WTC1 at 8:46:40, while the seismic origin time for the supposedly same event is 8:46:30 (plus or minus one second).

That's a 10-second UTC unexplained difference.

[R.Mackey]

It's so simple, anyone can figure it out (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3603141#post3603141). Even you. Keep trying.

[quicknthedead]

It's so simple, anyone can figure it out (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3603141#post3603141). Even you. Keep trying.

You still will not admit you are wrong on such an obvious, simple mistake...but this is your problem, not mine.

No sweat. Looks like we'll have to leave it at that.

BTW, I appreciate the way you have been handling that thread you have going now. It is very well done:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111647

[T.A.M.]

For the love of jesus and all that is holy...

TAM:)

[gumboot]

This is embarrassing...

[LashL]

You I still will not admit [that] you are I am so wholly, completely, utterly wrong on such an obvious, simple mistake...but this is your my problem, not mine yours.


Fixed that for you.

[stateofgrace]

:words:

Why are you here? Why are you not getting your paper submitted and published in scientific journals? Why are you not presenting your "evidence" to the authorities?

Why have you not written a best selling book? Why,with all your "evidence" have you failed to do ANYTHING other than post winging cry baby posts on internet froums?

Why is eveybody laughing at you and your trashy paper?

Why do you keeping spewing the same crap over and over again?

Why oh why will you not get it through your head, your paper is trash, you are completly and utterly wrong and you will never be the saviour of humanity?

Oh wait.........................

[A W Smith]

You still will not admit you are wrong on such an obvious, simple mistake...but this is your problem, not mine.

No sweat. Looks like we'll have to leave it at that.

BTW, I appreciate the way you have been handling that thread you have going now. It is very well done:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=111647

show where he is wrong on this graph craig
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/0305911-graph2-lg.jpg

[pomeroo]

show where he is wrong on this graph craig
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/0305911-graph2-lg.jpg


Now, I'm confused. I was convinced that Craig T. Furlong was simply a bad liar making a blatantly false claim and running away when he got called on it. Amazingly, he has resurfaced and given us reason to believe that he really, truly doesn't get it. It's staring him in the face and he doesn't see it. I don't know; I just don't know.

[Corsair 115]

Hmmm, so there is the proposition that the supposed explosives which brought down the WTC towers registered on seismographs and yet the sound of said explosives were not recorded on even one of the many videos of the collapses? Seems rather contradictory to me.

[quicknthedead]

Now guys, don't be confused.

On this matter of "time of origin" in seismology, the correct definition is the time of rupture for the event (don't take my word for it; look it up yourself).

And I can understand why you might think you have figured out the difference in the times by looking at the lead time on the graph paper before an event, but that still does not make it correct.

However, I want you to know that I have been reading a lot of what has been put up here at JREF, especially Mackey's thread of late that I mentioned (and also thanks to gumboot's excellent hard work on his 115 answers to Griffin).

I know the times of disparity in the paper I wrote are real and unexplained, but I am not too happy with the title anymore, as I am not convinced any longer that it was an inside job.

There was some new information I ran across over at physorgforum around the beginning of this year about the energy transmitted from the crash of the plane into WTC1's steel core columns that was sent all the way to the ground (and then bounced back / reverberated) with tremendous power and at a very high rate of speed...this was based upon recent, good scientific facts presented at the time.

This may have been the reason why there were "explosions" experienced down there in the basement levels. Energy transmitted through steel happens very quickly and with tremendous power.

I know that the fuel did travel down and burn people. That is a fact. But explosions down there before the crash as reported by Rodriguez and others has always been a mystery to me. What if the energy transference happened so quickly and powerfully, AND THEN the crash from above was heard by those in the basement levels (the speed of sound being slower in this instance)?

So, this may be the answer to this mystery regarding this extraordinary event.

I have been suspicious of suspicious behavior all along (Bush et al) surrounding 9/11, and WTC7 has always been the most suspicious of all. But I am not so sure about it anymore either. It definitely looks like a CD, but that does not mean it is...and this is my current thinking on it.

Also, the work here at JREF has been excellent in facts presented, as I have been looking at your data over the last few months (and the other sites you point to).

Last night I pivoted off of gumboot's thread on his 115 answers to Griffin (gumboot is unbelievable, BTW, in his work) and went here and there and finally found the download of the FBI file from the Massoui trial (I may have misspelled that name but who cares) from I believe it was 911myths (pardon me if I have the site wrong too but it doesn't matter; I am kind of tired right now). My point is that FBI flash presentation gave me enough evidence to know for sure that MIHOP is not true. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda definitely were behind it. Now you may be laughing because you have always thought this, but it has not been so clear on the "other side of fence".

Mackey's approach is best. Be a gentleman but stick to the facts and nothing but.

In addition, what I have read here at JREF from various threads is undeniable facts AND logic that LIHOP, in the final analysis, doesn't seem to make much sense logically either.

I still have unresolved questions but they don't seem to matter when all of a sudden both MIHOP and LIHOP are no longer viable in my thinking anymore.

So don't be confused as I said at the beginning of this post. I meant what I said about Ryan Mackey. He is wrong about the seismological definition of "time of origin", but this pales in comparison to the way he has shown himself to be of late, one who is fair, logical, and almost like a peacemaker in his approach to the TM...with all of this centered on keeping to the topic / question one---at---a---time.

My hats off to him for that, and he, gumboot, and basically all of you JREF'ers have my thanks for your effort that has been par excellence due primarily to your perseverance to the truth and the facts.

If I were you I would be careful of making derogatory remarks about the truth movement, because you guys seem to be it now (to me). :)

[Arus808]

boy, you've been so schooled, that you come back to be flogged again, showing yet again,m the ignorance of the truth movement.

love the to torture yourself?

[chillzero]

Please don't personalise comments in the thread, and keep it civil, everbody

[Pookster]

Now guys, don't be confused.

On this matter of "time of origin" in seismology, the correct definition is the time of rupture for the event (don't take my word for it; look it up yourself).

And I can understand why you might think you have figured out the difference in the times by looking at the lead time on the graph paper before an event, but that still does not make it correct.

However, I want you to know that I have been reading a lot of what has been put up here at JREF, especially Mackey's thread of late that I mentioned (and also thanks to gumboot's excellent hard work on his 115 answers to Griffin).

I know the times of disparity in the paper I wrote are real and unexplained, but I am not too happy with the title anymore, as I am not convinced any longer that it was an inside job.

There was some new information I ran across over at physorgforum around the beginning of this year about the energy transmitted from the crash of the plane into WTC1's steel core columns that was sent all the way to the ground (and then bounced back / reverberated) with tremendous power and at a very high rate of speed...this was based upon recent, good scientific facts presented at the time.

This may have been the reason why there were "explosions" experienced down there in the basement levels. Energy transmitted through steel happens very quickly and with tremendous power.

I know that the fuel did travel down and burn people. That is a fact. But explosions down there before the crash as reported by Rodriguez and others has always been a mystery to me. What if the energy transference happened so quickly and powerfully, AND THEN the crash from above was heard by those in the basement levels (the speed of sound being slower in this instance)?

So, this may be the answer to this mystery regarding this extraordinary event.

I have been suspicious of suspicious behavior all along (Bush et al) surrounding 9/11, and WTC7 has always been the most suspicious of all. But I am not so sure about it anymore either. It definitely looks like a CD, but that does not mean it is...and this is my current thinking on it.

Also, the work here at JREF has been excellent in facts presented, as I have been looking at your data over the last few months (and the other sites you point to).

Last night I pivoted off of gumboot's thread on his 115 answers to Griffin (gumboot is unbelievable, BTW, in his work) and went here and there and finally found the download of the FBI file from the Massoui trial (I may have misspelled that name but who cares) from I believe it was 911myths (pardon me if I have the site wrong too but it doesn't matter; I am kind of tired right now). My point is that FBI flash presentation gave me enough evidence to know for sure that MIHOP is not true. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda definitely were behind it. Now you may be laughing because you have always thought this, but it has not been so clear on the "other side of fence".

Mackey's approach is best. Be a gentleman but stick to the facts and nothing but.

In addition, what I have read here at JREF from various threads is undeniable facts AND logic that LIHOP, in the final analysis, doesn't seem to make much sense logically either.

I still have unresolved questions but they don't seem to matter when all of a sudden both MIHOP and LIHOP are no longer viable in my thinking anymore.

So don't be confused as I said at the beginning of this post. I meant what I said about Ryan Mackey. He is wrong about the seismological definition of "time of origin", but this pales in comparison to the way he has shown himself to be of late, one who is fair, logical, and almost like a peacemaker in his approach to the TM...with all of this centered on keeping to the topic / question one---at---a---time.

My hats off to him for that, and he, gumboot, and basically all of you JREF'ers have my thanks for your effort that has been par excellence due primarily to your perseverance to the truth and the facts.

If I were you I would be careful of making derogatory remarks about the truth movement, because you guys seem to be it now (to me). :)

I must say that I'm more than a bit surprised at this post. I've followed your posts here and (as a lurker) over at physorg. Quite the turnaround, I must say. Hats off to you as well.

I'm still curious as to how Mackey is wrong though (he could well be). The chart that poster A W Smith presented seems to indicate he's correct. Can you elaborate as to that chart? Is it just a simple misunderstanding going on?

[Finnegan]

boy, you've been so schooled, that you come back to be flogged again, showing yet again,m the ignorance of the truth movement.

love the to torture yourself?

Don't be unfair, the only people to be scorned are those that are so consistent in a viewpoint that they fail to admit to it's faults.

[R.Mackey]

Now guys, don't be confused.

I agree -- this is a good post.

It's also important to keep in mind that everyone makes mistakes, even me. So, fine, let's reopen this.


On this matter of "time of origin" in seismology, the correct definition is the time of rupture for the event (don't take my word for it; look it up yourself).

And I can understand why you might think you have figured out the difference in the times by looking at the lead time on the graph paper before an event, but that still does not make it correct.

The flexible use of "time of origin" has always bothered me. I have indeed seen "origin time" used to mean the time of the initiating event, although that doesn't seem to fit the graphs in this particular case. The origin times on the table provided by LDEO happen to match the "origin time" (i.e. the intersection of axes) on the figures, as shown in the graph I linked and was reprinted above. However, I've never been fully comfortable with the explanation of why LDEO chose that intersection of coordinates.

One possibility is that the two are the same, and the intervening ~16 seconds represents the propagation time from the location of the event to the LDEO seismometer. Seismic waves travel at about 5 km/s in bedrock, so this means a 90 km or about 50 mile distance from the World Trade Center to LDEO. That turns out not to be a good fit, since Palisades NY is only about 16 miles from lower Manhattan. It is possible the sensor location was further out, but this is speculation.

We also have to be a little bit careful because LDEO may have already put a time offset into their plots. We don't know whether those plots were raw data, or translated to account for propagation time, which I'm eyeballing at about five seconds. Unless we're actually looking at the drum it's not going to be obvious.

If we go through this again and now find a discrepancy of about ten seconds, it is possible this is a combination of graphical offset (about sixteen seconds) and propagation correction (about five seconds), giving us the difference (eleven seconds). There are several possibilities.

Yet another possible confound is the intervening material. I mentioned above that propagation speed through bedrock was 5 km/s. Well, for loose earth, it's lower, more like 1.6 km/s. If the signal somehow went through earth rather than bedrock to LDEO, then the propagation time would be closer to 16 seconds. I don't think this is what happened, but one would have to be a geologist to answer this.


However, I want you to know that I have been reading a lot of what has been put up here at JREF, especially Mackey's thread of late that I mentioned (and also thanks to gumboot's excellent hard work on his 115 answers to Griffin).

I know the times of disparity in the paper I wrote are real and unexplained, but I am not too happy with the title anymore, as I am not convinced any longer that it was an inside job.

For me, the ultimate proof that there was no paired explosive event was the fact that, on the seismograph, there's only one event. Had there been explosives and a plane impact, there would have been two. This observation is totally independent of any timing mismatch.

So walking through the discrepancy is still interesting and worthwhile, but we know there weren't two events. Other corroborating information also exists, e.g. the Hlava video, and in the case of WTC 2, numerous videos and live reports at the moment of impact. We can be utterly certain that no explosion predated the impact at WTC 2. The fact that we see a similar timing anomaly at WTC 2 and WTC 1 suggests both of them are due to some kind of misunderstanding.


There was some new information I ran across over at physorgforum around the beginning of this year about the energy transmitted from the crash of the plane into WTC1's steel core columns that was sent all the way to the ground (and then bounced back / reverberated) with tremendous power and at a very high rate of speed...this was based upon recent, good scientific facts presented at the time.

This may have been the reason why there were "explosions" experienced down there in the basement levels. Energy transmitted through steel happens very quickly and with tremendous power.

I know that the fuel did travel down and burn people. That is a fact. But explosions down there before the crash as reported by Rodriguez and others has always been a mystery to me. What if the energy transference happened so quickly and powerfully, AND THEN the crash from above was heard by those in the basement levels (the speed of sound being slower in this instance)?

So, this may be the answer to this mystery regarding this extraordinary event.

I agree with this assessment. The other strong possibility is that Mr. Rodriguez heard something else, like elevators falling into the basement, and never heard the impact at all. There were other people, away from Mr. Rodriguez's location, who did not hear the impact.

So don't be confused as I said at the beginning of this post. I meant what I said about Ryan Mackey. He is wrong about the seismological definition of "time of origin", but this pales in comparison to the way he has shown himself to be of late, one who is fair, logical, and almost like a peacemaker in his approach to the TM...with all of this centered on keeping to the topic / question one---at---a---time.

And to reciprocate, if it turns out I've made a mistake -- particularly in my whitepaper -- I will fix it. That's a promise.

I received a PM from Kent1 -- not part of the Truth Movement -- reminding me that the actual LDEO impact times as cited by NIST (let's drop the 9/11 Commission for now, since it's less precise all round) are 8:46:29 for WTC 1 impact and 9:02:57 for WTC 2. This appears in Table 3-1 of NCSTAR1-5A on Page 22. NIST was able to correlate these to news broadcast images to an accuracy of ~ 2 seconds. Therefore, the times I listed above are incorrect, at least at the point of origin. They may represent the times the signals were received by LDEO, but the times in this paragraph should be treated as the baseline.

If it will help, I can contact LDEO to try to get the final answer. They're probably bored to death of this topic by now, but they should have no particular problem talking to me. I've outlined several possible sources of the discrepancy, any one of which could explain it, and are all reasonable.

[R.Mackey]

I'm actually surprised at how long it's been since I've looked at this in depth. Also, the "Updated Version III" of the whitepaper that started it all (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf) looks quite a bit different than the Version II that I originally read.

1. Definitions

Let's use "origin time" to exclusively mean the time at which the seismic event actually started. Time to propagate to any sensor is not included in this time, so any given sensed time will be later than the origin time.

2. Background

NIST reports on impact times as determined from video of the events, and compares these to the LDEO results, stating that the revised LDEO origin time is 8:46:29 for WTC 1 and 9:02:57 for WTC 2. These measurements have shifted slightly (~ 3 seconds) from earlier analyses. NIST also reports these measurements are solid to +/- 1 second and 2 seconds respectively, on page 23 of NCSTAR1-5A. Furthermore, NIST reports that LDEO is 21 miles from the impact site, not 16 miles as I estimated above.

It is not yet entirely clear how LDEO estimated these times, given that the apparent seismic signal at their location was later, 8:46:43 and 9:03:10 respectively, but we must accept that they corrected for propagation time, and their computed origin times happen to correspond well with the video timing of the events as established by NIST.

The 9/11 Commission Report (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm) cites a time of 8:46:40 for WTC 1 on Page 285, and 9:03:11 for WTC 2 on Page 293, both in Chapter 9. Let's accept that both of these times are wrong, 11 seconds high for WTC 1 and 14 seconds high for WTC 2. What remains is trying to explain why these times are wrong.

3. Examining the 9/11 Commission

In the 9/11 Commission Report, footnotes 30 and 79 of Chapter 9 are given for the two passages above. Relevant parts of these notes read as follows:

30. For the exact time of impact, see FAA analysis of American 11 radar returns and Commission analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic.
79. For the time of impact, see FAA analysis of United Airlines Flight 175 radar returns and Commission analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic.

So the 9/11 Commission is the outlier, and it isn't going by seismic signals at all. It appears the offset in the radar data just happens to correspond to the uncorrected offset in the seismic data -- about 12 seconds average here, versus about 16 seconds in the seismic. That's an unusual coincidence, and that's what I homed in on before.

4. Raw Radar Data

We can go to the original radar data in the NTSB reports, which are archived for American 11 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf) and United 175 (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf). The impact termination is shown in Figure 2 of each report. The figures are different, and Figure 2 of the AA-11 report is the more valuable, because it shows individual points, whereas the curve in the UA-175 report is smoothed.

Looking at Figure 2 of the AA-11 report, we see that there are no radar returns after approximately 8:46:10, which showed the aircraft at an altitude of approximately 1,800 feet. There is one final point at 8:46:40, and that is what the Commission apparently used, but that is at altitude zero. The points leading up to 8:46:10 show nontrivial scatter in the data, and occasionally unmistakable outliers as well. It also seems to indicate an average descent rate of nearly 4,000 feet per minute, or about 65 feet per second.

5. Discussion

Now recall that AA-11 did not impact at zero altitude. It hit on the 97th floor, or approximately 1,000 feet of altitude. Using our estimate of 65 feet per second, this is 800 feet below or about 13 seconds after the next-to-last reading. This gives us a radar impact estimate of 8:26:23, not 8:26:40. I must point out, however, that the graph is not the easiest to read, and I would estimate the time of sweep is +/- 3 seconds, altitude +/- 200 feet, so our final estimate is perhaps +/- 7 seconds. However, this time coincides nicely with the NIST result.

What about the 8:26:40 measurement? Well, it's at zero altitude, so it can't be our bird unless it's an artificially low reading. But if it's not our bird, what could it be? I can think of several possibilities. In particular, this is primary radar and is basically a "blip" stronger than background returned to the receiver. Aircraft are not the only things that send traces. I speculate that the final return wasn't from the aircraft at all, but instead from the huge cloud of debris that emerged after impact -- pieces of aircraft, aluminum cladding from WTC 1, and the thermal bubble, all spreading to create a much larger and brighter radar reflector than the aircraft itself. This could, perhaps, be seen well down in the clutter whereas the smaller aircraft signal was lost before impact.

While I like this hypothesis, I must admit that it is also possible that the 8:46:40 radar blip is nothing but a phantom return generated somewhere in software. The fact that it intersects at exactly 0 altitude is suspicious.

The radar return graph for UA-175 is not as detailed, and unfortunately I cannot replicate this analysis for it as a result, but we may assume that something similar could have happened there as well. UA-175 struck at a slightly lower altitude but still about 800 feet above ground level, so a similar artifact may have occurred.

6. Findings

So, in summary, my findings are as follows:

The LDEO origin time (time of actual seismic event) does appear to be 8:46:29 and 9:02:57, not a slightly later number that corresponds to the 9/11 Commission Report. I therefore must update my whitepaper.
The 9/11 Commission Report time is wrong. The strongest evidence for this is the NIST analysis of photographic records, which confirms finding 1. above and conflicts with the Commission regardless of seismic data interpretation.
The discrepancy in the Commission appears to be solely based on radar, not seismic results.
While we do not fully understand the delay between origin time and graphical time of arrival in the LDEO data, we believe it is due to seismic propagation between origin point and seismograph. Followup is needed to confirm this hypothesis.
The discrepancy in the Commission happens to be similar to the delay mentioned in finding 4. above, but this appears to be coincidence. It is this coincidence that I focused on, incorrectly, in previous analyses.
We further hypothesize that the Commission discrepancy, at least for WTC 1, can be traced to insufficient analysis of primary radar data. The final radar return time was used as the impact time, and this appears to be too simplistic, as we have no reason to believe the final return was in fact coming from an intact aircraft.
More careful analysis of the final few radar returns for AA-11 gives us an impact estimate of 8:46:23 +/- 7 seconds, which is consistent with NIST and the LDEO origin time, and inconsistent with the Commission. All of our findings are therefore self-consistent.
We cannot confirm the above radar argument also applies to UA-175, though we have reason to believe a similar artifact occurred. If data for UA-175 with individual radar returns become available, this should be verified.
I think it all fits together nicely now. Again, we should still verify the ~16 second propagation time from the WTC to LDEO, but that appears to be the result that they calculated, so I'm comfortable with it until proven otherwise.

DISCLAIMER: The above is my opinion only and does not reflect the position of any agency, public or private. All work done with my own materials on my own time. Measure twice, cut once.

[R.Mackey]

As mentioned above, the seismograph presented by LDEO is consistent with an origin time of 8:46:29, as reported in NIST, if the propagation time from impact to the LDEO location takes about sixteen seconds. In this post we look a bit closer at this issue to verify that our hypothesis makes sense.

From the LDEO chart itself, the distance from impact point to detector is equal to 33.79 km (in the margins of the graph, and see below). For a period of sixteen seconds, this implies that the wave propagation speed must be about 2100 meters per second. Is this possible?

Previously, I remarked that the ordinary propagation speed of seismic waves is about 5 km/s, but that it varied. It actually varies quite a bit, partly on the rock composition, but also on the type of seismic wave. See here (http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/waves_and_interior.html) for a simplified but illuminating treatment.

The most obvious waves are the so-called "P-Waves," short for plane waves. These are essentially compression waves. Think of an arc moving through the Earth, and when this arc passes it compacts the ground briefly, just like the shockwave from a bomb. P-waves are also the fastest waves, but they are rarely the strongest.

Next up are the surface waves, or "S-waves." Think of these like waves on the ocean. As the wave passes, the surface of the Earth moves vertically. If you could see them from a great height, you would see ripples in the surface moving outward from the source. The important point, however, is that just like waves in deep water are slower than the speed of sound in water, S-waves are slower than P-waves. It's a different physical phenomenon.

There are two other types, and the wave we're looking at is one of these types, similar to S-waves but slightly different. What we have here is called a Love wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_wave). A Love wave is like an S-wave except instead of the ground motion being vertical, it is horizontal. The wave is a side-to-side shaking that moves outward from the source. Love waves are slightly slower than S-waves, and usually at least twice as slow as a P-wave.

We know our wave is a Love wave for two reasons. First, the source of the wave is horizontal in nature, as the structure suffers an impact that causes it to sway, giving rise to a horizontal displacement at the surface. Second, the detector used by LDEO is east-west surface motion, and LDEO is almost directly north of the impact site. Therefore, the LDEO is reporting on Love waves.

There are other reasons why it makes sense to detect Love waves. These waves are often the most strongly felt, and the impact we're talking about was rather small by earthquake standards (about MR 1.0 or less). Also, Love waves suffer the least dispersion over distance, for reasons that are somewhat complicated*. Thus it makes sense that Love waves would be the dominant, if not only, wave detected from the impact.

It is apparently quite ordinary for Love waves to have a propagation speed of about 2 km/s. For this reason, it makes perfect sense for the sixteen second delay in the LDEO graphs to account for the wave's travel time.

I've annotated one of the LDEO traces below. Note that the arrival time at LDEO is comparable to the 9/11 Commission's incorrect impact estimate, but again, this appears to be merely a coincidence. Click on the image to enlarge.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_919348212f7907aa3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=12072)

As I stated above, it appears to me that the LDEO and NIST are fully consistent, and now we have further reason to trust LDEO's estimate of origin time. The 9/11 Commission origin time matches neither of these, and as previously noted, the error appears to be a sloppy curve-fit to the last seconds of primary radar data. Correcting for this curve-fit, we believe the radar data also plausibly agrees with the LDEO and NIST origin time estimate.

*: The reason Love waves disperse less than P-waves or S-waves is that they are almost totally confined to the surface. The group velocity of Love waves is strongly dependent on the modulus of elasticity and density of its medium, but also with depth -- thus it is much more dependent than the other types of wave. This dispersion relation forces the waves to travel along the surface, because it means the interface to lower material is poorly conducting and reflects those waves back to the top. This is the same principle that makes jet planes sound louder when there is a temperature inversion, or why submarines can hide from sonar beneath a thermocline, because the changing propagation speed funnels the waves horizontally rather than across the material gradient.

[gumboot]

Has anyone discussed the margin of error in radar data? It seems the big issue here is a discrepancy in radar impact time and seismic impact time.

However depending on the radar that this information is coming from, the margin of error can be anything from 4.8 to 12 seconds (this being the update period for the fastest rotating ASR series surveillance radars and slowest rotating ARSR-3 surveillance radars).

Given that Boston ARTCC reported AA11 fell below primary radar coverage I would have to presume that it was an ASR radar that tracked AA11, but that's still a margin of error of nearly 5 second. I'm not sure what the delay is like between reception from the radar to display on the screen either, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a second or two (the data isn't just sent directly to a scope, there's some complex processing done first).

[R.Mackey]

Seeing as how for AA-11, there's no radar return at all after 8:46:10 (excepting the phantom "final" trace 30 seconds later), the uncertainty in the sweep is probably not significant.

Both the sweep time and the altitude errors are conflated, because we're basically using these to estimate the rate of descent, and thus the intercept at the target. The chart in the NTSB Report shows greater proportional uncertainties in the altitude estimates than the sweeps. Nonetheless, as I remark above, the impact time from radar is probably no better than +/- 7 seconds or so even if the radar returns are all marked precisely.

[gumboot]

Seeing as how for AA-11, there's no radar return at all after 8:46:10 (excepting the phantom "final" trace 30 seconds later), the uncertainty in the sweep is probably not significant.

Both the sweep time and the altitude errors are conflated, because we're basically using these to estimate the rate of descent, and thus the intercept at the target. The chart in the NTSB Report shows greater proportional uncertainties in the altitude estimates than the sweeps. Nonetheless, as I remark above, the impact time from radar is probably no better than +/- 7 seconds or so even if the radar returns are all marked precisely.



The matter of altitude finding is an interesting one. On 9/11 only the ARSR-4 (the JSS Long Range Radar used by NORAD and the FAA) had altitude finding capability with an accuracy of +/- 1500ft @ 175nmi (vertical resolution of 0.17 degrees). The ARSR-4 has an update time of 12 seconds.

The ASR-9 conceptually had altitude finding capability with an accuracy of +/-2000ft @ 40nmi (vertical resolution of 1 degree) but this was a conceptual demonstration and not used operationally. The ASR-9 has an update time of 4.8 seconds.

Now the two nearest JSS ARSR-4 sites to the WTC are Riverhead, NY (72mi) and Gibbsborro, NJ (80mi). By my calculations the Riverhead site would have an altitude finding margin of error of 550ft and the Gibbsborro site would have an altitude finding margin of error of about 650ft (based on 1.7 degree resolution producing a resolution of 1100 and 1300ft respectively).

So in short, you're talking significant margins of error for radar data both as far as delays in actual data reporting and then inaccuracies in altitude.

[quicknthedead]

Has anyone discussed the margin of error in radar data? It seems the big issue here is a discrepancy in radar impact time and seismic impact time.

However depending on the radar that this information is coming from, the margin of error can be anything from 4.8 to 12 seconds (this being the update period for the fastest rotating ASR series surveillance radars and slowest rotating ARSR-3 surveillance radars).

Given that Boston ARTCC reported AA11 fell below primary radar coverage I would have to presume that it was an ASR radar that tracked AA11, but that's still a margin of error of nearly 5 second. I'm not sure what the delay is like between reception from the radar to display on the screen either, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a second or two (the data isn't just sent directly to a scope, there's some complex processing done first).

I have looked at the radar question quite a bit through my sojourns on this.

The 84th Rades had AA Flt 11 tracked for its entire flight and also brought into their study all radar returns from all sources for the flight, and what is telling about the final 8:46:40 crash time cited in the Commission Report that Ryan Mackey mentions above (post #460) when he observes correctly it was based upon a radar return at zero altitude on the graph, are the words found in the same report on page 2, 2nd to last paragraph. They shed light on this "zero altitude" issue:
"However, long range radar obtained from the USAF includes (less precise) altitude information based on primary radar returns..."

One aspect of basic Primary Radar is that it does not provide altitude information, but enhanced military versions of Primary Radar available to the USAF are capable of providing altitude, albeit sometimes resulting in "less precise" data. There are several zero altitudes returns seen on the graph provided, and are extreme examples of this lack of precision in altitude. But primary radar returns are viable, even without an altitude component. They are "returns".

Since the USAF did not reject this final return at 8:46:40 (at zero altitude), their acceptance of it demonstrably indicates it was considered viable, a good return (even without an altitude component). I am not a radar expert, but I believe this is what experts on the subject would basically state.

What Ryan writes in his post #459 sums it up best:

For me, the ultimate proof that there was no paired explosive event was the fact that, on the seismograph, there's only one event. Had there been explosives and a plane impact, there would have been two. This observation is totally independent of any timing mismatch.

We may never know the truth on this discrepancy of times (seismic vs radar), but as Ryan points out, there was only one seismic event. Finis.

Ergo, there has to be error in the data, either in radar or seismic or both (this is possible too).

What do we know for sure?

Somebody's made an error.

But who made it, is this important?

(For the advancement of science, yes, but) In the final analysis, probably not.

Compared to the trauma of 9/11 that everyone has gone through one way or another, this difference in seconds doesn't mean much (at least to me it doesn't anymore).

But hopefully we keep learning. I think I now understand better the seismic aspects of the strikes on WTC1 and WTC2.

Although UA Flt 175 struck about the 81st floor at 540 mph--but was not a dead-center hit, while AA Flt 11 did hit dead-center but at a lesser speed of 440 mph and hit higher up {about the 93rd floor}, the WTC1 seismic event was longer in duration and stronger in magnitude than WTC2's seismic signature.

Those planes hitting those cores was comparable to "ringing a bell", and the "ring" in WTC1 was experienced by many in the basement levels as an enormous, destructive energy transmitted down through the structure's steel core that literally "bounced" off the bottom fixed to bedrock.

Then again I could be wrong. What do I know?
But was 9/11 an inside job? I don't think.

[gumboot]

I have looked at the radar question quite a bit through my sojourns on this.

The 84th Rades had AA Flt 11 tracked for its entire flight and also brought into their study all radar returns from all sources for the flight

The 84th RADES is a Radar Evaluation Squadron (that's what RADES stands for) and they're responsibly particularly for taking care of USAF radars and they often assist in investigations. They didn't track AA11 on radar themselves, as a unit (although 84th RADES personnel are located at all NORAD centers) The study for 9/11 was conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board in support of the FBI. The NTSB utilised both military and civilian radar to plot its track, and the military radar used, as I've discussed, is the ARSR-4 which comprises the Joint Surveillance System (JSS) utilised by both DOD and the FAA.

The ARSR-4 is was the only altitude-finding radar in operation at the time of the attacks, so we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the radar data presented in the NTSB report came from JSS sites. Further, because we can find out the location of radar sites in the USA via the FAA's National Airspace System Architecture site, we can determine which radar sites would have been used, and how accurate they would have been.

We know from specs that the ARSR-4 has an update rate of 12 seconds - that gives us a sweep margin of error. We know it has a vertical resolution of 0.17 degrees. Combine that with the range from the site to the WTC and we can get the altitude finding margin of error.

It's worth noting that the NTSB report cites the impact time of AA11 as "approximately" 08:46:40EDT. This is more than likely because the NTSB recognises that the radar data has a margin of error as I've discussed above.




Since the USAF did not reject this final return at 8:46:40 (at zero altitude), their acceptance of it demonstrably indicates it was considered viable, a good return (even without an altitude component). I am not a radar expert, but I believe this is what experts on the subject would basically state.

It wasn't the USAF that did or did not reject the final return - it was the NTSB. Their times are an approximation, thus any claim that they are precise must be dismissed.

The final return did have an altitude component - it was 0. All of the returns graphed are from the JSS and all are altitude returns.

For what it's worth the 0ft altitude reading is outside the margin of error of either of the two closest JSS sites.


Ergo, there has to be error in the data, either in radar or seismic or both (this is possible too).

What do we know for sure?

Somebody's made an error.


This does not follow. All data of this type has a margin of error. We've demonstrated that the margin of error for the radar data is well within the acceptable range to match with the seismic data. Therefore we do not have to conclude that human error is involved.

[pomeroo]

I have looked at the radar question quite a bit through my sojourns on this.

The 84th Rades had AA Flt 11 tracked for its entire flight and also brought into their study all radar returns from all sources for the flight, and what is telling about the final 8:46:40 crash time cited in the Commission Report that Ryan Mackey mentions above (post #460) when he observes correctly it was based upon a radar return at zero altitude on the graph, are the words found in the same report on page 2, 2nd to last paragraph. They shed light on this "zero altitude" issue:
"However, long range radar obtained from the USAF includes (less precise) altitude information based on primary radar returns..."

One aspect of basic Primary Radar is that it does not provide altitude information, but enhanced military versions of Primary Radar available to the USAF are capable of providing altitude, albeit sometimes resulting in "less precise" data. There are several zero altitudes returns seen on the graph provided, and are extreme examples of this lack of precision in altitude. But primary radar returns are viable, even without an altitude component. They are "returns".

Since the USAF did not reject this final return at 8:46:40 (at zero altitude), their acceptance of it demonstrably indicates it was considered viable, a good return (even without an altitude component). I am not a radar expert, but I believe this is what experts on the subject would basically state.

What Ryan writes in his post #459 sums it up best:


We may never know the truth on this discrepancy of times (seismic vs radar), but as Ryan points out, there was only one seismic event. Finis.

Ergo, there has to be error in the data, either in radar or seismic or both (this is possible too).

What do we know for sure?

Somebody's made an error.

But who made it, is this important?

(For the advancement of science, yes, but) In the final analysis, probably not.

Compared to the trauma of 9/11 that everyone has gone through one way or another, this difference in seconds doesn't mean much (at least to me it doesn't anymore).

But hopefully we keep learning. I think I now understand better the seismic aspects of the strikes on WTC1 and WTC2.

Although UA Flt 175 struck about the 81st floor at 540 mph--but was not a dead-center hit, while AA Flt 11 did hit dead-center but at a lesser speed of 440 mph and hit higher up {about the 93rd floor}, the WTC1 seismic event was longer in duration and stronger in magnitude than WTC2's seismic signature.

Those planes hitting those cores was comparable to "ringing a bell", and the "ring" in WTC1 was experienced by many in the basement levels as an enormous, destructive energy transmitted down through the structure's steel core that literally "bounced" off the bottom fixed to bedrock.

Then again I could be wrong. What do I know?
But was 9/11 an inside job? I don't think.



It takes intellectual integrity to abandon an erroneous opinion. You are to be commended.

[Pookster]

Excellent posts by Mackey, Quick, and Gumboot. It's cleared up much of the issue for me. :)

[R.Mackey]

Since the USAF did not reject this final return at 8:46:40 (at zero altitude), their acceptance of it demonstrably indicates it was considered viable, a good return (even without an altitude component). I am not a radar expert, but I believe this is what experts on the subject would basically state.

It probably was a good return, but like I said, we can't be sure it was an intact aircraft any longer. The impact blew off a large number of aluminum panels from the exterior, and shredded the plane itself -- just like chaff. It might easily have been the BEST radar return, from the standpoint of signal strength.

We may never know the truth on this discrepancy of times (seismic vs radar), but as Ryan points out, there was only one seismic event. Finis.

Ergo, there has to be error in the data, either in radar or seismic or both (this is possible too).

I agree. Craig, as I go through and correct my whitepaper, I'd like to put in a summary of your revised opinion, if you'd permit me.


Although UA Flt 175 struck about the 81st floor at 540 mph--but was not a dead-center hit, while AA Flt 11 did hit dead-center but at a lesser speed of 440 mph and hit higher up {about the 93rd floor}, the WTC1 seismic event was longer in duration and stronger in magnitude than WTC2's seismic signature.

Those planes hitting those cores was comparable to "ringing a bell", and the "ring" in WTC1 was experienced by many in the basement levels as an enormous, destructive energy transmitted down through the structure's steel core that literally "bounced" off the bottom fixed to bedrock.

This is quite true. NIST explores the various oscillating modes in Appendix K of NCSTAR1-5A. The Towers have several flexing modes, with different periods in N-S and E-W motion due to the different core dimensions, and also several torsional modes. The more off-center a Tower is hit, the more of these modes get excited, and the more coupling between modes. Since the periods are all different and we're dealing with a damped structure, transferring energy from one mode to another damps the motion even quicker. This is indeed why WTC 2 vibrated for a shorter period than WTC 1. Another reason is that WTC 2 suffered more core damage, and so transmission into the upper floors was a lot less efficient.

Anyway, as far as the timing goes, I'm pretty comfortable it was the 9/11 Commission that made the mistake. The LDEO numbers make sense given their charts. NIST also used video records, and those two agree with each other. The only outlier is the Commission, and given how sloppy the radar data is, it's really no surprise.

Again, I would not have used that last radar return value, but instead done a curve-fit of the descent and stopped when it hit the impact altitude, which is known to +/- 1 meter. If I do so, I get a number that agrees with NIST and LDEO. I'm actually quite happy about being forced to go back and re-evaluate it, since this answer is much more consistent.

[gumboot]

Anyway, as far as the timing goes, I'm pretty comfortable it was the 9/11 Commission that made the mistake. The LDEO numbers make sense given their charts. NIST also used video records, and those two agree with each other. The only outlier is the Commission, and given how sloppy the radar data is, it's really no surprise.


To be strictly accurate it's the NTSB that has the different impact time - the 9/11 Commission simply reproduced their number.

[quicknthedead]

The 84th RADES is a Radar Evaluation Squadron (that's what RADES stands for) and they're responsibly particularly for taking care of USAF radars and they often assist in investigations. They didn't track AA11 on radar themselves, as a unit (although 84th RADES personnel are located at all NORAD centers) The study for 9/11 was conducted by the National Transportation Safety Board in support of the FBI. The NTSB utilised both military and civilian radar to plot its track, and the military radar used, as I've discussed, is the ARSR-4 which comprises the Joint Surveillance System (JSS) utilised by both DOD and the FAA.

The ARSR-4 is was the only altitude-finding radar in operation at the time of the attacks, so we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the radar data presented in the NTSB report came from JSS sites. Further, because we can find out the location of radar sites in the USA via the FAA's National Airspace System Architecture site, we can determine which radar sites would have been used, and how accurate they would have been.

We know from specs that the ARSR-4 has an update rate of 12 seconds - that gives us a sweep margin of error. We know it has a vertical resolution of 0.17 degrees. Combine that with the range from the site to the WTC and we can get the altitude finding margin of error.

It's worth noting that the NTSB report cites the impact time of AA11 as "approximately" 08:46:40EDT. This is more than likely because the NTSB recognises that the radar data has a margin of error as I've discussed above.


Thanks, gumboot. I appreciate the information, especially on the ARSR-4 and the JSS.

Margin for error for altitude is one thing, but applying that same margin to time is another. A return's time is logged accurately no matter which station it comes from. Its time is what it is.

The margin for error you mention above is regarding altitude and can not be attributed to return times. This is covered in the NTSB's Feb 15, 2002 study on the recorded radar data...
http://www.911myths.com/Recorded_Radar_Data_Study--all_four_aircraft.pdf
...where they address the topics of position and time separately in two different sections.

In addition, NTSB citing the impact time of AA11 as "approximately" 08:46:40 EDT means something else (it does not mean the time has error due to the data having a margin of error for its altitude component).

Instead, "approximately" is used because it means the plane crashed within a few moments after 08:46:40 EDT due to the sweep of the radar antenna. The NTSB knew with certainty the last time of the aircraft's existence was 08:46:40 {based upon a viable return} and thus stated the crash-time approximately, but meaning fully, "We do not know the exact second it crashed but know it crashed moments after 08:46:40."

They did not know the exact altitude for that final return (it definitely was not zero elevation), but its time was precisely 08:46:40 EDT {UTC}.


This does not follow. All data of this type has a margin of error. We've demonstrated that the margin of error for the radar data is well within the acceptable range to match with the seismic data. Therefore we do not have to conclude that human error is involved.

Considering the above, this mystery still exists with two high-confidence data sets (radar & seismic) yielding two different times for the same unique event. This can not be if the event was only one. Therefore, logically, something is wrong with the data and/or its interpretation.

Data error--human error--a combination thereof?
I haven't a clue, but hopefully an answer will be found someday.

There is an appointed time for everything
And there is a time for every event under heaven
Ecclesiastes 3:1

[quicknthedead]

It probably was a good return, but like I said, we can't be sure it was an intact aircraft any longer. The impact blew off a large number of aluminum panels from the exterior, and shredded the plane itself -- just like chaff. It might easily have been the BEST radar return, from the standpoint of signal strength.

Grumpy over at physorgforum told me that a lot also (sorry, Grumpy; now upon further reflection, your idea does have merit). Yes, perhaps this could lead to solving this, if that last return were eliminated and an extrapolation done upon the remaining data. Grumpy would appreciate it (and so would I).



I agree. Craig, as I go through and correct my whitepaper, I'd like to put in a summary of your revised opinion, if you'd permit me.


Sure. Feel free.


This is quite true. NIST explores the various oscillating modes in Appendix K of NCSTAR1-5A. The Towers have several flexing modes, with different periods in N-S and E-W motion due to the different core dimensions, and also several torsional modes. The more off-center a Tower is hit, the more of these modes get excited, and the more coupling between modes. Since the periods are all different and we're dealing with a damped structure, transferring energy from one mode to another damps the motion even quicker. This is indeed why WTC 2 vibrated for a shorter period than WTC 1. Another reason is that WTC 2 suffered more core damage, and so transmission into the upper floors was a lot less efficient.

Thanks for this interesting analysis.


Anyway, as far as the timing goes, I'm pretty comfortable it was the 9/11 Commission that made the mistake. The LDEO numbers make sense given their charts. NIST also used video records, and those two agree with each other. The only outlier is the Commission, and given how sloppy the radar data is, it's really no surprise.

Again, I would not have used that last radar return value, but instead done a curve-fit of the descent and stopped when it hit the impact altitude, which is known to +/- 1 meter. If I do so, I get a number that agrees with NIST and LDEO. I'm actually quite happy about being forced to go back and re-evaluate it, since this answer is much more consistent.

I look forward to your results, Ryan.
Thanks.

[gumboot]

Margin for error for altitude is one thing, but applying that same margin to time is another. A return's time is logged accurately no matter which station it comes from. Its time is what it is.

This isn't strictly true. The Radar Data Processor at each ARTCC collects the radar returns and processing them, rejecting some, before displaying them on the radar screens.

The Antennae themselves are of course all turning at different times, so the RDP is receiving returns at different times from various radar sites, however it updates the screen all at once. That means the returns as recorded have a margin of error equalling the update time.

Now, in the case of ARTCC data it's possible (though unlikely) that radar data is recorded before it gets to the RDP.

However the military radar data, which is what was used to determine altitude, is received from the local ARTCC so it has already gone through the RDP before being sent.

[quicknthedead]

This isn't strictly true. The Radar Data Processor at each ARTCC collects the radar returns and processing them, rejecting some, before displaying them on the radar screens.

The Antennae themselves are of course all turning at different times, so the RDP is receiving returns at different times from various radar sites, however it updates the screen all at once. That means the returns as recorded have a margin of error equalling the update time.

Now, in the case of ARTCC data it's possible (though unlikely) that radar data is recorded before it gets to the RDP.

However the military radar data, which is what was used to determine altitude, is received from the local ARTCC so it has already gone through the RDP before being sent.

Interesting! Updating the screen "all at once" is something new in my understanding of radar. I thought system time stamping of returns was a function of the sweep, but now I see that it is also dependent upon the refresh of the screen as you have pointed out.

This changes everything in the time arena of seconds. Yes, you are correct -- the returns do have a margin of error that is dependent upon the update time.

Thanks, gumboot -- great stuff as usual from you! :)