Siesmic Evidence Proves Inside Job?

[TruthSeeker1234]

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

I'm seeking serious comment on the merits/demerits of this paper.

[Bell]

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

I'm seeking serious comment on the merits/demerits of this paper.

I doubt you do.

[Dog Town]

Some one please post the Implosion world paper. I've lost the link!

[Sword_Of_Truth]

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs. (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y)

Another swing and a miss, Lieteller1234.

[apathoid]

Some one please post the Implosion world paper. I've lost the link!

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

[defaultdotxbe]

what are the qualifications of these men to be analyzing seismic data? scholors for "truth" lists ross as being a mechanical engineer, doesnt show furlong at all

are there any seismologists who say seismic evidences supports explosives?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Hold up guys, you need to read the paper I linked. It is not about the seismic data from the collapses, it is about the seismic data from around the time of jet impacts. The paper asserts that the seismic spikes which are attributed to the jet impacts actually occured many seconds before the jets hit.

He uses the radar data and the seismic data, both tied to UTC. I am genuinely curious what the debunk of this will be.

[Skibum]

I'm seeking serious comment on the merits/demerits of this paper.

IMO, one the of the biggest demerits is that it was written by "scholars" from the "truth" movement. That alone makes me seriously question its validity without having to even read the whole thing.

[Dog Town]

The paper asserts that the seismic spikes which are attributed to the jet impacts actually occured many seconds before the jets hit.

What's to debunk? Huge explosions SECONDS before impact? Bahh!
Try again!

[TruthSeeker1234]

what are the qualifications of these men to be analyzing seismic data?
One point made in the paper is that the energy of impact would be almost completely absorbed by the tower. A mechanical engineer is the perfect person to know that.

More to the point, it doesn't take any sort of expert at all to know that the seismic spike produced by a jet impact cannot occur before the jet impact.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

One point made in the paper is that the energy of impact would be almost completely absorbed by the tower. A mechanical engineer is the perfect person to know that.

A structural engineer would be better. But you have a hard time with those, doncha?

More to the point, it doesn't take any sort of expert at all to know that the seismic spike produced by a jet impact cannot occur before the jet impact.

Since we have already proven it would be impossible to plant explosive charges in the manner you describe, this would indicate that Ross is off by several seconds.

[apathoid]

Hold up guys, you need to read the paper I linked. It is not about the seismic data from the collapses, it is about the seismic data from around the time of jet impacts. The paper asserts that the seismic spikes which are attributed to the jet impacts actually occured many seconds before the jets hit.

He uses the radar data and the seismic data, both tied to UTC. I am genuinely curious what the debunk of this will be.

I, for one, am not reading anymore mindless retarded BS from amateur researchers. I dont care if he has an astrophysics PhD, this man is not qualifed to study seimic data.

You do realize what the implications are of arguing that there were significant seismic events before the airliners struck, correct? One of those implications being setting off massive charges in the basement 56 and 102 minutes before the collapse(or demolition if you'd like)
I've never seen explosives go off and freeze in time for an hour or more. Explain, and dont tell me to read to piece you linked.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ross is off by several seconds

Where is he off? Is the UTC data wrong, or what?

[WildCat]

I, for one, am not reading anymore mindless retarded BS from amateur researchers. I dont care if he has an astrophysics PhD, this man is not qualifed to study seimic data.

You do realize what the implications are of arguing that there were significant seismic events before the airliners struck, correct? One of those implications being setting off massive charges in the basement 56 and 102 minutes before the collapse(or demolition if you'd like)
I've never seen explosives go off and freeze in time for an hour or more. Explain, and dont tell me to read to piece you linked.
It's all quite simple. The explosions were timed so that they went off nearly perfectly in sync w/ planes originating hundreds of miles away to go off at nearly the precise time the towers were struck by the planes. Then, many minutes later, thermite was lit to cut the core columns because the basement explosions were just for show and... oh crap I give up. I can't make any sense of this completely idiotic conspiracy scenario.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Apathoid, this thread is about that paper.

[steve s]

More to the point, it doesn't take any sort of expert at all to know that the seismic spike produced by a jet impact cannot occur before the jet impact.

You're ignoring the fact that it's impossible to accurately determine the time of the impacts down to the exact second. We can say it was hit at 8:46, but to state the exact second is impossible.

You're being totally disingenuous, Lieteller.

Steve S.

[defaultdotxbe]

One point made in the paper is that the energy of impact would be almost completely absorbed by the tower. A mechanical engineer is the perfect person to know that.


couldnt it be equally argued that any explosives would also be absorbed by the tower?

what did the 1993 bombing register ont he richter scale? oh thats right, it didnt

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Where is he off? Is the UTC data wrong, or what?

Ross is wrong.

We know there were no explosives in the building, ergo the first seismic spike is that of the aurcraft impacts.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'm just trying to study this paper. Steve S brought up accuracy. Accuracy is a valid criticism. You're saying that the data available are not precise enough to support the conclusion. The margin of error is too great. OK. If true, that's valid.

[Dog Town]

I can't make any sense of this completely idiotic conspiracy scenario.

Yeah, when ever I try to shave w/a razor that dull I cut myself.
When I cut into lot's of layers of onion my eyes well-up.
Freaken strange. Does this work? Are we on here? Test... one.. two! *thump*

[stateofgrace]

So according to Ross, who is not civil engineer, not a structural engineer, not an architect, not an explosives expert, not qualified in anyway to talk about buildings, thier construction or destruction has now come up with some nonsense that explosions that took place before the planes hit, brought them down later.

Brilliant!!!!

Don't you wonder why people just laugh at this rubbish?

[apathoid]

Where is he off? Is the UTC data wrong, or what?

I am not going to extend you the courtesy of reading the paper you linked, because all you've done the last 2 days is play dodgeball and tap-dance. However, I have a couple of questions about the piece and I'd appreciate an answer.

a. What is the time of onset of seismic waves at WTC1? WTC2?
b. What is the recorded time of AA11s disappearance from radar?
c. What is the recorded time of UA175s disappearance from radar?

Have these times been coroberated by several sources?

What type of clocks were used for the times of b. and c.?

[HeyLeroy]

If there was such seismic activity before the impact, wouldn't all the video cameras aimed at the towers show some sort of camera-shake?

Truthseeker, what would be the point of bringing down the towers with explosives after the planes hit? It's not like they could've rebuilt 'em.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Sword was fallacious We know there were no explosives in the building, ergo the first seismic spike is that of the aurcraft impacts.

No, Sword, you're assuming the conclusion to support the conclusion. Circular reasoning.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Table 4
AA Flt 11
2001 LDEO 8:46:26 Original seismic
2005 LDEO 8:46:29 Revised per NIST contract
2004 NIST 8:46:30 Artificial
2001 FAA 8:46:35 Rejected by Commission
2004 Commission 8:46:40
2002 NTSB 8:46:40

UA Flt 175
2002 NTSB 9:02:40 Rejected by Commission
2001 LDEO 9:02:54 Original seismic
2005 LDEO 9:02:57 Revised per NIST contract
2004 NIST 9:02:59 Adjusted per TV
2004 Commission 9:03:11
2001 FAA 9:03:14 Rejected by Commission
NIST sponsored revised seismic times added.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sword was fallacious

No, Sword, you're assuming the conclusion to support the conclusion. Circular reasoning.


Not at all, it's been proven conclusively that there were no explosives in the building in another thread here.

[defaultdotxbe]

More to the point, it doesn't take any sort of expert at all to know that the seismic spike produced by a jet impact cannot occur before the jet impact.

even more to the point, seismic waves do not travel from point to point instantly, and they travel different speeds through different materials (and different densities of those materials) ross and furlong lack the ability to account for such variations, and therefore can and will miss any alternative explanation for the time differences

[T.A.M.]

I have to agree with them, Truthseeker. I would not trust anyone but a seismologist (if that is what they are called), an expert in reading them, to interpret the data.

An EEG is a comparable example. Would you want anyone besides a Neurologist reading them and intepreting what they mean or indicate?

TAM

[apathoid]

even more to the point, seismic waves do not travel from point to point instantly, and they travel different speeds through different materials (and different densities of those materials) ross and furlong lack the ability to account for such variations, and therefore can and will miss any alternative explanation for the time differences

Terrific point. Exactly why seismic data needs to be interpereted by people who are specially trained at doing so....and those people find nothing out of the ordinary about the plane impacts.

[Dog Town]

I have to agree with them, Truthseeker. I would not trust anyone but a seismologist (if that is what they are called), an expert in reading them, to interpret the data.

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

[TruthSeeker1234]

T.A.M., Ross isn't interperting the seismic data, he is saying that it occured before the plane hit. I might not know what an EKG means, but I certainly know that it does not tell anything about the patient before it's hooked up and running.

[rwguinn]

So according to Ross, who is not civil engineer, not a structural engineer, not an architect, not an explosives expert, not qualified in anyway to talk about buildings, thier construction or destruction has now come up with some nonsense that explosions that took place before the planes hit, brought them down later.

Brilliant!!!!

Don't you wonder why people just laugh at this rubbish?

BACK THE ^&%$ Off! You are making the same mistake that the Lost Marble people are. I will not tolerate blanket disparagement of my profession.
Yes, a mechanical engineer is the best person to analyze a dynamic event. An appeal to authority requires that the authority be credible. Structural Engineers, Civil Engineers and Archetects design things not to move. Mechanical engineers deal with motion.
That said. ME's also do HVAC and a number of other things that do not involve massive, or even miniscule collisions. I would need to see the dredentials and registrations of this Ross character before I declare him qualified.
Now, I'm off to read his paper.

[TruthSeeker1234]

seismic waves do not travel from point to point instantly, and they travel different speeds through different materials (and different densities of those materials) ross and furlong lack the ability to account for such variations, and therefore can and will miss any alternative explanation for the time differences

No, this is a non-sequitor. Seismic wave cannot travel backwards in time. If the waves indeed occur prior to the jet impact, they must have been caused by something else. Propagation times are a red herring.

Next.

[defaultdotxbe]

T.A.M., Ross isn't interperting the seismic data, he is saying that it occured before the plane hit. I might not know what an EKG means, but I certainly know that it does not tell anything about the patient before it's hooked up and running.

if he is not interpreting the data how is he reaching his conclusion that the seismic event occurred before the plane impact?

[defaultdotxbe]

No, this is a non-sequitor. Seismic wave cannot travel backwards in time. If the waves indeed occur prior to the jet impact, they must have been caused by something else. Propagation times are a red herring.

Next.

unless the seismometers were on the 78th floor of the WTC propagation time IS an issue

[Dog Town]

if he is not interpreting the data how is he reaching his conclusion that the seismic event occurred before the plane impact?

Same as it ever was...Google for "Scholars"!

[apathoid]

No, this is a non-sequitor. Seismic wave cannot travel backwards in time. If the waves indeed occur prior to the jet impact, they must have been caused by something else. Propagation times are a red herring.

Next.

Its actually not a non-sequitir, and I'd lay off of pointing out fallacies because you have yet to correctly identify one, making yourself look more foolish than you already are(if thats possible).

[TruthSeeker1234]

Well, propagation times are relevant, in that LDEO needs to take them into account when giving their time reading. The waves take x time to get to the station. But they are expert in that, and the time readings are theirs, not Ross and Furlong's.

[TruthSeeker1234]

And yes, that was a non-sequitor. If Ross was wrong about a propagation time, it does not follow that jet impacts caused the wave. If the wave occurs prior to the impact, it must have been caused by something else regardless of how long it takes for that wave to travel to point b.

[Bell]

BACK THE ^&%$ Off! You are making the same mistake that the Lost Marble people are. I will not tolerate blanket disparagement of my profession.
Yes, a mechanical engineer is the best person to analyze a dynamic event. An appeal to authority requires that the authority be credible. Structural Engineers, Civil Engineers and Archetects design things not to move. Mechanical engineers deal with motion.
That said. ME's also do HVAC and a number of other things that do not involve massive, or even miniscule collisions. I would need to see the dredentials and registrations of this Ross character before I declare him qualified.
Now, I'm off to read his paper.


Uhm... what happened here? :confused:

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, this is a non-sequitor. Seismic wave cannot travel backwards in time. If the waves indeed occur prior to the jet impact, they must have been caused by something else. Propagation times are a red herring.

Next.

Logic dictates that if the airplanes were the only possible source of the seismic vibrations, then the vibrations recieved were resultant from the airplanes impacting the buildings regardless of what discrepancies between different clocks and thier readings.

[Dog Town]

Well, propagation times are relevant, in that LDEO needs to take them into account when giving their time reading

I'm sorry but does this one sentence remind anyone of J Dohh?
Then there's this!
Table 4
AA Flt 11
2001 LDEO 8:46:26 Original seismic
2005 LDEO 8:46:29 Revised per NIST contract
2004 NIST 8:46:30 Artificial
2001 FAA 8:46:35 Rejected by Commission
2004 Commission 8:46:40
2002 NTSB 8:46:40

UA Flt 175
2002 NTSB 9:02:40 Rejected by Commission
2001 LDEO 9:02:54 Original seismic
2005 LDEO 9:02:57 Revised per NIST contract
2004 NIST 9:02:59 Adjusted per TV
2004 Commission 9:03:11
2001 FAA 9:03:14 Rejected by Commission
NIST sponsored revised seismic times added.

I am just asking questions! I'm not realy paranoid. This whole CT logic gets to ya, me thinks. Or I am just hoping that only a few could be this #$%@^&%!!

[rwguinn]

Apathoid, this thread is about that paper.
Ok, I've read it. It's garbage. Neither individual is qualified to read seismic data, and the On the face, it seems tenuous that the spikes were "impact times". How does an aircraft impacting the WTC near the 90th floor result in sufficient energy transference that travels all the way down to the earth, even through the massive multi-level, 6-story sub-basement structure, and be picked up by LDEO as a seismic spike? Energy from the crash should have mostly been absorbed by the building’s immense structure and mass. assertion is simply that-an assertion. Nary a single equation to back it up, and they obviously have no knowledge of seismic data acquisition. Unlike myself, they are unwilling to admit that fact.
I do know, from growing up in West Texas and Eastern New Mexico, and working oilfields as summer jobs, plus having a number of relatives who were "doodlebuggers" that a large weight (on the order of a ton) bounced off the ground will send a wave through several thousand feet of rock and can be picked up by a seismograph recorder several miles away.
They used to use a 1/2 stick of dynamite dropped down a hole to do this, now they drive a truck with a "Thumper" on it around, shaking the ground.
If THAT can be picked up, an impact to the tower certainly can.
The energy of the collision was indeed absorbed (mostly--there's a large amount of escaped debris evident in the photos), but to absorb the energy, it must move that motion will be absorbed by the foundation as a sine function--with the peak occurriung 1/2 wavelength of the fundamental mode of the structure after the strike.

[rwguinn]

Uhm... what happened here? :confused:
Someone mad a mass assertion that the people who deal with things that move are less qualified to analyze things that move than are people who design things that don't move.

[apathoid]

And yes, that was a non-sequitor. If Ross was wrong about a propagation time, it does not follow that jet impacts caused the wave. If the wave occurs prior to the impact, it must have been caused by something else regardless of how long it takes for that wave to travel to point b.

Still wrong, consult the skeptics dictionary for the proper definition. But, it goes something like this: If something is A, then its B(ie - An ocean must be water). The fallacy is when people attribute B to A(all water must belong to oceans).

You are talking about a sequence of events..

Again, I caution you to stop attempting to point our our fallacies, because you simply are inept at it.

[defaultdotxbe]

Well, propagation times are relevant, in that LDEO needs to take them into account when giving their time reading. The waves take x time to get to the station. But they are expert in that, and the time readings are theirs, not Ross and Furlong's.

but due to the amount of variables invoved there is always a margin of error, times are given as HH:MM:SS +/- x seconds, since the discrepencies appear to each be under 5 seconds, and no seismologists have reported anything odd about the times wi would assume they fall into this margin or error

[Gravy]

BACK THE ^&%$ Off! You are making the same mistake that the Lost Marble people are. I will not tolerate blanket disparagement of my profession.
I agree that some of us are guilty of casting unwarranted aspersions on whole professions. I've done it. We shouldn't judge an entire field by one moonbat like Judy Wood.

That said, I had a 45-minute encounter at Ground Zero last night with a stark, raving, shouting conspiradroid who said he was a mechanical engineer. :D I have my doubts about him, though. For one thing, he didn't know nothin' about nothin'. For another, during an extended analogy I said, "If I want plans for an air conditioning system drawn up, I should go to a mechanical engineer, not to a doctor or lawyer, right?"

He said, "Maybe."

I made an audio recording of this encounter but I haven't listened to it yet. It's too depressing.

[Bell]

Someone mad a mass assertion that the people who deal with things that move are less qualified to analyze things that move than are people who design things that don't move.

Fair enough. I'm not a scholar on whichever field, and not as smart as most of you on these forums (except Chris maybe), but couldn't you just tell him that the way like you told me now?

I'm not critizising (sp) you, but was kind of shocked to see such a response on here these forums.

All the best,
-Bell :cool:

[WildCat]

I agree that some of us are guilty of casting unwarranted aspersions on whole professions. I've done it. We shouldn't judge an entire field by one moonbat like Judy Wood.

That said, I had a 45-minute encounter at Ground Zero last night with a stark, raving, shouting conspiradroid who said he was a mechanical engineer. :D I have my doubts about him, though. For one thing, he didn't know nothin' about nothin'. For another, during an extended analogy I said, "If I want plans for an air conditioning system drawn up, I should go to a mechanical engineer, not to a doctor or lawyer, right?"

He said, "Maybe."

I made an audio recording of this encounter but I haven't listened to it yet. It's too depressing.
I'm still dying to hear your account of your encounter w/ Alex Jones at GZ...

[rwguinn]

I agree that some of us are guilty of casting unwarranted aspersions on whole professions. I've done it. We shouldn't judge an entire field by one moonbat like Judy Wood.

That said, I had a 45-minute encounter at Ground Zero last night with a stark, raving, shouting conspiradroid who said he was a mechanical engineer. :D I have my doubts about him, though. For one thing, he didn't know nothin' about nothin'. For another, during an extended analogy I said, "If I want plans for an air conditioning system drawn up, I should go to a mechanical engineer, not to a doctor or lawyer, right?"

He said, "Maybe."

I made an audio recording of this encounter but I haven't listened to it yet. It's too depressing.

Ok, Stark, raving I'll grant you. Shouting--sometimes (ok, fairly often).
But we (Mechanical Engineers) know, with absolute certainty, that the only conspiracy out there is that of idiot managers wanting answers that please them, as opposed to the correct ones. We have, on occassion, even enlisted Civil, Electrical, and Chemical engineers in our little group. But like the laws of Thermodynamics, we can't win, we can't even break even, and we certainly can't quit...

[Dog Town]

I'm still dying to hear your account of your encounter w/ Alex Jones at GZ...

PLEASE!!!!

[rwguinn]

Fair enough. I'm not a scholar on whichever field, and not as smart as most of you on these forums (except Chris maybe), but couldn't you just tell him that the way like you told me now?

I'm not critizising (sp) you, but was kind of shocked to see such a response on here these forums.

All the best,
-Bell :cool:
My apologies. I affer as mitigating circumstances that I had a bad day---
The methodology that got me my head handed back to me 8 months ago has become policy--and credited to the guy who performed the decapitation....

[kevin]

Haven't read the whole thing.

First things that come to mind:
Who verified the clocks on the seismgraphs were accurate? Do they have verified times when they had last been synchronized and accuracy measured?

Who adjusted for the propagation times and on what geological data about the earth between manhattan and the observatories? Are these calculations available, have they been peer reviewed?

Time of impacts from the commission were assigned based on radar. Is there a sweep time on the radar were the planes weren't visible? What error is assigned to this particular value? Would the planes be hidden by the radar reflection of the towers?

[apathoid]

Time of impacts from the commission were assigned based on radar. Is there a sweep time on the radar were the planes weren't visible? What error is assigned to this particular value? Would the planes be hidden by the radar reflection of the towers?

Outstanding point. I'm not sure if the transponders were turned off for the WTC planes, I suspect they were.

If they were, then there would be 4.6 second error in the ATCs contact lost time(the antennae rotate once every 4.6 seconds). The 767s would appear to be on the screen after they already impacted.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Apathoid, I don't know what you mean by non-sequitur, but in my universe it means, literally "does not follow". I used the term correctly.

I've already acknowledged that accuracy is a valid point. If it turns out that the margin of error is too great to support this, then the paper is not valid. The "not qualified to interpert seismic data" is a poor argument. Clearly, if the seismic spike occurs before the impact, it must be caused by something else besides a jet impact.

If it turns out that, indeed the radar and seismic data are accurate to within a second, then this paper is very important, and corroborates the eyewitnesses who say they were injured by sub-basement explosions just prior to impact.

I'll suspend judgement for now.

[Gravy]

Outstanding point. I'm not sure if the transponders were turned off for the WTC planes, I suspect they were.

If they were, then there would be 4.6 second error in the ATCs contact lost time(the antennae rotate once every 4.6 seconds). The 767s would appear to be on the screen after they already impacted.
Damn, you guys are good. There's an easy way to settle this, though. I'll ask this guy the next time I see him at Ground Zero:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045037c0c4961a.jpg

I'll write up that Alex Jones encounter soon. Need to post some pictures from yesterday first.

[TruthSeeker1234]

BTW, we can agree on one thing, off topic. I notice the link to "stop sylvia browne". All those purported psychics are scam artists. Who was the jerk with the TV show a few years ago who claimed he was talking to dead people? Edward Roberts or something like that? He would say, "Who's name starts with a J?" and go from there? He needs a debunking site bad.

[Bell]

Damn, you guys are good. There's an easy way to settle this, though. I'll ask this guy the next time I see him at Ground Zero:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045037c0c4961a.jpg

I'll write up that Alex Jones encounter soon. Need to post some pictures from yesterday first.



Well, wouldn't you believe a guy like that?

Gravy, I really appreciate you, and your fellow ninjas, going down to GZ and confront those [snip] and show what complete nonsense they are trying to sell.

WHY ARE YOU YELLING AT ME??!!

[rwguinn]

BTW, we can agree on one thing, off topic. I notice the link to "stop sylvia browne". All those purported psychics are scam artists. Who was the jerk with the TV show a few years ago who claimed he was talking to dead people? Edward Roberts or something like that? He would say, "Who's name starts with a J?" and go from there? He needs a debunking site bad.

Nice attempt at distraction. We don't let people off the hook just because thay show occasional flashes of rationality.
reading seismic data is the question in that paper--and they fail of qualification by an even larger margin than I.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

BTW, we can agree on one thing, off topic. I notice the link to "stop sylvia browne". All those purported psychics are scam artists. Who was the jerk with the TV show a few years ago who claimed he was talking to dead people? Edward Roberts or something like that? He would say, "Who's name starts with a J?" and go from there? He needs a debunking site bad.

What he's doing is wrong, but not an actual threat to national security, debunking 9-11 "truth" bilge is more important.

But maybe you can talk to him if you are ever inside a burning building and refuse to evacuate because you know that fires can't bring buildings down?

[steve s]

I've already acknowledged that accuracy is a valid point. If it turns out that the margin of error is too great to support this, then the paper is not valid.

The margin of error is too great therefore the paper is not valid and this thread is pointless.


If it turns out that, indeed the radar and seismic data are accurate to within a second, then this paper is very important, and corroborates the eyewitnesses who say they were injured by sub-basement explosions just prior to impact.

I'll suspend judgement for now.


Or you could just read Apathoid's comments above that the radar was at best accurate to only 4.6 seconds. Ergo, the margin of error is too great for the paper to be of any use.

Steve S.

[Kent1]

Outstanding point. I'm not sure if the transponders were turned off for the WTC planes, I suspect they were.

If they were, then there would be 4.6 second error in the ATCs contact lost time(the antennae rotate once every 4.6 seconds). The 767s would appear to be on the screen after they already impacted.

I believe there will be an article in an uncoming debunking journal.

I would also suggest reading 3.6
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf

The two aircraft impacts derived by NIST and LEDO now agree within the combined uncertainties

Also NOTE LEDO NIST revised times 8:46:29 9:02:57

Pavel Hlava's impact times 8:46:28 9:02:56
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit2/
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1hit2/

Another good article is here
http://www.vibrationdata.com/Newsletters/November2001_NL.pdf

[rwguinn]

I believe there will be an article in an uncoming debunking journal.

I would also suggest reading 3.6
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf

The two aircraft impacts dirived by NIST and LEDO now agree within the combined uncertainties

Also NOTE LEDO NIST revised times 8:46:29 9:02:57

Pavel Hlava's impact times 8:46:28 9:02:56
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit2/
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1hit2/

Another good article is here
http://www.vibrationdata.com/Newsletters/November2001_NL.pdf

ThaT article is very good, explaining things in layman's terms..
I also noticed that the diagram of the tower included in the report showed a total absence of invisicrete tm, 3" rebar, and 4 foot centers....:D

[apathoid]

Thanks for those links Kent, right on the money as usual.

Here is a link to the radar sweep times.

http://www.house.gov/transportation/aviation/03-14-01/03-14-01memo.html


Radar Synchronization

Unlike the ARTS system, STARS will be able to use feeds from multiple types of radar systems. This system, known as a Mosaic system, allows controllers to track targets over larger areas and provides a built-in backup system.

While a Mosaic has many benefits, it does create technical issues. Short-range terminal radar such as the ASR-9 and the ASR-11 rotate at a rate of once every 4.6 seconds. Long-range en route center radar systems such as the ASR-4 rotate at a rate of once every 12 seconds. This lack of synchronization can cause ghost images and target jumping. FAA is working to address these issues.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Damn, you guys are good. There's an easy way to settle this, though. I'll ask this guy the next time I see him at Ground Zero:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045037c0c4961a.jpg

I'll write up that Alex Jones encounter soon. Need to post some pictures from yesterday first.



Obviously a man who has managed to avoid becoming singularity stupid by evil educators and embrace the truth of Nature's Harmonic 4
simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth.

[Regnad Kcin]

"Seismic Evidence Proves Inside Job?"

No.

[Bell]

"Seismic Evidence Proves Inside Job?"

No.

I like your reasoning :)

[R.Mackey]

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

I'm seeking serious comment on the merits/demerits of this paper.
Here's a serious comment. TruthSeeker1234, read and learn.

From the whitepaper you've linked above, pp.1-2:

Original seismic and Commission times.
Table 1
AA Flt 11
2001 LDEO 8:46:26 Original seismic
2004 Commission 8:46:40 (14 seconds difference)
UA Flt 175
2001 LDEO 9:02:54 Original seismic
2004 Commission 9:03:11 (17 seconds difference)
And both seismic events were 12 and 6 seconds duration, respectively. It is therefore reasonable to expect errors of perhaps 3 seconds. Nonetheless, we see a timing discrepancy between the two sources of 14 seconds for the north tower, 17 seconds for the south tower.

The similarity of these discrepancies suggests perhaps it's a simple calibration error in somebody's clock. If so, we should see this type of discrepancy in every measurement. So how about if we look at the collapse times, shall we? This isn't discussed in the whitepaper, for some reason. The 9-11 Commission Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm), in Chapter 9, lists the collapse times as 9:58:59 for the south tower, and 10:28:25 AM for the north tower.

From the whitepaper, these events showed up on the seismograph as 9:59:04 and 10:28:31 (from the imported table on pg. 2). The timing discrepancies are now -5 seconds for the south tower, and -6 seconds for the north tower.

Well, that's not close to 14 and 17 seconds, right?

Ah. We've forgotten something. That's the collapse time itself.

The aircraft impacts -- assuming that's what these 0.9 MR readings are, and that's quite faint -- would be transmitted through the intact structures to the ground as a compression wave in steel, which travels at roughly 5100 meters per second. That's a fraction of a second.

By contrast, the building collapses, which show as vastly stronger 2.1 and 2.3 MR events -- strong enough to obscure weaker signals, and also possibly transmitted faster through the ground -- will peak when the bulk of material hits the ground. The compromised structure doesn't transmit a strong signal as the collapse progresses, you don't see a big spike until that upper block hits something extremely solid.*

So that's why the discrepancy. Let's call it 15 seconds.

Add up the discrepancies and compare:

South Tower
Aircraft Impact: 9-11 Commission is 17 seconds later than seismograph
Collapse: 9-11 commission is -5 + 15 = 10 seconds later than seismograph

North Tower
Aircraft Impact: 9-11 Commission is 14 seconds later than seismograph
Collapse: 9-11 commission is -6 + 15 = 9 seconds later than seismograph

It appears that every measurement on the seismograph doesn't line up with the 9-11 Commission time. NOT just the ones they're talking about.

Why did Ross and Furlong neglect to mention this? What are they trying to hide? Why include the collapse times on the seismograph, and not the collapse times from the 9-11 Commission Report? Is it because it casts doubt on the presumed accuracy of their measurements?

Now that we've added some detail to this calculation, I hypothesize that the seismograph clock is offset from the 9-11 Commission's clock by approximately 12 seconds. Yes, there are still discrepancies of a few seconds, but remember there's uncertainty in all of this as well. We're now within two sigma. This is surely not enough -- not with only four measurements -- to cry foul play.

All of this assumes that everything else presented in the paper is the unvarnished truth. I note that they didn't bother to show us the traces themselves. Those things are not that easy to interpret, particularly when considering such weak seismic events. (I live in California, I have some first-hand experience with earthquakes.)

Furthermore, even if there were a couple of 0.9 MR shocks uncorrelated to the aircraft impacts, so what? What mechanism explains this devious turn of events?

From the whitepaper's introduction:

It seems unlikely that Middle Eastern terrorists could have overcome the WTC security and managed this kind of high-level, technological coordination.
It also seems unlikely that anyone in the world could have coordinated such a thing, namely bombs synchronized with airliner impacts. Bombs, I might add, that served no obvious purpose whatsoever.

File this one under "debunked." And in the future, only bring me papers that have been competently reviewed.

*: Don't believe me? If you transmit a large shock, that means the falling mass suffers an equal and opposite impulse. Watch the collapse tape and show me that upper block getting jerked to a halt. Doesn't happen, huh? That's why you don't see a strong seismic event until it hits ground.

[gumboot]

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

Thanks, I hadn't read that! Very interesting.

They appear to be saying what we have saying all along, although with the precision and insight of genuine experts.

-Andrew

[stateofgrace]

BACK THE ^&%$ Off! You are making the same mistake that the Lost Marble people are. I will not tolerate blanket disparagement of my profession.
Yes, a mechanical engineer is the best person to analyze a dynamic event. An appeal to authority requires that the authority be credible. Structural Engineers, Civil Engineers and Archetects design things not to move. Mechanical engineers deal with motion.
That said. ME's also do HVAC and a number of other things that do not involve massive, or even miniscule collisions. I would need to see the dredentials and registrations of this Ross character before I declare him qualified.
Now, I'm off to read his paper.


Right let me clear up my statement and move on from this. I AM a qualified engineer. I have BSc in Mechanical engineering plus twelve years experience working offshore on moving steel structures, including “A” frames and cranes. Add to these 8 years in the Royal Navy as a weapons engineer. I feel I have the experience and qualifications to speak in the fields I am familiar with. I also feel I am able to know I am NOT qualified to speak about buildings and what cause them to fall, nor am I qualified to analyze seismic data.

If you believe Ross is then fine, I do not. He is no more qualified than me and I know I am not.As an engineer,you know it is part of our responsibility to be truthful and honest. This is part and parcel of the engineering code.

If this belief offends you, then I apologies but in the same token I stand by it.

[rwguinn]

Right let me clear up my statement and move on from this. I AM a qualified engineer. I have BSc in Mechanical engineering plus twelve years experience working offshore on moving steel structures, including “A” frames and cranes. Add to these 8 years in the Royal Navy as a weapons engineer. I feel I have the experience and qualifications to speak in the fields I am familiar with. I also feel I am able to know I am NOT qualified to speak about buildings and what cause them to fall, nor am I qualified to analyze seismic data.

If you believe Ross is then fine, I do not. He is no more qualified than me and I know I am not.As an engineer,you know it is part of our responsibility to be truthful and honest. This is part and parcel of the engineering code.

If this belief offends you, then I apologies but in the same token I stand by it.

O believe that a ME can be more qualified than a CE or structural engineer at analyzing a dynamic event. ME use F=MA. CE,s and SE's use F=0 for preference. Dynamics is an ME function and specialty. Not that the other guys don't know it--it's just not their focus. Nor is it the focus for all ME's. That's why I said I'd have t0o be comfortable with his credentials. I am not.
As I later stated, the thrust of the paper was in seismic events, and merely made an assertion with no backup evidence on the dynamic event. the paper is garbage, and the individuals are less than qualified at analysing seismic data.

[stateofgrace]

OK,I think we can come to the agreement that he is no more or less qualified that any other engineer to make these claims.

The point I was making was not to belittle engineers in general but to actually question his credentials.

There are many fields in engineering and just because somebody holds a degree in one field does not automatically qualify him/her to be an expert in another, any more than say brain surgeon is qualified to speak about open heart surgery.

Again, I apologies if I offended you, this was not the intention. It was merely to point out that his paper is no more valid than any other paper written by anybody is not an engineer.

Incidentally I have debated with Ross before, over a number of days and although I found him to be well educated and very informed it does not alter the fact that his papers are non peer reviewed and are based on backing up a lie.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Nice try Mackey. The whole point of the Ross/Furlong paper, indeed the whole point of the truth movement is that 9-11 commission and NIST cannot be trusted. You are comparing the seismograph readings to 9/11 commission and finding discrepancies. So did Ross/Furlong. You neglect to compare the seismograph to the radar, which is what Ross/Furlong did.

All you have done is point out that the 9-11 comission fudged the numbers. So what? We knew that.

Both the seismograph and the radar are locked to UTC. There are 14,17 second discrepancies. Would you like to have another try at explaining this discrepancy? The discrepancies between 9/11 commission and reality are not of interest to me.

Ignoring 9/11 commission numbers, what is the explanation for the discrepancies between the seismic activity and the impacts of the jets upon the towers?

[defaultdotxbe]

Nice try Mackey. The whole point of the Ross/Furlong paper, indeed the whole point of the truth movement is that 9-11 commission and NIST cannot be trusted.
you, liek all truthers, provide no evidence of deception

You are comparing the seismograph readings to 9/11 commission and finding discrepancies. So did Ross/Furlong. You neglect to compare the seismograph to the radar, which is what Ross/Furlong did.

so now ross and furlong are not only examining seismic data, but radar data as well? are they qualified for this?


All you have done is point out that the 9-11 comission fudged the numbers. So what? We knew that.

timelines were corrected as new information became available, its this thing called science, you shoudl try it soemtime

[R.Mackey]

Nice try Mackey. The whole point of the Ross/Furlong paper, indeed the whole point of the truth movement is that 9-11 commission and NIST cannot be trusted. You are comparing the seismograph readings to 9/11 commission and finding discrepancies. So did Ross/Furlong. You neglect to compare the seismograph to the radar, which is what Ross/Furlong did.

All you have done is point out that the 9-11 comission fudged the numbers. So what? We knew that.
Ah, no, that's not the point.

The point is that Furlong and Ross have neglected to estimate their experimental error. It turns out, they are using an apparatus that is not sufficiently accurate -- not with their methods of calculation, anyway -- to give any conclusion one way or another. They require accuracy of a few seconds for their conclusions. It just isn't there.

I once TA'd for a graduate-level class in experimental methods. If you'd have handed me this paper, citing an estimate like this without understanding the experimental error, I'd have handed it back. Certainly never would have let it see the light of day.

Congratulations on, once again, being incapable of understanding a simple analysis. Try again.

[gumboot]

Ah, no, that's not the point.

The point is that Furlong and Ross have neglected to estimate their experimental error. It turns out, they are using an apparatus that is not sufficiently accurate -- not with their methods of calculation, anyway -- to give any conclusion one way or another. They require accuracy of a few seconds for their conclusions. It just isn't there.


What do the PROTEC seismic readings say, for the impacts?

This assessing the readings of a lab so far removed from the WTC is very similar to the CTers who post video taken across the Hudson capturing muffled "explosions" prior to collapse, while blindly ignoring video taken INSIDE the buildings that capture no explosions at all.

Protec said their readings did not indicate any explosives.

LD Observatory said nearby blasting in a quarry regularly came up on their readings.

How do they KNOW the impact readings are even actually signals from the impact of the towers?

-Andrew

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey, I already said, way upthread, that accuracy was a legitimate issue. Read what I said. If it can be shown that the margin of error is around the same size as the discrepancies, that is legit reason to question Ross/Furlong.

That ain't what you said, at all.

No.

You brought out 9/11 commission numbers and compared those to the seismic data, ignored the radar data, and tried to bamboozle us into thinking you had a point. You didn't. It was almost (but not quite) as inane as your contention that the 3rd law of thermodynamics was in play with the symmetry of WTC7, overruling the 2nd law. Sheeesh.

And stop telling people I ignored you on your unsupported assertion that they removed the cross bracing from the cores of the twin towers. I have shown you photographs of the core, in the rubble, with the cross bracing still there. You have shown a sketch.

[R.Mackey]

What do the PROTEC seismic readings say, for the impacts?

This assessing the readings of a lab so far removed from the WTC is very similar to the CTers who post video taken across the Hudson capturing muffled "explosions" prior to collapse, while blindly ignoring video taken INSIDE the buildings that capture no explosions at all.

Protec said their readings did not indicate any explosives.
Aside from Protec saying that, indeed, their seismographs were active and showed nothing at all unexpected (see here (http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/WTC_COLLAPSE_STUDY_BBlanchard_8-8-06.pdf), Page 6) I don't know what their traces looked like. Moot point anyway -- I won't make Ross and Furlong's mistake, and let someone who knows what he's doing analyze them...

Their paper is probably full of holes. I just wanted to show that, even if you take all of their assumptions as valid, it still doesn't hold together. Pathetic, really. This is why they need their own "journal."

ETA: By "they" I mean Ross and Furlong, not Protec. Protec's work looks fine to me.

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, I already said, way upthread, that accuracy was a legitimate issue. Read what I said. If it can be shown that the margin of error is around the same size as the discrepancies, that is legit reason to question Ross/Furlong.

That ain't what you said, at all.
Correct. There's a difference between random error ("accuracy," you call it) and experimental error. I showed the experimental error -- that they didn't even account for -- is high enough to explain the discrepancy.

If you don't know the difference between random and experimental error, then you have no place even debating the issue. But I'll be glad to explain, if you don't understand.

You brought out 9/11 commission numbers and compared those to the seismic data, ignored the radar data, and tried to bamboozle us into thinking you had a point.
"Bamboozle," eh? You've used that word on me before.

Just because you don't understand my point doesn't mean I'm trying to trick you.

You didn't. It was almost (but not quite) as inane as your contention that the 3rd law of thermodynamics was in play with the symmetry of WTC7, overruling the 2nd law. Sheeesh.
"Sheesh" indeed. You're talking about this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1918069#post1918069) of mine, and it's Newton's Third Law, not the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

That's the kind of mistake I expect from Killtown.

So you stand by your ridiculous argument that the 2nd Law means a building must topple over rather than implode, as you argued here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1918052#post1918052)? Really??

wow.

And stop telling people I ignored you on your unsupported assertion that they removed the cross bracing from the cores of the twin towers. I have shown you photographs of the core, in the rubble, with the cross bracing still there. You have shown a sketch.
I didn't. You're misquoting me -- again. I made no such assertion, and what I said is that you never answered my questions! It's all here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1908939#post1908939), I asked you over (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1908979#post1908979) and over (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1909501#post1909501) and over (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1910290#post1910290), and I still don't have the answers.

So I'll tell people exactly that, since it happens to be true.

[apathoid]

Mackey, I already said, way upthread, that accuracy was a legitimate issue. Read what I said. If it can be shown that the margin of error is around the same size as the discrepancies, that is legit reason to question Ross/Furlong.

That ain't what you said, at all.

No.



Knock it off, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just repeating what other morons have said before you, thats how claims of pyroclastic flows, EMPs, faster than freefall etc, etc, etc get started. Some tin-hater dork makes the "discovery" and hordes of spammers(like yourself) parrot it everywhere.

You are using your own ignorance as a weapon, so just stop it; noone is fooled. You aren't even a good pseudo-intellectual, you just repeat the same [rule8] over and over and its really getting old. I told you, this isnt the Loose Change forum. People here are actually educated and can think for themselves. If you'd drop your religious fanaticism for a minute, you might actually learn something.

[Loss Leader]

Nice try Mackey. The whole point of the Ross/Furlong paper, indeed the whole point of the truth movement is that 9-11 commission and NIST cannot be trusted. I ignore evidence with which I do not agree.You are comparing the seismograph readings to 9/11 commission and finding discrepancies. So did Ross/Furlong. You neglect to compare the seismograph to the radar which is what Ross/Furlong did. and you do so appropriately because you've already shown that the radar data can be off by six to twelve seconds.

All you have done is point out that the 9-11 comission fudged the numbers that I will never consider sources that do not agree with my preconceptions. So what? We knew that. Thank you for showing me the errors I have been making.

Fixed.

[I less than three logic]

Its actually not a non-sequitir, and I'd lay off of pointing out fallacies because you have yet to correctly identify one, making yourself look more foolish than you already are(if thats possible).
I try to stay out of the CT threads. Usually its the kind of nonsense that causes blood vessels to burst in your brain. However, I think I'll help Truthseeker out here a little. ;)

If he's going to keep calling out fallacies, non-sequitur is a good choice to pick. All fallacies are some form of non-sequitur logic, the other categories just describe the form of the non-sequitur logic more accurately. If he keep throwing out this one, he's bound to get it right some time. :D

[CurtC]

I have shown you photographs of the core, in the rubble, with the cross bracing still there.
Are you talking about the picture you posted that was annotated by ChristopherA? I didn't see any cross-bracing in that one, could you please point it out?

In the mean time, take a look at the picture you yourself poted in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1910149&postcount=158), and you can clearly see that the heavy cross-bracing is in the parts that support the construction cranes. Further, in this drawing (http://www.greatbuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbc-drawing.cgi/World_Trade_Center.html/World_Trade_Tower.gbd) of a typical WTC floor plan, you can clearly see that the places where those supports were during construction, are elevator shafts. They had to remove the crane supports in order to put elevators in those spaces.

Surely you can see this?

[Oliver]

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

I'm seeking serious comment on the merits/demerits of this paper.

Hello Truthseeker1234:

You obviously have a problem with the controlled demolition
stuff. It seems, that you don´t understand why the buildings
fell. So i also think, that you have a problem with the official
story. On the other hand it brings me to the conclusion, that
you might believe in an involvement of the government.

So let me ask you:
What exactly is your point? Just go back - what do you really
want to know? Take some time to articulate the exact question
you have.

Regards,
Oliver

[Belz...]

Nice try Mackey. The whole point of the Ross/Furlong paper, indeed the whole point of the truth movement is that 9-11 commission and NIST cannot be trusted.

Assuming your conclusion.

All you have done is point out that the 9-11 comission fudged the numbers. So what? We knew that.

This just HAS to be a deliberate lie on your part.

[DavidJames]

This just HAS to be a deliberate lie on your part.As SelectiveTruthSeeker1234 would say, science requires observations to be explained.

Of course, he can spout whatever crap he likes and expects it to go unchallenged, no requirement for evidence to support it.

He is a a garden variety woo.

[Winterfrost]

I think this is the key point.

The energy of the collision was indeed absorbed (mostly--there's a large amount of escaped debris evident in the photos), but to absorb the energy, it must move that motion will be absorbed by the foundation...

The building may have "absorbed" the energy of the impact, but it certainly didn't "store" that energy. Everyone, including the "bomb" witness in the basement said that the building moved on impact. That means the energy of the impact was transferred all the way to the basement -- and it obviously didn't stop there. It would have gone right down through the foundation into the earth... and subsequently would have been picked up by the seismographs.

The experts at LDEO identified the events as "plane impacts." I infer from this that they believe that the events were powerful enough to have been recorded on the seismographs. Just as he was running out to lunch I asked the geophysicist in the office next to me (who studies seismic all day long) if he thinks the seismographs would have picked up the plane impacts. He said it depends on their placement, of course, but almost certainly. He added, "When we're shooting seismic, a cow walking down the line can screw up our results." We're talking different scales of course, but it gives you an idea of the sensitivity of these devices.

The entire argument of the paper is based on the fact that the LDEO seismographs show one event, and the timing of that event appears to be off from the official timeline. I wonder if they determined what size of an explosion would be necessary to create the seismic event recorded by LDEO (and what sort of damage would it have casued to the building) and compared this to the energy released by the plane impact.

There is no point arguing over time discrepancies (which seem to deviate by a few seconds between numerous "reliable" sources) unless the authors can prove that the seismographs would not have picked up the plane impacts.

[sleahead]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Nice try Mackey. The whole point of the Ross/Furlong paper, indeed the whole point of the truth movement is that 9-11 commission and NIST cannot be trusted

No, the whole purpose of the paper was an attempt to attribute seimic data to explosions. From the paper's introductory summary:

Only by consideration of the evidence of basement explosions before the
aircraft impacts, as experienced by William Rodriquez and 36 others, can an explanation be found for the fact that the seismic stations recorded seismic events originating from the WTC sites prior to the aircraft impacts. It seems unlikely that Middle Eastern terrorists could have overcome the WTC security and managed this kind of high-level, technological coordination. Do the facts presented here, simple and few, raise the possibility of inside involvement in 9/11/01, both before and after the attack

The time discrepency has been explained, but that aside, you would need three sets of seismic data for each tower to incorporate explosions; there are only two. Notice also the paper contains seismic data for the collapse of WTC7, but the authors don't touch this. Could the absence of any recorded seismic data for explosions at WTC7 explain their reluctance to go near it?.

[QUOTE=Wintertime]
The experts at LDEO identified the events as "plane impacts." I infer from this that they believe that the events were powerful enough to have been recorded on the seismographs

Yes, and moreover the oscillations in the building caused by the impacts generate a specific waveform, known as Love waves. These are quite distinct from waveforms generated by explosions.

[Wowbagger]

I have not read every post on this thread, so apologies if this was answered earlier, but:

If there were explosions (powerful enough to register seismically) seconds before the planes hit, then how come there is no other evidence for those explosions other than this shaky report on seismic findings?

Video was taken of the impacts. Where are those "seconds before" explosions on the video?
People were on the ground: How come none of them reported they "felt shaking seconds before" the planes hit?

And besides:
What kind of idiot conspiracy conjurer would plan for explosives to be in a building they knew would be hit by a large airplane, anyway?

[Darth Rotor]

What kind of idiot conspiracy conjurer would plan for explosives to be in a building they knew would be hit by a large airplane, anyway?
All together now, JREFers, in three part harmony:

"A neocon idiot!" :D

DR

[TruthSeeker1234]

If there were explosions (powerful enough to register seismically) seconds before the planes hit, then how come there is no other evidence for those explosions other than this shaky report on seismic findings?

Actually, there are a litany of eyewitnesses, including William Rodriguez, who saw, heard, felt, and were injured by what they say were explosions, and they say it happened just before the plane hit. The Naudet bros film show lots of damage and powder in the lobbies of the buildings, certainly consistant with explsosions in the sub basements. There was a huge electrical generator that was blown apart in the basement too.

All of this is evidence.

I think the fact that both radar and seismic data are both locked to UTC makes the times far more accurate than others would have us think.

[Bell]

TroofPoofer, if Mr. Rodriguez was in the basement at the time the plane hit, he prolly did not actual see it hit, no?

How about jetfuel fell trough the elevatorshafts all the way down, and maybe elevators that where cut from the cables, exploding on the levels below?

Al this before the shockwave travelled down trough the building?

[defaultdotxbe]

Actually, there are a litany of eyewitnesses, including William Rodriguez, who saw, heard, felt, and wer injured by what they say were explosions, and they say it happened just before the plane hit.

could you please source the pre-impact explosion quotes? ive only ever seen peopel describing explosions after the impact (you know, while there was a huge fire burning)

The Naudet bros film show lots of damage and powder in the lobbies of the buildings, certainly consistant with explsosions in the sub basements.

also consistant with vapor explosions due to jet fuel in the elevator shafts, we know there was jet fuel in the building, any evidence of explosives?

There was a hugh electrical generator that was blown apart in the basement too.

source?

I think the fact that both radar and seimic data are both locked to UTC makes the times far more accurate than others would have us think.

this may be true, but how often are the local clocks updated? my PC synchs with an atomic clock in colorado, but only once a day, in between it can still get ahead or behind

also, as apathoid pointed out the radar has a built-in 4.6 second margin of error due to the rotation of the dish, and seismic data cant be determined to an exact time due to variations in propagation speed, so at the very least we have a 4.6 second margin of error magnified by an unknown margin of error in the propagation of the seismic waves

[Wowbagger]

Actually, there are a litany of eyewitnesses, including William Rodriguez, who saw, heard, felt, and were injured by what they say were explosions, and they say it happened just before the plane hit.
But, if those explosions occurred "just seconds" before the planes hit, how would someone inside be able to make a significant determination that the explosion occurred before the planes hit? (Did they see actually the plane or planes?) Were they injured before the plane hit? If so, that would mean the explosions must have occurred more than just a few seconds earlier.

But, you do not provide any further evidence of such explosions. How come they are not present on video footage taken of the planes hitting the buildings?

The Naudet bros film show lots of damage and powder in the lobbies of the buildings, certainly consistant with explsosions in the sub basements. There was a huge electrical generator that was blown apart in the basement too. How are they "consistent" with explosions that could have only originated from explosives in the basements? Why couldn't a building collapse, with burning jet fuel, cause that damage?

All of this is evidence.But, you fail to provide evidence of planted explosives. Where are the traces of explosive material, other than jet fuel and whatever other chemicals could reasonably be lying around in that basement?

And, if these explosions occurred in the basement, how come no one noticed the basement was exploding? Are you going to argue that every single person had their gaze fixed upwards so much, they missed it?

If the explosions were set to go off at or near the impact zone, that wouldn't cause damage in the basement as you describe it.

I think the fact that both radar and seismic data are both locked to UTC makes the times far more accurate than others would have us think.Okay. But, did you ever think that, perhaps, the seconds were not synchronized between the two sources?

Methinks this report is grasping at straws. It does not provide proof. It merely points out a minor inconsistency in time recordings from two separate systems.

[gumboot]

The Naudet bros film show lots of damage and powder in the lobbies of the buildings, certainly consistant with explsosions in the sub basements.


Do some research. Their video, and the firemen, refer to two things:

1) Fire damage, including blown off doors and burning people from the elevators, with an overpowerful smell of jet fuel

2) Structural damage to the lobby in the form of displaced marble panels and broken windows.

The first is consistant with the jet crash, and is not explained by explosives.

The second was an indicator of structural integrity in the building. If you had actually done any research you'd know that the entire building was moving, causing the marble to be dislodged and glass to be smashed. Assistant Fire Chief Joseph Callan concluded the building was unsafe, based on these observations, and ordered the evacuation.

The Naudet film does not show any powder in the lobby of WTC1 until after WTC2 has collapsed, and they never entered WTC2.

-Andrew

[Crazy Chainsaw]

What about the fact that sound travels at over 4000 meters per second in steel but a lot slower in air, so the first thing he Mr. Rodriguez would have notice is the sound traveling down though the steel to the basement, and then rebounding though the air.
Before the sound in the air from the fuel blast ever reached him.

[defaultdotxbe]

What about the fact that sound travels at over 4000 meters per second in steel but a lot slower in air, so the first thing he Mr. Rodriguez would have notice is the sound traveling down though the steel to the basement, and then rebounding though the air.
Before the sound in the air from the fuel blast ever reached him.

thats a good point, given a temperature of 72 degrees and a distance of 250-300m what woul dbe the time differential between the sound coming fromt eh steel and through the air?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

QUOTE=defaultdotxbe;1923691]thats a good point, given a temperature of 72 degrees and a distance of 250-300m what woul dbe the time differential between the sound coming fromt eh steel and through the air?[/QUOTE]

http://library.thinkquest.org/19537/Physics4.html

The sound of the impact of the plane would be transmitted almost instantly though the steel but would take a second or so for the air blast to travel down, also do not forget that the sounds and waves the plane itself produced would hit the building before the plane did.
Add to that the fact that the plane borrowed into the building, and you would have sound traveling down though the steel well over a second or two before the planes fuel tanks in the wings exploded causing the air blast.

[gumboot]

Add to that the fact that the plane borrowed into the building, and you would have sound traveling down though the steel well over a second or two before the planes fuel tanks in the wings exploded causing the air blast.


Actually that's a good point... according to NIST's analysis of the UA175 fireball, there was considerable delay between impact and the actual fireball. (You don't need the report, watch the video!)

So, aircraft impact transmits impact down steel of building at high speed. Meanwhile aircraft rips open, jet fuel aerosols. A few seconds later, fuel ignites and fireballs. Sound from explosion takes some time to travel through air to basement.

You could be looking at quite a considerable delay.

-Andrew

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Actually that's a good point... according to NIST's analysis of the UA175 fireball, there was considerable delay between impact and the actual fireball. (You don't need the report, watch the video!)

So, aircraft impact transmits impact down steel of building at high speed. Meanwhile aircraft rips open, jet fuel aerosols. A few seconds later, fuel ignites and fireballs. Sound from explosion takes some time to travel through air to basement.

You could be looking at quite a considerable delay.

-Andrew

I know, but when I tried to explain this to Cters they just reply sound traveling though steel you got to be crazy or a still.
It reminds me of trying to tell my cat that he can not catch the fish on my computer screen, and he just keeps trying no matter what I say.

[defaultdotxbe]

I know, but when I tried to explain this to Cters they just reply sound traveling though steel you got to be crazy or a still.

must not live near railroad tracks, lol

[TruthSeeker1234]

I've read every post in this thread, and not one of you has come close to refuting this paper. It's been updated.

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

Most of you evidentally have not read it. The only thing said by you OCT's that makes any sense is that there may be measurement error larger than the discrepancy in times. However, this is a stretch. Both the radar times and the seismic data are locked to UTC, and are accurate to within a second.

I will summarize the main points in the paper.

1) Seismic spikes were recorded prior to the impact of the jets. (14 and 17 seconds prior).
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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.

Can anyone offer an explanation of why seismic spikes occured before each jet impact? No, there is no explanation for that, other than the fact that huge explosions took place in the basements.

William Rodriguez is a hero who saved many lives. I'm sorry JREF guys, but 911 was an inside job. You all need to wake up.

[hellaeon]

TS, your such a friggin troll.

Your shown constantly to be wrong. What the hell is it with you? You just arrogantly dismiss real facts.

ignored.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Please, with the ad homs already. They're so tired. Anyone want to try and have a crack at refuting this?

Seismic Spike. Then Jet impact. Explain.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This is obviously a test of faith. THX1138 obviously feels that if he can come out of the lions den with his faith in St. Dylan intact and unwavering, that Allah will reward him with a really big cookie.

He's fully invested on an emotional level and is incapable of thinking outside the rigid dogmatic box his religion has drawn around him.

[apathoid]

Please, with the ad homs already. They're so tired. Anyone want to try and have a crack at refuting this?

Seismic Spike. Then Jet impact. Explain.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1917665&postcount=64

While a Mosaic has many benefits, it does create technical issues. Short-range terminal radar such as the ASR-9 and the ASR-11 rotate at a rate of once every 4.6 seconds. Long-range en route center radar systems such as the ASR-4 rotate at a rate of once every 12 seconds. This lack of synchronization can cause ghost images and target jumping. FAA is working to address these issues.

There's 12 of your seconds. You want to try and have a crack at refuting this?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ross/Furlong:

It is known that the FAA followed the aircraft using the four northeast ARTCCs (Air Route Traffic Control Centers) of Boston, New York, Washington DC, and Cleveland; there was also Air Traffic Control for the local air space of New York City. 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.


You have five separate sources of radar data, all locked to UTC. They claim accuracy to the second.

Tell you what, I'll send this note to Ross and see what he says.

[apathoid]

You never addressed this(other than to say nice try :rolleyes: )


.....

From the whitepaper, these events showed up on the seismograph as 9:59:04 and 10:28:31 (from the imported table on pg. 2). The timing discrepancies are now -5 seconds for the south tower, and -6 seconds for the north tower..........

South Tower
Aircraft Impact: 9-11 Commission is 17 seconds later than seismograph
Collapse: 9-11 commission is -5 + 15 = 10 seconds later than seismograph

North Tower
Aircraft Impact: 9-11 Commission is 14 seconds later than seismograph
Collapse: 9-11 commission is -6 + 15 = 9 seconds later than seismograph

Whats 17-10?
Whats 14-9?

While a Mosaic has many benefits, it does create technical issues. Short-range terminal radar such as the ASR-9 and the ASR-11 rotate at a rate of once every 4.6 seconds. Long-range en route center radar systems such as the ASR-4 rotate at a rate of once every 12 seconds. This lack of synchronization can cause ghost images and target jumping. FAA is working to address these issues.

Is 12 greater than 7?
Is 12 greater than 5?

Even if the contact lost times came from the short-range radar, you're seismic errors are now only 2.4 and 0.4 seconds.

[tsig]

I've read every post in this thread, and not one of you has come close to refuting this paper. It's been updated.

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

Most of you evidentally have not read it. The only thing said by you OCT's that makes any sense is that there may be measurement error larger than the discrepancy in times. However, this is a stretch. Both the radar times and the seismic data are locked to UTC, and are accurate to within a second.

I will summarize the main points in the paper.

1) Seismic spikes were recorded prior to the impact of the jets. (14 and 17 seconds prior).
2) 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.
3) 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.
4) 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.

Can anyone offer an explanation of why seismic spikes occured before each jet impact? No, there is no explanation for that, other than the fact that huge explosions took place in the basements.

William Rodriguez is a hero who saved many lives. I'm sorry JREF guys, but 911 was an inside job. You all need to wake up.

Just who set off these explosions? It's time for you to answer some questions.

What does point 4. prove?

Do you know what an inside job is?

Are you human?

[gumboot]

I will summarize the main points in the paper.

1) Seismic spikes were recorded prior to the impact of the jets. (14 and 17 seconds prior).


Cite your evidence that these spikes were originated at the WTC and not somewhere else entirely... (there is a quarry near the LD Observatory, for example...)



[QUOTE=TruthSeeker1234;1931197]
2) 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.


First Willy changes his story and now you change it even further for him? Amazing. Rework this point so it reflects the actual accounts of the witnesses, or abandon it.



3) 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.
4) 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.

1) The elevator shafts extend the entire length of the building. The reports of destroyed elevators are not unique to the lobby and basement either:

(CNN) -- About 12 minutes before 9 a.m., Jonathan Judd was waiting patiently on the 78th floor of the World Trade Center's north tower for an elevator to take him to his office seven floors up.

He boarded an elevator and the car stopped on the 83rd floor, meaning he'd have a few more seconds to wait.

A few seconds later, after the doors opened, the three elevator banks across the corridor from Judd exploded.

"It looked like a fireball. The doors blew off those elevators," he recalled. "There was a 50 percent chance I would have been on that side. You take whichever elevator comes first. I just got lucky."

http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/america.remembers/stories/tower/judd.html


The first -- a colossal "Boom! Like everything started shattering in the building" -- thrust Arlene Charles flat on her face by the north tower's 78th floor Command Desk, which she was working as an elevator starter the morning of September 11.

The lights went out, then came the screams. After a few petrified minutes, Charles recognized that the screams were coming from her friend and colleague, Carmen Griffith.

The two followed each other's voices and when they finally met up -- several minutes after Flight 11 slammed into the building, less than a dozen floors up -- Griffith was "bawling" and burning, said Charles.

"She was literally on fire," Charles, 46, recalled in her distinct Grenadan accent. "Her face was all red. Her fingers peeled back. No skin left."

Griffith later said a blaze surged into her face when she tried to open the door of the elevator she was riding. She managed to squeeze onto the 78th floor landing -- even as the flames continued to ravage her skin.

Source (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/america.remembers/stories/tower/charles.html)


You ignore these testimonies? Sick. Your ignorance is pathetic and insulting. Try do some research before making such grossly weak claims. It took me all of 30 seconds to find these two stories. I have no doubt there are many others.

Continuing...

2) None of the 99 elevators were working when firemen arrived. We have no idea how many people were trapped in/injured in elevators that never got out. We have no idea how many people higher up in the building were killed by exploding elevators.
3) The reports of damage/fires regarding elevators also include reports of burning kerosene (this includes those like Rodriguez in the basement). You failed to mention this. Why?
4) The descriptions of burns are consistant (and unique to) fuel fire-balls such as would be expected from exploding jet fuel - skin hanging off etc. (these reports include people like Rodriguez in the basement). Such injuries simply do not occur as a result of high explosives.
5) Not one single witness has reported any explosive-specific phenomenon. Not one single piece of video footage from inside or around the towers captures a single explosive detonation.




Can anyone offer an explanation of why seismic spikes occured before each jet impact? No, there is no explanation for that, other than the fact that huge explosions took place in the basements.

Your willful refusal to use the grey matter in your head is rather sad. Any number of things could cause a siesmic spike at that moment. The scientists who interpret this data have categorically stated the recorded no explosive detonations at the WTC.




William Rodriguez is a hero who saved many lives.


He was, indeed. His actions were heroic and selfless on that day. But that does not make his conspiracy claims any more valid. William Rodriguez is a hero. But he is also wrong.

-Andrew

[TruthSeeker1234]

I sent this note to Gordon Ross.

Dear Gordon:

Thank for all your great work on 9/11. I'm a big supporter and avid reader. I've been arguing with some guys about your "Seismic Data" paper. Obviously, if the seismic spikes occur before the jet impacts, then there were explosions. The supporters of the official story have raised the issue of accuracy, and offer this quote to support the notion that we cannot trust the radar times:

"While a Mosaic has many benefits, it does create technical issues. Short-range terminal radar such as the ASR-9 and the ASR-11 rotate at a rate of once every 4.6 seconds. Long-range en route center radar systems such as the ASR-4 rotate at a rate of once every 12 seconds. This lack of synchronization can cause ghost images and target jumping. FAA is working to address these issues."

Seems like accuracy is a legitimate issue. Are the radar times really dependable to within a second?

Thank You.

[apathoid]

Ross/Furlong:

You have five separate sources of radar data, all locked to UTC. They claim accuracy to the second.

It is known that the FAA followed the aircraft using the four northeast ARTCCs (Air Route Traffic Control Centers) of Boston, New York, Washington DC, and Cleveland; there was also Air Traffic Control for the local air space of New York City. 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.

Tell you what, I'll send this note to Ross and see what he says.

Well, since the flights were tracked by Center(long-range radar) and not by approach(short-range radar), we are looking at the 12 second sweep as opposed to 4.6 seconds.

Its clear you dont know what the above means, so I'll spell it out for you.

The "refresh" rate of ATC surveillance radar is 4.6 seconds for short range radar and 12 seconds for long range radar. It has nothing to do with being "locked to UTC"(i guess that means synced with a cesium clock).

Lets start our imaginary stopwatch.

0001:01 UTC -> radar paints target airplane and the target is displayed on radar until the next sweep.
0001:13 UTC -> radar updates target, target is displayed on radar until the next sweep.
0001:14 UTC -> plane crashes into a building, still appears on radar.
0001:15 UTC -> plane still appears on radar.
0001:16 UTC -> plane still appears on radar.
0001:17 UTC -> plane still appears on radar.
0001:18 UTC -> plane still appears on radar.
0001:19 UTC -> plane still appears on radar.
0001:20 UTC -> plane still appears on radar.
0001:21 UTC -> plane still appears on radar.
0001:22 UTC -> plane still appears on radar.
0001:23 UTC -> plane still appears on radar.
0001:24 UTC -> plane still appears on radar.
0001:25 UTC -> plane disappears from radar, contact lost.

For short range radar, the difference is 4.6 seconds instead of 12 seconds.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I did address Mackey's comments. Mackey was doing essentially what NIST and 9/11 commission were doing. Fudging the numbers. The point is to ignore NIST and ignore 9/11 commission, and go back to the primary data. That being the seismic data, and the radar data. Mackey also brought up propagation times, which are not relevant here. LDEO already takes that into account when they give their numbers.

I'll wait to hear back from Ross, to see what he has to say about the accuracy issue.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Mackey also brought up propagation times, which are not relevant here. LDEO already takes that into account when they give their numbers.

LDEO has also categorically stated there is no evidence of any explosions emanating from the WTC on 9/11/2001.

Unlike the staff at the Lamont-Dogherty Earth Observatory, you are not only not a seismologist, you aren't even so much as a bathroom attendant at a rural Alabama biker bar (apologies to any Alabamans).

Now... what is your AGE and level of EDUCATION (degree earned or last grade completed)?

[stateofgrace]

TS 123456789......................ect,ect

So according to you and Ross, a split second before the planes hit, explosives went off in the basements of the Towers.

I’m sorry you did say TOWERS didn’t you not TOWER. There were two, remember.

So here is your scenario,

1. Plant explosives devices in basement.
2. Rig Towers with termite or something other than load sounding explosive devices.
3. Hijack Plane.
4. Trigger basement explosives.
5. Slam plane into Tower(s)
6. Wait approx 50 minutes to trigger the quiet explosives in WTC 2
7. Wait same length of time again to trigger quiet explosives in WTC 1.

Brilliant, wonder which brainbox dreamed this one up.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Apathoid, I understand sweep times. The impact time is not derived from a single radar, it is derived from 5 seperate radars, including New York. Would New York be an approach radar with the faster sweep time? I don't know. In any case, the timings are the FAA numbers, and they do not say +/- 6 seconds.


It is known that the FAA followed the aircraft using the four northeast ARTCCs (Air Route Traffic Control Centers) of Boston, New York, Washington DC, and Cleveland; there was also Air Traffic Control for the local air space of New York City. 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. Radar is based upon microwaves that travel at the speed of light, so error variance is not stated. The Commission Report has the impact times. Their data set is based upon actual flight data that ended when the Towers were struck. There is no question: AA Flight 11 died at 8:46:40 and UA Flight 175 at 9:03:11

[Sword_Of_Truth]

TRUTHSEEKER1234; WHAT IS YOUR AGE AND LEVEL OF EDUCATION?

[gumboot]

Apathoid, I understand sweep times. The impact time is not derived from a single radar, it is derived from 5 seperate radars, including New York. Would New York be an approach radar with the faster sweep time? I don't know. In any case, the timings are the FAA numbers, and they do not say +/- 6 seconds.


I don't know about UA175, but when NEADS contacted New York Centre about the first aircraft flying into the WTC, they didn't even know it had happened. Of course at this point NO ONE knew it was even AA11 that had hit the North Tower, except for AA themselves, who took 90 minutes to confirm.

UA175 and AA77 were not being tracked at the moment they crashed. UA175 was picked up visually by the tower at Newark International a matter of seconds before impact, and AA77 was tracked visually by the crew of an ANG C-130H Hercules.

I'm not sure about UA93.

In other words, no one was tracking these aircraft on a radar scope at the moment of impact. So how do they know? Where did this data come from?

Do the FAA somehow record all the data of every single radar scope? It was my understanding that only voice communications were recorded. Does anyone know?

-Andrew

ETA. Even if they do record all scopes, how do they deal with the fact that both AA11 and UA175 dropped below the radar prior to impact?

[apathoid]

Apathoid, I understand sweep times. The impact time is not derived from a single radar, it is derived from 5 seperate radars, including New York. Would New York be an approach radar with the faster sweep time? I don't know. In any case, the timings are the FAA numbers, and they do not say +/- 6 seconds.

Okay, but you have to consider that:

1) You'll have 5 different contact lost times, so all you can do is go with the earliest. Did Ross actually cite the FAA times for all centers, or just one? Did he cite whether the contact lost times were the same or different?
2) If the radars are "synced"(probably impossible)and the contact lost time is the same for all all radars, then you still have a 12 second fudge factor.

Either way, in no way is the time of the aircraft impacts accurate to a second just by using FAAs primary radar(perhaps if the hijackers hadnt turned off their transponders, we'd have a time that is accurate to a second or better)

[apathoid]

ETA. Even if they do record all scopes, how do they deal with the fact that both AA11 and UA175 dropped below the radar prior to impact?

Very good point, and I find it difficult to believe that not one, but FOUR different longe range radars were painting UA175/AA11. Those ARTCC Center radars really dont overlap in coverage, so I think its unlikely. I guess i'd better just go ahead and read the Ross doc...

ETA I did a little reading up on this. The NTSB/Commission impact times are estimates.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9902450e617a2e1dd.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9902450e619569da3.jpg

screencapped from:
Radar Data Study For All 4 Flights (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Rec_Radar_%20Data_%20Study_all%20_aircraft.pdf)

AA 11 Flight Path Study (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA11.pdf)
UA 175 Flight Path Study (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path%20_Study_UA175.pdf)

Its obvious they had to "fudge" the numbers, all the clocks were in disagreement including AA77s and UA 93s FDR clocks. The ARTCC Centers arent UTC, they set the time themselves and there were disagreements. The first document I linked also details the sweep times on page 2 and they are indeed 12 seconds.

[Mashuna]

TS 123456789......................ect,ect

So according to you and Ross, a split second before the planes hit, explosives went off in the basements of the Towers.

I’m sorry you did say TOWERS didn’t you not TOWER. There were two, remember.

So here is your scenario,

1. Plant explosives devices in basement.
2. Rig Towers with termite or something other than load sounding explosive devices.
3. Hijack Plane.
4. Trigger basement explosives.
5. Slam plane into Tower(s)
6. Wait approx 50 minutes to trigger the quiet explosives in WTC 2
7. Wait same length of time again to trigger quiet explosives in WTC 1.

Brilliant, wonder which brainbox dreamed this one up.

This has been approximately my train of thought in wading through all the CT posts. Irrespective of any engineering knowledge or scientific background (although appreciative of all those who have done so much work to explain both), the whole concept is just ridiculously overcomplicated.

As I thought a while ago (and have seen posted elsewhere), if the point of the supposed conspiricy was the invasion of Iraq, why bother with all this, just hide some WMD somewhere then 'discover' them later.

The whole extrapolation of fantasy scenarios from low resolution pixellated video is bad enough, but if you're going to do that, at least come up with a plausible fantasy scenario. Hell, if you can't manage plausible, try for internally consistant.

'Just asking questions' is a reasonable start, I don't have a problem with it. Ignoring answers is where it all falls apart. It's like Intelligent Design, just replace 'I don't see how this bit happened so goddit' with 'evilneocongubimentdidit'.

I remain amazed at the patience and meticulous work done by people posting on these boards. I would say long may it continue, but I'm rather hoping that it won't be necessary.

[TruthSeeker1234]

So according to you [TruthSeeker1234] and [Gordon] Ross, a split second before the planes hit, explosives went off in the basements of the Towers.

No. The basement explosives evidently went off 14 and 17 seconds before the planes hit.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Oliver requested So let me ask you:
What exactly is your point? Just go back - what do you really
want to know? Take some time to articulate the exact question
you have.

On this thread, the exact question i have is:

If not explosives in the basement of each tower, what is the explanation for the seismic spikes that were recorded 14 and 17 seconds before jet impact?

[stateofgrace]

No. The basement explosives evidently went off 14 and 17 seconds before the planes hit.

Oh I see.

So here is your scenario then?

1. Plant explosives devices in basement.
2. Rig Towers with termite or something other than load sounding explosive devices.
3. Hijack Planes
4. Trigger basement explosives (one) 14 seconds before plane hits
5. Slam plane into Tower.
6. Trigger basement explosive (two) 17 seconds before plane hits.
7. Slam plane into Tower.
8. Wait approx 50 minutes to trigger the quiet explosives in WTC 2
9. Wait same length of time again to trigger quiet explosives in WTC 1.

Anything else you may wish to add ?

[realitybites]

Truthie.... Here's a link to the contact information (http://webcenter.ldeo.columbia.edu:81/people.nsf/bylastname) for everyone at the Lamont-Doherty Observatory.

Give 'em a call and see what they make of that paper you linked to. I'll go ahead and let you know that they're already on record stating how their data has been grossly mis-interpreted by those in the truth movement, but I'm sure they won't mind one more phone call.

[Regnad Kcin]

...I'm sorry JREF guys, but 911 was an inside job.Dear alternate conspiracy theorist:

You are 100% wrong.

Love,

RK

[Mashuna]

Oliver requested

On this thread, the exact question i have is:

If not explosives in the basement of each tower, what is the explanation for the seismic spikes that were recorded 14 and 17 seconds before jet impact?

Well, from reading through the thread, you've been given answers regarding 12 second sweep times and clocks not being in agreement. You've also had answers on why people might hear a blast from the aeroplane crash after initially being thrown across the room. You're also waiting (I understand) for confirmation that the level of accuracy/margin of error for the seismograph is appropriate for drawing the conclusion that there were bombs in the basement.

What kind of explanation would actually satify you on this issue?

[realitybites]

What kind of explanation would actually satify you on this issue?
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm betting it's something along the lines of:

Bush's cousin, Marvin, personally planted huge explosives in the basement to "soften" the towers' structural support. Inside job, inside job, inside job, inside job, inside job, etc, etc, etc....

[Foolmewunz]

Oliver requested

On this thread, the exact question i have is:

If not explosives in the basement of each tower, what is the explanation for the seismic spikes that were recorded 14 and 17 seconds before jet impact?

By which, possibly incorrect, clock?
Mackey already took the seismic timestamp/clock issue apart rather magnificently and then retired because it was such a worthless item as to merit ignoring thereafter.
Apathoid has cleaned your clock ( :D ) on the radar issue.
You have nothing left.

So, to recap your stance: You're quoting Ross who's evidently cross-referencing two different possible time signatures, EITHER ONE OF WHICH COULD BE WRONG (by 10/15 seconds for the seismic records and by a whopping 25 seconds for the radar).
That covers your 14 and 17 second gaps. Done!

Now, admit you're wrong, apologize and we'll give you marginal credibility. If you continue this Big Lie m.o. and make all these nice folks re-type those post, you're forever a s***-disturbing troll.

[Mancman]

Oh I see.

So here is your scenario then?

1. Plant explosives devices in basement.
2. Rig Towers with termite or something other than load sounding explosive devices.
3. Hijack Planes
4. Trigger basement explosives (one) 14 seconds before plane hits
5. Slam plane into Tower.
6. Trigger basement explosive (two) 17 seconds before plane hits.
7. Slam plane into Tower.
8. Wait approx 50 minutes to trigger the quiet explosives in WTC 2
9. Wait same length of time again to trigger quiet explosives in WTC 1.

Anything else you may wish to add ?

God, it really looks even more insane when you see it listed like that.

Hell, if all of these bomb theories were to be believed, it would look like this:

1. Plant bombs/thermite in basement, and throughout building.
2. Hijack planes/remote control bomb-filled cargo planes to target.
3. Fire missile from plane 0.01 seconds before impact.
4. Trigger basement explosions before/with impact.
5. Set off several basement explosions loud enough to be heard 2 miles away in the minutes before collapse, which cause dust clouds to rise.
6. Set off explosion powerful enough to shake a camera a mile away 12 seconds before collapse.
7. Set off explosions at the plane impact level to initiate collapse, and then explosions at every level to allow the buildings to collapse at freefall speed, and propel debris hundreds of feet. And vapourise the 'spire', and pulverise all the.......GAH! I can't go on. It's so stupid.

[TruthSeeker1234]

No, the clocks are not incorrect. They are time stamped with UTC. The 12-second sweep time could create a margin of error of +/- 6 seconds, which is still not enough to explain the 17 second discrepancy. However, the data are not based on a single radar, they are based on 5 radars, with independent sweeps. This data is processed through software logic to arrive at accurte event times. The data of impact times comes from FAA, and they are accurate to within 1 second.

The radar and seismic data are not the only data. This data is perfectly consistent with a litany of eyewitnesses (i.e. people who were actually there) who said they saw, heard, felt, and were injured by explosions. The explosions were not silent, so please let go of this strawman. "Skin falling off" is consistent high explosives. despite the ridiculous assertions to the contrary.

This is also consistent with the windows being blown out of the lobby of the North tower. It is certainly a much more "Occam Friendly" explanation than a fireball travelling down the elevator shaft.

The "fireball down the elevator shaft" is far-fetched at best. Most of the elevators did not go all the way up to the impact area, thus would not be a conduit for this alleged fireball. THe express elevator that did go all the way had a human being inside of it. He suffered broken ankles, and is alive and well. He was not burned. The elevator that came up from the basement, on the other hand, was blown off its hinges.

You put all of this together and it is clear that it supporters of the OCT are divorced from reality, willing to stretch to absurd lengths to disregard what the evidence clearly shows. Explosions went off in the basements.

[Indolent Wretch]

You put all of this together and it is clear that it supporters of the OCT are divorced from reality, willing to stretch to absurd lengths to disregard what the evidence clearly shows. Explosions went off in the basements.

This is all just gravy. You believe the evidence shows explosives. The majority of people do not. Clearly no evidence from the other side is ever going to convince you otherwise. No matter how perfect, no matter how untainted by corruption or authority. You are convinced the evidence proves your case. Fair enough.

But WHY were there explosives? Cheesus Christ don't you think the planes were enough?

If the US government / Men in Black / George Bush Masonic Lodge / Secret Jews in Charge of the World, wanted an excuse to lead the American people into a war and/or applying draconian limits on freedom and/or guaranteeing another term in office and/or whatever the hell else you think was happening... then the planes crashing into the towers and killing a great many people would have been MORE than sufficient.

The collapse of the towers was entirely unnecessary.

I can't see your average New Yorker going, "hell yeah well 3000 people are dead and the city is a ruin, but hey the towers are still just standing sorta, so hey I don't think we should be angry".

There is no need for explosives. Either for our reality, or your fantasy.

Think it through.

[MortFurd]

You put all of this together and it is clear that it supporters of the OCT are divorced from reality, willing to stretch to absurd lengths to disregard what the evidence clearly shows. Explosions went off in the basements.
To what end?

The buildings didn't fall over out of their sockets, so that wasn't the point.

The buildings collapsed above the impact point and nearly an hour after the collision, so it wasn't to start the collapse.

What was the need for such massive explosions (if such they were?)

[R.Mackey]

I did address Mackey's comments. Mackey was doing essentially what NIST and 9/11 commission were doing. Fudging the numbers. The point is to ignore NIST and ignore 9/11 commission, and go back to the primary data. That being the seismic data, and the radar data. Mackey also brought up propagation times, which are not relevant here. LDEO already takes that into account when they give their numbers.

I'll wait to hear back from Ross, to see what he has to say about the accuracy issue.
You didn't "address" my comments, because it's clear you still don't understand them.

What I did was to show that the seismic data suggests an experimental error on the order of 12 seconds, an error that Ross and Furlong fail to consider.

I'll ask again, do you understand the difference between experimental and random error? It appears that you do not.

I'll be interested to see what Ross has to say, if anything. This will be the second time one of my critiques has been forwarded to him by a member here. Always glad to see a good discussion here, the more the merrier. I just hope he brings some evidence.

[Belz...]

Please, with the ad homs already. They're so tired.

Gah! Another fallacy you don't understand.

[Belz...]

No. The basement explosives evidently went off 14 and 17 seconds before the planes hit.

Okay... I'll bite.

Why would they set off explosives in the basement BEFORE the crash if they were going to demolish the building from the TOP ?

[Belz...]

'Just asking questions' is a reasonable start, I don't have a problem with it. Ignoring answers is where it all falls apart. It's like Intelligent Design, just replace 'I don't see how this bit happened so goddit' with 'evilneocongubimentdidit'.

The problem is, they're NOT just asking questions, they're giving their opinionated answers at the same time. "What could cause this ? A cruise missile!" etc, etc.

[dissonance]

The buildings didn't fall over out of their sockets, so that wasn't the point.

The buildings collapsed above the impact point and nearly an hour after the collision, so it wasn't to start the collapse.

What was the need for such massive explosions (if such they were?)

That's exactly my question - why have explosives in the basement that you set off before the planes hit? What's the point? If the Evil Conspirators wanted it to look like planes hit the WTC and then the WTC fell down solely as a result of the planes, why would you set off bombs in the basement before the impact of the planes? That just makes your plan that much more likely to be discovered.

And really, if you are going to be an Evil Conspirator, and set up bombs in the basement for whatever reason, and you've already gone to the trouble of fake hijackings and whatnot, why not make the basement bombs part of the terrorist plot? Why bother to hide the bombs? Make 'em obvious! Make it so that the hijackers planted the bombs and had timers rigged up or something. We're talking about a freaking terrorist attack here - why be subtle? People were expecting things to start blowing up at any moment - remember all those reports of a bomb at the State Department?

[Winterfrost]

TS, can you explain why LDEO identified these seismic events as plane impacts? Given their expertise, why would they have identified them as such unless they knew or suspected that they would show up on the seismographs?

Yes, and moreover the oscillations in the building caused by the impacts generate a specific waveform, known as Love waves. These are quite distinct from waveforms generated by explosions.

And even assuming that they went looking for the impact, found something at the approximate time and assumed that this was the impact, don't you think that they would be able to identify the difference between waves caused by an explosion and "Love waves" as described by sleahead, above?

Some references:
http://www.vibrationdata.com/Newsletters/November2001_NL.pdf#search=%22%22love%20wave%22%20 impact%20WTC%22
http://199.6.131.12/en/scictr/watch/seismology/waves.htm

It seems from these references, the impact of the jets into the building would primarily generate "horizontal shear waves" whereas an explosion would generate primarily "impact/compression" type waves.

I'll try to get confirmation of this from one of my friendly neighborhood geophysicists. Of course, you could probably confirm this with a call to LDEO as recommended above.

[Belz...]

No, the clocks are not incorrect. They are time stamped with UTC. The 12-second sweep time could create a margin of error of +/- 6 seconds, which is still not enough to explain the 17 second discrepancy.

I think you might've missed this:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1931294&postcount=112

However, the data are not based on a single radar, they are based on 5 radars, with independent sweeps.

Which ones ? Do they overlap ?

This data is processed through software logic to arrive at accurte event times.

Techno-babble. "Software logic" can't invent the truth from diverging sources of information. If the clocks were not in sync, then the computer can't help you unless it's got some point of reference for all 5 radars.

This data is perfectly consistent with a litany of eyewitnesses (i.e. people who were actually there) who said they saw, heard, felt, and were injured by explosions.

You mean like JFK witnesses that heard 2, 3, 5 or 6 shots ? Ever notice that some products you buy can explode when exposed to heat ? Explosions <> Explosives.

"Skin falling off" is consistent high explosives. despite the ridiculous assertions to the contrary.

You ARE aware, of course, that high explosives deal damage by pressure, not heat ?

This is also consistent with the windows being blown out of the lobby of the North tower. It is certainly a much more "Occam Friendly" explanation than a fireball travelling down the elevator shaft.

The explosives couldn't place themselves, so no.

The "fireball down the elevator shaft" is far-fetched at best. Most of the elevators did not go all the way up to the impact area, thus would not be a conduit for this alleged fireball. THe express elevator that did go all the way had a human being inside of it. He suffered broken ankles, and is alive and well. He was not burned. The elevator that came up from the basement, on the other hand, was blown off its hinges.

... and ?

You put all of this together and it is clear that it supporters of the OCT are divorced from reality, willing to stretch to absurd lengths to disregard what the evidence clearly shows. Explosions went off in the basements.

I can do that too, seeker: No, they didn't.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

graph 1 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=465627&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EFINE+ LINES%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Revisionists+say+sharp+spike s+%28graph+1%2C+above%29+mean+bombs+toppled+the+WT C.+Scientists+disprove+the+claim+with+the+more+det ailed+graph+2+%28below%29.)
graph 2 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=465637&caption=Seismograph+readings+by+Lamont-Doherty+Earth+Observatory+of+Columbia+University%2 FWon-Young+Kim+%28senior+research+scientist%29%2FArthur +Lerner-Lam+%28associate+director%29%2FMary+Tobin+%28senio r+science+writer%29%2F%3Ca+href%3D%22http%3A%2F%2F www.ldeo.columbia.edu%2Flcsn%22+target%3D%22_new%2 2%3Ewww.ldeo.columbia.edu%2Flcsn%3C%2Fa%3E)
source (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y)

[realitybites]

graph 1 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=465627&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EFINE+ LINES%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Revisionists+say+sharp+spike s+%28graph+1%2C+above%29+mean+bombs+toppled+the+WT C.+Scientists+disprove+the+claim+with+the+more+det ailed+graph+2+%28below%29.)
graph 2 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=465637&caption=Seismograph+readings+by+Lamont-Doherty+Earth+Observatory+of+Columbia+University%2 FWon-Young+Kim+%28senior+research+scientist%29%2FArthur +Lerner-Lam+%28associate+director%29%2FMary+Tobin+%28senio r+science+writer%29%2F%3Ca+href%3D%22http%3A%2F%2F www.ldeo.columbia.edu%2Flcsn%22+target%3D%22_new%2 2%3Ewww.ldeo.columbia.edu%2Flcsn%3C%2Fa%3E)
source (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y)
Arkan, stop doing Truthie's work for him.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan, stop doing Truthie's work for him.

Still have cold. Still taking meds. No patience for useless wheel spinning. :boxedin:

[Winterfrost]

In all fairness, TS has been saying the explosions went off before the impacts, not the collapses. The graphs and corresponding article talk about the collapses.

[TruthSeeker1234]

The graphs are lovely. Though labeled "impact one" and so forth, they still have the 14 adn 17 second discrpancies witht the radar data.

[R.Mackey]

graph 1 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=465627&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EFINE+ LINES%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Revisionists+say+sharp+spike s+%28graph+1%2C+above%29+mean+bombs+toppled+the+WT C.+Scientists+disprove+the+claim+with+the+more+det ailed+graph+2+%28below%29.)
graph 2 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=465637&caption=Seismograph+readings+by+Lamont-Doherty+Earth+Observatory+of+Columbia+University%2 FWon-Young+Kim+%28senior+research+scientist%29%2FArthur +Lerner-Lam+%28associate+director%29%2FMary+Tobin+%28senio r+science+writer%29%2F%3Ca+href%3D%22http%3A%2F%2F www.ldeo.columbia.edu%2Flcsn%22+target%3D%22_new%2 2%3Ewww.ldeo.columbia.edu%2Flcsn%3C%2Fa%3E)
source (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y)
Excellent graphs. Thanks for finding these.

You may note, however, that TruthSeeker1234 merely asked for comments about Ross and Furlong's paper. As it turns out their conclusions are bogus even if you accept their assumptions.

The graphs, in contrast, show quite conclusively just how minor the aircraft impacts were compared to background noise, which translates into potential additional inaccuracy. No surprise.

[MortFurd]

That's exactly my question - why have explosives in the basement that you set off before the planes hit? What's the point?
I don't know. I'm waiting for some one (Truthseeker?) to come up with an answer to it. As far as I'm concerned, the experts say the seismograph records show the planes hitting the towers and that's the end of it.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The graphs are lovely. Though labeled "impact one" and so forth, they still have the 14 adn 17 second discrpancies witht the radar data.

Demonstrate what margin of error the radar times have in relation to each other, and in relation to the seismic graphs.

[Loss Leader]

Truthie.... Here's a link to the contact information (http://webcenter.ldeo.columbia.edu:81/people.nsf/bylastname) for everyone at the Lamont-Doherty Observatory.

Give 'em a call and see what they make of that paper you linked to.

He will never do this. he won't even respond to your post. I gave him the names, phone numbers and email addresses of the men who sorted through all of the ground zero rubble to show it wasn't "puverized" and that much non-steel matter survived. He utterly ignored me.

The fun for him is fitting pictures and YouTube video together like it's a giant internet mystery. Actually getting first-hand information would ruin the game.

Also, as most Ctists have some sort of borderline personality disorder, he probably cannot personally interact with people whom he suspects will reject him. The internet provides a buffer that a phone would not.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey asserted As it turns out [Ross/Furlong's] conclusions are bogus even if you accept their assumptions.

Really? This is new. What assumptions do you mean? Do you mean, assuming that the radar data are accurate to within one second? Or what?

[stealthsteph]

I am coming into this thread quite late in the game but from what I can sum up into a few sentences:

- It is quite improbable that these "explosion" times are 100% accurate relative to the impact times in what happened first (if the seismic activity was not just the plane impact itself)
- Also.. Not only do I agree with the "not a seismic expert" theory explained earlier in this thread, but even if he was, he is not an architect. I would like to know the opinion on an architect in this matter on whether or not the seismic activity could be caused by the planes themselves! The same way energy can travel through anything, is it so hard to believe the energy and friction/force created from the crash also created the seismic activity in the basement (which is the foundation of this very building)??! Not to sound incredibly unrelated.. but if you punch someone square in the face, they can feel it in their toes. Why not the same theory applied to a building being crashed into by a plane?

I know I am quite new here and this post may not be welcomed.. but IMO anyone thinking, based on this evidence, that 9/11 was an inside job needs to rethink what exactly they are trying to prove and why.

[R.Mackey]

Mackey asserted

Really? This is new. What assumptions do you mean? Do you mean, assuming that the radar data are accurate to within one second? Or what?
What I mean is -- again -- if you accept that the seismic data shows what they say it does, they're still wrong, because they haven't properly estimated their error. What I mean is that you don't need to challenge their sources or their interpretation of same, even though you can, as shown by Arkan. Their paper is just plain wrong, all by itself.

[uruk]

Why trigger an explosion in the base seconds before the plane impact then wait several minutes before exploding the other charges to bring the building down? Why not blow it all at the same instant? If the government was crafty enough to place tons of explosive in key structural areas without anybody noticing and using hundreds of remote control detonating devices which would replace the miles of detcord usually used to set off a CD implosion ( I think people would notice miles of detcord running all over the place) They certainly could have detnoted everything the instant the plane impacted the building.
Also what purpose could detnating a bomb in the basement serve? According to the CT'ers the Government was also responsible for the first attempt. An attempt which failed because there was too little explosive to do the job. (this dispite the government having explosive engineers at thier service who would have known how much it would have taken) If the first explosion did not weaken the base (an explosion which everybody heard and caused much smoke and fire) then why would an explosion which was not heard or caused smoke and fire be thought to weaken the base any more than the first? Besides the building collapsed from the top down not from the base.

Also is there any evidence of people hearing or seeing an explosion 14 seconds before the plane crashed into the first tower? If I recall correctly everything was quiet up untill the first plane crashed.
And before you say quiet or silent explosive. what kind of explosive would be silent and still cause a siesmic event?

[Bell]

Also is there any evidence of people hearing or seeing an explosion 14 seconds before the plane crashed into the first tower? If I recall correctly everything was quiet up untill the first plane crashed.
And before you say quiet or silent explosive. what kind of explosive would be silent and still cause a siesmic event?

Waiting for BS101 to bring the WTC jannitor into his argument... who appearantly heard the silence explosion...

[rwguinn]

What I mean is -- again -- if you accept that the seismic data shows what they say it does, they're still wrong, because they haven't properly estimated their error. What I mean is that you don't need to challenge their sources or their interpretation of same, even though you can, as shown by Arkan. Their paper is just plain wrong, all by itself.

Does any of this malarke take into account the fact that the surface waves--or whatever--have to travel from the WTC to the siesmograph--a finite, measurable distance, which takes said waves a finite, measurable time to traverse?

[R.Mackey]

Does any of this malarke take into account the fact that the surface waves--or whatever--have to travel from the WTC to the siesmograph--a finite, measurable distance, which takes said waves a finite, measurable time to traverse?

Well, the complaint is that the seismograph triggered before the "official" time of impact, so that's not really at issue. It's more a question of sloppy researchers assuming all clocks are dead-on and synchronized all the time, without bothering to check this.

[ArmillarySphere]

Inside job, inside job, inside job, inside job, inside job, etc, etc, etc....

There's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow, there's Klingons on the starboard bow, starboard bow....

;)

[LashL]

The "fireball down the elevator shaft" is far-fetched at best. Most of the elevators did not go all the way up to the impact area, thus would not be a conduit for this alleged fireball. THe express elevator that did go all the way had a human being inside of it. He suffered broken ankles, and is alive and well. He was not burned. The elevator that came up from the basement, on the other hand, was blown off its hinges.


You can't even get the most basic of facts right, so it is no surprise that you cannot come to proper conclusions either.

Numerous witnesses described fireballs down numerous elevator shafts. Numerous people were killed by those fireballs, and you dismiss those victims out of hand. That is disgusting.

There was more than one express elevator that went from the top to the bottom. In fact, there were three in each tower. The one that you are talking about was 50A and it fell to below the basement with Arturo Griffith inside. Note that it is the very same elevator that Mr. Filipe was standing in front of when he got burnt by flames blowing the doors open and burning the poor man.

How dare you dismiss so cavalierly all of the victims who died horrific deaths by fire inside numerous elevators, and how dare you so cavalierly dismiss all of the survivors who describe the horror of that day, just to satisfy whatever twisted agenda you seek to promote.

[Z]

If you were to slice him open and dump out the contents, he could keep 10 acres of land fertile for weeks.

(He's full of ----)

[stealthsteph]

You can't even get the most basic of facts right, so it is no surprise that you cannot come to proper conclusions either.

Numerous witnesses described fireballs down numerous elevator shafts. Numerous people were killed by those fireballs, and you dismiss those victims out of hand. That is disgusting.

There was more than one express elevator that went from the top to the bottom. In fact, there were three in each tower. The one that you are talking about was 50A and it fell to below the basement with Arturo Griffith inside. Note that it is the very same elevator that Mr. Filipe was standing in front of when he got burnt by flames blowing the doors open and burning the poor man.

How dare you dismiss so cavalierly all of the victims who died horrific deaths by fire inside numerous elevators, and how dare you so cavalierly dismiss all of the survivors who describe the horror of that day, just to satisfy whatever twisted agenda you seek to promote.


hear hear!

[realitybites]

The "fireball down the elevator shaft" is far-fetched at best.
Far-fetched? You might want to tell that to your janitor-friend Willie Rodriguez. Even he's on record stating he smelled kerosene in the sub-levels.

And from what I understand, while there were a handful of elevators that ran non-stop, top to bottom, the exact number is irrelevant. While the elevator cars may have only gone to certain floors, most of the elevator shafts ran the height of the building.

The core of each building would not have been large enough to accomodate separate conduits for each bank of local and express elevators.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/elevator001.jpg

[apathoid]

No, the clocks are not incorrect. They are time stamped with UTC. The 12-second sweep time could create a margin of error of +/- 6 seconds, which is still not enough to explain the 17 second discrepancy. However, the data are not based on a single radar, they are based on 5 radars, with independent sweeps. This data is processed through software logic to arrive at accurte event times. The data of impact times comes from FAA, and they are accurate to within 1 second.


Reposted for Trooofseeker1+2=4. Since he is going to keep repeating himself despite being shown to be 100% wrong, I'll keep repeating myself until he backs up his arguments with evidence...


ETA I did a little reading up on this. The NTSB/Commission impact times are estimates.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9902450e617a2e1dd.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/9902450e619569da3.jpg



screencapped from:
Radar Data Study For All 4 Flights (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Rec_Radar_%20Data_%20Study_all%20_aircraft.pdf)

AA 11 Flight Path Study (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA11.pdf)
UA 175 Flight Path Study (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path%20_Study_UA175.pdf)

Its obvious they had to "fudge" the numbers, all the clocks were in disagreement including AA77s and UA 93s FDR clocks. The ARTCC Centers arent UTC, they set the time themselves and there were disagreements. The first document I linked also details the sweep times on page 2 and they are indeed 12 seconds.

[LashL]

And from what I understand, while there were a handful of elevators that ran non-stop, top to bottom, the exact number is irrelevant. While the elevator cars may have only gone to certain floors, most of the elevator shafts ran the height of the building.

The core of each building would not have been large enough to accomodate separate conduits for each bank of local and express elevators.

Slightly off topic but since I mentioned in a previous thread (which I cannot locate at the moment), that I was working on finding out in much greater detail about the layout of the elevators at the WTC towers and was waiting for my source to return from vacation and get through 9/11/06 before he and I could go through it in detail, I thought I'd update on that here (especially since the elevators have been raised again and since people like BS1234 consistently get things wrong and never do any actual research to even try to get it right).

The update is that I have now received quite a lot of detailed information from my source and I am currently working on setting it all out in an organized fashion. This week is very busy for me at the office, but I'm working on it as I find the time, and I am hoping that I will be able to complete it and post it on the weekend.

/derail

[uruk]

Has truthseeker explained how a silent explosive can generate a siesmic event? How about the siesmic event of the airplane impact 14 seconds after the explosion event?



Or is TS trying to compete with LG for most abandoned threads?

[apathoid]

Has truthseeker explained how a silent explosive can generate a siesmic event? How about the siesmic event of the airplane impact 14 seconds after the explosion event?

No and no. He is purposely ignoring these arguments because he knows there is only one explantion for the lack of a pair of spikes........yep, you guessed it - no plane impacts!

So, TS are you a no-planer?

[uruk]

No response from TS. I guess he either lost interest or has no answer.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I am not a no planer. I think planes went into the twin towers as advertised. I do not know what happened at the Pentagon. If a plane crashed in Shanksville, it must have been shot down.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I have heard back from Gordon Ross. He says

Thanks for your e-mail and your encouraging remarks on my articles. I will give a quick reply now and if there are any other points I'll give a fuller response when I return home next week.

The OCT supporters seem to be concentrating on a side issue and not a particularly good one either. It does not matter what the radar sweep time is because of the type of information that it gives. If the aircraft returns a signal when interrogated then it is in the air above the minimum altitude for the radar. If it does not return a signal then it is not in the air above the minimum altitude. The time gap between interrogations or the returned signals cannot alter these facts, whether it is 4 seconds, 12 seconds or 12 weeks. The aircraft were in the air at the times noted by the last radar returns and were not in the air when the next sweep from the same machine should have returned another signal. The exact time when the aircraft became unavailable to radar due to impact or dropping below the minimum level can be narrowed down to between these two points in time and can be specifically ruled out for any and all other times.

Their concentration on this particular point is very revealing. They have failed to raise any argument whatsoever against the evidence presented by Mr Rodriguez and the many other witnesses to basement bombs, Mr. Walsh on the elevator damage or Ms Carr on the existence of two events separated by 9 seconds. For any account to be true it must acknowledge all of the evidence. The official story fails to account for, or even present, all of the evidence and is thus a false account.

The questions must also be asked,

"Why did NIST find it necessary to commission a new report from the LDEO when no question had been raised against the original LDEO analysis in the four years after it was written?"

"Why does the LDEO not show the later report commisioned by NIST?"


Hope this helps. If there are any other points or comments please do not hesitate to call. I will be back middle of next week and will have limited net access till then, but will reply on my return,


Gordon.

[quicknthedead]

I doubt you do.


...unless your mind is already made up.

[Senor_Pointy]

...unless your mind is already made up.

It could be the two weeks and 10 threads he's spent convincing us he's a completely dishonest dipstick.

[firecoins]

The siesmic info proves an inside job but the seismic proves 19 hijackers from Al Qeida crashed 2 planes into towers 1 & 2 which took damaged the building and the fires weakened the steel causing both towers to collapse.

[quicknthedead]

It could be the two weeks and 10 threads he's spent convincing us he's a completely dishonest dipstick.

Sorry, I just ran across your forum tonight and signed up a few minutes ago. My wife may say I'm a dipstick, but you can't, at least not until you get to know me.

So what is the problem you have with this report Gordon and I wrote.
These are all facts.

To summarize:

On September 11, 2001, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory seismic stations grouped around New York City reported 2 seismic events for the airplanes “impacting” into the World Trade Center Twin Towers. However, these seismic events were not impacts because the airplanes did not hit the Towers until later per the 9/11 Commission Final Report. The 2 seismic events were actually EXPLOSIONS before the planes crashed.

The explosions were experienced by 37 people in the sub-basement structure of 1 World Trade BEFORE THE PLANE HIT THE BUILDING, and damage from these pre-impact explosions was seen and verified by firefighters that morning.

THESE FACTS NOW CORROBORATE THOSE TESTIMONIES.
THIS IS A CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP.


American Airlines Flight 11
Lamont-Doherty seismic time = 8:46:26
9/11 Commission Report time = 8:46:40
14 seconds difference

[Senor_Pointy]

I'm sorry quicknthedead, I called Truthseeker1234 a dipstick, not you.
Look through some of the threads he's started, whatever your opinions on 9/11, and you'll see that he has the tendency to ignore every iota of evidence against his statements, no matter the topic.

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, quick.

The explosions were experienced by 37 people in the sub-basement structure of 1 World Trade BEFORE THE PLANE HIT THE BUILDING, and damage from these pre-impact explosions was seen and verified by firefighters that morning.
That's false.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40

[Kent1]

Welcome to the forums, quick.

[FONT=&quot]
That's false.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40

quicknthedead is the co-author of that Siesmic Evidence article BTW.

[Gravy]

quicknthedead is the co-author of that Siesmic Evidence article BTW.
Which article is that? I haven't been keeping up lately.

[DavidJames]

I assume the clocks used to identify the times for each of these events were all calabrated to the same time source.

[Kent1]

Which article is that? I haven't been keeping up lately.
See first post in this thread.

[Gravy]

If a plane crashed in Shanksville, it must have been shot down.
Use this forum's search function to find out how wrong you are. Or just look at flight 93's FDR data, which shows the plane going into the ground intact, with all systems functioning normally.

[kevin]

I assume the clocks used to identify the times for each of these events were all calabrated to the same time source.

oh hell no. look at apathoid's post a few back. It documents the discrepencies in the clocks.

[Gravy]

See first post in this thread.
Oh, I had forgotten that I looked at that for 10 seconds and said to myself, "silly kids, when will they learn?"

[firecoins]

There were many people in the lobby and in elevators who died or got severly burned by a kerosene fire. I wonder how that happaned. Obviously LC proved it wasn't an airplane. Someone planted kerosene in the elevatoe shaft.

[Loss Leader]

Use this forum's search function to find out how wrong you are. Or just look at flight 93's FDR data, which shows the plane going into the ground intact, with all systems functioning normally.

Gravy, your post is just ridiculous and infantile. If the plane's sytems were functioning normally, several alarms would have gone off in the cockpit alerting the terrorists of the urgent need to pull up. Since they did not, we must assume that the plane was malfunctioning.

Next time, try "observing" the "evidence" instead of relying on the flight data recorder, the flight control radar data, the cockpit recorder and the phone calls of the passengers.

[Gravy]

Gravy, your post is just ridiculous and infantile. If the plane's sytems were functioning normally, several alarms would have gone off in the cockpit alerting the terrorists of the urgent need to pull up.
Someone is going to make that argument seriously some day. Here's how to respond: the "pull up" alarms did go off, but since the plane was nearly upside down...

Ed, forgive us for occasionally losing our little minds over this stuff. I blame Killtown.

[quicknthedead]

I'm sorry quicknthedead, I called Truthseeker1234 a dipstick, not you.
Look through some of the threads he's started, whatever your opinions on 9/11, and you'll see that he has the tendency to ignore every iota of evidence against his statements, no matter the topic.

No problem, Senor_Pointy, although my heart kinda goes out to TS1234 because he looks like he is a little outnumbered here.

I'm sorry, but I have not read all the posts so I am a little "out of the thread" at this point, but I will try to catch up.

[Kent1]

I have heard back from Gordon Ross. He says
"Why did NIST find it necessary to commission a new report from the LDEO when no question had been raised against the original LDEO analysis in the four years after it was written?"

Gordon I would suggest reading the NIST report a little closer. They commissioned a new report because the time they came up with from the video evidence was 9:02:59 while the first siesmic report was 9:02:54 for the second impact. The second report was 9:02:57
After the second report NIST stated: The two aircraft impacts derived by NIST and LEDO now agree within the combined uncertainties.
3.6
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf

[quicknthedead]

I assume the clocks used to identify the times for each of these events were all calabrated to the same time source.

They were all UTC.

All radar stations update to UTC daily.
LDEO claimed within plus or minus 1 sec and they are UTC also.

[DavidJames]

They were all UTC.

All radar stations update to UTC daily.
LDEO claimed within plus or minus 1 sec and they are UTC also.I believe I asked about all the clocks. How about the time of the plane impacts. Remember I want to know if the clocks you are comparing are synchronized from the same time source.

[quicknthedead]

I am responding to Gravy's post 1936908

but unfortunately there is a problem with this interface and it won't let me have quotes or links or who knows what!
(Like I have to have 15 posts first...never had this problem at other forums...oh well)

I read the link you give, but there are still many who testify to a massive explosion in the basement below B1. The elevator doors for the local, middle elevators in the lobby were destroyed and they only went from the 34th down thru sub-level 6, so this could not have been caused by jet fuel.

Then there is the Ginny Carr audiotape of the explosion and the plane crash around 9 seconds later.

Here is another eyewitness by the name of Jeanne Yurman:
-------
I can tell you that I was watching TV, and there was this sonic boom, and the TV went out. And I thought maybe the Concorde was back in service, because I've heard about that sonic boom. And I went to the window -- I live in Battery Park City, right next to the twin towers -- and I looked up, and the side of the World Trade Center exploded. At that point, debris started falling. I couldn't believe what I was watching.
-------

Then there are the time discrepancies.

[Regnad Kcin]

...my heart kinda goes out to TS1234 because he looks like he is a little outnumbered here...Of course, it is not a matter of how many people subscribe to a particular line of thought, but whether the line can be supported by evidence. 1234's numerous allegations have been well refuted. But he seems wedded to his beliefs, notwithstanding. And he's a little lacking in the charm department (see: Holocaust denier comparisons).

This is a forum that encourages and promotes critical thinking, while attempting in some small way to serve as a tool to eradicate the opposite.* That is, fallacy-laden, unsupported, incomplete thinking. It is not an "us" against "them" mentality you'll find here as much as an "us" against "it."

Your presence is welcome.

*Plus, there's quite a few light-hearted, though fairly intense subforums. Check 'em out.

[quicknthedead]

Responding to Kevin's post 1936930..."oh hell no. look at apathoid's post a few back. It documents the discrepancies in the clocks."

Synchronizing to UTC should and is usually done daily by most higher structured entities, such as the military, the FAA, etc., and yes, if you don't update regularly it can wander.

However, LDEO gave their times to a precision + or - 1 or 2 secs depending upon which event, so they were claiming it to be highly accurate and correct (at the time back in 2001).

However, as is pointed out in the paper, the did contract in 2005 with Dr. Won-Young Kim of LDEO (who was responsible for the original data {he and his team}) to reanalyse the times.

It is suspicious that NIST would even want these seismic times reanalyzed. Why?

Here’s why: to gain seconds so the seismic 8:46:26 would be closer to their fabricated 8:46:30 that they created out of thin air.

They have to discredit the Commission time of 8:46:40 though. This is based on FAA and the ATC software logic. However, this time is inviolate as it was the last signal given by the plane before she disappeared right in front of ATC Bottiglia's eyes.

[apathoid]

Hi Gordon, you mentioned above(in your email to Truthseeker) that the sweep times are not important and I disagree. If you read the document I linked, you'll find that the each FAA radar station sets the time themselves, so there may be discrepancies - there are not all in-sync to UTC. But thats not the important part. The only clock that was linked to GPS time was the 84th RADES Squadron clock, but their clocks lagged the other RADES clocks by 23.5 seconds, so they were adjusted. The 84th's radar is a long range enroute type radar (ARSR) with a 12 second sweep. The NTSB radar document indicates that the only time used for event correlation was the from 84th RADES radar, the FDR and ATC clocks were "adjusted accordingly"
You also said :

It does not matter what the radar sweep time is because of the type of information that it gives. If the aircraft returns a signal when interrogated then it is in the air above the minimum altitude for the radar. If it does not return a signal then it is not in the air above the minimum altitude. The time gap between interrogations or the returned signals cannot alter these facts, whether it is 4 seconds, 12 seconds or 12 weeks. The aircraft were in the air at the times noted by the last radar returns and were not in the air when the next sweep from the same machine should have returned another signal. The exact time when the aircraft became unavailable to radar due to impact or dropping below the minimum level can be narrowed down to between these two points in time and can be specifically ruled out for any and all other times.

{Emphasis on the bolded part.}
Are you sure they used the last known position in their time for the impacts as the plane was still flying and intact? Or is this an assumption on your part? If its the first, can you provide a source? I would would think they would record the time the plane disappeared from the scope(which would be 12 seconds later). I re-read the NTSB radar doc and it didnt specify whether or not the used the "last known" contact or "contact lost".

A few more questions.
1. Whats your explanation of the lack of a pair of spikes for each Tower?
2. Is it your contention that the impacts were not enough to trigger seismic waves?
3. How could people in the basement know whether the airplane impacted or not? Did they recall hearing a second explosion 14-17 seconds after the basement explosion?

[R.Mackey]

Synchronizing to UTC should and is usually done daily by most higher structured entities, such as the military, the FAA, etc., and yes, if you don't update regularly it can wander.

However, LDEO gave their times to a precision + or - 1 or 2 secs depending upon which event, so they were claiming it to be highly accurate and correct (at the time back in 2001).
Once again, "precision" is a different animal than experimental error. TruthSeeker1234 doesn't understand the distinction, but perhaps you can... do you?

The OCT supporters seem to be concentrating on a side issue and not a particularly good one either. It does not matter what the radar sweep time is because of the type of information that it gives. If the aircraft returns a signal when interrogated then it is in the air above the minimum altitude for the radar. If it does not return a signal then it is not in the air above the minimum altitude. The time gap between interrogations or the returned signals cannot alter these facts, whether it is 4 seconds, 12 seconds or 12 weeks. The aircraft were in the air at the times noted by the last radar returns and were not in the air when the next sweep from the same machine should have returned another signal. The exact time when the aircraft became unavailable to radar due to impact or dropping below the minimum level can be narrowed down to between these two points in time and can be specifically ruled out for any and all other times.
That's highly amusing, seeing as how Gordon himself, in his paper with Furlong, is using the radar traces to estimate time of impact -- obviously at an altitude well into the clutter, and below the usual cruising altitude.

You can't have it both ways, Gordon.

Oh, and he still hasn't addressed the issue of potential miscalibration -- miscalibration, I might add, that has been confirmed by the official report.

Not impressive. Though I expected little else from the mind behind that sorry whitepaper.

[ktesibios]

A reading of all of chapter 3, "Timing of Photographs and Video Clips" in NIST NCSTAR1-5A would have been a good idea for the PCTists- it would have saved them an awful lot of trouble.

This chapter describes NIST's methodology in working out relative times for the masses of photo and video records they had to work with, and how they subsequently correlated these to absolute time.

Once all of the available visual records are placed on a timeline relative to each other, pinning down one point on that timeline in absolute time means that you can determine the absolute times of all of the events in that body of evidence. For NIST, this reference time was the nose of UA175 striking the south face of WTC2.

The most accurate absolute time reference in the visual material was the timestamps in news broadcasts, called "bugs". Investigating these, NIST found:

Checks with several broadcasters indicated that the bugs should be quite close to the actual time because the clocks used as sources for the bugs are regularly updated from highly accurate sources, such as geopositioning satellites or the precise atomic-clock-based timing signals provided by NIST as a public service. Careful checks showed small time differences between different video recordings, but these were generally less than 1s. These small discrepancies were likely due to variations in transmission times resulting from the different pathways that the video signals took to the sites where they were recorded. Based on four independent video recordings, the actual time of the second aircraft impact was determined to be 9:02:59 a.m., or 5 seconds later than the time assigned in developing the database. The estimated uncertainty is 1s. Table 3-1 compares times for the major events taken from the database, adjusted to television time, and reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002)

Now if you look at table 3-1, which also includes times from LDEO, the WTC1 impact time, adjusted to the television time reference is 8:46:30 a.m. and the time from LDEO's re-analysis of the data is 8:46:29 a.m.

Even if you cling to the original LDEO computed time of 8:46:26, that's still within the combined uncertainties, which which were given in that same original LDEO report as 2 seconds and the uncertainty of NIST's calibration to TV time, which is given as 1 second.

Now if you ask me which is more likely to get a determination of absolute time right, an agency for which the accuracy of measurements is both a profession and a mission (remember that NIST used to be the National Bureau of Standards and is still the top reference for all the calibration standards in the USA) or a blue-ribbon commision full of politicians and things, I'll take the agency full of science and technology geeks, thank you very much.

Looks like the PCTist's "suspicious discrepancy" and whatever it was they were trying to infer from it, have evaporated. There's not much left to quibble about.

[quicknthedead]

Responding to Kent1's post 1936964

quote: "Why did NIST find it necessary to commission a new report from the LDEO when no question had been raised against the original LDEO analysis in the four years after it was written?"

Gordon I would suggest reading the NIST report a little closer. They commissioned a new report because the time they came up with from the video evidence was 9:02:59 while the first seismic report was 9:02:54 for the second impact. The second report was 9:02:57
After the second report NIST stated: The two aircraft impacts derived by NIST and LDEO now agree within the combined uncertainties. 3.6
end quote.


Kent1, you have some insight here, but you need to look at NIST's 8:46:30 time. It is an artificial time. It is not real.

The seismic time and the FAA time (Commission) for WTC1 has and will always be at the crux of this problem. For now I won't talk about UA Flt 175, because this is more important.

The sooner one understands that NIST made it up deliberately, then you begin to see a little deeper into this.

I repeat. NIST's 8:46:30 for impact on WTC1 is a contrived time having no basis in logic or statistics.

What was all the talk early on about a "non-sequitur"? Well, you're looking at it: 8:46:30 is BOGUS.

Read the report, do your own research on the NIST paper, and you will see they made it up. And they did it on purpose.

We are talking about a lot of people murdered here so let's get it right.
So, what is NIST doing in creating a fake time?



Forgive me, but on an aside, has anyone seen the scientific sound analysis in the Rick Siegel video "9/11 Eyewitness" that begins at 48 mins 30 secs?

I have never run across anyone who has discredited it. I'd post the link but this forum software "doesn't like me" until I guess I get in 15 posts.

[apathoid]

I can tell you that I was watching TV, and there was this sonic boom, and the TV went out. And I thought maybe the Concorde was back in service, because I've heard about that sonic boom. And I went to the window -- I live in Battery Park City, right next to the twin towers -- and I looked up, and the side of the World Trade Center exploded. At that point, debris started falling. I couldn't believe what I was watching.

How is this a discrepancy, pray tell?

There was no sonic boom as UA 175 was sub-sonic. She either heard the "whoosh" or the explosion itself. Then looked out and saw what happened. Battery park is quarter mile from the WTC site.

ETA: Or was this the account of AA11?
That would make even more sense as Battery Park would be more or less under the flight path.

[quicknthedead]

REsponding to DavidJames post 1937028
quote: I believe I asked about all the clocks. How about the time of the plane impacts. Remember I want to know if the clocks you are comparing are synchronized from the same time source.
end quote


Yes, they were all synchronized to UTC, which is the same source. The FAA and LDEO were both synched to UTC.

[Kent1]

Responding to Kent1's post 1936964

quote: "Why did NIST find it necessary to commission a new report from the LDEO when no question had been raised against the original LDEO analysis in the four years after it was written?"

Gordon I would suggest reading the NIST report a little closer. They commissioned a new report because the time they came up with from the video evidence was 9:02:59 while the first seismic report was 9:02:54 for the second impact. The second report was 9:02:57
After the second report NIST stated: The two aircraft impacts derived by NIST and LDEO now agree within the combined uncertainties. 3.6
end quote.


Kent1, you have some insight here, but you need to look at NIST's 8:46:30 time. It is an artificial time. It is not real.

The seismic time and the FAA time (Commission) for WTC1 has and will always be at the crux of this problem. For now I won't talk about UA Flt 175, because this is more important.

The sooner one understands that NIST made it up deliberately, then you begin to see a little deeper into this.

I repeat. NIST's 8:46:30 for impact on WTC1 is a contrived time having no basis in logic or statistics.

What was all the talk early on about a "non-sequitur"? Well, you're looking at it: 8:46:30 is BOGUS.

Read the report, do your own research on the NIST paper, and you will see they made it up. And they did it on purpose.

We are talking about a lot of people murdered here so let's get it right.
So, what is NIST doing in creating a fake time?



Forgive me, but on an aside, has anyone seen the scientific sound analysis in the Rick Siegel video "9/11 Eyewitness" that begins at 48 mins 30 secs?

I have never run across anyone who has discredited it. I'd post the link but this forum software "doesn't like me" until I guess I get in 15 posts.
I don't understand why your saying its not real. NIST got their times by comparing the time stamps on the videos.
For example Pavel Hlava's videos are also a good source to use. Although we wouldn't expect them to be perfect a lot can be learned by matching video from other broadcasts.
For example impact times First hit 8:46:28 second hit 9:02:56 plus or minus a half a sec or so.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit2/
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1hit2/

[quicknthedead]

Responding to Regnad Kcin post 1937043
quote: Of course, it is not a matter of how many people subscribe to a particular line of thought, but whether the line can be supported by evidence. 1234's numerous allegations have been well refuted. But he seems wedded to his beliefs, notwithstanding. And he's a little lacking in the charm department (see: Holocaust denier comparisons).

This is a forum that encourages and promotes critical thinking, while attempting in some small way to serve as a tool to eradicate the opposite.* That is, fallacy-laden, unsupported, incomplete thinking. It is not an "us" against "them" mentality you'll find here as much as an "us" against "it."

Your presence is welcome.

*Plus, there's quite a few light-hearted, though fairly intense subforums. Check 'em out.
end quote.



Thanks for those kind words, Regnad Kcin. In these days, having a few light-hearted moments is a good thing. I like the "us" against "it". Very good!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Everyone should brush up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time

Use of UTC does not eliminate the need to know the margin of error for each device in question. Additionally, we should verify if any leap-seconds occurred during the time period in question.

[Alareth]

but unfortunately there is a problem with this interface and it won't let me have quotes or links or who knows what!
(Like I have to have 15 posts first...never had this problem at other forums...oh well)

To protect against spammers, new users must have 15 posts before being able to post links, this includes quoting posts that contains links.

[quicknthedead]

Responding to apathoid 1937059
quote:
A few more questions.
1. What's your explanation of the lack of a pair of spikes for each Tower?
2. Is it your contention that the impacts were not enough to trigger seismic waves?
3. How could people in the basement know whether the airplane impacted or not? Did they recall hearing a second explosion 14-17 seconds after the basement explosion?
end quote

Sorry, apathoid, I cut your post down a little because I wanted to address your questions:
1. The spikes were caused by the blasts, the planes impacting did not convey enough energy to be picked up seismically.
2. Again, yes.
3. I have only heard and read Willie Rodriguez's testimony where he knew the difference between the lower explosion and the plane impacting later above; but that is not to say others didn't report this also. What is critical is these people in the sub-levels experienced massive explosion(s) below them, not above.

Getting back to your first and 2nd questions, apathoid, here is something you may find interesting and is pertinent because it involves the same topic. It has to do with WTC7.

Regarding WTC7, at 5:20:33 there was an 18 second seismic event that had a dominant signal of .6 Richter per LDEO; however, the FEMA report states that the building visibly began to collapse at 5:21:03 and went down in approximately 6.5 seconds. However, no seismic signal occurred during the 6.5 seconds of this 47-story skyscraper's collapse....???

Now remember, the plane "impacts" as first reported by LDEO were only .9 and .7 Richter. Now compare these seismic readings of .9 and .7 to the WTC7 seismic reading of .6 for a "building collapse".

Can explosives explain this puzzle?

Look at the information gleaned from the OKC bombing, whereby they determined later, when they did a controlled demolition on the building to bring down the remaining 3/4ths, that seismic signals were more prominent resulting from explosives than from that building's collapse:


www thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no16/vo11no16_seismic.htm
-------

"Now I think that there is no longer a question that there was energy activity at the Murrah Building in addition to the original explosion, and we simply need to determine the source of that activity," Brown told THE NEW AMERICAN. The leading contenders for the source of that energy are either another explosion inside the building or the falling of the building debris. But the demolition seismic data from the Murrah site make the latter explanation no longer tenable, says Brown. The demolition charges were detonated in five groups, he notes, and the oscillations on the seismogram from the site correspond closely with those explosions. "Even the smallest of those detonations had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building, which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building. So it is very unlikely that one-fourth of the building falling on April 19th could have created an energy wave similar to that caused by the large [truck bomb] explosion." The most logical explanation for the second event, says Dr. Brown, is "a bomb on the inside of the building."

-------

[quicknthedead]

Responding to R.Mackey 1937064
quote:
Once again, "precision" is a different animal than experimental error. TruthSeeker1234 doesn't understand the distinction, but perhaps you can... do you?


That's highly amusing, seeing as how Gordon himself, in his paper with Furlong, is using the radar traces to estimate time of impact -- obviously at an altitude well into the clutter, and below the usual cruising altitude.

You can't have it both ways, Gordon.

Oh, and he still hasn't addressed the issue of potential miscalibration -- miscalibration, I might add, that has been confirmed by the official report.

Not impressive. Though I expected little else from the mind behind that sorry whitepaper.
end quote



You misunderstand. We are not estimating.

What he said, and what I say is the same, and that is there is no argument as to a radar time if you pick the last signal as the time. And this is exactly what happened regarding AA Flt 11 when it crashed into WTC1. The last signal disappeared in front of the eyes of the ATC Bottiglia at 8:46:40 UTC.

Now where is the problem in that?

Craig T. Furlong

[R.Mackey]

You misunderstand. We are not estimating.

What he said, and what I say is the same, and that is there is no argument as to a radar time if you pick the last signal as the time. And this is exactly what happened regarding AA Flt 11 when it crashed into WTC1. The last signal disappeared in front of the eyes of the ATC Bottiglia at 8:46:40 UTC.

Now where is the problem in that?

Craig T. Furlong

Absurd. You are always estimating.

The problem is that you haven't accounted for experimental error. I ask again, do you understand the difference between random and experimental error, or not?

If the answer is "no," you have no business promulgating any paper, let alone one with such a severe and wide-reaching accusation attached.

[quicknthedead]

Responding to ktesibios 1937071
quote

A reading of all of chapter 3, "Timing of Photographs and Video Clips" in NIST NCSTAR1-5A would have been a good idea for the PCTists- it would have saved them an awful lot of trouble.

This chapter describes NIST's methodology in working out relative times for the masses of photo and video records they had to work with, and how they subsequently correlated these to absolute time.

Once all of the available visual records are placed on a timeline relative to each other, pinning down one point on that timeline in absolute time means that you can determine the absolute times of all of the events in that body of evidence. For NIST, this reference time was the nose of UA175 striking the south face of WTC2.

The most accurate absolute time reference in the visual material was the timestamps in news broadcasts, called "bugs". Investigating these, NIST found:

Now if you look at table 3-1, which also includes times from LDEO, the WTC1 impact time, adjusted to the television time reference is 8:46:30 a.m. and the time from LDEO's re-analysis of the data is 8:46:29 a.m.

Even if you cling to the original LDEO computed time of 8:46:26, that's still within the combined uncertainties, which which were given in that same original LDEO report as 2 seconds and the uncertainty of NIST's calibration to TV time, which is given as 1 second.

Now if you ask me which is more likely to get a determination of absolute time right, an agency for which the accuracy of measurements is both a profession and a mission (remember that NIST used to be the National Bureau of Standards and is still the top reference for all the calibration standards in the USA) or a blue-ribbon commision full of politicians and things, I'll take the agency full of science and technology geeks, thank you very much.

Looks like the PCTist's "suspicious discrepancy" and whatever it was they were trying to infer from it, have evaporated. There's not much left to quibble about.

end quote




You have not read the paper that this thread is about.
Please read it, especially the section on the NIST times. FYI, NIST created the 8:46:30 out of thin air as in "faked it" as in "artificial" as in "it is not real".

NIST and their pronouncement about ABSOLUTE TIME ACCURACY may have many fooled, but they are being deceitful in this 8:46:30 time.

No question about it.

[quicknthedead]

Responding to apathoid 1937074
quote

How is this a discrepancy, pray tell?

There was no sonic boom as UA 175 was sub-sonic. She either heard the "whoosh" or the explosion itself. Then looked out and saw what happened. Battery park is quarter mile from the WTC site.

ETA: Or was this the account of AA11?
That would make even more sense as Battery Park would be more or less under the flight path.

end quote





Here is Jeanne Yurman's testimony again to look at:
-------
I can tell you that I was watching TV, and there was this sonic boom, and the TV went out. And I thought maybe the Concorde was back in service, because I've heard about that sonic boom. And I went to the window -- I live in Battery Park City, right next to the twin towers -- and I looked up, and the side of the World Trade Center exploded. At that point, debris started falling. I couldn't believe what I was watching.
-------

It's not a discrepancy. It's another validation that there was an explosion(s) before the plane hit WTC1. She reported the "sonic boom" probably about 9.2 seconds (per Ginny Carr's audiotape) before the building "exploded" (from the plane hitting it).

She definitely heard two VERY LOUD EXPLOSIVE-TYPE NOISES...and her TV went dead in the moment of the first "sonic boom" (TV antenna lines damaged in WTC1 caused by explosions in the basement?).

These are the facts:
sonic boom...TV died...she got up and walked around to her window...
...............and then saw WTC1's explosion (she did not realize at the time it was an aircraft striking the building)

[Kent1]

Responding to apathoid 1937059
quote:
Regarding WTC7, at 5:20:33 there was an 18 second seismic event that had a dominant signal of .6 Richter per LDEO; however, the FEMA report states that the building visibly began to collapse at 5:21:03 and went down in approximately 6.5 seconds. However, no seismic signal occurred during the 6.5 seconds of this 47-story skyscraper's collapse....???

Now remember, the plane "impacts" as first reported by LDEO were only .9 and .7 Richter. Now compare these seismic readings of .9 and .7 to the WTC7 seismic reading of .6 for a "building collapse".

Can explosives explain this puzzle?

-------
Thats FEMA. NIST states 5:20:52. Siesmic events should have been recorded prior to the visible collapse considering that the building started an internal collapse first before it progressed vertically to the penthouse. The time NIST seems to use 5:20:52 is when the total outer frame begins to fall. See NIST 3.5
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf

Nicolas Cianca's photo shows a time stamp of 5:20:46 as the penthouse first starts to collapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf#search=%22%20WTC 7%20timeline%22

Match from Cianca photo, add 14/15 seconds from video that makes about 5:21:00 -+1
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc7dem2/911.wtc.7.demolition.front.wmv

LEDO has 5:20:42, you then add the 18 seconds of seismic activity, which brings the seismic end-time to 5:21:00.

I think everything seems to match well.

[Kent1]

Responding to apathoid 1937059
quote:

www thenewamerican.com/tna/1995/vo11no16/vo11no16_seismic.htm
-------

"Now I think that there is no longer a question that there was energy activity at the Murrah Building in addition to the original explosion, and we simply need to determine the source of that activity," Brown told THE NEW AMERICAN. The leading contenders for the source of that energy are either another explosion inside the building or the falling of the building debris. But the demolition seismic data from the Murrah site make the latter explanation no longer tenable, says Brown. The demolition charges were detonated in five groups, he notes, and the oscillations on the seismogram from the site correspond closely with those explosions. "Even the smallest of those detonations had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building, which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building. So it is very unlikely that one-fourth of the building falling on April 19th could have created an energy wave similar to that caused by the large [truck bomb] explosion." The most logical explanation for the second event, says Dr. Brown, is "a bomb on the inside of the building."

-------
See later report:

Comparison of timed video coverage of the demolition with the seismogram indicates that explosives were completely detonated about 2.5 s into the demolition and did not generate as much seismic energy as the collapse of the building.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:xuBtPqUC1tsJ:www.agu.org/sci_soc/eosholzer.html+seismograph+of+explosion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

[apathoid]

See later report:

Comparison of timed video coverage of the demolition with the seismogram indicates that explosives were completely detonated about 2.5 s into the demolition and did not generate as much seismic energy as the collapse of the building.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:xuBtPqUC1tsJ:www.agu.org/sci_soc/eosholzer.html+seismograph+of+explosion&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6

How would explosives stack up against a jet impact as far as seismic signatures?

Craig(apologies for calling you Gordon) above indicated that the impacts shouldn't have created any seismic waves. I wouldnt know, but isnt this something the seismologists might've found unusual?

[Kent1]

How would explosives stack up against a jet impact as far as seismic signatures?

Craig(apologies for calling you Gordon) above indicated that the impacts shouldn't have created any seismic waves. I wouldnt know, but isnt this something the seismologists might've found unusual?

Best thing to do would be to contact someone like Dr. Terry Wallace (I've been trying to find his latest e-mail address) or Dr. Won-Young Kim.
Or possibly this source. Tom Irvine
http://www.vibrationdata.com/Newsletters/November2001_NL.pdf

[R.Mackey]

How would explosives stack up against a jet impact as far as seismic signatures?
You could work out a good rough approximation from the energy. The Richter Scale translates directly into event energy, which is a complex function of sensed acceleration and timing.

Given that the jet impacts appear to have been flagged as 0.9 MR events, and we know the energy of those impacts, you can work out just how much explosives would be needed to have a similar registration.

It's a lot.

[quicknthedead]

Responding to Kent1 1937078
quote

I don't understand why your saying its not real. NIST got their times by comparing the time stamps on the videos.
For example Pavel Hlava's videos are also a good source to use. Although we wouldn't expect them to be perfect a lot can be learned by matching video from other broadcasts.
For example impact times First hit 8:46:28 second hit 9:02:56 plus or minus a half a sec or so.
www terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit2/
www terrorize.dk/911/wtc1hit2/

end quote



What timestamp on Pavel Hlava's video?
When he and his brother were making there travel video, when you look at the stills, there are no timestamps on them.

However, when you look at ABC's Good Morning America showing the video in 2003 it does show timestamping. It looks like they added it to the video because it was the 2nd anniversary when this video was shown.

Can you explain why there is no timestamping on the stills? And if there were, how do we know it was synched to UTC?

NIST made up its time of 8:46:30. They say so in the report where they added 5 seconds onto all the seismic times because they believed they had the right time for UA Flt 175 crashing (per TV station timestamps) of 9:02:59, which is 5 seconds more than the seismic of 9:02:54. So, they added 5 seconds to the seismic times for each of the other 4 major events, one of which was the seismic time for first plane "impact".

However, you can't do this for WTC1. It is a non-sequitur.
Read the paper on this section to understand better.

Also, the FAA, had the UTC radar time of 8:46:40 on its last signal.
We know its timestamp is correct.

[Alareth]

You could work out a good rough approximation from the energy. The Richter Scale translates directly into event energy, which is a complex function of sensed acceleration and timing.

Given that the jet impacts appear to have been flagged as 0.9 MR events, and we know the energy of those impacts, you can work out just how much explosives would be needed to have a similar registration.

It's a lot.

Bah! You people and your "facts". Always proving stuff with your "empirical evidence" and your "math"

How is any honest CT supposed to maintain the Truth in the face of such things?

[quicknthedead]

Responding to Alareth 1937117
quote

To protect against spammers, new users must have 15 posts before being able to post links, this includes quoting posts that contains links.[/QUOTE]

end quote



Thank you for the explanation. OK--makes sense.

[apathoid]

You could work out a good rough approximation from the energy. The Richter Scale translates directly into event energy, which is a complex function of sensed acceleration and timing.

Given that the jet impacts appear to have been flagged as 0.9 MR events, and we know the energy of those impacts, you can work out just how much explosives would be needed to have a similar registration.

It's a lot.

Enough to go "bang" really loud like?

Question to Craig: Has anyone who worked in the Towers, on the lower floors(not the basement), mentioned a very loud explosion before the impact? I imagine nearly everyone up to around the 30th floor as well as folks in adjacent buildings wouldve reported twin explosions 10-20 seconds apart.

[Kent1]

What timestamp on Pavel Hlava's video?
When he and his brother were making there travel video, when you look at the stills, there are no timestamps on them.

However, when you look at ABC's Good Morning America showing the video in 2003 it does show timestamping. It looks like they added it to the video because it was the 2nd anniversary when this video was shown.

Can you explain why there is no timestamping on the stills? And if there were, how do we know it was synched to UTC?

NIST made up its time of 8:46:30. They say so in the report where they added 5 seconds onto all the seismic times because they believed they had the right time for UA Flt 175 crashing (per TV station timestamps) of 9:02:59, which is 5 seconds more than the seismic of 9:02:54. So, they added 5 seconds to the seismic times for each of the other 4 major events, one of which was the seismic time for first plane "impact".

However, you can't do this for WTC1. It is a non-sequitur.
Read the paper on this section to understand better.

Also, the FAA, had the UTC radar time of 8:46:40 on its last signal.
We know its timestamp is correct.

If you look at the lower right corner you can see the time stamps.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1hit2/ See...
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit2/
They matched time by various events.

Does anyone not see this?

We don't know if they were synched to UTC. However they are more video evidence of timing.

[apathoid]

Also, the FAA, had the UTC radar time of 8:46:40 on its last signal.
We know its timestamp is correct.

You keep making this claim; what is your source?

[R.Mackey]

Enough to go "bang" really loud like?
Unless you believe in "hush-a-boom" explosives, you bet.

It'd actually be louder than the aircraft impacts themselves. Unlike the crashes, which were inherently subsonic phenomena (subsonic jet vs. fixed object followed by deflagration of jet fuel), the equivalent explosives would detonate supersonically, creating a much sharper pressure shock. If you've ever heard a sonic boom, you understand what I'm talking about.

(ETA: Might be somewhat harder to hear if it was, perhaps, a series of explosives timed slightly apart, as in a string of firecrackers... but if you dilute the explosives too much, you also dilute their destructive potential. In any event, highly unlikely that it would be quieter than the impact itself.)

[apathoid]

If you look at the lower right corner you can see the time stamps.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1hit2/ See...
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit2/
They matched time by various events.

Does anyone not see this?

We don't know if they were synched to UTC. However they are more video evidence of timing.

Wow, Kent is Jonny one the spot once again. Great work :)

[apathoid]

Unless you believe in "hush-a-boom" explosives, you bet.

It'd actually be louder than the aircraft impacts themselves. Unlike the crashes, which were inherently subsonic phenomena (subsonic jet vs. fixed object followed by deflagration of jet fuel), the equivalent explosives would detonate supersonically, creating a much sharper pressure shock. If you've ever heard a sonic boom, you understand what I'm talking about.

(ETA: Might be somewhat harder to hear if it was, perhaps, a series of explosives timed slightly apart, as in a string of firecrackers... but if you dilute the explosives too much, you also dilute their destructive potential. In any event, highly unlikely that it would be quieter than the impact itself.)

Might the basement support cutting explosives sound something like this?

Landmark Tower Implosion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ&search=implosion)

[Kent1]

If you look at the lower right corner you can see the time stamps.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1hit2/ See...
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit2/
They matched time by various events.

Does anyone not see this?

We don't know if they were synched to UTC. However they are more video evidence of timing.
More times:
I got roughly 9:02:59 from ABC (Leaning between 9:02:59 and 9:03:00)
http://media.putfile.com/911P2
I get roughly 9:02:56 +–1 (Leaning toward 9:02:55-56) on this FOX news clip. http://media.putfile.com/911P6
On this video from (NY Good day) I get 9:03:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1umznssiZU

I believe those are the right links
I also have a CNN video that has 9:03:00(+1)

What do I NOT get. Well I don't get times close to. 9:03:11

[quicknthedead]

Absurd. You are always estimating.

The problem is that you haven't accounted for experimental error. I ask again, do you understand the difference between random and experimental error, or not?

If the answer is "no," you have no business promulgating any paper, let alone one with such a severe and wide-reaching accusation attached.

Well, I see where you are coming from. If you try to measure something so perfectly, I mean to get as close as you can get (even at the atomic level you'd affect your data), you'd still be "pretty" close.

And "pretty" close is not perfect. I can agree with you on this.

However, in the world of the atomic clock, if you've got a 10 - 14 second differential from good UTC data, along with a lot of corroborating eyewitness testimonies, confirmed by other audio testimonies, you can overcome reasonable doubt.

All I want is another new 9/11 investigation, but this time one with teeth.
Read the end of our paper as to why.

Now as to you and your last comments, how do you know that what is presented in the paper is false? And just what if you were wrong, that the paper is correct? After all, these are simply facts.

There are many other things very wrong about 9/11 that push one way past reasonable doubt if one only looks into the matter.


Check this out and give me a refutation. I've never heard or seen one yet from anyone. I really believe I will not hear back from you on this sound analysis. It is very indicting. A smoking gun.
Scientific sound analysis:
GO IN 48 MINS 30 SECS
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=9%2F11+eyewitness


WTC7 collapse: Another smoking gun...a classic controlled demolition...textbook.
http://killtown.911review.org/video/wtc7/wtc7_cbs_closeup.mpeg


American Airlines Flight 11
Lamont-Doherty seismic time = 8:46:26
9/11 Commission Report time = 8:46:40
[14 seconds difference]

United Airlines Flight 175
Lamont-Doherty seismic time = 9:02:54
9/11 Commission Report time = 9:03:11
[17 seconds difference]

For the complete report:
“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross (Members, Scholars for 9/11 Truth)
Link: http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/SeismicFurlong.doc


And there are more.

[quicknthedead]

You keep making this claim; what is your source?

It's in the paper. Especially look at the NTSB Flight Path Study for AA Flt 11. It shows the last radar signal.

And ATC Bottiglia saw it disappear while he was watching it at 8:46:40.

What's the matter, don't trust your government?

[apathoid]

It's in the paper. Especially look at the NTSB Flight Path Study for AA Flt 11. It shows the last radar signal.

And ATC Bottiglia saw it disappear while he was watching it at 8:46:40.

What's the matter, don't trust your government?

Please quote the Flight Path Study. I mean provide an exact quote, or point me to the page/paragraph.
I have it open right now and the only reference to 8:46:40 is:
"The airplane impacted the North Tower at approximately 8:46:40."

Please provide a source(besides your doc) for :
And ATC Bottiglia saw it disappear while he was watching it at 8:46:40.

[quicknthedead]

Best thing to do would be to contact someone like Dr. Terry Wallace (I've been trying to find his latest e-mail address) or Dr. Won-Young Kim.
Or possibly this source. Tom Irvine
http://www.vibrationdata.com/Newsletters/November2001_NL.pdf


Funny thing about Dr. Kim. I first emailed him first week of August with a simple request for him to verify that LDEO's seismic times for 9/11 were correct.

Instead he sent me a reply that linked me to this:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf

I had already read this report, and although it mentions briefly that all seismic times are accurate, he did not come right out and state this, that the times were correct, accurate and reliable (my question to him).

I then emailed him back two more times, but no response.
I then sent him a formal email with the basics found in the paper, and asked him again for his comment, along with cc'ing Gordon Ross and Dr. Kim's associate, Dr. Werner-Lam.

Again, with no surprise...no reply.

This is strange. During all these emails, which covered the first two weeks of August, why didn't Kim just refer me to the new NIST report?

And on the first email, instead he links me to an old report that didn't even address the question.

Good luck trying to contact him on this.

[quicknthedead]

If you look at the lower right corner you can see the time stamps.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1hit2/ See...
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit2/
They matched time by various events.

Does anyone not see this?

We don't know if they were synched to UTC. However they are more video evidence of timing.


I'm sorry, Kent1, but I can only see the video timestamps for the ones that have the ABC logo and graphics. The bottom ones, the stills, I don't see any timestamping, only the numbers 0758 to 0776 outside the picture at the bottom right (and these do not appear to be timestamps).

Anyway, as you state, we do not know if they were timestamped to UTC.

[Kent1]

I'm sorry, Kent1, but I can only see the video timestamps for the ones that have the ABC logo and graphics. The bottom ones, the stills, I don't see any timestamping, only the numbers 0758 to 0776 outside the picture at the bottom right (and these do not appear to be timestamps).

Anyway, as you state, we do not know if they were timestamped to UTC.
That's because those are zoom-in shots/crops.
Also try watching the video. Those times from the same camera must be just a strange coincidence.;)

[apathoid]

I'm sorry, Kent1, but I can only see the video timestamps for the ones that have the ABC logo and graphics. The bottom ones, the stills, I don't see any timestamping, only the numbers 0758 to 0776 outside the picture at the bottom right (and these do not appear to be timestamps).



Are you serious?

I count 20 pictures with timestamps ranging from 8:46:26 to 8:46:30 for WTC1, and 9:02:51 to 9:02:56 for WTC2.

[Kent1]

Are you serious?

I count 20 pictures with timestamps ranging from 8:46:26 to 8:46:30 for WTC1, and 9:02:51 to 9:02:56 for WTC2.
He didn't notice that those (0758 to 0776) were cropped shots.

[apathoid]

He didn't notice that those were cropped shots.

I guess, but it looked like something of a dodge.

Anyhow, anyone care to formulate the mathematical odds that these matched the seismograph timestamps by sheer luck?

[Gravy]

I am responding to Gravy's post 1936908
I read the link you give, but there are still many who testify to a massive explosion in the basement below B1. The elevator doors for the local, middle elevators in the lobby were destroyed and they only went from the 34th down thru sub-level 6, so this could not have been caused by jet fuel.
Read my post again. Jet fuel all the way down through sub-level 6. You're thinking about how far specific elevators traveled. Think about the shafts instead. And remember that the explosion was a fireball, which high explosives do not create. There was also one explosion, not several. Willie Rodriguez told me he smelled the jet fuel in the basement.

Then there is the Ginny Carr audiotape of the explosion and the plane crash around 9 seconds later. If that were on videotape, I'd be impressed.

Here is another eyewitness by the name of Jeanne Yurman:
-------
I can tell you that I was watching TV, and there was this sonic boom, and the TV went out. And I thought maybe the Concorde was back in service, because I've heard about that sonic boom. And I went to the window -- I live in Battery Park City, right next to the twin towers -- and I looked up, and the side of the World Trade Center exploded. At that point, debris started falling. I couldn't believe what I was watching. There's no discrepancy. Note that she says she'd heard "about that sonic boom," not heard one herself. It sounds like she's describing the roar of the jet as it passed near Battery Park City at 375 knots. Also, the fireball expanded for several seconds, and lighter debris fell for many seconds, from 1,200 feet in the air: plenty of time for her to see the aftermath of the collision.

Then there are the time discrepancies. Already been explained. Sorry. You need to deal with all the evidence, not just that which you like.

[ktesibios]

I've read your paper. Regarding your claims about NIST "making up" their times, this description of how they reconstructed the timeline from the visual record is relevant:

Recognizing that the majority of timing information available from the visual material itself was of high relative accuracy, but of unknown and variable absolute accuracy, a timing scheme was adopted in which all of the times for items in the databases were placed on a common relative time scale tied to a single well-defined event. Due to the large number of different views available, the moment when the nose of the second aircraft struck the south face of WTC2 was chosen to be this time. This event was defined to have occurred at 9:02:54 a.m. based on times for major events included in the earlier Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report (McAllister 2002) describing the events of September 11, 2001.

Once the reference time was chosen, it was possible to place times on videos that showed the second aircraft impact. By matching other photographs and videos to these initially assigned videos, the assignments were extended to visual materials that did not include the primary event. Using this process it was possible to place photographs and videos extending over the entire period of the event on a single time time line. Sets of photographs containing EXIF times and video clips that either contained metadata or were continuous over relatively long periods were particularly useful for this purpose, because a single time assignment would allow the entire series to be timed. Sets of photographs recorded on film or analog videos that were frequently turned on and off were the most difficult items to time since individual matches were required for each photo or video clip.

Matching visual images and assigning times turned out to be a demanding task, requiring unique approaches. A variety of characteristics were employed to match times in different photographs and videos. These include distinct shadows cast on the buildings by the smoke plumes, the appearance and location of smoke and fire plumes, the occurrence of well-defined events such as a falling object or the sudden appearance of smoke, and a variety of other unlikely clues such as a clock being recorded in an image.

A visual record exists starting with the first plane impact; in fact, this event was captured on two different videos. After that, there were a lot of cameras aimed at the WTC. But I digress.

To assist in the timing process, relative times for the five major events of September 11, 2001-first aircraft impact, second aircraft impact, collapse of WTC2, collapse of WTC1, and collapse of WTC7 were determined with 1 s accuracies.

What NIST did was to organize the recorded images into a relative time line, partly by using metadata in digital images, which would give relative times for a series of pictures taken with the same camera or digital video clips from the same recorder and partly by comparing identifiable features and events in separate images. The second sentence I've bolded in the first quote sums it all up- they ultimately derived a timing for the different events which showed how far apart in time they occurred.

To correlate this relative timeline with absolute time, they began with the assumption that the time given for the second aircraft strike of 9:02:54 was correct. Using this assumption, they found that the first aircraft strike would have occurred at 8:46:25, which differs from the FEMA reported time of 8:46:26.

This does not support the contention that NIST's initial absolute time determination for the first impact was based on LDOE data or from FEMA and therefore not coupled to the absolute time for the second impact derived from broadcast timestamps. Rather, it indicates that NIST's intial absolute time for this event was derived by determining the time interval between the first and second impacts from the visual record and referencing it to the assumed absolute time of the second impact. This means that the two times were in fact coupled together by the time line reconstructed from the photo and video evidence and that an offset correction to one would properly apply to the other.

Their initial time determinations for other events, such as the collapses of the twin towers, also differ from those given by FEMA; in the case of the first collapse by 10 seconds and in the case of the second collapse by 14 seconds. This is more evidence that NIST relied on FEMA timings only for the absolute time of the second impact and derived all other times by reference to the visual data. All of the times given in the "relative time from visual analysis" column of table 3-1 are just that- derived from the visual record and related to the time of the second aircraft impact. Since all of these points do indeed lie on the same "ruler", a correction to the location of its "zero" reference point applies equally to all of them.

It's possible to question the accuracy of NIST's approach, although without re-doing all of that tedious comparing and calculating and databasing it's impossible to support a contention that it's wrong.

But I don't see how a claim that they "made it all up" can possibly be supported by this evidence.

Handwaving. That's all the PCT position has got.

[gumboot]

Some facts:

1) Siesmographs located in Manhattan itself did not record events prior to aircraft impact
2) The overwhelming majority of witnesses do not report explosives before impact
3) Those that do were not in a position to see impact, and their accounts are either misrepresented ("sound like moving furniture" becomes "massive explosion") or they themselves have changed their story repeatedly.
4) Copious quantities of video evidence of the impact of UA175 exist. Not one single piece of video captures explosions before impact. Not one.
5) Events located in the vicinity of elevator shafts were reported on numerous floors throughout both buildings, from the basement to floors just below impact.
6) These eyewitness reports repeatedly, and explicitly, describe the smell of Jet Fuel.
7) The injuries sustained by those injured by these elevator-located events are consistant and unique to f;ash-burns from fuel fireballs.

Conclusion?

There were no explosive devices detonated in the WTC prior to the impact of aircraft.

-Andrew

[Z]

Just a quick note from experience:

During the decade I served in the Army, we used UTC during a number of exercises and operations; however, we often found individual pieces of equipment that had to be re-synced, sometimes as often as every three to four hours. Computer times were notoriously unreliable; prior to every timed mission, we had to get a clock-sync from higher on all units, to ensure accurate TOT times.

Other than this, we used whatever watch was handiest. Sure, we would sync up to UTC time - once in a while. By the end of three or four days, we'd be off a few seconds.

A lot of agencies suffer the same lazy attitudes. Sure, a lot of equipment is auto-synced-- but how often? My computer auto-syncs at home... once a day. I've watched it spontaneously jump up to 22 minutes once during its resync.

So assuming that any one clock is completely accurate is a fallacy, unless that clock is coming straight from a UTC source - like a GPS satellite or similar.

That being said, I have no idea what each time stamp is based upon, or whether any or all of the clocks involved are directly and instantly maintained. But if they're not - even if they're updated hourly - then there is a margin for error in each timestamp. And the less often they're updated, the larger that margin grows.

Plus, what are the calculated differences we would expect in time for sound travel on these events?

[DavidJames]

REsponding to DavidJames post 1937028
quote: I believe I asked about all the clocks. How about the time of the plane impacts. Remember I want to know if the clocks you are comparing are synchronized from the same time source.
end quote


Yes, they were all synchronized to UTC, which is the same source. The FAA and LDEO were both synched to UTC.It's been explained to you now what UTC is, and zaayrdragon has also explained some of the issues with time synchronization.

I'll ask again. Do you know if all the clocks you are relying on for your theory had been synchronized to the same time source (UTC is not a time source). If you do, provide a source for your answer. If not, your theory is not worth the toilet paper it's scratched on.

[uruk]

I wonder if the 37 people who heard the explosions were on UTC?

I also wonder how a commercial airliner can strike steel support structures that are imbedded in several tens of feet of solid granite and not produce a detectable siesmic event? It would be roughly akin to striking a tuning fork.
The impact on the support structur would send vibrations all through the building including the basement sub levels. The large enclosed area of the basments would even act to amplify the sound like a sound box on an african thumb piano. (google it, you'll see what I'm talking about)
I did an impromptu experiment with my class to see how synced up our watches were. Suffice it to say that there were sizable differences. (which would explain why some of my student are chronically tardy)

Anyhoo, if you look at the siesmic chart, you still only see two events. Where is the one showing the air planes striking the buildings?

[DavidJames]

I wonder if the 37 people who heard the explosions were on UTC?
It's amazing how they guys take as 100% gospel, the comments from those caught in the middle of a traumatic event, wait, I meant selectively take as gospel. The fire captain who saw the 20 foot hole in WTC7, his word is crap.

[R.Mackey]

However, in the world of the atomic clock, if you've got a 10 - 14 second differential from good UTC data, along with a lot of corroborating eyewitness testimonies, confirmed by other audio testimonies, you can overcome reasonable doubt.
You've provided no evidence -- none -- that the seismographs were synchronized to an atomic clock. Nor did you bother to check.

What I showed is that all of the seismograph readings are miscalibrated, not just the two you're banging on about. This suggests either (a) the clocks were offset, or (b) not only were there two phantom explosions that nobody else saw or heard -- one in each tower -- that accomplished nothing of any relevance, but the towers also collapsed ten seconds before we saw it on TV. Both of them, separately.

Guess which one I think is more likely?


All I want is another new 9/11 investigation, but this time one with teeth.
Read the end of our paper as to why.

Now as to you and your last comments, how do you know that what is presented in the paper is false? And just what if you were wrong, that the paper is correct? After all, these are simply facts.
Because you're leaping to conclusions. What you have here is a particularly infamous "false dilemma." To explain, you present the reader with two choices:

1. All sources of data agree to within a couple of seconds
2. The entire 9-11 Commission Report is a fabrication, planted explosives went off before the planes arrived not once but twice, and the Government should be overthrown

There's a lot of room in the middle that you fail to consider. Hence your paper is crap.

Check this out and give me a refutation. I've never heard or seen one yet from anyone. I really believe I will not hear back from you on this sound analysis. It is very indicting. A smoking gun.
Scientific sound analysis:
GO IN 48 MINS 30 SECS
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=9%2F11+eyewitness
I'm supposed to refute an unsourced video? Give me a break. Show your findings or go pound sand. At least your whitepaper showed its work, so it was easy to find the holes.


WTC7 collapse: Another smoking gun...a classic controlled demolition...textbook.
http://killtown.911review.org/video/wtc7/wtc7_cbs_closeup.mpeg

Now you're quoting Killtown??? The guy who added 125 feet to 580 miles per hour to get 705 feet? Your standards of peer review are, shall we say, lacking.

I dismantled all of his WTC7 claims in another thread here last month. Go search, you'll learn quite a lot about Killtown.

Your standards of reporting are getting worse, not better. Your challenge is hereby rejected. Go find some real evidence and do a proper analysis, then we'll talk.

[rwguinn]

You've provided no evidence -- none -- that the seismographs were synchronized to an atomic clock. Nor did you bother to check.

What I showed is that all of the seismograph readings are miscalibrated, not just the two you're banging on about. This suggests either (a) the clocks were offset, or (b) not only were there two phantom explosions that nobody else saw or heard -- one in each tower -- that accomplished nothing of any relevance, but the towers also collapsed ten seconds before we saw it on TV. Both of them, separately.

Guess which one I think is more likely?


Because you're leaping to conclusions. What you have here is a particularly infamous "false dilemma." To explain, you present the reader with two choices:

1. All sources of data agree to within a couple of seconds
2. The entire 9-11 Commission Report is a fabrication, planted explosives went off before the planes arrived not once but twice, and the Government should be overthrown

There's a lot of room in the middle that you fail to consider. Hence your paper is crap.


I'm supposed to refute an unsourced video? Give me a break. Show your findings or go pound sand. At least your whitepaper showed its work, so it was easy to find the holes.


Now you're quoting Killtown??? The guy who added 125 feet to 580 miles per hour to get 705 feet? Your standards of peer review are, shall we say, lacking.

I dismantled all of his WTC7 claims in another thread here last month. Go search, you'll learn quite a lot about Killtown.

Your standards of reporting are getting worse, not better. Your challenge is hereby rejected. Go find some real evidence and do a proper analysis, then we'll talk.

What he said...From another PE (Mechanical-dynamics, vibration, and loads)

[Dog Town]

Well Truetweaker1234, how much fun was this? First you get slaughtered in every post you make, then your source! Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark!

[uruk]

Oh yea, I forgot one thing about previous post concerning the airplanes striking the support beams; sound travels faster in a denser medium. that would mean that the vibrations of the airplanes hitting the support beams would hit the lower floors before the sound of the impact (traveling in less denser air) would reach the lower floor. I don't know how much faster it would be though. I only know that sound travles roughly 600 mph at sea level. I don't know what the speed is for steel.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Oh yea, I forgot one thing about previous post concerning the airplanes striking the support beams; sound travels faster in a denser medium. that would mean that the vibrations of the airplanes hitting the support beams would hit the lower floors before the sound of the impact (traveling in less denser air) would reach the lower floor. I don't know how much faster it would be though. I only know that sound travles roughly 600 mph at sea level. I don't know what the speed is for steel.

The exact speed of sound in steel is 5,960 meters per second (13,332 mph)! source (http://library.thinkquest.org/19537/Physics4.html)
Steel, 347 stainless 5790 m/s source (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/souspe2.html)
Thus in steel the speed of sound is approximately 5100 m·s-1.source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound)
Steel longitudinal wave 5790 source (http://www.potto.org/gasDynamics/node57.html)

ETA: My google-fu is strong.

[uruk]

Excellent!
So sounds of the impact would definitely be heard in the basement area coming through the steel supports a short time before the sound of the impact would reach from the air above.

I'm a little too lazy to try to work out the math. Anybody care to figure out what the time difference would be?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Excellent!
So sounds of the impact would definitely be heard in the basement area coming through the steel supports a short time before the sound of the impact would reach from the air above.

I'm a little too lazy to try to work out the math. Anybody care to figure out what the time difference would be?

Ht of tower 1368 ft iirc
Each floor ~= 12.44 ft
Impact pt 1 94th floor
=> 1169 ft
Impact pt 2 84th floor
=> 1045 ft

1169 ft = 356 m => .06 seconds
1045 ft = 319 m => .06 seconds

vs

600 mph = 268 m/s
356 => 1.3 seconds
319 => 1.2 seconds

Time differential of 1.24 and 1.14 seconds respectively.

[Z]

And another false dragon is slain.

[uruk]

Time differential of 1.24 and 1.14 seconds respectively.

Awsome! Thanks.

[DavidJames]

And another false dragon is slain.sadly, it's not a dragon, but a weeble (they wobble but don't fall down :))

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

sadly, it's not a dragon, but a weeble (they wobble but don't fall down :))

Yeah, I think this is the 3rd or 4th time we've been down this specific path.

[Z]

Oh, I know.. but can't a fellow have a few delusions?

OK, so I have more than most...

BTW: The faeries assure me that the horrors of 9/11 were unexpected, even by the terrorists, and that no explosives, such as are used in demolitions, were present. Then again, they assure me that the troll under the Brookly Bridge hasn't eaten anyone in years, so... :D