New study supports WTC controlled demolition

Joined
Nov 9, 2008
Messages
4,032
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/MacQueen_EarlyEarthShake.pdf

A new paper is available at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is from Professor Graeme MacQueen, and is called "Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?" Here are some excerpts.

"In the debate over the collapses of the Twin Towers on 9/11, the shaking of the earth that accompanied these collapses has played an important role. This shaking registered clearly on seismographs. Less clear, however, are its causes and the times it began. The National Institute of Standards and Technology emphasizes the role of the debris from the collapsing buildings in producing the seismic signals. In assessing NIST’s hypothesis I focus on the collapse of the South Tower and attempt to determine the time the collapse began, the time the debris from the Tower struck the ground, and the temporal relation of these events to the shaking of the earth that accompanied the collapse. I consider both the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s seismic evidence and the evidence provided by a less studied form of seismic instrument, the video camera. I also draw on witness testimony. I conclude that key statements by NIST are false. Major shaking of the earth, and corresponding seismic signals, started well before the debris hit the ground. In fact, it seems certain that the shaking of the earth started before visible signs of building collapse. This evidence is incompatible with the official NIST hypothesis of the cause of the collapse of the Towers."
 
Last edited:
I love the absuridy of the author's premise, as if "NIST" were a person. It has phrases like "NIST wished to claim" throughout.

ETA - Oh. My. God.

the linked article said:
38
14. Various versions of the ABC video clip are available on the internet, some with time-
stamps and some without. As of the writing of this article, the ABC full day coverage has,
unfortunately, been removed from the Television Archive site and is no longer accessible.

I have chosen a version of the clip that was downloaded from the internet in 2005 as part
of complete, full day ABC coverage. This version actually has two time-stamps, which
give significantly different times.

As can be seen in the exemplifying frame below, there is one time-stamp at the top of the
picture and another at the bottom. Although it cannot be discerned in the single frame
below, detailed study of the footage shows that the top time-stamp is 12.729 seconds
ahead of the bottom one
(discounting the different time zones). Comparing several events
in this video with the same events in other videos, we conclude that the lower time-stamp
is the correct one. It is the lower time-stamp, therefore, that has been used in my
calculations.

Go to page 39 to see the photo shown by that comment, at "Endnote 14." The photo which shows that the time stamps are one second apart, besides the time zone difference. The top time stamp = 7:59:00 (central) and the bottom time stamp = 8:58:59 (eastern). Obviously, one of the time stamps is less than a second ahead of the other. The author helpfully points to them with arrows. Thanks dude!
 
Last edited:
Blah blah blah.

So, there was an earth shaking demolition, but no shockwave?? Hummm......


Sounds like it was that HUSH-A-BOOM!!

Wow, if the people who work for this idiotic bunch of things (Journal of 9/11 Studies) put this much effort into anything else, we would most likely have a cure for cancer by now.
 
That Professor is an idiot.

You have failed again bigot.

Right on the nail! Hard hitting lucid subtle analysis of funky, viewing the arguments from all sides, as usual.

This is the researcher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg

(611 comments, the topic really lives!)

Not surprisingly he came out with it after his retirement.

Like most truthers. Just to be on the safe side.

Do not change a user's name.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, if the people who work for this idiotic bunch of things (Journal of 9/11 Studies) put this much effort into anything else, we would most likely have a cure for cancer by now.
I can agree that they would probably come up with something. Something really nutty that didnt work of course, but with bells and whistles, accompanied by conspiracy theories about why the medical establishment supresses their inovation.
 
That's weird: the seismic records show that the WTC7 collapse lasted about 18 seconds. Yet again there were no indications of explosives, either thru seismic records, video or audio records.

Truthers: Find us a precedent for a tall tower that has an overall collapse time, from the start of the actual collapse, 300% slower than freefall would have produced, and with no sounds of detonation or shockwaves, even from 2 blocks away.

We'll be eagerly waiting for your results....
 
Oh my stars, the Religion Professor cited YOUTUBE COMMENTS in an end note.

Unfreakingbelievable.
 
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/MacQueen_EarlyEarthShake.pdf

A new paper is available at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is from Professor Graeme MacQueen, and is called "Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?" Here are some excerpts.

"In the debate over the collapses of the Twin Towers on 9/11, the shaking of the earth that accompanied these collapses has played an important role. This shaking registered clearly on seismographs. Less clear, however, are its causes and the times it began. The National Institute of Standards and Technology emphasizes the role of the debris from the collapsing buildings in producing the seismic signals. In assessing NIST’s hypothesis I focus on the collapse of the South Tower and attempt to determine the time the collapse began, the time the debris from the Tower struck the ground, and the temporal relation of these events to the shaking of the earth that accompanied the collapse. I consider both the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s seismic evidence and the evidence provided by a less studied form of seismic instrument, the video camera. I also draw on witness testimony. I conclude that key statements by NIST are false. Major shaking of the earth, and corresponding seismic signals, started well before the debris hit the ground. In fact, it seems certain that the shaking of the earth started before visible signs of building collapse. This evidence is incompatible with the official NIST hypothesis of the cause of the collapse of the Towers."



On the Holocaust-denial thread, you claimed, insanely, that Eichmann merely moved large numbers of Jews from place to place. Eichmann, of course, disagreed vehemently with your creative but wildly wrong assessment of his evil mission.

The Lamont-Doherty seismologists reject the moonshine conjured up by your lunatic movement. Your "new" discovery is, as usual, ancient rubbish. Craig Furlong, incidentally, acknowledged that Mackey was right. He is one of the very few "truthers" who has demonstrated some critical thinking skills..
 
30. YouTube comments tend to be ephemeral, and this is especially true in the study of 9/11 since many of the most important video clips are being removed from the internet. But here are typical comments posted some time ago in relation to the NY1 clip:
"Ephemeral" is not the word I would have chosen, but the author does have a way with words...
 
Okay - what has a retired professor of religious studies specialising in Budhist studies got to contribute to either physics or engineering?

But that aside. Why does the professor ignore the potential of the vibrations of the collapse not to translate through the foundations well before (comparitively) the debris hitting the ground.
 
Thanks for the link, 9/11-investigator.

And after the first rent-a-comment who could muster the will to read any more?

Who was it that said JREF was turning into a truther site?
 
Last edited:
This is idiocy that was dealt with over two years ago.

That's remarkable given that the paper came out 10 days ago.

Clairvoyant? Psychic abilities?

But I thought this was a sceptic site? :confused:

Yes, you are confused. A new paper on an old, debunked subject.

Similar idiocy, new package.

There is something septic about 9/11 'truth' that brings out the sceptic in us skeptics.
 
Thanks for the link, 9/11-investigator.

And after the first rent-a-comment who couldn't muster the will to read any more?

Who was it that said JREF was turning into a truther site?


Thanks for your brilliantly substantive comments on Mackey's crushing refutation of Ross and Furlong's paper on this rubbish.

We couldn't have been more impressed if you had the slightest idea of what you were sneering about, comrade.
 
Thanks for the link, 9/11-investigator.

And after the first rent-a-comment who couldn't muster the will to read any more?

Who was it that said JREF was turning into a truther site?

JJ, I thought you were a truther! I love, love, love the fact that you called old 911's OP (that was utterly devoid of any substantive comment, a/k/a spam for the idiots at J.O.N.E.S) a "rent-a-comment"!
 

Back
Top Bottom