Siesmic Evidence Proves Inside Job?

[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!