Siesmic Evidence Proves Inside Job?

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


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

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

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

Do you?

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

Can anyone? What caused the seismic spike at WTC1 at 8:46:30?
 
Gravy said:
Thanks for replying to that. Kept my blood pressure at a reasonable level.
Click to expand...

Mine was starting to boil too. Anyone else notice that all of Craigs posts were saying exactly the same thing over and over, and he never actually backed anything up despite our pleas to do so? That tactic seems all too familiar......
 
Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)
Click to expand...
now we are on version 2? this thread started on version 3.1, and it was quickly pointed out the actual paper was on version 4

but i guess given the oct 2001 news articles truthers like so much this is just par for the course
 
quicknthedead said:
BTW, these are only simple facts presented...no theory.
I simply asked what caused the seismic spike and no one can answer it.

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

I answered your question. Again.

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

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

2. How did you establish the calibration? How did you compute the uncertainty?
 
R.Mackey said:
No, this is what's ridiculous. I will explain why your paper is crap again.



Here's your response:




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


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

There are no other events.

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

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

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

Why do you even bother trying to defend yourself?
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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

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

Adios
 
These are facts:
8:46:40
8:46:30
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pop quiz for Craig. Which radar site was that?
Click to expand...



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

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

Thanks.
 
R.Mackey said:
Back so soon? And with nothing new?

I answered your question. Again.

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

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

2. How did you establish the calibration? How did you compute the uncertainty?
Click to expand...

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

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

He's like Christophera. Except its not concrete core, it's his silly paper.
 
quicknthedead said:
You obfuscate and bring out nothing but smoke and mirrors, and you certainly avoid the question, R.Mackey. FYI, there were two spikes, and you clearly don't understand what LDEO and NIST did (you should have tried reading the paper). And BTW, the 17 seconds has to do with WTC2, but tonight has all been about WTC1.
Click to expand...
Is that so.

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

  • Why your own paper doesn't even mention the double spikes
  • Why NIST and LDEO don't mention double spikes
  • Where the double spikes are in the seismic records themselves, found here*

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

Not my problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* ETA: Those links seem to have gone bad, I'll find them again. They show the collapse seismo but not the impacts. Back in a bit.
ETA II: Found some nice graphs straight from LDEO. Happy hunting for those double spikes, tough guy.
 
Last edited:
Glad you're back, quick. For the second time, please name a person at the WTC who reported a massive explosion that corresponds to your claim, prior to flight 11's impact.

You haven't named one yet. Please do so now.
 
Kent1 said:
He just repeats the same thing over. Yet he can't address the problems with his paper. He's also spamming other forums right now with the same garbage. I see he also can't deal with the video evidence. He just posts scripture.
Click to expand...
wow. Pretty sad.

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

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

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

If you don't have the stones to do this, then you're definitely no match for a hard-bitten experimentalist. Like me.
 
apathoid said:
Yes, they do give altitude, look at Figure 2. The triangles are primary hits with altitude data. The circles are Mode C (altitude reporting).

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

Primary radar returns do not provide altitude.

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

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


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

Thursday, June 17, 2004


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


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


More on the subject of primary radar and altitude:
http://avcan.blogspot.com/2005/08/atc-radar-primary-surveillance-radar.html
 
Ah, no altitude data from the primary radar then. Obviously, this is a minor point, and a distraction from the main issue, which is that there was no explosion at the WTC prior to flight 11's impact. I see from this document that Boston Center contacted several nearby airliners for to get a visual estimate and received some feedback on AA11's altitude. I didn't check for similar info out of New York.

ETA: I was just looking at the "Primary Returns Height Measurement" here, which indicates that the FAA did have a way of roughly determing altitude, but I see Apathoid is addressing this already.

This FAA document says the last radar contact for flight 11 was at 8:46:31 and the time of impact was 8:46:35.

Now, quick, please provide the eyewitness testimony of the massive explosion that corresponds to your claim, prior to flight 11's impact. If you cannot, please have your 13-year-old grandson do so.
 
Last edited:
quicknthedead said:
Primary radar returns do not provide altitude.

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

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

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

NTSB Radar Study for the 4 9/11 Flights said:
The ARSR-4 long-range radar systems utilized by the FAA and USAF have the capability to estimate the altitude of primary targets with a certain degree of accuracy...

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

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

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

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

Thanks.
Click to expand...

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

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

However, no one answered the question.

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

But they give location and time.

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

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

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

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

Guys, what if you are wrong?

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

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

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

Try it. You all seem scientifically bent.

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

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

Adios! (Go with God)
 
Me said:
This FAA document says the last radar contact for flight 11 was at 8:46:31 and the time of impact was 8:46:35.
Click to expand...

Third time: what are you afraid of, quick?
Now, quick, please provide the eyewitness testimony of the massive explosion that corresponds to your claim, prior to flight 11's impact. If you cannot, please have your 13-year-old grandson do so.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom