Siesmic Evidence Proves Inside Job?

[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?

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. 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

 

[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. 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. 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

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". [SIZE=-1]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.





[/SIZE]

 

[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:

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:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/879045037c0c4961a.jpg[/qimg]

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?