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, 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 M
R 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 M
R 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 M
R 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.
