Siesmic Evidence Proves Inside Job?
- Thread starter TruthSeeker1234
- Start date
-
- Tags
- seismic seismology
More times:
I got roughly 9:02:59 from ABC (Leaning between 9:02:59 and 9:03:00)
http://media.putfile.com/911P2
I get roughly 9:02:56 +–1 (Leaning toward 9:02:55-56) on this FOX news clip. http://media.putfile.com/911P6
On this video from (NY Good day) I get 9:03:00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1umznssiZU
I believe those are the right links
I also have a CNN video that has 9:03:00(+1)
What do I NOT get. Well I don't get times close to. 9:03:11
Last edited:
quicknthedead
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 173
Well, I see where you are coming from. If you try to measure something so perfectly, I mean to get as close as you can get (even at the atomic level you'd affect your data), you'd still be "pretty" close.
And "pretty" close is not perfect. I can agree with you on this.
However, in the world of the atomic clock, if you've got a 10 - 14 second differential from good UTC data, along with a lot of corroborating eyewitness testimonies, confirmed by other audio testimonies, you can overcome reasonable doubt.
All I want is another new 9/11 investigation, but this time one with teeth.
Read the end of our paper as to why.
Now as to you and your last comments, how do you know that what is presented in the paper is false? And just what if you were wrong, that the paper is correct? After all, these are simply facts.
There are many other things very wrong about 9/11 that push one way past reasonable doubt if one only looks into the matter.
Check this out and give me a refutation. I've never heard or seen one yet from anyone. I really believe I will not hear back from you on this sound analysis. It is very indicting. A smoking gun.
Scientific sound analysis:
GO IN 48 MINS 30 SECS
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=9/11+eyewitness
WTC7 collapse: Another smoking gun...a classic controlled demolition...textbook.
http://killtown.911review.org/video/wtc7/wtc7_cbs_closeup.mpeg
American Airlines Flight 11
Lamont-Doherty seismic time = 8:46:26
9/11 Commission Report time = 8:46:40
[14 seconds difference]
United Airlines Flight 175
Lamont-Doherty seismic time = 9:02:54
9/11 Commission Report time = 9:03:11
[17 seconds difference]
For the complete report:
“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross (Members, Scholars for 9/11 Truth)
Link: http://worldtradecentertruth.com/volume/200609/SeismicFurlong.doc
And there are more.
quicknthedead
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 173
It's in the paper. Especially look at the NTSB Flight Path Study for AA Flt 11. It shows the last radar signal.
And ATC Bottiglia saw it disappear while he was watching it at 8:46:40.
What's the matter, don't trust your government?
Please quote the Flight Path Study. I mean provide an exact quote, or point me to the page/paragraph.
I have it open right now and the only reference to 8:46:40 is:
"The airplane impacted the North Tower at approximately 8:46:40."
Please provide a source(besides your doc) for :
Last edited:
quicknthedead
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 173
Funny thing about Dr. Kim. I first emailed him first week of August with a simple request for him to verify that LDEO's seismic times for 9/11 were correct.
Instead he sent me a reply that linked me to this:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf
I had already read this report, and although it mentions briefly that all seismic times are accurate, he did not come right out and state this, that the times were correct, accurate and reliable (my question to him).
I then emailed him back two more times, but no response.
I then sent him a formal email with the basics found in the paper, and asked him again for his comment, along with cc'ing Gordon Ross and Dr. Kim's associate, Dr. Werner-Lam.
Again, with no surprise...no reply.
This is strange. During all these emails, which covered the first two weeks of August, why didn't Kim just refer me to the new NIST report?
And on the first email, instead he links me to an old report that didn't even address the question.
Good luck trying to contact him on this.
quicknthedead
Thinker
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 173
I'm sorry, Kent1, but I can only see the video timestamps for the ones that have the ABC logo and graphics. The bottom ones, the stills, I don't see any timestamping, only the numbers 0758 to 0776 outside the picture at the bottom right (and these do not appear to be timestamps).
Anyway, as you state, we do not know if they were timestamped to UTC.
That's because those are zoom-in shots/crops.
Also try watching the video. Those times from the same camera must be just a strange coincidence.
Last edited:
Are you serious?
I count 20 pictures with timestamps ranging from 8:46:26 to 8:46:30 for WTC1, and 9:02:51 to 9:02:56 for WTC2.
He didn't notice that those (0758 to 0776) were cropped shots.
Last edited:
I guess, but it looked like something of a dodge.
Anyhow, anyone care to formulate the mathematical odds that these matched the seismograph timestamps by sheer luck?
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Read my post again. Jet fuel all the way down through sub-level 6. You're thinking about how far specific elevators traveled. Think about the shafts instead. And remember that the explosion was a fireball, which high explosives do not create. There was also one explosion, not several. Willie Rodriguez told me he smelled the jet fuel in the basement.
If that were on videotape, I'd be impressed.
There's no discrepancy. Note that she says she'd heard "about that sonic boom," not heard one herself. It sounds like she's describing the roar of the jet as it passed near Battery Park City at 375 knots. Also, the fireball expanded for several seconds, and lighter debris fell for many seconds, from 1,200 feet in the air: plenty of time for her to see the aftermath of the collision.
Already been explained. Sorry. You need to deal with all the evidence, not just that which you like.
Last edited:
ktesibios
Worthless Aging Hippie
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2002
- Messages
- 1,493
I've read your paper. Regarding your claims about NIST "making up" their times, this description of how they reconstructed the timeline from the visual record is relevant:
A visual record exists starting with the first plane impact; in fact, this event was captured on two different videos. After that, there were a lot of cameras aimed at the WTC. But I digress.
What NIST did was to organize the recorded images into a relative time line, partly by using metadata in digital images, which would give relative times for a series of pictures taken with the same camera or digital video clips from the same recorder and partly by comparing identifiable features and events in separate images. The second sentence I've bolded in the first quote sums it all up- they ultimately derived a timing for the different events which showed how far apart in time they occurred.
To correlate this relative timeline with absolute time, they began with the assumption that the time given for the second aircraft strike of 9:02:54 was correct. Using this assumption, they found that the first aircraft strike would have occurred at 8:46:25, which differs from the FEMA reported time of 8:46:26.
This does not support the contention that NIST's initial absolute time determination for the first impact was based on LDOE data or from FEMA and therefore not coupled to the absolute time for the second impact derived from broadcast timestamps. Rather, it indicates that NIST's intial absolute time for this event was derived by determining the time interval between the first and second impacts from the visual record and referencing it to the assumed absolute time of the second impact. This means that the two times were in fact coupled together by the time line reconstructed from the photo and video evidence and that an offset correction to one would properly apply to the other.
Their initial time determinations for other events, such as the collapses of the twin towers, also differ from those given by FEMA; in the case of the first collapse by 10 seconds and in the case of the second collapse by 14 seconds. This is more evidence that NIST relied on FEMA timings only for the absolute time of the second impact and derived all other times by reference to the visual data. All of the times given in the "relative time from visual analysis" column of table 3-1 are just that- derived from the visual record and related to the time of the second aircraft impact. Since all of these points do indeed lie on the same "ruler", a correction to the location of its "zero" reference point applies equally to all of them.
It's possible to question the accuracy of NIST's approach, although without re-doing all of that tedious comparing and calculating and databasing it's impossible to support a contention that it's wrong.
But I don't see how a claim that they "made it all up" can possibly be supported by this evidence.
Handwaving. That's all the PCT position has got.
A visual record exists starting with the first plane impact; in fact, this event was captured on two different videos. After that, there were a lot of cameras aimed at the WTC. But I digress.
What NIST did was to organize the recorded images into a relative time line, partly by using metadata in digital images, which would give relative times for a series of pictures taken with the same camera or digital video clips from the same recorder and partly by comparing identifiable features and events in separate images. The second sentence I've bolded in the first quote sums it all up- they ultimately derived a timing for the different events which showed how far apart in time they occurred.
To correlate this relative timeline with absolute time, they began with the assumption that the time given for the second aircraft strike of 9:02:54 was correct. Using this assumption, they found that the first aircraft strike would have occurred at 8:46:25, which differs from the FEMA reported time of 8:46:26.
This does not support the contention that NIST's initial absolute time determination for the first impact was based on LDOE data or from FEMA and therefore not coupled to the absolute time for the second impact derived from broadcast timestamps. Rather, it indicates that NIST's intial absolute time for this event was derived by determining the time interval between the first and second impacts from the visual record and referencing it to the assumed absolute time of the second impact. This means that the two times were in fact coupled together by the time line reconstructed from the photo and video evidence and that an offset correction to one would properly apply to the other.
Their initial time determinations for other events, such as the collapses of the twin towers, also differ from those given by FEMA; in the case of the first collapse by 10 seconds and in the case of the second collapse by 14 seconds. This is more evidence that NIST relied on FEMA timings only for the absolute time of the second impact and derived all other times by reference to the visual data. All of the times given in the "relative time from visual analysis" column of table 3-1 are just that- derived from the visual record and related to the time of the second aircraft impact. Since all of these points do indeed lie on the same "ruler", a correction to the location of its "zero" reference point applies equally to all of them.
It's possible to question the accuracy of NIST's approach, although without re-doing all of that tedious comparing and calculating and databasing it's impossible to support a contention that it's wrong.
But I don't see how a claim that they "made it all up" can possibly be supported by this evidence.
Handwaving. That's all the PCT position has got.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Some facts:
1) Siesmographs located in Manhattan itself did not record events prior to aircraft impact
2) The overwhelming majority of witnesses do not report explosives before impact
3) Those that do were not in a position to see impact, and their accounts are either misrepresented ("sound like moving furniture" becomes "massive explosion") or they themselves have changed their story repeatedly.
4) Copious quantities of video evidence of the impact of UA175 exist. Not one single piece of video captures explosions before impact. Not one.
5) Events located in the vicinity of elevator shafts were reported on numerous floors throughout both buildings, from the basement to floors just below impact.
6) These eyewitness reports repeatedly, and explicitly, describe the smell of Jet Fuel.
7) The injuries sustained by those injured by these elevator-located events are consistant and unique to f;ash-burns from fuel fireballs.
Conclusion?
There were no explosive devices detonated in the WTC prior to the impact of aircraft.
-Andrew
1) Siesmographs located in Manhattan itself did not record events prior to aircraft impact
2) The overwhelming majority of witnesses do not report explosives before impact
3) Those that do were not in a position to see impact, and their accounts are either misrepresented ("sound like moving furniture" becomes "massive explosion") or they themselves have changed their story repeatedly.
4) Copious quantities of video evidence of the impact of UA175 exist. Not one single piece of video captures explosions before impact. Not one.
5) Events located in the vicinity of elevator shafts were reported on numerous floors throughout both buildings, from the basement to floors just below impact.
6) These eyewitness reports repeatedly, and explicitly, describe the smell of Jet Fuel.
7) The injuries sustained by those injured by these elevator-located events are consistant and unique to f;ash-burns from fuel fireballs.
Conclusion?
There were no explosive devices detonated in the WTC prior to the impact of aircraft.
-Andrew
Z
Variable Constant
Just a quick note from experience:
During the decade I served in the Army, we used UTC during a number of exercises and operations; however, we often found individual pieces of equipment that had to be re-synced, sometimes as often as every three to four hours. Computer times were notoriously unreliable; prior to every timed mission, we had to get a clock-sync from higher on all units, to ensure accurate TOT times.
Other than this, we used whatever watch was handiest. Sure, we would sync up to UTC time - once in a while. By the end of three or four days, we'd be off a few seconds.
A lot of agencies suffer the same lazy attitudes. Sure, a lot of equipment is auto-synced-- but how often? My computer auto-syncs at home... once a day. I've watched it spontaneously jump up to 22 minutes once during its resync.
So assuming that any one clock is completely accurate is a fallacy, unless that clock is coming straight from a UTC source - like a GPS satellite or similar.
That being said, I have no idea what each time stamp is based upon, or whether any or all of the clocks involved are directly and instantly maintained. But if they're not - even if they're updated hourly - then there is a margin for error in each timestamp. And the less often they're updated, the larger that margin grows.
Plus, what are the calculated differences we would expect in time for sound travel on these events?
During the decade I served in the Army, we used UTC during a number of exercises and operations; however, we often found individual pieces of equipment that had to be re-synced, sometimes as often as every three to four hours. Computer times were notoriously unreliable; prior to every timed mission, we had to get a clock-sync from higher on all units, to ensure accurate TOT times.
Other than this, we used whatever watch was handiest. Sure, we would sync up to UTC time - once in a while. By the end of three or four days, we'd be off a few seconds.
A lot of agencies suffer the same lazy attitudes. Sure, a lot of equipment is auto-synced-- but how often? My computer auto-syncs at home... once a day. I've watched it spontaneously jump up to 22 minutes once during its resync.
So assuming that any one clock is completely accurate is a fallacy, unless that clock is coming straight from a UTC source - like a GPS satellite or similar.
That being said, I have no idea what each time stamp is based upon, or whether any or all of the clocks involved are directly and instantly maintained. But if they're not - even if they're updated hourly - then there is a margin for error in each timestamp. And the less often they're updated, the larger that margin grows.
Plus, what are the calculated differences we would expect in time for sound travel on these events?
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
It's been explained to you now what UTC is, and zaayrdragon has also explained some of the issues with time synchronization.
I'll ask again. Do you know if all the clocks you are relying on for your theory had been synchronized to the same time source (UTC is not a time source). If you do, provide a source for your answer. If not, your theory is not worth the toilet paper it's scratched on.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
I wonder if the 37 people who heard the explosions were on UTC?
I also wonder how a commercial airliner can strike steel support structures that are imbedded in several tens of feet of solid granite and not produce a detectable siesmic event? It would be roughly akin to striking a tuning fork.
The impact on the support structur would send vibrations all through the building including the basement sub levels. The large enclosed area of the basments would even act to amplify the sound like a sound box on an african thumb piano. (google it, you'll see what I'm talking about)
I did an impromptu experiment with my class to see how synced up our watches were. Suffice it to say that there were sizable differences. (which would explain why some of my student are chronically tardy)
Anyhoo, if you look at the siesmic chart, you still only see two events. Where is the one showing the air planes striking the buildings?
I also wonder how a commercial airliner can strike steel support structures that are imbedded in several tens of feet of solid granite and not produce a detectable siesmic event? It would be roughly akin to striking a tuning fork.
The impact on the support structur would send vibrations all through the building including the basement sub levels. The large enclosed area of the basments would even act to amplify the sound like a sound box on an african thumb piano. (google it, you'll see what I'm talking about)
I did an impromptu experiment with my class to see how synced up our watches were. Suffice it to say that there were sizable differences. (which would explain why some of my student are chronically tardy)
Anyhoo, if you look at the siesmic chart, you still only see two events. Where is the one showing the air planes striking the buildings?
Last edited:
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
It's amazing how they guys take as 100% gospel, the comments from those caught in the middle of a traumatic event, wait, I meant selectively take as gospel. The fire captain who saw the 20 foot hole in WTC7, his word is crap.
You've provided no evidence -- none -- that the seismographs were synchronized to an atomic clock. Nor did you bother to check.
What I showed is that all of the seismograph readings are miscalibrated, not just the two you're banging on about. This suggests either (a) the clocks were offset, or (b) not only were there two phantom explosions that nobody else saw or heard -- one in each tower -- that accomplished nothing of any relevance, but the towers also collapsed ten seconds before we saw it on TV. Both of them, separately.
Guess which one I think is more likely?
Because you're leaping to conclusions. What you have here is a particularly infamous "false dilemma." To explain, you present the reader with two choices:
1. All sources of data agree to within a couple of seconds
2. The entire 9-11 Commission Report is a fabrication, planted explosives went off before the planes arrived not once but twice, and the Government should be overthrown
There's a lot of room in the middle that you fail to consider. Hence your paper is crap.
I'm supposed to refute an unsourced video? Give me a break. Show your findings or go pound sand. At least your whitepaper showed its work, so it was easy to find the holes.
Now you're quoting Killtown??? The guy who added 125 feet to 580 miles per hour to get 705 feet? Your standards of peer review are, shall we say, lacking.
I dismantled all of his WTC7 claims in another thread here last month. Go search, you'll learn quite a lot about Killtown.
Your standards of reporting are getting worse, not better. Your challenge is hereby rejected. Go find some real evidence and do a proper analysis, then we'll talk.
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
What he said...From another PE (Mechanical-dynamics, vibration, and loads)