Siesmic Evidence Proves Inside Job?

[R.Mackey]

AA Flt 11 WTC1

9/11 Commission - 8:46:40 [UTC; updated daily is standard protocol; this time is based upon the LAST PRIMARY RADAR CONTACT- a GIVEN]

Seismic/LDEO - 8:46:29 ± 1 sec [approved by NIST, infers UTC]

10 sec differential



Question: We know the plane hit at 8:46:40, so what was the 8:46:30?
Answer scientifically this time. No more BS or politics.

WHAT CAUSED THE SEISMIC SPIKE AT 8:46:30? [IT CAN'T BE AA Flt 11]

Already answered. And there's not a shred of politics in that answer. The only BS is your whitepaper.

If what you're claiming is true, the seismograph should have recorded TWO events, not one. One for the crash -- unless you deny any plane hit at all -- and one for your mythical explosives. But there's only one.

You have yet to address the answer. So don't bother asking it again, hoping we'll forget. Your own politics are achingly clear.

 

[quicknthedead]

If there was one prior to the flight 11 impact, it wasn't an explosion at the WTC, as anyone who was there can tell you.

Then what was it?

 

[Gravy]

Then what was it?

Hey, you're on to something! It was a seismic spike in your imagination.

 

[quicknthedead]

says 8:46:40 is based ont he last radar contact, what was the time of the last actual radar contact?

as apathoid has pointed out, radar times can be off by at least 4.6 seconds and by as much as 12 seconds, because the tracking is not continuous

The 8:46:40 WAS the last actual radar contact.
Look at the NTSB report. It shows one last final primary radar return at 8:46:40: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

The 9/11 Commission took this as the time because of this fact.

There was no "radar refresh/sweep" problem here as you and apathoid alude to. I have pointed this out before.

The plane crashed at 8:46:40, so what caused the seismic spike at 8:46:30?

 

[Gravy]

The 8:46:40 WAS the last actual radar contact.
Look at the NTSB report. It shows one last final primary radar return at 8:46:40: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

No, it shows that as the approximate time of the impact with the north tower. ETA: Note that the primary returns in the second diagram do not appear for the last part of the flight (interference by Manhattan buildings?), and the last data point shows the altitude as zero, not 1200+ feet. It seems likely that this data point was added manually to complete the track.

The 9/11 Commission took this as the time because of this fact.

There was no "radar refresh/sweep" problem here as you and apathoid alude to. I have pointed this out before.

The plane crashed at 8:46:40, so what caused the seismic spike at 8:46:30?

What about the word "approximately" don't you understand?

 

[apathoid]

The 8:46:40 WAS the last actual radar contact.
Look at the NTSB report. It shows one last final primary radar return at 8:46:40: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

The 9/11 Commission took this as the time because of this fact.

There was no "radar refresh/sweep" problem here as you and apathoid alude to. I have pointed this out before.

The plane crashed at 8:46:40, so what caused the seismic spike at 8:46:30?

I asked you this before and didnt get an answer, so I ask again:

Give me an exact quote/page/paragraph that says that 8:46:40 is the time of last known contact. I read thats an approximate impact time. Do you have a reading comprehension disorder, or are you being dishonest?

I'm just asking questions.

 

[quicknthedead]

Already answered. And there's not a shred of politics in that answer. The only BS is your whitepaper.

If what you're claiming is true, the seismograph should have recorded TWO events, not one. One for the crash -- unless you deny any plane hit at all -- and one for your mythical explosives. But there's only one.

You have yet to address the answer. So don't bother asking it again, hoping we'll forget. Your own politics are achingly clear.

I am claiming nothing. I am simply presenting the facts.

The 9/11 Commission's time is based upon FAA radar and ATC software logic, and the FAA network has standard protocol for updating to UTC daily.

No one has questioned the time of this last primary radar contact. If you believe otherwise, that is your prerogative, but you have yet to present any evidence (you once pointed out to me something about science; perhaps you need to take your own words to heart). If you have hard facts to the contrary, please present them. However, theory is one thing; hard facts are something else.
Look at the last primary radar contact; it is 8:46:40: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

The seismic time is accurate as well. It was revised and accepted by NIST in 2005, and is also UTC (their chapter on the times is entitled "ABSOLUTE TIME ACCURACY").

Don’t you think it ridiculous that NIST not once referenced the 9/11 Commission’s time that is at a DIRECT VARIANCE to their time? Not one mention of this contradiction! Such disregard for the facts (and to the American people, as the NIST report belongs to us).

Me address the answer? I already told you my answer.

What is your answer? What caused that seismic spike (other than explosions)?
Please be honest.

 

[quicknthedead]

Hey, you're on to something! It was a seismic spike in your imagination.

You have no answer.

Here is what a lot of people said: EXPLOSIONS!

By not addressing the question, you have yielded to them; and personally, I believe them over you...they were there that morning!

And the firefighters saw evidence of the explosions in the Lobby that could have only come from below.

8:46:40
8:46:30

This indicates COVERUP also.

NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time.
NIST avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the seismic data.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.

And you are avoiding the question as well. You are either stubborn, misguided, a government shill, or something else, but one thing you are not is intellectually honest.

Gravy...I will no longer respond to you because of this.

I'm sure it doesn't matter to you; and it certainly doesn't matter to me!

 

[Qubit]

What is your answer? What caused that seismic spike (other than explosions)?
Please be honest.

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.

 

[R.Mackey]

I am claiming nothing. I am simply presenting the facts. [...]

The seismic time is accurate as well. It was revised and accepted by NIST in 2005, and is also UTC (their chapter on the times is entitled "ABSOLUTE TIME ACCURACY").

Don’t you think it ridiculous that NIST not once referenced the 9/11 Commission’s time that is at a DIRECT VARIANCE to their time?

No, this is what's ridiculous. I will explain why your paper is crap again.

And again, I was talking about the seismographs. The name of the paper is "Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)" is it not? So where's this seismic proof? Show me those clocks were calibrated.

Here's your response:

On another item, I don't have to show LDEO was synched to UTC. NIST acquired the services of LDEO's Dr. Kim in 2005 to "firm up" their bogus 8:46:30 time of "impact". So, by inference, NIST qualified the seismic to UTC. (Either that or NIST is wrong, which is not palpable to you).

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

Not one mention of this contradiction! Such disregard for the facts (and to the American people, as the NIST report belongs to us).

Me address the answer? I already told you my answer.

What is your answer? What caused that seismic spike (other than explosions)?
Please be honest.

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?

 

[apathoid]

I am claiming nothing. I am simply presenting the facts.

The 9/11 Commission's time is based upon FAA radar and ATC software logic, and the FAA network has standard protocol for updating to UTC daily.

No one has questioned the time of this last primary radar contact. If you believe otherwise, that is your prerogative, but you have yet to present any evidence (you once pointed out to me something about science; perhaps you need to take your own words to heart). If you have hard facts to the contrary, please present them. However, theory is one thing; hard facts are something else.
Look at the last primary radar contact; it is 8:46:40: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

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?

 

[quicknthedead]

No, it shows that as the approximate time of the impact with the north tower. ETA: Note that the primary returns in the second diagram do not appear for the last part of the flight (interference by Manhattan buildings?), and the last data point shows the altitude as zero, not 1200+ feet. It seems likely that this data point was added manually to complete the track.

What about the word "approximately" don't you understand?

You do not understand primary radar returns. They do not give altitude, but do provide time and location, and the last 8:46:40 radar return is sitting on 8:46:40.

Approximate is used by the NTSB as standard nomenclature for flight path studies as the reports are always subject to higher authority for approval.

That authority, the 9/11 Commission in this case, confirmed the time as 8:46:40.

You are the one who doesn't understand primary radar returns, especially a final one. You need to check what you’re saying.

 

[apathoid]

You do not understand primary radar returns. They do not give altitude, but do provide time and location, and the last 8:46:40 radar return is sitting on 8:46:40.

Approximate is used by the NTSB as standard nomenclature for flight path studies as the reports are always subject to higher authority for approval.

That authority, the 9/11 Commission in this case, confirmed the time as 8:46:40.

You are the one who doesn't understand primary radar returns, especially a final one. You need to check what you’re saying.

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.

 

[Gravy]

You have no answer.

My answer was serious. You want to believe that there was a huge explosion at the WTC before flight 11 hit. However, to the real people who were really there, there was no explosion. It is in your imagination.

Here is what a lot of people said: EXPLOSIONS!

William Rodriguez reported hearing a noise from below, thinking it was a generator blowing, and before he could finish his thought, hearing a noise from above.

Name a person who claims that there was a huge explosion prior to flight 11's impact, corresponding to your claim.

Let's go, quick. Who are they?

And the firefighters saw evidence of the explosions in the Lobby that could have only come from below.

You either didn't read, or didn't understand, my compilation of numerous quotes that show the elevator explosions were due to jet fuel from above. Even Willie Rodriguez acknowledges the jet fuel. Why don't you? By the way, those jet fuel explosions happend in the elevator shafts of both towers.

And you are avoiding the question as well. You are either stubborn, misguided, a government shill, or something else, but one thing you are not is intellectually honest.

Not at all. I addressed your question directly with abundant evidence that refutes your claim. Where's your evidence that refutes mine?

Gravy...I will no longer respond to you because of this.

Typical CT response when confronted with hard evidence.

I'm sure it doesn't matter to you; and it certainly doesn't matter to me!

You're quite wrong. In fact, my 9/11 email address is itmatters@mail.com.

 

[quicknthedead]

I asked you this before and didnt get an answer, so I ask again:

Give me an exact quote/page/paragraph that says that 8:46:40 is the time of last known contact. I read thats an approximate impact time. Do you have a reading comprehension disorder, or are you being dishonest?

I'm just asking questions.

You have the flight path study and the 9/11 Commission Report. These are prime documents! What is wrong with your comprehension of the facts?

Do your own research and learn about primary radar returns if you like.

However, you avoid the question, so I am done with you.

You lose because you are the one who is intellectually dishonest.

Adios.

 

[Pardalis]

Adios.

Funny, I seem to remember seeing geggy and Killtown use the same word. Is that a new CT trend?

 

[R.Mackey]

You have the flight path study and the 9/11 Commission Report. These are prime documents! What is wrong with your comprehension of the facts?

Do your own research and learn about primary radar returns if you like.

However, you avoid the question, so I am done with you.

You lose because you are the one who is intellectually dishonest.

Adios.

Aaand there he goes again.

If you decide to come back again, bring someone who's actually got the physics under his belt to pose a worthy debate, mmm'kay? Bring Ross, bring Dr. Jones, bring the whole ruddy family, I don't care. We're more than ready on our side.

 

[Gravy]

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.

Thanks for replying to that. Kept my blood pressure at a reasonable level.

 

[apathoid]

You have the flight path study and the 9/11 Commission Report. These are prime documents! What is wrong with your comprehension of the facts?

Do your own research and learn about primary radar returns if you like.

However, you avoid the question, so I am done with you.

You lose because you are the one who is intellectually dishonest.

Adios.

Figures
Don't let the door knob hit you in the butt.

 

[Pardalis]

Thanks for replying to that. Kept my blood pressure at a reasonable level.

You need to buy yourself a budgie.