Siesmic Evidence Proves Inside Job?

[quicknthedead]

Originally Posted by Qubit

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.

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/S...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?

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by Gravy

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

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......

[defaultdotxbe]

Quote:

Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)

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

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

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?

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?

[quicknthedead]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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?

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

[defaultdotxbe]

Quote:

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

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

[quicknthedead]

Originally Posted by apathoid

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?

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.

[Kent1]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

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?

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.com...mesg_id=110373

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

He's like Christophera. Except its not concrete core, it's his silly paper.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

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.

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*

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

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).

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.

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

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.

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.

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

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

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.

[Gravy]

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.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Kent1

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.

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.

[quicknthedead]

Originally Posted by apathoid

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.

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/N...STATTACKS.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/at...nce-radar.html

[Gravy]

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.

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

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.

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).

Originally Posted by NTSB Radar Study for the 4 9/11 Flights

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.

http://www.911myths.com/Recorded_Rad...r_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.

Quote:

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.

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.

[Gravy]

You go, apathoid!

[quicknthedead]

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)

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Me

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.

Third time: what are you afraid of, quick?

Quote:

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.

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by Gravy

You go, apathoid!

Right back at'cha pardner!

...and the final score is JREF 63 and BS1234/Furlong 0.

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Third time: what are you afraid of, quick?

The truth.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Dog Town

My pdf reader is wacky can't read this now, but it has experts that were near GZ running seis equip. Check it out!

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/...ard_8-8-06.pdf

Absolutely awesome! TS1234, read this, and come back when you can refure it.

Hans

[quicknthedead]

Originally Posted by apathoid

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).


http://www.911myths.com/Recorded_Rad...r_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.



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.

Cool stuff, apathoid! I just catalogued this. I had run across information similar to this, but I have never seen this report. Thanks!

However, the 84th RADES provided the ASSUMED ALTITUDE dotted-line in the flight path study, and BTW, I provided this concept to you in my post #372 (it's in the link at the bottom, about the latitude-longitude-altitude method).

But the last primary return had nothing to do with altitude, because it was PSR.

And it WAS a return, with a time of 8:46:40!

Now what do you think that means?
It means no apology, and...

8:46:40 is good.
8:46:30 is good.

Thanks again,

Adios!

[ktesibios]

Page 9 of the FAA document Gravy referenced shows what appears to be an image of the radar reconstruction of the last part of AA11's ground track. While the black and white image is horribly difficult to read, the end of the trail is labeled "Last radar return, unknown altitude, ground speed (illegible) at 8:46:31 ET". The caption indicates that this data is from Newark airport's ASR-9 radar.

The Recorded Radar Data- all four aircraft document Apathoid referenced has this to say about Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR): "ASR radar normally records data approximately every 4 1/2 seconds".

Looking around for information on the ASR-9, I turned up a document on the usefulness of surveillance radar to weather monitoring, called "FAA SURVEILLANCE RADAR DATA AS A COMPLEMENT TO THE WSR-88D NETWORK " at http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~rfisher/Radar/WW-10147.pdf . It has this to say about the ASR-9 system: "The WSP provides full resolution reflectivity and velocity imagery out to the ASR-9’s instrumented range of 60 nmi; the images are updated every antenna sweep (4.8 seconds) out to 15 nmi where the wind shear detection algorithms operate."

I think that means that you can only tell if a contact is still there every 4.8 seconds; if it disappears on one particular sweep it could have gone down at any time between that sweep and the last time the antenna pointed in the same direction 4.8 seconds previously.

If so, there's an uncertainty of up to 4.8 seconds in the 8:46:31 time, that is, the plane could have crashed at any time between 8:46:26.2 and 8:46:31.

Add in the unknown uncertainty of the setting of Newark airport's clock and there seems to be enough slop in the measurements to bode rather ill for CT claims that depend on assumptions of one-second (or better) accuracy.

[MRC_Hans]

TS123½ kept chanting:

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

No. The basement explosives evidently went off 14 and 17 seconds before the planes hit.

Wrong. About 50 posts in this thread point out that this is not at all evident. TS, if you are to even pretend to be debating you need to stop ignoring the arguments of the other side.

Hans

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

JREF Forum,..........................
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? (Go with God)

And what if you are wrong?

Will you apologies to those you wrongly accuse of mass murderer?
Will you admit your paper is fraudulent?
Will you denounce your movement?
Will you stop dancing on graves?
Will you finally stop these ridiculous conspiracies?
Will you stop doubting those who tries to help?
Will you stop twisting and distorting witness statements?
Will you finally allow everybody to move on from this dreadful event?
Will you stop stroking your own ego?
Will you openly admit to your naive teenage audience you are a fraud?
Will you allow the victims to rest in peace?
Will you condemn those that desecrate GZ with this rubbish?
Will you support the genuine questions that still need answers?
Will you condemn your movement for mocking the victim’s final words?
Will you call for your movement to leave the families of the victims alone?
Will you stop calling those who opposed you shills?
Will you stop calling those who opposed you suckers?
Will you stop pretending you are the savoir of humanity?

Will you just for the love of god,stop?

Hey just asking questions.

[uruk]

Originally Posted by Qubit

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.

IT WUZ ALEE-INS!!!!!
Looky here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...26144647203934

It wuz them clingons from Uranus!!

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

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?

R.Mackey, apathoid, and Gravy have a good handle on the technical issues with your paper, but I'll play along with your hypothetical. If you can indeed show that there was a major seismic event in the North Tower ten seconds before Flight 11 hit, then we have major problems that would have to be resolved.

There were a huge number of people around the tower who would have noticed, yet none of them did. Even Willie Rodriguez heard something from the basement a very short time before he heard the explosion from above, not ten seconds. And Willie is your only witness that supports anything like a pre-impact explosion. Unfortunately for you, his description of the events is completely compatible with the standard model, and inconsistent with your idea of a 8:46:30 explosion.

The other problem to be resolved is that there is only one seismic spike on that record, and Flight 11 surely would have registered a major spike. How could the explosion ten seconds before cause a very discernable spike, but the airliner impact not be there at all?

So even if you could somehow demonstrate this ten-second-before seismic event (which it's abundantly clear by now you can't), you still have giant problems trying to show that that could be an explosion ten seconds before.

And by the way, calling your interlocutors "government shills" just makes you sound stupid. You might want to remove that bit from your act.

[Brainache]

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

JREF Forum,
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)

Umm well I guess it means these are the end times and the world is topsy turvy. Explosions are invisible to all but seismographs, planes hit buildings without causing shock waves and the Beast is loose in the world.

The whore of Babylon is doing her dance on the graves of the righteous.

The rapture is a commin to town and all the wretched sinners will burn in hell.

So I spose it's all OK then coz that's the way God planned it. Might as well go get a burger, rent a hooker and buy a bag of coke for kicks because noone's gonna save me now.

OTOH it might just be possible that a couple of clocks were slightly out of sync, so maybe I'll think twice about that burger.

[uruk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
No. The basement explosives evidently went off 14 and 17 seconds before the planes hit.

This is also for you Quickandthedead.

Not according to the CT'rs chief wittness.

In William Rodrigues's own words in this video he states that he heard an "explosion" "one or two seconds before the plane impact:
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/10/wi...szymanski.html
Here's the link to the video itself from the above site:
http://www.archive.org/download/inn/...sept05snow.wmv


2 minutes and 13 seconds into the video Mr. Rodrigues says that there was an explosion "one or two seconds" before the airplane impact. It has been shown how sounds of the impact can be heard in the basement via the steel support structures before sounds from the impact arrive from the outside .
Some simple calculation found the times to be roughly 1.14 and 1.24 seconds.
This would seem to coincide with Mr. Rodrigues's statement. ( Here's the page where the times were worked out: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...t=63740&page=7 )

Here's another video showing Mr. Rodriguez stating that the time between the two sounds is in a space of time of where he was going to verbalize a thought.:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...wtc+explosions

Based on testimony from Mr. Rodriguez himself, the spikes on the siezmograph, which are 10 to 14 seconds before the WTC collapse, could not have been caused by the alleged "explosion in the basement" that was reported by Mr. Rodriguez.

[cloudshipsrule]

Alright. Say there was some seismic event before the impact of the planes.

Are you saying it was a bomb?

If so, what was the point of this event? Neither building fell until over an hour after the impact of the planes. What did this first explosion accomplish?

I'm sure all this has been said before, but.....If there was a bomb in the basement of either WTC, it did nothing. The buildings fell from the TOP down, not all at once, and not bottom to top. What did this elusive basement explosion accomplish exactly?

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

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.

So if you won't respond to me any longer, that means you promise never to clear up the lies you've told.

Here's what you said:

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

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 here's the data: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

Show me those double spikes. Or else, you lied.

And they're considered spikes because they are spikes. Check the spectral plots at right for the two events. They are spikes. They did not call them that solely because of the small magnitude. Another lie.

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

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.

I answered your question, twice. I'll do it again. The seismic record shows the aircraft impact. There are no other events within 10 minutes of the impact, therefore that is what it is.

The same thing happens for the other tower.

It's very simple to understand.

You are wrong, you will not admit it, and that's still another lie.

If you're not a Conspiracy Theorist, then why do you lie, ignore criticisms and corrections, and blindly cling to your delusionary, absolutely unsupported hypothesis? What other explanation is there?

Since you're such a man of scripture, how do you feel about "bearing false witness?" That's what you're doing.

[juryjone]

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

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

This is what bothers me. Not only is this man delusional, but he forces his delusion on his impressionable grandson. A young man for whom Mr. Furlong bears some responsibility. And Mr. Furlong is teaching him that scientific endeavor consists of coming up with a hypothesis and repeating it ad nauseam while disregarding the facts. He's teaching his grandson that the cherry-picking of quotes is the proper way to get at the "truth" in an argument.

Let me ask you something, Mr. Furlong. You've mentioned your grandson, who seems to buy into your crap. What about your son/daughter? Is it that they refuse to talk to you on the subject, so you feel that your grandson is the proper receptacle for your lies? Does the rest of the family buy into your delusions, or just this one impressionable young man?

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

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

I have imagined this. It would mean that after the last radar return for American Airlines 11, it veared off and failed to hit the World Trade Center while simultaniously becoming invisible to radar.

It would mean that you have given hope to the families of 11 crew and 76 passengers that were thought to have died that day. And it would mean that you have not degraded and defiled the memory of:

Anna Williams Allison, 48, Stoneham, Mass.
David Angell, 54, Pasadena, Calif.
Lynn Angell, 52, Pasadena, Calif.
Seima Aoyama
Barbara Arestegui, 38, Marstons Mills, Mass.
Myra Aronson, 52, Charlestown, Mass.
Christine Barbuto, 32, Brookline, Mass.
Carolyn Beug, 48, Los Angeles, Calif.
Kelly Booms, 24, Boston, Mass.
Carol Bouchard, 43, Warwick, R.I.
Neilie Anne Casey, 32, Wellesley, Mass.
Jeffrey Collman, 41, Novato, Calif.
Jeffrey Coombs, 42, Abington, Mass.
Tara Creamer, 30, Worcester, Mass.
Thelma Cuccinello, 71, Wilmot, N.H.
Patrick Currivan, 52, Winchester, Mass.
Brian P. Dale, 43, Warren, N.J.
David DiMeglio, Wakefield, Mass.
Donald Ditullio, 49, Peabody, Mass.
Albert Dominguez, 65, Sydney, Australia
Alex Filipov, 70, Concord, Mass.
Carol Flyzik, 40, Plaistow, N.H.
Paul Friedman, 45, Belmont, Mass.
Karleton D.B. Fyfe, 31, Brookline, Mass.
Peter Gay, 54, Tewksbury, Mass.
Linda George, 27, Westboro, Mass.
Edmund Glazer, 41, Los Angeles, Calif.
Lisa Fenn Gordenstein, 41, Needham, Mass.
Andrew Curry Green, 34, Los Angeles, Calif.
Paige Farley Hackel, 46, Newton, Mass.
Peter Hashem, 40, Tewksbury, Mass.
Robert Hayes, 37, Amesbury, Mass.
Ted Hennessy, 35, Belmont, Mass.
John Hofer, 45, Bellflower, Calif.
John Hofer, 45, Bellflower, Calif.
Nicholas Humber, 60, Newton, Mass.
John C. Jenkins, 45, Cambridge, Mass.
Charles Jones, 48, Bedford, Mass.
Robin Kaplan, 33, Westboro, Mass.
Barbara Keating, 72, Palm Springs, Calif.
David Kovalcin, 42, Hudson, N.H.
Judy Larocque, 50, Framingham, Mass.
Natalie Janis Lasden, 46, Peabody, Mass.
Daniel John Lee, 34, Los Angeles, Calif.
Daniel C. Lewin, 31, Brookline, Mass.
Sara Low, 28, Batesville, Ark.
Susan MacKay, 44, Westford, Mass.
Karen Martin, 40, Danvers, Mass.
Thomas McGuinness, 42, Portsmouth, N.H.
Christopher D. Mello, 25, Boston, Mass.
Jeff Mladenik, 43, Hinsdale, Ill.
Antonio Montoya, 46, East Boston, Mass.
Carlos Montoya
Laura Lee Morabito, 34, Framingham, Mass.
Mildred Naiman, Andover, Mass.
Laurie Neira
Renee Newell, 37, Cranston, R.I.
Kathleen Nicosia
Jacqueline Norton, 60, Lubec, Maine
Robert Norton, 82, Lubec, Maine
John Ogonowski, 52, Dracut, Mass.
Betty Ong, 45, Andover, Mass.
Jane Orth, 49, Haverhill, Mass.
Thomas Pecorelli, 31, Los Angeles, Calif.
Berry Berenson Perkins, 53, Wellfleet, Mass.
Sonia Morales Puopolo, 58, Dover, Mass.
David Retik, Needham, Mass.
Jean Roger, 24, Longmeadow, Mass.
Philip Rosenzweig, Acton, Mass.
Richard Ross, 58, Newton, Mass.
Jessica Sachs, 22, Billerica, Mass.
Rahma Salie, 28, Boston, Mass.
Heather Smith, 30, Boston, Mass.
Dianne Snyder, 42, Westport, Mass.
Douglas Stone, 54, Dover, N.H.
Xavier Suarez
Madeline Sweeney, 35, Acton, Mass.
Michael Theodoridis, 32, Boston, Mass.
James Trentini, 65, Everett, Mass.
Mary Trentini, 67, Everett, Mass.
Pendyala Vamsikrishna, 30, Los Angeles, Calif.
Mary Wahlstrom, 75, Kaysville, Utah
Kenneth Waldie, 46, Methuen, Mass.
John Wenckus, 46, Torrance, Calif.
Candace Lee Williams, 20, Danbury, Conn.
Christopher Zarba, 47, Hopkinton, Mass.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Referring to Flight 11

Quote:

The aircraft impacted the North Tower at approximately 8:46:40 (point I)

[bolding mine]
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc01.pdf

The 9/11 Commission report, section 1, footnote 39 indicates that they are referencing the above document when they cite 8:46:40 as the time of impact in their report.

Last aircraft to ground communication was a 8:33:59 EDT (12:33:59 PM GMT). http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc05.pdf

Seismographic readings from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University show impact time of 08:46:26.0 EDT + 16.95 seconds => 8:46:42.95 EDT http://www.popularmechanics.com/cont...u/lcsn%3C/a%3E

As ktesibios showed in this post, the margin of error for the radar sweep was 8:46:31 +/- 4.8 seconds. This is consistent with the Commission's approximated time and LDEO's recorded seismic event.

Now, what is the issue?

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Referring to Flight 11 Seismographic readings from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University show impact time of 08:46:26.0 EDT + 16.95 seconds => 8:46:42.95 EDT http://www.popularmechanics.com/cont...u/lcsn%3C/a%3E

Once again, nice work, and thank you.

Looking at your plots for the seismographic traces -- do you mean that all this time, Ross and Furlong were looking at the time tag at the start of the sample... and not the time tag at the start of the event? Is that where the offset comes from?

If this is so, this is even more pathetic than I imagined possible.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Once again, nice work, and thank you.

Looking at your plots for the seismographic traces -- do you mean that all this time, Ross and Furlong were looking at the time tag at the start of the sample... and not the time tag at the start of the event? Is that where the offset comes from?

If this is so, this is even more pathetic than I imagined possible.

Yep, horizontal axis runs from 0-40 seconds with a start time of 08:46:26.0 EDT and the reading marked at +16.95 seconds on the graph.

[quicknthedead]

Originally Posted by CurtC

R.Mackey, apathoid, and Gravy have a good handle on the technical issues with your paper, but I'll play along with your hypothetical. If you can indeed show that there was a major seismic event in the North Tower ten seconds before Flight 11 hit, then we have major problems that would have to be resolved.

There were a huge number of people around the tower who would have noticed, yet none of them did. Even Willie Rodriguez heard something from the basement a very short time before he heard the explosion from above, not ten seconds. And Willie is your only witness that supports anything like a pre-impact explosion. Unfortunately for you, his description of the events is completely compatible with the standard model, and inconsistent with your idea of a 8:46:30 explosion.

The other problem to be resolved is that there is only one seismic spike on that record, and Flight 11 surely would have registered a major spike. How could the explosion ten seconds before cause a very discernable spike, but the airliner impact not be there at all?

So even if you could somehow demonstrate this ten-second-before seismic event (which it's abundantly clear by now you can't), you still have giant problems trying to show that that could be an explosion ten seconds before.

And by the way, calling your interlocutors "government shills" just makes you sound stupid. You might want to remove that bit from your act.

Here's your order for accounts of explosions. Are all you shills happy now?

I didn't think so! (You all are so plastic.)

LOL

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...60118104223192
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/08/21/ward.htm

Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it,
But the discipline of fools is folly.

Proverbs 16:22

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

Here's your order for accounts of explosions. Are all you shills happy now?

I didn't think so! (You all are so plastic.)

LOL

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...60118104223192
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/08/21/ward.htm

Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it,
But the discipline of fools is folly.

Proverbs 16:22

both articles seem to rely on the same 3-4 quotes likening the collapse to a controlled demolition (CTers never learned what a simile is apparently) but none of them state any explosions were before the plane hit

you should be happy i even read the second one with the title "Bombs in the WTC Buildings Proves Nothing to Racist-Fascist Bigots" i almost didnt

[Dog Town]

Quote:

Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it,
But the discipline of fools is folly.

Don't like you atall,... but I feel embarrassed for ya! O' the irony...

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

Here's your order for accounts of explosions. Are all you shills happy now?

I didn't think so! (You all are so plastic.)

We are not shills, and we are not happy with your stupidity. I asked for a witness who claims there was a massive explosion that corresponds to your claim.

Of the thousands of people who were right there, you have been unable to provide a single account of this huge explosion. Why do you think that is, quick? Are you going to claim mass amnesia now? C'mon, quick, what's your excuse?

Okay, I'll make it easier for you: how about an alarm that went off, an emergency call made, a mechanical systems malfunction? Nada? Zilch? What's your excuse?

And why didn't you use this graph in your ridiculous paper? It's from the same site where you got your other information. Could it be because it proves there was no second impact from flight 11? What's your excuse?

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by quicknthedead

Here's your order for accounts of explosions. Are all you shills happy now?

Understanding is a fountain of life to one who has it,
But the discipline of fools is folly.

Proverbs 16:22

Next time I see you, remind me not to talk to you.
Groucho Marx