The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[proudfootz]

A new discovery:

The 9/11 Consensus Panel: 2015 Report
on JANUARY 26, 2016
http://www.consensus911.org/

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-1/
http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-2/
http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-7/
http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-8/

[406043]
psik

The second to last link (or the third one down) makes some interesting claim: the seismic waves allegedly associated with the plane impacts were recorded before the times attributed to the plane impacts.

In 2006, engineers Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross showed that the plane impacts could not have caused the seismic signals attributed to them by LDEO [Lamont Doherty-Earth Observatory], because they originated several seconds before the 9/11 Commission’s radar-based times of impact.

The seismic events, therefore, must have resulted from causes of a different type. The best (and probably only plausible) candidate for these causes would seemingly be explosions in the basements of the Twin Towers, for which there is abundant physical and testimonial evidence.

http://www.consensus911.org/point-tt-7/

The big question here being how much 'slop' can be tolerated in timing of seismic waves recorded remotely and radar based flight times?

The times put forward by the 9/11 Commission come from radar at ground level and are
based on the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) data. They are the only reliable times because they are based on
ground radar data which do not involve any hypothetical assumptions. They are
considered to be reliable to one second.

For the time of the impact of the plane into WTC1 furnished by the Commission, 8.46.40
(9/11 Commission Report, p. 7; Ritter, 2002), there is a hiatus of 15 seconds between the
plausible time of the origin of the Rayleigh wave based on the Palisades data and the
time -- afterwards -- of the crash of the plane into WTC1 based on the ground radar data.
What else but an explosion could be the origin for this seismic wave in the absence of an
earthquake? A similar discrepancy exists in the data for the seismic wave and impact
times for WTC2.

http://journalof911studies.com/resource ... er2012.pdf

Where the precision of the recorded times are supposed to be accurate to within a second (more or less) a fifteen second difference would seem to be significant.

[Weaver]

A lovely example of shitty science - if you omit the PUBLISHED uncertainties in actual, PUBLISHED science, you can raise all sorts of false doubt about the conclusion.

The actual, working scientists at LDEO knew there was about 2 seconds of uncertainty in the origin time due to seismic conditions. Combine this with the uncertainty in the impact time estimate, it is not at all surprising there is a discrepancy in absolute values. But if you pretend the error bars don't exist, as Rousseau does (he's the originator of the claims that the LDEO (Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory) data are wrong - interestingly, he starts off his "paper" - vanity published in a "9/11 Truth" publication - by slandering the scientists at LDEO, claiming that they're mere seismologists whereas a real geophysicist like him knows better. Um, dumbass, there's a reason the LDEO used to be called the Lamont-Doherty Geophysical Observatory.) (My father used to work there. I've seen the seismographic repeaters from the Palisades station. Guess this means I must be part of the cover-up conspiracy, right?)

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20 ... EO_KIM.pdf

Figure 1 shows seismic signals at Palisades, N.Y. (PAL) for the impacts and collapses, which
are labeled by their arrival time order. Note that impact 1 and collapse 2 relate to the north
tower, and impact 2 and collapse 1 apply to the south tower. Computed origin times and seismic
magnitudes are listed in Figure 1. Origin times with an uncertainty of 2 s were calculated from
the arrival times of Rg waves at PAL using a velocity of 2 km/s. The collapse of 7 WTC at
17:20:33 EDT was recorded but is not shown. Three other small signals shown in Figure 1 and
ones at 12:07:38 and 12:10:03 EDT may have been generated by additional collapses.

[Weaver]

The actual reality is that uncertainty understandably exists - this isn't a very seismically active region, therefore data are lacking, especially in comparison to Western states. They were surface origin events, for which data are even more lacking. And the resulting signals were pretty small (well less than 1 magnitude on the Richter Scale, meaning that data were only available at a small number of stations.

Interesting that there's so much credibility for a single "debunker" making claims based entirely upon ignorance of published uncertainties, but no credence given to the multitude of working scientists involved in analysis and publication of the original data.

Oh - that's right. They must have been part of the conspiracy as well.

How many tens of thousands of people must that list encompass now? All strangely silent for a decade and a half?

[proudfootz]

Obviously an error bar of 2 seconds more or less cannot account for a discrepancy in the double digits.

This is just simple math.

No amount of strawmanning can turn 4 seconds into 15 seconds.

[Weaver]

The claims made by Rousseau are utterly unsupported by any other scientist in the field.

He's a crank making bullshit claims.

Therefore, of course, to "Truthers", he's the most reliable source of information. Typical.

[proudfootz]

The scientific paper derives its timings from published sources.

Therefore, in claiming his paper 'bullshit' one has to condemn his sources - including LDEO.

But maybe they are conveniently 'incompetent' - just like NORAD, NTSB, USAF, FAA, CIA, FBI, and everyone else who got promotions and medals instead of punishment.

But then, if all the 'official sources' are incompetent boobs, why would anyone in their right mind take any of their claims seriously?

Again - no amount of speechifying changes the math which is based on 'official sources'.

[Weaver]

The paper by Rousseau is not scientific - it underwent no peer review, and was only published in a vanity conspiracy theorist online "journal". Its analysis has undergone no scientific scrutiny - yet it is accepted as utter gospel by people stretching massively for any gap to jam their conspiracy theory into.

They started by complaining that the collapse seismic data showed explosions - but that proved false. So now they shift on to raising false doubts due to the lack of perfect knowledge of the seismic transmission factors of a geologically inactive area.

Just like religion - ever in search of a new "gap" to shove their conspiracy god into.

[proudfootz]

Yes, comparing 'official times' from so-called scientific peer reviewed papers we clearly have very large discrepancies.

Of course, as commonly argued by CT apologists [like Weaver in this thread], everyone in a position of responsibility in the USA might be a complete incompetent and unworthy of our credence.

All the more reason to be skeptical of their 'reasoning'.

If the published findings of the 'official' conspiracy theorists is irreconcilable, it is no one's fault but their own.

Again, no amount of rhetoric can turn a 2 second margin of error into 16 seconds.

Math wins over the blowhards every time.

[quas]

The evidence of OBL's responsibility was utterly clear; the invasion of Afghanistan was fully justified and legal - that is precisely why so many other nations joined us in our invasion and attempt to bring OBL to justice.

Argumentum ad populum?

How many nations actually join the hunt for Bin Laden because they have independently established OBL's guilt?

Many nations were also involved in the Iraq Invasion, so you are saying this Iraq war is legit as well?

[proudfootz]

The evidence of OBL's responsibility was utterly clear; the invasion of Afghanistan was fully justified and legal - that is precisely why so many other nations joined us in our invasion and attempt to bring OBL to justice.

Argumentum ad populum?

How many nations actually join the hunt for Bin Laden because they have independently established OBL's guilt?

Many nations were also involved in the Iraq Invasion, so you are saying this Iraq war is legit as well?

Well Colin Powell did show us pictures of aluminum tubes used in their manufacture of nuclear weapons, didn't he?

President Bush nevertheless claimed two days later that Saddam Hussein “has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production” and that he “has not credibly explained these activities.” Secretary of State Colin Powell repeated the administration’s case at the Security Council on February 5, declaring that “Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb. He is so determined that he has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes”. While acknowledging that there “are differences of opinion” about the tubes, Powell claimed that “Most U.S. experts think they are intended to serve as rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium.” The truth was that, as David Albright later observed, “The vast majority of gas centrifuge experts in this country and abroad who are knowledgeable about this case reject the CIA’s case”, including the nation’s top experts at the DOE who had “virtually the only expertise on gas centrifuges and nuclear weapons programs in the United States government”, as well as the intelligence branch of Powell’s own State Department.

Powell disingenuously and meaninglessly declared that “all the experts who have analyzed the tubes in our possession agree that they can be adapted for centrifuge use”. As one DOE analyst would later explain to the Senate Committee, you could also theoretically “turn your new Yugo into a Cadillac”. Retired Oak Ridge nuclear scientist Dr. Houston G. Wood, one of the top experts in the world on centrifuges, similarly explained that “it would have been extremely difficult to make these tubes into centrifuges. It stretches the imagination to come up with a way. I do not know any real centrifuge experts that feel differently.”

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/201 ... failure/4/

Plus there was all that yellowcake uranium, right?

The Niger uranium forgeries were forged documents initially revealed by SISMI (Italian military intelligence), which seem to depict an attempt made by Saddam Hussein in Iraq to purchase yellowcake uranium powder from Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis.

On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq violated United Nations Iraq sanctions by attempting to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating weapons of mass destruction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries

A convenient forgery that helped Bush and Blair lie themselves into the war they wanted so very badly.

[John Platko]

hmmm.

from

Trump Vows: ‘Elect Me And You’ll Find Out Who Really Knocked Down The Twin Towers’

"You may find it's the Saudis"

GOP frontrunner Donald Trump has promised to make public currently guarded secrets surrounding the 9/11 attacks, should he be elected President.

We went after Iraq, they did not knock down the World Trade Center.” Trump told those in attendance.

“It wasn’t the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center, we went after Iraq, we decimated the country, Iran’s taking over, okay.” Trump continued.

“But it wasn’t the Iraqis, you will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center. Because they have papers in there that are very secret, you may find it’s the Saudis, okay? But you will find out.”

...

Earlier in the week Trump doubled down on the 9/11 accusations, stating “I know that the CIA and various other agencies knew that something bad was going to happen and they did nothing about it. They got it wrong.”

“The heads of the CIA and the various other agencies weren’t speaking and it was a big problem,” Trump added.

Trump’s comments have prompted establishment Republicans and conservative talking heads to label him a 9/11 truther and a “radical kook”.

[proudfootz]

Oh, crap!

[Xaihe]

It wasn't the Iraqis?
Better root for Trump then.

[psikeyhackr]

9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00

He stole my paper loops at 9 minutes.

Where is my lawyer? I'll sue! I'll sue!

He must be one of the 9/11 conspirators!

[410,767]
psik

[proudfootz]

9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00

He stole my paper loops at 9 minutes.

Where is my lawyer? I'll sue! I'll sue!

He must be one of the 9/11 conspirators!

[410,767]
psik

I wondered if you saw that!

Take him to court - i might have some interesting unintended consequences.

[Weaver]

Nothing like having an independent judicial body determine that one's model is fucking useless as a description of the 9/11 events.

Almost as funny as the original author of it rooting for said body to make it happen.

[proudfootz]

Yes, everyone knows lawyers and judges are the 'experts' physicists, architects, and engineers go to to have their work checked.

LOL!

[Weaver]

Yes, everyone knows lawyers and judges are the 'experts' physicists, architects, and engineers go to to have their work checked.

LOL!

You were the one encouraging him to take it to court ...

[Scot Dutchy]

Once again as ever the expert Weaver. It must be very tiring talking crap the whole time.

[Weaver]

Once again as ever the expert Weaver. It must be very tiring talking crap the whole time.

Nice to see you in this thread. What precisely do you object to in my last couple posts here? Or do you think that psikeyhackr's paper loops are representative of the WTC construction and collapse? Or perhaps you think that suing someone who also used the same flawed methodology would demonstrate some underlying "truth" missed by the experts in the field?

Or maybe you're just talking shit because I made fun of your egregious errors in a couple places in the Rant thread? Sour grapes and all that?