It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It was, but make sure you go to the end of the thread (LT : 1a.). The confusion wasn't the simple one we thought (I thought, at least) that it was at first, and it took a long time for the correct answer to surface.
That correct answer is that the 9/11 Commission Report timing of aircraft impacts is not accurate to the second. Impacts in those reports -- and only those reports, not in the later NIST study, for instance -- appear to have been based on the time of last RADAR contact with the aircraft, or extrapolation from RADAR of aircraft reaching zero altitude.
Problem is that the RADAR still can give an echo from aircraft debris, and that the impacts didn't occur at zero altitude, but more like 700 to 1000 feet up. The anomaly is resolved as soon as you realize the 9/11 Commission Report is off by about ten seconds due to this mistake. All other sources of impact time, including the seismic records, are consistent.
R. Mackey : For anyone who wants to play along:
Here's the graph: Click Me (LT : defunct link to Popular Mechanics, it's the same as the above diagram I just posted, however) .
Look at the top two traces.
See if you can figure out why the correct impact times are 8:46:43 in the top trace, rather than 8:46:26; and 9:03:10 rather than 9:02:54 in the second trace. Feel free to ask for help if you need it, from anyone you like.
originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: tinymind
NO, certainly not the same way.
The crash site of flight 93 was at a soil-refilled open mining area with soft soil (they said.... ), while that C-130 crashed on a concrete or tarred highway.
Huge difference.
Some would say, flight 93 hit the ground so hard, you can find the same hole where it hit on google earth from 1994.
B. Herbert Levine, the gentleman who developed the spray on asbestos fireproofing that was used up until the 70s, was on record as stating that the fireproofing they switched to while building the Towers, was not up to standard and that a large fire.. and just the fire...above the 60th floor would likely cause the building to collapse.
Katie Bender's family commemorate 20 years since Royal Canberra Hospital implosion
www.canberratimes.com.au...
Katie was was killed instantly by a steel fragment sent flying from 430 metres across the lake. It was thought to be travelling at 140km/h.
originally posted by: LaBTop
""and claiming only one did"". HuH?
Yup
Two steel framed construction collapses there
.
No, you intently left out a few pesky details. Or, you're just a sloppy researcher.
Only the upper few, outer floor steel parts of the Windsor Tower in Madrid PARTIALLY collapsed, since those were the ones where the spray-on insulation wasn't attached yet.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop
LT : No, you intently left out a few pesky details. Or, you're just a sloppy researcher.
Only the upper few, outer floor steel parts of the Windsor Tower in Madrid PARTIALLY collapsed, since those were the ones where the spray-on insulation wasn't attached yet.
1. How does insulation physically stop failed and collapsed steel from falling?
2. The 17th mechanical floor part of a traditional concrete core that was absent in the WTC is what prevented total collapse. Is that a false statement.
These false flag deniers keep acting as if they never ever even take the time to look at all my posts.
originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop
1. There is no seismic data of explosives from detonations cutting steel columns at the WTC. Why do you think AE911TRUTH, Richard Gage, and Steven Jones was forced change from conventional CD to mythical fizzle no flash explosives? Forced to write fraudulent thermite papers? Because of seismic data?
2.Why do you think it was easy for Dr Wood to show there is no seismic evidence indicative of CD at the WTC to make room for her fantasy Dustification?
3.Your seismic theories for the WTC are debunked, were abandoned by those pushing CD at the WTC long ago, and holds many holes. Sorry.
The atomic explosion diagram is CLEARLY characterized by a really huge spike at the onset.
Can you even try to acknowledge those two HUGE spikes in the above 911 diagram ???
It's the only honestly showing amplitudes diagram for all 4 first events, ever given by LDEO.
originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: LaBTop
These false flag deniers keep acting as if they never ever even take the time to look at all my posts.
Because your posts are too long.
And they are based on YOUR speculation.
We are sliding in on 17 years and there hasn't been any "court worthy" evidence to change the basic OS.
Your 'seismic' evidence is evidence of nothing.
You are not an expert on analyzing seismic data.
If you were you would have published a paper by now and had it peer reviewed.
That is why I just page down through your posts.