portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting global

9.11 investigation

9/11 Airplane Impact Time Discrepancies: Smoking Gun - US Gov't Complicity

What is presented here is no theory. It is factual data of "impact times" from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University (LDEO) that differs significantly from factual data of impact times given in the 9/11 Commission's Final Report.
The facts are simple and few, yet extremely powerful for what they mean: US Government complicity in 9/11/01.

Facts by themselves are simple and powerful, but these facts lead to a true smoking gun. I know of no other regarding 9/11. Do you? A smoking gun that can be given in a court of law?

What is presented here is no theory. It is factual data of "impact times" from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University (LDEO) that differs significantly from factual data of impact times given in the 9/11 Commission's Final Report.

LDEO
Link:  http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html
(note: all times precise to plus or minus 1 to 2 seconds)


9/11 Commission Timeline
Link:  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
(note: both impact times are the only ones on the page precise to the second)


This is the data wherein lies the controversy:

["Impact Times"]
LDEO
8:46:26 and 9:02:54


[Actual Impact Times]
9/11 Commission
8:46:40 and 9:03:11


Respective Differences
14 seconds
17 seconds


After reflecting upon these timing discrepancies and what they mean, indicting evidence appears of something very wrong with the official explanation about what happened. Lest we forget, America still owes it to those who perished on 9/11, and their families and friends, to get to the bottom of this; justice has yet to be served on those responsible.



Both impacts are important. This happened twice, and comparing LDEO versus the 9/11 Commission Report, there are similar time disparities (respective differences of 14 and 17 seconds). Consider these as extremely close to the precise differential, because when consideration is given to the seismic wave, amplitude, and duration, understand that the dominant period is extremely short and occurs near the beginning of the signal.



We have LDEO on record stating times of plus or minus 1 to 2 seconds, which is a high degree of precision. Would they publish if a 95% level of confidence had not been achieved for the data? Probably not. LDEO was then (and still is) a prestigious scientific entity; and no one has challenged their data for 9/11/01 (at least to my knowledge). We should trust their seismic data.



Is there any expected time delay between the initiation of the "impact" pulse and the reception of the seismic signal? From my study, it is my understanding this factor is already accounted for in the software logic used. Besides, even if this were a factor, it would make the disparity greater yielding even greater time differences; however, the differences we already have are compelling.



Here are two questions:

(1) Is there any motive behind having two sets of impact times?

(2) What is the significance, if any, of having two different sets of impact times?



Addressing Question (1): Motive probably had nothing to do with our now having two different sets of impact times; also, more than likely, no one lied in all of this with the information each entity published. Probably the 9/11 Commission made a simple error of missed oversight. They should have noticed the disparity in impact times and looked into the matter. This is their error. They never saw the disparities, or, if they did, they never attempted to resolve them. Then, years later, somebody notices it by happenstance. The Commission either did not care, did not bother to ask LDEO, did not consider it at all, or, more than likely, was not even aware of the Lamont-Doherty seismic data regarding "impact times". If they had known, someone at the Commission would probably have envisioned possible future repercussions of having two sets of factual data on impact times (such as is happening now). This would be (and now is) a conflict of data from two highly reliable sources—something that is to be avoided in one's life and affairs. Each day has enough trouble of its own.



The problem probably came about by having two different groups of people working during two different time periods. They just happened to intersect on a single data point [aircraft impact time] by either accident, neglect, or whatever. Actually, it was the Commission who did the "intersecting" as LDEO was published long before the Commission came into being. LDEO did their job on 9/11 and believed at the time that their seismic data, precise to the second, represented the impacts on the towers (this is key because what they thought were "impacts" is now brought into question). Another key here is "at the time". Think about it. LDEO had these two small seismic spikes at the general time of the impacts, so they must have naturally thought they were the impacts. This is understandable, especially in the light of that horrible day.



However, the 9/11 Commission precision times came much later, at a different time period, and only after much analysis and effort. They are basically based upon: "We have determined that the impact time was 9:03:11 based on our analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic." [9/11 Commission Report, pg 460, Note 130]:



 http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_470_460.html

(Note 130 is the basis for WTC1 & WTC2 precision impact times to the second)







This is an entirely different set of data than LDEO, but it too is highly accurate and precise; e.g., consider the technology needed and used in the space program; and although different, these technologies are similar in many ways; and one critical way they are similar is that they both must be precise in the area of timing; and so they are.



So, this is probably how these two extremely precise but different data sets came about for the same event (plane impact) and appear before us now. However, it does not matter how they came into being. What is important is that both sets are to the precise second.



Also critical is: Are the two data sets correct?



As pointed out above, the LDEO set should be correct. The 9/11 Commission's set should be trustworthy as well. This is because both entities' came up with their data under similar conditions and constraints: required, high precision parameters; working in the face of high visibility in the wake of a national tragedy; and finally, there is the general understanding of what these entities were attempting to do (i.e., to get it right). There is no reason to disbelieve either data set.



Addressing Question (2): What is the significance, if any, of the different impact times?

Yes, there is significance, and it goes to another level. This is the heart of the matter.



The Commission Report must have the correct impact times because this is what they were specifically looking at: flight data that ultimately ended at precise terminations (to the second) when the towers were struck. There is no question here: precisely, AA Flight 77 crashed at 8:46:40 and UA Flight 175 at 9:03:11 [EDT]. So, if the planes impacted the towers at those times, what were the earlier times as noted by LDEO due to notable seismic spikes?



On an aside, what first caught my eye last week about this was the implausibility of "impact times" by LDEO. I thought, "How can such a huge jet airliner impact WTC1 above the 90th floor and we end up with energy transference traveling all the way down to the earth (even through the massive multi-level sub-basement structure) sufficiently so as to be picked up by LDEO as a seismic spike?" This still makes no sense. Energy from the impact should have been mostly absorbed by the building's immense structure and mass.



Then I recalled my reading a while back about accounts of people who experienced explosions down in the basements before the planes struck. The following is an excerpt about one of them, an eyewitness at WTC1 by the name of William Rodriguez:



 http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna17.htm



-------

Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at that same time. As he was discussing the day's tasks with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were an additional twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.



At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking." said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, his supervisor for the American Building Maintenance Company.



Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the tower at about the 90th floor. Upon hearing about the plane, he immediately thought of the people up in the restaurant. Then there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion's resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: "I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building." He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the tower.

-------



This provides the plausible answer as to what LDEO picked up as a seismic spike moments before the plane struck the tower.



Again, the question: What caused the earlier seismic spike picked up by LDEO?



There are only two logical choices: either (A) a true seismic event (a very small earthquake tremor; and, yes, this choice would mean discounting the eyewitnesses who said explosions happened before the plane struck; i.e., they are not telling the truth), or (B) very large explosion(s).



It could not possibly have been a very small earthquake. Why? Because this same, exact scenario happened again a few minutes later at WTC2, both spikes occurring within a brief 15-minute period under the most unusual circumstances. The odds of this happening by chance go beyond the pale of the realms of possibility (you don't need to be a statistician to see this). This only happens when man is involved.



The earlier seismic spikes had to have been (B): very large explosion(s), which Middle Eastern terrorists could not have been responsible for. That is no question; they do not have the wherewithal for this kind of scale.





This is what really happened:



Explosion(s) Meant to Coincide... ... ... ... ...

["Impact Times"]

LDEO

8:46:26 and 9:02:54



Respective Differences

14 seconds

17 seconds



with.... ... ... ... ... Planes Impacting Towers

[Actual Impact Times]

9/11 Commission

8:46:40 and 9:03:11



(The explosions were probably done to prepare the buildings for final controlled demolition later by implosion.)



To sum up:

This is no conspiracy theory. Why?

This is not theory. These are facts, simple and few.

But it is definitely a conspiracy.



And this isn't rocket science.

(This is the smoking gun, it has legs, and this dog can hunt.)

What must be done? Simply one thing:

The 9/11 Commission and the Bush Administration must answer the question:

WHAT CAUSED THOSE SEISMIC SPIKES?



They must answer, and they must answer now; if they do not, it is the same thing as an admission of guilt.



God help us all.

Craig T. Furlong

July 31, 2006



PS This must be quickly communicated far and wide.

who do you report the crime to? 01.Aug.2006 09:28

micromouse

Who do we take the evidence to?

The US judicial system? Won't they be defending the Executive branch?

Would any lawyer do?

Or is our Judicial System afraid of being killed by this regime that has taken over our government?

I am losing hope.

have hope in eachother 01.Aug.2006 11:29

revolution

Well, you SHOULD be losing hope in receiving assistance from ANY part of the government. It's going to come down to us taking over the streets of our nation INDEFINITELY, and demanding the resignation of all those responsible as well as those who perpetrated the cover-up for 5 years.

The bigger picture 01.Aug.2006 12:47

Hap

Actually one of the folks who took that reading, Arthur Lerner-Lam, has stated this reading of the seismograph is wrong: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context." (see:  http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y). Whether or not one agrees with Popular Mechanics, that is his quote...unless you want to say PM made that up.

By the way, here is the full graph, one which unfortunately does not conform to Mr. Furlong's assertions:  link to www.popularmechanics.com

See also:

 http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0128.html

Popular Mechanics, the Chertoff Family of Homeland Security Publishers... 01.Aug.2006 14:53

hee hee

Er, troll boy, google up Popular Mechanics and Chertoff.

 link to www.google.com

Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece

Chistopher Bollyn for American Free Press | March 7 2005

Dictators like Saddam Hussein have always used nepotism to protect their secrets and maintain control. Like a dictatorship, the inner cabal that directs the actions of the Bush administration uses the same tactics to confuse the public and conceal the truth of 9/11.

Dictators have always employed nepotism, the placing of family members in key positions, for one simple reason: only loyal family members can be trusted with the secrets that keep them in power. For this reason the shameless nepotism of the Bush administration should alarm Americans because it indicates that a dictatorship is encroaching upon the United States.

The Defense Department defines nepotism as the situation when relatives are in the same chain-of-command.

An egregious example of dictatorial-style nepotism occurred when George W. Bush won the White House ? twice ? thanks to the key "swing state" of Florida, where the presidential candidate's younger brother is governor. In 2000 and 2004, against all odds, Florida swung decisively, the Bush way.

With high federal offices being given to the wives, sons and daughters of senior members of the Bush administration, the Hearst Corporation executives that publish Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher.

But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. PM's senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.

"Conspiracy theories can't stand up to the hard facts," the cover reads. "After an in-depth investigation, PM answers with the truth," it says. But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?

The Chertoff article goes on to confront the "poisonous claims" of 16 "myths" spun by "extremist" 9/11 researchers like myself with "irrefutable facts," mostly provided by individuals in the employ of the U.S. government.

But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press has learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his "cousin" now heads. This is exactly the kind of "journalism" one would expect to find in a dictatorship like that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Because the manager of public relations for Popular Mechanics didn't respond to repeated calls from American Free Press, I called Benjamin Chertoff, the magazine's "senior researcher," directly.

Chertoff said he was the "senior researcher" of the piece. When asked if he was related to Michael Chertoff, he said, "I don't know." Clearly uncomfortable about discussing the matter further, he told me that all questions about the article should be put to the publicist ? the one who never answers the phone.

Benjamin's mother in Pelham, New York, however, was more willing to talk. Asked if Benjamin was related to the new Secretary of Homeland Security, Judy said, "Yes, of course, he is a cousin."

 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/070305chertoffscousin.htm

I love Hap's effort to sound hep... 01.Aug.2006 18:55

Styve

He used the actual word "graph", rather than the blog shorthand "graf"...what a maroon!!!!

Good take-down exposing that it was Chertoff's cousin that wrote that garbage for Popular Mechanics!! Who reads PM anyway?

One question 01.Aug.2006 20:06

Hap

Yes, I have heard this before. So forgive me for asking this yet again, but what does Benjamin Chertoff writing the article have to do with debunking the material presented in it? Okay, he is a cousin of Michael Chertoff...but why do you engage in an ad hominem attack on him instead of dealing with the quote, the substance of which is hardly limited to Chertoff's piece. Why do you avoid that? Never an answer.

This is contained in an article included by "hee hee":

"But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the "senior researcher" at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? American Free Press has learned that he is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his "cousin" now heads."

What are the serious flaws of that article? His being a cousin of Michael Chertoff has nothing to do with proving/disproving the validity of what the people he quoted said. It is the same method of "logic" as the poster a few weeks back who wrote that clearly Chip Berlet was a CIA tool or something like that because he was named after John Foster Dulles (real name being John Foster Berlet)--has nothing to do with dealing with the content.

Unfortunately, not surprisingly, the rebuttal on:  http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm does not deal with Lerner-Lam's denial. Why not? In fact, I have not seen one rebuttal to this that dealt with Lerner-Lam's denial. Why is this?

Also, please note that the link to the American Geophysical Union has nothing to do with Popular Mechanics. If you will not deal with the assertions of the Popular Mechanics piece, then please deal with the AGU one.

As to my capacity to deal with graf and graph, too what does that have to do with the content? It has about as much substantive quality as the question as to who reads Popular Mechanics anyway. I guess it makes a good jibe, but has nothing to do with the issue.

Hep? Whatever.

Again, such things do not surprise me anymore. If this is all that is offered--essentially a couple of opinions that please in a mental masturbatory way in the face of many more by people who are trained in studying physics, engineering; etc.--well, I guess we get what we get in this world, stuff that has never needed much in the name of excuses. I'd say you should read history, but maybe that word "history" is not hep enough in your world.

check this out, and tell me there were no explosives. 01.Aug.2006 20:43

Mr. Met

 http://forums.portlandmercury.com/showthread.php?t=1655

its short and its sweet and you have a link to the 9/11 commission report to compare with. The time has come for major action, we can not let the 5th anniversary of the false flag attacks of 9/11 go unnoticed . We need to take over highway over passes with huge signs, pop your favorite 9/11 truth dvd in wide screen tvs at department stores, give them out for free. Stop bickering and do something. We know the truth just do something about it. Be creative, hijack a live news shot from your local tabloid at 10 on site live coverage of the latest pedophile tweeker negro tasering incedent. Speak up and be heard!

I attend pdx 9/11 truth meetings , I know there is about 50 times more of you in portland that are apart of the movement, come to a meeting, we need to organize citywide actions, we need to take back 9/11 from the media!

 http://forums.portlandmercury.com/showthread.php?t=1655

thank you for your time.

click here notice the top tips over first then the lower floos pop out!
click here notice the top tips over first then the lower floos pop out!
Every wednesday 7-9 pm laughing horse books @ NE 10th & Burnside
Every wednesday 7-9 pm laughing horse books @ NE 10th & Burnside
Just a reminder for those who were there
Just a reminder for those who were there

sing for us mockingbird, of the song of endless coincidences 01.Aug.2006 21:03

hee hee

"but what does Benjamin Chertoff writing the article have to do with debunking the material presented in it? Okay, he is a cousin of Michael Chertoff...but why do you engage in an ad hominem attack on him instead of dealing with the quote, the substance of which is hardly limited to Chertoff's piece."



And it's just another one of those family coincidences that the brother of George Bush was head of security of the WTCs on September 11, I guess. Marvin Bush.

or the brother of the assassin of Reagan was a close Bush family friend an neighbor (the Hinkleys).

or that the invasion of Cuba planned by the CIA illegally outside of the State Department was replete with Bush family nomenclature

Just a whole series of strange accidental family coincidences connecting to the Bush family for several generations. Just a coincidence really. like active CIA running illegally GHWB's Presidential Campaign. like East European Nazis and P2 Masonic lodge members like Gelli standing on the platform next to Bush as he is sworn in. Just a coincidence. Bush was unaware of it. just a coincidence, all those Nazis and secret societies around the Bush family. Just a coincidence three straight generations of Bushes have been Bonesman. That's just a coincidence.

It's just a coincidence that the pedophile snuff filmer banker owner in Nebraska sang for George Bush at his 1988 Presidential convention. and it's just a coincidence that Bohemian Grove is connected with these snuff films, and just a coincidence that GHWB is a Boho Grover.

or the other coincidence that just as soon as Bush Senior got into the White House, there were male teen call boys roaming around the White House at midnight on "reward" tours for being a good boy. They must have crawled through the screen door by accident. just a coincidence male teen whores working in the Bush Senior White House.

just a coincidence that male bald whores like Jeff Gannon worked and stayed overnight in Bush Junior's White House.

just a coincidence that there are at least 20 or so pictures of Bush Junior stroking bald men in public with an intent orgasmic look, down to little close cropped black or white boys. just a camera accident, I suppose.

or the other coincidence that Bush and Clinton worked hand in glove running drugs into the United States through Mena, Arkansas

or the other coincidence that the heads of their respective "competing" party campaigns in 1992...got marrired shortly after the campaign

or the coincidence that one law firm tied to the Bush family and drug running and AIG and 9-11 dominates the financial positions Democratic and Republican party (Greenberg Traurig), and just a coincidence that drug money is getting into elections.

One nation, under coincidences,
with doublethink, and Project Mockingbird for all

Title: Who rules the corporate media? OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD,CIA,state media since 1940s
Author: Alex Constantine
Date: 2004.03.26 03:26
Description: It is beginning to dawn on a growing number of armchair ombudsmen that the public print reports news from a parallel universe - one that has never heard of politically-motivated assassinations, CIA-Mafia banking thefts, mind control, death squads or even federal agencies with secret budgets fattened by cocaine sales - a place overrun by lone gunmen, where the CIA and Mafia are usually on their best behavior. In this idyllic land, the most serious infraction an official can commit--is a the employment of a domestic servant with (shudder) no residency status.This unlikely land of enchantment is the creation of Operation MOCKINGBIRD.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/03/284155.shtml

The GAO has written, in the public record that over a billion dollars has been spent on psyops illegally to buy off talking heads or to plant fake information in just the first Bush four years.

And if you research the infiltration of the Popular Mechanics journal, you will find that they "cleaned house" on their whole staff just before that empty puff piece was put out by the Chertoff family partner in crime.

of coruse it's just another coincidence that himself Chertoff was a defense attorny for El Amir, a guy accused of--twice!--in 1993 and 1999--of Osama bin Laden financial funding connections. just a huge coincidence.

and its just another coincidence that the Pentagon officer running the 1999 Pentagon "hit with a plane" drill, was the one the government claims was flying AA77 into the Pentagon on September 11 two years later. just another coincidece that he quits the Pentagon after the drill is "finished" (or is it...), and joins American Airlines as a pilot, and soon thereafter, ol Chuck Burlingame, the Pentagon war driller is involved in AA77 which lo and behold is reputed to have hit the Pentagon. I'm sure it's all a huge coincidence. just like the coincidence that nothing related to Burlingame's AA77 is found at the Pentagon.

it's just another coincidence that a man on the board of directors of AA on Sepember 11th is eating breakfast with the head of the CIA in DC, Tenet, and he is quoted as saying he's "not surprised" about the attack. just another coincidence. and it's just another coincidence that he's a Bonesman as well.
(Bonesman David Boren)

screw your empty world of coincidences. it is our goal to completely destroy your propoganda network of lies. there's lots of Bones to pick through until the clear lie shines through.
here's another huge coincidence--several trillion to one
here's another huge coincidence--several trillion to one "coincidence" actually
just a huge coincidence that 11 or more Bonesmen have been appointed by Bush
just a huge coincidence that 11 or more Bonesmen have been appointed by Bush
or that founding family of Bones, the Russells, were opium pushers--as GHWB
or that founding family of Bones, the Russells, were opium pushers--as GHWB