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

/11 Airplane Impact Time Discrepancies: Smoking Gun

[link to colorado.indymedia.org]

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

author: Craig T. Furlong e-mail:
e-mail: cfurlong1 (at) socal.rr.com

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: [link to www.ldeo.columbia.edu]
(note: all times precise to plus or minus 1 to 2 seconds)


9/11 Commission Timeline
Link: [link to www.gpoaccess.gov]
(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]:



[link to www.insightful.com]

(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:



[link to www.newswithviews.com]



-------

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.