Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 5 votes

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken


  • Please log in to reply
3414 replies to this topic

#1606    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 09 May 2013 - 12:50 AM

Right.

There was research by Columbia university regarding Seismic anomalies on the day in question.
Popular mechanics refuted that data.
Popular mechanics data was in turn refuted last year by a researcher hundreds of times more worthwhile.

As of right now, the evidence has a question the official story doesn't answer.  The.  Best.  Current.  Evidence.

So with that in mind...


skyeagle409, on 09 May 2013 - 12:57 AM, said:

"Looking at the charts, there is nothing there to suggest explosions."


So in your opinion of those charts...  tell me again your seismography qualifications and experience...

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#1607    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,007 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 May 2013 - 01:24 AM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 09 May 2013 - 12:50 AM, said:

Right.

There was research by Columbia university regarding Seismic anomalies on the day in question.
Popular mechanics refuted that data.

It all came down to timing. There was a 2-3 second lapse in accuracy, which at no time recorded explosions. Even a re-examination of the seismic data found no evidence of explosions, which was also evident in the videos.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1608    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 09 May 2013 - 08:01 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 May 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

It all came down to timing. There was a 2-3 second lapse in accuracy, which at no time recorded explosions. Even a re-examination of the seismic data found no evidence of explosions, which was also evident in the videos.

The.

Current.

Best.

Most Accurate.

Research.

Again, you have blindly, single and closed mindedly parroted non-sequiturs about explosions.

I.

AM.

NOT.

DISCUSSING.

EXPLOSIONS.

Right.

So again, until you learn to read and discuss like an adult.

There was research by Columbia university regarding Seismic anomalies on the day in question.
Popular mechanics refuted that data.
Popular mechanics data was in turn refuted last year by a researcher hundreds of times more worthwhile.

As of right now, the evidence has a question the official story doesn't answer.  The.  Best.  Current.  Evidence.

So with that in mind...

How do you explain the anomalies presented by the best qualified expert thus far to interpret the data?

ANOMALIES, not  EXPLOSIONS.  ANOMALIES, not BOMBS.  ANOMALIES, not EXPLOSIVES.  ANOMOLIES, not NUCLEAR WEAPONS.  ANOMALIES, not NINJA GEESE.

Do not mention explosions.

AND again.  As you proffered your 'interpretation' of seismic data a few questions back, I'll ask again.

"So in your opinion of those charts...  tell me again your seismography qualifications and experience..."

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#1609    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,007 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 May 2013 - 03:39 PM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 09 May 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

The.

Current.

Best.

Most Accurate.

Research.

Again, you have blindly, single and closed mindedly parroted non-sequiturs about explosions.

You are missing the point. I am referring only to those sounds that 911 Truthers have said were caused by explosives and I have posted references of explosion-like sounds that had nothing to do with explosives.

Quote

ANOMALIES, not  EXPLOSIONS.  ANOMALIES, not BOMBS.  ANOMALIES, not EXPLOSIVES.  ANOMOLIES, not NUCLEAR WEAPONS.  ANOMALIES, not NINJA GEESE.

The anomalies other than the strikes by the aircraft and the collapse of the WTC buildings could have been the result of a number of things.

Edited by skyeagle409, 09 May 2013 - 03:41 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1610    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,313 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 09 May 2013 - 04:37 PM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 09 May 2013 - 12:50 AM, said:

There was research by Columbia university regarding Seismic anomalies on the day in question.
Popular mechanics refuted that data.
Popular mechanics data was in turn refuted last year by a researcher hundreds of times more worthwhile.

<snip>

So in your opinion of those charts...  tell me again your seismography qualifications and experience...

I may have missed it Spinebreaker, but did you provide your 'seismography qualifications and experience' that enables you to determine that Popular Mechanics was refuted?  Or does that requirement only go one way?

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#1611    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 09 May 2013 - 08:29 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 May 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

You are missing the point. I am referring only to those sounds that 911 Truthers have said were caused by explosives and I have posted references of explosion-like sounds that had nothing to do with explosives.

So stop arguing and debating with people discussing something different.  It's ridiculous.

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 May 2013 - 03:39 PM, said:

The anomalies other than the strikes by the aircraft and the collapse of the WTC buildings could have been the result of a number of things.

Hooray!  Right, so perhaps we should have a think and do some research INTO those anomalies, because the official explanation has no reason for them, so one needs to be found for a full and fair analysis.

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 09 May 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

I may have missed it Spinebreaker, but did you provide your 'seismography qualifications and experience' that enables you to determine that Popular Mechanics was refuted?  Or does that requirement only go one way?

I am a bar manager, event organiser and musician.  You need a 2 piece blues band gimme a call, you need to know how late you can sell alcohol, again I'm your guy.  Skyeagle's area is planes.  I'm sure, if you needed to know average speed, or runway length or landing procedures, He'd be your guy.

Neither of us is capable of analysing Seismographic data at this level of expertise.  So we rely on experts.  I personally believe that Andre Roussou's 2012 research urinates on  popular mechanics research from a great, GREAT height.  (English phrase, means "awful lot better than").

However, because  know very little about geophysics and seismic disturbances, I don't post things like this:

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 May 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

The disturbance recorded by the seismic monitors were the recordings during the collapse of the WTC buildings and were not recordings of explosions.

or this:

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 May 2013 - 12:28 AM, said:

I have posted the data which proved my point already. There was no question in that data that no explosions was detected by seismic monitors.

Or this :

View Postskyeagle409, on 07 May 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

Not wrong at all, but right on the money. At no time did the seismic monitors detect bomb explosions.  As proof, please point out in the charts, where explosions were recorded! In other words, point out the explosion indicators for all to see.


Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#1612    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,007 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 09 May 2013 - 09:20 PM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 09 May 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:


Hooray!  Right, so perhaps we should have a think and do some research INTO those anomalies, because the official explanation has no reason for them, so one needs to be found for a full and fair analysis.

Actually, all it takes is comparing the timing from a number of data sources that ties the anomalies to the two aircraft strikes and the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Quote

I am a bar manager, event organiser and musician.  You need a 2 piece blues band gimme a call, you need to know how late you can sell alcohol, again I'm your guy.  Skyeagle's area is planes.  I'm sure, if you needed to know average speed, or runway length or landing procedures, He'd be your guy.

Neither of us is capable of analysing Seismographic data at this level of expertise.

Good, now point out for us, the position on the charts that depicts the collapse of the WTC buildings and aircraft strikes. Afterward, confirm to us all that the data does not depict explosions. Can  you do that for us?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1613    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,879 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 09 May 2013 - 11:29 PM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 09 May 2013 - 12:50 AM, said:

Right.

There was research by Columbia university regarding Seismic anomalies on the day in question.
Popular mechanics refuted that data.
Popular mechanics data was in turn refuted last year by a researcher hundreds of times more worthwhile.

Still waiting on the link to the paper of that researcher who refuted Popular Mechanics.

Roussou, I belive it was?

Is it that obscure or hard to find?  Or did your finally realize that Journal for 911 Truth is NOT a reputable scientific publisher?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1614    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,879 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 09 May 2013 - 11:50 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 08 May 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Spinebreaker

Have not read Roussou's work, but the work of Ross & Furlong contradict the official story, and corroborates the story of Rodriguez.  The seismic evidence contradicts the official story.

Using Spinebreakers own analysis of what is classified as meaningful, what are Ross and Furlongs's qualification on analyzing Seismic data?

I'll give you a while to think about that.


No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1615    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 10 May 2013 - 12:19 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 09 May 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

Actually, all it takes is comparing the timing from a number of data sources that ties the anomalies to the two aircraft strikes and the collapse of the WTC buildings.

No.  No it doesn't.  How many buttons do you push to land a plane?   Is it just one massive button with "land" written on it?  Again.  If you are going to analyse complex data of this sort, go away and get a PHD in geophysics.


View Postskyeagle409, on 09 May 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

Good, now point out for us, the position on the charts that depicts the collapse of the WTC buildings and aircraft strikes. Afterward, confirm to us all that the data does not depict explosions. Can  you do that for us?

No.  I don't have a PHD in Geophysics.

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#1616    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 10 May 2013 - 12:31 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 09 May 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

Still waiting on the link to the paper of that researcher who refuted Popular Mechanics.

Roussou, I belive it was?

Is it that obscure or hard to find?  Or did your finally realize that Journal for 911 Truth is NOT a reputable scientific publisher?

For the record.  Why does 'where' a scientific journal is published matter?  Of COURSE that publisher will be interested in this material, does that make his PHD worth less somehow?  Does it make his years as doctor of Geology and Geophysics worthless?  What about the 50 papers he's had previously published on a subject at which he is an expert?  To be honest I think any group that uses Popular Mechanics to back anything has forfeited any right to criticise any publisher ever.

http://www.thedailyc...ence-about-9-11

Follow the link if you like, have a read, ignore whatever you don't like.

Apparently though, you can dedicate 6-7 years of your life educating  yourself in a subject.  another 6-7 or so having scientific papers published and generally being considered an expert in your field, but god help you if your work is published in a form the establishment don't agree with.

Might as well just do bog-basic research for 15 minutes and get a job with Popular Mechanics.

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.

#1617    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,007 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 10 May 2013 - 12:42 AM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 10 May 2013 - 12:19 AM, said:

No.  No it doesn't.  How many buttons do you push to land a plane?   Is it just one massive button with "land" written on it?  Again.  If you are going to analyse complex data of this sort, go away and get a PHD in geophysics.

You didn't understand a word I meant when I said, "timing." What do buttons have to do with landing an airplane and the data timing I am speaking of? For the record and for all to see, are you implying that "data timing" is not important when comparing the impact data on the seismic charts? Remember, your response is for the record that can be used against you at a later time.

Quote

No.  I don't have a PHD in Geophysics.

Then, confirm for us all, the importance of data timing for which I am referring, and remember, your response will be added to the record book.

Edited by skyeagle409, 10 May 2013 - 12:58 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1618    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,879 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 10 May 2013 - 12:51 AM

View PostSpinebreaker, on 10 May 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:



For the record.  Why does 'where' a scientific journal is published matter?  

Of course it matter where it was published.  Any other non-reputable "journal" does not hold the same standards in peer review by a section of the expert's peers who can confirm or deny the validity of the "expert's" claims.


View PostSpinebreaker, on 10 May 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

OF COURSE that publisher will be interested in this material, does that make his PHD worth less somehow?  

OF COURSE Journal for 9/11 Studies is interested in his research.  They are a 9/11 truther site.  Considering they post NONE of the peer reviewed and published papers of "experts" that confirm the validity of the NIST reports and the Official Story, it does make sense they they would show interest in Rousseau's paper.  


View PostSpinebreaker, on 10 May 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

Does it make his years as doctor of Geology and Geophysics worthless?  What about the 50 papers he's had previously published on a subject at which he is an expert?  To be honest I think any group that uses Popular Mechanics to back anything has forfeited any right to criticise any publisher ever.

At what point did I say his other research is invalid?  We are talking about his 9/11 research.  Stick to the subject at hand.


View PostSpinebreaker, on 10 May 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

url="http://www.thedailycrux.com/Post/41897/controversial-post-new-university-study-turns-up-some-shocking-evidence-about-9-11"]http://www.thedailyc...ence-about-9-11[/url]

Follow the link if you like, have a read, ignore whatever you don't like.

That is not the link to his paper.  Care to provide me what I asked for days ago?

View PostSpinebreaker, on 10 May 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

Although, you can dedicate 6-7 years of your life educating  yourself in a subject.  another 6-7 or so having scientific papers published and generally being considered an expert in your field, but god help you if your work is published in a form the establishment don't agree with.

Might as well just do bog-basic research for 15 minutes and get a job with Popular Mechanics.

You fail to realize the importance of peer review and publishing by a reputable scientific journal.  I am the least bit surprised, since you are struggling to provide me with his paper.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1619    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,190 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 10 May 2013 - 02:09 AM

The Wheels on this Buss Keep going round& Round ! THere will be no proof from the Cheap seats on this subject ! We all can prove that ! Keep Reading there replies !
THe Towers were brought down by Two Aircraft Hitting them and the resultant  Fires and structural colapses!

This is a Work in Progress!

#1620    Spinebreaker

Spinebreaker

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 159 posts
  • Joined:01 May 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Derbyshire UK

  • I'm everything you'll never want to be.

Posted 10 May 2013 - 07:49 AM

View PostRaptorBites, on 09 May 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

Using Spinebreakers own analysis of what is classified as meaningful, what are Ross and Furlongs's qualification on analyzing Seismic data?

I'll give you a while to think about that.

I haven't been able to find much about these two guys.  Ross appears to be a very experienced mechanical engineer, so his research holds some weight.  Furlong appears, recently, to have distanced himself from this particular paper.  Good question Raptor.  It would be superb if we had a member of the forum with some decent geo-physics credentials so we could have our own independent opinion.

Galileo was imprisoned by the Church,
For exposing that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe.
So in 1616 they already had control,
Of what they thought you and I were allowed to know.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users