28-06-2011, 01:13 AM
Or read the studies that I cite. For someone who insists that the Twin Towers came down in a special form of collapse -- which is refuted even by the gross observable evidence, as I have explained in "New 9/11 Photos Released", archived at http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/02/...eased.html -- this is quite a stunning stretch. I have never seen anyone as disrespectful of the data as Jeffrey Orling. You can spare us your preposterous defense of the official account!
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Jim,
There's a lot of problems in the logical construction of the arguments in your piece.
First there is issue of establishing when the events occurred. LDO's number include a time delay based on the material the wave is propagating through and that alone means that they have to factor in this delay when trying to establish the actual time of the event.
To do that some researchers have relied on the TV images. But of course there were not really except the Naudet video of the trade center and whose to say that their camera's clock stamp was calibrated to UTC.
I believe no one has reported explosions in the sub basements of tower 2 which apparently DID have a bunch of network cameras as the plane struck. Was there a seismic signature to the actual plane impact?
The of course the time of collapse is another issue which is hard to coordinate time wise. If we look at tower 1, the top section disintegrated shortly after the antenna began to tilt a but and drop. This would indicated that the hat truss or columns supporting it were "taken out". Was there a "seismic" signature which signaled the start of the antenna drop? I don't think so, but I could be wrong.
So what WAS the first seismic signature of the actual collapse? Was it the top section disintegrating and collapsing down on floor 93 or so? Was it perhaps the first facade panels which feel or were pushed by whatever cause over the side and fell at free fall less wind resistance to the ground 1200 feet below. That would take 9-10 seconds to slam to the ground and make a seismic signature if it did. Then as the tower disintegrated from the 93 floor down debris feel outside and traveled at free fall acceleration until it slammed into the ground. The panels coming from the 50th floor would take about 6 seconds to hit the ground, but they weren't "released" from the structure for about 5 second after the tower began to be destroyed from floor 93.
I think you numbers are rather imprecise and there is no way to tell what the initial signatures of the collapse were. It's a very interesting problem, but the work I read on it is not convincing of establishing a time line.
And then there is the problem of the provenance of the videos... many of which seem to have been "played with" as they went out live... was there even some delay? I think it's entirely possible.
As far as the plane data... it's all digital and prone to manipulation and there's no reason to believe ANY of it. It all could have been produced in a simulator and transmitted "real time"... essentially inserting whatever information the perps wanted. That sounds like a DOD assisted MIHOP deal... as who might have such capability BUT the DOD? But intel groups do have such "signal" intel capability so who knows who put on the show. It seems as if the ATC and many on the DOD WERE caught flat footed and confused by the data as there WAS a couple of hijack exercises underway and they DO insert digital data onto screens of ATC , civilian AND military. Bottom line... RADES and other data means nothing at all. No way can it be determined whether it was real or faked and with the speeds reported it does seem fake.
But the plane's image on the vids CAN be traced and computed. Again that would be of an image on a video... and a video where no positive ID of the plane is possible. How convenient was that!
It's really hard to build a case on such unreliable data. The only one seems to be that the data doesn't add up.