9/11 Truther Wars
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Pentagon seismic situation
Hi Dan,
I've kept mulling over Pentagon seismic situation, and the bizarre fact that a very clear shock is registered right on time at the MVL station but there is nothing at the SDMD station and also, even more strangely, nothing at the SSPA station. How could it be that the Pentagon shock registered only at MVL but not at the other two stations? It's a conundrum.
Looking at the New York charts, also included in the Kim & Baum paper, we can estimate approximate transmission speeds for the shocks. Confusingly, Kim & Baum have inserted lines for P-waves and S-waves in the charts, but no lines for the L-waves and R-waves. The 9/11 shocks are not earthquakes so will not go deep enough to create any ordinary P-waves and S-waves, but only surface waves (L-waves and R-waves). These waves also travel more slowly than P-waves and S-waves, and we can readily see in the New York charts that the R-waves are the slowest and the L-waves a little faster but nowhere near as fast as even the S-waves let alone the P-waves.
I've mentioned before that there's a bifurcation in the chart between the two kinds of waves. I think I misspoke calling them P-waves and S-waves when the correct labels should be L-waves and R-waves, respectively. The shock goes off at Ground Zero about 10 seconds into the chart, and around the 70 second mark, the L-wave reaches the MVL station, 210 km out. That's 210 km in 60 seconds, or 3.5 km per second in propagation speed. As to the R-wave, it reaches the MVL station around the 85 second mark so travels 210 km in 75 seconds, or 2.8 km per second. The R-waves are thus about 20% slower than the L-waves.
Also note how the L-waves and R-waves give different imprints on the chart. The L-wave comes first and is somewhat more dense in terms of spikes than the R-wave, which is the second hump to the right on the MVL line. So it's easy to tell the difference between L-action and R-action simply from the appearance of the shock in the chart.
Further note how excellent the MVL station is in terms of signal-to-noise perfomance. There is very little noise and a very clear signal, even at that distance from Manhattan. The same cannot be said about the SDMD station (two lines below), which has a terrible noise level and picks up absolutely nothing of the L-action and only very little or the R-action. SDMD seems to be stone deaf to any kind of L-action, and very hard of hearing with respect to R-action. Looking even further out to the SSPA station (below the SDMD line), we find that this station did pick up some of the L-action but very little of the R-action. If we didn't have the other stations as guidance, we would hardly identify the R-action, and the L-action also comes out very differently than elsewhere. It is more protracted and also muted.
Each station seems to have its own "personality", its own characteristics in terms of what it is good at picking up, and what it is not-so-good at picking up. The SDMD station stands out as the good-for-nothing station, whch is practically deaf to any kind of surface waves and especially to L-waves. The SSPA station, on the other hand, seems capable of hearing both L-waves and R-waves, but only above a certain frequency (amplitude). If the shock isn't big enough, it just won't register.
Going back to propagation speeds, the Pentagon shock seems to be a little slower than the New York shock. I've said before that the travel time for the shock to reach the MVL station would be about 66 seconds, and the distance is 140 km. So that amounts ot a speed of about 2.1 km per second. That's 25% slower than the R-waves in the New York chart, and 40% slower than the L-waves in the New York chart. Looking at the density of the action in the MVL chart for the Pentagon shock, it is readily apparent that this isn't R-wave action but L-wave action. In other words, there is a massive difference in transmission speeds, with the Pentagon shock travelling all of 40% slower than the New York shock. How could this be?
This troubled me a lot until I realised that transmission speeds for L-waves are dependent on the frequency (amplitude) of the shock. A bigger shock will penetrate deeper, and the deeper it goes, the faster it will travel. So the mere fact that the New York shocks were far more powerful (energetic) than the Pentagon shock explains the significant difference in propagation speed.
The pciture is thus getting clearer, and we're in a position to resolve the conundrum. First of all, we're dealing with an L-wave from the Pentagon shock, there is no discernible R-wave. To understand why this is one need only consult the definition of the wave types. The L-waves are "transverse horizontal motion, perpendicular to the direction of propagation"; and the R-waves, "both in the direction of propagation and perpendicular (in a vertical plane)". For an aircraft iimpacting a building, you would expect L-wave action but not much R-wave action. This explains why even the MVL chart, which has the best ear of all station, fails to register any R-action whatever.
We can now also see why the SDMD station picks up nothing. Like I said on the basis of the New York chart, the SDMD station is stone deaf with respect to L-action, so would not pick that up even if it were still stronger. And whilst SDMD isn't completely deaf, but only hard of hearing for R-action, the problem is, there is no R-action to pick up. This is why absolutely nothing registered at SDMD.
But what about SSPA? How come nothing registered there? The explanation has already been given in the comparatively muted levels for the New York shocks. The SSPA station appears a bit dull, in the sense that it takes more stimulus to break through the threshold level of getting through to it. Once you're above the threshold level, SSPA will pick it up but it will be at a muted level. If the shock doesn't reach above a certain frequency, SSPA simply won't pick it up at all. So that's the story here. The L-action doesn't have enough frequency to be picked up at SSPA, and there is no R-action to pick up in the first place. So nothing registers at SSPA.
The more I delve into this issue, the more I parse these charts, the more convinced I get that the MVL shock is in fact the Pentagon plane impact shock. What do Kim & Baum say about the matter? Here is their explanation: "The largest signal at MVL at around 09:38:50 is probablly generated by electrical disturbance." Pardon my French, but electrical distrubance my ass! That's the most ridiculous cover-up story I've heard since Shyam Sundar's idiocies!
The reason they covered it up is that the shock doesn't look like they want it to look. Kim & Baum even admit that the shock doesn't look like they expected it to look. Here is what they say about it: "There appears to be strong seismic signals around 09:38:52 at station MVL (Millersville, Pa; Δ = 139 km), but the signals are too high frequency (5-10 Hz) and too high amplitude (328 nm/s at 139 km)." Well, maybe the amplitude is too high because there is something else going on in addition to the plane hitting the building? The shock is too high in frequency and amplitude, which means its local magnitude came out too high compared to the expected ML 0.8 which Terry Wallace had calculated.
When the shock didn't come like they expected it, they simply dismissed it instead of looking for alternative explanations of why the shock looked different. The reason why they chose to dismiss it should be obvious by now. The shock was too powerful for only a plane hitting, and it was also a bit too long for only a plane hitting the buildng. The reason it was too strong and too long is that there was another large explosion in addition to the plane hitting, and that's what they covered up in this silly way.
The cover-up doesn't get any less silly by Terry Wallace literally covering up the time window of the shock recorded at the Corbin station (CBN), and which looks identical to the one that registered at MVL. What kind of fools do they take us for? If the CBN shock isn't right on the timeline, why on earth would they put masking tape over the timestamp? The ONLY reason to put that masking tape over the timestamp is that the time window for the chart is exactly right. If it was off, they wouldn't need to cover it up but could use it as negative evidence, quoting the fact that its timing was off. These guys are not very good at lying.
Speaking of timestamps, the whole Kim & Baum chart analysis is predicated on an assumption , about a "presumed origin time of 13:38:09 EDT" for the Pentagon shock. The presumed origin time is their lingo for the time when the plane hits the building (or the frst explosion goes off, rather). The analysis of the jetlner's black box (flight data recorder) set the impact time at 9:37:46, which is all of 23 seconds earlier than the "presumed origin time" according to Kim & Baum. For this kind of analysis, being off by 23 seconds must be considered a rather major, not to say massive, error.
Turning, finally, to the Shanksville chart, we see R-wave action starting at the 46 second mark in the chart. The shock seems to go on for up towards 10 seconds, which rings familiar as we've seen the very same thing, the very same shape of the activity hump, at the World Trade Center. I have the North Tower plane impact shock in mind, not the South Tower one. Unlike the South Tower shock, which lasts for 3-4 seconds, the North Tower shock goes on for about 10 seconds and also has the very same shape as the Shanksville shock. The reason it has is that there is "something else" going on in addition to the plane hitting the tower and the ground, respectively.
Clearly there is a massive explosion in connection to the plane hitting, if that is indeed what the chart shows (we'll return to this issue shortly). In New York, I've put forth that there was a series of explosions in the basement, which gave rise to continuous seismic activity for over 10 seconds. The plane hit somewhere inside this activity window, presumably at the peak. In Shanksville, however, the activity seems divided into two parts. First there is a shock of 3-4 seconds, then a quick interlude of 1-2 seconds, followed by another shock of about 5 seconds. Total duration is 10 seconds.
My interpretation of the Shanksville chart, when juxtaposed against the New York chart and everything else we know about the seismic evidence for 9/11, is that there is a large explosion followed by the plane hitting the ground. This also jibes with the photographic evidence, as the famous snapshot of the Shanksville mushroom cloud does not appear to show the dark grey and black smoke from a plane crash but the grey smoke from a massive ordnance blast in the ground, making a big hole down into the decomissioned mine that swallowed up the plane much like the Twin Towers and the Pentagon mysteriously swallowed up the planes. Point is, they did the very same thing in all four places, the only difference being that the Shanksville hole was in the ground rather than in the perimeter wall of a building.
Kim & Baum seem overly confident about the "time of origin" for Shanksville, certainly considering that they're wide of the mark about the Pentagon "time of origin". The official time appears to have varied a lot. Kim & Baum set it at 10:06:05 AM. The R-waves have to travel nearly 110 km to reach the SSPA station, which is the only station where they registered properly. Applying the New York propagation speed of 2.8 km per second, the propagation time from origin to SSPA station would amount to about 40 seconds. But because propagation speeds were slower for the Pentagon shock than for the New York shock, we've got every reason to think these Shanksville R-waves could be a bit slower also. Because the other stations don't pick up any of this action, it's impossible to draw a propagation gradient and determine the "time of origin" on that basis. All we've got is the SSPA reading to which we can apply an assumed propagation speed based on an educated guess. This is no basis for determining the "time of origin" down to the second. It's more like a plus/minus 10 seconds window, and I would probably put that window around 10:06:00 AM.
What bothers me with this isn't that Kim & Baum may be off by a few seconds, but that the NTSB analysis of the flight data recorder set the time for the plane hitting the ground at 10:03:11 AM. If that is correct, then Kim & Baum aren't off by a few seconds but by three whole minutes. If 23 seconds off for the Pentagon was a major error, then what is one to say about three minutes? It's an egregious error by any standards. What is worse, as far as I'm aware they have presented no updated analysis using a different time window, so we don't even have published seismic charts for the official crash time. This is very bad, and it calls for remedial action.
At this point we can only speculate about the reason why they haven't updated the analysis by publishing charts for the official time window and identifying another shock there. The only reason I can think of is that the charts for the relevant time window do not display any shocks, which means the NTSB analsysis must be off. There is absolutely no chance that the plane could have hit the ground like it did without leaving a seismic footprint. So this is another conundrum which needs to be tackled somehow. Why is there such a huge time discrepancy between NTSB and Kim & Baum? I don't know the answer, but as the above discussion shows, the Kim & Baum chart is certainly consistent with a plane hitting the ground right after a large explosion. So my suspicion is that something is off about the NTSB analysis, although it is hard to tell what precisely is going on here.
Waht is the bottom line of all this? What I wanted to achieve here is an improved analysis of the Pentagon seismic evidence, especially with respect to the types of seismic wavss, their propagation speeds and why they differ, and also, of course, why neither the nearest station (SDMD) nor the next station (SSPA) picked up the Pentagon shock whilst the station in between (MVL) picked it up very clearly. I think we've developed satisfactory answers to all these questions. Not only do our previous conclusions stand, but they're reinforced by answering all these remaining questions. There are probably more questions that could be tackled, although I can't really think of any at the moment. I'm confident that we have found the Pentagon shock in the MVL (and also CBN) chart, and the shock reveals that there was a large explosion in connection to the plane hitting the building. The explosion occurred 2-3 seconds before the plane hit. I'll submit that this is also the reason why they covered up the seismic findings, and in a very silly and shoddy way at that.
I've kept mulling over Pentagon seismic situation, and the bizarre fact that a very clear shock is registered right on time at the MVL station but there is nothing at the SDMD station and also, even more strangely, nothing at the SSPA station. How could it be that the Pentagon shock registered only at MVL but not at the other two stations? It's a conundrum.
Looking at the New York charts, also included in the Kim & Baum paper, we can estimate approximate transmission speeds for the shocks. Confusingly, Kim & Baum have inserted lines for P-waves and S-waves in the charts, but no lines for the L-waves and R-waves. The 9/11 shocks are not earthquakes so will not go deep enough to create any ordinary P-waves and S-waves, but only surface waves (L-waves and R-waves). These waves also travel more slowly than P-waves and S-waves, and we can readily see in the New York charts that the R-waves are the slowest and the L-waves a little faster but nowhere near as fast as even the S-waves let alone the P-waves.
I've mentioned before that there's a bifurcation in the chart between the two kinds of waves. I think I misspoke calling them P-waves and S-waves when the correct labels should be L-waves and R-waves, respectively. The shock goes off at Ground Zero about 10 seconds into the chart, and around the 70 second mark, the L-wave reaches the MVL station, 210 km out. That's 210 km in 60 seconds, or 3.5 km per second in propagation speed. As to the R-wave, it reaches the MVL station around the 85 second mark so travels 210 km in 75 seconds, or 2.8 km per second. The R-waves are thus about 20% slower than the L-waves.
Also note how the L-waves and R-waves give different imprints on the chart. The L-wave comes first and is somewhat more dense in terms of spikes than the R-wave, which is the second hump to the right on the MVL line. So it's easy to tell the difference between L-action and R-action simply from the appearance of the shock in the chart.
Further note how excellent the MVL station is in terms of signal-to-noise perfomance. There is very little noise and a very clear signal, even at that distance from Manhattan. The same cannot be said about the SDMD station (two lines below), which has a terrible noise level and picks up absolutely nothing of the L-action and only very little or the R-action. SDMD seems to be stone deaf to any kind of L-action, and very hard of hearing with respect to R-action. Looking even further out to the SSPA station (below the SDMD line), we find that this station did pick up some of the L-action but very little of the R-action. If we didn't have the other stations as guidance, we would hardly identify the R-action, and the L-action also comes out very differently than elsewhere. It is more protracted and also muted.
Each station seems to have its own "personality", its own characteristics in terms of what it is good at picking up, and what it is not-so-good at picking up. The SDMD station stands out as the good-for-nothing station, whch is practically deaf to any kind of surface waves and especially to L-waves. The SSPA station, on the other hand, seems capable of hearing both L-waves and R-waves, but only above a certain frequency (amplitude). If the shock isn't big enough, it just won't register.
Going back to propagation speeds, the Pentagon shock seems to be a little slower than the New York shock. I've said before that the travel time for the shock to reach the MVL station would be about 66 seconds, and the distance is 140 km. So that amounts ot a speed of about 2.1 km per second. That's 25% slower than the R-waves in the New York chart, and 40% slower than the L-waves in the New York chart. Looking at the density of the action in the MVL chart for the Pentagon shock, it is readily apparent that this isn't R-wave action but L-wave action. In other words, there is a massive difference in transmission speeds, with the Pentagon shock travelling all of 40% slower than the New York shock. How could this be?
This troubled me a lot until I realised that transmission speeds for L-waves are dependent on the frequency (amplitude) of the shock. A bigger shock will penetrate deeper, and the deeper it goes, the faster it will travel. So the mere fact that the New York shocks were far more powerful (energetic) than the Pentagon shock explains the significant difference in propagation speed.
The pciture is thus getting clearer, and we're in a position to resolve the conundrum. First of all, we're dealing with an L-wave from the Pentagon shock, there is no discernible R-wave. To understand why this is one need only consult the definition of the wave types. The L-waves are "transverse horizontal motion, perpendicular to the direction of propagation"; and the R-waves, "both in the direction of propagation and perpendicular (in a vertical plane)". For an aircraft iimpacting a building, you would expect L-wave action but not much R-wave action. This explains why even the MVL chart, which has the best ear of all station, fails to register any R-action whatever.
We can now also see why the SDMD station picks up nothing. Like I said on the basis of the New York chart, the SDMD station is stone deaf with respect to L-action, so would not pick that up even if it were still stronger. And whilst SDMD isn't completely deaf, but only hard of hearing for R-action, the problem is, there is no R-action to pick up. This is why absolutely nothing registered at SDMD.
But what about SSPA? How come nothing registered there? The explanation has already been given in the comparatively muted levels for the New York shocks. The SSPA station appears a bit dull, in the sense that it takes more stimulus to break through the threshold level of getting through to it. Once you're above the threshold level, SSPA will pick it up but it will be at a muted level. If the shock doesn't reach above a certain frequency, SSPA simply won't pick it up at all. So that's the story here. The L-action doesn't have enough frequency to be picked up at SSPA, and there is no R-action to pick up in the first place. So nothing registers at SSPA.
The more I delve into this issue, the more I parse these charts, the more convinced I get that the MVL shock is in fact the Pentagon plane impact shock. What do Kim & Baum say about the matter? Here is their explanation: "The largest signal at MVL at around 09:38:50 is probablly generated by electrical disturbance." Pardon my French, but electrical distrubance my ass! That's the most ridiculous cover-up story I've heard since Shyam Sundar's idiocies!
The reason they covered it up is that the shock doesn't look like they want it to look. Kim & Baum even admit that the shock doesn't look like they expected it to look. Here is what they say about it: "There appears to be strong seismic signals around 09:38:52 at station MVL (Millersville, Pa; Δ = 139 km), but the signals are too high frequency (5-10 Hz) and too high amplitude (328 nm/s at 139 km)." Well, maybe the amplitude is too high because there is something else going on in addition to the plane hitting the building? The shock is too high in frequency and amplitude, which means its local magnitude came out too high compared to the expected ML 0.8 which Terry Wallace had calculated.
When the shock didn't come like they expected it, they simply dismissed it instead of looking for alternative explanations of why the shock looked different. The reason why they chose to dismiss it should be obvious by now. The shock was too powerful for only a plane hitting, and it was also a bit too long for only a plane hitting the buildng. The reason it was too strong and too long is that there was another large explosion in addition to the plane hitting, and that's what they covered up in this silly way.
The cover-up doesn't get any less silly by Terry Wallace literally covering up the time window of the shock recorded at the Corbin station (CBN), and which looks identical to the one that registered at MVL. What kind of fools do they take us for? If the CBN shock isn't right on the timeline, why on earth would they put masking tape over the timestamp? The ONLY reason to put that masking tape over the timestamp is that the time window for the chart is exactly right. If it was off, they wouldn't need to cover it up but could use it as negative evidence, quoting the fact that its timing was off. These guys are not very good at lying.
Speaking of timestamps, the whole Kim & Baum chart analysis is predicated on an assumption , about a "presumed origin time of 13:38:09 EDT" for the Pentagon shock. The presumed origin time is their lingo for the time when the plane hits the building (or the frst explosion goes off, rather). The analysis of the jetlner's black box (flight data recorder) set the impact time at 9:37:46, which is all of 23 seconds earlier than the "presumed origin time" according to Kim & Baum. For this kind of analysis, being off by 23 seconds must be considered a rather major, not to say massive, error.
Turning, finally, to the Shanksville chart, we see R-wave action starting at the 46 second mark in the chart. The shock seems to go on for up towards 10 seconds, which rings familiar as we've seen the very same thing, the very same shape of the activity hump, at the World Trade Center. I have the North Tower plane impact shock in mind, not the South Tower one. Unlike the South Tower shock, which lasts for 3-4 seconds, the North Tower shock goes on for about 10 seconds and also has the very same shape as the Shanksville shock. The reason it has is that there is "something else" going on in addition to the plane hitting the tower and the ground, respectively.
Clearly there is a massive explosion in connection to the plane hitting, if that is indeed what the chart shows (we'll return to this issue shortly). In New York, I've put forth that there was a series of explosions in the basement, which gave rise to continuous seismic activity for over 10 seconds. The plane hit somewhere inside this activity window, presumably at the peak. In Shanksville, however, the activity seems divided into two parts. First there is a shock of 3-4 seconds, then a quick interlude of 1-2 seconds, followed by another shock of about 5 seconds. Total duration is 10 seconds.
My interpretation of the Shanksville chart, when juxtaposed against the New York chart and everything else we know about the seismic evidence for 9/11, is that there is a large explosion followed by the plane hitting the ground. This also jibes with the photographic evidence, as the famous snapshot of the Shanksville mushroom cloud does not appear to show the dark grey and black smoke from a plane crash but the grey smoke from a massive ordnance blast in the ground, making a big hole down into the decomissioned mine that swallowed up the plane much like the Twin Towers and the Pentagon mysteriously swallowed up the planes. Point is, they did the very same thing in all four places, the only difference being that the Shanksville hole was in the ground rather than in the perimeter wall of a building.
Kim & Baum seem overly confident about the "time of origin" for Shanksville, certainly considering that they're wide of the mark about the Pentagon "time of origin". The official time appears to have varied a lot. Kim & Baum set it at 10:06:05 AM. The R-waves have to travel nearly 110 km to reach the SSPA station, which is the only station where they registered properly. Applying the New York propagation speed of 2.8 km per second, the propagation time from origin to SSPA station would amount to about 40 seconds. But because propagation speeds were slower for the Pentagon shock than for the New York shock, we've got every reason to think these Shanksville R-waves could be a bit slower also. Because the other stations don't pick up any of this action, it's impossible to draw a propagation gradient and determine the "time of origin" on that basis. All we've got is the SSPA reading to which we can apply an assumed propagation speed based on an educated guess. This is no basis for determining the "time of origin" down to the second. It's more like a plus/minus 10 seconds window, and I would probably put that window around 10:06:00 AM.
What bothers me with this isn't that Kim & Baum may be off by a few seconds, but that the NTSB analysis of the flight data recorder set the time for the plane hitting the ground at 10:03:11 AM. If that is correct, then Kim & Baum aren't off by a few seconds but by three whole minutes. If 23 seconds off for the Pentagon was a major error, then what is one to say about three minutes? It's an egregious error by any standards. What is worse, as far as I'm aware they have presented no updated analysis using a different time window, so we don't even have published seismic charts for the official crash time. This is very bad, and it calls for remedial action.
At this point we can only speculate about the reason why they haven't updated the analysis by publishing charts for the official time window and identifying another shock there. The only reason I can think of is that the charts for the relevant time window do not display any shocks, which means the NTSB analsysis must be off. There is absolutely no chance that the plane could have hit the ground like it did without leaving a seismic footprint. So this is another conundrum which needs to be tackled somehow. Why is there such a huge time discrepancy between NTSB and Kim & Baum? I don't know the answer, but as the above discussion shows, the Kim & Baum chart is certainly consistent with a plane hitting the ground right after a large explosion. So my suspicion is that something is off about the NTSB analysis, although it is hard to tell what precisely is going on here.
Waht is the bottom line of all this? What I wanted to achieve here is an improved analysis of the Pentagon seismic evidence, especially with respect to the types of seismic wavss, their propagation speeds and why they differ, and also, of course, why neither the nearest station (SDMD) nor the next station (SSPA) picked up the Pentagon shock whilst the station in between (MVL) picked it up very clearly. I think we've developed satisfactory answers to all these questions. Not only do our previous conclusions stand, but they're reinforced by answering all these remaining questions. There are probably more questions that could be tackled, although I can't really think of any at the moment. I'm confident that we have found the Pentagon shock in the MVL (and also CBN) chart, and the shock reveals that there was a large explosion in connection to the plane hitting the building. The explosion occurred 2-3 seconds before the plane hit. I'll submit that this is also the reason why they covered up the seismic findings, and in a very silly and shoddy way at that.
We've also looked briefly into the Shanksville shock and made a first evaluation of it. The conclusion is that the evidentiary situation is unsatisfactory. Time estimates differ sharply between the seismologists (Kim & Baum) and the NTSB's report on the Flight 93 black box. The time discrepancy of three minutes is way too large to be acceptable, and at this point we have no way of telling why there is such a huge discrepancy and which of the two time estimates is the better one. Not that it matters a terrible lot in the grand scheme of things if the plane crashed at 10:03 AM or at 10:06 AM, but it still matters a great deal for the seismographic analysis, which ties in with all the other seismograms. If the seismographic time estimate is correct, then that implies NTSB's estimate is off by three minutes. There must be some reason for that, and I submit that reason will reveal a lot about what actually went on with Flight 93.
More specifically, i think the black box time is off because the plane was a substitute not the regularly used machine for that flight. The explanation could be as simple as the black box timer not having been set properly so was off by 3 minutes. That, of course, would never happen for the regular machines, but I'm thinking it could happen for a substitute plane. So this timing discrepancy might actually provide a way to prove that the plane was a substitute, much like the airphones of the American Airlines flights could provide a way to prove that those airliners were substitutes as well. For Flight 175 we already have proof that the machine was a substitute, namely the nacelle (cigar-shaped pod) mounted on the belly of the plane, and which appears in the footage. That nacelle shouldn't be there on the regularly used machines, so this proves the machine was indeed a substitute.
That's where we stand at the moment. We'll keep tackling the remaining issues at whatever pace we can muster. So many questions, so little time...
Best,
- Per
---
Sources and references:
• Seismic Waves: P-S-L-R waves
https://asyafe.wordpress.com/
• Won-Young Kim & Gerald R. Baum, "Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack"
http://911research.wtc7.net/
• Terry C. Wallace, "Forensic Seismology Analysis of the Terrorist Attacks on the Pentagon"
https://web.archive.org/web/
• NTSB, "Flight Path Study - United Airlines Flight 93" (PDF, download only)
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&
• 9-11 Research: Seismic Records of the Major Events in Manhattan
http://911research.wtc7.net/
Sources and references:
• Seismic Waves: P-S-L-R waves
https://asyafe.wordpress.com/
• Won-Young Kim & Gerald R. Baum, "Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack"
http://911research.wtc7.net/
• Terry C. Wallace, "Forensic Seismology Analysis of the Terrorist Attacks on the Pentagon"
https://web.archive.org/web/
• NTSB, "Flight Path Study - United Airlines Flight 93" (PDF, download only)
https://www.hsdl.org/?view&
• 9-11 Research: Seismic Records of the Major Events in Manhattan
http://911research.wtc7.net/
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
FBI Attempted Three Times to Name One Hijacker
hhhh
Passenger Name List lists none of "9/11 hijackers"
https://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/List-of-Passengers-911.html
Flight Manifests and Passenger Lists
"Furthermore, on the morning of 9/11 on officially released passenger lists provided by the airlines to the media, not one of the alleged hijacker's names appears."
I wonder who decided to "shorten" the name and swapped out a “9/11 hijacker” which didn’t work out and was not on the plane? What they did was shorten the name from “Abdulrahman” to “Abdul” and "fixed" the issue right after being caught out in the open. So if they didn’t change the hijackers around to match a missing killed body to blame it on, would the DNA results still would have been listed as “Abdulrahman” or the guy the news saying he’s not a 9/11 hijacker and what happened to the ensuing lawsuit ?
If one name had to be fixed, how many other fixes exists which I didn't catch.
All this can be done without anyone noticing anything.
Why is there a Flight Manifest and a Passenger name list?
Atta went to Maine because of the good CCTV cameras to show the visual evidence of the evil hijackers and to do a evidence dump for FBI. I wonder if FBI photographed the layout of this dumped material? I wonder if FBI was smart enough to know when someone smells fishy.
 |
| FBI Attempted Three Times to Name One Hijacker |
Passenger Name List lists none of "9/11 hijackers"
https://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/List-of-Passengers-911.html
Flight Manifests and Passenger Lists
"Furthermore, on the morning of 9/11 on officially released passenger lists provided by the airlines to the media, not one of the alleged hijacker's names appears."
What's a passenger name list?
I wonder who decided to "shorten" the name and swapped out a “9/11 hijacker” which didn’t work out and was not on the plane? What they did was shorten the name from “Abdulrahman” to “Abdul” and "fixed" the issue right after being caught out in the open. So if they didn’t change the hijackers around to match a missing killed body to blame it on, would the DNA results still would have been listed as “Abdulrahman” or the guy the news saying he’s not a 9/11 hijacker and what happened to the ensuing lawsuit ?
If one name had to be fixed, how many other fixes exists which I didn't catch.
All this can be done without anyone noticing anything.
Why is there a Flight Manifest and a Passenger name list?
Atta went to Maine because of the good CCTV cameras to show the visual evidence of the evil hijackers and to do a evidence dump for FBI. I wonder if FBI photographed the layout of this dumped material? I wonder if FBI was smart enough to know when someone smells fishy.
Team 7 Files
Team 7 Files
Team 7 was created to investigate commercial aviation and transportation security, including an investigation into the circumstances of the four hijackings. These files contain notes of interviews conducted by Commission staff; notes on visits to sites such as Logan International Airport and Dulles International Airport; slides of presentations given to Commission staff from federal agencies and private sector entities including the Transportation Security Administration of the Department of Homeland Security (TSA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), American Airlines, and United Airlines; documents received by the Commission from agencies including the FBI and airlines; reports from the General Accounting Office (GAO) on transportation security; other government and private sector reports; drafts of chapter one of the Commission's final report; congressional hearing transcripts; and published articles and monographs. The records are arranged by subject.
9/11 Document Archive
319KVIEWS
8.3KTITLES
Archive of 9/11-related documents; in particular, the 9/11 Commission records. Free Torrent at 911Datasets.org
https://www.scribd.com/publisher/7104168/9-11-Document-Archive
555 9/11 review
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yTrrnLcn61sJ:911blogger.com/news/2011-02-10/critique-david-ray-griffin-s-911-fake-calls-theory+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Saturday, March 9, 2019
September 11th Operation Phoenix was the Cover Sheet for all War Games on 9/11
XRay,
The other Operation Phoenix / Project Phoenix was 1. the pentagon rebuilding process
Operation Phoenix #2
But also the Military logo witness "CHERYL RYEFIELD 2002 testimony
Windows like a passenger plane " talked about Operation Phoenix !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
A full archive containing all the messages is available as a single compressed text file(also available via torrent), and as a number of files sorted and ordered by time, which are available as a torrent as well.
866 Looks like a pager number.
2001-09-11 10:17:57 Skytel [007045350] B ALPHA RTOPS #1534 Credit Union Segment - Premier - Network Owner=Core Infrastructure * Marine Air - Yuma Branch down due to ckt outage <SIMS>
Search CTRL+F "Owner=Core Infrastructure *"
2001-09-11 10:17:57 Skytel [007045350] B ALPHA RTOPS #1534 Credit Union Segment - Premier - Network Owner=Core Infrastructure * Marine Air - Yuma Branch down due to ckt outage <SIMS>
2001-09-11 10:37:34 Arch [1421665] A ALPHA RTOPS #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated with World Trade Center/Pe
2001-09-11 10:45:57 Skytel [007045350] B ALPHA RtOPS Update #1534 Credit Union Segment - Premier - Network Owner=Core Infrastructure * Marine Air - Yuma Branch down due to ckt outage **Update** circuit has been restored <SIMS>
2001-09-11 10:50:39 Skytel [004220348] D ALPHA 43 Delphi Delco Owner=Core Infrastructure * GM RenCen Building has been evacuated as a precautionary measure. <SIMS> (6
2001-09-11 11:48:13 Arch [1421665] A ALPHA RtOPS Update #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated with World Trade Ce
2001-09-11 11:53:35 Skytel [007611174] B ALPHA RtOPS Update #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated w
Search CTRL+F "I.S-CDE/CE NE"
2001-09-11 11:51:42 Skytel [007045350] B ALPHA RtOPS Update #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE O
The other Operation Phoenix / Project Phoenix was 1. the pentagon rebuilding process
Operation Phoenix #2
But also the Military logo witness "CHERYL RYEFIELD 2002 testimony
Windows like a passenger plane " talked about Operation Phoenix !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
9/11 tragedy pager intercepts.
A full archive containing all the messages is available as a single compressed text file(also available via torrent), and as a number of files sorted and ordered by time, which are available as a torrent as well.
Dear Yuma, MCASYuma_Media@usmc.mil
Does any of these strange message make sense to you? What is RTOPS? for example and RTOPS #1536 Do you have a recording for the 866-791-7190 pager message still ?.
What is "Operation Phoenix"? thanks
Does any of these strange message make sense to you? What is RTOPS? for example and RTOPS #1536 Do you have a recording for the 866-791-7190 pager message still ?.
What is "Operation Phoenix"? thanks
2001-09-11 10:17:57 Skytel [007045350] B ALPHA RTOPS #1534 Credit Union Segment - Premier - Network Owner=Core Infrastructure * Marine Air - Yuma Branch down due to ckt outage <SIMS>
2001-09-11 10:37:34 Arch [1421665] A ALPHA RTOPS #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated with World Trade Center/Pe
2001-09-11 10:45:57 Skytel [007045350] B ALPHA RtOPS Update #1534 Credit Union Segment - Premier - Network Owner=Core Infrastructure * Marine Air - Yuma Branch down due to ckt outage **Update** circuit has been restored <SIMS>
2001-09-11 10:50:39 Skytel [004220348] D ALPHA 43 Delphi Delco Owner=Core Infrastructure * GM RenCen Building has been evacuated as a precautionary measure. <SIMS> (6
2001-09-11 11:48:13 Arch [1421665] A ALPHA RtOPS Update #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated with World Trade Ce
2001-09-11 11:53:35 Skytel [007611174] B ALPHA RtOPS Update #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated w
Search CTRL+F "Owner=Core Infrastructure *"
2001-09-11 10:17:57 Skytel [007045350] B ALPHA RTOPS #1534 Credit Union Segment - Premier - Network Owner=Core Infrastructure * Marine Air - Yuma Branch down due to ckt outage <SIMS>
2001-09-11 10:37:34 Arch [1421665] A ALPHA RTOPS #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated with World Trade Center/Pe
2001-09-11 10:45:57 Skytel [007045350] B ALPHA RtOPS Update #1534 Credit Union Segment - Premier - Network Owner=Core Infrastructure * Marine Air - Yuma Branch down due to ckt outage **Update** circuit has been restored <SIMS>
2001-09-11 10:50:39 Skytel [004220348] D ALPHA 43 Delphi Delco Owner=Core Infrastructure * GM RenCen Building has been evacuated as a precautionary measure. <SIMS> (6
2001-09-11 11:48:13 Arch [1421665] A ALPHA RtOPS Update #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated with World Trade Ce
2001-09-11 11:53:35 Skytel [007611174] B ALPHA RtOPS Update #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE Owner=Core Infrastructure * Operation Phoenix 866-791-7190 Passcode 7508470# Call for 10:00 CT update - activities associated w
Search CTRL+F "I.S-CDE/CE NE"
2001-09-11 11:51:42 Skytel [007045350] B ALPHA RtOPS Update #1536 Operation Phoenix - I.S-CDE/CE NE O
Friday, March 8, 2019
September 11th Pentagon Cameras and the Missing Video Records
| Pentagon Cameras 1. Annex camera note local police confiscated camera film note "Some of the cameras at the Pentagon were inoperable because of construction work." 4. Heliport Entrance Camera  |
| source When and who turned the pentagon camera and why? Why Wasn't Navy Annex Camera handed over to the FBI |
Interview with Captain Michael Nesbitt Heliport Entrance Camera
"Get a camera up there!" Some of the center's eight monitor screens mounted on a wallremained blank because the crash had destroyed the camera nearest the impact
site [Heliport Entrance Camera] and cut connectivity to others."
and
"Officer Jesse De Vaughn brought up an image from a camera at the Navy Annex that had
zoomed in on the roiling red flames and smoke. Nesbitt thought he was looking at the nearby
gas station on South Joyce Street, so when he called to notify the Arlington County Fire
Department of reports that a plane had hit the Pentagon, he also reported a fire at the gas station. Nesbitt then refocused the Annex camera to clearly show a normal gas station
scene and the blaze"
https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/pentagon/Pentagon9-11.pdf
Jerry Maryott DPS Records Communication Center.
DPS Officer Mark Bright, who was standing outside the building, "saw the plane fly
low over the Navy Annex and slam into the building. "
How is the plane hitting street lights if it is flying over the Navy Annex?
https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/pentagon/Pentagon9-11.pdf
September 11th Pentagon Cameras destroyed and therefore so have the
recording at the remote video server - as it turns out we are that that stupid
to believe this report by John Jester.
John Jester this is a major event. We have to establish control
and find out what occurred and make sure we have all of the
appropriate response coming to assist us fire and medical and rescue
personnel. The phones were ringing off the hook. The guys in there
were jumping on them. People were calling from throughout the Pentagon. I tried to get a security camera up on one of the television
monitors to get a picture of what had happened.
But all of the cameras in that area had been destroyed. Are we to believe the recordings
are therefore missing too because the ALL THE CAMERAS IN THE AREA HAD BEEN
DESTROYED?
https://youtu.be/l7Ypjzgn1Do
https://www.c-span.org/video/?301012-1/john-jester-september-11-2001
John Jester He says it was an Military Exercise
https://youtu.be/YeS7vpug1TM
https:www.c-span.org/video/?177600-3/pentagon-attack-law-enforcement-lessons-learned
 |
| Cheryl Ryefield Drawing of Not Flight 77 |
Cheryl Ryefield draws Flight 77 Plane
with USAF Logos
Bomb Witness  |
| Pentagon Office Bomb |
he heard “boom, boom, boom,” he
recalls. In seconds, the kitchen doors blew
open, smoke and ash poured into the res-
taurant and the ceiling collapsed. Mr. Cut-
ler didn’t know what had happened yet,
but he found himself standing among bod-
ies strewn across the floor. “It was may-
hem,” he says.
https://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/wsj-paper-09122001.pdf
Good afternoon Dan,
I'm finally catching up, sorry about the delay in replying. Hope your
week has been good. Sorry to hear about your travails with the house,
I'm hoping your fixes will hold.
On the Pentagon article you sent (published in Stars and Stripes the
day after 9/11), the Levi Stephens quote is very interesting. Stephens
said he heard a "huge rumble" and also that "the ground started
shaking" even before the plane hit the building.
Source: https://www.stripes.com/at-pen
What Stephens says could only mean that a massive explosion took place
in the building before the plane hit. Note that Stephens' story jibes
perfectly with what Major Jay Bienlien said in the book "Then Came the
Fire":
« Major Jay Bienlien (our youngest active duty soldier) then looked up
to view the initial blast. The windows across the office from us
shattered and sprayed against the old, heavy three-inch 1942 steel
Venetian blinds (thank God for American steel) and crashed to the
floor. The second wave, a deafening explosion, then proceeded to cause
those same heavy blinds to protrude from the wall horizontally. »
Source: https://history.army.mil/html/
Also in the Stars and Stripes article, one of their reporters named
Lisa Burgess talks about "two loud booms", although it sounds like she
recalled them in the wrong order. The others seem to say the loudest
boom came second. The important thing, though, is that there were two
separate and distinct explosions. Here is what she said:
« Stars and Stripes reporter Lisa Burgess was evacuating when the
incident happened. “I heard two loud booms — one large, one small,”
she said. Hundreds of people rushed for the exits of the world’s
largest office building after being ordered to evacuate. »
Another eyewitness who talks about double explosions (or a two-part
explosion) is Lieutenant Colonel John Thurman. In the Washington Post
on April 12, 2006 he said:
« “[T]o me it seemed like it was a bomb. Being in the military, I have
been around grenade, artillery explosions. It was a two-part explosion
to me.… [I]t seemed like that there was a percussion blast that blew
me kind of backwards in my cubicle to the side. And then it seemed as
if a massive explosion went off at the same time.” He will add: “I had
thought that perhaps the terrorists had surreptitiously gotten
construction workers to come in and place explosives.” »
Source: http://historycommons.org/enti
Time and time again we see the same evidence as in New York. Take the
Ashley et al. paper, on the "Honegger Hypothesis", for example.
Several eyewitness reports are quoted in that paper to the effect that
the plane just vanished into the building without really crashing.
Here are some:
Donley, Daryl – “I saw it fly right into the Pentagon … ‘It just was
amazingly precise… It completely disappeared into the Pentagon.”
Kean, Terrance – “I saw this very, very large passenger jet.” “It just
plowed right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into
the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and
smoke everywhere … It was very sort of surreal.”
Liebner, Lincoln – “The plane came in hard and level and was flown
full throttle into the building, dead center mass, Maj. Leibner said.
“The plane completely entered the building… The plane went into the
building like a toy into a birthday cake … The aircraft went in
between the second and third floors.”
Patterson, Steve – “[It] headed for the Pentagon “at a frightening
rate … just slicing into that building …”Then this thing just became
part of the Pentagon … he saw the Pentagon “envelope” the plane.”
Peterson, Christine – “then the plane crashed … Where did the plane
go? … I expected it to bounce off the Pentagon wall in pieces.”
Ramey, Wanda – “[It] crashed into the west side of the building … It
happened so fast. One second I saw the plane and next it was gone.”
Recalling those moments again, Ramey said it appeared the building
sucked the plane up inside.”
Skarlet – “It was headed straight for the building. It made no sense …
A huge jet. Then it was gone. A massive hole in the side of the
Pentagon gushed smoke. ‘Buildings don't eat planes. That plane, it
just vanished. There should have been parts on the ground. It should
have rained parts on my car. The airplane didn't crash. Where are the
parts?’ That's the conversation I had with myself on the way to work …
There was a plane. It didn't go over the building. It went into the
building.”
Thompson, Carla – “I glanced up just at the point where the plane was
going into the building …I saw an indentation in the building and then
it was just blown-up up — red, everything red.”
Source of these eyewitness quotes:
http://www.scientificmethod911
Note in particular the last statement, by Carla Thompson, who says she
"saw an indentation in the building" before it was "blown up". If the
plane had actually crashed against the wall and mechanically punched a
hole through it, there is no chance that she would have seen an
indentation before the fireball appeared. But that's what she saw, and
it indicates that the hole was blown separately, before the plane hit,
and that the plane went in through the hole and only exploded once it
got inside. That's why the fireball came a second later, enabling
Carla T to spot the indentation before the fireball emerged from the
hole.
As you can see, the situation at the Pentagon is exactly the same as
with the World Trade Center. The building just swallows the plane, it
doesn't really crash against the perimeter wall. At the World Trade
Center, we've got clear proof of massive explosions right before the
plane hits the perimeter walls. This is especially clear in the Naudet
video of the first plane hitting the North Tower, but is also there
e.g. in the Fairbanks video (and others as well) for the second plane
hitting the South Tower.
There were two rounds of explosions in all three cases – the North
Tower, the South Tower, and the Pentagon too. The first explosion blew
open a hole in the perimeter wall through which the plane fuselage
could enter the building without getting smashed to confetti. The
second explosion was when the plane itself crashed and blew up, which
it did only after it got inside the building.
At the World Trade Center, the two rounds of explosions were so close
in time they could not be told apart. We're tallking 1/10th of one
second or less. At the Pentagon, however, the two explosions were a
little farther apart, which enabled these people to tell them apart as
two separate blasts. This is also probably why they suppressed not
only available video footage from surveillance cameras but also the
seismic records at the Pentagon.
There is little doubt that the seismic records were in fact covered up
at the Pentagon. The Ashley et al. paper quotes noted geologist and
seismologist Terry C. Wallace.
« Terry C. Wallace, Southern Arizona Seismic Observatory, who is
considered an authority in this area, is reported51 as having stated
the following: “I looked pretty hard -- and to be honest I can't find
any [event] CONCLUSIVELY above the noise. I calculated an expected
magnitude assuming that the impact was on the wall, not vertical (like
UA flight), and got a magnitude of 0.8. The noise at all the stations
(closest is 60 km away) is above this.” Thus, according to this
expert, a detectable seismic signal was not expected to occur. »
Source: http://www.scientificmethod911
When I first saw this, I immediately sensed it was handwaving. After
all, signals of ML 0.6 (Building 7 collapsing), ML 0.7 (plane hitting
South Tower), and ML 0.9 (plane hitting North Tower) were readily
detectable in seismograms from the Pallisades as well as New
Brunswick. True those stations are closer than 60 km but the
signal-to-noise ratio is so good it seems inconceivable that a station
60 km away would fail to clearly catch them.
What is more, when you Dan went out to check, you found no fewer than
FOUR seismographic stations within 5 miles (8 km) from the Pentagon.
Terry C. Wallace lied when he said the closest station was 60 km away.
So who is Terry C. Wallace? I went out to look for him, and guess
where I found this fellow! He's the new head of Los Alamos National
Laboratories. How about that for a "coincidence". I mean, you don't
become the head of Los Alamos without extensive background in the deep
state. They sent him out as an "expert" to cover up the seismographic
data from the Pentagon crash. Why did they? I'd say they did because
the seismographic charts showed (at least) two distinct shocks, one
for each explosion.
That's what I got for now on the Pentagon issues you brought up. i'll
reply in a separate note to the other material.
Best,
- Per
Hi Per,
You think its Terry but its Won-Young Kim and his bullshit team locked it down (again)
Report On Seismic Activity Due To The Aircraft Impact At The Pentagon
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
Hi Per,
I emailed with David Chandler directly about this awhile ago. I said the colors don't match
 |
| and I asked about this Penny's plane part.. He was not very helpful. |
A woman drew the pentagon plane and it had stars on it. Did you get that part of the video?
Cheryl Ryefield Pentagon Plane Drawing Shows Is not American Flight 77
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0cpcYV2Bq4
The other Pentagon plane part (below) it should have silver on top or bottom.
Matt Nelson said he does not expect the evidence to match up. Why because
he's up the gov ass.
This blue strip matches the fish-eye camera effect however
I searched for "Riverdale" and found out it was a Luke Perry T.V. special.
"So the other one is Riverdale (RIV)
Luke Perry, star of 'Beverly Hills, 90210' and 'Riverdale,'
No it is Riverhead
RIV
J-52 Z-315 Riverhead NY ARSR-4 40°52′43″N 072°41′14″W EADS AEA Eastern 'New' FAA/USAF JSS radar site; replaced Montauk AFS, LI, NY (Z-45).
Directions: To here - From here
RIV scope
RIV
J-52 Z-315 Riverhead NY ARSR-4 40°52′43″N 072°41′14″W EADS AEA Eastern 'New' FAA/USAF JSS radar site; replaced Montauk AFS, LI, NY (Z-45).
Directions: To here - From hereRIV scope
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)