Flight93 and "missing 3 minutes"

mcMike said:
I don't think anything about it. I am (more likely were) just curious about it. Few seconds is reasonble for "clocks sync error" but 3 minutes sounds a lot.

And just for the record; I am trying to DEBUNK this issue. So please feel free to contribute especially if this is trivial for you.
Click to expand...

If you read further in the report in my last post
http://www.ess.washington.edu/SEIS/P... problems"
You'd see that the discrepancies can be accumulative. They add up over the time of the misadjustment.
 
From my recollections,

The 06 figure came purely from siesmic data, and was at odds with all other data. The siesmic data was later discovered to be off by the relevant 3 minutes. Hence all data reflects an 03 crash time.

-Gumboot
 
This is my spin on it. The commissions report actually mentions it and addresses it. It's not as though the seismic data was suppressed and suddenly turned up years later.

Had this been the case then yes I can see an argument as to why the three minutes are important, but this is not the case. It was recognised and addressed the first time around. There is, IMO very little mileage for any conspiracy revolving around this.
 
is this like the stopped clocks in the pentagon

where i have worked the clocks were set by what would make you early to work, or able to leave early after work

clocks, who has the right time

how do you set your clocks
 
1 who sets and how it is set for the FDR?

2 how are times written down for this, in a log, turn around look at log, write down time, ??? not enough to know why on 2

3 how long does it take for sound to travel thru ground? is the time ajusted for the data traveling thru the ground or what!!! why would the readings match the time, it takes time for waves to travel through the earth,

4 are they in sync, how do you know, are you answering your own question


Time, need to know who set the clocks

but then this is only an issue for CT nut cases who think a plane did not crash in PA, since there were two planes and radar data as witnesses, it seems the only people who really can use this 3 minute non issue are misleading CT minded people

Explaining why my clock is different than your clock or their clock is not very hard to explain, but I guess CT guys make up stuff anyway. It is a waste of time trying to help them, they will not believe it is possible a clock can have the wrong time

(PA has a time warp in this area due to the depleted coal that use to hold the time space continuum in check)
 
Let me ask the question, then...

What is the SIGNIFICANCE of the missing 3 minutes. Lets say that there is a mismatch between ATC reporting time and UA93 FDR Time for the crash...now what? WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE of such a discrepency. If you have a theory, than tell us, otherwise, please tell me why it is important to know.

The insinuation, most will draw from silence on addressing the significance of your question, is that foul play is suspected. Is this the case? Do you suspect foul play occured, and hence the time discrepency?

TAM
 
mcMike said:
And just for the record; I am trying to DEBUNK this issue.
Click to expand...


Sorry, mcMike--I don't want you to feel like you're being ganged up on, but. . . debunk what?

I still haven't heard any allegation or claim of the significance of time discrepancies. This is one where I could easily imagine CTists making the exact opposite condition seem significant, "How could all these different clocks and accounts be in perfect synch? It MUST be a conspiracy."
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Sorry, mcMike--I don't want you to feel like you're being ganged up on, but. . . debunk what?

I still haven't heard any allegation or claim of the significance of time discrepancies. This is one where I could easily imagine CTists making the exact opposite condition seem significant, "How could all these different clocks and accounts be in perfect synch? It MUST be a conspiracy."
Click to expand...



I've oft heard the time discrepencies presented as evidence that the government is hiding something - such as bombs at The Pentagon (no one has ever explained why the clocks should stop just because a bomb goes off...) and UA93 being shot down.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
From my recollections,
The 06 figure came purely from siesmic data, and was at odds with all other data. The siesmic data was later discovered to be off by the relevant 3 minutes. Hence all data reflects an 03 crash time.
-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Do you have any link for the "off by the relevant 3 minutes" ?
Or can you explain with simple terms why it was first interrepted as 06 and later corrected to 03? Was it the time compensation issue against distance or simply locating correct spikes in signal?
Thanks.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Sorry, mcMike--I don't want you to feel like you're being ganged up on, but. . . debunk what?

I still haven't heard any allegation or claim of the significance of time discrepancies. This is one where I could easily imagine CTists making the exact opposite condition seem significant, "How could all these different clocks and accounts be in perfect synch? It MUST be a conspiracy."
Click to expand...

I believe the "ct-issue" is that because there is somehing fuzzy in the times and there are 3 minutes "missing". Then SOMETHING must've happened in the last 3 minutes that is tried to hide. We had early news stating 10:06 impact time. "Official-story" states 03 and when the seismic-interreption is corrected from 06 to 03 it "must be" a coverup. Since there are 2 sources for 06 (news+seismic) it "can't be" coincidence. (That is basicly my current fight to what I like to arm my self with better knowledge)

That's why I'd like to know more detailed explanation for why seismic-times were corrected. What was the case exactly? Also I would love to have links why 06-time was used in early news. Even here in Finland we had that time used in news and it is mentioned in many articles. They propably all leads to a single source which was just wrong early information.

I am little offended by many repliers in this thread. I don't understand why so many people attacks the person asking explanations? Because THAT was exactly what I was doing - NOT ASKING QUESTIONS but explanation. I hope you see the difference. And what the heck does it matter if that is big issue or not. In my opinion it was legimate question for which I didn't knew the anwser.

You are kidding yourselves if you're saying there aren't any questions around 9/11. Of course there are. Most of them have been answered but some are not. I am SO confirmed about 19-hijackers and Osama that I am not "afraid" to raise questions since I believe there is always an explanation for each issue.
 
stateofgrace said:
This is my spin on it. The commissions report actually mentions it and addresses it. It's not as though the seismic data was suppressed and suddenly turned up years later.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Like I earlier said I found that myself. It helps and it's believeble for myself - propably not for the persons I try to argue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom