FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Smoking Gun - Sept. 11th Plane Impact Times - moved-CC
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So how much explosives would be required to cause the towers to fall in the way they did, and how and when were they planted?

If you actually work it out, you'll realise that it is an impossibility.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Skeptic
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 485

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you are defending the official account, the answer to your question would be 'no explosives would be required to make the towers fall in the manner they did'.

Given that solgel could be used to paint super-thermite onto columns in calculated places and that there were multiple fire drills and 'power-downs' in the months leading up to 9/11, I would say it is a possibility.

Also, when you consider that Bush's borther and cousin were in charge of security for the WTC, the means of placing such 'explosives' seems plausible
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GEFBASS
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 107

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

in this video....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=529253447051382848&q=prof+stev en
At about 30 minutes ( 30:10 ), Prof Steven Jones talks about the asbestos removal ( time to plant, paint, etc. ) and that it had already been started.
At about 37 minutes (37:15 - 38:12), Prof Steven Jones talks about the planting of explosives and the amounts needed.

Geoff.

_________________
TRUTH IS NOT A FOUR LETTER WORD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

moved

Last edited by Leiff on Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:01 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skeptic wrote:
If you are defending the official account, the answer to your question would be 'no explosives would be required to make the towers fall in the manner they did'.

Given that solgel could be used to paint super-thermite onto columns in calculated places and that there were multiple fire drills and 'power-downs' in the months leading up to 9/11, I would say it is a possibility.

Also, when you consider that Bush's borther and cousin were in charge of security for the WTC, the means of placing such 'explosives' seems plausible


What power downs?

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

And to demolish a 30 story building took 4 months of preparation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As you know Johnny Pixels, The people who run this board and the majority of its members reject the official account. This is the raison d'etre of this forum. That's a fact.

Posts which try to ridicule evidence will be moved to "Critics Corner" when moderators have the time to pick them up.

Such a shame you don't act as if you appreciate this. There are plenty of other forums you can post to - maybe you'd get a better response? Who's time are you wanting to waste - yours or ours?

Andrew
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
As you know Johnny Pixels, The people who run this board and the majority of its members reject the official account. This is the raison d'etre of this forum. That's a fact.

Posts which try to ridicule evidence will be moved to "Critics Corner" when moderators have the time to pick them up.

Such a shame you don't act as if you appreciate this. There are plenty of other forums you can post to - maybe you'd get a better response? Who's time are you wanting to waste - yours or ours?

Andrew


I know full well that you reject the official account. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you have evidence with which to criticise the official account.

In this thread it was claimed that explosives were planted during power downs. However, there is no evidence for power downs. There were a lot of companies in the WTC, they have computer networks, networks need servers, and they all need power. If you powerdown the towers, ther servers go offline, the company stops doing work, and so the company stops making money. Show me one company in the world that is happy to stop making money.

I also posted a link that shows the claims of powerdowns were without evidence. Therefore, the claims of explosives being planted during powerdowns are without evidence, and cannot be used to discredit the official report.

I am not ridiculing evidence. I am pointing out that there is no evidence. You may see this as ridicule, but it is part of the investigative process. You can't pick and choose the stories that fit your ideas. You have to take the evidence, and come to a conclusion based on that.

I don't believe there should be a critics corner, as it distances the "truth movement" from its critics. The whole point of the movement is to confront criticism, to confront the official report, and show people how it is wrong. I've noticed that the tactic seems to be trying to shout over the top of critics, and moving them away to their own corner where they do not criticise the members of the movement.

If you cannot answer critics on a internet message board, then how do you propose to defeat the might of the government, who, it is suggested, has the power to murder 3000 people?

There are other forums, but I'm not looking to get a favourable response from people who agree with me, that's what the "truth movement" seeks to do. I'm here to show the movement that it is quite simply wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do not understand why there is this insistance, on both sides, that there would only have been a certain amount of time to plant explosives.
The setting up of charges may have taken months or years.

At any rate, how they were planted is a step that comes AFTER proving that they were planted.

I feel S Jones' latest work succeeds in doing this.

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry Johnny,

I just class you as a gravity denier. Maybe you don't ridicule evidence then - but you do deny it.

Your posts will be moved here if they support the official account. If you are interested in "helping us", you should start by posting points in this forum and linking them back to posts in other forums.

You simply won't convince the majority of us we're wrong - because we aren't. Sorry. That's why it's called "9/11 Truth Campaign" not "9/11 Debate Campaign". Many other boards debate the issue. We don't debate the basic truth. For example WTC 7, 1 and 2 were destroyed with explosives. Fact. If you want to debate what will happen when you jump off a 110 story building with no parachute, please do it on another forum (or the Critics Corner).

If you are a truth campaigner, as you see the truth, please save our time by putting your posts in this Critics Corner forum. People who are interested in them can then find them. You can link in the posts you are criticisng quite easily and people can respond if they wish.

Thank you for understanding this subtlety - otherwise we will just have to move your posts here ourselves - and it gets like cleaning up somebody's fag ends really.

Sorry if it's a pain, I am just trying to find some kind of comporomise without being overtly rude to people. Do you understand where I am coming from?

I have asked JHR to re-word the introductory sign up text to make this idea clear, although I don't yet know if this text can be modified.

Thanks for your understanding.

Regards

Andrew
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
As you know Johnny Pixels, The people who run this board and the majority of its members reject the official account. This is the raison d'etre of this forum. That's a fact.

Posts which try to ridicule evidence will be moved to "Critics Corner" when moderators have the time to pick them up.

Such a shame you don't act as if you appreciate this. There are plenty of other forums you can post to - maybe you'd get a better response? Who's time are you wanting to waste - yours or ours?

Andrew


I know full well that you reject the official account. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you have evidence with which to criticise the official account.

In this thread it was claimed that explosives were planted during power downs. However, there is no evidence for power downs. There were a lot of companies in the WTC, they have computer networks, networks need servers, and they all need power. If you powerdown the towers, ther servers go offline, the company stops doing work, and so the company stops making money. Show me one company in the world that is happy to stop making money.

I also posted a link that shows the claims of powerdowns were without evidence. Therefore, the claims of explosives being planted during powerdowns are without evidence, and cannot be used to discredit the official report.

I am not ridiculing evidence. I am pointing out that there is no evidence. You may see this as ridicule, but it is part of the investigative process. You can't pick and choose the stories that fit your ideas. You have to take the evidence, and come to a conclusion based on that.

I don't believe there should be a critics corner, as it distances the "truth movement" from its critics. The whole point of the movement is to confront criticism, to confront the official report, and show people how it is wrong. I've noticed that the tactic seems to be trying to shout over the top of critics, and moving them away to their own corner where they do not criticise the members of the movement.

If you cannot answer critics on a internet message board, then how do you propose to defeat the might of the government, who, it is suggested, has the power to murder 3000 people?

There are other forums, but I'm not looking to get a favourable response from people who agree with me, that's what the "truth movement" seeks to do. I'm here to show the movement that it is quite simply wrong.


Welcome to the troll hole Johnny. You have been judged and found guilty of making sense...therefore you are banished from their sight.

However, this "corner" is actually the most active part of this board. Ironic? No, inevitable... Smile

-z

_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber

"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnny P,

I disagree with you about us distancing ourselves from our critics. Most forums have some kind of equivalent policy. In any case, what's harder clicking a link labelled "News/Articles" or clicking a link labelled "Critics Corner"?


JayRef,

JP may make sense to you - so you are free to converse here. We won't disturb you patting each other on the back if that's what you want to do.

Gravity is not open to debate. The acceleration due to gravity is, give or take 9.81 ms^-2. It has been this way for at least 300 years on the surface of the Earth. I won't debate that. Neither will most scientists. It is this fact from which the behaviour of the collapse of WTC 1, 2 & 7 can be analysed.

Of course, because I am an average person, it took me 3 years to see this fact in the correct context, because I couldn't believe the media could either lie so much or be apparently more stupid than me (me being average, I mean). Only when it was explained clearly to me in a video did I understand. I then went on to re-calculate the figures for myself.

Some time after, I documented these calculations thus.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collapse%20of%20Towers.swf

Think of it as primer. This was debated for almost 9 months here

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3108

before moderators closed the thread. I have posted all my answers there and will not debate it any more on this thread. Just read what's on there if you have the time or interest.

Thanks for your understanding too.

Regards

Andrew

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Pikey
Banned
Banned


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well done Andrew and extremely well put. You really are an outstanding team member and a credit to the 911 truth movement . Your diplomatic, and reasoning skills represent a formidable force for truthseeking.

Unfortunately these disruptive and offensive bloggers will always keep coming here, as Morpheus in the film "The Matrix" states they are our enemy and will do anything to protect the status quo and maintain the illusion! They will never play the ball (i.e engage in reasoned debate) and will continue to play the man (i.e insult anyone who dare question the official conspiracy version). They present no evidence or proof to back up the official conspiracy theory.

Our best policy is not to allow them to take our limited energy, Mahatma Gandhi recognised this and his strategy and tactical approach resulted in him defeating the powers that be!

IMO we have nothing to fear, the content of their blogs destroys their credibility. The growth of the 911 movement is testament to how ineffective these aggressive and insulting "Trolls" really are.

Peace & truth

_________________
Pikey

Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Pikey - I always appreciate your posts as well. I don't want to marry you though - I know you'll understand.

I have to say, that my physical persona and mode of verbal expression in person is far closer to Rab C Nesbitt than my posts here might suggest....!!!



http://www.pagan.clara.net/rcn/saus.wav

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
quicknthedead
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 25
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:34 am    Post subject: Has anyone even read this article? Reply with quote

You all sound like you haven't read it.

Please read it.

This is new evidence, hard, solid evidence that can crack this 9/11 coverup wide-open.

It is based on simple, factual evidence from highly reliable sources, information totally accepted, widely known, and all over the internet.

And this is exactly why it will be the downfall of the conspirators if we can get this known to everyone far and wide.

I refer to the airplane impact times, and the discrepancies just discovered that lead to US government complicity in 9/11 and the resulting coverup.

Read the article. Everything else pales in importance.

Here it is again:

---------------------

The Smoking Gun - Sept. 11th Plane Impact Time Discrepancies


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 mean something, 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: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html
(note: all times precise to plus or minus 1 to 2 seconds)



9/11 Commission Timeline
Link: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
(note: both impact times are the only ones on the page precise to the second)



This is the data:

[“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 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? No. LDEO was then (and still is) a prestigious scientific entity; and no one has challenged their data for 9/11/01. 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 study, it is understood that this factor is already accounted for in the software logic used. Besides, if this were a factor, it would make the disparity greater, thereby yielding even greater time differences; however, the differences we have already are compelling.

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 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 happened to notice them by chance. 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 surely 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’s 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]:

http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_470_460.html
(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. It is known that the FAA tracked AA Flight 11 under four different stations using Primary Radar Return, and all times were being recorded to the second.

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 precise to the second.

Also important 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 conclusive 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, 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 the next 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: precisely, AA Flight 77 died 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 these earlier times as noted by LDEO due to notable seismic spikes (~14 and ~17 seconds earlier)?

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 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:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna17.htm

-------
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 would mean the eyewitnesses who said explosions happened before the plane struck 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, beyond 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). Middle Eastern terrorists could not possibly have been responsible; they do not have the wherewithal for this kind of scale.

It is more than remarkable that the 9/11 Commission, although it did hear the testimony of William Rodriguez regarding the explosions in the basements, did not deem this important enough to be included in their Final Report.

It should have been.

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 more than likely 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.

But it is definitely a conspiracy.

This isn’t rocket science (it is simple).
This is the smoking gun (it is solid evidence).
It has legs (knowledge of this is now spreading).
And this dog can hunt.

What must be done? Two extremely important things:

(1) A new independent, quasi-private-public, non-politicized 9/11 investigation must be formed at once to approach and pursue this for what it really is: the crime of the century. America needs good police detective work here—and the conspirators need to be identified, apprehended, jailed, and brought to justice…now.

(2) The 9/11 Commission and the Bush Administration must answer this question immediately:

WHAT CAUSED THOSE SEISMIC SPIKES?

They must answer, they must answer now—and if they don’t, it is the same as admitting guilt.

The entire US Government is not bad; just the few rogue conspirators who did 9/11—those who committed mass murder, treason, and betrayal to America.

May God help us.
Craig T. Furlong
Huntington Beach, CA USA
July 31, 2006

PS IMPORTANT—ASAP, please send this message far and wide!

_________________
This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is very interesting. And difficult to explain.
I think i might have a further look in to this. I can see a couple of holes that might need plugged before it could be counted upon as solid evidence for pre-impact explosions.
Though if this does pan out, it may confirm W. Rodriguez' account.

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
quicknthedead
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 25
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeFecToR wrote:
This is very interesting. And difficult to explain.
I think i might have a further look in to this. I can see a couple of holes that might need plugged before it could be counted upon as solid evidence for pre-impact explosions.
Though if this does pan out, it may confirm W. Rodriguez' account.


Which holes, DeFecToR? I am curious.

_________________
This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
James O'Neill
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter


Joined: 13 Oct 2005
Posts: 44
Location: Brisbane Australia

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew, I don't want to get into the debate about explosives being used to bring down the towers. As you point out it is so self-evident that the point is beyond debate. It remains a legitimate quesiton however, as to how the explosives were planted and the general logistics of it. Contrary to the speculation of some a relatively modest amount of superthermate would have been sufficient. Steven Jones has calculated that 10 persons making 10 trips would have been sufficient. The opportunity to do is also well established. David Griffin's contribution to the book edited by Zarembka (2006) 'The Hidden History of 9/11' gives all the details for those who want to actually know the answers.

Readers of this site should also tune into Bonnie Faulkner's program 'Guns and Butter' on the kpfa.org website. Follow the archive prompts to 2 August 2006 where she interviews Steven Jones. This program should be compulsory listening. If after having heard the program anyone could still doubt that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by explosives is simply avoiding the issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scar
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 724
Location: Brighton

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

James O'Neill wrote:
Readers of this site should also tune into Bonnie Faulkner's program 'Guns and Butter' on the kpfa.org website. Follow the archive prompts to 2 August 2006 where she interviews Steven Jones. This program should be compulsory listening. If after having heard the program anyone could still doubt that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by explosives is simply avoiding the issue.


Torrent here:
http://relivethefuture.com/scar/Guns_and_Butter_20060802_-_Steven_E_Jo nes.rar
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

quicknthedead wrote:


Which holes, DeFecToR? I am curious.


Confirmation of the details mostly. But i would like to be sure that no errors had been made by LDEO or the commission report in calculating the timeline.

It is very unwise to accept anything on face value, no matter how convincing it may be a first, until every possible question can be answered fully.

This is very incouraging so far, though it does not actually prove any wrong doing on anyones part. What it does show, if correct, is that the equipment used by LDEO that recorded the seismic wave did just that, it recorded a seismic wave. It fits completely with the scenario of controlled demolition (at least, unexplained explosions) though it does not prove that those blasts were the result of pre-planted explosive devices. And even if it did, it does not show who may have been responsable for planting that device.

What this does do is show the need for further investigation in to the CD theory. Also, it can be said that this piece of evidence fits very well in a culmative arguement for CD.

There are now quite a lot of examples of evidence that supports a culmative arguement for CD.

1. MANY accounts of explosions occuring before the collapses.

2. Unusually fast Collapse times.

3. A regular, uniform collapse.

4. NIST unable to replicate weakened steel theory in lab models.

5. Clear footage of what appear to be squib explosions.

6. Molten metal found at the site.

7. Evidence of thermite residue.

8. The pulverising of concrete during the collapse.

9. Audible sounds of explosives on recordings made during the collapse.

10. Video footage of flashes before the collapse.

11. Video footage of molten steel before collapse.

12. The quick, and illegal removal of evidence from the scene.

13. The seismic data recorded.

I'm sure i've missed a lot here but the point is, the way things stand right now, it is completely reasonable to include controlled demolition as a cause for the collapse of the three buildings.

Lets hope this new aspect pans out and is included in future research.

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pikey
Banned
Banned


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 9:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

quicknthedead thanx for highlighting this information concerning the discrepancy in the impact times of WTC1 & 2.

It would have been interesting to know of the time the official version identified about the collapse of WTC7 but as we know WTC7 was excluded from the investigation!

Last year a wealthy fellow Citizen of yours, Jimmy Walters generously funded an international 911 roadshow calling at London and Manchester Town Hall. Entry to the top quality event was free!

I attended the Manchester Town Hall event attended by a full house of approximately 500.

Amongst the speakers, was the janitor of WTC, William Rodrigez who gave a witness account of his experience of being inside the building before and after the impact.

You know when someone is lying (even top class actor President BLIAR) and this guy was giving an honest account. He stated that there were explosions in the basement seconds BEFORE the impact of the plane. He gave his account to the authorities but it has been omitted from the official report.

This guy was one of the last to be pulled out alive from the debris, he was responsible for saving several lives and his bravery was recognised by the authorities as he received an award and after the event was proclaimed a hero by the press!

Rodrigez received a standing ovation from the whole of the audience at Manchester Town Hall. It was one of the most moving emotional experiences that I have ever experienced.

This discrepancy in the impact times seems to back up the janitors witness statement.

When you do your own research this is one of the many hundreds of smoking guns which cast serious doubt over the official version. Was the official version a cover up? IMO and based on my own personal research lasting now over 18 months and in the absence of any convincing proof or evidence to back up the official version, definitely!

Peace & truth

_________________
Pikey

Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
Johnny P,


http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collapse%20of%20Towers.swf


Andrew


1.) You claim the towers collapsed at free fall speed. Care to explain how there was debris falling past the tower? Surely if the tower was collapsing at free fall speed, then the debris from the top of the tower would fall along side the rest of the tower collapsing. But it didn't. You can see in all the videos that debris from the top of the tower falls faster than the tower collapses.

2.) You claim the collapse time shows freefall collapse. You claim the collapse time was approx. 10 seconds, but then also admit that it was not definitely 10 seconds, but was less than twenty. If it were twenty, it would be collapsing at half the freefall rate. So what you have actually shown is that the towers collapsed at between at around half to three quarters the rate they would have if they collapsed in freefall.

That means they didn't fall at freefall rates.

I realise you are not a technical person, but that's ok, because I have an engineering degree, and I am a technical person. Three years of learning engineering, coupled with 2 years of A-Level physics, and 3 years of GCSE physics, that's a total 8 years of physics, tells me that you are, unfortunately, wrong.

I apologise if I sound harsh or mocking. This is sincerely not my intent. I do not come here to mock, make fun, belittle or put down. But I do sincerely love physics and engineering, so naturally I want to see it used in the correct way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser
9/11 Truth Organiser


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 500
Location: Cumbria / Yorkshire Dales

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels, my dear friend,

Andrew, myself and all of us who have spent the last few years trying to uncover what really happened on 9/11, always say the Twin Towers collapsed at NEAR freefall speed - I'm afraid I don't have any of the advanced educational qualifications that you obviously have (2 A levels in History and Ancient History and 8 O levels were my lot) but I do have what I like to term COMMONSENSE. There are over 400 smoking guns concerning 9/11 and one of them is what my dear friend Pikey said about William Rodriguez and the explosions in the basement of the North Tower before the plane hit. Please do the research and then come back to us.

_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnny Pixels,

Which bit of:

"I have posted all my answers there and will not debate it any more on this thread. Just read what's on there if you have the time or interest. "

did you not understand?

Justin - Johnny Pixels has done the research - he is just arguing for the sake of it. His posts will be moved to this section if they support the official story. It's a bit like having a smoking area and a non-smoking area in a pub.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
quicknthedead
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 25
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeFecToR wrote:
quicknthedead wrote:


Which holes, DeFecToR? I am curious.


Confirmation of the details mostly. But i would like to be sure that no errors had been made by LDEO or the commission report in calculating the timeline.

It is very unwise to accept anything on face value, no matter how convincing it may be a first, until every possible question can be answered fully.

This is very incouraging so far, though it does not actually prove any wrong doing on anyones part. What it does show, if correct, is that the equipment used by LDEO that recorded the seismic wave did just that, it recorded a seismic wave. It fits completely with the scenario of controlled demolition (at least, unexplained explosions) though it does not prove that those blasts were the result of pre-planted explosive devices. And even if it did, it does not show who may have been responsable for planting that device.

What this does do is show the need for further investigation in to the CD theory. Also, it can be said that this piece of evidence fits very well in a culmative arguement for CD.

There are now quite a lot of examples of evidence that supports a culmative arguement for CD.

1. MANY accounts of explosions occuring before the collapses.

2. Unusually fast Collapse times.

3. A regular, uniform collapse.

4. NIST unable to replicate weakened steel theory in lab models.

5. Clear footage of what appear to be squib explosions.

6. Molten metal found at the site.

7. Evidence of thermite residue.

8. The pulverising of concrete during the collapse.

9. Audible sounds of explosives on recordings made during the collapse.

10. Video footage of flashes before the collapse.

11. Video footage of molten steel before collapse.

12. The quick, and illegal removal of evidence from the scene.

13. The seismic data recorded.

I'm sure i've missed a lot here but the point is, the way things stand right now, it is completely reasonable to include controlled demolition as a cause for the collapse of the three buildings.

Lets hope this new aspect pans out and is included in future research.


Very well said. Please add to your list that the seismic data indicating explosions before the planes hit the buildings can only mean US government involvement. Why? It is logical. The technology needed for this level of conspiracy and the security aspects needed to be overcome for this type of high level operation is far beyond that of any "Middle Eastern terrorists"; that coupled with the fact the US government immediately claimed / identified who was responsible leaves no other conclusion.

This is why it is a smoking gun.

Not the entire US government was involved; just the rogue element within it (and they have to be very near the top because of the way this all has played out to this day).

_________________
This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
quicknthedead
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 25
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pikey wrote:
quicknthedead thanx for highlighting this information concerning the discrepancy in the impact times of WTC1 & 2.

It would have been interesting to know of the time the official version identified about the collapse of WTC7 but as we know WTC7 was excluded from the investigation!

Last year a wealthy fellow Citizen of yours, Jimmy Walters generously funded an international 911 roadshow calling at London and Manchester Town Hall. Entry to the top quality event was free!

I attended the Manchester Town Hall event attended by a full house of approximately 500.

Amongst the speakers, was the janitor of WTC, William Rodrigez who gave a witness account of his experience of being inside the building before and after the impact.

You know when someone is lying (even top class actor President BLIAR) and this guy was giving an honest account. He stated that there were explosions in the basement seconds BEFORE the impact of the plane. He gave his account to the authorities but it has been omitted from the official report.

This guy was one of the last to be pulled out alive from the debris, he was responsible for saving several lives and his bravery was recognised by the authorities as he received an award and after the event was proclaimed a hero by the press!

Rodrigez received a standing ovation from the whole of the audience at Manchester Town Hall. It was one of the most moving emotional experiences that I have ever experienced.

This discrepancy in the impact times seems to back up the janitors witness statement.

When you do your own research this is one of the many hundreds of smoking guns which cast serious doubt over the official version. Was the official version a cover up? IMO and based on my own personal research lasting now over 18 months and in the absence of any convincing proof or evidence to back up the official version, definitely!

Peace & truth



Hiya, Pikey,

I include William Rodriguez's account in my paper. When you couple it with the fact that the LDEO seismic reading was not the plane impacting the building, that it had to be a huge explosion(s), from where I come from that's called GAME OVER!

This is why it's a smoking gun. And this is hopefully the beginning of the end of their coverup. It already has started to unravel and come to the general publics' consciencousness; it just needs a little push and...

Peace & Joy!
Craig T. Furlong

_________________
This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 1 John 4:10
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

quicknthedead wrote:


Very well said. Please add to your list that the seismic data indicating explosions before the planes hit the buildings can only mean US government involvement. Why? It is logical. The technology needed for this level of conspiracy and the security aspects needed to be overcome for this type of high level operation is far beyond that of any "Middle Eastern terrorists"; that coupled with the fact the US government immediately claimed / identified who was responsible leaves no other conclusion.

This is why it is a smoking gun.

Not the entire US government was involved; just the rogue element within it (and they have to be very near the top because of the way this all has played out to this day).


Oh, dont get me wrong. It would be completely unrealistic to suggest that anyone could have wired those buildings without the knowledge of at least someone within the government or its agencies. My point though was that even if CD can be absolutely 100% proven, it does not in itself implicate anyone directly. We could certainly begin with looking at those who benifited from the attacks, those who helped cover it up, those who may have known or needed to have known in order for the attacks to happen etc, but any evidence that is deemed to be a 'smoking gun', is only so because it disproves the official theory. The task would then begin of asking WHO planted the explosives. That is a piece of the puzzle that is much harder to answer given the very secretive nature of black ops type programs.
We are a long way yet from anything close to resembling justice. Even if we could prosecute those directly involved in carrying out the attacks, we would only be punishing the foot soldiers. It would seem to me that everything from government structure to secret societies to the monetary system would need to be held to account and, quite possibly, be reinvented or disbanded entirely. Otherwise the motivation and ability to carry out these actions will always exist.
We have a very long way to go.

_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blackcat
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I realise you are not a technical person, but that's ok, because I have an engineering degree, and I am a technical person. Three years of learning engineering, coupled with 2 years of A-Level physics, and 3 years of GCSE physics, that's a total 8 years of physics, tells me that you are, unfortunately, wrong.

Well thanks for your superior view on this. I guess I should just stop thinking about this and move on, what with my betters keeping me right and all. Perhaps you could tuck me in bed tonight.

The problem for yourself and Popular Mechanics and the "thousands of structural engineers" is that it is BLATANTLY a demolition using explosives. You can be the best qualified person in the kingdom - why you can even be the king himself! - but if you are naked, then a lot of people are going to point out that you are wearing no clothes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blackcat wrote:
Quote:
I realise you are not a technical person, but that's ok, because I have an engineering degree, and I am a technical person. Three years of learning engineering, coupled with 2 years of A-Level physics, and 3 years of GCSE physics, that's a total 8 years of physics, tells me that you are, unfortunately, wrong.

Well thanks for your superior view on this. I guess I should just stop thinking about this and move on, what with my betters keeping me right and all. Perhaps you could tuck me in bed tonight.

The problem for yourself and Popular Mechanics and the "thousands of structural engineers" is that it is BLATANTLY a demolition using explosives. You can be the best qualified person in the kingdom - why you can even be the king himself! - but if you are naked, then a lot of people are going to point out that you are wearing no clothes.


I never claimed to be a superior person to you. I only claim to have an education in a engineering and physics background. Lets just think about this for a minute:

Who would you rather have your cars designed by, trained engineers, or people who just used common sense?

Who would you rather have your aircraft designed by, trained engineers, or people who just used common sense?

Who would you rather have your bridges designed by, trained engineers, or people who just used common sense?

Who would you rather have your skyscrapers designed by, trained engineers, or people who just used common sense?


You cannot just claim that the fall of the towers was blatantly a controlled demolition, and then ignore all the evidence that it wasn't. That's not even common sense. Why do you think there are thousands of structural engineers who stand by the Popular Mechanics article, and none who stand against it? It's because common sense has its limits. Hell, if everything could be achieved by common sense, we'd have no need for universities, because everyone could just figure everything out by themselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1846
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DeFecToR wrote:


There are now quite a lot of examples of evidence that supports a culmative arguement for CD.

1. MANY accounts of explosions occuring before the collapses.
2. Unusually fast Collapse times.
3. A regular, uniform collapse.
4. NIST unable to replicate weakened steel theory in lab models.
5. Clear footage of what appear to be squib explosions.
6. Molten metal found at the site.
7. Evidence of thermite residue.
8. The pulverising of concrete during the collapse.
9. Audible sounds of explosives on recordings made during the collapse.
10. Video footage of flashes before the collapse.
11. Video footage of molten steel before collapse.
12. The quick, and illegal removal of evidence from the scene.
13. The seismic data recorded.

I'm sure i've missed a lot here but the point is, the way things stand right now, it is completely reasonable to include controlled demolition as a cause for the collapse of the three buildings.

Lets hope this new aspect pans out and is included in future research.



DeFecToR wrote:


You cannot just claim that the fall of the towers was blatantly a controlled demolition, and then ignore all the evidence that it wasn't.




Am I missing something here?

Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NSA Forum Posting Bot
BIOS Version 1.6
Booting….

Loading Current Issues Database...done
Loading User Data… done.
Loading Forum User Personalities…done.
Loading Target Forum URL’s…done.
Routing to Internet…done.
Loading Discussion Loop Profiles…done.
Determining Forum Software build...
Logging on to Forums………………………………………………done.
Accessing Forum Threads...
Initialisation successfully completed.

Current Status: Active

Press Ctrl-U to Access User Console.
=============================================
Discussion Loop ID 36712654 ... In progress
Profiling Discussion.
Discussion Loop ID 36712656 .... In progress
Target User Time-wasting strategies… Parsing and initiating.

etc etc

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group