9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - The Smoking Gun - Sept. 11th Plane Impact Times

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

The Smoking Gun - Sept. 11th Plane Impact Times - moved-CC
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject:

Hmm, ok. 1. MANY accounts of explosions occuring before the collapses. Things that sound like explosions don't mean there were explosives. How many times do you people need to be told this? IF you hear a car backfire, that sounds like an explosion. Does that mean the exhaust has been rigged with C4? 2. Unusually fast Collapse times. Unusual for what? The collapse took something over 15 seconds. That would be expected. There is nothing unusual. 3. A regular, uniform collapse. Debris was scattered far enough to hit WTC7, and there are photos of steel beams embeded in the side of surrouding buildings. 4. NIST unable to replicate weakened steel theory in lab models. Can you indicate some evidence for this? 5. Clear footage of what appear to be squib explosions. Squibs are small explosive devices which are used in special effects to create the impression of a gunshot. I take it you are referring to the windows blowing out. That is because of the air pressure of the building collapsing in the floors above. That's why a single window seems to blow out, because it is the window that breaks first, so the air escapes through that hole. 6. Molten metal found at the site. That doesn't prove CD, that shows that there was intense heat, caused by, say the fires, that brought the buildings down. 7. Evidence of thermite residue. No evidence of thermite residue. Last time I saw a report on this it was possible evidence of chemicals that possibly could be residue from thermite, but would also be present even if thermite was never there, and so basically boiled down to, no evidence of thermite. 8. The pulverising of concrete during the collapse. Might have something to do with the fact that the concrete fell 1500ft, and got hit by several other thousand tonnes of concrete. Explosives would not pulverise concrete in that way. 9. Audible sounds of explosives on recordings made during the collapse. Wind noise. The noises on the different videos do not match up with each other. There are bangs and crashes from the towers, but that's because they're falling down 10. Video footage of flashes before the collapse. Light reflecting off windows and video compression artifacts 11. Video footage of molten steel before collapse. How in the world can you deduce that that is steel? From a video? 12. The quick, and illegal removal of evidence from the scene. There was no quick and illegal removal of evidence. 13. The seismic data recorded. The seismic data showed absolutely zero evidence of explosions. It showed the impacts, and the collapse, but no explosions.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

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

Is this aimed at me?

It's a little chilidish to respond to criticism with accusations like this. It suggests that you have no answers and have had to result to insults.

Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:48 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson 22 Mear Drive Borrowash Derbyshire DE72 3QW Company: Double-Click Services Limited (Dormant, but still Trading): Check it out at: http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ (only usable during office hours!!) Company no: 03701047 See my website http://www.double--click.co.uk/ My prog that I wrote a few years back, but there is probably better stuff out there now: http://www.quizmanager.co.uk/ Photo of me, funnily enough, just as JP suggested!! Amazing! _________________ Andrew Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 12:59 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Andrew Johnson
22 Mear Drive
Borrowash
Derbyshire
DE72 3QW

Company: Double-Click Services Limited (Dormant, but still Trading):

Check it out at:

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/ (only usable during office hours!!)

Company no: 03701047

See my website

http://www.double--click.co.uk/

My prog that I wrote a few years back, but there is probably better stuff out there now:

http://www.quizmanager.co.uk/

Photo of me, funnily enough, just as JP suggested!! Amazing!

I see you have so few answers you have resorted to spamming your own forum. That's too bizarre for words.

quicknthedead
Minor Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 1:37 pm Post subject:

DeFecToR wrote:

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.

Yes. I agree 100%--it will take some time to get justice served on the conspirators.

But cracking their coverup draws closer and closer.
Cheers!
_________________
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

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:58 pm Post subject:

quicknthedead wrote:

Yes. I agree 100%--it will take some time to get justice served on the conspirators.

But cracking their coverup draws closer and closer.
Cheers!

How? The truth movement has gathered zero evidence of a coverup.

Sinclair
Moderate Poster

Joined: 10 Aug 2005
Posts: 395
Location: La piscina de vivo

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject:

Quote:

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

There was no quick and illegal removal of evidence.

Eh?

What's this then? (from my post here)

Wed 12th September 2001 @4:45pm
As I'm typing all this up, I just heard all this rumbling outside, so I ran up to the roof and saw a parade of rescue vehicles - probably around 50 trucks or so, fire engines, dump trucks, cranes, pickups, etc - heading towards 6th Ave. The sidewalks below were full of people clapping and cheering.

From http://www.teendrama.com/wtc/wtc.html

Also see the previous forum post here.

Also, from here:

"New York's Metals Management is among the firms taking steel from the huge project to clear Ground Zero. The company says it has bought 70,000 tons of scrap from the ruined twin towers. Some of the scrap has been shipped across the Pacific to Asian, including China and India. Among the consignments of scrap are the "very dense" steel girders from Ground Zero, which could finally yield 250,000 to 400,000 tons of scrap for recycling." Chinese Radio International. January 2002. Google users enter: cri online world centre trade scrap

Imagine that! The largest criminal investigation in history and the investigators weren't even permitted to see the most important evidence of all - the steel! During the time that Rudy and Ratner the Recycler were destroying evidence, many of the most respected engineers in the country complained not only about the recycling, but also about the Federal government's suffocating control of their investigation. On December 25, 2001, the New York Times ran a story about the frustrations of some of the engineers who were called in to study the cause of the collapse:

"Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments..." New York Daily News. Firefighter Mag raps 9/11 Probe. By Joe Calderone. January 4, 2002. Google users enter: joe calderone firefighter mag raps

They made their concerns known publicly. Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York City’s history. Manning wrote:

"Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire?...That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately." Ibid

Bill Manning continued:
"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything."

One investigator told the New York Times:

"This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press. "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said. New York Times. Experts Urging Broader Inquiry In Towers’ Fall. December 25, 2001. Google users enter: times experts urging broader inquiry into towers

Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer from the Fire Engineering department at the University of Maryland told the New York Times:

"I find the speed with which important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling." Ibid

Finally, the Times story made this interesting little revelation about Rudy Giuliani:

"Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three- day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation.." Ibid

It is a very odd form of science that the government and some of its house scientists practice these days. Without a shred of physical evidence, these modern-day alchemists have been able to "prove" their theory fire caused the towers to collapse. This appears to be yet another monstrous lie. Why else would you destroy the "melted steel"? Ask Rudy.

I could go on but I can't be arsed.

Why can you be arsed Johnny? Why join a 911 Truth Forum & try to obfuscate the discussion with points that, as can be confirmed with a modicum of research, aren't valid?

& that is aimed at you.

quicknthedead
Minor Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:18 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

quicknthedead wrote:

Yes. I agree 100%--it will take some time to get justice served on the conspirators.

But cracking their coverup draws closer and closer.
Cheers!

How? The truth movement has gathered zero evidence of a coverup.

Did IQs drop sharply while I was away?

READ THE EVIDENCE THAT I PERSONALLY DISCOVERED TWO WEEKS AGO AND HAVE POSTED HERE -- IT IS THE HEADING OF THIS THREAD!

Once you have read it, then answer this one simple question (which NO ONE has been able to answer yet...NO ONE!):

WHAT WERE THOSE SEISMIC SPIKES?

Until then, you only sound ignorant. ("What evidence?", he says...man, wake up and smell the coffee...this isn't rocket science.)
_________________
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

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject:

quicknthedead wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

quicknthedead wrote:

Yes. I agree 100%--it will take some time to get justice served on the conspirators.

But cracking their coverup draws closer and closer.
Cheers!

How? The truth movement has gathered zero evidence of a coverup.

WHAT SEISMIC SPIKES?

Are you talking about the ones on the timeline graph, where they seem to go off the scale when the towers start to collapse? If you look at the properly scaled graphs, then there are no spikes. They are purely produced by the scaling. The large graph merely gives a comparison timeline. Because the airline impacts are small compared to the building collapse, the vertical scale is magnified so that you can see the aircraft impacts above the background noise. This results in the larger collapse traces being over magnified and apeearing as spikes.

Oh I forgot, conspiracy sites will not show you the properly scaled graphs, because they ruin their argument.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 3:41 pm Post subject:

Sinclair wrote:

Quote:

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

There was no quick and illegal removal of evidence.

Eh?

What's this then?

I could go on but I can't be arsed.

Why can you be arsed Johnny? Why join a 911 Truth Forum & try to obfuscate the discussion with points that, as can be confirmed with a modicum of research, aren't valid?

& that is aimed at you.

Uhm, quick removal?

The steel wasn't entirely removed from the site until may 2002. That eight months. Eight whole months.

The investigation teams had full access to the scrap yards, were able to take samples, and did not require every single piece of steel in order to complete their investigation. The majority came from the lower portions of the buildings, which were not affected by fire, and so had no bearing on any fire investigation. The steel was broken by the collapse of the upper floors. There is no need to investigate every metre of steel that was destroyed by the collapse.

Why can I be arsed? Because I give a damn about the truth, unlike a lot of people here.

Leiff
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 509

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels This is quicknthedead's 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' The data relates to timing discrepancies between the official account and seismic data from LDEO - not relative amplitudes, so your 'properly scaled graphs' argument is totally bogus. I suggest you look at quicknthedead's data again!

Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:08 pm Post subject:

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Johnny!! OK - Johnny. Here's the challenge. Reveal your identity. I've revealed mine. I am interested in the truth to such a point where I freely post my name address and telephone number (or at least, it's on the linked web page). Anyone reading this can ring me up and hassle me or whatever. They can even come and shoot me!! You know what, I don't care if they do! This is the MOST IMPORTANT TRUTH IN THE WORLD AND I STATE HERE PUBLICLY I AM PREPARED TO DIE IN STANDING UP FOR IT. How about you? Are you up for it? Or is another Bot AI subroutine going to come out with some semi-back-handed insult? Other people here, I think will deduce the reasons for me apparently "spamming my own forum". Where are the chips gonna fall, good buddy? _________________ Andrew Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:08 pm; edited 1 time in total

blackcat
Validated Poster

Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:08 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Why can I be arsed? Because I give a damn about the truth, unlike a lot of people here.

Then respond to Sinclair. He has quoted references and made a range of points about the complaints made relating to the removal of evidence/difficulties placed in the way of conducting an investigation.

Such as

"shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments..." New York Daily News. Firefighter Mag raps 9/11 "

Lots of others as well. Respond. Are they made up? Are they lies? If so tell us how you know.
Why are you here? You have no wish to know anything otherwise you would not ignore such posts. What do you think you can achieve and why?

quicknthedead
Minor Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

quicknthedead wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

quicknthedead wrote:

Yes. I agree 100%--it will take some time to get justice served on the conspirators.

But cracking their coverup draws closer and closer.
Cheers!

How? The truth movement has gathered zero evidence of a coverup.

You haven't read the header post for this thread. You are out of it; I personally believe now that you are ignorant by choice.

I refer to the seismic spikes that occurred respectively 14 and 17 seconds BEFORE each plane struck the towers. This has nothing to do with the seismic readings on the collapses.

The “plane impact” seismic readings were not caused by planes. This was a mislabeling by LDEO. These seismic readings had nothing to do with the planes because the planes actually crashed 14 and 17 seconds LATER AFTER THESE SEISMIC READINGS. THESE TIMING DIFFERENTIALS ARE THE HEART OF THE MATTER AND HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT IS PRESENTED HERE AS HARD EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY AND COVERUP AS PRESENTED IN MY PAPER, which you choose so conveniently to ignore. And, for your information, these seismic readings we are referring to here HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE COLLAPSES!

Can I order you a pair of reading glasses? Maybe get you signed up for a logic course? Tell you what I will do. I'll post my entire document here...AGAIN!

(This way you won’t complain you can't find it.)

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING PAPER “Another Indicting 9/11 Smoking Gun Found - Plane Impact Time Discrepancies” -- THIS IS NEW INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY AND COVERUP BY AN UNKNOWN FACTION WITHIN THE US GOVERNMENT

IT IS A SMOKING GUN

AND WHEN YOU'RE DONE, I KNOW YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT CAUSED THESE SPIKES BEFORE EACH PLANE HIT...SO FAR, NO ONE ELSE HAS

(And the answer is all too simple: it is HUGE EXPLOSION(S)!)

If you don’t read the paper and address the question, you are no longer credible because you either don’t care, or more than likely at this point, you are a dissembler of the truth.

here it is, AGAIN:
---------------------

Another Indicting 9/11 Smoking Gun Found - Plane Impact Time Discrepancies

The facts are simple yet extremely powerful for what they mean: US Government complicity in 9/11/01. They are a smoking gun.

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 the actual impact times as 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)

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 that challenges the official explanation. America still owes it to those who perished, and their families and friends, to serve justice on those responsible.

Both impacts are important. This happened twice, and comparing LDEO versus the 9/11 Commission Report, there are similar time disparities (differences of 14 and 17 seconds). Consider these differences as extremely reliable, because when you consider the seismic wave, amplitude, and duration, the dominant period is extremely short and occurs near the beginning of the signal.

We have LDEO stating times of plus or minus 1 to 2 seconds, 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? 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 a 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.

The problem probably came about by having two different groups of people working during two different time periods. They happened to intersect on a single data point (aircraft impact time). 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 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 is highly accurate and precise; e.g., consider the technology needed and used in the space program; and although different, the technologies are similar in many ways; and one critical way they are similar is 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 recorded to the second.

So, this is probably how these two extremely precise but different data sets came into being 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 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 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 heart of the issue.

The Commission Report must have the correct impact times because they were specifically looking at flight data that ultimately ended at precise terminations when the towers were struck. There is no question: AA Flight 11 died exactly 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 the earlier times 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 should not be; 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 planes struck the towers.

There are only two logical choices: either 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 a very large explosion(s).

It could not have been a very small earthquake. Why? Because this same scenario happened again a few minutes later at WTC2; both spikes occurred within a brief 15-minute period under the most unusual circumstances. The odds of this happening by chance go beyond realms of possibility. This only happens when man is involved.

The earlier seismic spikes had to have been very large explosion(s). Middle Eastern terrorists could not have been responsible since they do not have the wherewithal on this kind of a scale.

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

It should have been.

So, this is what 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 probably done to prepare the buildings for controlled demolition later by implosion.

This is no conspiracy theory.
This is not theory.
These are facts.

It is definitely conspiracy.

What must be done? Two 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. Good detective work is what is needed—the conspirators must be identified, apprehended, jailed, and brought to justice as soon as possible.

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

WHAT CAUSED THESE SEISMIC SPIKES BEFORE THE PLANE IMPACTS?

They must answer, they must answer now—and if they do not, it is the same as an admission of guilt.

A rogue element of conspirators with the US Government committed mass murder, treason, and betrayal to America on September 11, 2001.

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

PS Please forward this 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

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Johnny!!

OK - Johnny. Here's the challenge. Reveal your identity. I've revealed mine. I am interested in the truth to such a point where I freely post my name address and telephone number (or at least, it's on the linked web page).

Anyone reading this can ring me up and hassle me or whatever. They can even come and shoot me!!

You know what, I don't care if they do! This is the MOST IMPORTANT TRUTH IN THE WORLD AND I STATE HERE PUBLICLY I AM PREPARED TO DIE IN STANDING UP FOR IT.

How about you?

Are you up for it? Or is another Bot AI subroutine going to come out with some semi-back-handed insult?

Other people here, I think will deduce the reasons for me apparently "spamming my own forum".

Where are the chips gonna fall, good buddy?

So you've not got any evidence, so you're resorting to challenging me to reveal my true identity? That's just a distraction tactic.

I'll assure you I don't work for the government, I live in the South-East of England, but I won't give you my address or my phone number, because
it won't prove anything. My arguments are against the lack of factual evidence. Knowing my address won't change the laws of physics.

quicknthedead
Minor Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:29 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

You have to be kidding. You address the facts...this is a true non sequitur.

Get real--because you fool no one.
_________________
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

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject:

quicknthedead wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

quicknthedead wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

quicknthedead wrote:

Yes. I agree 100%--it will take some time to get justice served on the conspirators.

But cracking their coverup draws closer and closer.
Cheers!

How? The truth movement has gathered zero evidence of a coverup.

From the official report, Notes on Chapter 1, note #168

Quote:

We also reviewed a report regarding seismic observations on September 11, 2001, whose
authors conclude that the impact time of United 93 was “10:06:05±5 (EDT).”Won-Young Kim and G. R. Baum,
“Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001,Terrorist Attack,” spring 2002 (report to the Maryland Depart
ment of Natural Resources). But the seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-tonoise
ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time
established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR,ATC, radar, and impact site data sets.These data sets
constrain United 93’s impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time
codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a
process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community. Furthermore, one of the
study’s principal authors now concedes that “seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93.” Email from
Won-Young Kim to the Commission,“Re:UA Flight 93,” July 7, 2004; see also Won-Young Kim,“Seismic Observations
for UA Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania during September 11, 2001,” July 5, 2004.

The seismic data is not accurate, the FAA data is, hence the discrepency. I realise this is for Flight 93, but the same criticisms apply.

Next Question.

Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:31 pm Post subject:

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Johnny??? Johnny Pixels, you have FAILED the 9/11 Truth Forum's Identity Challenge (and are not willing to present evidence to back up your claims). You are the Weakest link. Goodbye! _________________ Andrew Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!

quicknthedead
Minor Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

quicknthedead wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

quicknthedead wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

quicknthedead wrote:

Yes. I agree 100%--it will take some time to get justice served on the conspirators.

But cracking their coverup draws closer and closer.
Cheers!

How? The truth movement has gathered zero evidence of a coverup.

From the official report, Notes on Chapter 1, note #168

Quote:

The seismic data is not accurate, the FAA data is, hence the discrepency. I realise this is for Flight 93, but the same criticisms apply.

Next Question.

You realize nothing--the same criticisms DO NOT APPLY, and your “proof” provided above that the seismic data is not accurate is FALSE. We must be specific; instead, YOU DISSEMBLE.

THE ARTICLE YOU BRING UP IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PENTAGON SEISMIC DATA IN RELATION TO THE QUESTION OF ASCERTAINING THE SPECIFIC TIME OF THE CRASH AT THE PENTAGON, AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEISMIC DATA RELATING TO THE READINGS THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THE PLANES HIT THE TOWERS. Seismic data is deemed accurate to the precise second once it has been verified as to its integrity, and NO ONE HAS EVER CHALLENGED THE SEISMIC TIMES FROM LDEO THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THE PLANES HIT until you did just now (my, my, aren’t you special).

The two-page article you refer to can be found here:
http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf

What strength reading glasses do you take?

ONCE AGAIN YOU DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION (doesn’t surprise me):
[WHAT WERE THOSE SEISMIC SPIKES?]

YOU DO NOT ANSWER BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT ANSWER

YOU OBFUSCATE, DISSEMBLE, AND DO SMOKE AND MIRROR TRICKS

You do not fool me, and the reason I respond back is for the sake of those on this forum who desire the truth.

Who cares about justice regarding 9/11 for those who died that day, and for their families and friends who grieve to this day? Who wants to see the murderous, treasonous criminals who did this egregious and heinous crime receive the full measure of justice due them?

I think you do not. Also, the last thing you wrote, “Next Question” is meaningless; you can’t handle the first one.
_________________
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

Pikey
Banned
Banned

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels states:-

Quote:

My arguments are against the lack of factual evidence

Is that the lack of factual evidence of the official version JP?

If it is not then could you please explain to me why the authorities will not present the evidence to substantiate their allegations of what really did happen to produce the outcomes at the Pentagon, Shanksville and The World Trades Center buildings (WTC 1,2 & last but not least 7!!!).

All that camera evidence at the Pentagon as well as that confiscated immediately after the impact by the FBI at the Filling station and Hotel.

Yet we still have no picture evidence showing a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon!

We do not know the truth, but we do believe, based on our open minded independent research of 911, that the official version is a travesty of the truth. Thats why the global 911 truthseeking movement is demanding a thorough PROFESSIONAL and INDEPENDENT investigation.

Do you support that demand JP? Yes or no?

Truth conquers all.

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

DeFecToR
Moderate Poster

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:09 pm Post subject:

scubadiver wrote:

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

Probably, because i never wrote that.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:34 pm Post subject:

quicknthedead wrote:

THE ARTICLE YOU BRING UP IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE PENTAGON SEISMIC DATA IN RELATION TO THE QUESTION OF ASCERTAINING THE SPECIFIC TIME OF THE CRASH AT THE PENTAGON, AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEISMIC DATA RELATING TO THE READINGS THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THE PLANES HIT THE TOWERS.

Uh, no, the quote I provided was in relation to the Flight 93 crash, in Shanksville, in Pennsylvania. That's not the Pentagon

Quote:

Seismic data is deemed accurate to the precise second once it has been verified as to its integrity, and NO ONE HAS EVER CHALLENGED THE SEISMIC TIMES FROM LDEO THAT OCCURRED BEFORE THE PLANES HIT until you did just now (my, my, aren’t you special).

The quote clearly says that the background noise meant that the precise impact times could not be determined, and the person that wrote the report, a seismologist, backs this up.

Quote:

The two-page article you refer to can be found here:
http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf

I never referred to an article, and I never mentioned the Pentagon

Quote:

What strength reading glasses do you take?

It's best to avoid trying t oinsult me when so much of your post is wrong. It makes you look silly.

Quote:

ONCE AGAIN YOU DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION (doesn’t surprise me):
[WHAT WERE THOSE SEISMIC SPIKES?]

Which seismic spikes? There are two for the two impacts, and two for the two collapses. If there were explosions, then there should be an extra two spikes for them, making 6 spikes in total, but there aren't.

Quote:

YOU DO NOT ANSWER BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT ANSWER

YOU OBFUSCATE, DISSEMBLE, AND DO SMOKE AND MIRROR TRICKS

That appears to be your method of working, not mine.

Quote:

You do not fool me, and the reason I respond back is for the sake of those on this forum who desire the truth.

I don't need to fool you, because I have facts and evidence.

Quote:

Who cares about justice regarding 9/11 for those who died that day, and for their families and friends who grieve to this day? Who wants to see the murderous, treasonous criminals who did this egregious and heinous crime receive the full measure of justice due them?

I care about justice, justice requires evidence, I provide evidence. You have none.

Quote:

I think you do not.

I don't care what you think.

Quote:

Also, the last thing you wrote, “Next Question” is meaningless; you can’t handle the first one.

You claimed discrepancies in the times, I showed evidence that one of the pieces of data was unreliable for timing purposes. There is therefore no conflict between the sets of data.

Next Question.

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject:

Pikey wrote:

Is that the lack of factual evidence of the official version JP?

Quote:

If it is not then could you please explain to me why the authorities will not present the evidence to substantiate their allegations of what really did happen to produce the outcomes at the Pentagon, Shanksville and The World Trades Center buildings (WTC 1,2 & last but not least 7!!!).

Have you not seen the official reports?

Quote:

All that camera evidence at the Pentagon as well as that confiscated immediately after the impact by the FBI at the Filling station and Hotel.

Pentagon cameras are monitored by security personnel, they don't need to be recorded for later use.

Quote:

Yet we still have no picture evidence showing a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon!

Footage was released showing the impact. The parking gate camera was designed to record the cars at the parking gate, not a 500mph airliner several hundred metres away.

Quote:

We do not know the truth, but we do believe, based on our open minded independent research of 911, that the official version is a travesty of the truth. Thats why the global 911 truthseeking movement is demanding a thorough PROFESSIONAL and INDEPENDENT investigation.

Do you support that demand JP? Yes or no?

There is no need for a second investigation. What would it look at?

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:05 pm Post subject:

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Johnny???

Johnny Pixels, you have FAILED the 9/11 Truth Forum's Identity Challenge (and are not willing to present evidence to back up your claims).

You are the Weakest link. Goodbye!

I have provided evidence. You've just been too busy acting like a child to notice it.

DeFecToR
Moderate Poster

Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Hmm, ok.

1. MANY accounts of explosions occuring before the collapses.

Things that sound like explosions don't mean there were explosives. How many times do you people need to be told this? IF you hear a car backfire, that sounds like an explosion. Does that mean the exhaust has been rigged with C4?

Does that mean the building was rigged with backfireing cars? For you to deny the multiple accounts of explosions AT GROUND LEVEL before the collapse shows me you are not serious about examining all possibilities of what may have happened on 911.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

2. Unusually fast Collapse times.

Unusual for what? The collapse took something over 15 seconds. That would be expected. There is nothing unusual.

According to your understanding of physics. Have you ever seen any of the lectures by Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan or Steven Jones?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

3. A regular, uniform collapse.

Debris was scattered far enough to hit WTC7, and there are photos of steel beams embeded in the side of surrouding buildings.

Are you serious? The building fell through itself. Anyone can see that on the footage.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

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

Can you indicate some evidence for this?

Find it yourself. Its been out there for an long time now.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

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

Squibs are small explosive devices which are used in special effects to create the impression of a gunshot. I take it you are referring to the windows blowing out. That is because of the air pressure of the building collapsing in the floors above. That's why a single window seems to blow out, because it is the window that breaks first, so the air escapes through that hole.

This really is one of the most pathetic examples of an unwillingness to explore other ideas. For a start, there are squibs blowing out on floors far down the building way beyond some magical pressure wave.
Secondly, look at the high energy high debis content of those blasts. If that were simply debris from the building being forced out a window, how was all that energy localized? If that amount of energy had built up, every window on an entire floor would have been blown out.
You say you use science, physics and logic. Doesnt look like it to me.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

6. Molten metal found at the site.

That doesn't prove CD, that shows that there was intense heat, caused by, say the fires, that brought the buildings down.

Phenominal bending of physics. Forget that the collapse would have extinguished those upper level fires, it is impossible for a jet fuel fire to reach the temparatures needed to keep metal in a molten state for weeks.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

7. Evidence of thermite residue.

No evidence of thermite residue. Last time I saw a report on this it was possible evidence of chemicals that possibly could be residue from thermite, but would also be present even if thermite was never there, and so basically boiled down to, no evidence of thermite.

This really does show how out of date a lot of you debunkers information actually is. Do some bloody research.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

8. The pulverising of concrete during the collapse.

Might have something to do with the fact that the concrete fell 1500ft, and got hit by several other thousand tonnes of concrete. Explosives would not pulverise concrete in that way.

Explosives would not pulverise concrete? Really? Are you lying or just uninformed because that is completely false.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

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

Wind noise. The noises on the different videos do not match up with each other. There are bangs and crashes from the towers, but that's because they're falling down

Again, ridiculously uninformed. I am speaking of loud bangs (certainly not wind noise Laughing

) that occured jus before the collapse. Please, do your research before answering points you dont understand.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

10. Video footage of flashes before the collapse.

Light reflecting off windows and video compression artifacts

And what of the eye wintesses on ground level reporting the same flashes? Were they viewing the same light reflection and video compression artifacts?

Johnny Pixels wrote:

11. Video footage of molten steel before collapse.

How in the world can you deduce that that is steel? From a video?

My god. This has been shown already. DO YOUR RESEARCH.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

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

There was no quick and illegal removal of evidence.

Just saying something is not so does not make it fact. The illegal removal of WTC steel is well documented. Not that you would be aware of this.

Johnny Pixels wrote:

13. The seismic data recorded.

The seismic data showed absolutely zero evidence of explosions. It showed the impacts, and the collapse, but no explosions.

[/quote]

Again. Complete failure to even read let alone understand the evidence.

If this was the best attempt at debunking that you can muster, i would advise going back to J REF and leaving us to it. You are more than welcome to assist the debate but your level of understanding of what happened on 911 really does need to go a bit further that 911myths.com.
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James

quicknthedead
Minor Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

quicknthedead wrote:

Uh, no, the quote I provided was in relation to the Flight 93 crash, in Shanksville, in Pennsylvania. That's not the Pentagon

Quote:

The quote clearly says that the background noise meant that the precise impact times could not be determined, and the person that wrote the report, a seismologist, backs this up.

Quote:

The two-page article you refer to can be found here:
http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf

I never referred to an article, and I never mentioned the Pentagon

Quote:

What strength reading glasses do you take?

It's best to avoid trying t oinsult me when so much of your post is wrong. It makes you look silly.

Quote:

ONCE AGAIN YOU DO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION (doesn’t surprise me):
[WHAT WERE THOSE SEISMIC SPIKES?]

Quote:

YOU DO NOT ANSWER BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT ANSWER

YOU OBFUSCATE, DISSEMBLE, AND DO SMOKE AND MIRROR TRICKS

That appears to be your method of working, not mine.

Quote:

You do not fool me, and the reason I respond back is for the sake of those on this forum who desire the truth.

I don't need to fool you, because I have facts and evidence.

Quote:

I care about justice, justice requires evidence, I provide evidence. You have none.

Quote:

I think you do not.

I don't care what you think.

Quote:

Also, the last thing you wrote, “Next Question” is meaningless; you can’t handle the first one.

You claimed discrepancies in the times, I showed evidence that one of the pieces of data was unreliable for timing purposes. There is therefore no conflict between the sets of data.

Next Question.

Everyone, here is the first page of the file in question, the one he refers to by Won-Young Kim. It is actually named by Mr. Kim as "911Pentagon.pdf." I am quite familiar with it.

This first page is the summary of the report.

I encourage you to look at the entire document he bases his falsity on, here it is again (it is only 3 short pages):

http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf

Please read it. It is short and then you’ll understand what a deceiver we are dealing with here. He won’t answer the question because he can't.

Sorry, Johnny Boy, I won’t respond to your nonsense anymore. I am working hard at exposing this coverup that people like you are attempting to continue. If someone else wants to deal with you and your ring-around-the-rosey tactics, that is their right. Personally, I am not going to waste any more precious time with you.

TO EVERYONE ELSE, PLEASE MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND; READ THE DOCUMENT HERE THAT I AUTHORED AND JUDGE FOR YOURSELF. IT IS SIMPLE AND THE FACTS ARE REAL, AND THEY DO INDICATE US GOVERNMENT COMPLICITY AND COVERUP IN 9/11.

It is a smoking gun, it has legs, and this dog can hunt.
_________________
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

Pikey
Banned
Banned

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject:

JP states:-

Quote:

There is no need for a second investigation. What would it look at?

It would look at ALL the availble evidence.

Like the footage from all the cameras at the Pentagon.

If after analysing the evidence, such as that produced by the cameras at the Pentagon, it would either confirm the official version that the pictures show a Boeing 757 or that a 757 is not shown.

Hope that clarifies that issue JP.

Finally could you explain to me:-

1. why you are here if you believe there is no need for a second investigation, and

2. do you believe that the Keane Commission report was done by people with a bona fide agenda to expose the truth, i.e were these people independent of the Neo Cons/Bush administration?

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

Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:40 pm Post subject:

DeFecToR wrote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

No, it means that people heard things that sounded explosions. That does not mean that there were explosives. I mean. For gods sake how hard is this to understand? I'll put it in capitals and big writing if it helps.

THERE ARE MORE THINGS IN THIS WORLD THAT MAKES BANGS OTHER THAN EXPLOSIVES. CONCRETE BREAKING APART, STEEL BEAMS BREAKING, THINGS BURNING, TRANSFORMERS EXPLODING. ALL THINGS THAT WERE PRESENT IN THE WTC TOWERS. THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES. THIS IS EVIDENCE OF THINGS GOING BANG.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

2. Unusually fast Collapse times.

Unusual for what? The collapse took something over 15 seconds. That would be expected. There is nothing unusual.

According to your understanding of physics. Have you ever seen any of the lectures by Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan or Steven Jones?

How the hell fast would you like the thing to come down, just waft away gently on the breeze? Have you ever asked a structural engineer how fast the thing should have come down? No because they all agree with the official report, and heaven forbid anyone should come and burst your little bubble and prove you wrong.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

3. A regular, uniform collapse.

Debris was scattered far enough to hit WTC7, and there are photos of steel beams embeded in the side of surrouding buildings.

Are you serious? The building fell through itself. Anyone can see that on the footage.

No, the building fell all over the place. It didn't topple over in one big lump, but that's because the collapse started at the top. Debris scattered for several hundred metres. It was not regular, it was not uniform. You keep going to CT sites and they'll tell you that, but then they like living in the bubble world too.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

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

Can you indicate some evidence for this?

Find it yourself. Its been out there for an long time now.

Oh well there we go, that was an excellent refutation. Find it yourself. Thanks. I take that to mean, "I can't actually provide evidence of this"

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Squibs? Why would there be anything blowing out on the lower floors from explosions? If there are explosions going off there then why isn't the collapse going off there?

This shows your poor grasp of physics. If there were air pushing out the windows, then the air takes the path of least resistance. Once one window blows, then the air flows through hole because of the release of pressure. If there were explosions going off then the shock wave and debris would break multiple windows. Except there aren't multiple windows breaking, because there are no explosives.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

6. Molten metal found at the site.

That doesn't prove CD, that shows that there was intense heat, caused by, say the fires, that brought the buildings down.

And explosives would keep those home fires burning?

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

This really does show how out of date a lot of you debunkers information actually is. Do some bloody research.

Once again, brilliant work there, that really showed me the evidence for thermite residue. Once again, I take that as "No evidence for thermite residue"

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Explosives would not pulverise concrete? Really? Are you lying or just uninformed because that is completely false.

You really do get all your science knowledge from TV, don't you? Explosives work by rapid burning, which produces gases, and the rapid expansion of this hot gas creates pressure, which forces things apart. That's why you have to put explosives inside holes. Bundles of dynamite with an alarm clock taped to them won't work. Explosives force the structure apart so that it collapses. They don't blow the structure to smithereens.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Again, ridiculously uninformed. I am speaking of loud bangs (certainly not wind noise Laughing

) that occured jus before the collapse. Please, do your research before answering points you dont understand.

Hmm, loud bangs from a collapsing building, my god, that's crazy. I dropped something the other day, and it made a loud bang. Maybe it was full of explosives. But seriously, I take the mickey, but really your a sensible, intelligent person. I know that you realise that those bangs weren't explosives. You just do it to wind me up.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

10. Video footage of flashes before the collapse.

Light reflecting off windows and video compression artifacts

And what of the eye wintesses on ground level reporting the same flashes? Were they viewing the same light reflection and video compression artifacts?

It was a sunny morning. Were they the exact same flashes, or did different people see different flashes? Why would they see flashes anyway? I bet you've watched a load of CD videos of buildings being "pulled" You ever see any flashes in those? No. Oh, that's strange.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

11. Video footage of molten steel before collapse.

How in the world can you deduce that that is steel? From a video?

My god. This has been shown already. DO YOUR RESEARCH.

So why was steel falling out the window, when the core columns are the ones being attacked by thermite, and they're all in the centre of the building? And did they use a spectrometer on the video to determine the properties of the molten substance? I'm intrigued.

Quote:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

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

There was no quick and illegal removal of evidence.

Just saying something is not so does not make it fact. The illegal removal of WTC steel is well documented. Not that you would be aware of this.

Uh no, the steel was not illegally removed. You can keep saying it was, but it won't make it true.

[

Quote:

quote="Johnny Pixels"]
13. The seismic data recorded.

The seismic data showed absolutely zero evidence of explosions. It showed the impacts, and the collapse, but no explosions.

[/quote]

Again. Complete failure to even read let alone understand the evidence.[/quote]

Hmm. The seismic data showed only evidence of impacts and collapse, none of explosions. The timing of the impact on the seismic data and official report differ because the background noise meant that the seismic data was unsuitable for determining the time. And the seismologists admit this.

Quote:

If this was the best attempt at debunking that you can muster, i would advise going back to J REF and leaving us to it. You are more than welcome to assist the debate but your level of understanding of what happened on 911 really does need to go a bit further that 911myths.com.

[/quote]

You'd love me to leave because it means you can all sit here in bubble world and pat each other on the back and shuffle all the evidence that disagrees with your crazy theories over to the corner that's hidden by your massive blind spots.

I understand perfectly well what happened on 9/11. I think you need to broaden your horizons to a little more critical thinking, rather than accepting anything that appears to agree with your pre concieved notions of what happened that day.

Justin
9/11 Truth Organiser

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:42 pm Post subject:

Johnny Pixels wrote:

Quote:

I'll assure you I don't work for the government, I live in the South-East of England, but I won't give you my address or my phone number, because
it won't prove anything. My arguments are against the lack of factual evidence. Knowing my address won't change the laws of physics.

Johnny Pixels old chap,

Please send a PO Box No. then if you won't give us your true name and address so that I can send you three white feathers as a mark of my undying respect towards you.

Justin walker
Bower Bank
Dent,
Cumbria
LA10 5QQ
_________________
Connect to Infinite Consciousness - enjoy the ride!

Pikey
Banned
Banned

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

Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 9:47 pm Post subject:

JP please respond to my blog and refrain from using the usual establishment tactic of playing the ball not the man. _________________ 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

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 2 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