The Smoking Gun - Sept. 11th Plane Impact Times - moved-CC

[Johnny Pixels]

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.

[Skeptic]

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

[GEFBASS]

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.

[Leiff]

moved

[Johnny Pixels]

[Andrew Johnson]

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

[Johnny Pixels]

[DeFecToR]

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.

[Andrew Johnson]

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

[Jay Ref]

[Andrew Johnson]

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

[Pikey]

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

[Andrew Johnson]

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

[quicknthedead]

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!

[DeFecToR]

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.

[quicknthedead]

[James O'Neill]

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.

[scar]

[DeFecToR]

[Pikey]

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

[Johnny Pixels]

[Justin]

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.

[Andrew Johnson]

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.

[quicknthedead]

[quicknthedead]

[DeFecToR]

[blackcat]

[Johnny Pixels]

[scubadiver]

[Andrew Johnson]

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