When quarry blasts shows up at the World Trade Center

When quarry blasts shows up at the World Trade Center

When a quarry blasts shows up at the World Trade Center, I got a penis drawn on my profile, I was sent taunting email replies from Paul Richards and I received no interest from law enforcement or the 9/11 Truth Community. However I continue to press on to the next topic. At 8:14 is the moment AA11 changes course and an in-flight emergency begins with Air Traffic Controller Peter trying to contact American 11 to get back on course with repeated calls to the airliner, however the motives for why Peter keeps trying to reach AA11 is kept a secret until 2021 when half of an interview is discovered by me.

The response from the public could be more penis drawings on my profiles, and no interests from 9/11 Truth Community or law enforcement and it all could be a lost cause at this moment but I continue to press on. btw "INSIDE BOSTON" has a copy of that interview.

 


Dear Manoch, 

         My email was transferred to Paul Richards and what I got was taunting replies and no answers. 
I am publishing my emails with Paul Richards as an example that academia should not be trusted and it looks like without strong policing academics will run wild just like any group of people without strong intervention. 

Example #1 Dean of Architecture "There are no interior columns in the World Trade Center" You can't say this and get away with it unless society has stopped functioning.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dP5Jbmz_gIg

Example #2 taunting replies and no answers 
https://911truthout.blogspot.com/2022/04/fake-quarry-blast-is-actually-blast.html

Thanks but no thanks Dan @USGS Twitter 

Where is the earthquake data?

Fake "Quarry Blast" is actually a bomb blast  near Building 7

My emails to 

Paul Richards Areas of Expertise seismology, Nuclear Arms Control

Paul, 

        I put everything online, maybe something or someone will break down and tell us why or who put a hold on this information and why it was done. Dan   

Paul,

  reply to (a)     The "careful work" has a disclaimer which undermines everything that the " reports". says. Did you read that part of it? 

"it is not possible to infer with detail sufficient to meet the demands of civil engineers in an emergency situation just what the near-in ground motions must have been..or the cause of such movement. " or are people like yourself skipped over disclaimers en masse? 



Basically the claims of "plane impact", "collapses", "quarry blasts"  and "further collapses" 
should all be classified as "unknown ground movement".   

So why classify the source of unknown events as known events?  It sounds like a cover-up and propaganda materials sent out to dupe Joe public. Did it work? 

I asked for details for this event which looks like "a spike of short duration." 

"A sharp spike of short duration is how seismologist Thorne Lay of Univ. of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph."


I got nothing in return. No details are known such as magnitude, location 
or a second source for time..   

reply to (b) Chances are there are no "quarries" existing at any of the "quarry blast locations"

Source material #1 
https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611 page 737



Source material #2 
Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf

Paul, 

 " I send you processed information that has been looked at carefully," 

Seismic waves generated by aircraft impacts and building collapses at World Trade Center, New York City" actually Says 

"is not possible to infer with detail sufficient to meet the demands of civil engineers in an emergency situation just what the near-in ground motions must have been"

Then why didn't they just report unknown ground motions unless propaganda   "quarry blasts", "building collapses" and "plane impacts" was the goal from the start.. 

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001EOSTr..82..565K/abstract

 "I send you processed information that has been looked at carefully"

So no it hasn't been "looked at" . That is why I designed the table above and below to show you that the "quarry blasts" were never "quarry blasts" to begin with and the whole report should be tossed out or  "Seismic waves generated by aircraft impacts and building collapses at World Trade Center, New York City" was always meant to be propaganda. 

If the "quarry blasts" weren't "quarry blasts" then the "further collapses" also weren't "further collapses" and so on. The "plane crashes" weren't  "plane crashes" and the "building collapses" weren't building collapses.

For example you recently wrote to me as follows

*********

     "Dr. Sykes said the twin tower collapses were slightly larger in destructive energy then the destructive energy of the January earthquake was magnitude of 2.4"  This is outside the range reported by Kim. Can you explain the discrepancy?"

Or this one 

Fordham is not referenced in the paper.. I am asking for explanations published by Fordham not explanations published by Kim. 

"Indeed they did report signals, and we explained them" 

I know they reported signals but what were are the details from them like the magnitude and latitude or longitude. Why did Kim use PAL station and not FOR station?  

*********

and I have absolutely no basis for responding since I had no connection to earlier discussions.".

Since when does someone need a connection to earlier discussions as a reason NOT respond to a new question and when did you make up this
rule?    

 

You just confessed to avoiding all my questions. 

Detail BRNJ 

On Sat, Apr 30, 2022 at 5:37 PM Paul Richards  wrote:

Dan

Maybe we come to a parting of the ways.  I send you processed information that has been looked at carefully, and you send me undigested stuff on an unrelated subject. 

 "unrelated subject" The topic is 9/11 earthquakes. 
"undigested stuff"? You mean the "quarry blast" showing up next to WTC building 7??

 

No closure on anything with you, as yet, after several messages back and forth.

This mode of communication has to stop.

You quote stuff I know not of, and it’s your call as to whether you want to continue in a muddled world.  

The stuff you do quote, often needs basic correction in order for us even to begin an informed discussion.

Do you have some kind of alternative overall thesis, and you have a series of arguments supporting it?

You ask me a question, I give an answer — which you never acknowledge as helpful but supply comments that include errors or have no basis for me to respond because they are unfinished items with other people (who probably have less patience with you than I do).  "Other people" who are they? 

I can’t help on that stuff.

For example you recently wrote to me as follows

 

*********

     "Dr. Sykes said the twin tower collapses were slightly larger in destructive energy then the destructive energy of the January earthquake was magnitude of 2.4"  This is outside the range reported by Kim. Can you explain the discrepancy?"

Or this one 

Fordham is not referenced in the paper.. I am asking for explanations published by Fordham not explanations published by Kim. 

*********

 

and I have absolutely no basis for responding since I had no connection to earlier discussions that may be relevant.  

 

William Spain Seismic Observatory

?  What is their contribution to this?  

A great institution, of course, but on the present subject matter on 9/11 earthquakes ?

That is the point.

Was William Spain Seismic Observatory silenced on the topic of 9/11 seismic 
activity?  

Apologies for being so blunt.  I have many other calls on my time and need to move on.

I love it that you are doggedly trying to get somewhere, but can you indicate you are learning anything in all of this... so that we can make progress?

Frankly, it seems more like you’re just fishing. 

That’s OK, but let me know if you have an item worth pursuing.

I’m all for people who go around kicking tires to see if they can support what is needed to promote consensus.

But not when the kickers don’t indicate any basis for their concern, and seem simply to be indulging in random kicking..  

I’ll be fascinated if you can tell me where you’re coming from, to explain the basis for your inquiries.  Until you tell me, I can’t figure out how to communicate in a useful way.

All of this, is to say: "Please, try harder and more directly on the issues that concern you."

Regards — Paul

On Apr 30, 2022, at 11:48 AM, Daniel Plesse wrote:

Quarry Blast near #WTC7

 

<Quarry Blast Near Building 7.jpg>

 

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 10:19 PM Paul Richards  wrote:

Dan

To get into these records we need first to correct elements of your message (below).

Thus: 

the image you had sent a few times (BRNJ.jpg) makes an incorrect statement about 15:00 GMT being 10:00 AM New York Time.  GMT is four hours ahead (in September), not five.  It is five hours different in wintertime.

And, the signal in black at BRNJ at 15:15 GMT is therefore at 11:15 EDT (local time).

Your figure has a statement “Explosion Recorded 10:15” but I have no idea what this is.

Anyway:  the signal at BRNJ at 15:15 GMT is only a few seconds different in its timing at PAL, as shown on the PAL record I sent you (page 6 of my pdf to you) in my first response, where it is marked "11:15:04 EDT, Further Collapse" and it is from the collapse of a different building.  There are quarry blasts on this day in our records but they are quite small.  You wanted to know if we used signals from the same events at all our stations, and indeed we did.  But you have to get the times right at each station to see this.

Unfortunately we have had to spend time getting some of these details right, so far in our various messages.  I appreciate that these details are not always easy to assimilate.

I hope my responses to you have been helpful.

Regards — Paul

On Apr 29, 2022, at 4:05 PM, Daniel Plesse  wrote:

Paul, 

        I am asking about the signal in black, not the signal in red. @ GMT 15:15 

 <BRNJ.jpg>

You didn't answer this question. 

     "Dr. Sykes said the twin tower collapses were slightly larger in destructive energy then the destructive energy of the January earthquake was magnitude of 2.4"  This is outside the range reported by Kim. Can you explain the discrepancy?"

Or this one 

Fordham is not referenced in the paper.. I am asking for explanations published by Fordham not explanations published by Kim. 

"Indeed they did report signals, and we explained them" I know they reported signals but what were the details from them not sourced in the 
paper?  

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 2:54 PM Paul Richards  wrote:

Dan

You ask “Did any of these other closer stations pick up anything on 9/11?  If so, did they have a record of the 10:15 event? Did they report anything for that day? "

The biggest signal in red in the seismogram you have for BRNJ (and which you included in your e-mail), is one that arrives at BRNJ at about 14:29 GMT that day.  You should be able to see that, and it’s part of the answer to your first question above.  If you can’t see it, it’s going to be hopeless trying to communicate on these basic issues.  Our short paper addresses your second question above.  Indeed they did report signals, and we explained them.

To give a bit more detail:  14:29 GMT is the same as 10:29 EDT.  And you can see that signal at BRNJ on page 8 of the pdf I sent you.  (On that page, the absolute origin time of the time axis is given as 10:28:31 EDT, and the BRNJ signal arrives with large amplitude about 25 to 30 seconds later, thus at about 10:29 EDT.) 

With best wishes — Paul

On Apr 29, 2022, at 2:15 PM, Daniel Plesse  wrote:

Paul, Benjamin 

Dr. Sykes said the twin tower collapses were slightly larger in destructive energy then the destructive energy of the January earthquake was magnitude of 2.4"  This is outside the range reported by Kim. Can you explain the discrepancy?   

     Did any of these other closer stations pick up anything on 9/11?  If so, did they have a record of the 10:15 event? Did they report anything for that day? It would be great to have exact location data to see if any of the events are under which building and at what magnitude.. BRNJ reference location in the report does not contain Longitude or Latitude of 9/11 events or earthquakes,  just the location of the station. 

Epicenter Estimates 
South Tower: Latitude:40.711044436950424 Longitude:-74.01313304901123
North Tower:  Latitude:40.71207726282092, Longitude:-74.01320815086365
WTC building 7  Latitude:40.71319952788825, Longitude:-74.01155591011047

The Lat Long epicenter locations should be outside each tower, not under each tower in a random pattern depicting the debris impact. 

<locationDataUSGS.jpg>

LCSN has two in NYC 

CPNY: Central Park, New York City 
CUNY: Queens College, Flushing-Queens, NYC

New York City's oldest seismic stations: 

William Spain Seismic Observatory Bronx 
 
<BRNJ.jpg>

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 12:47 PM Paul Richards  wrote:

Dan

In the nine-page pdf file to which I referred you (in my previous message), there is reference to the BRNJ station on pages 7 (giving the location on a map) and 8 (giving an expanded time-scale for one of the signals).

It does’t make sense to analyze just the BRNJ signals by themselves.  That was just one of the several stations whose signals we interpreted in that short article…

A longer analysis was given, as I recall, as part of the formal technical report on the 9-11 disaster, issued by NIST.

Regards — Paul

On Apr 28, 2022, at 5:57 PM, Daniel Plesse <dan.plesse@gmail.com> wrote:

Paul I am looking for the BRNJ Station details and not the PAL Station details covered by Kim. 

BRNJ does not match up with the PAL station's 10:15 event. That is why I am asking about it.  
That material that is not covered.   

Dan 

Did you read that part of it? Taunting reply  Perhaps you sent me the link, with info/disclaimer.  If so I didn’t notice it.  Was I careless here, or you had some reason to think I’d know what you’re talking about (I have no idea). Look: we’re basically on the same side, if you’re trying to understand complicated stuff and what’s available is of low quality and you think I can help you.  But you have to help me help you.   I’ve known Thorne Lay for decades.  Very competent when he puts effort into something. What are you trying to learn here?  That some experts don’t treat you very well? You rarely respond to my specific questions, perhaps because you think I want to make fun of you as an amateur.  Not so!   I really want to learn how best to communicate with a person who cares about this stuff. That can’t happen if you send me ungurgitated/unreferenced stuff, that I’m not responsible for, to try and clean up. What are your issues?  Regards — P Paul,          I put everything online, maybe something or someone will break down and tell us why or who put a hold on this information and why it was done.  https://911truthout.blogspot.com/2022/04/fake-quarry-blast-is-actually-blast.html

Spike Lee Calls For a New 9/11 Investigation

  

I bet the alarmist are saying Spike Lee is calling for a new investigation which caused the alarm bells to go off and the show to be edited and Richard Gage to be fired. 

 

The ADL "Spike Lee recut the documentary’s final episode following public backlash for providing a platform to AE911Truth in the show, removing all footage featuring the organization." and why? 

Is it because Richard Gage did a too good of job and together a new  investigation into 9/11 would be launched and the ADL could not have that crap.. 

The ADL is about having the [any] Truth on lockdown forever and so far its working. 






The problem with 4000 architects and engineers they don't go far enough. When people start talking about hearing Howitzers the "4000 architects and engineers" don't start wondering why those recording are missing and if someone rationalizes what those sounds are i.e not bombs the whole story gets trashed. How many times have floors hit other floors in human history without a Howitzer sound going off and with ground moving around? What happened to those recorded sounds? Why are those people considered "whack jobs" for asking questions beyond the passive issues regarding building construction and core columns. The  "4000 architects and engineers" hit a "sweet spot" between not offending but not risking anything to maximize profits i.e donations. Spike Lee was going to call for a new investigation but the plug was pulled and someone started playing hardball and "4000 architects and engineers" the blamed Richard Gage for the fall out and made up a reason which was manufactured around COVID19. You got that to think about.

Bec Taylor

  · 13h  · 

Mauro Orona you don’t even have a profile picture. 4000 architects and engineers disagree with YOU. I don’t understand why this upsets you so much but office fires don’t make buildings fall. It’s a fact. That’s why so many fire fighters got killed on the day and I’ve personally spoken with some of the last remaining surviving firefighters and employees of the WTC who were there that day.

So perhaps it’s you who needs the science lesson but it’s also a matter of public record that explosions were heard inside all three buildings before and even after they came down. Firefighters were threatened by guilliani by way of the higher ups in the NYCFD and so most have only chosen to speak out post retirement or once they died from the “air that was safe to breathe”.

That’s just the first responders and civilians, the architects and engineers are currently suing NIST and have filed a mandamus suit in the lower district of Manhattan convening a grand jury.

I’m sorry if that goes against what the tv or newspapers have told you. And yes, there are some absolute whack jobs out there who make people who ask legitimate questions look like idiots, I’ll give you that.

But science and facts don’t lie- people and governments with agendas do. That’s all I’m saying and we should honor the dead by knowing the truth, the whole truth, no matter where it leads and holding those responsible to account- not flying them and their family members out of the country back to Saudi when not even senior US government members were allowed to fly.

I didn’t join this group to argue about the facts of that day- i joined because its cathartic for me to see NYC with the beautiful glistening twins shining at the lower west side of Manhattan- a time of peace- a time before illegal wars killing millions began, a time where life was simple and people weren’t forever grieving, paranoid and people felt safe in their own countries in the western world.

Peace out

second attempt at uploading video directly. 

• Guy Mule

  Daniel M. Plesse all of these vidoes are gone because theyre made up fictional nonsense lol.

  • Like
  • Reply
  • 36m
• Active

  Daniel M. Plesse

  

  Guy Mule In your mind Hans Kunnen just decided to make up stories to hurt your feelings one day? He is NOT an idiot. So an idiot can decide what is real over what Kunnen just said? and its about your feelings, is that right? So basically it's mob rule? The mob is a group of stupidest people making up "truth" or [wokeness] so your feeling don't get hurt. Its all about your feelings in the end designed by the ADL and NWO designers. idiot !