JP ShoreThe
problem is that the F.B.I. did not examine the individual numbered
components of the engine and landing gear in order to prove to the
public that the parts came from the aircraft that are said to have hit
the towers, namely American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines
Flight 175.
JoJoe Haleyscometwhere
did you get the photo on the left? I don't think a random photo of an
aircraft is any sort of conclusive proof. It's clear that the aircraft
are different, the one on the right is a 757 or 767. Maxwell, the one on
the right is the one which hit the south tower. The one on the left is a
photo of an unknown aircraft with "public NYPD photo Lifetime
views:553,112" which anyone could have printed on any picture.
JoJoe Haleyscometfirst
off, your blurry photo doesn't prove anything, there's no chain of
custody. Secondly, I do have a problem with you calling me lazy, third,
"your lazy because you try and do anything" makes no sense whatsoever.
Dan Plesseyes
lazy people don't try to do any activity whatsoever and you have no
idea what "Error Level Analysis" is or what it looks like and you are
not trying one bit to figure out anything. The wheel aren't turning much
upstairs are they?
Owns? Who "owns" ? who cares. Get off your ass and start figuring stuff out for once. Google something.
Question: How many subtitles contain the word Nuclear when referring to 9/11 by Won-Young Kim?
"Nuclear explosion seismology, 7260 Theory and modeling"
"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."Won-Young Kim
"Urban Earthquakes, Nuclear Bombs and 9/11" Won-Young Kim
"He is one of the leading researchers in the United States in methods of
using seismic waves to discriminate between earthquakes, industrial
explosions in mines and quarries, and underground nuclear explosions. " http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/urban-earthquakes-nuclear-bombs-and-911 Is Won-Young Kim trying to tell us something about 9/11?
"So,if
the data is not absolutely precise" location data has been truncated
and depth was removed completely because its a criminal cover up. All
the databases don't contain 9/11 data and that was reason why I asked
Paul. Won-Young Kim didn't have the expertise until later i.e "Urban
Earthquakes, Nuclear Bombs and 9/11" "developed methods of monitoring
nuclear-bomb tests;" October 7, 2008 sound like he got mega dollars from
DOD after his 9/11 cover up Basement levels would have removed all
spikes.
Reply
Dan
Dan I have no idea what you are doing with this data, but if you are
seriously pursuing research, please contact the head of the network,
won-young kim: wykim@ldeo.columbia.edu (If you are pursuing conspiracy theories regarding the 2001 collapse
of the World Trade Center, I do not think it is useful to contact him.)
Dan– Not a useful avenue–but you are welcome to search our websites, www.earth.columbia.edu and www.ldeo.columbia.edu,
which contain public information on Dr. Kim, and an image of the
collapse seismogram I believe., and to try Dr. Kim won-young . No one
has anything to hide.
Cheers Kevin Krajick
(212) 854-9729 kkrajick@ei.columbia.edu
More run around continued ...... No exact data offered ...
Dear Chaikinoy,
I have
been writing to Columbia’s The Earth Institute for 9/11 details for a
very long time and Won-Young Kim and all employees have been
stonewalling. We also have this Lava Rocks on display in museums and
found in World Trade Center 6, which all point to nuclear event. http://s1222.photobucket.com/user/danp5648/media/lavarock.jpg.html
Ron Morales"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."
So what? A tornado sounds like a train but that's not evidence that trains are hidden
in tornadoes. Are you claiming that the only thing that can create a
sharp spike of short duration are underground explosions? And why would
an underground explosion on 9/11 cause a building to start collapsing an
hour later at precisely the point of plane impact high in the building?
Dan PlesseHe
is avoiding the answer and 100% of of all other blasts received ALL 4
floating point numbers. Never has a blast NOT received ALL the data.
They are hiding, just like you.
seismologist Thorne Lay is looking at 9/11 seismograph, that's so what. No more "so what's".
"In fact, the recording for WTC1 (Fig. 2a) demonstrates the three types
of wave characteristic of a brief explosive source confined in a
compact, solid material: a P wave with a speed of 6000 m/s, the typical
value for a very consolidated crystalline or
sedimentary terrain (which is the case in the bedrock of Manhattan)"
Kevin JamesThanks
Dan. Excellent analysis of the seismic signals. "Only a powerful
explosion at the base of WTC2 and a subterranean one under WTC1 could
have produced the observed seismic waves. These basal explosions would
facilitate the total, rapid disintegrations of the buildings."
Kevin JamesAnd
that's a great article on subterranean nukes. Of course, there was no
missile penetrating the ground at WTC in order to place such a device.
So there would have to have been tunnels through into the granite
bedrock, yes? Is this then a vindication of (or at least some support
for) Dimitri Khalezov's theory of a nuclear demolition system already
installed when WTC was built?
9 11 nuclear fallout Evidence and Cover up with EMT Indira Singh Download
9/11 Static on TV from an Electromagnetic pulse from the nuclear reaction
Maxwell BridgesI hate it when people post comments that reflect they didn't read.
Mr. Cal Amyotte dropped the hypnotic suggestion: "No radiation was detected. moot"
Let's
see, Mr. Amyotte's proof of no radiation detected was the government
report that promptly, systematically, and thoroughly measured radiation
all over the WTC and found all points at or below trace background
levels, right? Oh, snap! That's right. No such report, if it existed,
was ever published.
Then
Mr. Amyotte's proof of no radiation must be the Paul Lioy report that
used only three samples, all East of the WTC and did its measurements
several days and then over a week after 9/11. Not only do we ~not~ know
what exactly they measured, we do ~not~ know what trace/background
levels were expected to be when they explained the mystery measurements
away as being at trace levels.
No
wait! Mr. Amyotte's proof of no radiation must be the tritium report
that also did ~not~ promptly take samples, did them haphazardly (with not
near hot-spots), and then stopped taking samples when their measurements
were below EPA thresholds for what constitutes a health risk, in
keeping with the limited scoping of the report that was framing tritium
as coming from building content as opposed to what caused the
destruction. Moreover, in order to explain away what they did measure as
at or below trace/background levels, the very definition of
trace/background levels was juked to be 55 times greater than it was
prior to 9/11.
Oh snap! By its very definition, tritium is radiation and blows away Mr. Amyotte's hypnotic suggestion of "no radiation."
Furthermore,
the nature of the neutron devices in question has its radiation
dissipate within 24-48 hours, which is why the lack of prompt and
thorough measurements (that were made public) is a red flag.