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.
Matthew BaranchoRon is at it again, clinging to trivialities while the most pressing concerns are ignored.
He
considered it a personal attack when I mentioned his need to schedule a
visit to the optometrist. I am not sure why he would consider it so; I
am genuinely concerned with his vision because it seems he is not able
to read properly. I think Ron needs to schedule that appointment, right
away.
Ron
expects it is my duty to prove that some or all of the many explosions
heard at WTC7 were caused by explosives. But consider this:
-
This is the first time in history a high-rise is alleged to have fully
collapsed without the use of explosives or other controlled demolition
techniques. -
Many explosions were heard throughout the day, at least several of them
sounding virtually identical to shaped charges used in classic
controlled demolitions. -
NIST's alternative collapse model that does not include the use of
explosives has been refuted; key structural elements were excluded and
the failure sequence is demonstrably incorrect.
In
summary, explosions like the ones heard at WTC7 should be expected for
the collapse of a high-rise structure and the NIST model fails to
provide a plausible scenario by which explosives wouldn't have been
necessary.
We
might suspect NIST of deliberately falsifying their narrative. In
addition to their outright omission of key structural features from
their model of the collapse initiation sequence, all but one piece of
previously-leaked video footage showing the initiation from an audible
distance has been edited from NIST FOIA releases (Ron admits he cannot
explain this). NIST also failed to initially acknowledge the free-fall
speed of WTC7 and did not include a legitimate inquiry and investigation
for the use of explosives in their report.
Ron
has focused a major portion of his last response on the issue of
"nanothermite" while dodging some of my most relevant points yet again.
It is not disputed by anyone that nanothermite, even with increased
pressure-volume ("explosive") capacity, will retain incendiary
properties which include the ability to melt through steel with
considerable ease. As far as I am aware, there is no indication that
nanothermite loses its exothermic ability to cut through steel as the
desired combustion wave increases. As stated before, there are many
other possibilites to consider for the low-frequency "boom" such as
whether explosives were detonated at the building's foundation
immediately prior to collapse; this could also explain why the "boom"
was referred to as a "rumble in the ground" by some eyewitnesses.
The
observed features of intergranular melting at WTC7 were concentrated
only at the joints and ends of recovered steel. NIST did not
investigate this. Jonathan Cole's experiment is the only one ever
attempted to recreate the conditions at WTC7, concluding that no similar
observations of intergranular melting could be accounted for.
Ron says:
"I'd
like to see Matthew point to a single controlled demolition in history
where explosives were set off throughout the day to slowly weaken the
building, particularly when there were fires going on throughout the
building."
Ron
cannot provide any example of a high-rise collapse without the use of
explosives or other demolition techniques. Yet, he thinks I am required
to show another example of a controlled demolition with identical
features to what occurred in WTC7. He is not able to fathom why or how
the perpetrators would have been able to limit the observable
similarities to a classic controlled demolition, despite my explaining
this process to him repeatedly.
I don't know why Ron has a problem with my link. It works fine. Here it is again:
"...you
can clearly hear explosions from controlled demolitions even miles away
and yet no video of any building that collapsed on 9/11, no matter how
close the video was made (including within a block of the collapse of
the towers) records any such remotely similar explosion sounds."
I
don't know how to justify Ron's incredulity. Anyone can plainly hear
the striking similarities to a shaped charge. Again, beginning at
1m10s:
Ron's laughable logic could be no better illustrated than with this:
"NIST came out with its report. If truthers think it's false, then they have a burden to demonstrate such."
NIST
is the institution that was appointed with the task of proving beyond
any reasonable doubt what happened on 9/11. Hence, they have the burden
of proof. The fact that they "came out with [their] report" means
absolutely nothing. Their collapse initiation model at WTC7 lacks
critical features and, hence, credibility. Their progression model is
*clearly* incorrect as it does not account for perimeter flexure in
response to collective core failure. They did not investigate the use
of explosives. The fact that Ron thinks the burden of proof now somehow
falls upon "truthers" (whatever that means) to demonstrate that the
taxpayer-funded NIST report is false at each and every point is
obviously unreasonable. Logic is never called upon to prove a negative
-- it'd be the same as religious fundamentalists claiming I must
disprove every single claim in their religious text before the premise
can be considered false. NIST has made a positive assertion that it
cannot sustain which only adds to the considerable body of evidence
supporting the use of explosives.
JP Shore The 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 Haleyscomet where 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.
