911 inside job - for what?

[skyeagle409]

Because the military NEVER has computer backups!

I guess BR thinks the government keeps all of its records on a single computer.

[skyeagle409]

The same is true of the FDR which has certainly never been identified through a serial number match to records. This is confirmed through NTSB/FAA/FBI information in the following link: -

http://911blogger.com/node/16089

Question: What companies provided the conversion formulas that applied ONLY to the airframe of American 77?

You might want to do a review.

A Response to Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Frank Legge and Warren Stutt

January 2011.

http://www.scienceof...ntagon/rebuttal

Introduction

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is a group which has supported the work of many other groups and individual researchers who present evidence that the destruction of the three buildings at the World Trade Centre on 11 September, 2001, was brought about by controlled demolition,[1] and not by fire and impact damage, as asserted in official reports.

One of the useful and important actions of Pilots for 9/11 Truth (PFT) was to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to call for release of the data files from the Flight Data Recorders (FDR) of the planes involved in the attack. In the case of the flight which hit the Pentagon, reportedly American Airlines flight 77 (AA77), the data was released in two forms. One was a comma separated values (CSV) file, easily read. The other appeared to be a raw file copied direct from the original file from the FDR, which needed special software, and data frame layout information, in order to reveal its contents. The CSV file showed the flight terminating at a point far higher than the Pentagon. Eventually the raw file was decoded and again it appeared to show the flight finished too high.

Some of the people who studied this file compared the course shown with the course as shown by radar reports and concluded that the data had been truncated. One researcher, John Farmer, concluded that 4 to 8 seconds of data was missing. In this view there was no reason to doubt that the plane could have descended safely, during those missing seconds, and hit the Pentagon in the manner described by the many eyewitnesses. Unfortunately PFT carried out an incorrect calculation which purported to show that the plane could not have hit the Pentagon, as the wing loading in pulling out of the dive would have been too great. They calculated the force to be 10.14g, far above the plane’s legal limit of 2.5g and well above any reasonable safety margin. Their calculation was shown to be incorrect by several researchers who found various paths were possible, with forces ranging from 1.6g to about 2g, depending on factors such as the assumed height the plane passed above the VDOT antenna tower.

It appears PFT has become attached to this notion that the plane could not have survived the approach and has not, to this day, admitted that its calculation is incorrect. They continue to maintain that the topography would prevent the observed approach. They further assert that the FDR data proves the official account of the path of the plane false. This argument has had the unfortunate effect of giving support to those who say the plane could not have hit the Pentagon on the basis of an improperly conducted survey of eyewitnesses who say the plane approached from a more northerly angle. If true, the plane could not have done the observed long line of damage outside and inside the Pentagon and therefore must have flown over, the damage being done by other means. There are good reasons to believe the reported northerly path resulted from poor recollection of an unimportant detail which preceded a traumatic observation, as all these witnesses who were in a position to see the Pentagon reported that the plane hit the Pentagon,[4] as have many other people.

The FDR file has now been fully decoded by Warren Stutt who has shown it contains 4 seconds more data than previously believed and that it records a path that fully corresponds with the official account of the flight. This proves the PFT claim that the data proves the official account false is unfounded. To maintain their position that the flight could not have hit the Pentagon, apparently unwilling to admit their calculation error, they now must resort to various strategies to denigrate the new decoding and to attempt to undermine the many researchers who contradict them. Their strategies are dealt with below.

Complaints and responses

1. There is no proof the FDR file is genuine.

This is an illogical claim as it is the only FDR file available. It is the very file which PFT said proved the official account false. If it is not genuine, how can it prove the official account false?

2. The data file is missing crucial information (aircraft ID).

Is this true and does it matter? Warren Stutt has files from a number of authentic flights, none of which contain the aircraft ID in the preamble. Apparently it is not crucial and does not matter.

3. Radio height marked “not working or unconfirmed”.

Apparently it was working perfectly well. The file contains data from all four radio height systems, which are in agreement with one another. Furthermore, the Ground Proximity Warning and Pull Up signal were both recorded in the file. How can that be explained if the radio height system was not working? We note that PFT was perfectly happy to use the radio height to confirm the “too high to hit the Pentagon” theory when it appeared to do so, while the last five readings were still missing. Quoting PFT: “A radar altimeter presents no lag. The 273 feet you see above is a hard number above the ground.”[7]

4. There hasn’t been any reply confirming a “bug”.

Warren had found that the FDR file had not previously been fully decoded because there was a deficiency in the decoding software. Its error checking system was not able to handle a particular type of missing information. He succeeded initially in decoding the final frame by using his own software without this error checking function. Then he inserted the missing information into the file and found the standard software was able to decode the final frame. He has thereby achieved the final decoding in two distinctly different ways, getting the same result. As the radio heights match the observed impact damage it is hard to see how his results could be wrong. It is true that the NTSB has been informed of this software problem and has not yet replied. Does that prove there is no problem with the software they used or that Warren’s decode is flawed?

5. The Radio Altimeter was measuring from an object above ground level.

Think about this for a moment. The only object near the last radio height recording was the Pentagon itself, 77 feet high. The last height measured was 4 feet. If the plane, descending rapidly, passed close over the Pentagon, where would it have been one second earlier? According to the pressure altimeter, which PFT trusts, it was 59 feet higher. We would therefore expect the radio height there to be 77 + 4 + 59 = 140 feet. It was 57 feet. Was there a building there which was 140 – 57 = 83 feet high? There was no building there at all. How about two seconds earlier? At this point, near the Citgo service station, it was 134 feet higher by the altimeter, 77 + 4 + 134 = 215 feet. It was 89 feet. Was the service station 215 – 89 = 126 feet high? It looks about 12 feet high. This is proof that the final reading is not from the top of the Pentagon.

6. The plane was travelling too fast for the capability of the Radio Height system.

Certainly it was travelling faster than the manufacturer’s certified operating speed but to say it was outside the capability of the device is an unfounded assertion. What proof is there of that? It certainly appeared to be operating satisfactorily. In the specific case of the flights which landed normally, the data shows that the pressure altimeter was diverging from the altitude calculated from radio height and ground elevation. This is proof that the pressure altimeter in this plane was giving misleading information even at normal landing speed. Clearly we should not trust the altimeter but there is no evidence to suggest the radio height was flawed.

7. The NTSB data in fact does not support an impact.

There may be a grain of logic in the claim the data cannot be relied upon because the supplier cannot be trusted, but there is no logic whatsoever in the claim the data does not support an impact. The pressure altimeter is proven untrustworthy in that particular aircraft and radio height leads inevitably to impact at the level observed, close to the ground. Note, we only say that a divergence is found between radio height and altimeter in the particular aircraft which produced the file. It is indisputable that there is a divergence.

8. Exceeding the performance limitations and capabilities of a standard 757.

This is the “shifting the goal posts” argument. Worried that people might be waking up to the fact that the PFT calculation of g-force is grossly wrong, they search for another means to discredit those who say the plane hit the Pentagon. That is a lot of people they set out to discredit. The first falsity in their argument is the assertion that there is no safety margin in the published maximum safe speed data. This is absurd. Can you imagine the scandal that would arise if a pilot inadvertently strayed one or two knots above the stipulated maximum speed and the plane was destroyed! The second falsity is the assumption that the destruction of the plane would be virtually instantaneous. Excessive speed will produce fluttering. Fluttering will cause excessive loads to be imposed in a pulsating manner. This will cause fatigue. Fatigue can cause failure, but it takes time. From the time the plane reached its maximum operating speed until impact was 14 or 15 seconds. Even if there was no safety margin, could the plane be destroyed by fatigue in 15 seconds?

The FDR file gives a hint that fluttering occurred but it did not commence until about 4 seconds from impact, suggesting a safety margin exists. We have no way of knowing what was fluttering. There is no proof here that the plane could not have withstood the observed and recorded flight path for the brief period involved.

9. It is littered with speculation and gross errors.

Certainly there is some speculation in the paper, as is usual when discussing an intriguing subject. Such speculation is clearly identifiable by context. I do not think the keen student of the 9/11 event would want it removed. There may well be minor errors which we would appreciate having drawn to our attention. The charge of gross errors is another matter. So far I have seen only snide comments, trivial complaints and false assertions, as demonstrated above. I have seen no willingness to engage in civilized debate, as would be appropriate for this very serious matter. There is a complete failure to address their own gross error in calculation of the g-force involved in the final seconds of flight.

http://s1.zetaboards...opic/4050122/1/

As I have mentioned many times, I have noticed a number of flaws, disinformation, and misinformation and in some cases, outright lies emanating from P4T, and I am still waiting for P4T to make serious corrections on that website because what they have implied does not reflect reality in the real world of aviation. In other words, P4T cannot be considered a reliable source of information by any means.I might add that many of those so-called pilots need to head back to ground school as well.

Edited March 22, 2013 by skyeagle409

[frenat]

I guess BR thinks the government keeps all of its records on a single computer.

I get the feeling he thinks there was only a single paper copy of the records and they were all in that area.

[Scorpius]

Do you have anything to discuss, this being a discussion forum and all, or do you just wish to post links to indicate you are a closet truther without a personal opinion?

I've shared lots of opinions throughout the years and have been on this site since 2003. Anyway...

One of the sites had architects and engineers travel across Canada and was presenting their information to anyone willing to listen. I believe it was ae911truth.org. They visited the University of Winnipeg, here in Manitoba, last year. I stumbled across them finding a different show taking place in the University. I was unable to go review their presentation, as I had another event to go to that was happening at the same time in the University. They presented their information and donations were accepted to help them continue their journey across Canada.

In my opinion if these architects and engineers are willing to travel, waste time, one would have to think to themselves that there is more to their presentation and "tall-tales". Why educated people would waste time spewing tall-tales is beyond me. If it is all a bunch of crap then they officially need to get a life. I wouldn't do that unless I believe and have fully reviewed facts with reference to current knowledge in my field of expertise to make a counter-claim. Again, it is unfortunate that I wasn't able to attend their presentation to review their information.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

(AE911Truth) is a fast-growing non-profit organization of more than

1,400

architectural and engineering professionals who have re-examined the destruction of the

three

World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11

1,400 is a large number of professionals believing in tall-tales. Or is that one too many professionals with loose screws in their heads... It would then make you wonder who to believe.

One thing that strikes me is that witnesses at the site heard explosions prior to the plane hitting the tower... As far as sound travels witnesses should have heard the sound after the plane had hit and not before hand, which begs to question what did they hear to begin with.

http://georgewashing...win-towers.html

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3uFvOiTNz4

Also why would other buildings collapse when they were in no way near the collapsing radius of the towers who were actually hit by the planes.

http://www.serendipi...t/wtc_other.htm

Edited March 22, 2013 by Scorpius

[skyeagle409]

I've shared lots of opinions throughout the years and have been on this site since 2003. Anyway...

One of the sites had architects and engineers travel across Canada and was presenting their information to anyone willing to listen. I believe it was ae911truth.org. They visited the University of Winnipeg, here in Manitoba, last year. I stumbled across them finding a different show taking place in the University. I was unable to go review their presentation, as I had another event to go to that was happening at the same time in the University. They presented their information and donations were accepted to help them continue their journey across Canada.

In my opinion if these architects and engineers are willing to travel, waste time, one would have to think to themselves that there is more to their presentation and "tall-tales". Why educated people would waste time spewing tall-tales is beyond me. If it is all a bunch of crap then they officially need to get a life. I wouldn't do that unless I believe and have fully reviewed facts with reference to current knowledge in my field of expertise to make a counter-claim. Again, it is unfortunate that I wasn't able to attend their presentation to review their information.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

(AE911Truth) is a fast-growing non-profit organization of more than

1,400

architectural and engineering professionals who have re-examined the destruction of the

three

World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11

1,400 is a large number of professionals believing in tall-tales. Or is that one too many professionals with loose screws in their heads... It would then make you wonder who to believe.

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:14 AM

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

Gage often seems to wield his AIA status in promoting his conspiracy theories. In making his case, he also regularly cites that more than 100 AIA members and at least six AIA Fellows have signed his petition calling for a new investigation. In total, Gage says that more than 1,700 of the petition’s roughly 16,000 signatures are from architects and engineers.

During the screening, Gage was at the very least intimating that his organization had been invited to AIA officially. “I can’t tell you how grateful we were to have been accepted to be here in the boardroom at the national headquarters,” Gage said. “We hope this is the beginning of a very productive relationship.”

Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists.

Architects Shy From Truther 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with

Trutherism.http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/architects-shy-from-truther-conspiracy-theory_2.aspx

One thing that strikes me is that witnesses at the site heard explosions prior to the plane hitting the tower...

That was false and I even posted a video. Check it out and notice that you do not hear the sound of explosions before the aircraft strikes WTC1.

I have often warned people that there are those who are taking advantage of the public's lack of awareness in order to pull the wool over their eyes, so my advice is to beware of those conspiracy websites because they are well-known for spewing disinformation, misinformation, and outright lies.

Edited March 22, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Scorpius

Your thoughts reflect way too much common sense to be accepted by the OCT apologists here, but you probably already know that.

Those apologists cannot fathom that men like Gage and other members of the organization might be motivated by patriotic and professional considerations.

However, I agree with you completely.

[skyeagle409]

Those apologists cannot fathom that men like Gage and other members of the organization might be motivated by patriotic and professional considerations.

I think you overlooked something about Richard Gage.

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

[Scorpius]

And your response to WTC 7?

If you can paste a link with the details to this rebuttle concerning WTC 7. Please provide one.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones/

[skyeagle409]

And your response to WTC 7?

If you can paste a link with the details to this rebuttle concerning WTC 7. Please provide one.

http://physics911.net/stevenjones/

First of all, the collapse of WTC7 was not indicative of a demolition implosion process. One thing for sure, demolition implosions make a lot of noise.

Now, listen as WTC7 collapses. You don't hear the sound of explosions as would be expected during a demolition implosion operation involving explosives.

WTC7 Video

Next, we can go here.

WTC7

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Edited March 22, 2013 by skyeagle409

[preacherman76]

There were definitly explosions at the WTC before any plane hit. I was traveling north that morning with my cousin, from about an hour out side the city. Still close enough to get local radio signals from the city. We left around 830 that morning, and had a 3 hour drive ahead of us. Probably 10 to 15 mins into the trip the radio reported a explosion there. Said they thought it might have been a gas leak. That was the last thing I heard before I turned off the radio. We made it all the way to Cortland before we found out what happened.

[Babe Ruth]

And in character with Watertown, FEMA was conducting an exercise that morning in Manhattan, code named Tripod.

Willy Rodriguez best described the massive explosions in the belly of the buildings, and seismic evidence corroborates his testimony.

[skyeagle409]

There were definitly explosions at the WTC before any plane hit. I was traveling north that morning with my cousin, from about an hour out side the city. Still close enough to get local radio signals from the city. We left around 830 that morning, and had a 3 hour drive ahead of us. Probably 10 to 15 mins into the trip the radio reported a explosion there. Said they thought it might have been a gas leak. That was the last thing I heard before I turned off the radio. We made it all the way to Cortland before we found out what happened.

View the video I have provided and tell us at what point can explosions be heard before American 11 struck WTC1. The video can be found at post 1355. In addition, check out this video and tell us if you can explosions before United 175 struck WTC2. Begin at time line 1:25 because I did not hear bomb explosions before the aircraft struck.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdfwRGFN9c[/media]

Edited March 23, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

And in character with Watertown, FEMA was conducting an exercise that morning in Manhattan, code named Tripod.

Willy Rodriguez best described the massive explosions in the belly of the buildings, and seismic evidence corroborates his testimony.

About Willy Rodriguez.

Debunking William Rodriguez

http://truthersaresa...liam-rodriguez/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

RICO lawsuit

In October 2004, Rodriguez sued the President of the United States and 155 other parties, accusing them of complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

His 237-page civil lawsuit included allegations pursuant to the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) against The United States Of America, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, George Herbert Walker Bush, George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld,and numerous others, totaling 156 defendants in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

In his lawsuit, Rodriguez made hundreds of allegations including allegations that the Twin Towers were destroyed by means of "controlled demolitions;" that members of the FDNY were ordered, on instructions of the CIA, not to talk about it; that the FDNY conspired with Larry Silverstein to deliberately destroy 7WTC; that projectiles were fired at the Twin Towers from “pods” affixed to the underside of the planes that struck them; that FEMA is working with the US government to create “American Gulag” concentration camps which FEMA will run once the federal government’s plan to impose martial law is in place; that phone calls made by some of the victims, as reported by their family members, were not actually made but were "faked" by the government using "voice morphing" technology; that a missile, not American Airlines Flight 77, struck the Pentagon; that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down by the US military; that the defendants had foreknowledge of the attacks and actively conspired to bring them about; that the defendants engaged in kidnapping, arson, murder, treason, conspiracy, trafficking in narcotics, embezzlement, securities fraud, insider trading, identity and credit card theft, blackmail, trafficking in humans, and the abduction and sale of women and children for sex. In his Complaint, Rodriquez also alleged that he "single-handedly rescued fifteen persons from the WTC".

The matter was transferred to the Southern District of New York on May 2, 2005. In January 2006, Rodriguez swore and filed a 51-page affidavit in opposition to a motion to dismiss, which reiterated and expanded upon his conspiracy allegations. On June 26, 2006, the court dismissed Rodriguez's claims against the USA, DHS, and FEMA, and gave Rodriguez until July 7, 2006 to show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed with respect to the other 153 defendants. Rodriguez failed to do so, and the court dismissed all of his claims against all of the remaining 153 defendants on July 17, 2006

http://en.wikipedia....lliam_Rodriguez

An then, you might want to read the rest of the story.

Why did NIST not consider a "controlled demolition"

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST's dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel. The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

http://www.nist.gov/...s_wtctowers.cfm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac

Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

To sum it up, William Rodriguez is not credible my any means.

Edited March 23, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Babe Ruth]

Sky

Do you ever post on another thread here at UM?

[skyeagle409]

Sky

Do you ever post on another thread here at UM?

I have.

[Babe Ruth]

But not no mo'

[skyeagle409]

But not no mo'

What the heck are you talking about???

[preacherman76]

View the video I have provided and tell us at what point can explosions be heard before American 11 struck WTC1. The video can be found at post 1355. In addition, check out this video and tell us if you can explosions before United 175 struck WTC2. Begin at time line 1:25 because I did not hear bomb explosions before the aircraft struck.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdfwRGFN9c[/media]

It would be hard to hear an explosion during this video. The one I knew of that was reported happened well before the plane got there.

[skyeagle409]

It would be hard to hear an explosion during this video. The one I knew of that was reported happened well before the plane got there.

Accept the fact there were no explosions prior to the impacts and no explosions were heard nor seen just prior to the impacts and understand that seismic monitors in the area did not detect bomb explosions prior to the impacts.

[flyingswan]

The one I knew of that was reported happened well before the plane got there.

Not on the vague time evidence you provided (my italics):

...We left around 830 that morning...Probably 10 to 15 mins into the trip the radio reported a explosion there...

How does that conflict with the time of the first impact at 8.46?

[Stundie]

Accept the fact there were no explosions prior to the impacts and no explosions were heard nor seen just prior to the impacts and understand that seismic monitors in the area did not detect bomb explosions prior to the impacts.

Why do you keep reverting to lies........lol

There were plenty of explosions, whether they were explosives or not is another matter, but denying reality makes it hard for anyone to take you seriously...lol

Edited March 25, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

Why do you keep reverting to lies.......

What lies? Prior to the impacts, point out the timelines anywhere in the videos where explosions are heard. If you are unable to point out to us the sound of explosions prior to the impacts, then you have no case.

[regeneratia]

I think you are confused. Remember, it was Obama who got Osama.

He was dead for a decade before Obama got him. Of coursem we have no body in which to prove that Obama got him. We only have what we are TOLD what happened. But lies come from Washinton, DC on a daily basis.

Only to those who have no real understanding of how things work in the real world.

Please clarify.

[regeneratia]

Did you forget that you already responded to this post yesterday, regen? This response doesn't make any more sense than that last one and is just proving that there isn't much point in having a discussion with you since your responses are orthogonal (look it up) to anything I said. They seem to largely be composed of your ruminations and delusions about me personally based only on comments on the internet, but I guess that's what happens when you disdain the concept of evidence in favor of the 'truths' derived from feelings and intuition. These odd responses of yours may be exactly what you intend though based on your warnings concerning looking at everything purely rationally an robotically; you're doing an excellent job of making sure no one can accuse your posts of being too rational.

Most generally, I post things that require some thought.

If you feel that I have nothing to say, don't read me.

[+Liquid Gardens]

If you feel that I have nothing to say, don't read me.

I wish you had nothing to say as it'd be preferable to some of the rather ignorant things you do say such as: "That makes me sad, that love is not in your life." Now if this was a normal conversation and you were a normal commenter I'd ask you to back up with evidence your mistaken assertion here, but you've already said that you're not big on rationality when you can use feelings and intuition instead, so I guess all I can respond to you with is a shrug.