18 Minute Error In Pentagon Collapse Time.

[gumboot]

Gumboot - If you truly understood the vast body of data here you would not fault me for knowing only a portion of it. This is why I seek data here. Lighten up man!

Hi Russell, my apologies if I've misrepresented myself. I do not fault you for only knowing a portion of the data here.

-Gumboot

 

[Minadin]

Hi Russell, my apologies if I've misrepresented myself. I do not fault you for only knowing a portion of the data here.

-Gumboot

Ever the diplomat!

 

[PhantomWolf]

Goodaye Russel,

Personally I would dismiss facts I believed in if I had no verifiable evidence of them. Im not sure your doing your own research any help by trying to fit the facts to a theory. Remember your good friend the scientific method.

Cheers

So does life exist on other planets?

 

[Brainache]

So does life exist on other planets?

You might try asking Frank Drake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation.

Or this looks like fun:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/drake.html

ETA: Looove the Drake!

 

[PhantomWolf]

You might try asking Frank Drake.

I know about the Drake equation, I also know that we don't know the variables to enter into the Drake equation, I also know about the Fermi Paradox.

That wasn't the question, the question was did he believe that other planets have life. He claims and I quote that:

Personally I would dismiss facts I believed in if I had no verifiable evidence of them.

Thus I am assuming his answer would be no, since we have "no verifiable evidence of them."

 

[Brainache]

...

Thus I am assuming his answer would be no, since we have "no verifiable evidence of them."

I guess that would depend on whether or not he believed life on other planets was a fact, as opposed to a reasonable supposition.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well I was going to point out that things can't be facts if there is no verifiable evidence for them, but where's the fun in that sort of nitpickery.

 

[PhantomWolf]

However getting back to the topic, sorta, Russ' beliefs on 9/11 based on gut feeling and supposition is really not different to the belief that life exists on other planets. The Official story has no 100% proof that Hansi was flying the plane. We suspect that he was given the circumstances and other options, ie, it is that most likely senario. It doesn't rule out other senarios however, and Russ is entiltled to follow one of them even if it doesn't work for us. The senario in which the hijackers were actually 5 other passangers or crew is plausable, if unlikely. It can't be scientifically ruled out, merely relegated to a position of less likely and thus to be scientifically accepted as the more valid, more evidence would be needed.

 

[Brainache]

I agree, but pointless nitpickery is what I live for. Please don't take it away from me...

 

[gumboot]

However getting back to the topic, sorta, Russ' beliefs on 9/11 based on gut feeling and supposition is really not different to the belief that life exists on other planets. The Official story has no 100% proof that Hansi was flying the plane. We suspect that he was given the circumstances and other options, ie, it is that most likely senario. It doesn't rule out other senarios however, and Russ is entiltled to follow one of them even if it doesn't work for us. The senario in which the hijackers were actually 5 other passangers or crew is plausable, if unlikely. It can't be scientifically ruled out, merely relegated to a position of less likely and thus to be scientifically accepted as the more valid, more evidence would be needed.

Scientifically, true, but legally not true. A court of law has accepted who the hijackers on Flight 77 are. They didn't do this based on suspicion or belief, but on substantial evidence.

While one can retreat into the claim that there's no solid scientific evidence identifying the pilot of the aircraft at the moment of impact, to claim Hani Hanjour and his fellow Al Qaeda terrorists were not the hijackers is to totally ignore the evidence which has been presented and accepted in a court.

-Gumboot

 

[PhantomWolf]

Scientifically, true, but legally not true. A court of law has accepted who the hijackers on Flight 77 are. They didn't do this based on suspicion or belief, but on substantial evidence.

While one can retreat into the claim that there's no solid scientific evidence identifying the pilot of the aircraft at the moment of impact, to claim Hani Hanjour and his fellow Al Qaeda terrorists were not the hijackers is to totally ignore the evidence which has been presented and accepted in a court.

-Gumboot

Actually I'd disagree, Hani and the other hijackers have never been proven in a court of law to have been the hijackers. In the Massoui trial they were never defended against the Government's charges. ie the Government just said they did it, no one was advocating for them not doing it. Claiming that they have been found guilty because Massoui was is not legally correct or scientifically correct.

 

[hellaeon]

So does life exist on other planets?

I would have to say no, but I would have to admit this is a nice trick question from the bluntness of my statement.
I guess, for russell, the way I would see it - he mentions belief in the context similar to a religious person. Beliving that life could exist in outer space is not a religious based belief.

'if there was no life elsewhere in the universe it would be an aweful waste of space'

 

[leftysergeant]

There are actually times that I question the existance of intelligent life on this planet.

 

[gumboot]

Actually I'd disagree, Hani and the other hijackers have never been proven in a court of law to have been the hijackers. In the Massoui trial they were never defended against the Government's charges. ie the Government just said they did it, no one was advocating for them not doing it. Claiming that they have been found guilty because Massoui was is not legally correct or scientifically correct.

It was legally accepted at the trial that Hanjour and the other hijackers on Flight 77 were the hijackers. Had there been insufficient evidence to support this contention, any evidence asserting this fact would have been inadmissible.

-Gumboot

 

[T.A.M.]

yes, while technically not "convicted" of the 9/11 attacks, if their guilt were in doubt as the perps, it surely would have been considered inadmissible, or at least contested by the defense team...one would think.

TAM

 

[westprog]

yes, while technically not "convicted" of the 9/11 attacks, if their guilt were in doubt as the perps, it surely would have been considered inadmissible, or at least contested by the defense team...one would think.

TAM

Depends whether it was a critical point for the defence. Obviously the hijackers weren't on trial for 911.

I can imagine defence and prosecution both deciding not to dispute some point that wasn't 100% certain if it wasn't critical to their cases. At the conclusion of a trial, we can say that someone has had his guilt established beyond reasonable doubt. That's the question before the court. It's not the responsibility of the court to verify every piece of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

It might be in this particular case that this particular evidence is so central to the prosecution case that a guilty verdict implies that it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt, but it's not so as a general point.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It was legally accepted at the trial that Hanjour and the other hijackers on Flight 77 were the hijackers. Had there been insufficient evidence to support this contention, any evidence asserting this fact would have been inadmissible.

-Gumboot

Evidence yes, as I have already stated, the evidence points to a best case senario that Hani was flying, but since that evidence wasn't contested by the defence, it has never been tested in a court of law, it was merely accepted as read. Since it hasn't been contested you can't just declare it as gospel, it is only an uncontested version used by the Government.

yes, while technically not "convicted" of the 9/11 attacks, if their guilt were in doubt as the perps, it surely would have been considered inadmissible, or at least contested by the defense team...one would think.

TAM

Except that they never contested that the 19 were the hijackers at all, it wasn't part of their strategy, nor were they attempting to defend the hijackers, that wasn't their job. The evidence was accepted and not disbuted because there was no advocate for those that evidence was against. The trial wasn't to convict or determine the lagality of the evidence against Hani and co, but against Mossaui, whom I'd point out testified himself to a guilty verdict without the other evidence being required to be considered.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I must say - I'm slow coming around to this somehow, but what a read! 10:15 it is then, and now I have some re-writing to do.

Russell brings something to the table, people toss it aside. Psshaw! 'tis nothing but conspiracy hooplah! Made up! Silly!

Then a few peope dig in, perhaps to debunk, and we see 10:15 popping up all over, an earlier evac order likely, and confusion revealed. When I see it at LCF I go 'yeah, maybe, whatever...' When I see it sort out here it's another story.

So what's the relevance? Probably not much for investigating - pre-collapse photos listed as 'before 9:57' will need updated. The building held up 18-minutes better than most have thought, etc.

But interestingly to me, this is another bit of confusion over this particular incident. I think most of the 9:32 explosion info is bogus, but there's still something odd between that, 9:41 impact reports, multiple explosions, timeline errors, clutched videos, 'intact columns,' underground engines, mistranscribed missiles, loose-lipped Pentagon cops...

 

[BenBurch]

well, you could answer how you arrived at 10:15 am as the collapse time

ETA: and have you taken into conisderation that not everyone has the same time on their watches? electronic devices?

I dont even think my digital camera has the correct time or date on it.

Mine is still on Standard Time.

 

[Terral]

The 911Truth Sends The Official Cover Story Guys Packing . . .

Hi Russell:

I am soliciting opinions regarding some information that is new to me. I have asked for the conspiratorial POV elsewhere.

The official reports for the time of the Pentagon collapse state that it collapsed at 09:57.

Today I realized that in fact, it actually collapsed at 10:15.

Russell is making reference to a series of Loose Change Debates between myself, Honway and an Arlington County Firefighter (YCHTT) where ‘the’ 911Truth was revealed that the E-Ring roof did indeed collapse at 10:15:16 AM and not at the ACAAR (Page 200) time of 9:57 AM according to the DoD Cover Story LIE. The correct time of 10:15 AM of the E-Ring Roof collapse is recorded on my Pentagon Timeline here.

The summary of the evidence is:

1) The WUSA9 photographer had a time stamp of 10:15.
2) At least two continuous live news broadcasts put it at 10:15 (the program director confirmed the footage is a recording of their live broadcast via email with me).
3) The recording of Incident Command that I have from a scanner puts it at 10:15.

Yes. These readers should realize that the Official CNN/Government Timeline places the first Pentagon explosion at 9:43 AM, which included only fourteen minutes between the first explosion and the E-Ring roof collapse. However, the Official FAA Timeline places the aircraft crash into the west side of the Pentagon at 0932 AM, which Barbara Honegger narrowed down to 9:31:39 AM here in her famous paper (my trashed OP). This means that rather than just a few minutes between the First Explosion and the E-Ring Roof collapse, we have just about a 45 minute period (9:31 to 10:15) between those two events. The question then becomes, Why do these discrepancies appear in all of these Official Timelines? The answer is that we have MANY liars attempting to micromanage the content of everyone from CNN down to the county firemen writing their After-Action Reports. Carol Valentine describes the events of how a “7 Minute Fire” was transformed into a “60-Hour Witness Assassination” Plot detailing the story of this one aspect of the 9/11 Inside Job. BTW, Russell Pickering and Honway have both retired from writing on the LC Board over these obvious Timeline Discrepancies and ‘their’ attempts to represent the Official Story (like Gravy and others).

This may seem innocuous but I know that the FD and Cencom have the ability to correlate all broadcasts to the exact time. They clearly state when they had "structural collapse" in the recording. I was able to quickly figure it out. So they could have as well.

So why would ALL official reports for over 5 years now have this time off for 18 minutes?

Please just provide thoughtful observations.

Just 18 minutes? Even your 9:38 AM ACAAR (Page 200 again) AA77 crash is off by just over six minutes, according to the Official FAA Timeline to create even more of a problem for the Official Story. Honway was cornered on this very point on his 9:38 AM First Explosion Topic where he had no reply to Post #2 presented as my Rebuttal Post. In that thread Honway said,

After A Full Week Passed:

Honway >> If it could be established beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a significant fire or explosion at the Pentagon at 9:32 that would be a very important smoking gun.

If it could be established beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a significant fire or explosion at the Pentagon at 9:32 then the infrastructure is in place in the truth movement to demand elected officials explain the source of a fire or explosion at the Pentagon ‘before’ the reported impact of Flight 77.

If it could be established beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a significant fire or explosion at the Pentagon at 9:32, we could hold the people responsible for covering -up the information accountable for their role in the murder of 3,000 innocent people and the attack on our Constitution . . .

Honway made only a few limited appearances on the LC Board to then sail off into the sunset like Russell Pickering and his JREF Gravy counterpart.

Here is a LC thread on it.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15932

Yes. At the bottom of Honway’s OP we see, “Thanks to Terral and YCHTT for discovering this discrepancy in the record.” These two Official Story guys were willing to send accolades my way for discovering the discrepancies in the 9:57 AM to 10:15 AM E-Ring wall collapse times, but they are still reluctant to this day to even discuss the 9:32 AM First Explosion evidence. I traded a series of emails with the administrators of the Arlington County After-Action Report and they admitted to seeing these discrepancies ‘and’ the desire to fix them. They made a report to the Fire Chief and have also refused further comment on the details of this very apparent “Inside Job” and manipulation of the Timeline evidence.

The reason we see so many Official Story guys heading for the hills is because their explanations have no basis in reality whatsoever . . .

GL,

Terral