• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've just read this footnote in the official report with regard to the Flight 93 impact:

We also reviewed a report regarding seismic observations on September 11, 2001, whose authors conclude that the impact time of United 93 was “10:06:05±5 (EDT).”Won-Young Kim and G. R. Baum, “Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001,Terrorist Attack,” spring 2002 (report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources). But the seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to noise
ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR,ATC, radar, and impact site data sets.These data sets constrain United 93’s impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community. Furthermore, one of the study’s principal authors now concedes that “seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93.” Email from Won-Young Kim to the Commission,“Re:UA Flight 93,” July 7, 2004; see also Won-Young Kim,“Seismic Observations for UA Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania during September 11, 2001,” July 5, 2004.
Click to expand...

The signal to noise ratio is too high to be accurate, although I'm guessing it's not as high as 3:97 ;)
 
Johnny Pixels said:
From the British 911 truth campaign:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=15660#15660

This poster highlights that the is a discrepancy between the seismic data impact times for the two aircraft, and the FAA flight path data impact times.

The spike occurs on the seismic record 14 seconds before the first impact occurs on the official time line derived from the NTSB report data, and then 17 seconds for the second impact.

Any ideas why the difference?
Click to expand...

I can't enlighten you about the time discrepancy, but I see the claim is that the first set of seismic data arises from explosions in the WTC basement. If that was the case, do we not then we need three sets of seismic data?; one for the explosions, one for the plane impact and one for the towers collapsing.

As far as I'm aware, we only have two and I would ascribe them to impact and collapse because the fact that these events occurred cannot be disputed, except by hologram nuts.
 
JerryB9105 said:
I for one found the photographs of the museum displays quite interesting. Thanks for all of them. I stopped and lingered long on the one of the computer circuit board imbedded inside that portion of steel beam -- the beam must have been pretty soft / soggy and just at the right cooling-down temperatures for it to trap that flimsy circuit board like that without destroying the board in the process. But if the steel melted and became pliable enough to do that (which it obviously did -- we can see evidence of it in the photol) -- then what could cause that? Jet fuel? -- no, don't think so based upon what the experts tell us. Something like thermate? - yes, think so.
Click to expand...
This is a perfect example of the deadly combination of ignorance and arrogance which pervade the CT mindset.

Everything the CTer knows, he got from interpreting a picture on the Internet. Who needs chemical or structural analysis by experts in the field when people like Jerry can reach conclusions just by looking at pictures.
 
DavidJames said:
Everything the CTer knows, he got from interpreting a picture on the Internet. Who needs chemical or structural analysis by experts in the field when people like Jerry can reach conclusions just by looking at pictures.
Click to expand...


The funny thing being, someone like myself who actually has some experience and training in photographic and videographic interpretation would be quick to tell anyone just how incredibly difficult it is.

I know I certainly won't be making any conclusions based entirely on looking at a single low resolution pit of amateur video!

I don't believe I have ever seen a single CT photographic/videographic interpretation that I even remotely agreed with. I think my favourite phrase in Loose Change is "clearly see". In my opinion, every time Dylan Avery says "clearly see" in LC it should be counted as an error of fact.

-Andrew
 
This is fascinating, and I am not sure what to make of it, but I think it is proof that many of the hijackers not only knew each other, but were using each others names on IDs they had forged.

Alleged Drivers licence and Visa for Ziad Jarrah

Notice, though that while the Visa is Ziad Jarrah's face, the driver's licence, with his name on it, is actually the picture of Wail Al-Shehri.

Interesting indeed
 
It certainly looks alot like Wail Al-Shehri, but the two guys have similar faces...any comments...
 
T.A.M. said:
This is fascinating, and I am not sure what to make of it, but I think it is proof that many of the hijackers not only knew each other, but were using each others names on IDs they had forged.

Alleged Drivers licence and Visa for Ziad Jarrah

Notice, though that while the Visa is Ziad Jarrah's face, the driver's licence, with his name on it, is actually the picture of Wail Al-Shehri.

Interesting indeed
Click to expand...
Don't tell the CTers. They'll consider it the biggest 'smoking gun' of 9/11.
 
ANother nice little tidbit. This one on the Waleed Al-Shehri. CTs claim the Morroco Waleed Al-Shehri is the one the police IDed. Yet that Al-Shehri says he left the USA in September 2000. So why is it, an official court document in the Moussaoui Trial shows a florida Drivers Licence Issued to Waleed Al-Shehri, matching the FBI Photo, with a date of 05/04/2001. The man was photographed for the licence, and so obviously was in the USA in 2001, but the Morroco Al-Shehri was not.

Waleed Al-Shehri Florida Drivers Licence 2001
 
Well this blows the Waleed is still alive out of the water. The next day (may 5th, 2001) the guy takes a drivers licence and passes. There is the ID of the person who gave him the test. Now I am sure that if the picture on the ID card didnt match the guy taking the licence, the Examiner might have a problem with that....so

The man named Waleed Al-Shehri, with a photo matching the FBi one of the Hijacker by that name, was examined in Florida, for a drivers licence, in may 2001, long after the Alleged "Still Alive" Al-Shehri had left teh USA.
 
T.A.M. said:
MERCs Claims noone can debbunk his Pentagon argument

Is this true. Is this there smoking gun. he states NOONE can debunk his claims. I am far from an expert, and I am still in the early days of my research, but I woul dlove Gravy or Brainster to take a look. I will too, of course.
Click to expand...

I just start looking at this last night to take a stab at debunking, first thing I run across is this.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MERC:
Meanwhile, the surveillance video, faked or not, contradicts the entire investigative body's assertions about the entire plane entering...

IN THIS SURVEILLANCE VIDEO IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TAIL IS *EJECTED OVER THE FIRST RING*:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/tailandbody.jpg
End Merc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These pics are pretty poor so I went to goggle vidieo and looked at cleaner ones and yes the thing shows up but how can a Black whatever it is be the Tail section of a Silver or white plane?

and the statement "faked or not" really leaves an escape route for him. I'm just not sure it's worth the effort.
 
SRW said:
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/tailandbody.jpg
Click to expand...

that doesnt even seem to be shaped very much like a tail, looks more like the mother ship from ID4

2000mppid4mothership.gif
 
Another CT runs away crying:

from the British 9/11 forum

Sorry, Johnny Boy, I won’t respond to your nonsense anymore. I am working hard at exposing this coverup that people like you are attempting to continue. If someone else wants to deal with you and your ring-around-the-rosey tactics, that is their right. Personally, I am not going to waste any more precious time with you.
Click to expand...

Well done, Johnny Pixels!
 
Comcast Towers

I'm not sure how relevant this will be to the discussion, but I mentioned this before and now I have some pics. This is the Comcast Tower presently being built in Philadelphia. When it is is finished it will be the tallest building in Philadelphia, beating out 2 decade champ Liberty Place.

Why is this relevant? Well, the design of this building is such that it will be Airplane-proof. Not 'hit at low speed by accident'-proof, but 'rammed by psycho-terrorists at high speed'-proof. This involves a LOT of concrete to make that core, so much in fact that contractors away from the job are having a hard time getting concrete for other projects. (Note to a certain kook: Rebar does not seem to be in use.)

Why do I bring it up? Well it seems like a lot of effort for something that CTers claim cannot happen without explosives.

ComcastTower3.jpg


ComcastTower2.jpg


ComcastTower1.jpg
 
Interesting new thread. A new pilot checks in..with a rather familiar sounding name..and begins posting in support of the CT...this after Bizilla's thread has apparently been removed from the Board and you cannot find him listed in the Membership section...

Methinks I smell a rat...

Link: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9814
 
kookbreaker said:
[qimg]http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower3.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower2.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower1.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

So this is what a "concrete core" looks like...
 
I thought the same but didn't want to mention it here and blow his cover. You know, in case anyone actually didn't see through it after he gets a few posts in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom