It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Times LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo

page: 19
91
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   
READ this post first, before you make unsubstantiated remarks about seismic subjects.
Then read some posts above that one, about the concerted effort from hopefully outsiders, to slowly remove important posts made by me. Then read this one :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Well, read all my posts in those two pages, page 12 and 13.

Especially this one :


LT March 11, 2012 : Did you see that video where the camera man is running for his life, while holding his still running video camera in his hand, its lens aimed at the thundering down debris from the tower collapsing behind him.
I used that video to show the majority here, that the collapses took much more time than needed when in free fall.
The first outer panels (Vierendael triplets, portions of three facade columns welded together) hit the ground just 30 meters away from the bottom facade, about 9 to 11 seconds after collapse started high up.

Its an even more interesting theory for WTC7, since that was a bottom up implosion. Thus, that by NIST proposed single column piece (Nr. 79) breaking away over a height of 14 floors which breaking started, they say, internally at the fifth floor or so (hold your breath now), must have impacted nearly instantly (half a sec or so later) the bedrock WTC 7 stood on. Then we had to wait out the penthouses sinking (8.2 or 8.3 secs), and then the whole damn building came thundering down.

Ehh, NIST, that's not what the seismogram shows. That shows for a starter, about 16.5 seconds before the needle reacted on the first dent forming in the east penthouse roof-line, a slight oscillation of the needle, then a few seconds back to normal, then the onset of the biggest magnitude of seismic peaks (and that's definitely not normal, it should be the smallest peaks first to show one column breaking and falling), starting still about 7 seconds before in Manhattan anything happened on the WTC7 facades or on the roof(s). That pack of peaks then died down totally, still 3 seconds before anything moved outside at WTC7, and then after those 3 seconds the sinking of the two penthouses into the roof started in Manhattan which did cost an extra 8.3 seconds precious time.
And then, after those 8.3 secs, the quite smaller magnitude of the next pack of seismic peaks set on, indicating the global collapse had begun. And died also down 10 to 12 seconds later.

Do you get the crux of the matter?
A single one column breaking (Nr. 79) is according to NIST causing the biggest seismic reaction on that whole damn seismogram. And then later, when all the other 30 or so, just as thick columns are thundering down together with those extra strong crossbeams spanning over the ConEdison electric station situated in the bottom 4 north side floors, the same way that single column went, NIST says that indeed, that smaller pack of peaks at the end of that seismogram shows that massive collapse of the whole weight of that 44 stories high building.
................................?

And NIST does not give in, they even try to explain away the 2.3 secs free fall of all the facades in a fluent fashion, at the onset of global collapse.
I won't bother you with that, this is enough to seriously ask yourself, why they seem to think that you are part of a silent majority.


Don't forget to read the error margin post :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And those pesky JREF'ers ?
Read this one :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the only other post-link ATS Search came up ( LaBTop running camera ) when I tried to find the many instances I posted that short video with that running cameraman in it :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

While your at that thread (I really, really miss Damocles, he became an opposing online friend, has he met his god? Or is he still waiting for god? Last visit: Jul. 26, 2015), read this post about Brent Blanchard from PROTEC and his fairy tale about handheld seismograms that he would show publicly. When I challenged him to post them, he vanished from ATS.
And when I phoned PROTEC, they had "lost" all those 9/11 HH Seismograms. Yeaaaaah....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Post about thermobaric bombs which have a very low sound profile, not at all where Shyam Sunder and Porter Goss were babbling about (High Explosives) :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is a post of me about the running cameraman :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

By the way, here's the partial view behind the running cameraman, escaping the WTC2S collapse fronts at 11:35 into this video :
www.youtube.com...


Take note of that huge facade composite plate FALLING CLOSELY and NATURALLY along the lower floors facade of the still standing portion of WTC2S, in front of the rest of the collapsing debris, at 11:45 min.
The BLOWN OUT exterior column parts from its above it situated facade plates are still flying further away on their much wider explosive parabolae trajectories.
During the WTC1N collapse, some of those will end in the southeast corner of the World Financial Center-3 building, two WTC-tower facade widths and some meters more, away from the WTC1N west facade.




posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop




Post about thermobaric bombs which have a very low sound profile,

And yet we see no evidence of such an explosion in the videos.


Keep looking for that unicorn though .



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: LaBTop
Post about thermobaric bombs which have a very low sound profile,


Oh, the silent "Hush--A-Boom" silent explosives that make no noise, nor have any blast effect are back!

Carried into WTC7 by invisible pink unicorns no doubt.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Why read that when the scientists of LEDO clearly states the data is being misused and holds no evidence of explosives. Numerous scientists point out the inconsistency and misuse of data by your one scientist's opinion. Your scientist is almost like a flat earther trying to convince the gullible the earth is not a sphere. You can believe the high pressure sales tactics of overproduced and sensational non-credential crap on YouTube. Don't they turn a small profit? How much money has the loose change guys made on a video with nothing by inconclusive and misleading opinions. Wonder if they donate money back to the 911first responders since they make money off the back of 911? I'll stick with quite and humble scientists and engineers.

Oh, one small thing. There was no physical evidence explosives in the debris of the WTC and no columns worked on by explosives. Seismic activity due to placed bombs and charges debunked. Was there bomb sniffing dogs that worked the WTC everyday before 911?www.911myths.com...



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
samkent And hellobruce.
You both miss the posting quality to be adequate adversaries. No cookie for you two.

This video is from AnonymousUploads' channel.
AnonymousUploads' channel no longer exists.
Some comments you oversaw, (or not, just stirring the pot as usual) :


1. 330 pounds of high explosives shatters cars. (That was the original title)
2. That's not a thermobaric explosion. A real one requires previous dispersion of the explosive. That's a common explosion.
----- 2a. No. there just has to be a scatter charge before the fuel load is ignited. Ideally it works better in a fuel air bomb situation where it's much easier to do that but there is no reason why this could not be a thermobaric bomb. If you watch it at the 600fps section you can see a scatter charge going off first. It's not necessarily the most efficient one....
----- 2b. You're describing a fuel air explosives, which is a specific subclass of thermobarics. This is aluminum dispersion, which is just a means of enhancing blast duration for a thermobaric effect. Widely classified as thermobaric by numerous military organizations.

3. Ansley212 : Not Thermobaric.
This bomb is burning off the extra fuel/O2 after the detonation. A thermobaric explosion CONSISTS of the fuel/O2 detonating itself. This is merely a OB+ explosion burning off residual fuel. But if one wants to quibble that it produced "heat" & "pressure" and therefore is "thermobaric", then all explosions are "thermobaric". Impressive, but mislabeled.
----- 3a. Ironically there was also a large tank of gas strapped to this vehicle....which may have added to the theatricality of it (and longevity and the fireball). Wondering if maybe some people have trouble seeing the forest for the trees focused on only the explosive itself? I'll be honest I have no idea, just a curiosity.
----- 3b. Ansley212 : Your previous comments show you THINK you have a profound grasp of blast characteristics, but I reckon you are a typical Youtube General who likes playing with fireworks. I directly responded to your earlier comment. The fact you admit you can't tell the delta curve of a blast by the environment tells me you are an amateur. Sling ad hominems all you want. I simply do NOT agree this video shows a thermobaric detonation.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
LT : There are 80 comment-answers to this single comment nr 3. by Ansley212, feel free to dig through them. (smile)
These are the Ansley212 answers which answers them all :


----- 3c. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Thermobarics disperse THEN detonate. This was a detonation, with subsequent burn off of the excess fuel/air. The conflagration was not contributing significantly to the blast like a thermobaric would.
----- 3d. Ansley212, posted 1 year ago.
(at : Steve Johnson.)
"SJ : Just because this mixture was extremely over fueled does not mean it wasn't thermobaric"
A212 : Just because this explosive WAS extremely over fueled doesn't mean it was thermobaric. The problem is you didn't study the pressure wave in the slow motion footage. I am not saying this wasn't a large explosive with a large blast radius...for a standard HE detonation. *BUT...based on the point detonation and expanding deflagration clearly seen in the slow motion, I will not agree this was a thermobaric explosion because the detonation was a point detonation, and not protracted.

You can try and be cute by calling me "grand master of explosives" like some sarcastic little snob, but don't you realize YOUR sarcastic remark is inherently hypocritical?

ANSWER TO YOUR SNIDE QUESTION: The blast wave was point sourced! All the pretty effects afterwards were not part of the detonation. THEREFORE...NOT "thermobaric".


LT : This is not a video of a TB, and certainly not one as used in the WTC Towers demolitions.
The environment is btw also totally different. Not an enclosed space.

I hope you're not trying to be just as snidely as this Steve Johnson, we have had enough fresh insults yet from those newly arrived ISF'ers who have not a shimmer of decency left in their online behavior..



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

And LEDO scientists counter you thinking there is seismic activity due to bombs on 911? They say no, and their data is taken out of context and misused / misinterpreted. What I find interesting, you are the only conspiracists that keeps talking about seismic proof here. Other conspiracists like DR. Wood debunk sciesmic activity due to bombs and charges. Seismic activity is not a smoking gun, it would have gained traction from the repeated times this scam has been tried over the years.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   
anecdotal evidence is the only evidence we "MAY" rely upon?
alot of this technical stuff is over my head and relays to me
why such anecdotal story-telling is so adamantly controversial?

you can't feel the heal until you feel the pain of healing
you have to be real with yourself and it's gonna hurt

we mastered destruction how many times, and we don't even desire
building upon what we have achieved all the while being civilized?



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

It kind of reminds me of what we see in the world today

ISIS: "WE are ISLAM!!!!!"

Liberals: " ISIS is not Islam"



LEDO: "There is nothing in our data that suggests explosives or bombs involved that day"

Member of truth movement :"Oh yes there is"



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Other conspiracists like DR. Wood debunk sciesmic activity due to bombs and charges.


Dr Wood conspiracies theories have been debunked for many years, Dr Wood work is a joke, no one supports her materials, or "opinions".


What I find interesting, you are the only conspiracists that keeps talking about seismic proof here


What is interested here, is you have "ignored" all the credible seismic data that has been given to you repeatedly.

The fact is, the seismic data that has been presented in this thread is very real, and should not be "ignored".


Seismic activity is not a smoking gun, it would have gained traction from the repeated times this scam has been tried over the years.


That is your "opinion", on the contrary the seismic data is the smoking gun, it also proves that NIST manipulated the seismic data and the time stamps of the News videos taken by the mainstream media, to fool the world population to make us believe their pseudo science was good.

However, because of NIST manipulation of the time stamp videos and seismic charts, they could not show us their model of the collapse. Why? Because the manipulation NIST did would have been exposed. So the fact is, NIST hide their models from the public.

Not only did LaBTop presented his finding, he has given you the "absolute" proof that NIST "manipulated the data".

NIST pseudo science is what it is. That is why NIST report cannot, and will not be Peer Reviewed, because it cant stand up to real scientific scrutiny.

This is what this thread topic is about that LaBTop presented, yet none of you debunkers can touch this science but only ridicule it and the OP.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

One, are the scientists of LEDO wrong in the examination of their data. It's their scientific conclusion no seismic evidence. It's their statement their data is misinterpreted. This lines out with no physical evidence. Funny how that works? How are the scientists of LEDO wrong in their data is misused.

Two, same sciesmic misrepresentation used over the years debunked over and over.

Three, funny it's always the NIST reports. But the insurance companies, colleges, engineering firms, scientists, and universities fire collapse models are never addressed by conspiracists?


Four, beacuse it over scaled and resized data placed out of context. It's not even science. It's like debunking the flawed work on the papers on thermite.
edit on 7-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
What it comes down to. The WTC made no P waves and S waves. The two waves are used in conjunction to each other normally in earthquakes origin time calculations. WTC only produced R waves. It's good to know the speed and frequency. However, to use R waves to originate time, the exact composition of earth must be known to calculate the actual lag time from event to make it meaningful. Building falls, and in this case, seismic R wave picked up 17 seconds later. Many areas are still core drilling to make better models of earth composition to fine tune seismic data.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




That is why NIST report cannot, and will not be Peer Reviewed, because it cant stand up to real scientific scrutiny.

The insurance companies have accepted it.
They had 4.55 billion reasons to fight it.

MIT and ALL other technical colleges have accepted it.
All engineering firms have accepted it.
All news outlets have accepted it.
All fire departments have accepted it.

Only a few people selling books and DVD's have not.

You can claim NIST is wrong all you want, but you do not have the skill set or degrees to prove otherwise.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


One, are the scientists of LEDO wrong in the examination of their data. It's their scientific conclusion no seismic evidence.


Sources please? Or are "opinions" now facts? If "opinions" are facts then science should be thrown out the window in "debating".

I am not on ATS to "fool" the readers here.


This lines out with no physical evidence. Funny how that works? How are the scientists of LEDO wrong in their data is misused.


No physical evidence? Who are you trying to fool here? This is your "opinions" again, yet you cannot give any credible evidence to support your claims.


Two, same sciesmic misrepresentation used over the years debunked over and over.


Debunked? Please show credible evidence to your claims, and stop given your "opinions" and claiming your "opinions" are the facts here.


Three, funny it's always the NIST reports. But the insurance companies, colleges, engineering firms, scientists, and universities fire collapse models are never addressed by conspiracists?


That is completely untrue.

This thread topic is not about what you think of conspiracies theorist or insurance companies, colleges, engineering firms.



Four, beacuse it over scaled and resized data placed out of context. It's not even science. It's like debunking the flawed work on the papers on thermite.


Interesting you say that? Yet, you cannot even debunk NIST, or LaBTop findings. Funny how that works?



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent


The insurance companies have accepted it.
They had 4.55 billion reasons to fight it.


This thread topic is not about what firms who accepted the official narratives is it?

Stop moving the goal post, and stay on the given topic.

Times LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

I have included links and quoted sources. I have been very transparent where my information comes from. It's up to you to research what I have presented. But it's very clear, I have presented information given by LEDO scientists, persons that provide seismic monitoring (protect taking seismic reading in Manhattan during 911), and demolitions expert's as referenced by implosionworld. Have presented links from skeptics that show seismic evidence has been debunk over the years. It's not new. Always comes down to over scaled and sized. To say it's my opinion shows your lack of research and how you don't dare read anything that might shake your view.

I did say without the buildings producing P and S waves which are used to determine normal earthquake origin time, having only R waves, I did not believe time is precise. To use R waves in a meaningful context, the exact composition of the earth must be known to create 100 accurate travel time calculations. Not a model of earth's composition that is 80 or 90 percent accurate. To put it rudely, to use R waves precisely is the equivalent of trying to find the location of a gun shot by echoes in the grand canyon.
edit on 7-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 05:34 PM
link   
From: What Did and Did not Cause Collapse
of WTC Twin Towers in New York

heiwaco.tripod.com...&ved=0ahUKEwj3qc-FsuLNAhWI1IMKHVl1Cc4QFgg4MAc&usg=AFQjCNEv-CV2m2zP8jGomFkInK__RPPaXw&sig2=-4CG2CgWBcul2F2llGxJeA

"At the same time, the alternative allegations of some kind of controlled demolition are
shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of
parameter uncertainties is considered.
These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no
doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects
of fire.".


The paper references R WAVES and seismic activity.

Have fun.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


To say it's my opinion shows your lack of research and how you don't dare read anything that might shake your view.


That is your "opinion". However you are completely wrong in your assumptions about me personally.

Frankly, you do not know my views about 911 or what research I have done in my 12 years concerning 911.


Have presented links from skeptics that show seismic evidence has been debunk over the years.


What links? What evidence? I haven't seen any in this thread from you? Or are you demanding that all ATS readers take 911 Myths, and Popular Mechanic, as credible sources?


I did not believe time is precise.


So now you are an expert in reading seismic data


To use R waves in a meaningful context, the exact composition of the earth must be known to create 100 accurate travel time calculations.


This is a fine example of of spinning if I have ever seen it.

Lets discuses the R wave for example, what do you mean when you state "meaningful context"? Wasn't this already presented in this thread topic by LaBTop?

Yes it was, so where are you going with this?


edit on 7-7-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

R waves not the full story of a seismic event. They only help complete a picture if the location of the event is known and the nature of the event.


You missed the point. It's not my opinion. It is not even PM opinion. Is a collection of data that references very real, very serious, very diverse group of scientists. I know it's hards to believe because you are used to the sensationalized YouTube videos which are the producers opinion.

If you are going to tackle the paper "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" which makes use of the R wave seismic data from the WTC by very real engineers, no point in debate.


edit on 7-7-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


It is not even PM opinion. Is a collection of data that references very real, very serious, very diverse group of scientists.


Ok, so what you are saying is, this collection of data is only for a very diverse group of "government" scientist? Anything outside of governments "opinions" are to be rejected, such as A&E science.

The very fact is no one on ATS has ever debunked A&E science but only ridicule it. The same with LaBTop evidence, I have yet to see any of you debunkers tackling it by using simple science.


I know it's hards to believe because you are used to the sensationalized YouTube videos which are the producers opinion.


So now you are making a fraudulent claim that I only use YouTube video as all my 911 research, just another insult towards my character and off topic to say the lease.


If you are going to tackle the paper "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" which makes use of the R wave seismic data from the WTC by very real engineers, no point in debate.


Yes, the very fact "real engineers" outside of our corrupt government had no problem pointing out how NIST manipulated the seismic data, which has been proven in this thread time and time again.

Yes, lets not talk about how NIST lied and fudged numbers, and manipulated the time stamps in the actual videos.

What you are asking, and telling me, is our government never lies, never cover up crimes, there is no corruption in our government, and the fact is, this is what you are defending.

Anything said outside of the government narratives concerning 911 is ridiculous. Lets just embrace "ignorance" shell we.



new topics




 
91
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join