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: 26
91
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 11:05 PM
link   
Regarding the Jose Zorilla from Uruguay letter to the editor, above the Ketcham letter :
He's wrong, those joists did not fail at all, evidenced by the full straight horizontal line of windows that were pulled deep inwards in both Twin Towers, just a few minutes before global collapse began.

If his proposal were true, a chaotic vertical exterior columns buckling would have occurred, and not the evenly, over 1 meter deep inward bowing, as seen over a whole exterior facade floor line, caused by a fully intact composite floor system that was pulled down at the outer core column line, since those outer core columns failed earlier on and slipped slowly down, together with those composite floors.

His disconnection theory of the failure of junctions between a steel joist at the end of an underlying floor beam and the exterior column pillar is illogical, he forgets about the huge composite, steel-reinforced concrete flooring system.
And he forgets the proof by example of the sinking of the radio mast first, before the roof line started to sink at WTC-1N. Which proves that the core columns failure caused the onset of the global collapse, and not the inward bowing of some horizontal line(s) of exterior columns on one floor level.

And we should have seen full lines of composite floor fronts falling downward through all those windows, which we certainly did not see, that photo by NIST in 2002 of such an event, they thought, was not the front of a floor, denting down, but the aluminum rails of the lowered ceiling whose tiles were on fire, you can clearly see in a later published video the bend down, lowered ceiling tiles their flames leak out the broken windows out- and upwards, and not going freely upwards inside the building. (because NIST thought that floor was missing and sunk down already).
There we see a still intact floor in its original position while its floor tiles are on fire and those flames are going up behind their floor its windows.
By the way, this was NIST's main reason to come up with their floors failures theory as the main cause for global collapse, which is by now proven ridiculous. It was failure of the core columns that caused global collapse.

See also my post here : www.abovetopsecret.com...
And this one : action.ae911truth.org...
And this one : 911tap.org...
edit on 25/12/16 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop
Your running list of shortcomings...

The first and foremost items you need to address to prove your case.

The NIST reports are not the work of a few individuals. The NIST reports are comprised of numerous items of research by teams of people that had their research peer reviewed and published in scientific/engineering journals.


Please tell how P waves, S waves, and Reyleigh waves would be normally represented in a purely blasting event. How they would be similar and different from a building collapse equivalent to tons of TNT setting off?

How many different channels of seismic activity was recorded at LDEO during 9/11.

Conspiracists zooming into only one channel to the point scaling is out of context to produce a "spike" from the middle of a building collapse that slowly grew in seismic activity to total failure is pseudoscience.

The one channel should have complementary, mirrored, and bleed over to a range of seismic channels and different motion sensors.

The "spike" not reflected in different LDEO seismic channels, no proof of atmospheric waves from a pressure wave, no credible sound of detonation back those who are on record stating there is no seismic activity due to CD. The ones you call liars. And proves Labtop, if the spike was even real, has no proof the alleged seismic activity is exclusive to a bomb.

Why the major players Richard Gauge and Steven Jones take no stakes in using seismic evidence. Seems like Jones whould want to included and cite your doctors work in his published works on WTC CD?

Or why DR. Wood totally dismisses seismic activity as proof of CD.



edit on 26-12-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux



The NIST reports are not the work of a few individuals. The NIST reports are comprised of numerous items of research by teams of people that had their research peer reviewed and published in scientific/engineering journals.



Thoughts from a Former 14 year long NIST Employee :
www.ae911truth.org...

Ignoring evidence and people are the only way to support the os narratives that has been demonstrated by few on here.

Asking makebelieve questions of things that did not happen to counter facts. Asking redundant questions about Steven Jones journal about "seismic data", where in fact, his journal is only about the WTC dust samples.

Question: What does chemical compounds in dust samples have to do with seismic data? Nothing.

Question: I have never seen any negatives comments against any government supporting scientis about 911, why is that?

Question: Why is it every credibal non government scientist and their reports dismissed, ridiculed, character assassination and yet never debunked by science?


How many different channels of seismic activity was recorded at LDEO during 9/11.


How many clouds are in the sky at one time on a sunny day?

See how redundant that is?


The "spike" not reflected in different LDEO seismic channels


Another "opinion" with no facts. Yet few on here want to talk about how conspiracy theorist only rant and do not understand science, as if we all have IQ's below 70 and live in mommy basement wearing tin foil hats, while their opponents are high fiving each other on their ad hominem attacks.

There is nothing worst than having a discussion with very few people who have proven themselves dishonest while defending mainstream properganda.

What have you few people proven so far against the science that does stand up against the os narratives? Nothing.

While few of you are demanding Peer Review science on the opposing views, many of us are demanding Peer Review on the os narratives, so in essence this leads to nothing but circular arguments where no one wins.

Is this all a game? I think it is more than that.



edit on 26-12-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

Another rant based on speculation.

How many different sections composed the NIST reports? How many buildings, individuals, and departments compose the NIST? And your "insider" is an expert and has working knowledge of all. Debunked yourself.

Then LDEO, colleges, and other seismologists are on the record stating no seismic evidence of CD.


The first and foremost items you need to address to prove your case.

The NIST reports are not the work of a few individuals. The NIST reports are comprised of numerous items of research by teams of people that had their research peer reviewed and published in scientific/engineering journals.


Please tell how P waves, S waves, and Reyleigh waves would be normally represented in a purely blasting event. How they would be similar and different from a building collapse equivalent to tons of TNT setting off?

How many different channels of seismic activity was recorded at LDEO during 9/11.

Conspiracists zooming into only one channel to the point scaling is out of context to produce a "spike" from the middle of a building collapse that slowly grew in seismic activity to total failure is pseudoscience.

The one channel should have complementary, mirrored, and bleed over to a range of seismic channels and different motion sensors.

The "spike" not reflected in different LDEO seismic channels, no proof of atmospheric waves from a pressure wave, no credible sound of detonation back those who are on record stating there is no seismic activity due to CD. The ones you call liars. And proves Labtop, if the spike was even real, has no proof the alleged seismic activity is exclusive to a bomb.

Why the major players Richard Gauge and Steven Jones take no stakes in using seismic evidence. Seems like Jones whould want to included and cite your doctors work in his published works on WTC CD?

Or why DR. Wood totally dismisses seismic activity as proof of CD.


edit on 26-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Changed based from added



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Another rant based on speculation.


Pot calling Kettle.


How many buildings, individuals, and departments compose the NIST?


Circular argument.

How many NIST individual did not participate in the fraudulent Report?


Then LDEO, colleges, and other seismologists are on the record stating no seismic evidence of CD.


Bush and Cheney are on record of WMD to get us in two illegal wars.


The NIST reports are not the work of a few individuals. The NIST reports are comprised of numerous items of research by teams of people that had their research peer reviewed and published in scientific/engineering journals.


Some of their work has been Peer reviewed, however the fact is, the official NIST 911 Report does not stand up to scrutiny to real science, and has been proven to be pseudoscience.


Please tell how P waves, S waves, and Reyleigh waves would be normally represented in a purely blasting event. How they would be similar and different from a building collapse equivalent to tons of TNT setting off?


Your question is irrelevant, do to the fact no one knows what kind of devices where used to bring down the WTC.


How many different channels of seismic activity was recorded at LDEO during 9/11.


These questions have been answered many times in LaBTop presentation that you continue to ignore. The answers are all in the charts, yet you continue to ask the same questions as if this has not been addressed, why is that?


Why the major players Richard Gauge and Steven Jones take no stakes in using seismic evidence.


These questions have all been answered for you. You again demonstrated that you ignore questions that have been repeatedly answered over a dozen times, if not more.


Or why DR. Wood totally dismisses seismic activity as proof of CD


Is Dr Wood a fan of yours? The very same Dr Wood who sold a bill of lies of space weapons bringing down the WTC?






edit on 26-12-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958

You haven't answered anything.

Take a breath and start simple.

In regards to p waves, s waves, and Rayleigh waves, what would be only exclusive to the detonation of a demolitions charge that created seismic activity 26 miles away. Especially, blast seismic activity is usually proven by measuring an accompanying atmosphere pressure wave.

Then out of the number of channels recorded at LDEO representing different axis of movement, how many channels captured the supposed seismic spike?



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Well done laBTop, i see you got your stuff back to getter again after it gotten deleted some time ago , cheers




posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


You haven't answered anything.


Neither have you. Pot calling kettle.


In regards to p waves, s waves, and Rayleigh waves, what would be only exclusive to the detonation of a demolitions charge that created seismic activity 26 miles away. Especially, blast seismic activity is usually proven by measuring an accompanying atmosphere pressure wave.


Your redundant question is false, your asking to prove a negative.


Then out of the number of channels recorded at LDEO representing different axis of movement, how many channels captured the supposed seismic spike?


You will find the answer to that question in the OP:
Times LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo.

More circular argument.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux


You haven't answered anything.


Neither have you. Pot calling kettle.


In regards to p waves, s waves, and Rayleigh waves, what would be only exclusive to the detonation of a demolitions charge that created seismic activity 26 miles away. Especially, blast seismic activity is usually proven by measuring an accompanying atmosphere pressure wave.


Your redundant question is false, your asking to prove a negative.


Then out of the number of channels recorded at LDEO representing different axis of movement, how many channels captured the supposed seismic spike?


You will find the answer to that question in the OP:
Times LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo.

More circular argument.





That's not an answer.

You can say there is no evidence of a spike due to seismic activity.

It's ok.

And if the spike was real, the seismic activity is not exclusive to a blast.

The activity can also be produced, and accounted for, by a collapsing building.

There is no supporting evidence and no data to define the activity as derived from a blast.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


There is no supporting evidence and no data to define the activity as derived from a blast.


Thank you for your "opinion".

Merry Christmas neutronflux, and I hope you have a Happy News Years.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Regarding this neutronflux post on page 25 :

I'm not going to spend too much precious time anymore, on posters who start their posts with immature insults and their own misconceptions.
Learn to show some respect to other hardworking longtime ATS 9/11-forum members, pick up some decorum, decency and posting class in that process, and even better, some real seismological education, during the rest of your ATS 9/11 forum experience.

Do NEVER forget anymore, that for my WTC-7 explosive-collapse thesis, I in fact solely used the by my adversaries so adored official sources, which they unconditionally defend at all costs, and most of them put all their 9/11 FAITH in them.
None of it sprouts from my mind, or my imagination.
Those are ALL hard facts from your official 9/11 WTC investigations champs. Registered and/or calculated by these 2 well known US, officially endorsed Institutions :
LDEO and NIST.

I only did the groundwork for you all, and knotted one tiny new fact I had discovered midway through 2006, to the timescale on the WTC-7 collapse seismogram registered on 9/11/2001 by LDEO.
That tiny new fact I found by meticulously reading the provisional WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapse reports published by NIST at that time (2005, 2006 and 2007), namely the officially by NIST time-stamped Cianca photo of the first visual dent in the east penthouse roof, the first sign of the following global collapse, 8.5 seconds before that WTC-7 global collapse indeed started.

Within a month after my publication of the glaring inconsistencies following my combination of the by NIST provided Cianca photo time stamp, with the seismic signals time stamps on the LDEO collapse seismogram for WTC-7, in Jan. 2007, NIST suddenly removed all links and texts pointing to all their at that time existing seismic texts, formerly in abundance present on their provisional 9/11 WTC-1, 2 and 7 investigation pages.

They also immediately removed their latest, already payed for, Jan. 2007 seismic research, outsourced by them in 2006 to LDEO's seismologist Dr. Kim and end of Jan. and begin Feb. 2007 published during just a few days on their provisional, WTC-7 collapse explanation pages, and scrubbed that study by Dr. Kim then immediately from all of their provisional 9/11 WTC websites. And scrubbed also all their other seismic links from those pages.
You can't find one seismic sentence online anymore, at the recent final NIST reports pages.
--They know or suspect of course, that we saved that Jan. 2007 published and directly retracted new seismic research by Dr. Kim.-- Screenshot Nr 41 in my opening post in this thread. Kim, W. 2006.
Dr. Kim's final Jan. 31, 2005 publication is listed on screenshot Nr 40.
I advice strongly to read the text in screenshot 43. That proves my words about NIST its removing of all seismic material from all their 9/11 pages.

See for the compact and most simple version of the WTC-7 time stamp comparison problem for NIST and LDEO, the 4th seismic WTC-7 diagram by LDEO, with the remarks in red blue and green lines and texts, HERE, at the top of this same ATS thread's page 25 :




posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Note also that NIST however could not, for the sake of its own nation- and worldwide scientific credibility, remove that precious Cianca photo time stamp anymore, since that time stamp is one in a long list of Cianca photos, still online (search my O.Post in this thread for a screen dump of that Nicolas Cianca's camera list, in screenshots nr. 33 to 39), which Cianca-camera list NIST specifically used to explain to their readers, the calculation-mechanisms they used to reset ALL their received photo and video material, and their most of the time incorrect set time stamps, on one standardized identical time line.
They used as their standard, the second plane impact in the WTC-2S events, which was registered by military and civilian radar and thus its exact impact time was automatically atomic-clocked and registered in milliseconds by those two officially endorsed sources.

After that, they just had to look up in all their massively available cameras material, from all those different cameras, if that specific WTC-2S plane impact event was perhaps in some other cameras present, then they corrected their mostly incorrect set time stamps in these few cameras found by them that also showed that second plane impact.
Based on the camera-specific discrepancy from the exact second plane impact time, known from the military radars, and also registered in those few other cameras they analyzed and where they found that same second plane impact in, they then started to add or subtract the camera-specific time-differences their calculations found.

I hope you understand that when they had situated quite some camera material that inherited that specific second plane impact event, all they had to do was correct all of its photos and videos.
After that, they only had to meticulously search for lots of other specific events in those few camera recordings, now with their corrected time stamps added, and start comparing all the other recorded, now time-corrected events with the bulk of material that did not held their standard event, that second WTC-2N plane impact. And so they went on and on, correcting in the very end, most of their handed over camera material incorrectly set times by their owners.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Such a simple question......

You haven't answered anything.

Take a breath and start simple.

In regards to p waves, s waves, and Rayleigh waves, what would be only exclusive to the detonation of a demolitions charge that created seismic activity 26 miles away. Especially, blast seismic activity is usually proven by measuring an accompanying atmosphere pressure wave. Or just by simply knowing the blast schedules of mines and quarries, or their location.

In fact, wasn't there a rock quarry near LDEO that was blasting and didn't stop work on September 11th?

Then out of the number of channels recorded at LDEO representing different axis of movement, how many channels captured the supposed seismic spike?

edit on 28-12-2016 by neutronflux because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Forgot reasons



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:46 PM
link   
One sneaky thing the NIST editing directors still tried, was adding 3 to 5 seconds to all their camera material, based on a suddenly "discovered" shady small little new seismic peak in front of that WTC-2S second plane impact seismogram.
Someone at NIST or LDEO (Kim, reluctant?) came up with that idea, after some pressure from far higher up to add some seconds to all the camera material. Reason or that political pressure unknown, we'll perhaps learn about that in the near future sometime.
That bounced back on them however in the case of my WTC-7 explosive thesis conclusion, since after that, the time stamp of the Cianca photo had to be corrected even later in time on the WTC-7 collapse seismogram its timeline.

They added by the way in the end a whopping NINE seconds to the WTC-7 material, so also the Cianca photo time stamp, but as far as I can remember, they silently retracted that later on, after finding out that the arrival of that Cianca seismic signal connected to his photo, in that case thus arrived later than the end of the global collapse signals.
These politically oriented guys that tried to influence NIST's researchers, can be really dumb most of the time.

And then that first red vertical NIST line drawn in there, in that above posted already simplified 4th seismogram with those green, red and blue vertical lines and texts in it, would instead ended up on top of the second vertical green LDEO line.
And consequently, the vertical second red NIST line, indicating that NIST Cianca photo event's arrival signal of the by NIST for 3 to 5 seconds upwards in time corrected time stamp on their original Cianca photo, would then even arrive another 3 to 5 seconds later on that seismogram, smack in the middle of that second pack of smaller seismic amplitudes that we expect to show the total energy of the whole global collapse period, making it even more catastrophic for NIST its official final explanation of the WTC-7 collapse sequence. Their sudden column 75 failure.

Just try to inform, any main stream US media outlet (CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX, etcetera) about THIS exact post of mine, and this whole thread, and especially my opening post in the "WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved" thread, and the rest of that thread.
I assure you that they will not pay attention to this enormous discrepancy in the published, official facts. Based simply on my discovery of the NIST approved Cianca photo time stamp, combined with the LDEO approved time scale and registered amplitudes, in their WTC-7 collapse seismogram.
There a child can see that NIST's own Cianca photo data does not fit at all the by LDEO registered WTC-7 collapse seismogram.
While the by LDEO in Nov. 2001 first offered time stamp of 5:20:33 p.m., as the first sign of beginning global collapse, without further explanation for which event that was meant, does much better fit both the NIST and LDEO data.
Was that the real time for the denting of the east penthouse roof, later found to have been recorded by Nicolas Cianca's photo camera.?
In July, 2015 I have narrowed down the only logical and real Cianca photo time stamp, to 5:20:37 p.m. N.Y. time, which time stamp fits as a glove all its preceding and following recorded explosive events.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
My good man, I am ignoring your strange questions typed in a strange English, I'll proceed with the rest of my posting, if you don't mind.
Some answers will eventually appear in them.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I hope I proved to the logically inclined ATS-readers, that only all the following events fit as a glove the whole recorded seismogram of the WTC-7 collapse sequence :

First the recorded deep sound of possibly a huge thermobaric bomb in the Charles Ewing Smith video, that crippled the lowest core columns of those lower 8 floors, followed after its circa 2 to 3 seconds duration, by the real time of the Cianca photo on that seismogram, of that east penthouse its roof denting.



Which is then immediately followed by the 8.5 seconds period in the Ashley Banfield News video, filmed by her camera man with accompanying audio, in which nine subsequent explosions ripped through those 8 lower floors.
Aha, your first answer.!

Directly followed after that, as the start of the global collapse, by a 2.5 seconds period of free fall acceleration of all those already crippled, lower vertical steel building parts, after the last explosion of the nine that were all recorded by Ashley Banfield her camera man.
Which happened inside the 32 meter height of those now devastated 8 lower floors.

Then after those 2.25 seconds, the global collapsed steel parts raced further downwards, now driven by all that accumulated mass and solely the forces of gravity, and ended when that huge neat pile of rubble came to rest, deposited mainly in the footprint of the former WTC-7 building.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Note that seismic frequency is expressed by LDEO in Herz, shorthand : Hz.
And amplitude of the seismic energy is expressed by LDEO, mostly in nanometer per second. Of leftover ground movement energy at their seismometers, after the original much higher seismic energy in Manhattan has traveled 34 Km through the upper crust of N.Y. State, in shorthand : nm/s.
The few officially published pieces, of the yet not published full LDEO seismograms of the three WTC collapses, were filtered by a frequency-range filter of 0.6 to 5 Hz.
The term PAL EHE stands for PAL : Palisades station ; E : short periods ; H : high gain ; E : East compound.
The registered seismic waves by LDEO were Rayleigh surface waves (R, a.k.a. Rg), and P and S waves.

I am specifically interested in the preceding hours and minutes in front of the by LDEO published timescale, on their collapse seismogram of WTC-7.
With the latest seismic techniques I referenced in the REFERENCES section I will post later on below, we could perhaps calculate much more precise, if those signals originated from the WTC-7 site.
I ask that, since there were numerous news reporters that told us on camera that they heard in the vicinity of the WTC its Twin Towers collapse grounds, while walking around there and near the still standing WTC-7, multiple explosions, all day, and some of these explosions were registered on that LDEO published seismogram of the whole day of 9/11, however at such an insensitive scale that I can't see in enough detail, the energies involved Note especially the huge 11:15:04 N.Y. time, amplitudes peaks pack, with circa 650 nm/s maximum amplitude.

Note : Click this link, to see the 2 next photos its source.
Interesting detail in there :


At the time of the attacks, Kim and his family were all still citizens of South Korea, where Kim grew up. Sept. 11 changed this. -snip - A few months later, he and his family all applied for U.S. citizenship. They were sworn in together as citizens in July 2002.


Was this citizenship subject perhaps also at stake for Shyam Sunder, so to see a former native from India or Pakistan, the NIST director that oversaw all NIST's final reports, and who could not quickly realize that the videos of WTC-7 showed, now undisputed, a 2.25 seconds free fall acceleration period. They clearly had not informed him about that.
One of his staff members however, so to see also from India or Pakistan, did react quite fast on David Chandler's remarks, seated at a table behind Shunder, at that final NIST WTC-7 collapse report its Q&A meeting with the press and questioners that were allowed to visit that meeting. That alert young guy took immediately over from Shunder, who looked really embarrassed and without any firm response.
And that young man then immediately said that NIST would look further into it and would come back on it. He knew about it, very obvious.
Later NIST itself even came closer to free fall acceleration in their own calculations, based on their own collapse video measurements.
The sneaky thing they however came up with again, after that, was to try to add a period of several seconds before, and after the global collapse period of F.F.Acc.
They really tried hard to make it seem as if those 2.25 seconds belonged inside that longer period they came up with, which is of course a very peculiar explanation by NIST, they know very well that Chandler was totally right, and Sunder even enhanced that find, by explaining to the public, directly after Chandler's remarks, that in any case of F.F.Acceleration to be true, there would have been no resistance from any importance inside that 8 floors height that accelerated in free fall over circa 32 meters, at a speed, as good as indiscernible from the known precise free fall acceleration speed at that geological position.
He clearly knew about that fact of course already for a long time, young and eager investigative academics are not THAT stupid....The NIST report end-editors clearly had White House Staff orders to not bring such incriminating evidence of WTC-7 wrongdoing, up to the forefront...
Something to dive into, by our local US-conspiracy theorists. Search for, or look up Shyam Sunder's US citizen appliance public files, perhaps.? If that is at all possible. Just so as to add that snippet of personal information to the already huge 9/11 files.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop


Very simple.

You cannot explain the standard relationship and time intervals between P waves, S waves Rayleigh waves. The real determination of travel time and cause of seismic activity is the relationship between P waves, S waves, and Rayleigh waves for a known ground composition.

Really? You cannot enlighten the reader for your supposed seismic spike the characteristic P waves, S waves, and Rayleigh waves that would be exclusive to demolitions? Or you cannot?


edit on 28-12-2016 by neutronflux because: Had extra reply



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   


LDEO should publish this next shown original reddish seismogram (partly and unreadable shown by Dr. Won-Young Kim from LDEO) of the day of 9/11, in its totality, and at a 0 to 10 nm/s scale.
Based on their originally registered electronic data, of the seismic energies received :



The two Twin Tower collapses were misleadingly (perhaps unintended, to fit that diagram of the maximum seismic energies amplitudes involved, in a down-scaled, one A-4 page fitting, now 10x more insensitive diagram) shown and written to the public on that insensitive scale of 10 to 100 nm/s, which masked the preceding, relatively huge energy bursts, for both collapses, that were both comparable and in the same energy range as the WTC-7, global collapse-preceding, biggest first group of seismic energy amplitude peaks.
See my original 2005 and 2006 seismic LDEO-diagrams with my additional own remarks in my former post HERE.
While the two plane impacts and the WTC-7 collapse were shown and written at a 10x more sensitive scale of 0 to 10 nm/s.
Only when I up-scaled the sensitivity of those 2 Twin Tower collapses diagrams by LDEO to 0 to 10 nm/s, you could see the comparable preceding huge seismic energies in all THREE collapse diagrams published by LDEO.

On to, at last, to that above linked-to post of yours.
n.fl.: The biggest proof of your pseudoscience, NO recorded audio and atmospheric pressure waves from your false one big bomb.
No steel worked on, cut by, nor prep for demolitions.


Your first sentence : Pure disinformation.
To begin with, my seismic thesis is about the WTC-7 collapse, if you forgot that.
While Furlong & Ross and Dr. Rousseau posted seismic thesis about the Twin Tower collapses, and partly the WTC-7 collapse.
See all my explosion sounds their video-link posts in page one and two and following pages, in my "WTC-7 Mysteries Finally Solved" thread, and the many more posted over my 11 years of ATS posting, in this 9/11 forum. Re-search it...again.

Regarding your second sentence : You should try some honest, real facts-finding, for a change.
I posted page links to Major_Tom's website in this thread and my "WTC-7 Mysteries Finally Solved" thread, with the amount of SAVED steel core columns from each Twin Tower as the only interesting columns for Furlong & Ross and Dr. Rousseau their Twin Towers seismic collapses studies, namely the ones from the burning floors and especially from the impact/collapse initiation floors in both Towers :
SAVED steel columns from the Twin Towers impact & fires regions :
Only one floor-height core column piece (WTC-1N nr 603), and two floor-height core column pieces, from the same core column, respectively (WTC-2S nrs 801, 2 stacked up, adjacent to each others top and bottom ends, core columns).

FEMA and the FBI should have saved at least 12 times 47 = 564 one floor high CORE column pieces from both Twin towers their impacted and on-fire floors.!
Reminder : there were 246 exterior columns and 47 core columns in each of them.
That means any honest FEMA or NIST or FBI investigator of the Twin Tower collapses, should have saved 12 floors times 246 = 2952 exterior column pieces one floor high, for future research and investigation at the Freshkil Island 9/11 WTC waste dump/repository.!
And they should not have shipped all of this vital research steel to China, as fast as could be, following hastily orders from, at that time Mayor Giuliani, who was clearly following non registered, kept from the public, White House Staff and Administration orders.
That's why Giuliani placed that highly suspicious 50 years ban on his personal papers from his period as mayor of New York.

SAVED steel columns from WTC-7 : NONE at all.!
I suppose YOU are not getting nervous at all about that stinking to high heaven FACT.

n.fl. : One, why would it mater if the van was on wheels. The seismic activity would be due to the pressure waves alone acting on the structure, ground, and foundation. Your on wheels is pseudoscience.
Look it up in my post above yours. I typed it already out for you, you obviously were so eager to post your next unsubstantiated accuses, that you forgot to read it and let it sink in :
"" LT : Said LDEO's Kim and Lerner-Lam and other seismologists at the time, and later on.""
It's in fact a 2001-2002 remark from the, by the Bush Administration, FEMA and NIST approved official seismologists, in one of their by LDEO approved 2001 and 2002 publications.
So, in fact YOU address these colleagues (instead of me) nearly 16 years later as pseudo-scientists.
Logical result from your classification : The whole LDEO seismic report is PSEUDOSCIENCE.!

n.fl. : Two, your seismic interpretation is that. Not even backed by Conspiracist Dr. Wood. I think even debunked by Wood. There is no proof of a seismic spike due to a bomb. No physical evidence of Bombs. An out right out falsehood.

NO, to the contrary, it's far more simple than an interpretation, it's a straight out, simple and scientifically sound, FACT.

I used two officially endorsed 9/11 "research" publications, the seismic reports from LDEO and the WTC-7 final report from NIST, to point those official "researchers" on another FACT given in the final WTC-7 NIST report (which fact is, during all that time, and up till now, NEVER retracted by NIST), namely the officially by NIST researchers calculated time-stamp on the Cianca photo of the first visual sign of the onset of a coming global collapse, the east penthouse on top of the WTC-7 roof, beginning to dent.
I spend btw a few long posts in the past years on their time stamping method. With lots of explanatory diagrams and texts copied from all the former and the final NIST reports.
Easy to find by using the ATS Search function. Use the words : LaBTop NIST time stamp.



posted on Dec, 28 2016 @ 10:21 PM
link   
By the way, are you serious.? Conspiracist Dr. Wood..?
She's sadly mistaken in her 9/11 events solution proposals, don't waste precious time on her 9/11 ideas anymore. Her short time of 9/11 fame is long past.
She collected quite an impressive heap of interesting video and photo material, that put a lot of first time 9/11 conspiracy thinkers on the wrong leg, but then she followed some wrong thought lines and possible solutions for the 9/11 problems.

You should instead frequent Major_Tom's website for real 9/11 facts. It's a treasure trove, all posters there are by the way former longtime JREF posters, now disgruntled with that site's members their usual vitriolic approach to creative thinkers. (Now renamed ISF, International Skeptics Forum)

Regarding your remark, n.fl.: There is no proof of a seismic spike due to a bomb. No physical evidence of Bombs :
I advice you to come up with a scientifically solid refusal, based on physics and seismology, of my opening post remarks in this WTC-7 DIAGRAM, in my thread : "WTC-7 Mysteries Finally Solved", and not based solely on your personal opinion. Bring me some counter-facts, if you can, instead of asking vague questions with no clear goal.
Instead of boldly accusing me of posting n.fl. : An out right [out] falsehood.
Without any substance added, to underwrite that personal opinion.



You only need to ask yourself, why the first group of BIGGEST amplitude peaks in that WTC-7 collapse seismogram, precedes by several long seconds, the arrival of the seismic signals belonging to the Cianca photo event, the first sign of a part of that WTC-7 building moving or shifting, time stamped by NIST as 5:20:46 p.m.
A few small seismic amplitude signals, belonging to the first indication of the 8.5 seconds later starting global collapse of WTC-7, which was the first visual indication on video and on the by NIST time stamped Cianca photo as 5:20:46 p.m. local NY time, showing the denting of the small east penthouse roof and subsequent sinking down of the whole east penthouse into the huge 47th floor's roof area.
Those few, by now quite weakened energetic seismic signals then arriving at the seismographs at the LDEO seismological Earth Institute at Palisades, N.Y. State, 34 Km north of Manhattan, after traveling some long 17 seconds through 34 Km rock, gravel, mud and sand in the upper crust of N.Y. State.



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join