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: 7
91
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2016 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


Atomic clock is not a standard is accuracy.


Wrong, they are now.


Atomic Clocks to Become Even More Accurate

www.livescience.com...




posted on May, 23 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Informer1958




Since we are discussing facts in LaBTop presentation, can you give us your evidence that proves LaBTop presentation is not correct?

Remember your "opinions" are not facts unless you can back them up.





Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."


Just because some guy on the internet posts page after page doesn't mean he's correct.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent




Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."


I will disregard your answer and I find it useless, because there is no credible source.


Just because some guy on the internet posts page after page doesn't mean he's correct.


Yet you cannot prove it.

Posting articles without sources do not make you right.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop

Ask a simple question and you give me paragraphs? Just asked how network news in 2001 professionally had their times set on their field cameras to ensure they had the correct time. There is a process in science and industry to ensure equipment that measures is calibrated accurately and periodically. The calibration is usually set by a calibration lab. The lab documents how accurate the device is working. Simple statement. Prove that network news follows a standard to ensure time accuracy and how they conform / document to that standard. Then you need to prove the seismographs adhere to the same standard or a greater standard.

Something like this for starters. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

You act like you know nothing about lab procedures. What you are implying without proof is the video time stamps are of scientific lab quality with no proof what standard the news networks hold themselves to.


To make life easier for you, I will rephrase your post as follows, hopefully you then understand you pick the wrong fight :


Ask NIST a simple question and NIST gives me paragraphs? Just asked how Network News in 2001 professionally had their times set on their field cameras to ensure they had the correct time. There is a process in science and industry to ensure equipment that measures is calibrated accurately and periodically. The calibration is usually set by a calibration lab. The lab documents how accurate the device is working. Simple statement. Let NIST prove that Network News follows a standard to ensure time accuracy and how they conform / document to that standard. Then NIST needs to prove the seismographs adhere to the same standard or a greater standard.

Something like this for starters. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

NIST acts like NIST knows nothing about lab procedures. What NIST is implying without proof is the video time stamps are of scientific lab quality with no proof what standard the news networks hold themselves to.


Try to understand that NIST sidestepped all your precious procedures, they introduced a totally new concept, the comparison of known atomic clocked times in news seeds events, to the atomic clocked times recorded in seismograms.
It's well known in geophysical circles that all their seismograms are atomic clock-based timed since before WWII.
How did you think, they did and still do that.? And how the Networks got to their on-screen time "bugs".?

It was TOTALLY uninteresting for NIST how the operators time checked their equipment.
They introduced a new, reliable technique to time-stamp all their camera material, as simple as that, no need for your precious standards anymore, since those can be wrongly implemented, inflicted with mechanical failures etc.


How many times more do I have to ask you to read the NIST Report NCSTAR 1-5A .?
NIST explains their method expeditiously in there, it's getting seriously annoying for the readers/posters here, like talking to a brick. Who lacks reading comprehension or willingness to do so.

And again, the networks LAG TIME was less than 1 SECOND for all major 9/11 events.!



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux


Atomic clock is not a standard is accuracy.


Wrong, they are now.


Atomic Clocks to Become Even More Accurate

www.livescience.com...


Atomic clock always work? They are a device not lad standard or manufacturering standa. Are saying that there are no procedures to check their accuracy and never require maintenance. And what does this have to do with lab procedures and documentation. What does this have to do with standard TV stations. If the 911 camers had GPS time stamps just give the video example, model of the camera if it was GPS enabled, proof the camera was not in manual while being used, and shown to be in working order by calibration lab. You would ask the same of the NIST? Just basic. Science protocol.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
A reply to: samkent


Just because some guy on the internet posts page after page doesn't mean he's correct.


Just because a Popular Mechanics editor wrote a shoddy piece of yellow journalism which has been thoroughly crashed into the ground by several better informed writers, doesn't mean that sorry relative of a 9/11 planning suspect is right.

You wrote PM, you hoped we would miss those two letters, as proved by your non-linking to said article.
The whole Internet knows for ten years already why that sad figure wrote that OS backing garbage article.

Lerner Lam has retired from the online debates very early already, he knew all too well he was manipulated by some very "patriotic" politically oriented types, too early to give a balanced opinion.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 05:12 PM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

I see you posted 2 minutes after I posted above your last post.
Did you read my post and at last UNDERSTOOD that your arguments are not adhering to this discussion?
It's not at all important for the NIST method, if the camera men were following proper procedures to check their equipments timing reliability.

NIST based all their time stamps on comparison techniques, from events they knew were provided with on screen atomic clock based "time bugs", the ones you see all the time since you were young in all news feeds, in the right bottom corner, or the right top corner, or where ever else on screen. And those bugs were based on NIST provided atomic clock times.

GOT IT NOW ?



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux


Just asked how network news in 2001 professionally had their times set on their field cameras to ensure they had the correct time. There is a process in science and industry to ensure equipment that measures is calibrated accurately and periodically.


If it is so easy why don't you pick up the phone and call the networks?

I am sure they would be happy to help you.


It's even simpler, let him read the NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Report, then he will discover that NIST also used the 98RADES radar reflection times from the impact of the second plane in the South Tower, to compare to the Networks recordings of that event, and thus they had another atomic clocked procedure, radar recordings, to rely on, to convince them of the accuracy of the video filmed event.
From there on, they could calculate back and forth to other events recorded in other material.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

Simple question. Did the cameras used to film 911 have GPS to time stamp and if so what models were they. If not GPS enableded, asking how field cameras have their time controlled by atomic clock. Final point, what standard does the news networks follow to ensure the time stamps are synchronized with the seismographs.

Give you an exapmle. "News network xxxx used field vedio camera hhhh-100 with GPS. Network uses standard ISO 9000 which is the same time standard use by seismograph bbbbb. The standard reqires calibration ever six months and installed tamper seals on the manual controls for manual time controls"



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

Even simpler question :
How would you detect the most exact possible, atomic clocked time in all 9/11 video and photo material in possession by NIST, if you also had access to the 89RADES radar reflection times returned from the plane's body that impacted the South Tower, which event was filmed and photographed by numerous cameras, that after that, kept recording lots of other 9/11 events.

EDIT : NIST could have analyzed 1910 cameras shots, which had to be operated by turning a handle around, to roll up the film.
Since its recordings, send by horseback to the studio, would still have the impact of that second plane on its celluloid.
And then they could compare that point on the celluloid to the by them known atomic clock timed 89RADES recorded radar wave returns from that plane's aluminum body.
They specifically show the time discrepancies for EVERY video or photo set in their possession. Only not at all on line....Only the Cianca photo set is online, as their main example, all the others can only be viewed by government appointed officials.
edit on 23/5/16 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
There is no documented proof the video recording device times were synchronized with the seismographs? Not even one calibration GPS vedio camera that day. Very sad.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

When you realize that 300 atomic clocks would ALL be indicating the same EXACT time with a margin of the millionth decimal after the comma, you will start to understand that your above remark is redundant.

The seismographs were coupled to atomic clocks, just as the onscreen bugs in the Network studios, and just as the 89RADES radar stations recordings.
That's only 3 clocks, which were all three perfectly synchronized. No need for more or extra precision.
edit on 23/5/16 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

How did they control the time of the field cameras on 911. Calibration proof field camera times were correct?



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
A reply to: neutronflux

They relied not at all on calibrations for those camera recordings, they used the exact identical events filmed by many of them, then compared those to more and more known events already reliably time stamped, based on that second plane impact recorded in hundreds of cameras.

They have not timed all their material that way, that was not possible, read my "ditto" screenshots, the amount of usable materials is mentioned in there.

EDIT : it's mentioned in my screenshot nr 39 :

39.

files.abovetopsecret.com...
ditto


The timing process was initially difficult. However, Task staff timing skills improved with practice while more visual material became available, and the number of timed assets increased. Ultimately, 3,357 of the 7,118 catalogued photographs and 2,789 of the 6,982 video clips in the database were timed with assigned relative uncertainties of 3 s or better.


The main events were accurate within periods of less than 1 second.

edit on 23/5/16 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop

You were implying network cameras were held to a standard dictated around synchronizing to atomic clocks. Now your argument for being synchronized with the seismographs is scrapbook techniques? And the only things not apart of the 911 conspiracy is the NIST and government ran atomic clocks. So sad so week.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
For the slowly realizing members that they are becoming doubters, with a lot of spare time to spend, this HIGHLY interesting HUGE page on the collapse of WTC 7, by Joel van der Reijden :

www.isgp.nl...



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

With about one second? Even if that is documented. So some of your stated times are two second intervals. 1 second is half of your two seconds. that indicates you figuring can be between one to three seconds off. So by your own implications your times can be oshort one second or long one second.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


With about one second? Even if that is documented. So some of your stated times are two second intervals. 1 second is half of your two seconds. that indicates you figuring can be between one to three seconds off. So by your own implications your times can be oshort one second or long one second.


One or two seconds is not going to matter in the time stamp videos or seismographs, what is your point?


Question: Do you support the NIST Report?



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: LaBTop




Just because a Popular Mechanics editor wrote a shoddy piece of yellow journalism which has been thoroughly crashed into the ground by several better informed writers,

Be careful about calling others work 'yellow journalism''.
Your work is only posted on a conspiracy site.
We still await some reference as to your credentials in seismology.



posted on May, 23 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


October 25, 2013, Michael Newman, NIST Public Affairs Office, to William Pepper, attorney for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. NIST is admitting criminal negligence here. They're also lying, because in this case the web stiffeners at the end of crucial girder A2001 were mainly there to prevent lateral walk off failure. If NIST had included them in the model, they couldn't have caused the initial collapse initiation failure. And this is just one problem with the NIST investigation no media outlet is willing to touch.


www.isgp.nl...

You might learn a thing or two about NIST criminal behavior, while they were concocting their pseudo report.

There is a whole lot more to read in the above source of other critical mistakes NIST made.

Why don't you question NIST and their pseudo methods of never showing their models to explain the demise of WTC 7?



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join