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.

 

Popular Mechanics Is Correct? (Seismographs)

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   
I am writing an article on Popular Mechanics.

There is one thing I am unable to work out whether or not they are right about the seismograph analysis or what (I want to do an unbiased and truthful article.)

www.popularmechanics.com...

I know Howard has mentioned before that if you look at the seismographs over a shorter period of time, there are no giant spikes.

Could you please explain this more Howard?

I would like to know all of your opinions of this guys.




posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 06:34 AM
link   
I think Popular Mechanics is a mouthpiece for the Government, they only represented NISTs view in 2001 but look at how they praised the WTC construction in 1993 after the '93 basement bombing:



Pillars Of Strength
The wreckage was greater than anyone could have imagined, Maikish recalls. But the World Trade Center was in no danger of collapsing. "No other structure, no complex would have withstood that kind of blast," claims Maikish.

After all, the giant buildings are designed to resist a once-in-a-century wind blast of 150 mph. Each tower can sway up to 3 ft. in heavy winds. The instruments that record this swaying registered nothing from the explosion. The structures were also engineered to soak up the impact of a Boeing 707, the biggest plane in the skies when the towers went up in the late 1960s.

This strength arises from the towers' unique steel curtain walls, the exterior frames designed by architect Minoru Yamasaki. Twenty-one steel columns, spaced 10 ft. apart and braced with horizontal spandrels, make up each facade of the towers. These are the main load-bearing components of the structures. True, the explosion did not occur within the footprint of either building, but even the loss of 10 columns in a tower could not have triggered a collapse, says Fasullo. (Eugene Fasullo, chief engineer for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey)


Instead, the bomb delivered its blow to the 12-in.-thick reinforced-concrete floor slabs in the 6-level basement that lies below both the Vista Hotel and the plaza between the towers. Centered on level B2, the explosion shattered that level's floor slab and gouged holes through the two floors above. The blast also ripped downward to level B5, a cavernous, 3-story-high machinery area that houses the towers' refrigeration plant.

Normally, these floor slabs shore up a massive concrete foundation wall—the so-called bathtub wall that keeps earth and groundwater out of the basement. They also buttress nine structural columns that support the northeast corner of the Vista Hotel. Yet, although the slabs were blown to smithereens, they acted as blast deflectors, absorbing the explosion's energy and confining the structural damage.
www.popularmechanics.com...



Doesn't sound like they should fall at all in 2001 according to Popular Mechanics from their July 1993 magazine and re-published on September 13, 2001. The buildings sound uniquely suprior in strength, they can "soak up" planes!

Concrete being pulverised, according to them, creates energy absorbing resistance but in 2001, the pancake pulverisation theory equals near zero resistance.

They aren't a consistent source and their 2001 physics are based on NISTs so it's not really going to solve anything but spread the governments story - even if it contradicts their previous analysis.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
The seismograph analysis is correct, if you email the Seismic laboratory that supplied the readings I'm sure that they will happily confirm this for you.

The long term reading is indeed very misleading to the untrained eye.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Yeh but if you zoom in on the seismograph for the longer time peroid, the spike is still there, the spikes are HUGE.

It makes no sense that they dissapear.

Although I am not saying you are incorrect.

Everthing else Popular Mechanics says is a lie (I will publish my article soon.)



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You will probably encounter more questions than solid answers on the 9/11 seismic topic.

Until you will find a boardmember, or better, a geo-scientist, "skilled in the art" of interpreting these graphs and willing to risk his scientific credibility, I expect you will not extract much more out of it than I did.

Do not get fooled by some of the scenario's hunted after in that thread, it is just an endeavour in finding possible answers, however farfetched they seem.

After 4 years of spending an insane amount of time, the conclusion glores on the horizon, that we have to peal off the skin of circles of foreknowledgeable intimates.
While every growing circle knew less, the further they were from the central core of foreknowledgeable persons.
Classical cell construction, nearly impossible to ever catch the "breeders".

On top of this US cell system, it seems that the most inner circle in the USA has been majesticly conned by at least 2 "friendly" foreign nations agencies, which have a much longer attention span and far more patience than the US agencies, and who both are playing the game out of desperate hope on survival as a nation and institution, while the USA is not even aware how high the future stakes are already set by them.

It's a classical historical case of feeding the bully the right anger, let him wear his armies out on successive battlefields, then finish him off in the end by the unexpected "coupe de grace", be it an economic or strategic one.

I bet on the economic one, that's their favorite one, liked by these players the most.
Just have a long, serious look at the implications of recent treaties between certain nations, not reported on by US mainstream media.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:55 AM
link   
Find the LDEO 9/11 WTC events here in this 2001-2005 earthquake index page of them :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

The WTC seismic records and some comments can be found in this subdirectory :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

1. They provide a table of events there :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
where they state that the WTC-7 collaps had a signal duration of 18 seconds!

Compare that to the signal duration of the collapses of the South and North tower :

Collapse 1, South Tower , 09:59:04±1 , Magnitude 2.1 , 10 seconds

Collapse 2, North Tower , 10:28:31±1 , Magnitude 2.3 , 8 seconds

When you look at this Real Payer video of the WTC-7 collaps ( www.whatreallyhappened.com... ), it doesn't appear as if the visible collaps took 18 seconds. More like 8 seconds.
So, what caused the far longer seismic signal duration of this particular last collaps on that strange day? Of a much smaller and much less massive structure than the two previously collapsed towers.

Are the various spikes in the first part of the seismic record of the WTC-7 collaps indicating cutter charges going off, or is it a much slower starting, partial invisible internal collumns and beams collapsing from a much less massive structure, which didn't have to bear such massive loads as 2 other collapsed towers had to?

I doubt you could ever proof without doubt one of the possibillities, based on a seismic record alone.
But I've seen floating around here and elsewhere videos of quite curious descending rows of smoke puffs excreting from top to bottom, from one side of WTC-7, just before collapsing.
Notice that this occured well before you saw the structure move or collaps, so compressed air shooting out, from "pancaking" floors, is likely out of order. Because if some one would argue that it was a central-core starting collaps, then the compressed air would have been levelled out in the surrounding areas, and could not have caused these specific puffs of smoke in one particular area only ( the top 20 floors corner of the building).

2. Why is nobody asking what that strange dip indicates in this WTC-7 collaps seismic record, between 20 and 26 seconds of the event? ( www.ldeo.columbia.edu... , 5th bottom graph)
And to me it looks pretty obvious that the major spikes are located between 6 and 36 seconds in the event recorded, thus indicating an even longer event-signal duration of a whopping 30 seconds.
Note on nrs 3 and 4 collaps graphs: Both have an exessive dip in the middle, where the amplitude of the oscillations suddenly falls back to about 1/3 of the preceeding and following peaks. What on earth does that mean, and why lasts nr 3 about 1 sec, and nr 4 about 2 sec? God/Allah took a deep breath, before continuing his punishment?
I didn't visually noticed a sudden halt of falling debris during collaps of all 3 buildings, to start again 1, 2 or 6 seconds later.

3. And could anybody explain to me why a scientist can give two totally different data in the same WTC-7 graph:
Building 7 Collapse: 21:20:33 (UTC)
PAL EHE start time 21:20:40
Or could it mean that the recorded signals on that day and location all arrived 7 seconds later through the earth crust at Pallisades, covering the 21 miles distance from the events?
In that case, I have another question to ask again:
Why are there so many differences in the given event time stamps above the graphs, and the printed starting times on the graphs on that WTC page?
Nr 1. 4 seconds later.
Nr 2. 1 second later.
Nr 3. 3 seconds later.
Nr 4. 1 second earlier.
Nr 5. 7 seconds later.
They are definitely not all starting 7 seconds later. Only one, WTC-7, the most mysterious collaps by the way.
So what is the observed starting point of collaps in all these 3 graphs? The +0.0s point, or the moment the spikes grow significantly larger than the overall normal values of the crust movements in rest? Or the stated event time above each graph?
And did they compare the collaps starting times recorded in Manhattan with their seismographs atomic clock timestamps in Pallisades, 21 miles (34 km) north of lower Manhattan in Rockland County? I suppose so.
In that case, why do the graph's real big spikes indicating massive debris hitting the ground or tops of collapsing buildings impacting on the rest of the building, not compare to worldwide broadcasted timestamps of the 3 building collaps starting times of the events broadcasted on 9/11, which they even put themself so conveniently above the graphs of each collaps?
Last but not least, why did they then cut-off 7 important seconds of beginning recording time of the WTC-7 collaps which are nowhere to be found on their pages?

I'm not too sure that it is even important, since we all know that the first attempt to blow up a WTC tower by a car bomb in the parking garage under a WTC tower did not give a seismic reading at all, because the explosives were not attached (luckily) to any core collumns or beams or the bedrock walls.
The only evidence potentially to be found by any conspiracy proponent in a seismic record presented this way, would be of massive explosions connected to the bedrock fundaments of the core columns of all 3 buildings.
I don't think you will ever find these in these types of graphs, presented in this form. I'm just curious if these scientists have better filters at hand to finetune their recordings, but were forbidden to use them publicly.

3. You can find several more seismic records of New York, New Yersey and even Manhattan natural earthquakes in their index page.

One of them is this one :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
Do they mean their station in western Connecticut, northern New Jersey or do they also have one on Coney Island?
And why did they use timeframes of 1 second here, and processed this 08/19/2001 signal so late on Tue Sept 18, 2001?
And why didn't they include identically filtered graphs of the WTC events from their other stations around New York? Why only from the one in Pallisades?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Ive lost all respect for Popyular Mechanics. They took the MOST outrageous 9/11 conspiracies we all agree are bogus to go after, and the ones we agree on here; they totally white washed it or simply(like the 9/11 commission) ignored it.

Oh yeah, isnt the writer conencted to the CIA?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   


Oh yeah, isnt the writer conencted to the CIA?


He is the first cousin of the director of Home Land Security.

Popular Mechanics is indeed a total propaganda attempt, 9/11 was an inside job and I will never forget it.
This whole war on terror is bogus.

However I wanted to do an honest debunking article, I will give credit to them for getting 1 thing correct (all the other things they say are stretched truths and out right lies.)



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
For anyone interested, the 9/11 Research Site published this critique of the PM article, categorizing each claim PM makes as supported, unanalyzed, or debunked, and offering details and evidence.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I saw Jim Hoffman updated that page now compared to the first time I saw it, and added quite some more relevant info.
( Is that the same man calling himself there David Hoffman, who also did that excellent investigation paper and book into the 5 explosions at the Oklahoma City Murrah building bombing, which 2 Pentagon expert investigators now admit have taken place there, while they have insisted all the time that only the McVeigh truck bomb exploded in front of it, so why would we be surprised that in the near future additional info on WTC collaps explosions would appear? See for that proof my last post, second quote from bottom, in my 9/11 Timeline thread, mentioned in my first post in this thread).

It would be highly interesting to ask one of the geo-scientists at LDEO ( they seem to be openminded and cooperative) if they have also graphs available to the public of the North-South component seismograms of this graph :

external image

since their Pallisades station is 21 km NNE of New York. Why did they only provide the East-West component?

A further question to ask would be if they can provide the same 2 graphs, however then with different filters processed.
These ones were filtered for 0.6 to 5 Hz, below possible registration of (eventual) cutter charges or demolition explosions, which I assume would register at higher Hz rates. It could never hurt to pass the question also to them, if that assumption is a valid one.
For those investigating minds present here, a list of email addresses of LDEO researchers :
For further information contact :
Won Young Kim wykim@ldeo.columbia.edu
Jeremiah Armitage jha@ldeo.columbia.edu
John Armbruster armb@ldeo.columbia.edu
Klaus Jacob jacob@ldeo.columbia.edu
Arthur Lerner-Lam lerner@ldeo.columbia.edu
Paul Richards richards@ldeo.columbia.edu
Lynn R. Sykes sykes@ldeo.columbia.edu
Jia-Kang Xie xie@ldeo.columbia.edu

Next question could be what that S? vertical line through the 2 collapses in above graph indicates.
I assume it to be the visual sighting of the moment the towers began to crumble, because I expect the seismic signal to have started about 8 to 10 seconds later when the bulk of the rubble of both towers hit ground level. However, when these massive core collumns started to snap at the floorlevels of earlier airplane impact, that would clearly also instignated a pretty strong oscillating wave signal downwards through the still standing column parts into their fundaments in the bedrock, and that would be the main starting point of the seismic signal, in my opinion.
However I read on their website that they work with S and R and another signal sometimes.

I still am baffled by the 18 (or even 30) seconds duration of the seismic signal from the WTC-7 collaps!
And the 6 seconds dip between 2 distinct groups of signal peaks!

external image

That should be asked as the most nagging question to them; what possibly could have caused such a discrepancy in signal duration, compared to the WTC-1 and 2 collapses.
Again, the visible collaps of WTC-7 took no more than EIGHT seconds.

What the heck caused all these other seismic anomalies before and after the visible collaps of that mysterious building?

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 29/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

1. They provide a table of events there :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
where they state that the WTC-7 collaps had a signal duration of 18 seconds!

Compare that to the signal duration of the collapses of the South and North tower :

Collapse 1, South Tower , 09:59:04±1 , Magnitude 2.1 , 10 seconds

Collapse 2, North Tower , 10:28:31±1 , Magnitude 2.3 , 8 seconds

When you look at this Real Payer video of the WTC-7 collaps ( www.whatreallyhappened.com... ), it doesn't appear as if the visible collaps took 18 seconds. More like 8 seconds.
So, what caused the far longer seismic signal duration of this particular last collaps on that strange day? Of a much smaller and much less massive structure than the two previously collapsed towers.



Check out the NIST time sequence of the collapse. on page 26. the collapse started 8 seconds before the global collapse that everyone likes to look at.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   


the collapse started 8 seconds before the global collapse that everyone likes to look at.



I have a video showing the North Tower shaking before the collapse, what do you think caused this Howard? (I am Interested in hearing from you.)

I would also like to know other peoples comments.



posted on Sep, 30 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
HowardRoark,
thank you for that link. That was the info I needed, so I could compare videos, NIST table and LDEO graphs.

Have a look at the righthand picture on page 42 of your NIST report WTC-7 link, which depicts the first exterior sign of structural failure in WTC 7, the start of the sinking of the east penthouse roof structure into the building.
You clearly see the kink in the east penthouse roof.
The timestamp indicates it occured at 5:20:46 p.m. An even better picture is on page 24, but without timestamp.
Then have another look at the LDEO graph from the seismic event of the WTC-7 collaps in my post above.
Their graph start time is 21:20:40, which is local New York city time 5:20:40 p.m.
And exactly 6 seconds later, 5:20:46 p.m. you observe the first major anomalous seismic peak.
So now we have a definite common for the LDEO WTC-7 seismic event graph and the NIST Part IIC-WTC 7 Collaps Draft report.
Now, we can compare scientificly observed data on page 26 of the NIST report with the scientific seismic data of the LDEO graph :

Time Interval (sec)..........Total Time (sec)..............................................................................................LDEO WTC-7 time (sec)

........................................................................LDEO seismic graph start time.................................................0s=5:20:40
..........0.0..............................0.0.......................Movement of east penthouse roofline (Timestamp 5:20:46)..........6s
..........0.9..............................0.9.......................East penthouse kinks between columns 44 and 45.....................6.9s
........................................................................2 windows at floor 40 fail between columns 44 - 45......................6.9s - 7.2s
..........0.3..............................1.2.......................4 windows fail at floor 40...........................................................7.2s
........................................................................East penthouse submerged from view (now inside building)..........7.2s - 7.6s
..........0.4..............................1.7.......................3 windows break at floors 41 to 44.............................................7.6s
..........0.5..............................2.2.......................East penthouse completely submerged......................................8.1s
..........1.8..............................4.0.......................Windows break along column 46 at floors 37 and 40....................9.9s
..........3.0..............................7.0.......................North side of west penthouse moves..........................................12.9s
........................................................................Movement of entire north face of WTC7 (visible above floor 21)......12.9s - 13.1s
..........0.2..............................7.2.......................West end of roof starts to move.................................................13.1s
..........0.5..............................7.7.......................East end of roof starts to move..................................................13.6s
........................................................................Façade kink formed along column 46-47.....................................13.6s -
..........0.1..............................7.9.......................West penthouse submerged......................................................13.7s
..........0.3..............................8.2.......................Global collapse occurs as windows fail between floors 33-39........14.0s
........................................................................around column 55

First 2 strange calculation errors from NIST in above table :
TT 1.2 + TI 0.4 is 1.6 , not 1.7
TT 7.7 + TI 0.1 is 7.8 , not 7.9
Possible explanation : they forgot to include in both cases a 0.1 Time Interval on the blank lines.
Whatever reason, a sloppy job from either the author or the editor.
Let's hope that the final NIST report will be scrutinized by the end editors.
That's why I calculated the LDEO WTC-7 event-times with the supposed real figures, so these are at the end 0.2 seconds less than the Nist Total Time of 8.2 seconds.

Thus the pre-global collaps events took 14.0 - 6.0 = 8.0 seconds to complete and ended at the 14.0s position on the LDEO graph.
Then the global collaps started, which took (visibly observable in the offered videos online) between 8 and 10 seconds to complete.
Which brings us to the 22s to 24s LDEO graph position.

Anyone can see that there is something wrong with the postulation that the bulk of the WTC-7 debris did end up on the ground at the 24s position.
Because after that, at the 26s to 39s position something quite big and shocking disturbed the NY bedrock.
Much bigger or heavier than the supposed buckling or breaking of one or three main columns (nrs 79 to 81) at the 6s position which caused the penthouse roof to dent.

Now the main question I'm asking in all my posts on the seismic subject :
Are the LDEO graphs times compensated for latent delay period time caused by the difference in time between the collapses and the factual arrival of the signals at Pallisades seismic station?
There seems to be a latency delay period in the LDEO graph, they did not mention on that graph how many seconds the seismic signal from the event position at the WTC need to travel to their LDEO Palissades seismic station, which is 21 km NNE from Manhattan.
However, this could be common knowledge for geo-scientists, which I am definitely not.
But as a scientist, I would definitely include signal delay time in such a graph of global importance and political implications if that was not common knowledge. So I suppose they are compensated.

Try to explain please those huge disturbances taking 13-16 seconds to complete, after the building was already totally collapsed. I don't think that final settling of loose, whatever heavy debris could ever cause those huge seismic signals. Something huge must have been collapsed nearby there, after WTC-7 ended up at groundlevel, or the whole graph must be interpreted differently.
If you extrapolate the shape of the WTC-7 collaps to the other 2 previous collapses of WTC-1 and 2, you don't see these huge aftermath disturbances, and there was a lot more and heavier debris settling. There was some settling, but definitely not the same huge aftermath shaking, compared at the scales of WTC-7 (10) to WTC1-2 (1000) nm/s.


aelphaeis_mangarae,
I have included in my other thread mentioned above, the video clip of that cameraman.
And my remark, that as long as you can't interview said cameraman, asking him if he or another accidently kicked against the tripod he used, you don't have a single leg to stand on concerning a theory that 10 seconds before global collaps of that tower, something disturbed the NY bedrock, perhaps a demolition charge, or a major breakage of supporting main collumns, by whatever cause.
Remember, even for a news professional, that was an extraordinary day, which would make most professionals a titbit more nervous as on other days.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Regarding above post : one should add 17 seconds to all data in the NIST-LDEO comparison table I gave up there.

When you read Post Number: 1753437 (post id: 1775330) in this thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

you will come to the same conclusion as I did :
""The zero points (+0.0s) in the LDEO graphs are the visually and news-networks recorded timestamps of the 3 recorded and published WTC collapses, and you must go to the 15 to 19 seconds points (they assume a 2 sec possible fault), to compare visual and recorded times of starts of collapses with seismic data of the collapses, which arrived about 17 sec later at the Pallisades seismic station. ""
I would like to add to this comment, that at present, I suppose that you should include the timestamps given by the NIST report also, which stay in concert with the timestamps given on top of the LDEO charts of all 3 collapses, especially the WTC-7 collaps, which in fact started about 7 seconds earlier as commonly assumed before.

Next you can compare this event timestamp :
""Have a look at the righthand picture on page 42 of the NIST report WTC-7 link, which depicts the first exterior sign of structural failure in WTC 7, the start of the sinking of the east penthouse roof structure into the building.
You clearly see the kink in the east penthouse roof.
The timestamp indicates it occured at 5:20:46 p.m. ""

to this graph :

external image

and you will have to agree that the Rayleigh-signal arrival of the first exterior sign of structural failure in WTC 7, the start of the sinking of the east penthouse roof structure into the building is 17 seconds later, thus at the 5:20:63 p.m. point in real time, which is the 23 s point on the LDEO chart.
Btw, that moment was as Howard Roark helpfully explained already above there, about 8 seconds before the public saw WTC-7 start to collaps on their tv screens.

If you now open this page of the 9/11 impacts and collapses at the LDEO website :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

you will notice just as I did, that the first plane-impact's maximum peak-signal is comparable to the WTC-7 maximum peak-signal 4 or 5 sec BEFORE (at the 18-19s timestamp) the NIST report's indication (23s) of the first massive failure of bearing collumns in the WTC-7 building, which is again about 7 to 8 seconds before the whole roof and then the whole building started to collaps(at the 30s graph-point), the moment we all have seen on our tv's that day, and in thousands of links provided here and elsewhere.
Nobody noticed on 9/11 the 7 to 8 seconds earlier first sinking of the east penthouse roof structure, that took 3 to 4 years of meticulous research to conclude.

If nobody proofs me wrong somewhere in my assumptions, there is only one conclusion to come to :

Those 18 to 19 s LDEO-timestamped HUGE peak signals were comparable to the impact of a huge airplane, nearly full with fuel, at nearly top speed in the first WTC-tower hit.
In my opinion, that signal is impossible to be caused by the relatively far minor force on the bedrock of the snapping of just 1 to 3 bearing columns in the centre of WTC-7.

It must have been a huge explosion or multiple simultaneous explosions to break most of the bearing columns of the WTC-7 building at ground level, since we saw no huge explosions higher up, where the tv camera's were aimed at, which were only allowed to film behind the security perimeter lines, hundreds of meters away from WTC-7.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Please also have a look at the 2 photographs in this link, and give your opinion on that huge explosion cloud at WTC-7, while both WTC-1 and WTC-2 were still standing, so clearly before 09:59:04 a.m. on 9/11.
The black&white photo -could- have been taken after the collapse of one of the towers, and misinterpreted by that poster, but the color photo shows both towers, and they are clearly still standing, with their rooftops aligned, so nobody can say one of them is collapsing, and thus that cloud at WTC-7 is caused by a collaps.
I don't believe in that kind of explanation.

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 29/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Popular Mechanics is a tool for the goverment. I will never trust any of their articles at face value again after the disinformation campaign that was " The New Area51"



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Please also have a look at the 2 photographs in this link, and give your opinion on that huge explosion cloud at WTC-7, while both WTC-1 and WTC-2 were still standing, so clearly before 09:59:04 a.m. on 9/11.


That photo has been debunked as having been manipulated to add in the impression of two towers instead of one. Even at a cursory glance you can see that the perspective is wrong. The first appearance of this theory was propagated by strawman creator David von Kleist of "pods on the plane" fame. The dust cloud is from the collapse of WTC2.

[edit on 2005-10-29 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Thanks for telling that, wecomeinpeace.
I already found the smoke/dust column on the right side of the tower far too low situated to originate from or above the plane's impact point.

Was this a deliberate falsification of the originating website, or did he find this pic somewhere online, again a wishfull thinking effect and subsequently copying all over the Net by many, just as me?

I in fact also hope that my interpretation of the seismic charts of the WTC-7 collaps are based on wrong assumptions, but until now I found no contradictionary proof.

It is a frightening story, if this is the truth of WTC-7, with very grave implications for the world we live on.
I really hope someone here will prove me wrong soon.



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Was this a deliberate falsification of the originating website, or did he find this pic somewhere online, again a wishfull thinking effect and subsequently copying all over the Net by many, just as me?


Deliberate, originated by Von Kleist and then copied over the Net. It's in his video "In Plane Sight" which is full of all the strawmen and nothing else: No 757 at the Pentagon; pods on the plane; not standard planes that hit the towers; WTC6 explosion. He mentions WTC7 for 1 sentence, NORAD standown never, etc. When he shows the footage, it's only in stills. Why doesn't he show the full footage if he has it? And the first thing he says is, "The first thing we want to note, is that both towers are still standing." You can even see that the spire is in the wrong place. Von Kleist's whole movie is a great lesson in how well-constructed disinformation campaigns can be. And the Popular Mechanics article conveniently attacks every strawman that von Kleist set up for them. He's widely suspected amongst the serious peoples in the 9-11 truth movement as a shill.


I in fact also hope that my interpretation of the seismic charts of the WTC-7 collapse are based on wrong assumptions, but until now I found no contradictionary proof.


I've been taking a much-needed break from the 9-11 side of things, so I've only been glancing at your work and haven't investigated it in-depth. Seems very thorough on the surface. Keep it up. This will all come back to the fore when NIST's WTC7 report comes out soon.

[edit on 2005-10-30 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Oct, 30 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Deliberate, originated by Von Kleist and then copied over the Net. It's in his video "In Plane Sight" which is full of all the strawmen and nothing else: No 757 at the Pentagon; pods on the plane; not standard planes that hit the towers; WTC6 explosion. He mentions WTC7 for 1 sentence, NORAD standown never, etc. When he shows the footage, it's only in stills. Why doesn't he show the full footage if he has it? And the first thing he says is, "The first thing we want to note, is that both towers are still standing." You can even see that the spire is in the wrong place. Von Kleist's whole movie is a great lesson in how well-constructed disinformation campaigns can be. And the Popular Mechanics article conveniently attacks every strawman that von Kleist set up for them. He's widely suspected amongst the serious peoples in the 9-11 truth movement as a shill.


Hello


wecomeinpeace, please have a close look at this video :
www.911inplanesite.com...

There was no disinformation. Just a photo which, because it was suspicious, was included legitimately in the movie "In Plane Site". The photo of the smoke was indeed explained later as being due to wtc2 collapse. But this was not an intentional disinformation act at all.

Although i don't agree with all he says (military planes), Dave Von Kleist is certainly not a disinformator. He is a sincere and honest citizen who just want the truth. Nothing more.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   
Wecomeinpeace, that same feeling I have encountered all these long years repeatedly, luckily there was always some poster or publisher somewhere on the vast Web out there, that kickstarted my interest again for the desire to know the whole truth of that, tragic for so many, historical day in September 2001 which turned out for so many world citizens to be of life-threatening importance.
After the second November elections where these imperialistic conservatives emerged again with a new ruling term, I saw most of the frequent 9/11 posters and contributors suffer from a severe drawback of the whole 9/11 subject. And I was writing essentially to myself on a forgotten webspace.
But then I found this place, and discovered a pletora of likeminded souls, pro and anti any form of 9/11 conspiracy.
And I saw it was a GOOD discussion going on, with intelligent characters on both sides of the bench.
That is the essential value of any good forum, a balance of a bulk of intelligent posters, who at the end of a heated discussion, still value eachother for their contributions.

I felt home again.


Now I'm busy with the much needed NIST-LDEO table correction to obtain a clearer picture of WTC-7 events. I'm trying to construct a table which will fit in the text-space of this forum, which is not easy, making the text-size smaller doesn't seem to work here, so I try quoting perhaps in the next post.
(print that WTC-7 graph, and make notes on it, then you get the best events impression with the right times added) :

For the readers convenience, I have updated in my next post my first NIST-LDEO comparison table above (with the now proved wrong assumption that LDEO compensated their graphs already for the 17 sec signal-arrival delay time at the +0.0s point) and a lot of added remarks, to try to make my case better to understand for everybody who did not notice the discrepancy in that famous WTC-7 seismic graph from LDEO.

You HAVE to distinct at all times, between the NewYorkVisualTime (NYVT) of eyewitnessed events around the WTC-7 building and the 17 seconds later PalisadesSeismicRecordingTime (PSRT) of seismic recordings regarding arrival of these visually noticed events in New York.

That distinction is very important to begin to understand where NIST made a nice gesture regarding the WTC-7 events with that one photograph with an added NYVT-stamp of 5:20:46 pm from the first observed denting of the WTC-7 penthouse roof, so we can connect the dots from there on now between the data, both NIST and LDEO provided, which was not conclusive or easy before.
Edit by LT/ : here is the new table which nullifies the first one from my above post :


==================================================================
..NIST......NIST...NIST-times are in:........NYRT.................................17sec later in:....PSRT
Interval.....Total...NY events observed by NIST in televised time..........LDEO sig.arrival (sec)
==================================================================
.........................LDEO states begin of collaps at NYRT+PSRT 5:20:33 pm...................-7.0s
...............0.0......LDEO seismic-graph starts at....NYRT+PSRT 5:20:40 pm....................0.0s
.........................Time for first (by New York soil and bedrock) delayed seismic
.........................signals to arrive at LDEO Pallisades seismic station...........................17.0s
..0.0.........0.0.....Movement of east penthouse roofline at 5:20:46 NYRT.....................23.0s
.........................(17+ 6s = 23s PSRT) or (5:20:46+17s = 5:20:63 NYRT)
..0.9.........0.9.....East penthouse kinks between columns 44 and 45............................23.9s
.........................2 windows at floor 40 fail between columns 44 - 45.................23.9s - 24.2s
..0.3.........1.2.....4 windows fail at floor 40................................................................24.2s
.........................East penthouse submerged from view (now inside building).....24.2s - 24.6s
..0.4.....->.1.7.....3 windows break at floors 41 to 44..................................................24.6s
..0.5.........2.2.....East penthouse completely submerged............................................25.1s
..1.8.........4.0.....Windows break along column 46 at floors 37 and 40.........................26.9s
..3.0.........7.0.....North side of west penthouse moves................................................29.9s
.........................Movement of entire north face of WTC7 (vis.above floor 21)....29.9s - 30.1s
..0.2.........7.2.....West end of roof starts to move......................................................30.1s
..0.5.........7.7.....East end of roof starts to move.......................................................30.6s
.........................Façade kink formed along column 46-47...............................30.6s - 30.7s
..0.1.....->.7.9.....West penthouse submerged...........................................................30.7s
..0.3.........8.2.....Global collapse occurs as windows fail between floors 33-39................31.0s
.........................around column 55
==================================================================


Note:
LDEO stated -above- their graph, Building 7 Collapse: 21:20:33 (UTC), 17:20:33 (EDT) = 5:20:33 pm (NYVT),
that means when you insert their 17 seconds seismic recording signal delay, their seismographs recorded this event of LDEO's presumption of the first sign of collapse at 5:20:50 (PSRT), which is the 10s position on their graph, because their +0.0 mark is explained in the graph's top left corner as 21:20:40 (UTC) which is 5:20:40 (NYVT).

HOWEVER, the people at NIST showed us in their draft of their WTC-7 report a 5:20:46 (NYVT) of the first visual proof of collapse they could come up with after 4 years of study, the dent, caused by some uncertain event, the event signal then took 17 sec to travel to Palissades to be recorded there at 5:20:63 (PSRT), which is the LDEO graph position of 23s.

That is a huge discrepancy of 13 seconds between LDEO and NIST.

It seems that LDEO took a look at that graph, and just as we can see, they noted the start of signals coming in at the 10s position on their recording. I can not find a conclusive visual event in New York which could connect to that 10s position.

Surely we have that dented roof from the NIST website, with the time added. Somehow I have more faith in that data, which everyone can see for themselves.
That means the first collaps signs from NIST recorded at a PSRT on the 23 s position is at least a confirmed one.

Then we are left with the biggests graph-signals positioned 4-5 seconds in advance, and they have an equal energy load as the first plane impact, (check signal peaks in LDEO graph of first impact) and that event surely did not went unnoticed.
However, LDEO wants us to believe that the WTC-7 collapse started 13 seconds earlier than the first obscure signs of -starting- collapse, the dent.

That can only mean one thing.
13 seconds before NIST can find a visual, some event comparable to the head-on collision of a huge airplane, shook the bedrock at the WTC-7 building.

[edit on 31/10/05 by LaBTop]

[edit on 31/10/05 by LaBTop]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join