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.

 

NIST WTC7 status report

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
So the gentlemen at BYU states that it would take 8.5 seconds, which fits into the theory that the building, starting with the Penthouse kink, took close to about 15 seconds for total global collapse after internal structural failure which coincides to the 6.5 second collpase(video) and the NIST report of 8.5 seconds prior to the video showing collapse. Thats sums it up. Thanks for the article.




posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Thanks BSB for that source.

Now all that anyone has to do is find me a video that shows the collapse completing in 6.5 seconds for his calculations to be valid.

The good professor says that the "observed roof fall time is approxinamately 6.5 seconds" but the problem is that I have looked all over the place and I cannot find any video that shows the complete collapse down to ground level so I am struggling to understand how he has observed it taking 6.5 seconds or any other measurable time for that matter.

If anyone has a link to the appropriate video I'd be most interested.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
..
Mathematics Professor Kenneth L. Kuttler at BYU has presented a paper outlining this here:

WTC7: A Short Computation

He uses the time the global vertical collapse took to calculate the speed at which that occurred (ie THE GLOBAL EVENT IN QUESTION, spanning less than 10 seconds).


Hmm I dont think you can take that calculation for WTC7.
He calculated a pancake collapse:


It was observed that the building collapsed in just 6.5seconds. Could this possibly happen as a result of pancaking floor collapse from top down?

WTC7: A Short Computation

The answer is: No.

He calculated it pritty mach the same way I calculate the WTC1 and WTC 2 collapse time, just with Momentum conservation with 'assume there is no support for any floor when it is hit by collapsing floors from above'
except that I handled a 3 bodies impact (The whole tower part above the plane impact, the collapse zone, and the floors below them) and also considered the powedring.


And to say it clear NIST's time of 10 and 11 second breaks that physical self-collapse lower limit time I calculated for WTC1 and 2 about 2 till 3 sec!


->12.3 sec for the south tower
->13.4 sec for the north tower
-> check: www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is one thing you can never breake and this are nature laws.

Given I made no error (which I can not exclude completly) in my calculation, NIST did a very very bad job here because this is a simple basic calculation I expect to have been done form an anylsing expert team and also MENTIONED in any final report. But they are not showing ANY calculation they have done. Also the most basic datas of the build are not printed. Their report says nothing and is therefore worth absolut nothing.
So much to the credibility of NIST and it's virtual funny team of 1000' experts. (always nice if you can throw around with big employee numbers, if you can't come up with something that has hand and feet. Probabily they counted the cleaner also )

It's pritty obvious to me that WTC7 fall as a block like the top part of the tower only. That way you can't do anything with the momentum conservation floor by floor.

To be honset, I don't know how exactly you could calculate a physical lower time limit for WTC7 like I could do it for wtc1 and 2. I think the only physical safe limit here is the free fall.

Bye way that movie of the controlled demolition of a tower someone posted 1 or 2 pages back is very interesting.
I might err but after the initial explosion it looks to me the building imploded on it's own without further explosive in almost free fall time and converted a lot of powder (would have very liked to see what's left)

So close to free fall time for WTC7 could be possible but ONLY when you clean blow away the base first. That little fire can't do that.

But I am sure NIST will come up with something like the base floor sheared aside and that initiated the collapse or anthing else funny.

Seeing how bad they have done the WTC1 and 2 analysis I give really nothing of the WTC7 NIST analysis/report. if it every will be completed.

The collapse subject would require a real study and not a big head company comeing up with nice presentations rather than data's that say something.
I really have to wonder if the engineer business went that bad in america. If they had to build something that way it would never work.

edit1: Added the link to my calculation thread.
edit2: added the calculated time and precised the bold text.



[edit on 25-10-2006 by g210b]



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
So the gentlemen at BYU states that it would take 8.5 seconds, which fits into the theory that the building, starting with the Penthouse kink, took close to about 15 seconds for total global collapse after internal structural failure which coincides to the 6.5 second collpase(video) and the NIST report of 8.5 seconds prior to the video showing collapse. Thats sums it up. Thanks for the article.


Esdad, I think we have another problem with your reading comprehension here, or math comprehension or something, because he only got the times he got in that paper after making a number of assumptions, all beneficial to the official theory, and not in the least realistic. Read the paper itself for a description of these.

Also, he was calculating the global event. One column allegedly failed before collapse, according to NIST, below the Penthouse, all the way to the bottom, though they don't tell us exactly how.

That still leaves most of the columns intact. Therefore free-fall should still be impossible.


You guys aren't even facing the free-fall speed issue. You're avoiding it by pointing to lesser failures beforehand and declaring that the collapse began then. Again, using the same logic, you could arrive at a collapse time of years given that the building began a slow degrading process immediately after construction. Why don't you argue that it took 16 or 17 years for it to fall?

None of that, though, changes the speed at which the global collapse occurred, which is equivalent to free-fall.



Originally posted by timeless test
The good professor says that the "observed roof fall time is approxinamately 6.5 seconds" but the problem is that I have looked all over the place and I cannot find any video that shows the complete collapse down to ground level so I am struggling to understand how he has observed it taking 6.5 seconds or any other measurable time for that matter.


I have never looked for the whole collapse, but I have seen the collapse speed compared to free-falling objects, side by side in real time, and the speed does appear to be either equivalent or only off by a very, very trivial amount, fractions of seconds, and if we get off into arguing that, then you all need to be slapped for utterly failing to realize the major suggestion by such a rapid collapse rate in the first place.

Even if the whole building did not fall at this rate (which I have never seen evidence of; I have seen it fall only at a steady speed the whole way down and I'm sure we can agree at least on that), the problem is still legitimate just because of the huge part of the building that must have experienced a resistance-less collapse given all the videos we have of the collapse going so far without so much as minute slowing.




posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I am not sure about your 17 years to collapse #, but I am done playing nice if you want to try to insult my intelligence and take cheap shots. We have gone round and round and i am trying to have a civil discussion. You are basing your ENTIRE arguement on a gif image, that you have linked in the post, that it could not have been free fall speed. You posted the link, it then bit you in the ass and you are now stating that it is wrong.

There was sufficient damage to the building, and prior to the gif you are defending, the penthouse collapsed, which means internal collapse. How f$$$$ hard is that to understand??? Seconds later, the rest of the building fell into itself. You do not need a degree in Engineering to figure this out, it is what happens when something loses its internal support, is 50 some stories high, and suddenly collapses. You even suggest that fractions of a second are non applicable. Have you looked into how many times this building was modified and changed in the last 15 years?

As far as wanting to slap me. I will give me my address you tard anytime you would like to take a trip to Florida. No problem, we can sit down and have a few beers and talk this out like real men. Remember, you started this from what was a normal conversation and turned it into a grudge match.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
You are basing your ENTIRE arguement on a gif image,


Wtf? Then why have I only posted it in my last post and didn't even say a damned thing about it?


You posted the link, it then bit you in the ass and you are now stating that it is wrong.


No I'm not. I'm saying you didn't read it or understand correctly. And you didn't.

You seem to think that that paper is trying to present a realistic look at how quickly WTC7 should have collapsed globally. It isn't. It's being very generous, like I said, if you get what that means, to your theory, and is still coming back too slow. You really would have to have a reading comprehension problem to have missed this, but I'm willing to bet that you just didn't read it and came to conclusions based on what was being posted about it.


There was sufficient damage to the building,


Prove it, for god's sake. And don't freaking point to NIST because they haven't even released anything yet, unless you're one to jump the gun with million-dollar investigations into things that have never happened on the face of the Earth before.


and prior to the gif you are defending, the penthouse collapsed, which means internal collapse.


Of one column, out of many; again, this in no way justifies a global collapse at free-fall speed. Less resistance, sure, but not freaking ALL OF IT could have been removed by the failure of a single column!


How f$$$$ hard is that to understand??? Seconds later, the rest of the building fell into itself. You do not need a degree in Engineering to figure this out, it is what happens when something loses its internal support, is 50 some stories high, and suddenly collapses.




How hard is that to understand? Without explosives? Very hard. I don't need a degree "in Engineering", but apparently neither do you.

Again, one column failing does not justify the failure of all the others with absolutely no resistance.


You even suggest that fractions of a second are non applicable.


Non-applicable? How about "trivial"? 47-story steel building falling straight down upon itself, and fractions of a second now represent the time in which significant amounts of the total resistance was overcome? Hypothetical "total resistance", because I seriously doubt that all that freaking steel and concrete would provide a total resistance that takes only 0.5 seconds or so to overcome over a total period of time of around 7 seconds.


As far as wanting to slap me.


Are you arguing that differences of fractions of a second totally justify a building falling at virtually free-fall? Seriously. A 47-story steel frame building. Come on man. And these are fractions of a second that I'm only entertaining hypothetically anyway.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I have never looked for the whole collapse, but I have seen the collapse speed compared to free-falling objects


But Kuttler says that the roof fall time was observed to take approximately 6.5 seconds and his position that the building fell at or close to free fall speed is almost worthless unless this timeframe can be supported. All I am interested to know is the source of this observation which he does not reference. Unless he knows the point in time at which the roof line hits the ground he cannot conceivably calculate the average speed at which it fell. All of this, of course, ignores the fact that the roof did not fall 576 feet at all as it must have stopped several stories short of this distance due to the accumulation of rubble at the base of the collapse. Kuttler also appears to have got the height of the building wrong, its structural height was actually 570 feet but that should include the height of the penthouses which were above the roof line, (at least until they disappeared into the structure). All of this would trim the theoretical freefall time quite considerably. You can do the maths if you like but I'm not going to because there are so many assumptions in both Kuttler's data and mine that I don't believe the calculations can be accurate to within less than +/- 15% or so at best.



I have never looked for the whole collapse, but I have seen the collapse speed compared to free-falling objects, side by side in real time, and the speed does appear to be either equivalent or only off by a very, very trivial amount, fractions of seconds


You appear to be using a maximum speed achieved over a short period of time to support the free fall contention, (nothing wrong with that in principle), but I would be very interested to know where you have seen the collapse speed compared to objects in free fall which would support your estimation of the velocity of the falling roof.

I'm sorry to appear picky now but after many categoric assertions that the roof line fell at or near to free fall speed you are now talking about the roof appearing to be falling at this speed. This, which is presumably a subjective assesment, is a very different thing to a calculated speed backed up by a mathematical proof and the basis for this opinion now owes nothing to the BYU calculations which depend entirely on knowing the complete roof fall time and the erroneous distance to be covered of 576 feet.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   
About fall times:

The official story people keep saying that the siezmographs were accurate when it comes to "p" waves and such. My question is: Why aren't the siezmographs accurate when it comes to fall times?

Wouldn't they be the record of fall times?



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I have to say that 1 don't recall seeing any seismographic data regarding building 7 whilst there is a substantial amount for WTC 1 & 2.

Mind you evryone seems to argue about the interpretation of the data for 1 & 2 anyway.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
I'm sorry to appear picky now but after many categoric assertions that the roof line fell at or near to free fall speed you are now talking about the roof appearing to be falling at this speed. This, which is presumably a subjective assesment, is a very different thing to a calculated speed backed up by a mathematical proof and the basis for this opinion now owes nothing to the BYU calculations which depend entirely on knowing the complete roof fall time and the erroneous distance to be covered of 576 feet.


I'm going to try to find a video that shows the face of Building 7 in great enough detail to use itself to gauge its own collapse speed by keeping track of an arbitrary floor, ie the lowest one visible, and then seeing how long it takes for the roof line to reach that point. Based on this, the global collapse velocity for a large chunk of the collapse should be calculated well within a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Free-fall speed at any point in the collapse, let alone for an interval of many floors, if I can show it, is damning.

Such a smooth, rapid collapse is hard to imagine without explosives or incendiaries taken into account, don't you think? The massive columns in the middle of the building presumably failing at the base all at the same time (with the exception of the East-most column, thus the "kink" that allowed the building to fall into itself), and then this simultaneous failure translating, SOMEHOW, into a smooth, unhesitating collapse of the whole upper part of the building falling down into a debris pile roughly 3 or 4 stories high.

If in addition to all that, it can be shown that even PORTIONS of this collapse were also at or extremely close to free-fall speed in a vacuum, then that should be case closed here for anyone being realistic.


Edit: Here's a section from 911 Eyewitness (the example I was referencing) comparing WTC7's global collapse to a free-falling object: video.google.com...

So, I'm now going to try to recreate that, using the building itself as a gauge for how fast it falls some certain distance. Then I'll post back.

[edit on 26-10-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
I have to say that 1 don't recall seeing any seismographic data regarding building 7 whilst there is a substantial amount for WTC 1 & 2.


Shouldn't there be some siezmograph readings for the collapse of building 7?


Mind you evryone seems to argue about the interpretation of the data for 1 & 2 anyway.


True.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
A 40-second seismic record for WTC7 can be found here: 911research.wtc7.net...

It would be interesting to match up with the collapse, because there were reports of huge explosions near the base of the building some seconds before the unresisted global collapse.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
It would be interesting to match up with the collapse, because there were reports of huge explosions near the base of the building some seconds before the unresisted global collapse.


Thanks for that BSB.

The problem with this record is that the falling of the penthouse and the structure beneath it is difficult (or impossible) to distinguish from the collapse of the main structure although I have to say that even if we assume that the main collapse doesn't commence untill the second major spike there is still an awful lot of stuff hitting the ground at least 10 seconds later.

The freefall video clip is interesting but I'd be a lot more interested if I could read the data section and knew what height of fall they were assuming is shown as it is clearly not the full height of the building.

An analysis of fall time would certainly be interesting if it can be put together for a material distance but beware of the question of whether or not you're looking at an accurate real time playback.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
The problem with this record is that the falling of the penthouse and the structure beneath it is difficult (or impossible) to distinguish from the collapse of the main structure although I have to say that even if we assume that the main collapse doesn't commence untill the second major spike there is still an awful lot of stuff hitting the ground at least 10 seconds later.


Yeah, and that's fine. No one is saying WTC7 is a demo because it all fell at once; there is a realization that there was preliminary failure on one side of the building (incidentally, the one furthest from WTC1 damage), before the global collapse, which (shall we define it?) consisted of all the remaining support columns and the outer masonry of the building. The initial failure created the "kink", which allowed the building to lean into itself rather than onto surrounding buildings.

The problem is still the rate, velocity at which the global event occurred. It could only happen that way from "dealing" with any potential resistance pre-collapse.

It's a shame that these discussions have to get so trivial, and even more of a shame that so many people arguing for demolition aren't clear on what they're saying in the first place, but I just thought I'd attempt to make it clear again that the velocity is ultimately what's in question. Time is only used as a means to measure velocity (distance over time).


The freefall video clip is interesting but I'd be a lot more interested if I could read the data section and knew what height of fall they were assuming is shown as it is clearly not the full height of the building.


I think they go over this in the full version of 911 Eyewitness in the section just preceding that to which I linked. Also, you can see the website name in 911 Eyewitness, so you should be able to go to that site and check their work yourself, plugging in your own variables.

How they got 100 meters is what I'm wondering. They may have mentioned this in the video as well, which would make things easier for me.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

A working hypothesis is that the impact sustained by WTC 7 from the collapse of WTC 1 resulted in fractures in the fuel piping system (both the fuel pipe and the containment pipe) especially at the point where the pipes entered the valve box, which was rigidly mounted to the underside of the floor slab. With the base system and all of the modifications thereto, such a fracture would result in a small leak of residual fuel in the pipes at the point of the fracture. A fracture of the pipe at the valve box would release fuel under pressure that, if ignited, could produce a spray fire and/or a pool fire very near column 79.


wtc.nist.gov...



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
has already a very cheap anti leak pressure-fall detection shut-off valve.
I suppose the very same things would have needed to be installed by law at those high pressure diesel lines, close to the pumps.

Anyone knows why anybody comes up with the idea of pumping diesel around in a high rise?
Howard, you seem to have investigated those diesel lines extensively, do you know that reason?

Only one even remotely sane reason will be, supplying energy to heating units.
Why did they not opt for pumping hot water around from the cellars, which is a far less dangerous substance than diesel oil to bring up all these floors.

And the OEM bunker on the 23rd floor had 2 small emergency diesel tanks itself, no need to pump it up so high.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
That new thread someone opened has a good video of the WTC7 collapse from different views.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

probabily helps to find out the collapse time.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
has already a very cheap anti leak pressure-fall detection shut-off valve.
I suppose the very same things would have needed to be installed by law at those high pressure diesel lines, close to the pumps.


The problem is, that single line supplied the fuel for I think 9 separate generators (I could be wrong on the exact number, though). Each generator turned on and off according to specific power needs in the SSB space, so the pressure would have jumped around quite a bit.



Anyone knows why anybody comes up with the idea of pumping diesel around in a high rise?
Howard, you seem to have investigated those diesel lines extensively, do you know that reason?


Yah, it was a work around to circumvent the existing building codes. NY codes only allow a maximum of 275 gallons of fuel to be stored on a given floor. The generator floor was already maxed out with that amount by the base building system day tanks.

So, when Solomon Smith Barney wanted to install their very own generator systems, they could not use day tank systems.

IMHO this was a bad choice. City codes exist for a reason, and this work around basically violated the spirit of the code, even if it didn’t violate the exact letter of the law.

Notice that NIST is being very careful on how they present this. No one is pointing any fingers at anyone. The city is at least partly to blame for allowing this.




And the OEM bunker on the 23rd floor had 2 small emergency diesel tanks itself, no need to pump it up so high.


The day tanks are only good for short periods.

OEM had a 3,000 gallon tank on the 2nd floor. Presumably this was ruptured during the collapse and may help explain the “hot spots” and the sulfur erosion of the steel.



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Generators,yes, that's another viable purpose for diesel lines, Howard.

Seismic events :

I still strongly believe and am convinced that those 5 seismic charts from PAL EHE proved without a doubt in my mind that 3 equally strong bombs or packs of bombs were used in WTC 1, 2 and 7. They didn't have a smaller one for WTC 7, so they used identicals. Proof of that lays in the comparable pre-peaks in the seismic charts from LDEO.

And that in the very beginning of all the turmoil right after 9/11 a few very telltaling seismic facts slipped under the radar from the huge team of damage and risk controllers lurking around payed by all those agencies which clearly knew what huge positive effects the day of 9/11 would have on their longterm political and geostrategical wish-lists.
And I wrote about it more than a year ago, and am still baffled that anybody else still does not see the significance of these anomalies in 3 of the five charts, which can be compared to the other 2 charts (from the plane impacts).

bsbray11 :

A 40-second seismic record for WTC7 can be found here:
911research.wtc7.net...
It would be interesting to match up with the collapse, because there were reports of huge explosions near the base of the building some seconds before the unresisted global collapse.


Your link to that WTC 7 seismic chart showed me an interesting development.
911research.wtc7.net has removed the text lines ABOVE those seismic charts of LDEO, depicting the EDT collapse times PROPOSED by LDEO for the seismic events received at the Pallisades NY seismic station, which STILL can be viewed at this LDEO site page :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu... (Record of the Day, 5 seismic WTC graphs).

There was f.ex. a 7 seconds difference in actual EDT collapse time proposed by LDEO and the PAL EHE graph start times on the WTC 7 chart. So we lost 7 important seconds at the front of that chart.
So 911research does not see the importance of that small detail above each chart.
They also did not see that the 17 seconds time interval between origin of the signals in New York and receiving them at LDEO was also not clearly indicated.

See note in this post :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
--SNIP--
Note:
Seismograms recorded by LCSN Station PAL (Palisades, NY).

external image www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
1. Seismic record of the first plane impact at the North Tower (WTC-1) at 08:46:26 (EDT).

external image www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
2. Second plane Impact at the South Tower (WTC-2) at 09:02:54 (EDT).

external image www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
3. First Collapse of the South Tower (WTC-2) at 09:59:04 (EDT) Note: sensibility of graph 10x lower.

external image www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
4. Second Collapse of the North Tower (WTC-1) at 10:28:31 (EDT) Note: sensibility of graph 10x lower.

external image www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
5. Building 7 Collapse: 17:20:33 (EDT)


(This very important EDT collapse time proposed by LDEO has now been deleted as a text line from above all 5 of the 911research graphs!!!
It only reads now IN the graph top : start time 21:20:40, it's a 7 seconds difference between 33 and 40, which makes all the difference in the world for the interpretation of that WTC 7 graph! As you could see in numerous videos, the visual implosion time of building 7 for example only took about 8 seconds! )



posted on Oct, 27 2006 @ 07:22 PM
link   
timeless test :

The problem with this record is that the falling of the penthouse and the structure beneath it is difficult (or impossible) to distinguish from the collapse of the main structure although I have to say that even if we assume that the main collapse doesn't commence untill the second major spike there is still an awful lot of stuff hitting the ground at least 10 seconds later.

Exactly.

That same anomaly drove me to write all these seismic posts one year ago in this thread :
1. www.abovetopsecret.com...'
Title : Popular Mechanics Is Correct? (Seismographs)
Read first this post :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

which explains the confusing way PAL EHE people did describe their seismic signal charts, they tried to imprint the impression in peoples mind that their charts zero points were also the REAL TIME event stamps in New York, which clearly they were not.
Especially the WTC 7 chart missed 7 seconds in front, and the WTC 1 and 2 charts scale was 10 times less sensitive than the WTC 7 chart.

Then read this post :
www.abovetopsecret.com... :
Note: I have editted now some confusing text of mine at the beginning of this post to try to be more clear :

LDEO stated -above- their graph: Building 7 collapse time : 17:20:33 (EDT).

And in their graph that the graph's +0.0 start time was set at 17:20:40 (EDT)
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT to notice!

That must mean they also included in the graph a 17 seconds delay of signals before they arrived at their seismic station.
When you insert their 17 seconds seismic recording signal delay, their seismographs thus recorded this event of LDEO's presumption of the first sign of collapse in New York at local NY-time of 17:20:33 (EDT), plus 17 seconds signal travelling time, then the signal is arriving at LDEO at 17:20:50 (EDT).
Said otherwise:
On arrival at LDEO Pallisades station 34 miles north of New York (2 miles per second travelling of signals, 34/2=17sec) the time there was 17:20:50 (EDT), (50 - 17 = 33 ) which is the 10s position on their graph, because their +0.0 starting time mark is explained in the graph's top left corner as 17:20:40 (EDT). (50 - 40 = 10 sec).
When you just print the graph and put 40 there at the +0.0 position, all the rest of this post will become clearer to see.

However, the people at NIST showed us in their draft of their WTC-7 report a time of 17:20:46 (EDT) of the first visual proof of collapse, the dent. (That timestamp was printed in an actual NIST report photograph of the dent, a very important piece of evidence btw, since now you can combine LDEO and NIST timelines!)
The event signal then took 17 sec to travel to Palissades to be recorded there at 46 + 17 = 17:20:63 (EDT), which is the LDEO graph position of 23s. (63 - 40 = 23)

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

(the rest of my past post follows now in its original form


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 collapse signs from NIST recorded at a PallisadeSRecordingTime on the 23 s position is at least a confirmed one.
See now again this graph :



Then we are left with the biggests graph-signals positioned 4-5 seconds in advance of that 23 sec position, 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.



new topics




 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join