It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 1 2006 @ 11:41 PM
I shall refrain from biting sarcasm.
Please review the link you so obviously misinterpreted again, and especially look at the left side : Parade of errors.

You really thought this was written by Bollyn? Look again at the word "Exerpt"....
This essay was written by someone who in fact underlines your side of the discussion. Did you miss that very important feature?
The white blocks of text are his rebuttals of the light-yellow block of text from Bollyn.
I used exerpts from his REBUTTAL !

Then also look at this very important other link out of the LONG list of Parade of errrors:

ERROR: 'The Towers Collapsed in 10 Seconds'

Each of the Twin Towers totally collapsed in an interval of approximately 14 to 16 seconds. A temporal record of the entire North Tower collapse is provided by the real-time CNN broadcast feed aired during the attack. (This table shows frames from that video at half-second intervals.) It allows reasonably accurate measurement of gross collapse features such as the growth and descent rate of the rubble and dust cloud. However, this and other video evidence does not allow the determination of a precise time of total collapse because each tower's destruction remains hidden behind an expanding dust cloud which, because of its size, reaches the ground over a span of several seconds.

Have a damn good look at the timeframing TABLE in this link to the CNN footage broadcasted in real time with a timestamped banner in the right down corner :

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 12:09 AM
don't worry, I haven't forgotten your earlier helpfull remarks!
That's why I included these remarks in my above post :

Since however the North Tower calculation is off for a whopping EIGHT seconds
between the two calculation methods ( 10:28:31 minus 10:28:23 = 8 seconds ),
we NOW also can NOT trust anymore the LDEO timestamps on the NORTH and SOUTH Tower collapse seismic charts.

If your link to this assertion :

The seismic signals for the plane impacts WERE NOT THE PLANES IMPACTING AT ALL; instead, these seismic signals were basement explosions that occurred before the planes hit...BECAUSE THE PLANES HIT LATER...even as much as 14 to 17 seconds later.
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - LDEO/NIST contradicting aircrash timestamp
Both times: real, accurate to the second
(bolded text by me, LT/)

also really is true and provable (I am gonna read it NOW!), then for sure we really have to re-interprete ALL of LDEO's seismic data.

Some people at a very, very early time after 9/11 already set us on the wrong foot by including provable wrong timestamps to all LDEO seismic charts.
LDEO's own innocent scientists must know who provided them these conflicting data to timestamps info !
I hope there will be brave whistleblowers at LDEO.

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 12:57 AM
Ok, my apologies, those 9-11 review articles are always hard to read, and don't really make it clear about what they are even talking about.

Especially with an alternating light yellow, then white background that's supposed to seperate parts of the article.

Regardless of whether or not they agree with me that no explosives were used, I stand by my statement that they are wrong when they say.

Unless the explosives are detonated simultaneously, they are unlikely to produce detectable seismic signatures. If explosives were responsible for the towers' destruction, they were numerous and were detonated in a synchronized but progressive manner, contributing little to the recorded seismic disturbance.

After all, this peice seems less of a debunk than it is a convuluted argument for there being numerous explosives being detonated in a synchronized progressive manner.

While they admit that the seismic readings don't show explosives, they are really just attempting to brush aside the issue by saying that explosives would not show up on as such on the seismic readings.

Again, please tell me why we should listen to your interpretation of the data, when actual seismologists and geophysicists say that the data in fact proves the opposite.

Please review the link on the Kingdome implosion. The explosives showed up very clearly as such on the seismographs. Just as no explosive blasts other than the plane crashes show up on the 9-11 seismic readings.

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 01:10 AM
That's a solid peace of research by those two gentlemen !

Your link :
“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross
Scholars for 9/11 Truth: /

. There exist two separate precision data time sets that address when the aircraft crashed into the Towers. Both data time sets are based on UTC (Coordinated Universal Time, the world’s atomic clock system) and the sources that determined these times were prestigious, reliable and credible. There is no question regarding the precision and accuracy of the instruments used to record both data time sets, since their entire function depends and relies upon temporal accuracy, and therefore there can be no doubt that both data time sets are correct. The time data sets represent objective scientific data recorded by two separate, independent entities.

The problem is the data sets have different impact times.
LDEO confirmed its data as accurate:

Also, an Air Traffic Controller replied to this investigation stating that a time-check is done daily by all stations to make sure that all radar tracking is precisely coordinated to UTC. Radar is based upon microwaves that travel at the speed of light, so error variance is not stated. The Commission Report has the impact times. Their data set is based upon actual flight data that ended when the Towers were struck. There is no question: AA Flight 11 died at 8:46:40 and UA Flight 175 at 9:03:11 [UTC – 4 hrs]. Since the planes crashed at those times, the question is: What caused the LDEO times 14 and 17 seconds earlier? What caused those seismic spikes?

The evidence of William Walsh and William Rodriguez shows that there were explosions that affected the basement and lobby levels, and these were not caused by the jet fuel.

The ""core elevator doors were blown OUT"", and the "" passenger elevators in the field of view, their doors were popped open sideways like a pyramid, from the bottom up.""

What is interesting is, when the 9 seconds found on the Jenny Carr tape are added to the original LDEO seismic time of 8:46:26, the result is 8:46:35, the exact FAA impact time for AA Flt 11.

Then page 8 of 11 from this Word document goes into deep discussion how NIST came to timestamps aided by televised footage of events.
It looks as if the authors do not really trust NIST on this, so if they are right, I have to re-evaluate my assertions, since these 2 authors say they made a possible maximum 5 sec mistake in their calculations.

NIST's determination of 8:46:30 time of first “impact” is artificial. It is not only erroneous, but may be specious if time manipulation is the motive. This phony time for AA Flt 11 is directly contradicted by the statement made by the NTSB and is not supported by the radar data supplied by the NTSB. The last radar signal from the aircraft before impact was received at 8:46:40, ten seconds after the time that NIST now says is when the aircraft impacted the Tower. One wonders again if the NIST 2005 contract with Dr. Kim to re-analyze the seismic times is also an attempt at time manipulation in order to find credibility for the bogus 8:46:30 NIST time. An audit by independent seismological experts to determine the authenticity of the revised seismic times would be in order to resolve this matter. It would be worth doing as this concerns the mass murder of nearly 3,000 people.

The first aspect of these times that must be commented upon is the fact that, after three major enquiries, we are still left without answers, even on such basic questions as when the various events occurred. It must be seen as an indictment of these bodies that most people would probably regard the best evidence as having come from television rather than the official investigations. Are we to understand that NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission did not have access to exactly the same, many, television sources of the event? It is a sad commentary that the words “9/11 Commission” are not found once throughout both NIST reports [NCSTAR 1-5 and NCSTAR 1-5A]. And if a word search is done on the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission for the words “Lamont” or “LDEO” or “8:46:26”, the answer is the same: nothing. This appalling lack of attention to detail is inexcusable and can be viewed by some as highly sinister.

NIST suffers a lack of credibility for its issuance of the false 8:46:30 “impact” time for AA Flt 11. It is an unreal time and is not an impact. What is needed from NIST are: (1) the names of the four television stations whose data was used, (2) the actual times of impact from these four stations, and (3) the procedures used by each station in the regular synchronization process to UTC.

Please read their CONCLUSION, I wholeheartedly confirm to that ! LT/

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 01:19 AM
NO, NO , NO ! Learn to accurately read and interprete your own motherlanguage, which is not mine btw.
But I see clearly what it said :

The Seattle Kingdome was a domed sports stadium located in downtown Seattle near the Seattle fault. The Seattle Kingdome was imploded (demolished) at 8:32 AM local time (16:32 UTC) on March 26 (JD 086), 2000. The seismic energy produced by implosion of the Kingdome was equivalent to a local earthquake magnitude of 2.3. Strong impacts produced by the implosion of the Kingdome generated seismic arrivals to frequencies as low as 0.1 Hz.

It NOWHERE said that they recorded EXplosions, they recorded the total IMplosion !!!

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 10:24 AM
You must be joking.

The bombs used to bring down the kingdome clearly registered as such coming in at magnitude 2.3.

It most certainly not the implosion itslef that is registering that high. Please read the whole .pdf.

My whole point is that the bombs in the Kingdome registered at 2.3 on the richter scale, and even though they knew they were bombs, they could have looked at the seismographs alone and recognized the signals for bombs.

This disproves the notion that bombs in WTC 1, 2, or seven would not have shown up and been clearly identifiable as bombs on the seismographs.

The notion that bombs exploding above the bedrock would not show up is false.

"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."

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 10:33 AM
How comparable are the WTC1 and WTC2 "impact" graphs? If they're pretty much the same magnitude, and the spike before WTC7's collapse is of the same magnitude, then I'd say that's a bit much of a coincidence for the magnitudes of three different seismic events to be more or less identical (keeping in mind the difference in distances in the Tower impacts and the fact that WTC2's core was almost completely missed).

Seeing as how all three buildings had explosions reported in their basements, most notably for WTC1 pre-impact (even below sublevel B4), I kind of suspect foundation destruction in preparation for global demolitions.

Notice those "further collapse" spikes, too. Both Towers had fallen to the ground by the time those started showing up, so they weren't originating from the Towers. The seismograph cuts off before we begin approaching WTC7's collapse time, unfortunately.

And shouldn't above-ground explosions translate into S-waves when their energy is transferred perpendicularly down to the ground?

[edit on 2-11-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 12:51 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11
None of that, though, changes the speed at which the global collapse occurred, which is equivalent to free-fall.

bsbray et al,

I've seen the so-called "calculations" before from the BYU prof (funny that it's always BYU isn't it?)

I've been waiting to see if anyone notices that this guy actually shows in his calculations that WTC7 fell at a speed that was greater than free fall. IOW, what he has done is prove mathematically (the tastiest kind!) that Prof. Steve Jones is wrong again, just like he was on his stupid Mayan paper (search for it - it's here at ATS.)

Note this assumption:

Assume there is not support for any floor when it is hit by the collapsing floors from above. Thus it is like the floor is just floating in the air when it is hit but it is stationary.

Has led to this result:

The total time for falling, neglecting any time for the collisions themselves (EDIT - here, by "time for the collisions," he's referring to the time taken during the collisions between floors, since his first assumption of "no resistance" ruled out any such time - "floating in air," remember? - Harte) would then be...

...Letting the computer do the computation this yields a total of 8.335 seconds. (For floors 2 feet thick, the fall time becomes 8.55 seconds.)

So, given no resistance at all, the fall should take 8.335 (or 8.55) seconds.

Yet Jones claims, what was it, 6.5 seconds?

Now what, the government sucks so bad that when they connected an underground pipe to the White House at one end and the basement of WTC7 at the other, the resulting suckage vacuum sucked the entire WTC7 building to the ground at a rate faster than free fall?

There's more than four or five people here that don't believe the "Government did it" conspiracy theory. We are all just tired of being called names. I haven't posted in one of these threads for months, given that I haven't seen any constructive discussion going on, just a bunch of sniping and "my posts are better than your posts" crapola.

Won't be back for a few more months either. For the same reason. Sorry Howard and Esdad (and others)!


posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Harte
I've seen the so-called "calculations" before from the BYU prof (funny that it's always BYU isn't it?)

He compared times, but did not calculate a velocity.

Originally posted by Harte
So, given no resistance at all, the fall should take 8.335 (or 8.55) seconds.

Yet Jones claims, what was it, 6.5 seconds?

Two more things:

One, compare the momentum transfer time or whatever he was calculating there with the floor thicknesses with the time it takes an object to free-fall in a vacuum from the same height. Also, a "faster than free-fall" speed can be achieved when air resistance is taken out of the picture (classic implosions). It isn't faster than a free-fall in a vacuum, but faster than can otherwise be achieved on Earth.

Two is that a difference of 0.22 seconds isn't something to throw your hands in the air over, and declare victory over the silly conspiracy theorists. Not saying you're doing that, just saying that this avoids the ultimate point underlying this issue. I have no doubt that some people would do that, frankly, because they're stupid.

[edit on 2-11-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 07:31 PM
lThis was a massive reinforced CONCRETE structure, not a spider web-like, steel beams and collumns, construction like the WTC towers.

The seismic energy produced by implosion of the Kingdome was equivalent to a local earthquake magnitude of 2.3. Strong impacts produced by the implosion of the Kingdome generated seismic arrivals to frequencies as low as 0.1 Hz.

The impact on the soil of the total mass of that concrete stadium smashing down caused by gravitation, (since cut, moments before, into still immense heavy, massive concrete parts, and accompanied by loose parts of concrete rubble), was the source of the local earthquake magnitude of 2.3.

Not the effect of high velocity cutter charges were recorded on those seismic recordings, but the massive impact to the ground of millions of kilograms of strategically broken reinforced concrete.

A small cutter charge with a very thin explosion front velocity surface, will not record on a seismogram, however a massive truck bomb's circular explosion front would.

Please understand the difference between a huge bomb exploding in a convined space, or a relatively very small cutter charge having a cutting speed of 1000s of meters per second effectuated on a very small surface.
The bomb will have a huge impact on a broad surface on all sides, while the cutter charge will only have effect on a strip of a collumn of perhaps a few mm thick, and a few cm wide.

And will cut through with such a immense velocity, that the collumn nearly has no time at all to respond to it's lightning fast pass-through effect.
In other words, the collumn will have no time to start resonating when cut, but will resonate heavily if hit by a broad air pressure wave from the explosion of a bomb.

The usage of the word "bomb" in all these implosion theories is very misleading.
Cutter-charges will have been used, to severe collumns, no bombs.
Or a combination of noiseless super-thermate charges and dislocation charges, where the dislocation charges are used primarily to move the, already cut by thermate, collumns.
Or any other non disclosed unpublished military type of demolition charges.

posted on Nov, 2 2006 @ 10:14 PM
Right, just like the cutter charges used in the kingdome.


Nice try.

You do realize that the kingdome was brought down on purpose, you know a controlled demolition.

What's next, that they used extra special cutter charges for the kingdome that do register, and normal cutters that don't for the WTC, or will it be vice versa?

Cutter-charges will have been used, to severe collumns, no bombs.
Or a combination of noiseless super-thermate charges and dislocation charges, where the dislocation charges are used primarily to move the, already cut by thermate, collumns.
Or any other non disclosed unpublished military type of demolition charges.

Well then, if that's what you believe, then you must agree with me that the seismic record clearly shows no bombs being used. After all how would "noiseless super-thermate charges" make any noise that would register?

BTW, some food for thought.

If your theory requires you to invent an unknown device with an unprovable existence, your theory is probably wrong.

Might as well say god did it.

Truth movement? or Cult?

[edit on 2-11-2006 by LeftBehind]

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 04:20 AM
The massive impact ON the ground of a 500 metric ton solid piece of concrete falling 30 to 50 meters WILL make a recordable seismic event.
The cutter charges to cut that same piece of concrete will NOT register on the same seismic record.

Your link NOWHERE said that explosions were coupled to seismic records, they say the implosion (of the whole structure, smashing down) caused a seismic event.

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 09:26 AM
Labtop, you are obviously going to believe in silent explosives that somehow show up on seismographs anyway, but the least you could do is look at the raw data contained in the .pdf in my link.

It contains the raw data, and since you seem to have an uncanny ability to detect explosives where mere geophysicists fail, perhaps you can prove your assertation with the raw data contained there.

Or we could agree to disagree, and you could explain to us how a "noiseless" charge can be proven by the seismic record.

After all how can you conclusively prove that something is caused by these theoretical "noiseless" demo charges, and not by the building internally moving and shifting before the collapse?

[edit on 3-11-2006 by LeftBehind]

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 11:48 AM
There are numerous witnesses who reported explosions, some were interviewed by the 911 omission and there statements were left out of the final report. NIST says they don't know why building 7 fell and FEMA says that fire was not very likely to have caused the collapse. If the government released all the videos, photographs and audio tapes that it confiscated we would have much more evidence to peruse. The obstruction of the investigation and the removal and destruction of steel and other debris from the WTC complex was a crime as well. The official conspiracy theory that the 911 commission published has not been proven in any way shape or form and is full of flaws, lies and distortions.

If a plane hit the Pentagon then where is the wreckage and why was the initial hole only about 16 feet in diameter. When the roof finally collapsed the hole became larger but initially there was only a hole approximentally 16 feet in diameter. I could go on and on with the errors that the perpetrators of this crime against humanity committed but I won't at this time.

Any person who wants to investigate what happened can go to the scholars for 911 truth site , they have amassed a mountain of evidence for you to peruse.

Alternatively you can go to plaguepuppies site where you will find an illuminating slide show of photographs that the government did not manage to confiscate, plus an indepth analysis of the collapses.

[edit on 3-11-2006 by macfluff]

[edit on 3-11-2006 by macfluff]

[edit on 3-11-2006 by macfluff]

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 04:39 PM

Originally posted by macfluff
There are numerous witnesses who reported explosions,

(sorry, but the owl had to come out.

What witnesses reported explosions in WTC 7?

That is what this thread is about, isn’t it?

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 08:48 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What witnesses reported explosions in WTC 7?

I can think of a couple off the top of my head without even searching.

On the day there was a news interview with someone who was at GZ. It was captured in the 911eyewitness footage which had a radio playing nearby. Here's the sound file:

Here's another, an interview with NYPD officer Craig Bartmer who was there when WTC7 collapsed ("Recent Important Videos", top left):

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 11:23 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by macfluff
There are numerous witnesses who reported explosions,

What witnesses reported explosions in WTC 7?

That is what this thread is about, isn’t it?

Read above buddy, I guess you conveniently didn't see that.. Kinda like who a little bit of diesel can take down a building in a nice neat pile, eh??

Hey Howard, try looking a bit you will find more in life than what those shills are paying you..

[edit on 11/3/2006 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 11/3/2006 by ThichHeaded]

posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 11:30 AM
I have a question:

In regards to finding evidence of demolition at the collapse sites:

Wasn't the wreckage gathered up and shipped out without allowing for any investigation of it? And if so how could someone even begin to find evidence of demolition when the very thing you would have to investigate is shipped out and destroyed?

[edit on 4-11-2006 by seekinshadows]

posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 11:46 AM

Originally posted by seekinshadows

Wasn't the wreckage gathered up and shipped out without allowing for any investigation of it?

Short answer, No.

Though this is brought up again and again, it was not shipped out before it could be investigated. FEMA examined it, NIST examined it, ASCE examined it, as well as others.

posted on Nov, 4 2006 @ 12:51 PM
hey LB you know that is BS?

I have a engineering disasters sitting here stating on it that they wasn't able to investigate why WTC 7 fell.. How ironic is that..


new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in