NIST Contradiction and WTC Collapse

Originally posted by LaBTop
I'm still waiting, in fact for a few years already.
Not one of the usual "official conspiracy" defenders, or "reasonable doubters" has ever come forward to accept my challenge.

Tell me about it. I have been asking for structural calcs for so long I'm getting blue in the face. Now that I have the architectural drawings (wish they were structural but beggers can't be choosers) I can do some semblence of calcs myself. Why has NIST hid their calcs, computer parameters, etc. I just did a five minute calculation to give more understanding of a point in another thread. It was small, but what we paid NIST and gave them time for, they should have a crystal clear vision of what happened.

I respect the NIST institution and I feel that the people working there are under pressure to prove the official story with no deviation. That's how we come up with physics that say a bullet can do a 180 degree turn and strike the same man three times. But, I guess mob rule wins always and as it was in Galelaeo's time, the same as it is now. Go against the mob rule and find yourself under house arrest until you die. Out of site, out of mind.

wtc.nist.gov...
NIST FAQ 08-2006

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster.

Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
(NIST NCSTAR throughout this document refers to one of the 43 volumes that comprise NIST’s final report on the WTC Towers issued in October 2005. All sections of the report listed in this document are available at wtc.nist.gov.... )

5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

If you payed attention at all, I have conclusively proved in my above posts and in my off site thesis link, that they are neglecting,
(or even trying to hide already from Nov.2001 on, by using 2 different magnitudes, 10 and 100 nanometer per second),
something very important, 2 other spikes :

both collapses-preceding seismic spikes.

And at that time there were no airplanes impacting again, but still those spikes were as big as the plane impacts, also recorded by LDEO's seismic station at Palisades, New York state university, much earlier.

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

(Italic emphasis's mine.)

First,
these NIST researchers hopefully hint at the BBC video.
I have posted in these forums a BBC video, with a time counter attached, where you can see the starting moment of collapse, then the cameraman is parallelized for a few seconds, before he realized that the building is coming down on him, and he starts running, with his camera low in his hand, pointing backward to the collapsing building base.
We see then, how the first big chunk of outer wall, severed from the plane impact floors (so NOT from the TOP), hits the ground VERY NEAR to the base of the building.
You can EASILY count the number of seconds it did cost this chunk, to hit the ground, from start of collapse to ground hitting.
That's about 12 to 13 seconds.
You can still see a very high portion of the building standing without the collapse front reaching any part of it.

The building stood many seconds longer before the main collapse front reached the ground.
And thus initiated the main seismic spikes.

Secondly,
it took them years to find out that their "precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan" did not compare AT ALL.

So they started to try to adjust their timing of collapse initiation to overlap the LDEO seismic times.
See my posts about it in my off-site thesis link.

They added 3 to 5 seconds to their first calculations, but still could not succeed.
So, what did they do to solve that problem?

They totally neglected the latest 2006 seismic timing report from LDEO's dr. Kim, and removed it from their reports sub-lists.
For full dr. Kim versus NIST story, see my posts about it at my off-site thesis link :
www.studyof911.com...

If an identical Seismic event is occuring before ALL THREE building collapses, then this is a *SMOKING GUN*.

I can't see any other way to look at this.

Laptop,

Your work deserves its own thread here and perhaps even a person willing to challenge what you have written.

I seriously would like to hear more responses to this.





[edit on 22-4-2007 by talisman]

I'm not challenging it because I agree with it (I've actually read it now).

I think this is the most substantial, most un-debunkable piece of evidence out there. WATS again, even though I already voted!

You have already voted for LaBTop this month.

D'OH!

[edit on 22-4-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

you, the official story believers, all afraid of the truth?

Originally posted by talisman
I seriously would like to hear more responses to this.

You're not going to get any. Labtop's work is spot on and even NIST won't touch it. You think the little "debunkers" on here are going to acknowledge it even exists? I have found the same thing here. As soon as I start talking about engineering, there's no one left to "debunk" me. And I'm not even half as smart as Labtop (maybe 1/3 )

to bump this on top again.

For 6 years now, lots of evidence has been presented of explosions in the WTC towers, all 3 of them. Video and audio.
It is always waved away by the usual characters as debunkable.

Try to debunk this.
I CHALLENGE ANYBODY to do so.

It is not based on external proof, it comes from the government mouthes it self.
Problem we have with them, they contradict each other.

Bump again, if I may!

Need some discussion on this! Why is it that it is being ignored? It is very serious evidence that needs some serious scrutiny.

Hey mirageofdeceit & LabTop

I think the serious "debunkers" arent talking for a couple reasons...

1) The evidence LabTop has presented speaks for itself...

2) The sheer amount of energy required to pulverise concrete and sublimate steel is monumentally hard to explain by assuming some kind of "conventional explosive" (jetfuel, thermite, etc...) alone was used in this case...

Greetings all..this is my first post.

My question deals with perhaps NIST but maybe some other agency.

Did NIST or any other agency MAINTAIN that the FAA Radar Control and Columbia seismograph were NOT time-synchronized to each other WITHOUT MENTIONING that both the FAA Radar and Columbia seismograph were both synchronized to the atomic clock(UTC)?

NIST has tried to give the impression that there was no form of synchronizing clocks between LDEO and NIST going on at 9/11, but as you have noticed these institutes use the same atomic clock synchronization.
This is one of the main arguments I included in my thesis, to prove that the 17 seconds delay were synchronized with LDEO and NIST data.

I did not notice any new NIST "excuses" lately, let's say, the last 12 month.
They only brought these aforementioned FAQ online in August 2006.
( wtc.nist.gov... )

We are eagerly waiting for the final WTC 7 report, now written by an outsourced firm, which has btw great interest in developing directed energy weapons, and kinetic energy weapons.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit

You really can't beat physics. Unless you are the Powers That Be and control the media and all investigative agencies. THEN, you can beat physics with impunity. Have done so for 100 years.