Proof of the Gash on WTC-7 ?

Hobson's choice :

I see, Randi.org has wasted a few more posts to my problem :

The problem with the Randi.org members, who have casually glanced into my posts, is the usual. They did not spend enough time to let it sink in, unbiased, then re-read it several times, until they hopefully suddenly see where the NIST problem originates.

The childish responses of a few Randi.org members aside ( we call them not philosophers, but penis-flippants in my country), I'll explain it member R.Mackey, the first serious response from Randi.org, first :

You make the same mistake as many before you in your first reaction :
forums.randi.org...

R.Mackey : What's missing here is the LDEO signals are time-corrected for the expected siesmic travel time. The actual source of the 10 second delay is the time between the start of the collapse and anything massive hitting the ground.

Thus, no conflict.

NO, they were NOT time-corrected !

You, and member Kent1 with you, evidently did NOT want to understand what I undeniably proved with 5 examples in my post # 5 :
because it doesn't fit your biased and sarcastic view on the post 9/11 world.

As you can see, I am clarevoyant in my past posts, regarding even future responses :
www.studyof911.com...

There seem to be a need to proof to the obvious far too casual reader, that LDEO indeed did include the 17 sec delay in their recordings of received seismic signals from New York on 11 September 2001 in their seismic charts.

And that the event time stamps printed by LDEO above the "Seismograms recorded by LCSN Station PAL (Palisades, NY)" of the plane impacts and building collapses were the actual times of the incoming signals at PAL.
Not the actual event times in New York.!
There is a 17 seconds delay time for the seismic signals to travel through the upper crust from NY to PAL, as stated by LDEO them self.

Don't feel lonely, you both are in illustre company.
All NIST researchers missed this important fact for 3 years, just as you did now.

And then I already explained in my post # 4 above that post # 5, what the biggest problem with the NIST report is :
www.studyof911.com...
These are the 100 to 10 nanometer per second corrected seismograms from LDEO.

The two collapse charts, when reduced to the same sensitivity as the 3 others (0 -10 nm/sec), clearly show preceding seismic events, just as big as the (23 sec chart position) preceding seismic event in the WTC 7 chart.

THUS I REPEAT :

That can only mean one thing.
13 seconds before NIST found their first visual event proof of building failure, the east penthouse roof dent photograph by Nicolas Cianca, some seismic event, comparable to the head-on collision of a huge air plane on each WTC 1 and 2 towers, shook the bedrock at the WTC-7 building.
And the same comparable seismic events preceded the 2 Collapsing Towers.

And you, Left-behind, also want to tell me again, that I can't call those events, explosions?
Did you see the huge EXPLOSIONS when the 2 planes hit?

Btw, Bsbray11 lately posted somewhere, photo's of the reinforced structure of the floors above the CON-ED power station when WTC 7 was under construction. These beams and columns were MUCH stronger than the rest of the steel used in that building.
Did you see them back as bent and dented debris in photos of post collapsed WTC 7 ?
NO.
Why did we not see any remaining parts of this immense strong structure, where did it end up?

This is the real science people think they're talking about:

Between 1995 and 1997, British Steel's Swinden Technology Centre, co-sponsored by the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) with TNO (The Netherlands) and CTICM (France) as partners, carried out a fire research programme on a modern multi-storey composite steel framed structure built within the BRE large scale test facility at Cardington. The research programme aimed to understand and develop numerical calculation procedures that are capable of describing and predicting the structural behaviour of modern multi-storey composite steel framed buildings subject to fire attack.

More info here: www.mace.manchester.ac.uk...


They used much, MUCH smaller pieces of steel in their tests, and very exaggerated fires (in comparison to anything realistic), as they intentionally created as much heat, as quickly as possible, as close to the steel as possible.


Their results led to this publication from the University of Edinburgh:

...six full-scale fire tests on a real composite frame structure at Cardington showed that despite large deflections of structural members affected by fire, runaway type failures did not occur in real frame structures when subjected to realistic fires in a variety of compartments.

Further:

Approximately 40 supplementary reports and over 10 technical papers have been written and appear as an appendix to this report. This amount of work has ensured that the conclusions presented have been verified by a number of independent approaches. Mutually reinforcing arguments were developed from the results of different computational models, application of fundamental mechanics and the analysis of test data. It is therefore with a great deal of confidence that these findings have been presented for close scrutiny by the profession.

guardian.150m.com...


"Debunkers"? Any contradictory studies? Where's the science after all?


The original source for the last study is here: www.civ.ed.ac.uk...

[edit on 27-5-2007 by bsbray11]

I have no opinion at the moment on seismic spikes, sorry. But as this thread was started by Mr CF Herbert or whoever as about the gash, allow me to repeat my question which is still being sidestepped.

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
So re: the OP, whaddyou guys think of that bldg damage? I don't know if it matters in the big picture but isn't odd we've all ignored it looking at that shiny north face with a couple of fires, yakking about how no plane hit it (ie no structural damage) so it HAS to be a demo? I'm not saying it's not a demo, just why frame it like that?

I do not like your use of ""Popular Mechanics spikes"".
I think you try to use diversion techniques.
I am not talking about these so called huge maximum seismic spikes in the PM "debunking" misinformation piece.

My thesis is about the pre-collapse seismic readings on the LDEO charts of all 3 WTC collapses.
Which are as big in magnitude as the plane impact's maximum readings.
And I do not buy the usual rebuttal, that they are seismic event results from internal failures of single columns, just before the main collapses started.
In that case we should have seen a lot of facade surface breaking and pulling in, or down, first at all 4 sides.

And we definitely did not ignore the South facade problem, that problem is created by NIST etc, by not publishing their huge database of private pictures and videos. We tried all we could in the past years to find photo's of that side.

And btw, Griff already answered your question very well.
The gash, if it really was one, indicates just the removal of the facade cladding, no more.
Because the boundaries of that gash are much too straight to be a form of severe internal damage, caused by deep penetrating huge chunks from the WTC 1 collapse, as NIST tries to introduce, based on no proof at all, but solely a few firefighter testimonies, which can be interpreted as views of the southwest corner gash as well.

And I can as well interpret that gash as a video anomaly, which often occurs when the camera man zooms in from a great distance, to the camera's maximum aperture possibilities. You get then these vague, overlapping black bands in the pictures.
This video was taken from the other side of the Hudson River, very far away.

I have posted a long time ago that photo taken from a position at the southeast corner of the collapsed South Tower, in the direction of WTC 7, and after WTC 1, the North Tower, had also collapsed more than one hour earlier, and that gash can't be seen.
Prof. Jones has used that picture in his thesis about thermites, and I have immediately hinted at him in a post here, that the picture was taken around 11:30 AM, and not in the afternoon as he mentioned first.

Fair enuff, I recall Griff's point now too. I should probably open my pie hole in direct proportion to how closely I've followed all this. It's true the evidence has been scant, perhaps verging on effective disinformation, and I'll study this soome more soon and see what you guys have found.
IMO it's gotta me more than video anomalies- multiple shots, but cleanliness and depth are not clear. Also if it's true no one at all died at WTC7, I think deep dmage there is near ruled out - that would almost certainly kill someone if it took out enough to weaken the structure. Could be photo fakery, but I tend to doubt that usually... could be real but superficial...
Jury's still out.
Peace.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

I would like to attend you all on this thread, and my thoughts on what is used on 9/11 as the classified explosives to blow up the WTC Towers :

www.abovetopsecret.com...