First off, I see again, that I need to repeat my above argument :
Keep firmly in mind, that all these graphs and the data they were derived from, originated from 1 day after 9/11/2001, the only exception was
WTC 7's collapse graph, which was posted by LDEO on Friday, 3 days after 9/11.
You directly begin however mixing again the NIST 2006 time alterations with the bulk of my thesis argumentation, which is based on the 2001 to 2005
consensus between NIST and LDEO, they used during all these years the same WTC 2 plane-impact time.
Only in Feb 2006 NIST added 5 seconds to all NIST published times, but LDEO's dr Kim added only 3 seconds to all his LDEO published times, so we have
surprisingly just a difference of in fact 2 seconds after the Feb NIST-LDEO clashes.
You totally fail to address the conclusions of that first main part of my thesis, and I have the impression you do not completely understand yet, what
grave conclusions those are.
You must first adhere to the times I based my thesis on in the first place, meet me at common conclusion grounds on the WTC 7 collapse, or stay
divided on the matter, (your choice), and THEN we can proceed to the NIST alterations, which I addressed in my last posts in my
In Feb 2006 NIST felt the need to alter all video timing in their possession, by ADDING
This was based on "reviewing" the news-agencies provided atomic clock adjusted on-screen "time-bugs" in a sparsely four videos from the WTC 2
They forgot to mention however a possible main fault introduction in their new theory.
That the raw video footage timing of that day, fed to the news agencies, could have been altered to begin with, by planted army editors, who, like we
know now, were present f.ex. in the CNN headquarters news editing rooms.
We also know now, that these military propaganda arm editors are now planted all over the networks editing rooms, to feed the news as they see to fit
the US National Security, to the US public and consequently to the whole world. There are many threads and posts at ATS regarding these military
propaganda units. US Congress has approved their work, no surprise there. If you shout around the words "National Security" in any country,
passionated "patriotic" representatives of the People with a greedy agenda are always willing to forget any form of democracy ( We, the People.
Remember that phrase?).
I begin to like and I appreciate the persistence of your quest to try to understand my argumentation.
At least you as one of the very few, take the time to try to understand, or to counter.
Do you really, deep down in your heart and mind, want to know what amount of clear-proved anomalies and plain lies can be surfaced in the massive
amount of data offered by all these US government controlled institutions? You see hopefully already, the huge discrepancies between the descriptions
of 9/11 by 5 different, huge US officially controlled institutions.
Discussion of your above posted last arguments :
2- You go wrong already in your nr 2 argument :
""We need to subtract 5 s from NIST's 2006 published times to agree with the graphs."" .
NIST did not publish those graph times, LDEO did!
The graphs are build with LDEO data, and NIST just simply took them over until late 2005, then they began to see their neglect of the 17 seconds
anomaly in the LDEO WTC 7 collapse data and graph.
This is a unseen by you, hidden contradiction in your sentence. The LDEO graphs stay perfectly the same, NIST only wanted to "push" the LDEO
graph's starting time, 5 seconds in the future, to fit their agenda.
Your correct wording could have been :
""We need to add 5 s to the underlaying LDEO's graphs timelines, based on LDEO's graphs starting times, to agree again with the now 2006 newly
proposed NIST times"".
4- Thus your following argumentation in nr 4 is based on a faulty argument to begin with, and is wrong.
You still must add
5 seconds to the 2001 Nicholas Cianca's photo time stamp to sync it to the new 2006 NIST-proposed 5 seconds added times.
As you can see in my below Table 3-1 link, NIST did ADD
those 5 seconds to ALL the events on video tapes in their possession, in Feb 2006.
So you can't suddenly subtract them, as you propose in your point 4.
I don't care about the 2006 NIST alterations, you however have to apply them to ALL time stamps according to NIST self. So it does not change my
conclusion of the by NIST, totally NEGLECTED 17 seconds seismic retention time in the WTC 7 chart.
And I repeat, the Cianca time stamp I discussed was from the 2001 to 2005 period. So NIST has to add
5 seconds to the NIST Cianca photo.
In case we should want to follow NIST on it, only the timestamps typed in and under LDEO's WTC 7 graph are added by 5 seconds, but the SEVENTEEN
seconds anomaly still stands in the WTC 7 collapse chart from LDEO. And in my big explanatory chart based on that WTC 7 LDEO collapse chart, with all
my remarks, posted a few times in my thread.
Where could you have seen this?
In the link I provided to their Table 3-1 from chapter 3.5, titled :
Times for the five major events of september 11, 2001
You should have a good look at the entries in the first two columns to the right of the "Event" columns, especially at the event, addressing our
momentary discussion ; the "Second aircraft impact".
The first column gives the, held onto by both NIST and LDEO during the period of 2001 to 2005 :
""Relative Time from Visual Analysis"" (9:02:54 a.m.).
The second column gives the by NIST alone, in Feb 2006 :
""Adjusted Time from Television Broadcasts"" (9:02:59 a.m.).
The fourth column gives the 2006 :
""Time Based on LDEO Recent Analysis"" (9:02:57 a.m.)
And thus, in Feb 2006, NIST and LDEO did not agree anymore on the WTC 2 plane impact time, but differed now 2 seconds, and not 5 seconds as you
5- The same faulty argument from your 2- and 4- arguments adhere to this. No need to follow up thus.
6- You keep interpreting that very important
you could nibble off a few different seconds every time you bring it up. You can't. Period.
In fact you should add a few unknown yet, seconds or milliseconds, since there must have been a seismic event precluding the first visual event,
unseen inside the WTC 7 building.
So stick to the observed 8.2 seconds in that graph.
7- The same faulty argument from your 2- and 4- arguments adhere to this. No need to follow up thus.
To be continued in my next post :