Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited.

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Labtop,
please accept my apologies for the tone of my post last night. had been awake nearly 2 days, in pain, lots of hydrocodone, and jetlag all add up to a situation where i just shouldnt have posted anything at all. so again, please accept my apologies as my tone and demeanor were misplaced.




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Take a good long nap, and wake up fresh again.
I already read your last edit remark to Griff, and smiled when I read your misguided rant, your a gentleman to offer your apologies.

Haroki, for you goes the same remark as to Damocles, thanks for being a gentleman.

Now, let's proceed.

I am waiting to see if you're going to be able to proof to me, a different time delay of seismic signals through the upper crust of New York state. ( your now proposed 12 seconds, instead of the well known and scientifically accepted 17 seconds.)
I am really curious, since that delay is not based on differences between 2 or more, atomic clocks, but is based on readings, using one atomic clock, the one from LDEO.

I am also curious how you are going to explain to me after that, the interesting 5 seconds of precluding seismic silence which must be accepted then, when we would believe you, in the four WTC 1 and 2, impact and collapse charts.
As you can see in my link to my undeniable proof of 17 seconds implemented by LDEO, we must then subtract your proposed 5 seconds less travel time of seismic signals, and then we do not arrive in all 4 charts, at the exact point where we see the first significant signals arrive.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

I am waiting to see if you're going to be able to proof to me, a different time delay of seismic signals through the upper crust of New York state. ( your now proposed 12 seconds, instead of the well known and scientifically accepted 17 seconds.)
I am really curious, since that delay is not based on differences between 2 or more, atomic clocks, but is based on readings, using one atomic clock, the one from LDEO.



Well, I've lost some of my motivation today. So, no graphs yet. So....

1- LDEO uses atomic clocks, that's correct.
2- NIST made new estimates for all 5 event initiations based on broadcast cameras, which are VERY accurate with their time stamps due to their synchronization to GPS clocks, or atomic clock signals that are provided to the public by NIST. wtc.nist.gov...
3- THE best way to check the travel time for the seismic waves is by using WTC2's impact, since this was recorded by many network cameras. NIST gave the impact time as 9:02:59. I think you agree to this based on your comments in the other, linked forum?
4- The seismic waves arrive at the PAL stations at 9:03:11.
5- That's 12 seconds......

Conclusions-
1- The 12 second travel time is correct, and Dr Kim's 17 sec estimate is wrong. And if you accept this, and then use the 20:46 time stamp in Nicholas C's photo - which again you seem to agree on, based on your comments in the other forum - and add 12 seconds, that gets you to 20:58, which is appx when the first seismic waves reach PAL, +/- 1 sec. And when you use the time line attachment from the other forum - I don't have access - the east penthouse completely submerges from view at 2.2 seconds on the time line and the global collapse begins at 8.2 seconds, a difference of 6 seconds. This gives you the 20:52 collapse time of 7 that NIST describes. And 12 second later, +/- 1 sec, is when THAT seismic waves reaches PAL. It fits perfectly. All the other events show a similar relationship.
2- If you reject the 12 second travel time, then ALL of the time line must be moved back 5 seconds. You cannot mix and match event times if you reject what the clocks say. And IF you adjust the time line back 5 seconds, then the time lines agree again. You cannot mix travel times/event initiation times.

Opinion?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I want to throw in that these discrepancies we're talking about are huge for institutions like NIST or LDEO. NIST regulates the atomic clock that the US uses. Even mainstream media channels have clocks that are perfectly sync'd down to the second. These discrepancies don't result from clocks just "getting off" from each other. These things are supposed to be accurate down to ridiculous fractions of a second, and last hundreds or thousands of years before becoming significantly off.

Dr. Kim is a professional in his field and his job depends upon him providing accurate figures. He doesn't do this by "estimating" (I'm not sure what you're trying to imply with that word), but by using formulas, one would imagine. You can probably find them on the Internet.

In reality, all number of sources give discrepancies as to the times of various events on 9/11. Here are some sources for the impact times:

Flight 11's impact time, as given by various sync'd sources:
LDEO 8:46:26
FAA 8:46:35
NTSB 8:46:40
9/11 Commission 8:46:40 (This time seems to have been arbitrarily chosen to match the NTSB.)

Flight 175's impact time:
NTSB 9:02:40
LDEO 9:02:54
9/11 Commission 9:03:11
FAA 9:03:14


There are some pretty huge and absolutely ridiculous discrepancies there. If this doesn't show you how incompetent government agencies are at "investigating" something, I don't know what will.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I think you still did not read and comprehend really all I have posted at StudyOf911. Especially the last few posts there, about the sudden 5 seconds alteration of all video material in possession of NIST.

Dr. Kim from LDEO has explained and multiple referenced the method based on which LDEO determined the 17 seconds retention time in the New York state upper crust.
Nobody in his field of expertise has ever challenged the outcome of their method, which was established over the course of many years, btw.
The consistency of that upper crust hasn't magically changed on the day of 9/11, so you can be sure, that those 17 seconds delay, were needed for seismic events at the WTC, to arrive at LDEO's seismographs needles.

You are suddenly the first one to challenge dr Kim and LDEO, and then proceed to combine your assumption of NIST offering the right time frames (which I challenge all the time already, they kept altering them over the years passing) with an assumption I can't find a ground for, namely the NIST arrival time of signals of the WTC 2 impact at LDEO's PALisades station.

I have the impression you are mixing up altered timelines and stamps from NIST, especially the ones they added 5 seconds to.
You probably add 5 seconds to one event, but do not for the other.
Thus you arrive to a faulty 12 seconds (17 - 5).

NIST them self btw, have never expressed any doubt to LDEO's 17 seconds retention time.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   
For an example of the non-accuracy of NIST researchers in plain sight in their own reports, see this Source :

They time-stamped in 2005 that sanking, in the Cianca photo, at 17:20:46. According to their own 2006, Table 3-1, total collapse then started at 17:20:47.
That's one second later.
Which is totally wrong according to their own 2005 WTC 7 Failure Sequence Timeline. (see further on for a screenshot of it).
Must be in fact 8.2 seconds later.


Your "conclusions" are so riddled with faulty times and assumptions, because you are totally neglecting fault margins, NIST 5 seconds alteration, LDEO's 3 seconds alteration under pressure from NIST, and LDEO's 1 second fault margin. Which I addressed in my last thesis posts.



posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
For an example of the non-accuracy of NIST researchers in plain sight in their own reports, see this Source :

They time-stamped in 2005 that sanking, in the Cianca photo, at 17:20:46. According to their own 2006, Table 3-1, total collapse then started at 17:20:47.
That's one second later.
Which is totally wrong according to their own 2005 WTC 7 Failure Sequence Timeline. (see further on for a screenshot of it).
Must be in fact 8.2 seconds later.


Your "conclusions" are so riddled with faulty times and assumptions, because you are totally neglecting fault margins, NIST 5 seconds alteration, LDEO's 3 seconds alteration under pressure from NIST, and LDEO's 1 second fault margin. Which I addressed in my last thesis posts.


I'd say YOUR conclusions are riddled with faulty times . That was the point of my post. You complain a lot about the changing event timing, and that's a valid point. But only 1 travel time can be accurate. It's either 12 or 17, correct?

So,

1-Do you agree with 9:02:59 as the impact time for 2?
2-Do you agree with 9:03:11 as the arrival time for the seismic waves?

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Haroki]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
This is where you went wrong :
""1- The 12 second travel time is correct, and Dr Kim's 17 sec estimate is wrong. ""

You just proved NIST wrong on another detail.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
This is where you went wrong :
""1- The 12 second travel time is correct, and Dr Kim's 17 sec estimate is wrong. ""

You just proved NIST wrong on another detail.


I can live with NIST being wrong on the event initiation times, due to the vagaries of determining actual times. I'll be willing to accept my being wrong on that. But I need to know what times/travel times your thesis is based on, cuz I see you mixing the 2 to get the result you want to get. That's a problem. The travel time, once we agree on something, is set in stone and will determine whether or not your thesis is correct. I'm now wondering if you are indeed correct........

So what is your answer:

1- There is a 12 second travel time and 2's impact happened at 9:02:59, when indexed to PAL's clock

or

2- There is a 17 second travel time and 2's impact happened at 9:02:54, when indexed to PAL's clock



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Haroki, to get the debating ground cleaned up first, let's get a definitive answer from you :

From where have you sourced your 9:03:11 time-stamp as the arrival time for the seismic waves at the LDEO seismograph's needles?
This is your main reason to arrive at a 12 seconds seismic retention time, a time stamp different from my thesis reasoning!

As a reminder for other readers, also already posted by bsbray11, below are various real-time New York Flight 175's plane impact times provided by FIVE huge, OFFICIAL US government paid institutions, which all based their calculations on NIST atomic clocks readings :

9/11 Commission --- 09:03:11
FAA ------------------- 09:03:14
NTSB ----------------- 09:02:40
LDEO ----------------- 09:02:54
Thus LDEO's 2001 NY real-time stamp is the
same New York real-time as NIST in 2005 :
NIST 2005 ----------- 09:02:54
NIST 2006 ----------- 09:02:59
(LDEO was, btw, convinced by NIST in 2006, to add 3 seconds to their time stamp, but not the 5 seconds NIST came up with)

QUESTION :
Please provide us an URL-Link, with exact position and wording where you found that 9:03:11 time stamp.

Not simply a main link, as you did, to f.ex. a NIST report with 296 pages, but also the exact page number or PDF-page number, and a typed out excerpt with that time stamp in it. (typed, since you can't copy/paste from NIST reports)

Thus the casual readers who perhaps still think that your posts about a (shorter than LDEO), 12 seconds upper crust retention time has some merits, will get a clear picture why you came to that conclusion.
My thesis is written with all the proper links provided, I expect the same from my thesis-debaters.


After you provide the source of your 9:03:11 data, I will address your last question, directly after reading your post.
Because that answer is based on what you give as an answer on my 9:03:11 data question.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Haroki, to get the debating ground cleaned up first, let's get a definitive answer from you :

From where have you sourced your 9:03:11 time-stamp as the arrival time for the seismic waves at the LDEO seismograph's needles?


Dude, I'm using the graph that you used on the other forum.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

Notice the graph begins at 9:02:55. The seismic waves arrive at the 16s mark on that graph. That's 9:03:11.....

Now don't take this the wrong way, but English obviously isn't your first language. So I DO have a hard time following some of what you're saying there. I don't see anywhere that you challenge the :11 arrival time. If it's there please point it out.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
At second thought, I like your idea to concentrate first on the second plane impact at the South Tower, WTC 2.
That way we can come to a consensus who's wrong and who's not.
As I noticed, I seemingly can't let you understand, by explaining it without pictures.
Let's introduce the seismic record of this event, below.
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.

My post#1 at Studyof911, the second graph, resized to fit here :


2. Second plane Impact at the South Tower (WTC-2) at 09:02:54 (EDT).

Now pay attention to the line printed to the right of the text : PAL EHE, at the left upper corner.
It notes that the needle-start time of the graph was at 13:02:55, which is 09:02:55 (EDT).
Under my above posted LDEO-graph I wrote the text from LDEO on their website graph page.
LDEO calculated the Real-Time event of the second impact in New York as having happened at 09:02:54 (EDT).
That's 1 second earlier as the start time of the graph (09:02:55 (EDT)).
So, instead of adding 17 seconds upper crust retention time, we must add now 1 second less, thus 16 seconds.
Doesn't it strike you as surprising, that that is exactly the appearance on the graph of the first pack of bigger seismic signals?

And if we add your formerly proposed 12 seconds upper crust retention time, minus 1 second at the start of the graph, we arrive in a region of the LDEO graph at the 11s position, where nothing happens, until 5 seconds later on in the graph.

=============================

Now back to your last questions.

First off, I question a lot of NIST's data, and have developed quite some trust in the data from LDEO.

This quote (from your first post on this page 3) is probably the spot where we already both drifted 5 seconds apart in our argumentation and understanding :


Haroki :
3- THE best way to check the travel time for the seismic waves is by using WTC2's impact, since this was recorded by many network cameras. NIST gave the impact time as 9:02:59. I think you agree to this based on your comments in the other, linked forum?
4- The seismic waves arrive at the PAL stations at 9:03:11.
5- That's 12 seconds......

Conclusions-
1- The 12 second travel time is correct, and Dr Kim's 17 sec estimate is wrong.


I'll say it in short first:
You used a (4 years later revised) time stamp from NIST to subtract from a 2001 LDEO time stamp, and so you came up with a wrong time compared to the in numerous seismic LDEO-experiments up to 2001 detected LDEO retention time.
You should have added the same 5 seconds NIST revision time to ALL time stamps you were using, then you would have correctly used the correct simple calculus rules, and would have arrived at the same 17 seconds as LDEO.


I'll now explain where in your above quote, you went gravely wrong in your argumentation, since you compared a 1 year old "apple" with a basket full of 6 year old "apples", which is unclean scientific reasoning rules :

(3-) 02:59 in New York, is a NIST 2006-revised time.
Definitely not depicted in my posted, dated Sept 12, 2001 LDEO WTC 2 impact graph. LDEO gave, up till late 2005, a NY time of 02:54.
Their graph start time is btw 02:55, probably related via GPS to a NIST atomic clock, as all US institutions do. Your PC can also be kept synchronized to a NIST clock, online.
In 2006 LDEO reluctantly, under pressure of NIST, upgraded that time with 3 seconds to 02:57, but there is no online revised LDEO graph with that figure in it, all my posted graphs are the only online available 2001 LDEO graphs!
(4-) 03:11 is, I realize now, not a figure found in a NIST report, but a figure you arrived at by simply reading my 2001 LDEO posted graph, (with the LDEO start time of 02:55, 1 sec later than their impact time of 02:54), but then you switched back in your argumentation to your point (3-) figure of a 2006 NIST time of 02:59, and then subtracted it : 03:11 minus 02:59 = 12 seconds.
But in reality, in this very specific case of you, Haroki, trying perhaps to proof LDEO wrong on their rock-solid retention time of 17 seconds, you can't mix 1 year old NIST and 6 years old LDEO time stamps, in a 6 year old LDEO graph, to arrive at a clearly wrong 12 seconds LDEO retention time.
You must adhere to one set of standards, the LDEO one, since it is an LDEO provided graph.


You :
4- The seismic waves arrive at the PAL stations at 9:03:11.
(Btw, no argumentation in that post, why at 03:11)

Me :
Yes, they arrived at NY real-time 09:02:54 + 17 seconds signals crust retention = 09:03:11,
and not at (LDEO+NIST, both held on to it from 2001 to 2005
09:02:54 + 5 seconds (NIST-time-revision in 2006) = 09:02:59 + 17 seconds (LDEO ret.time) = 09:03:16. As we can clearly see in the 2001 chart.
You were right on this one, but more by shear accident, than by solid reasoning, we can agree on this, but not on your reasoning for a 12 seconds retention time.

And the answers to your last 2 questions are no, to the first, yes to the second.



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 08:44 PM
link   
If you take a closer look at the above seismic graph, you see at the 6s position, a circa 2 x bigger than the normal background signals, seismic event.
This could be interpreted as a firm support for the story of mr. Rodrigues, the former WTC janitor, and his former colleagues, about premature strong explosions in the lower WTC basements.

If these were caused by some kind of thermobaric explosives, which were by design not firmly coupled to the bedrock or the core columns, then that explains why we see a relatively small seismic peak.

Modern thermobaric explosions can be rigged to effectuate their greatest force in a specific thin, horizontal or vertical, plain. That way their immense fast explosion front can be used to slice through lots of steel columns, without leaving traces. A thermobaric explosion is very difficult to prove afterwards, since it leaves only gaseous traces which disperse quickly in the air.

That signal takes place circa 10 seconds, before plane impact signals show up.
Another effect of thermobarics: badly burned victims, who are situated far enough from the explosion center. Too near situated, and little is left from victims, at all.
Fits well in the story of William Rodriguez.

[edit on 8/12/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Dec, 8 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
From the other forum:

LaBtop - I am convinced however that the time stamp on his photo of the dented roof of the WTC 7 east penthouse accords to atomic clock readings used by NIST from CBS or other Media Network video footage from the same dent.

Ok now follow me here.

1-We can agree that there is a 17 s travel time for the seismic waves to reach PAL.

2- we can agree that NIST's 2006 published times, as determined from using the time stamps provided by network cameras, are wrong by 5s. We need to subtract 5 s from NIST's 2006 published times to agree with the graphs.

3- NIST used the same methodology to determine all 5 event initiation times, which we can agree to be off by 5s.

4- therefore, we also need to subtract 5 s from Nicholas C's photo timestamp, giving us 20:41. Not add 5s, as you stated in the other forum: LaBtop - When we assume that NIST has re-evaluated their Cianca (east penthouse dent) photo timestamp of 17:20:46 publicized in 2005, then NIST now in 2007, must have added another 5 seconds, like in all other visual material in their database, and must the Cianca photo have now, Feb 2007, a new timestamp of 17:20:51 .


5- add 17s to 20:41 and we get 20:58, which is exactly the point at which PAL's needle begins jumping - the 1st part.

6- the timeline chart you copied in the other forum www.studyof911.com... gives the following: 1.2 seconds - east penthouse submerged from view. 8.2 seconds - global collapse occurs. A difference of 7 seconds.

7- 20:41 plus 7s gives us 20:48. Add 17s travel time and you get 21:05, exactly when the needle begins jumping the 2nd time.

You made your error in step 4 when you added 5 seconds to NIST's 2006 published times, rather than subtracted 5s......



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 07:47 AM
link   
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 StudyOf911 thread.

In Feb 2006 NIST felt the need to alter all video timing in their possession, by ADDING 5 seconds.
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 impact.
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 perhaps thought.

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 NIST-DentToTotalCollapse8_2sec.JPG picture as if 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 :



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Question :
Do you agree that NIST added in 2006 their 5 seconds to ALL videoed and photographed events, thus also the Nicolas Cianca photo of the WTC 7 Penthouse dent, and that addition is not important to the discussion, since my whole theory is based on timelines where NIST agreed with LDEO on the WTC 2 impact time, but interpreted the WTC 7 collapse differently.

Notes :
NIST totally NEGLECTED 17 seconds seismic retention time in the WTC 7 chart, and this is still TRUE even when you should introduce their 5 seconds alteration from 2006 for ALL graph times.
The graph will not change, only the definition of the time stamps, but they change all the same, so the reasoning behind the graphs interpretation will not change.
In fact the definition of the time stamps will only differ 2 seconds, since LDEO in early 2006 added 3 seconds to all there LDEO timestamps, to try to come in sync again with the New NIST time stamps. The difference left is thus 2 seconds, and not 5 seconds as many conclude wrongly.


Next question :
Do you agree, that proceeding from your point 2 to 4 and from there on, all your other arguments are based on a wrong argument, and especially your last conclusion is wrong too?
It should now read :

""I ,Haroki, made an error in step 2 and then in step 4, where I subtract 5 seconds, rather than add 5s like NIST in 2006 did them self for all video taped and photographed 9/11 events......""


Now we got that out of the way, do you in fact understand all of my conclusions shattered through my thesis argumentation?
( Begin f.ex. by trying to explain the VERY different approach by LDEO's 2006 Recent Analysis in Table 3-1, of the Event named "Collapse of WTC 7", based on the blacked seconds cubicles by me, at the bottom line of my provided picture of that table in the above link, it's the ONLY event in that Table, where LDEO suddenly SUBTRACT seconds, instead of ADDING seconds, like in all other 4 events.).

And try to look at the evidence with a neutral stance, and begin to concentrate on all the trickery data changing by 5 main US institutions? I assure you that in the end, you will be forced to question your government, which is ultimately firmly controlling all these official sources.


NOTE to bsbray11 :
In favour of all recent and future discussions of my thesis,
Could you change all download links named "WTC7_NIST_LDEO_timing_nr4.JPG" to be found here (one must be a StudyOf911 member to hot link to them and see them) to actual hot linkable observable pictures again in that thread, so I and others can link to, and show these, very important for the thesis, pictures again here?
Or is that against the board or forum policy, and do you want to keep traffic low to the forums?
Or another unknown technical reason I'm not aware of.
My opinion :
If you want the truth to get out, we must not ourself also obstruct the free flow of information, as our formidable official opponents in the agencies and institutions so easily do, all the time.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link   
For all of you, getting interested and wanting to participate in this discussion of my thesis, I found a copyable partial PDF file of that non-copyable NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf file.

Here is the original NIST report 1-5A chapters 1 to 8 first :
wtc.nist.gov...
page 101 from 392 starts Chapter 2, Collection and handling of visual material.
page 115 from 392 starts Chapter 3, TIMING OF PHOTOGRAPHS AND VIDEO CLIPS.

Here is the copyable new PDF file with the chapters 1 to 3, the ones we are now especially interested in :
NIST Plane animations PDF

So now you can at last copy and paste text and diagrams from those damn NIST copy-locked reports to your PC or to picture libraries.
We always beat them in the end.



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Ok, since you don't seem to like the use of Nicholas C's phot as a starting point for 7, I'll work with NIST's time line that describes the beginning of the global collapse.

So again:

1- NIST's network camera based timelines are off by appx 5 seconds.

2- All of NIST's timelines were indexed from the cameras. And to concur with the 17s travel time and PAL's graphs - who never changed their timestamp - one must subtract 5s from all 5 of NIST's event initiation times.

3- NIST gives a camera adjusted time for 1's impact at 46:30. PAL's graph shows arrival of seismic events at 46:42, indicating a true impact time of 46:25, 5s earlier than NIST's camera adjusted times.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

4- NIST gives a camera adjusted time for 2's impact at 02:59. PAL's graph shows arrival of seismic events at 03:11, indicating a true impact time of 02:54, 5s earlier than NIST's camera adjusted times.

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

5- NIST gives a camera adjusted time for the beginning of 2's collapse at 58:59. PAL's graph shows arrival time of seismic events at 58:11, indicating a true beginning of collapse time of 58:54, 5s earlier than NIST's camera adjusted times. Then 9s free fall time for panels to hit the ground that you agree to in the other forum ( LaBtop - I do agree that when you subtract 9 seconds for WTC 2, resp. 11 seconds for WTC 1 , from the LDEO revisioned collapse times (Table 3-1, column 5), needed by the first debris to hit the ground, you end up within the error margins set by NIST for televised events (Table 3-1, column 3).) , and major events begin at 59:20 on PAL's graph.

www.studyof911.com...

6- NIST gives a camera adjusted time for the beginning of 1's collpase at 28:22. PAL's graph shows arrival time of seismic events at 28:36, indicating a true beginning of collapse time of 28:19, 3s earlier than NIST's camera adjusted times. Then 11s free fall time ( see your above statement ) , and major events begin at 28:47 on PAL's graph.

www.studyof911.com...

7- So we have 3 instances where NIST times are wrong by 5s, and one where it wrong by 3s, when compared to PAL's graphs and an agreed upon 17s travel time. In each case, time must be subtracted from NIST's time line to agree with PAL's graphs, which have never changed. True, their estimated event time has changed, but never their time stamp.

8- NIST gives a camera adjusted time of 20:52 for the beginning of 7's GLOBAL collapse ( exterior of building, the second part of the collapse ). PAl's graph shows an arrival time for the second round of seismic events at 21:05, indicating a true beginning of global collapse time of 20:47, again 5 seconds earlier than NIST's camera adjusted time line, when you allow 1s free fall time ( which you agree to as a logical conclusion in the other forum :LaBtop - However, this does not match at all for the WTC 7 collapse.
This is advertised by NIST as a bottom first collapse.
So the first heavy internal debris should have hit the ground within 2 seconds. )

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

9- Using NIST's failure timeline www.studyof911.com... global collapse begins at 8.2 seconds. Looking backwards, the east penthouse disappears at 1.2 seconds, a difference of 7 seconds. And if we look 7 seconds before the arrival time of the second event on PAL's graph (21:05) or at 20:58, we see the arrival of the first seismic event. And even if you use the entire 8.2 seconds, which isn't logically supported, it still falls within the error guidelines.

So despite the evidence that a 5 second deduction from NIST's camera indexed timeline in 4 out of 5 cases - and the 5th needs only a 3 second deduction , well within the error guidelines - results in perfect agreement with PAL's graphs and a 17 second timeline, you want to ADD 5 seconds to 7's events.

The only conclusion is that you're manipulating the data with obfuscation in an attempt to MAKE the data fit what your preconceived belief that explosives were used to bring down 1,2 and 7.

Couple this with the utter inability to produce any testimony OR video evidence of explosions that fit your timelines and the final decision can be only one thing.....

You need to rethink your thesis


[edit on 9-12-2007 by Haroki]



posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
""Ok, since you don't seem to like the use of Nicholas C's photo as a starting point for 7,""
Where did you get THAT impression from? My whole thesis is BASED on Cianca's photo time-stamping by NIST ! The moment they publicized that time-stamped photo, I realized that at last we were offered a common time-stamp between LDEO and NIST, so I could start comparing LDEO and NIST timelines for WTC 7.

Point 1- ""NIST's network camera based timelines are off by appx 5 seconds.""
No, NIST's 2006 video database times have a maximum error margin of 5 seconds, but there are also events with no error, or just one or a few seconds. As long as the public can't access that database, to check the error margin for every specific photo or video in the NIST database, all NIST's new 2006 rethoric is baseless.
The PEOPLE paid them, but The People may not access their conclusions freely online, to check if they did their work in a truthful manner. Some call that peer review here, which online public access isn't, peer review is a check by colleagues in the field, who would only get access, after asking for NIST video/photo-database access and offering their credentials. Joe Smoe has no change in hell to get access. Joe Smoe however, could be much cleverer than most or all researchers and find solutions or offer new ideas to solve a problem.

Point 2- ""PAL's graphs - who never changed their time-stamp -""
No, LDEO (PAL as you keep calling them) DID change their timestamps early on in 2006, they added a fixed 3 seconds to all their timestamps. No use of error margin here, a simple fixed 3 seconds addition to all 2001 to 2005 LDEO times. Under pressure of NIST btw, and the two secs difference with NIST's 2006 alteration gives a clear indication that LDEO was not prepared to go as far as NIST in changing their timelines. This is always an indication of some grave differences in opinion between two parties, if both agreed, we would have seen both institutions use the same, 2006 revised, amount of seconds addition.

""-one must subtract 5s from all 5 of NIST's event initiation times.""
No, to be clear, you should have inserted the year. Only all 5 of the revised Feb 2006 initiation times, specifically from the 5 events described in their Table 3-1 from their NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf report.
And those are ONLY the events described under the header "Adjusted Time from Television Broadcasts".
Only under that header does NIST offer their 5 additional seconds, adjusted five initiation times, for all 5 times.
All other three headers describe something different than that.

""to concur with the 17s travel time and PAL's graphs -""
So, basically what you say here is : let's go back to the status quo from 2001 to 2005, and forget about those 5 seconds addition from NIST in 2006.
That's exactly what I did in my thesis, I concentrated first on proving the 17 sec delay in the crust, then proceeded to the WTC 7 graph with all its anomalies, explained in my big diagram with all the notes and lines added by me.

Point 3- , 4- ,5- and 7-. Obviously, you could have said it a LOT simpler :
All LDEO graphs stay exactly the same if we forget about the NIST Feb 2006 revision of an added 5 seconds to NIST event initiation times.
You however conveniently forget to mention the fixed addition of THREE seconds by LDEO to all of their graphs printed-in time-stamps, under pressure from NIST in Feb 2006. So also their defined event times printed above the graphs, and their graph-starting times.
So, the difference is minimized to a mere TWO seconds, in case of our acceptance of NIST's Feb 2006 alterations.

Nothing new or groundbreaking what you did there. What you seem to do here is repeating what I did already a lot preciser in my StudyOf911 post#5, by keeping concentrated solely on the LDEO data, and thus proving without any doubt, that there was an exact 17 seconds delay from a NEW York event, through the crust, to arrive at LDEO's Palisades-NY seismic station.

You try to prove the exact same thing, but now based on neglecting the LDEO time-stamps data, and introducing the 5 additional revised seconds (or not?), NIST data.
Thus you end up with the error margin from NIST, but do also prove with a reasonable error margin that the seismic charts depict a 17 seconds delay time.

What you do gravely wrong however, is using your sidestepping of the NIST 2006 addition of 5 seconds, and thus falling back in essence on the same LDEO graph and times as I used, and define now suddenly the 5 sec NIST addition as a subtraction to be used in your following arguments.
That's some illogical somersaulting argumentation.

And then you go on again with using that subtraction argument in point 8- and 9-. There you suddenly call it deduction instead of reduction, but whatever, I still can keep up with somewhat incoherent thoughts.
And ultimately in point 9- you seem to accuse ME of using a "false" argument, while it is NIST which wants to ADD 5 seconds to 7's events, not me. If that's not what you accuse me of, then I lost you there.

I am curious whenever you are going to address the REAL culprits in my arguments about the WTC 7 collapse.
To be continued in next post.

[edit on 10/12/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Don't bother.

The last part of your post - when are we going to address the real culprits, etc..... shows your true nature.

You WANT there to be proof that there were explosives used, and so, I guess subconsciously, you're not seeing a true picture.

I've debunked your claims to my own satisfaction. I never expected you to agree with me.

Also, you still can't find testimony OR video evidence of explosions that match your time line.

And perhaps the most damning, since CTerz show an enthusiasm of latching onto any wild claim that is made, as long as it can be used to claim 9/11 was an inside job..... why do you think that no one is running with your idea, if it's such a perfect case against the offical story? The answer is that even THEY see your "thesis" as a steaming pile of dog doo...

It's been nice debating with you.

Have a nice life......





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join