Your point 8- :
""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 ).""

Thus as you already agreed at last, since we have a well known now, delay of 17 seconds, this event arrives at Palisades at 21:09.
That's nearly at the 30s position of the WTC 7 graph, when the last seismic graph writings are diminishing.

""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""

You can't suddenly neglect your own NIST initiation time-stamp and switch over to LDEO graph readings, since these known 17 seconds have to be added to that NIST time-stamp.
You however switch back to true, real LDEO graph times and mix them with NIST's.
In that case you must also start your argumentation with LDEO initiation time-stamps! And those are 17:20:33 (2001) or 17:20:42 (2006)

If the signal left at 20:52, then it arrived at 21:09, in the middle of a packet of secondary signals.
And if you now suddenly neglect those 5 seconds from 2006 NIST, then you still have them arriving at 21:04, far later (4 sec) then the return to baseline from that FIRST bigger event we see in the graph.

And what was THAT event?


A reshuffled and edited for clarity by me, Table 3-1 from NIST below:

Thanks for taking the time out to post that image, LaBTop. It's a lot of trivial stuff to keep up with but I'm sure that diagram makes for easier reading for a lot of us.

All that without stepping outside of just LDEO, FEMA, and NIST. It amazes me how many other times were off between various organizations. It shouldn't take a whole lot of reasoning for it to finally register for someone that these guys are trying to fit seismic times to things that did not even register seismic events (plane impacts; this is like striking a poorly-designed tuning fork way up in the air and expecting it to reverberate down into the ground and create great pressure waves by vibrating the steel structure at the base), onto things which DID result in seismic events (underground explosions, etc.). This is why the times don't line up and have to be played around with and "fudged" into an approximate place. WTC7's seismic data is just a mess for NIST/LDEO.

Aha, saw your last "goodbye" post at page 3 at last, Haroki.

So you're leaving a debate which comes too close to the truth, ain't it so?
Righteous people debate to the end of both debaters argumentations.

Ok, to cut a whole lot of your so called 'steaming pile of dog doo' short, here I have some interesting remarks for you, and your co-"debunkers", and for readers, moderators, administrators of all these self-conscious but in fact self-deceptive debunking sites.

Haroki : 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.

Let me rephrase that in my words toward you :

You DON'T WANT there to be proof that there were explosives used, and I guess, consciously, because you're not prepared seeing a true picture.
Also, you still don't WANT to find testimony OR video evidence of explosions that match my time line, while in fact you're looking at it in plain sight :



This is the LDEO seismic chart of the WTC Building 7 Collapse (EDT).

17:20:40 = +0.0s, begin of the graph = Start time of graph in Palisades .
Palisades NY-state station, and New York, both places follow EDT.
This time can never change, it was written on 9/11 by the seismograph's operator, up-left in the graph.
The following are the various LDEO or NIST proposed real time New York event times, all for the start of WTC 7 global collapse, and their positions on the seismic chart, if we add 17 seconds ( ) :
17:20:33 (20:50) LDEO 2001
17:20:42 (20:59) LDEO 2006
17:20:47 (21:04) NIST '01-'05
17:20:52 (21:09) NIST 2006
I added 17 seconds crust retention time to all these start times, to indicate where the seismograph's needle reacted on the first waves arriving at LDEO Palisades-NY seismic station.
Do this for each of these proposed global collapse times, and note where you end up in the graph. All at ridiculous positions, except the first LDEO+FEMA 2001Sept12 event time of 20:33, which ends up at the 20:50 (10s) position, where exactly the first signals are written.



LDEO + FEMA obviously calculated back from that 10s point, in their eyes the obvious start of global collapse.
Without having a reference point for the original event, like a photo, time-stamped.
The same technique preferred by Haroki, and he still doesn't see that you can't do that.
Look how f.ex. LDEO and FEMA were proved wrong on this technique of working solely backwards, when the Cianca photo of the first visual effect that global collapse was imminent, namely the penthouse roof dent, with its time stamp of 20:46 was first published by NIST.
That meant that the needle started to write that event at 21:03, straight in between the first and the second seismic event, which proved that the first, biggest event was NOT a part of the global collapse, but a separate, even bigger event than the global collapse of a whole 47 floors building.... . .


Here comes the final Question, the one I intended to preserve for a much later point in our discussion. I guess you saw it coming, Haroki, and chickened out, so here it is :

HOW are you, and all those stubborn 9/11-historical-truth debunkers and deniers, going to explain the excessive magnitude of that first seismic event (16s - 20s) in that LDEO WTC 7 Collapse seismic graph above, compared to the far lower magnitude of the following event (25s to 34s), the GLOBAL collapse of WTC 7.
A global collapse driven SOLELY by gravity, so say NIST, 9/11Commission, FEMA, LDEO, NTSB, FAA, the PENTAGON, the WHITE HOUSE, the MEDIA, etc.

How do you explain this, without introducing an extra massive amount of explosives force of whatever design, or any other devastating energy source at the bottom of the building (Explosions in bedrock deliver maximum seismic effect).

There is no way a few (unseen by camera's) inside WTC 7, steel core columns snapping or shearing, and weighting perhaps a few tons, and some sagging and falling floors weighting another few tons, attached to these floors, can deliver a (NISTetc-proposed) SOLELY GRAVITY DRIVEN seismic force, FAR BIGGER than the seconds later following (NISTetc-proposed) SOLELY GRAVITY DRIVEN global collapse of the total body of mass from a whole massive 47 floors high skyscraper crashing into the ground.

No falling mass of a, hidden from the eye, PART of a building can deliver a greater blow to the ground than the falling mass of the TOTAL building in a solely gravity driven collapse.
Especially when we see the rest of the massive building standing firm and motionless in all video material, at the moments in time that the biggest seismic peaks are present on the graph.


This is another indication that some DEEP explosions were first used, to "shake the building loose", and then the final smaller blows were dealt.
Followed by a, NOW gravity driven global collapse.

William Rodriguez and his co-workers stories about the deep explosions in both WTC 1 and 2 do fit exact in this explanation of events at the WTC 7 collapse, shown by the seismic graph from LDEO.
And we have the heaps of witnesses who described small to bigger to huge explosions, just use the Search here at ATS or YouTube or GoogleVideo etc.

well in the end for me personally, i have NO explaination for the possible discrepancies in the times.

where i still have a problem is in that when you look at the seizmic events and compare them to the videos of the day, i myself dont see anything in the videos that would account for an explosive device of the magnitude required to cause any seizmic events without being "less than covert" at the scene.

maybe im missing something obvious or subtle for that matter...

has anyone taken the video record of any of the events and tagged where an event would have had to occur on the video to correspond with the seizmic data?

Originally posted by Damocles
has anyone taken the video record of any of the events and tagged where an event would have had to occur on the video to correspond with the seizmic data?

Wouldn't that be NIST's job? The ones that...oops...got the siesmic data "wrong" in the first place? Just sayin.

lol well i would think so, but nist isnt taking my advice or calls these days so what i think is worth (explitive omitted) all.

if they have done it they arent telling, and if they really are covering their backsides on botching the seizmic data would we trust it anyway?

Don't bother replying to Griff.

He's pretending to have me on ignore, and his comments were really directed at me.

But you do have a good point. Even if NIST would have done a study as you suggest, it would have been derided as just another smokescreen from CTerz. This is how their logic works.

Just look at my critique of LaBtop's "thesis". He cherry picks when NIST is right and wrong, and wants his work to be taken as an honest piece........

well talisman, i see your point. however, if you would please, allow me to offer a few thoughts that dont involve explosives.

first of all, even a slight breeze funneled through the streets of a city will get stronger. the camera was shaking pretty much the entire length of the clip though, admittedly, it got stronger just before the collapse.

how far away was the camera? how far out was it zoomed? if it was zoomed out a ways then even the slightest jiggle is going to make it look like its violently shaking. but dont take my word for this, if you own or can borrow a camera set it up on a tripod and zoom it all the way out. look like something outta the blair witch project.

the last thing i found interesting, to me at least as this is being presented as evidence to support an explosion, wheres the audio from the camera? it was muted in clip one and overdubbed in clip two, seems to me that anything that would shake a camera located several blocks away would have been pretty loud considering how much HE it would take to shake said camera, even zoomed out.

now, im not saying you are wrong, just offering some things to consider.

maybe im being finiky...as another member suggested maybe im holding all teh potential evidence to a ridiculously high standard. i stand by my assertion that thats a GOOD thing...any evidence that can be disputed even a little isnt all that strong. when we find evidence that no one can dispute then we've got something. (and ill finally shut up lol)

so consider what ive said, watch the clips again and see if what i say makes any sense. if youre looking at it with a truely open mind you should admit i MAY not be wrong in this particular instance.

Originally posted by talisman

I do try and keep myself open on this, regardless the truth has to be what wins.

never has a statement been more correct. despite what some may think of me and my opinions, i DO want the truth to come out, and as such i am willing to admit i could be 100% wrong about everything ive ever posted. so regardless of what side of the debate anyone is on, this statement by you SHOULD be the guiding light in all discussions on ats.

I wasn't trying to say this was right or wrong either, as you have more knowledge then I on explosives I decided to hear what you had to say.

i appreciate that. it really is refreshing to discuss things with open minded people, and if you spot me being totally closed minded feel free to call me on it as this is a two way street and i hate hypocrisy, ESPECIALLY when its me being the hypocrit

Originally posted by LaBTop
seconds before the visual total global collapse started, which seismic activity can be seen in the WTC 7

is that before the penthouse started to fall or the main structure? as we dont know what is happening inside the building at this time that could be significant...IMHO

posted by: haroki
4th conclusion : the only people that think this is good work are the delusional CTerz.

i think his work is good on this topic and it does raise a few more questions for me than it answers, most of which are actually calling nists methods into question on this issue, but the voices tell me im not delusional so...