Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited.

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   




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:





posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 01:38 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 



Excellent work there man. You know I am trying to hunt down the quote from Mark Loizeaux , apparently he said something to the effect of 'if he were to bring down the towers he would put bombs in the basement to start the gravity driven collapse'. So far I have only got secondary sources on the quote. But it fits perfectly with what your saying.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
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.



Laughable.

Go here : wtc.nist.gov...

Now look at the time stamps on the phots contained there. They're the SAME STYLE as the one on Nicholas C's photo with the infamous 20:46 time on it. Conclusion : all the time stamps are put there by NIST.

And since you spent considerable time proving the 17 second travel time, proving NIST's time stamps wrong, then this time is wrong also, since they were derived the same way.

In 3 out of 4 of the other events, the time is wrong by 5s. If you change the Nicholas C photo by 5s, you get 20:41. Then 17s travel time and you get 20:58, exactly when the first seismic activity reaches PAL.

Conclusion : NO EXPLOSIVES!!!!

As for the second part - that time matched up perfectly also.

2nd conclusion : LaBtop's time line is wrong.

Still no video or testimony about explosions being heard that matches your time line.

3rd conclusion : NO EXPLOSIVES !!!

LaBtop's "thesis" relies on the belief that the other 4 events are timed wrongly by NIST, but that 7's is correct, even though the same time indexing method was used for all 5 events.

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

[edit on 11-12-2007 by Haroki]



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
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?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   

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.



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
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?



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
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........



posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


That's the thing about walking down the paranoia path. Who do you trust?



Welcome to the dark side.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Haroki
 


Well haroki, over the last couple weeks ive read a lot of your posts and you have raised some good points on various topics. for that i applaud you.

however, ive been discussing these topics with griff for somewhere over a year or so and despite your personal opinion of him ive found that he's consistantly one of the few people who disagrees with me overall that i can have an intelligent conversation with on here without the bs posturing and name calling that is the hallmark of so many 911 debates. He has conducted himself as a consumate professional in every discussion we've had and when he's been wrong on an issue is the first to admit it and try to correct his errors when possible.

Above all he remains one of THE most OPEN MINDED people the 911 truth movement has representing them on this board (not to imply he's part of any organized 911truth movement, just that anyone who disagrees with the official story is tacitly part of the "truth movment" for the sake of this post, by some definitions even i am part of the truth movment if you want to take a broad view of it) and as such has earned MY respect, for what its worth.

Griff is a guy who sees things that he cannot reconcile with his training and experiences and wants answers from the people we pay to give them to us, answers that make sense to someone with the backround to be asking such questions.

So haroki, RESPECTFULLY, i would personally submit that if you and griff are at odds, it MAY be that you seem to have a confrontational attitude with people (griff isnt the only one ive noticed it with) who disagree with you, which IMHO isnt the best way to actually discuss the topics at hand. This isnt to say griff is never confrontational, just that i see it so rarely it may have escaped my notice. also, i will admit that with certain members in the past i too have taken a confrontational stance and so i may be being a hypocrit, yet i dont think so as i am willing to acknowledge the fact that i can come off as an arrogant prick at times.

But, and this is just my opinion, griff is among the last people on ats ive ever felt the need to do that to.

Just an observation, take it for what its worth. or dont, all the same really. but keep up the good research regardless. just remember the whole flies and honey analogy.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


look carefully at this video, at about 2-3 seconds in you will see a shaking due to ground vibrations that are significant enough that the camera shakes, just a number of seconds before the second plane hits the South Tower

www.youtube.com...


Next, about 36 seconds in here you do see the same thing just before the North Tower collapses, there is a shake strong enough to shake another camera that is on a tripod.
www.youtube.com...

In both instances you will notice the timing of the events.

In the South Tower there is a shake seconds before the Strike.
In this instance with the North Tower you will see a shake seconds before the collapse.

Now we don't have stationary video of the North Tower before the first strike obviously, it would be interesting to see.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Damocles
 


I do try and keep myself open on this, regardless the truth has to be what wins. I will try and find out more details on distance and so forth and what your saying is correct. I was looking at this with the evidence of ground vibrations that Laptop has revealed in his work and some of the eyewitness testimony and trying to bring a cumulative case together.

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.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by talisman]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:08 AM
link   

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



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I'll go over it one by one.
My remarks in italics.


Originally posted by Haroki

Originally posted by LaBTop
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.


Laughable.
Use your mirror, clean it up perhaps. Then smile....

Go here : wtc.nist.gov...

Now look at the time stamps on the phots contained there. They're the SAME STYLE as the one on Nicholas C's photo with the infamous 20:46 time on it. Conclusion : all the time stamps are put there by NIST.

I established that already a long time ago, and NIST never said different, you kicked in a wide open door, o so clever one.

And since you spent considerable time proving the 17 second travel time, proving NIST's time stamps wrong, then this time is wrong also, since they were derived the same way.

No, YOU try to lay those words ""proving NIST's time stamps wrong"" already from the beginning in my mouth, but YOU are the delusioned one, trying to prove NIST wrong but now suddenly by SUBTRACTING the famous NIST 2006 ADDITIONAL 5 seconds, and that way creating a totally wrong 10 seconds gap with the new 2006 NIST time-stamps of initiating events.
The most basic calculus error, flipping + and - .
You're a funny character, trying to prove your "friends" in the official field WRONG, to be able to proof me wrong. Use the mirror again.

I however have not tried to prove NIST timestamps wrong as you think, but instead compared the old and the new LDEO and NIST timelines with each other, and indicated that whatever way you look at THAT comparison, the WTC 7 seismic chart is indicating a huge seismic event, some call that an explosion, seconds before the visual total global collapse started, which seismic activity can be seen in the WTC 7 chart as the SECOND pack of significantly smaller signals than the first pack, the one indicating the explosion.


In 3 out of 4 of the other events, the time is wrong by 5s. If you change the Nicholas C photo by 5s, you get 20:41. Then 17s travel time and you get 20:58, exactly when the first seismic activity reaches PAL.

Conclusion : NO EXPLOSIVES!!!!

Funny, you still don't see your own errors. YOU say the time is WRONG, not me. Repeat the mirror trick now first. Then read on :
If you change the Nicholas Cianca photo by 5s, ACCORDING to NIST by addition, you get 20:51. Then 17s travel time and you get 21:09, smack in the middle of the SECOND seismic activity pack, reaching PAL. The global collapse pack.
Conclusion : EXPLOSIVES!!!!
That conclusion reached by seeing those huge first seismic signals.
I see you btw as usual, not explaining, or countering my arguments regarding them.



As for the second part - that time matched up perfectly also.

Yeah, when you use your magically invented 10 seconds time gap with NIST of course.

2nd conclusion : LaBtop's time line is wrong.

Still no video or testimony about explosions being heard that matches your time line.

3rd conclusion : NO EXPLOSIVES !!!

Aha! My advice: throw the mirror away, you're blind and deaf.
That's $ 120.= for medical advice. Seek help.


LaBtop's "thesis" relies on the belief that the other 4 events are timed wrongly by NIST, but that 7's is correct, even though the same time indexing method was used for all 5 events.

That's a good one, NOT.
It's exactly the other way round!
Do you really lack the comprehension and reading skills, or are you a knowingly liar, with the sole purpose of being able to hold on to your perception of reality.


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

My conclusion about you : the most non-coherent thinker I have met at this board, you mix up facts so easily with your personal delusions, it borders to knowingly disrupting, interesting subject threads, dangerous to your so beloved official CT-theory.
No matter how many times, I point you at where you went gravely wrong, namely changing + to -, in a 2006 NIST 5 seconds ADDITION to all there time-stamps, you keep stubbornly repeating it, ad nauseam.
I think you are a JREF'er. Same style. Don't be proud on it.



As you perhaps noted. I have adopted your JREF debating style a tiny bit, so you feel more at home, hopefully. But you're now on the receiving side of the usual debating style there.



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Labtop, was wondering, what is the scale of the graphs you posted in this particular post? i see the time line but i dont see a scale to gauge how strong the largest waves are? any help on that? are they .01 on the richter or are they a 4? just curious as that sort of thing is more important to my part of the debate than the time frames?

see, for my thesis' the time frames are pretty irrelevant honestly. you make an excellent case for there being some serious doubt as to the actual time frames and cast doubt on the govts story about what happened at what particular second in time...

however my thesis stands in regards to the fact that i myself have yet to reconcile any of the witnessed events to the seizmic data with regards to any of the events being caused by explosives as i still assert that anything causing those magnitude waves would have been a significant blast event and as such would have not been able to go unnoticed by all but a few witnesses who "heard an explosion" or something that "sounded like an explosion" (coupled with the fact that i still think that people were using hyperbole to describe an event in a manner that conveys an idea if not an actual event)

so, having some scale of reference for me might make it easier for me to either make my point or see my errors.

thanks



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:21 AM
link   

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...



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:23 AM
link   
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 seismic data?


Please take a good and intensive look at all the proof of explosives at this site :
911eyewitness.com...

Select any of the pictures to view evidence with audio.
Don't need to buy the whole DVD, many cut in pieces parts of this DVD on YouTube, GoogleVideo and Metacafe.

EDIT : Those were some whopping deep sounds from a mile away on the other side of the Hudson River, seconds before collapse, do you agree?

EDIT :
Damocles, the scale of the graphs is nm/s. That's nanometer per second. A nanometer is a very small part of a meter as a displacement of the needle. Look up on LDEO's site how they calculate nm/s to scale of Richter, they have a FAQ part somewhere. Richter scale is non-linear! Higher numbers are MUCH more devastating in their seismic effects than the preceding number.
It's a logarithmic scale or i.o.w. hyperbolic scale.

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

Damocles : is that before the penthouse started to fall or the main structure? as we don't know what is happening inside the building at this time that could be significant...IMHO


It took the penthouse 8.2 seconds to slide down in the roof line, then global collapse occurred according to NIST. See my copy of their 8.2 table I posted here.
NIST timestamped that global collapse effective since Feb 2006 as 17:20:52.
Thus the first GLOBAL collapse signals took 17 sec to arrive at LDEO's needles.
That's 17:21:09. Like I said above already to Haroki.
Thus the first VISUAL signs of failure of the penthouse roof, were arriving at LDEO at 17:21:00,8 on their graph.
That's exactly 00,8 seconds after the 20s position on LDEO's WTC 7 graph.

And what do you see there?

The biggest seismic signals just ENDED at EXACTLY that point.
What were those BIGGEST seismic signals, if not buried under WTC 7, explosives?
Far in advance of 7's global collapse and ending just before signals from the START of penthouse movement came in.

And as I said to Haroki up there, not one video indicated a significant MOVEMENT INSIDE the building before the first penthouse movement was observed.
So, NO Massive INSIDE part of the building crashed down first, we see no sign at all of that !!!!

[edit on 12/12/07 by LaBTop]



posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


all i got on that site even in a few pages was screen caps from a dvd that TELL about "explosions" but didnt actually present any.

man, ive seen COUNTLESS videos of the day, i watched it live (please lets not discuss the video feeds being altered on the fly...id hate to lose my respect for you at this point lol)

i have YET to see any evidence of actual explosions, particularly of any that would register the magnitude seizmic waves on the ldeo sensors.

please dont forget to consider the figures i did earlier which show just how much ordinance it would take to register.

my contention remains that any explosions that may have been there were too small to register and that any that would register were too big to have not been noticed by everyone. and i do mean EVERYONE.

so, despite what appears to be tail covering in regards to the times, i see no basis for using the seizmic data to prove explosives used on 911.

certainly willing to continue the debate on it as its easily possible im missing something but if i am i certainly dont see it (which is of course why i would be missing it ROFL)

but, can you see where im coming from on this? (thats open to all not just labtop in particular) we're talking about a LOT of ordinance and even the witness record doesnt support it.






top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join