Damocles, note my massive edits above your post, please.
I will address all your other points later.

That 9/11 Eyewitness DVD has been discussed EXTENSIVELY here at ATS.
Please take the time to SEARCH for those threads and the web-videos, then you will hear the very low frequency bomb signatures !!!!

Use the words "" 9/11 Eyewitness "" here, and at the video sites.

And btw, I was the first to find that tripod wobbling addressed by Talisman, and posted about it here, years ago, with video. There was no other wobbling of that tripod in THAT video at that time! And that video was many minutes long. Out of a longer video.

It came from a website called Terrorize.dn (denmark) which is now defunct.
That site had all the other explosion sounds and videos catalogued.
You can reach it back f.ex. via the WEb Archive site, but we don't trust the owners, they have proven records of editing and erasing.

Many however have saved that site, I did too.

Originally posted by LaBTop
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?

agreed, are there any other cameras that picked this up? i have always been bothered by how many sites "resync" the audio. seems to me you shouldnt edit evidence but thats just me. most importatantly, this event WAS just seconds before the collapse, are explosives the ONLY answer? seems to me that there was probably things going on inside the building before the collapse that were directly related to said collapse so a loud rumbling wouldnt be so out of place. i cannot say for fact it WAS NOT explosives but with everything else happening it seems to me to be a leap of faith to just assume it was explosives IMHO.

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.

thanks for clearing that up, ill look into it some more but so far i dont think im wrong...

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 !!!!

but isnt that one of the biggest issues in discussing wtc7? theres nothing conclusive that has been released for us to know just exactly how badly this building is damaged. firefighters claim that there was a 20story gash in teh building but we've no photographic media to support OR refute this claim nor do we know how deep into the building this gash would/could have extended.

we just dont know waht we dont know...so to make the jump to explosives beign used is in my opinion premature.

also, you cant deny that an explosive event large enough to register those magnitude shockwaves would/shoudl have been bloody obvious and we shouldnt be having this debate.

ive punched holes in the ground that were 22ft deep and 17ft across using cratering charges and those are 40lbs of anfo. so more like 20lbs of c4 and at 300m inside a bunker it still rattled my teeth. so for me to accept that any of these sounds people describe as explosions as anythign other than hyperbole at this point woudl be for me to ignore what i know.

not to say that i havnt just missed the one key piece that would sway me but at this point.....

Damocles, I begin to see now why you state this :

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

I suppose you are looking at the HUGE spikes in the 2 twin tower's GLOBAL collapses, for the reason of your remark regarding the magnitude.
These are hundreds of nm/s strong, about 250 nm/s for the first collapse, and about 300 nanometre/sec for the second collapse !

But the whole conclusion of my thesis is based on the magnitude of the MUCH smaller signals arriving at LDEO's needles, just before BOTH these global collapses start being written by the seismograph needles, compared to the same magnitude signals of the FIRST packet of signals arriving JUST BEFORE the start of global WTC 7 collapse.
These are just about 22 nm/s strong, MUCH smaller than the global collapse, and in my firm opinion, THE indicators of explosives going off.

Have a look at them in the next 3 graphs, you see the first small peaks (explosives), and then the global collapse peaks run totally off the scale of the graph, because its scale has been brought back from 100 nm/s to 10 nm/s, the same one as from the WTC 7 collapse graph, which is much clearer to observe, because the distinction between pre-collapse explosives and the following true global collapse signal packet is much better separated.
The first two graphs are 673x517 pixels, the third one is 680x525 pixels, so you can compare all 3 pre-running circa 22 nm/s events !

Collapse 1:



Collapse 2:



WTC 7 collapse :



AGAIN, explain to me those first group of signals of 22 nm/s, which indicate an event effectuating a MUCH stronger force on the NY upper crust, then the following TOTAL collapse of a 47 story building ! Illogical is the word, if we don't introduce an EXTRA FORCE !

Can you imagine anything else than a big energy releasing event, which we normally connect to explosive forces?

[edit on 12/12/07 by LaBTop]

There may be a clue in the construction and contents of WTC7.

The bottom 5 floors were actually covering 2 large electricity substations plus there was emergency generating capacity in there of 20MW with a total fuel (diesel) storage capacity of around 42 000 gallons max contained mainly in 6000 and 12000 gallon tanks. At least one 6000 gallon fuel tank was ruptured by damage from the tower collapses and subsequently ignited - the uncontrollable fire weakened the support structure over the 5 story internal substation until it collapsed.

Could that seismic spike be part of the inside of the building falling 5 stories into the substation? and remember those substations were fully energised and operational at the time of collapse so electrical explosions (transformers, oil-filled ceramic current transformer housings etc) were to be expected.

The support columns going all the way to the penthouse were held up mostly on that 5 story high structure over the substations so shortly later the penthouse caved in then the whole building caved in as it was really only a hollow shell by that stage.

Just my 2c



[edit on 12/12/2007 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
There may be a clue in the construction and contents of WTC7.

The bottom 5 floors were actually covering 2 large electricity substations plus there was emergency generating capacity in there of 20MW with a total fuel (diesel) storage capacity of around 42 000 gallons max contained mainly in 6000 and 12000 gallon tanks. At least one 6000 gallon fuel tank was ruptured by damage from the tower collapses and subsequently ignited - the uncontrollable fire weakened the support structure over the 5 story internal substation until it collapsed.

I agree with all of that, except your last sentence. The big tanks were situated in the lowest basement floor, 5 floors under street level.
They were NOT ruptured by debris from WTC 1 north tower, but only one was found ruptured during the collapse of WTC 7 self. It's left-over diesel did not ignite at all, but sipped into the ground. See NIST report for further details. NIST explicitly reported that PERHAPS a 250 gallon emergency diesel tank on the NORTH side of the building COULD have been ruptured. That one provided a much higher situated tenant's small dynamo with emergency diesel power. Through very thick iron lines, which were also protected by another shielding thicker pipe. And if you noticed in video material from NIST and other sources, there nearly was no fire at all until collapse, at WTC 7's north side, where that small fuel line ran up to Salomon Brothers floor.
I posted extensively on the exact position of that fuel line, with diagrams attached.
Why did you not include those very important details, easy to be found in the NIST report?


Could that seismic spike be part of the inside of the building falling 5 stories into the substation? and remember those substations were fully energised and operational at the time of collapse so electrical explosions (transformers, oil-filled ceramic current transformer housings etc) were to be expected.

The support columns going all the way to the penthouse were held up mostly on that 5 story high structure over the substations so shortly later the penthouse caved in then the whole building caved in as it was really only a hollow shell by that stage.

Just my 2c

No, definitely not, the 5th floor beams and underlaying construction were very strong beams and columns, the whole over-cap of the ConEd substation was ridiculously over engineered, exactly to be safe for such a thought.
Search for photo's posted by bsbray11 lately, from the construction phase.
You can also find them in the photo-video library from www.studyof911.com.
Another reason why this could not have occurred :
If 5 stories length fall that height to the ground, the video camera's would have noticed all the windows breaking and floors at the window level sagging immensely, because the floor beams would have sucked all perimeter wall connections with them downwards, for sure however the whole global collapse would have started then at that moment already..
We did NOT see that, first the only thing we noted was the sagging of the roof top of the penthouse, then the sinking of that penthouse in the upper roof line, THEN global collapse. See the NIST 8.2 seconds relay table I posted in this thread.

No, the building was not energized at or around collapse, ConEd operators already very early in the morning had closed down the station, see NIST report.
So also all these excuses for the now famous phone boot guy, not surprised by an enormous explosion sound, while the by-standing firefighters all yelled "what the F... was that!", are moot, since there could not have been transformers fully juiced, and been exploding, the juice was off early on already. That phone boot explosion sound was an EXPLOSION. Very short audio signal, same as an HE audio-footprint.

""The support columns going "" etc. ""then the whole building caved in as it was really only a hollow shell by that stage."" is a totally unsubstantiated remark.
Just look at the NIST report, there were in fact only a few floors on fire, and higher up then the 5th floor, so how could they have any effect on that damn strong famous 5 story high ConEd protective construction???
Where you got that idea of "a hollow shell" is beyond my grasp.
The fires noticed by firemen allowed till in the afternoon in the building (see NIST report), were not by far 'raging' enough to form an imminent danger to the building, and several firefighters questioned the decision of one fire chief to leave the building alone. They were in fact surprised that such an order was given. This is already covered in former posts at this forum, and can be found in the NIST report with all the witness reports.
The inside of the building, inspected by various persons on 9/11, showed no serious construction failures caused by debris or fire, the whole building was standing firm to at least around 14 hrs in the afternoon. And still firefighters after that time entered the building, since there seemed no imminent danger of collapse.

Just my 2 $$'s worth.

[edit on 12/12/07 by LaBTop]

Cheers LaBToP

You'll have to excuse my very cursory data which I put down partly to very limited bandwidth. All videos of the I've seen of the WTC7 collapse don't show enough detail to assess what was going on in the lower 10 or so floors but the top of the building exhibits characteristics of something that happened at ground level with the roof dropping exclusive of the outer walls initially. It was the walls breaking up near ground level that allowed the building to fall, seemingly, intact during the early stage. It's not beyond reason or physics that a severely compromised core structure could produce that effect considering the 5 story 'void' inside it - well not to me at least.

It just seems that if there was ever a building with a built-in death wish - this was it. The design, dictated by real estate constraints in Manhattan, was highly criticised from what I've read about it.

I think LaBTop has shown earlier that the seismic event that coincides with the penthouse collapse actually packs more energy than the entire global collapse of WTC7 that came a few seconds later. I thought that was awfully interesting.

Gottago, that's a very interesting peace of private info.
Have a look at this photo, for an example of the clearly grayish smoke emanating from WTC 7, instead of a black smoke from a diesel fed fire :


(Photo: Courtesy of the Prints and Photographs Division. Library of Congress.)

A little known photo of WTC 7's Hudson river-face + south-face.
Here it seems as if floors 23 to 27 have signs of fire in the Hudson River face, just above the gash in WTC 6th rooftop line. The 27 to 47 floors south-face side has no signs of raging fires, just a haze of grayish smoke coming off that face, caused by the wind blowing from the north-face direction, in the photo blowing from left to right.
This photo seems to me to have been shot in the late afternoon.

Originally posted by LaBTop
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?

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.

!!!!

[edit on 12/12/07 by LaBTop]

Ok, I'm still at a loss here. Why are you using NIST's Feb 2006 20:52 as corrcet?

In your "5 proofs of a 17 second travel time', you proved NIST's Feb 2006 times to be all wrong. We agreed that 2's impact is a good standard to start. In the same Feb 2006 report, NIST gives the time as :59. But PAL's graph gets a signal at :11. The correct impact time needs to be :54, otherwise the travel time is 12 seconds. So you're in disagreement with yourself and don't realize it yet.

Again - if you subtract 5 seconds, as demonstrated is necessary above to account for the 17 second travel time - and correct the mistake you've been making, namely adding 5s - from 20:52, you get 20:47. Add 17 seconds and it's exactly in time with the second set of seismic signals. And subtract 8.2 seconds, and it's exactly in time with the first.

This is so unargueably correct, I just don't know how a seemingly intelligent and sincere poster such as yourself fails to see this.

""In your "5 proofs of a 17 second travel time', you proved NIST's Feb 2006 times to be all wrong.""
No, I proofed LDEO's 17 seconds crust delay time was all correct.
Which is a huge difference with what you said.

"" We agreed that 2's impact is a good standard to start.""
You said that. I did not address that event. I addressed the WTC 7 collapse as my main subject, and proved that when the NIST provided, but atomic clock compared, Cianca time-stamp got out, suddenly it became clear that LDEO's 2001 times were wrong, while all this time everybody agreed intuitively that the 20:33 time, plus 17 seconds = 20:50 time, agreed seemingly perfect with the first seismic signals arriving in the WTC 7 collapse graph.
I proved that those signals were ANOTHER event, not the global collapse.
Please follow correctly where I talk about LDEO, and where about NIST.
That's your main problem, your mixing constantly timeLINES from LDEO with those from NIST, by suddenly introducing a NIST time in the middle of a LDEO timeLINE.

""In the same Feb 2006 report, NIST gives the time as :59. But PAL's graph gets a signal at :11. The correct impact time needs to be :54, otherwise the travel time is 12 seconds. So you're in disagreement with yourself and don't realize it yet.""

I don't care about your second impact arguments (you mix + with -), because I based my arguments correctly, following only one timeLINE a time, on the LDEO timeLINE, and then proved that the NIST timeLINE starting with the Cianca timeLINE (see NIST 8.2 table) did not by far agree with the LDEO timeLINE, because both timeLINES were perfectly fixed to the same NIST atomic clock readings. SO, one of the institutions conclusions must be wrong, and I told you that I prefer to hold on to a atomic clock stamped digital photo, compared to an atomic clock coupled seismograph.
It looks as if I compare then NIST with LDEO, but that's a false impression, I compare a NY citizens digital photograph (donated to NIST, they had nothing to do with its creation) with a LDEO seismograph reading.

I do see problems with NIST's calculation methods. And LDEO's fixation of the exact start of global collapse, which they followed back from the arrival of the first signals on their graph.

The Cianca photo proved LDEO wrong on that backwards argumentation, they interpreted those first seismic signals WRONG. They were NOT the start of GLOBAL collapse, but another huge event, where no official has a solid answer for, because then they must INTRODUCE a huge EXTRA ENERGY SOURCE. I call that extra energy EXPLOSIVES.
If you have another explanation, I'm full ears!

The rest of your argument is moot, you mix events and institutions, and still hold to your flip-flopping of + and -.