Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited.

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.

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.



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





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 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]

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.

reply to post by Pilgrum

---

and unless im GROSSLY mistaken, which could easily be the case, that could account for why the penthouse fell first no?

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.

reply to post by LaBTop

---

A telling conversation I had with a close friend and business associate who has dealings with Silverstein shortly after 9/11: we were discussing the catastrophe in the immediate aftershock and he mentioned that Silverstein told him that the fuel tanks in the sub basement had ignited and caused the building to collapse. That always stayed with me, even though in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 I bought the official story hook, line and sinker.

Having studied the plans of WTC 7 and posted here several times on the subject, I realized this was disinfo and was always intrigued that Silverstein would go out of his way to tell someone who was not an intimate business associate--but rather just helped him occasionaly to spend his money on expensive personal pursuits--such "inside" information, subsequently disproven. this was shortly after the attacks, so Silverstein must have literally called him within days to plant the "inside info." Well, well.

A bit like calling up your travel agent to tell him your house had just burned down, and then explain to him how.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by gottago]

reply to post by gottago

---

call me an idiot if you will, but do it politely in regards to the new tighter rules 'round here lol, but where does one find legit copies of the wtc7 plans?

id LOVE to have a gander at them. id love the chance to do with those what i did with the leaked wtc1/2 plans (though their authenticity is suspect) and see if i can apply some demo guy stuff to them in theory and see if it at all possible to drop that building with a small enough demo package to keep it covert. yes you read that right, id love the chance to see if its possible to drop that building and still have it fit the parameters of what we saw. i will of course "show my work" and ya'll can verify it for yourselves.

thanks GG

OH bsb, RE: your last post here, i agree that it is indeed interesting. and i would have expected to hear a MASSIVE explosion just prior to the penthouse falling. but im willing to admit that could simply be because ive not seen accurate videos of the event. ill keep looking with an open mind.

(btw, sorry bout last friday, overslept and ended up missing my flight and having to rebook then clear security with their xray and metal detectors down so they hand searched all of us and our stuff. bout passed out when the guy patting me down ran his hand down my spinal column...yeah, that set the tone for the rest of the day. maybe next trip out)

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.

911research.wtc7.net...
Have a look at "The Seismic Records as Evidence of Controlled Demolition" at the bottom of that page.



That's a very informative little piece of opinion from Jim Hoffman.
It counters the officially pushed "pancake" (FEMA) and "sledgehammer" theories (NIST), which rely heavily on the weight of the top parts above the plane impacts "pushing" their way down through the buildings and causing the bulk of the seismic signals. Which is clearly wrong.

Here are some more links to extensive information about the seismic evidence :
911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net... (lot of videos from the 3 collapses)
911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...
911research.wtc7.net...
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
www.studyof911.com... (Main page with all the studies)
www.studyof911.com...
www.studyof911.com...
www.studyof911.com...
www.studyof911.com...
www.studyof911.com...

Damocles, perhaps can Gottago you help faster with those WTC 7 plans, I will do my best to locate them if he doesn't come up first with what he has on them.

(Try asking your doctor for Tetrazepam (a Benzodiazepine group member). You may only use it for short periods, excellent for trips like your last Friday's one. Excellent for spinal pains and muscle cramps caused by those.)

Well, sorry you feel that way.

It's just that I take issue when someone pulls out the "appeal to authority" argument, which he does. He's not the only one.

To explain, I disagreed with him, so he asked what are your qualifications , etc, intending, I believe, this to disallow my statements and belittle me.

But he's not argueing with me, but with the NIST report, which had what, 50+ structural engineers ? I'm just a spokesman, so to speak. One can disagree with the NIST, fine. But if he's gonna make the argument that NIST can't be trusted or is wrong, and they have their name and professional reputation on the line, once you make that argument, then you end up throwing your own reputation down the toilet with the NIST engineers. Especially when you're just some anonymous poster on the internet. I pointed this to him and he took offense.

That's the problem with the "appeal to authority" argument. Once you go that way, your own character and ability then falls under scrutiny. And it leads to the situation that we have now.

Very sad indeed........

reply to post by Haroki

---

well as they say, there are two sides to every story and i appreciate you taking the time to present yours.

its unfortunate that you and griff got off to a bad path and im sure that given a deep breath and a second to consider that should there be any desire to do so, an accord could be reached.

to me as an outside observer it seems that there may be a simple miscommunication and such things are often easy to fix once cooler heads prevail. we're all here for one reason, to discuss the events of 911.

we may not all agree with each other all the time, or ever, but if we did, what would be the point? the key is the old adage of treating others as we wish to be treated. (or was it do unto others before they have the chance to do unto you? i forget lol jk)

i know that i have to look in the mirror when i say that as well so dont think im being preachy, thats not my intent at all.

but, im rambling. Haroki, i am sincerely sorry if anything in my above quoted post was offensive to you, that wasnt really my intent. i hope you can take my thoughts in the spirit in which they were intended.

agian though, thanks for your contributions to this and many other posts.

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 -.

Damocles, old friend and sometimes sparring partner, I'd never even think of calling you an idiot! Too much respect for your debating abilities. I'd actually started writing about the structure of WTC 7 on my last post but I don't have much time these days and so am now a drive-by poster.

But go to this thread and read my OP and the links; this is as much publicly available info on the structure of WTC 7 as I've found. I did not say above that these are the official building plans, but they detail the structure sufficiently that if you know how to read plans they are very informative and tell you an enormous amount about how the building would have collapsed conventionally.

I stand by the analysis in the OP but well I'm still up in the air about what they used to bring it down, even though I posited 4g mininukes there. I still think 7 was brought down on the fly because it was so sloppy and should have come down in the morning if they wanted a "convincing" collapse scenario. Late afternoon demolition, making it a separate event not subsumed in the massive confusion and trauma of the morning's events, just makes no sense. In this regard, either a quick and dirty CD was rigged using access from the sub-basements, or just one of those unicorn mininukes to save all the time and fuss of rigging a CD in a few hours. Don't know, but you've got the same evidence of thermal hotspots afterwards that you had in the towers.

Hope this will help to get you started; maybe Griff or bsbray has more info on the steel used.

all best

reply to post by LaBTop

---

labtop,

yes that aside speaks volumes. the photo is very interesting and new to me; what's going on with the bright light emanating from the roofline at right? never seen that before.

the whole diesel-fuel story is bunkum. how could that have completely destroyed the substation, just for starters? not to mention completely dismember the steel structure, which was tightly braced above the lobbies to transfer loads above the substation, and tightly girdled and reinforced on the bunker floors?

reply to post by LaBTop

---

if the photo was taken by a private citizen...how was it timestamped sync'd to the atomic clock?

if they took the photo as is and worked back to sync it manually after the fact then how can you be certain that they didnt mess up by a few seconds?

i mean afterall its just like one of the failed mars probes. it crashed because the hardware guys were using one system of measure and the software guys were using another (metric vs english) people are fallible.

""if the photo was taken by a private citizen...how was it timestamped sync'd to the atomic clock?

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.

That's from my post#6 in my thesis :
www.studyof911.com...
See the next answer for the explanation of how they did that.
I do NOT doubt their timing method, as Haroki seems to stubbornly think.
I however, proved their conclusions WRONG.
There was a BIGGER seismic event showing up on the LDEO chart, before the beginning of WTC 7's global collapse ("global" as NIST phrased it), which has an amplitude, bigger than the WHOLE 47 STORY BUILDING CRASHING DOWN TO EARTH.
Thus, there must have been an EXTRA energy source at hand, to have caused that energy, and definitely not a cause, like just simple cracking of a few columns and beams. That's nothing compared to a WHOLE building cracking and breaking up and crashing down to earth.



if they took the photo as is and worked back to sync it manually after the fact then how can you be certain that they didn't mess up by a few seconds?

They messed up by an EXTRA 8.2 seconds, but NOT because their atomic clocks were malfunctioning or their observations and calculations were "messed up", they just didn't realize that a truly historic FACT was interfering with their "assumptions" of what happened at WTC 7 :
NIST WTC Part IIC- WTC 7 Collapse Final.pdf, the Failure Sequence Timeline.
They took these failure observations from ""Observation from CNN Net Dub 7 47.avi"" as NIST quoted on top of their graph. A CNN video with an atomic clock referenced in their footage, a so-called "time bug", which is not a computer-bug, but a very precise time fixed to the video.

Now listen carefully, because the bulk of ATS definitely still don't get it, and with that bulk I also include quite some moderators and administrators at ATS, who see the 9/11 subject as a pain in their patriotic American butt, instead of THE MOST IMPORTANT subject they ever could comment on,
(and YES, I include you, the non-9/11-conspiracy theory believing "ATS regulators" in my challenge : PROOF ME WRONG if you can, because you CAN'T, and that HURTS! ) :

When you believe your own government, which instructed NIST to write a 26 million dollar report to explain 9/11, there are two major event times published by NIST, for the start of the GLOBAL collapse of WTC 7 (which is DEFINITELY not the INITIATION event, that one is the first visually observed dent in the penthouse roof),

Global collapse start time by NIST :
2001-2005 : 17:20:47
2006 : 17:20:52
NIST just globally added 5 seconds in 2006 to ALL video/photo evidence in possession of NIST.
To me it seems as if NIST made a (deliberate?) error for WTC 7's collapse time-stamp, that's why I will only address the first NIST time-stamp, since the latest one of :52 adds only 5 seconds more ridicule to the first :47 one.

Basic calculus :
17:20:47 + 17 seconds in crust = 17:21:04 which points smack in the middle between the INITIATING event and the START of the global collapse event on the WTC 7 seismic collapse chart.

Now we arrive at the point where Haroki tries to argument about 5 seconds subtraction, but it must be 8.2 seconds subtraction, ONLY in the following argument :

The INITIATING event for the START of the global collapse took place at least 8.2 seconds earlier according to NIST's Failure Sequence Timeline :

17:20:47 - 8.2 = 17:20:38.8 + 17 seconds in crust = 17:20:55.8 which is the start of the writing of the INITIATING event in LDEO's seismic graph of WTC 7's collapse.

And THAT initiating event should have had a relatively small amplitude, compared to the whole GLOBAL collapse, but instead it has a HUGE, even bigger than the global collapse, amplitude.

That means an extra input : EXPLOSIVES without a distinct audio footprint, which could be thermobarics deep down in the basements, or any other yet unknown method.
Or a combination of Thermate cutter charges, as perhaps heard in the "phone-boot" video, and small thermobarics at the fifth floor and a few more up, which went off after the core columns were cut by silent thermate, and when global collapse began, these thermobarics finished the job, to be sure to let the building fall in its footprint, like actually happened.

PROVE ME WRONG IF YOU CAN !
(On the EXTRA energy input, of course, which was all the time the conclusion of my thesis, which nobody "seemed" to grasp for years, however it was written by me several times in there and here.)



""i mean after all its just like one of the failed mars probes. it crashed because the hardware guys were using one system of measure and the software guys were using another (metric vs english) people are fallible.""

More and more I get convinced that WTC 7 was meant to go in concert with WTC 1. When that didn't happen, "they" had to quickly improvise.
Which resulted in a messed-up seismic graph for the collapse of WTC 7, messed-up for "them", but luckily not for us.
It became the only graph with distinct separation of the explosions and the global collapse events.
And "they" could not prep-up that graph different, however it seems "they" tried for three days, from Tuesday 9/11 to Friday 9/12 2001. (see preparation times at the left bottom of all graphs)
Probably the seismologists at LDEO had some stubborn scientific honesty left, and refused to alter their readings.

I CHALLENGE ANYBODY AGAIN.

PROVE ME WRONG IF YOU CAN !