It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:51 PM
Umm - nope - you extinguished that one with the fact they burn under water, too.

Anything to substantiate the water?? First I heard of it prior to the collapse (not doubting you, just want to see something of it). If that can be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", and that at the very least, the lowest sub-basement level could flood in that time prior to the seismic records, then all that is left is to prove the physics of an underwater detonation that could break the foundations of the building.

Wouldn't the water also have the effect of multiplying the blast effect, effectively enhancing the explosion?

[edit on 25-12-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 07:18 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

I also commend you on an excellent presentation.

The first factor, I notice screaming disinformation by NIST report, was the fact they did not have enough, or the correct evidence, from the exact location of initial compromise, to do an evidentiary forensic examination.

The FBI was prevented from doing an evidentiary forensic examination. As were independent forensic and science professionals prevented. That immediately made any report issued from NIST already highly suspect for inaccuracy, or, at worse, disinformation.

When I read the report, I knew it was no more than a staged back-up for the disinformation in the "official" report: "truss collapse, fire and Boeing 767 impact and penetration".

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 08:14 PM
An excellent picture of one of the facade sections:

"NEW YORK - Visitors to the Sept. 11 memorial will see two huge pieces of the World Trade Center's original steel facade inside a glass-walled pavilion that leads them to the museum devoted to the terrorist attacks."

[edit on 25-12-2007 by OrionStars]

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

I have a question. How could an uncontrolled bomb be guaranteed to symmetrically cut all the supporting core beams on any one floor, either simultaneously or in rapid succession? So the buildings would drop straight down rather than topple at any point. I am trying to work through what you present compared to cutter charges in controlled demolitions.

From what I researched, each center core support was one continuous unit from the sub-level bedrock to the roof. The center core units supported the floors on the inside at each level, and were not supported by the floors at each level.

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 09:50 PM

Originally posted by OrionStars
An excellent picture of one of the facade sections:

That is actually the first lower floors section, up to the seventh floor(?). You see at the top as it spans out into 3 sections, that is the start of the 'mesh' that continues up to the top.

You can see in these pics...

Then the more closely spaced mesh sections...

[edit on 25/12/2007 by ANOK]

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 10:15 PM
reply to post by ANOK

Good point.

They staggered it for load shifting capability. The same way masons stagger the bricks or concrete blocks on foundation walls. Staggered very likely is not the correct term, but the example of a foundation wall explains what I meant.

posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 10:18 PM
reply to post by ANOK

One of the images shows the perimeter exterior primary load bearing supports. The other is the facade going all the way from the ground to the top. The twin towers had two exterior steel wall frames.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 01:55 AM
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

""Umm - nope - you extinguished that one with the fact they burn under water, too.""

To what are you referring to with that remark?

""Anything to substantiate the water?? First I heard of it prior to the collapse (not doubting you, just want to see something of it). If that can be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", and that at the very least, the lowest sub-basement level could flood in that time prior to the seismic records, then all that is left is to prove the physics of an underwater detonation that could break the foundations of the building.""

I have that from the NIST reports witness accounts, and from William Rodriguez explanations at the website of that millionaire, who had to flee to Europe after he got harassed so bad by the US law enforcement agencies.
I'll post the most relevant links to those statements soon, I could not read here much the last days.

""Wouldn't the water also have the effect of multiplying the blast effect, effectively enhancing the explosion? ""

I have asked Damocles a few questions regarding that here :

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:08 AM
As I have posted before, all those whitish puffs emanating from one to three windows far below the demolition fronts in both towers, could also be water vapour, exploded out in areas where water tanks were situated.
That would enhance the direction of the explosive force, and muffle the sound, if explosives were placed in or beneath water tanks near or adjacent to core columns, to cut them, undetected by audio equipment.

NIST has published quite some info on sprinkler water tanks situation, but who says that the planners didn't place aquariums, small drinking water tanks, cubic meter tanks etc on tenant floors. Tenants acting as normal businesses, but in fact black operation entities set up by some agency.

Also look in the NIST reports, but especially in other testimonies, for empty floor space without tenant occupations, just before 9/11.
Those will be the floors for massive TBE placements.

William Rodriguez saw one, where first he heard a lot of mechanical equipment sounds, and days later, when he got a chance to peep in, the whole floor all around the core, was totally empty.

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 02:31 AM

Originally posted by OrionStars
One of the images shows the perimeter exterior primary load bearing supports. The other is the facade going all the way from the ground to the top. The twin towers had two exterior steel wall frames.

Please show which image you mean that shows the 'primary load bearing supports'. I still don't see the 'two exterior steel wall frames' you're talking about? AFAIK there was just the so called 'mesh' made up of box columns and I beams welded together and the aluminum cladding they covered it with for looks. I don't see two walls in any pics?

Please be specific...

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 03:12 AM

Originally posted by LaBTop
Where traditional military explosives provide detonation velocities of 7,000-8,900 feet per second at the blast point,

i applaud labtop on his great research, this is an educational thread even for someone like me. i just wanted to clear up one point as i really dont want to get involved in the same discussion in two threads.

ANFO is the only "high explosive" with a det velocity of 7000-9000fps. all the rest are ~24000fps and higher. (ref: FM 5-34 Ch6 table 6-3)

[edit on 28-12-2007 by Damocles]

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 07:12 PM
Boys and girls, I have been sitting here for days in a row at my screen, looking at the bickering, and waiting for ANYBODY to come up with the IMMENSE flaw in Damocles's reasoning.
Nobody does.
That says something for the logical reasoning of the bulk of the readers of this thread. You all disappoint me.

Damocles : or does that quote somehow not consititute a source? or does the comparison between a known event to the seizmic data not count somehow? do i need to show my math more? maybe a post explaining how to convert HE yeilds by RE factor? no, i did that all in the first post. my bad...

because to me, and mayabe it is just me, but a similar seizmic event with a known source compared to the seizmic events at the wtc which are claimed by many to be from explosives is as about as fair of a comparison as i think one could make.

the CD theorists will say that the ~2 magnitude siezmic events are as the result of explosives. im saying that for them to be explosives it would take the equivilant of 12.5 tons of C4 (please read equivilant. could have been anything as its a pretty simple conversion from a known known. i can provide ya'll the data so you can do the math yourself if you dont believe me but i DID post my math in the OP, along with the above quote....)

so where exactly is my logic flawed here? i dont care if it was anfo, tnt, C4, a thermobaric or a mini nuke. there was a release of energy that if it was an explosive device, it had to be the equivilant of 12.5 tons of C4. nukes are rated as equivilant of tnt rated in thousands of tons. (or millions for the big ones) so everything in the explosives world can be equated to TNT, if it can be equated to tnt it can be equated to anything else. you dont even need calculus for it. would you like the formulas? or would you prefer to look them up so that i cant be said to be handing out biased source materials? if you dont have some of the exact data you can extrapolate and be pretty close.

but thats not an issue here. we have a seizmic chart that if we compare it to another one from a different yet known event, and we know the circumstances behind the other event we can easily compare the two and see if the events causing chart A have the charicataristics of chart B.

Your logic is flawed at the very base of the argument.
You compare the WHOLE event, namely the GLOBAL collapse of both South and North towers. to a quarry detonation.
All three registered a 2 magnitude earthquake.

Then you calculate from the data of the quarry explosion, the comparable amount of C4 and arrive at 12.5 tons of C4 exploding, to cause a magnitude 2 earthquake.

First mistake : they first drill deep holes and then fill them with Anfo.
So basically you get an underground explosion, in a very small confinement.
Which is meant to shatter MASSIVE rock.
You can't compare that AT ALL to standard operation cutter charges, which are hung around columns in a free air surrounding.
But that mistake doesn't interest me so much.

It is the main mistake you are making which worries me.

I proved to you, that a SMALL seismic event; small, compared to both the first tower's GLOBAL collapses, RAN IN FRONT of all three of those global collapses on the seismic charts.
All three events however, were comparable to the massive plane impacts in the twin towers!

Thus, the source of those two "small" events, must have been logically a much SMALLER event, and NOT TE DAMN 12.5 tons of C4 you calculated for both the whole GLOBAL collapses events.

So now I hope you understand that we are talking about MUCH smaller detonations which were the initiating events that caused all three towers to collapse!

And you can see in the excellent 9/11 Eyewitness videos, and in BBC footage and lots of others, that both tower bases were emanating whitish smoke just before their collapses.
I tried to inform you, that I suspect them to have used underwater explosions for those initiating events.
Whitish smoke = steam from an explosion.
And NO, that was not 12.5 ton C4, but a SMACK less.

And those steam ejects running in front of the downward collapse fronts, they were steam explosions too. To cut a set of core columns, one set per floor, 6 to 8 sets to cut all 47 core columns at a total of 6 to 8 floors.
They did that only at the mechanical floors and below, to break the backs of those buildings.

WTC 7 is a totally different picture. That was panic in play.

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:31 PM
reply to post by LaBTop

ya know, i feel that the fact you cut and pasted this exact post in two threads, which arent inherently related just shows youre trying to discredit me for some reason. i can only imagine its because i disagree with you but i feel ive been pretty respectful of your research and i just disagree with your conclusions.

the fact that you posted this post in this thread which is TOTALLY unrelated to anything ive said in THIS thread just seems to validate my supposition here.

but, for anyone else, ill spare you the dissertation of my reply in this thread, if youre interested then go here
post by Damocles

but im just curious labtop, how excellent was that 911eyewitness video again?

posted on Jan, 1 2008 @ 04:53 PM
See my reply to Damocles here :

And if I may, I am not "after" other members, I am trying to educate you all about my definitive proof of the greatest treason in the history of the USA.

Damocles, I meant the audio segments of the 911 Eyewitness videos, not their erroneous conclusion that the main seismic spikes on their used LDEO charts indicated explosives.

Those are in fact the much smaller pre-running peaks, which you nearly can't see in the two first LDEO 100 nm/s tower collapse graphs I linked to in my thesis.

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 12:35 AM
Not being an expert in demolitions or explosives etc., I didn't pass comment on Damocles post as I frankly, don't know better, and rely on his expertise.

I have to say that I thought the serious seismic events of mag. 2.3 and 2.1 were the pre-collapse explosions???? So you're saying there were much smaller explosions prior to the collapse of the WTC that were the initiation events?

I thought the massive events occurred BEFORE the collapse was visible?

Have I got this totally screwed up?

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 01:56 PM
Don't be ashamed that you "screwed up".
It did actually cost me 3 full months to realize where exactly the explosions were hidden in the original LDEO seismic charts I linked to in my thesis.

Have a look at the 2 first seismic charts I showed in the following post in Damocles's thread, they were scaled-back to the same 10 nm/sec scale by Long-Lance, a member here, to help me to show the real explosions, running in front of the actual huge global collapse peaks on the charts :

Three explanatory LDEO graphs, the first two, WTC 1 and 2 graphs are re-scaled from 100 nm/s to 10 nm/sec, to be comparable to the WTC 7 collapse graph and the 2 plane impact charts with the same 10 nm/s scale.

The original LDEO graph from, for example, the first collapse, of the South tower, can be found in my first post of my Thesis at StudyOf911 :

If anybody should feel the need to find out if the graphs were re-scaled in an appropriate scientifically solid manner, do the following :

1. Open graph nr 3 from my first, the #1 thesis post.
That's the one above these 2 lines :
""3. First Collapse of the South Tower (WTC-2) at 09:59:04 (EDT)
Note: sensibility of graph 10x lower.""
Leave that window open, to compare to, later.
2. Go to post #4 from my thesis.
Find the first posted re-scaled graph, the one of the first collapse.
Right click in that graph, and Copy that graph to your clipboard.
2. Open a Windows Paint program window.
Click the icon to the left of the red x icon.
This makes the window a bit smaller than your whole screen.
3. Paste the re-scaled graph from your clipboard, to that Paint window.
4. Use Strg+K to open the Stretch window.
5. Change the value in Stretch Vertical from 100% to 10%, and click OK.
Thus you go from a scale of 10 nm/s, back to a scale of 100 nm/s.
6. You see a 10x smaller area at the +0.0s line in the original LDEO graph.
7. Compare this picture to the same area in the original graph.
The one from my nr 1. instruction above.

Both pictures will overlap EXACTLY.
Which means that if you stretch BACK the re-scaled graph with a vertical factor of 10, you get back to the original LDEO graph's 100 nm/sec.

Thus, those 3 graphs are the MOST IMPORTANT 3 GRAPHS in the history of the USA, since they depict the pre-planned scenario of the demolitions of the WTC towers, all three of them, WTC 2 (south tower), WTC 1 (north tower) and WTC 7.

An added effect which got clearly out of the planners hand, is shown in the WTC 7 graph, where the dual-packs of energy peaks running in front of the global collapse pack of peaks are an amount of magnitude BIGGER than these actual global collapse peaks.

And don't forget, I proved undoubtedly that the first pack of peaks in the WTC 7 collapse graph showed up on a moment in real-time New York, where nobody registered ANY MOTION at the WTC 7 building.

But a source of seismic ENERGY was unleashed in those moments, (without the main stream media noticing it), comparable to the plane impacts at the TWIN TOWERS.
These peaks look tiny in the Twin Tower collapse graphs, but are in fact picturing the same energy equivalent as the plane impacts in the towers.

I am officially asking the administrators and moderators of this site, (quite a lot of them I expect to be honestly concerned US citizens), to AT LAST pay attention to what I say for years now already at THIS same site, and come to a kind of consensus on the way we should bring this undeniable proof of pre-planned intervention of (very likely) parts of the US governments, agencies and military-complex, and who-knows more external parties, to the attention of many more, if not all, on these forums, and especially the scientifically schooled ones.
And then to the rest of the world.

I can't do it alone, it will have to be a collective effort of those really willing to change our corrupted corporate ruled world.
We NEED to do it, to be able to go to sleep with a sane mind and a clean conscious. If we don't ACT on proof like this, we are not worth the freedom we so dearly will defend with our lifes, or even send our children to the wars sold to us by evil minds as some patriotic duty to defend our freedom.
What utterly crap they sell us.
And how is it possible at all, that so many fall for it....

I will defend my thesis against anybody willing to pick up the challenge.
But please, read first my thesis, my explanations in the other latest thread started by Damocles, and this thread.
Since I have no time anymore to waste on obvious delaying-tactics, or members who clearly did not read my thesis or all of my posts on the subject.

It is time to show your true colors, after reading and believing, you will have to agree with me, there were unexplainable packs of energy pre-running the three WTC towers collapses.
Start to study the WTC 7 collapse, because then you will not be able to deny the fact, that those pre-global collapse peaks were BIGGER in amplitude than the whole following global building collapse.

If you, my readers who are convinced, just as me, that my thesis is build on undeniable facts, really do want to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to start the ball rolling, PM your favorite moderator and administrator at this board and ask for much more attention to this REAL smoking 9/11 gun on the head of those who planned 9/11. And the chance that those were solely Arabs is not based on solid logic, after you have to accept to your conscious what I proved to you.

To call their attention to this combination of facts, taken from two fully government payed institutions websites and their news briefs, which however contradict each other and show the real collapse sequences crystal clear.
And what started all three of them.

PS : A note to administrators driven by irresistible economic site rules :

That discussion will attract a few million new visitors and eventual members to this site, from all over the world, and I hope we will be able to keep the rotten apples out and show the world that decorum will win in the end, decorum completed with a spark of true wisdom.

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:19 PM
reply to post by ANOK

With all due respect, the exterior/perimeter primary steel frames cannot be compared to mesh. They look nothing like mesh, and reacted nothing like mesh. Some professionals refer to it as "lattice" (because it looks more like a lattice design) but not mesh. The steel facade had a pre-colored aluminum covering over the steel, for both eye appeal,

Thus, the actual tube-in-tube design was very obvious, if people watched the construction of the twin towers and viewed the exterior steel components being used. Both were attached to the outside of the buildings at each floor. Each section was three stories high.

The pitchfork looking design is but one steel facade section. The the other wall frame steel is but a few sections of many of the exterior/perimeter primary steel supports. Where the inside extension show on the perimeter wall is where the exterior side of the trusses were attached for the floor supports. Each bolt, as I recall, was 2" in diameter and may have additionally been welded to the steel braces on the perimeter wall sections.

The perimeter steel walls were not stacked one on top of the other. They were layered as masons layer bricks in foundation walls.

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 02:20 PM
Interesting stuff.

So on the "expanded" chart of the collapse of 1 and 2, the needle starts jumping wildly...... when the collapse initiates?

Or when the first panels strike the ground?

[edit on 5-1-2008 by MikeVet]

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 04:15 PM
My thesis is based on the WTC 7 videos, photo's published by NIST, and on the other side, on seismograms from LDEO, published within days after 9/11.
And on the very fast response LDEO put out in the open, regarding the seismological facts as LDEO sees them fit the seismographic picture they saw.

So, if you want to construct the same type of colored timestamped seismic diagram for both Twin Towers collapses, like the one I made for the WTC 7 collapse seismogram, feel free to do so.

You'll have to find an exact timestamped picture of the initiation of the global collapses of the 2 Twin Towers, one which can definitely be attached to an atomic clock based time.
Then you can compare that time to the collapse times in both LDEO collapse charts.

And tell us when the first exterior panels broke out and off, and when the first ones hit the ground etc.

BUT, you'd better first read and understand my WTC 7 thesis several times.
To get a firm grip on the reality of that particular collapse.
And when you have found out yourself, with the help of the facts I already provided you with, that there is an unexplainable event, bigger than the following total collapse of a 47 story steel building,( reinforced enormously above a ConEd substation), trailing in front of that global collapse, then it's really time to start digging deeper in the Twin Tower collapses.

And the times I provided you with, from NIST's own latests 2006 time tables, are sufficient to place all you asked for in the right time frame.
These are atomic clock times of video and photo material, provided by NIST, not by me.
And the times in the LDEO graphs are atomic clock based times, provided by LDEO, not by me.

I showed you in my last posts from my thesis, the unbelievable snotty behavior of the NIST bosses, to fully ignore from 2006 on, the whole seismic evidence, after they learned what I had deduced, and even crazier, dismiss the whole new 2006 report from dr. Kim from LDEO, hired now by NIST.

I admit that my thesis is a bit difficult to read for the men in the street, it was more or like my expression of my thoughts, developing over a period of 3 months.
But my explanations in these two latests threads here, will be sufficient to get a firm grip on what I have proved, and leave you no other choice than to start finding a solid explanation for all three pre-events, outside the realm of the demolition theories.
And if you can't come up with that explanation, you must accept foul play by factions of your elected ruling class.
Yes, i definitely mean not only the USA, many more nations insiders must have known very early on, briefed by their secret services, that foul play was in the game.
But all of them saw more profit in the status quo as we know by now, than in exposing the planners.

It really is a war by proxy, of the Wealthy against the Poor.

PS: so, basically, yes, these "small" peaks in front of both Twin Tower collapses are many seconds before anything happened at all at the WTC towers.
And I am not so interested to go on a deteriorating tour to try to find out when panels hit the ground etc, it has not much sense at this moment in time, perhaps later, when we have convinced many more people of foul play at WTC 7.
That foul play is much better to see in that WTC 7 graph, and very convincing also, than the other two collapses with their much bigger seismic amplitude of collapse, compared to the initiating events.
You can easily sweep those from the table by saying that they were breaking, bending and shearing steel columns and beams.

But not for WTC 7.
And not anymore after you examined the evidence for foul play for the WTC 7 collapse, because then you realize that those Twin Tower collapses were also connected to foul play.

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 04:47 PM
You avoided my question.

Is that when the collapse began, or when the first panels hit the ground?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in