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

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 04:56 PM
link   
You clearly avoid my extensive answer above, I can't help you with your reading disability.




posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
So enlighten me and my feeble reading comprehension skills.

1- start of collapse
2- first panels hitting the ground
3- you're not sure



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
1- start of collapse : Yes.
See the NIST 2006 time table I referred to in above post, but you didn't read in my thesis or in the Damocles thread.
NIST gives an exact time for the start (initiating) of each of the three global collapses.
I also gave enough video evidence of rings of demolition charges going off on each face of the Twin Towers, racing down the facades. These demolition forces energy packs must be added to the rest of the natural gravity driven part of the global collapse energy.

2- first panels hitting the ground : No.
See BBC video I referred to in one of the three threads I advised everyone to read first, before asking questions obviously already answered, but you obviously did not clicked it open to view it.
About 12 seconds after initiating (start) of the global collapse, easily to be counted with a stopwatch or with the seconds counter of the video player.
And then you have to add 17 seconds upper crust travel time from New York to Palisades LDEO station, to arrive at the time position on the LDEO collapse graph. But we can count those seconds, but we have no time stamp of the initiating event, only NIST has given us one from that 2006 time table, but who says that they are right.
This is all already discussed in one of the threads I advised to read first.

3- you're not sure : I am now. You won't take the time to extensively read first.

I repeat, start with WTC 7.



posted on Jan, 5 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I understood what your position was. It's just that I noticed that you are prone to dodge direct questions.

The problem I have is that you're saying that the big jumps are when the collapse begins, but then whenever the panels begin hitting the ground, the seismic events don't increase. this can be clearly seen on a non expanded graph. ther's just no change at all.

I would surmise that you're wrong about your interpretation of what the jumping needle represents. Rather, I'd say that is where the panels begin hitting the ground.

The area preceeding that is the area where the building begins the collapse, since curiously, as you note, this basically matches the plane strikes. This would make sense since the energy is being transmitted through the steel into the ground during both events.

As far as timing goes, I think it's a nightmare trying to figure that one out, so I'll leave that one to you.

7- since you're convinced of the 1 and 2 preceeding events, and use this as a back up for 7's ideas, but I think you're wrong about the whole thing, I'd say that the deal with 7 is all wrong also. Rather, given the admitted confusion about timing, I'd say that the 2 events you describe are nothing more than the pre collapse, followed by the main collapse since their time spacing matches exactly the delay between those 2 events.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:11 AM
link   
You know, a conversation between scientists regarding a peer review of an article of one of them has one big advantage.
Both have extensive knowledge of what was written.

What exactly are you offering as a rebuttal in your posts?
I see only a very vague opinion, not even based on what I in fact wrote, but what you think I probably have written :

""I understood what your position was. It's just that I noticed that you are prone to dodge direct questions.""
No, you did not understood. I first wanted to find out why you ask such a specific question, out of the blue, without building up your critique first, beginning at the base of my argument, namely the collapse graph of WTC 7.


""The problem I have is that you're saying that the big jumps are when the collapse begins, but then whenever the panels begin hitting the ground, the seismic events don't increase. this can be clearly seen on a non expanded graph. there's just no change at all.
I advice you to take in consideration how fast (natural or not) demolition energy pulses travel back and forth in a full steel body, like WTC columns, to the point in the lowest basement, where these columns were embedded in the New York bedrock foundation. It's many miles per second, I won't bother you with the exact figures, since you constantly avoid them as the plague.
As you could see in numerous videos, the demolition waves at circa every third floor were racing down the facades, and every floor's demolition added to the energy send into that bedrock. Thus increasing the seismic waves send out from this event.
The exterior column triple packs smashing into the soil were a tiny ADDED event, compared to the full, still increasing demolition energy from the whole building collapsing on itself, helped by demo-charges. And these impacts were softened by the elasticity of the soil, which isn't solid rock, that rock laid 6 stories deeper in the Level 6 Basement floor.
So, no, it's perfectly logical that you don't see an increase anywhere in those seismic graphs huge global collapse peaks, because those panel's impacts pulses were tiny compared to a factor 100 to 1000 bigger, increasing and then subsequently decreasing energy pulse effected into the bedrock. They drowned in these seismic pulses, since they were not noticeable at all, compared to such a huge pulse packet.

""I would surmise that you're wrong about your interpretation of what the jumping needle represents. Rather, I'd say that is where the panels begin hitting the ground.""
So, basically you are saying that the start and subsequent GLOBAL collapse of a 110 stories high, massive steel hi-rise, DID NOT have a noticeable effect on the seismograms, but exterior panels raining down at unknown small time intervals, TWELVE seconds afterwards DID?
Let's keep it civil, and just say you're wrong, but obliged to a distorted personal opinion and omission of known facts.
I advice you again, to read my WTC 7 thesis multiple times, perhaps you will find the important parts.

""The area preceding that is the area where the building begins the collapse, since curiously, as you note, this basically matches the plane strikes. This would make sense since the energy is being transmitted through the steel into the ground during both events.""
NO, it's NOT that area.
The area preceding that building's start of its global collapse is the area where basically nothing happened in New York, no video proof of internal energy events, but the seismic graphs clearly show for both Twin Towers an identical energy event being unleashed in or under the buildings, comparable to the much earlier plane impacts energy pulses.
And of course, not only solely those energy events are transmitted through the steel into the ground, but also every natural or not, demolition force effectuated on beams and columns, as occurring in a GLOBAL collapse. And then following debris impacting on steel, and later crashing in the ground.
It's all pure logic.

""As far as timing goes, I think it's a nightmare trying to figure that one out, so I'll leave that one to you.""
In fact it is nothing more than SIMPLE basic calculus you ought to have learned in Basic School, so why are you so impressed and dare not to figure the timing out yourself?

""7- since you're convinced of the 1 and 2 preceding events, and use this as a back up for 7's ideas, but I think you're wrong about the whole thing, I'd say that the deal with 7 is all wrong also.""
Are you now clearly KNOWINGLY LYING?

In about every answer to you I advised you to get a grip on my WTC 7 thesis arguments FIRST, before derailing to Twin Tower collapses.
So, it's exactly the other way round, and you know that very well :

I'm convinced of the glaringly obvious men-made BIGGER energy pulses running in front of the following SMALLER global collapse energy pulses in the WTC 7 graph, and it logically follows from there, that if those are men-made pulses, then the nearly identical pulses in both the Twin Tower graphs are men-made too.


""Rather, given the admitted confusion about timing, I'd say that the 2 events you describe are nothing more than the pre collapse, followed by the main collapse since their time spacing matches exactly the delay between those 2 events.""
LAST TIME : read my WTC 7 thesis FIRST. You are wrong on all points you bring up.

So, basically you say again that you ignore the fact that the pre-collapse energy pulses are bigger than the global collapse pulses.
So, the pre-collapse is a bigger event, more energy rich than the global collapse.

HOW ON EARTH can one or more columns NATURALLY breaking, be a BIGGER energy event than the following total collapse, thus the breaking of ALL WTC 7 columns and numerous more steel cross beams and trusses from which some were thicker than the columns, because they were used to protect the ConEd electrical station.

AND THAT IS THE ARGUMENT ""NIST"" CAN'T REFUTE, and they know quite well.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop


1- what a joke, all you're offering is YOUR opinions. your evidence is so thin, it's anorexic.

2-you have constructed an assailable moat around your thoughts. unassailable because nobody can understand your train of thought. try turning in a thesis laid out like this for your graduate degree and be prepared to fail the exercise.

3- you construct distortion upon distortion in order to prove your "thesis". There's so many blended instances of first stating that NIST's times are inconclusive, then using those times as your basis for the start of events, then denying the said use, that it's pathetic.

4- demo waves. what a joke. i've seen your response to challenges about there not being any audio recordings. "that's not important, the proof is in my thesis, you must not have read it, blah blah blah, drivel drivel drivel.." no, it's important.

5- the 50-100 ton column sections are minor occurances and would result in tiny additions to the seismic activity?
the absudity of that statement confirms it - you're ready to ignore logic in order to stick to your ridiculous story.

6- and the hits just keep on coming... the initiation of the global collapse resulted in similar seismic energy as the plane strikes, since both events would have transmitted that energy into the bedrock through the steel columns. This can be plainly seen when comparing your expanded chart of the collapse and the ldeo provided scale of the plane strikes. You even state yourself that the strikes and the area prior to the jumping are similar in deflection.

7- timing, you yourself have stated that the NIST has changed time of the events and you are unsure what to believe or take as the truth, other than ldeo. But then you use NIST's times as "proofs" of your ideas. LOL....

8- the pre collapse shows a higher spike, we agree. but the the global collapse, while showing a lower max energy, is spread over a longer time horizon. add up the TOTAL seismic energy, and one can plainly and logically see that the total energy transmitted is higher than for the pre collapse. But logic plainly isn't in use for the basis of your joke of a "thesis", so I can understand how that would escape you...



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Care to substantiate all this ranting with some hard facts?
Instead of your usual plagiarism.
It's very bad behavior to want to look smarter than you are by stealing other's work.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


In support of your theory, I am led to believe the graphs on the following website support your theory, if I am reading them correctly. Please understand I am not convinced until I see visible evidence of any alleged planes impacting twin towers. Something caused a mild concussion to the seismographs at stated intial times. That is self-evident from the graphs appearing on the webite. The collapses were the major concussions registering on the seismograh data at the following website. No sign of any sections of the external two steel walls seem to be registering, which is not surprising to me. I do not expect individual sections of steel walls to make a movement apart from normal on a seismograph, unless landing in massive quantity still attached together. That did not happen on 9/11/2001:

www.masternewmedia.org...



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Care to substantiate all this ranting with some hard facts?
Instead of your usual plagiarism.
It's very bad behavior to want to look smarter than you are by stealing other's work.


I'm waiting for YOU to substantiate your ranting with facts, rather than opinions.

I presume it'll be a while..



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:00 PM
link   
That is the same broadly filtered graph (filtered 0.6 to 5 Hz) as Damocles started his thread with.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The LDEO graphs I linked to, are filtered for one distinct Hz region, 0.6535 Hz.

The assumption that those two huge spikes were a sign of explosives I do not believe as such. They may contain explosive pulses, but we will never be able to prove those, since they drown in the total global collapse pulses.

But I did prove, that the "tiny" disruptions in front of the global collapse peaks, are in fact the initiating explosive energy signs, we were looking for all these years. They were hidden by the 10 times broader scale of the Twin Tower collapse seismic charts from LDEO.

You have to look at the graphs in my first post from my thesis, these are the correct graphs to work with.
And remember, WTC 7 is the eye opener, and then the conclusion for the Twin Towers is a logical consequence.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
wouldn't you say that it's a little damning to your theory when the little events in your expanded graph, prior to the wild swings, have a duration of about 9 seconds for 2 - which is the same time observed for the exterior panels to hit the ground wjile in free fall... and 11 seonds for 1?

combine that with the nearly identical seismic spikes of the plane strikes. the time period before the big swings of the needle - 9 and 11 seconds - are in exact lock step with what was observed for the free fall of the exterior panels.

And the max excursion for the 9 and 11 second time period is nearly exactly equal to the plane strikes.

and the the 2 peaking events for 7 are spaced apart exactly with what was observed to be the spacing of the pre and global collapse events.

and NO audio recordings exist that have these pre-initiation explosions that you're fond of.

do these coincidents mean nothing to you? or does it raise some red flags?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
1- and 2-can't be addressed, since there is no question embedded.
I'll only remark, that I have provided an extensive body of links and explanations, and I haven't seen you do the same.
You act as if you are talking to your friends in the local bar.
That kind of argumentation doesn't convince us here.

3- you construct distortion upon distortion in order to prove your "thesis". There's so many blended instances of first stating that NIST's times are inconclusive, then using those times as your basis for the start of events, then denying the said use, that it's pathetic.

Be a man, and show us the links to that behavior.
NIST has used the same times for years, so did I, and then suddenly added 5 seconds to all video and photo evidence in their possession, in January of 2006, and then sticked to that. And they and LDEO have published their fault margins, which I also have both included in my explanatory color diagram :
Source.

4- demo waves. what a joke. i've seen your response to challenges about there not being any audio recordings. "that's not important, the proof is in my thesis, you must not have read it, blah blah blah, drivel drivel drivel.." no, it's important.

That's another big fat LIE packed in an insult, you just made up those words, and you can find my real answers here at page 9:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this here is the same provocative remark from you as above, in that same thread :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

which I answered extensively in all my following posts at that page 9, and first in this post :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then read all my other posts on that page 9, and show me where you bravely re-entered to prove me wrong? You didn't.
Instead you come here and repeat the same old garbage, and hook me up with a lot of additional lost time for a lost case for true history, like you.

Why I answer posts from people like you, who's behavior I have learned to know very well in the last 10 years, has only one reason :
I hope I can educate more civil silent readers, who may struggle with the same questions, and could not fill the answers in without my help.
Like we see now happen again with OrionStars. He also thought, just as Damocles and herds of others, that those huge peaks in the graphs were explosives. No they were the crashing down buildings, helped a bit with some relatively small explosives. And the first explosives going off, we can see when we compact these graphs back to the 10 nm/s scale, they pre-run the big peaks.

5- the 50-100 ton column sections are minor occurances and would result in tiny additions to the seismic activity? the absudity of that statement confirms it - you're ready to ignore logic in order to stick to your ridiculous story.

Let me educate you: most educated readers here will and have backed me up on this, you're pretty much alone with your opinion.

6- and the hits just keep on coming... the initiation of the global collapse resulted in similar seismic energy as the plane strikes, since both events would have transmitted that energy into the bedrock through the steel columns. This can be plainly seen when comparing your expanded chart of the collapse and the ldeo provided scale of the plane strikes. You even state yourself that the strikes and the area prior to the jumping are similar in deflection.

Here you are reaching into the realm of the absurd.
This is exactly what I am saying all the time, you only stubbornly forget to add that in the case of my thesis subject, the collapse of WTC 7, it is clear as crystal, that the initiating event is a magnitude bigger than the ensuing global collapse. And you also constantly forget that the Richter scale is a logarithmic scale, you can't simply double the value when you see a double so high peak. The value becomes much bigger than that.
And THEN, and only THEN I address the other collapses, and tell you that those same pre-running peaks thus logically spoken, also depict an energy pulse made by men.

7- timing, you yourself have stated that the NIST has changed time of the events and you are unsure what to believe or take as the truth, other than ldeo. But then you use NIST's times as "proofs" of your ideas. LOL....

No, I said that I have my doubts that the latest NIST adjustment of 5 added seconds is correct. I do believe that not the whole bunch of NIST researchers is corrupt. But I'm quite sure the top echelons are. Thus I believe their basic time scales, but not the politically affected last adjustment, to get their timeline in pace with LDEO's timeline, the top thought. They were wrong, and their personnel didn't dare or wanted to correct them.

8- the pre collapse shows a higher spike, we agree. but the the global collapse, while showing a lower max energy, is spread over a longer time horizon. add up the TOTAL seismic energy, and one can plainly and logically see that the total energy transmitted is higher than for the pre collapse. But logic plainly isn't in use for the basis of your joke of a "thesis", so I can understand how that would escape you...

So tell me, what on earth has that to do with my 1:47 column comparison?
That's where my argument is based on.
One WTC 7 column breaking can NEVER EVER force more energy magnitude in the earth than all WTC 7 columns and more beams breaking.
So, to be able to explain that huge WTC 7 peak, we must introduce an external energy packet.
You know how we do that? EXPLOSIVES, man.

Be a real man, admit you are wrong, or come up with a SOLID reason for that huge WTC 7 pack of peaks, which reason is not explosives.
I can't, and a true researcher wants to find any proof-negatives first.

Your lack of logic but abundance of insults is the only fact obvious here.
You conveniently forget that everybody involved said this was a BOTTOM first collapse. And NIST thinks it originated at floor 5.
That's a damn short distance to fall for the first debris. The WHOLE DAMN tower man.

So of course this seismic chart looks different than the two Twin Tower collapse charts, which were TOP first collapses.
Contemplate on it a bit, and see where you can come up with.
I gave my answer already, but as usual you haven't grasped it.
One hint : 1:47.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
You're dodging again so i'll repost these q's-

wouldn't you say that it's a little damning to your theory when the little events in your expanded graph, prior to the wild swings, have a duration of about 9 seconds for 2 - which is the same time observed for the exterior panels to hit the ground wjile in free fall... and 11 seonds for 1?

combine that with the nearly identical seismic spikes of the plane strikes. the time period before the big swings of the needle - 9 and 11 seconds - are in exact lock step with what was observed for the free fall of the exterior panels.

And the max excursion for the 9 and 11 second time period is nearly exactly equal to the plane strikes.

and the the 2 peaking events for 7 are spaced apart exactly with what was observed to be the spacing of the pre and global collapse events.

and NO audio recordings exist that have these pre-initiation explosions that coincide with this theory that you're fond of.

do these coincidents mean nothing to you? or does it raise some red flags?



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


wouldn't you say that it's a little damning to your theory when the little events in your expanded graph, prior to the wild swings, have a duration of about 9 seconds for 2 - which is the same time observed for the exterior panels to hit the ground wjile in free fall... and 11 seonds for 1?

First, get your facts straight.
The dual-packs of peaks in all three expanded collapse graphs have all the same duration, 10 seconds. That's not 9.
The exterior panels hitting the ground near the base of the first collapsing tower, WTC 2, to be seen in that BBC video I first posted, it took them 12 to 14 seconds to hit the ground, counted from the moment of initial global collapse. You have all your data wrong again.

So, may I propose a rehearsal course in basic calculus first, before you use any more faulty arguments any further.
Where you get your data for WTC 1 from is unclear, so I can't comment on that.

Btw, you're still hanging onto that pet-theory about those external panels hitting the ground and being visible in your imagination on seismic charts, but others don't see that?
Man, don't act so stubborn, how on earth can the impacts of parts of external column panels turn up DISTINCTIVELY after 12 to 14 seconds inside the full scale demolition pack of peaks of a whole tower collapse, on its seismogram.


combine that with the nearly identical seismic spikes of the plane strikes. the time period before the big swings of the needle - 9 and 11 seconds - are in exact lock step with what was observed for the free fall of the exterior panels.

Bullocks. See above.

And the max excursion for the 9 and 11 second time period is nearly exactly equal to the plane strikes.

Bullocks too. Wrong phraseology.

and the the 2 peaking events for 7 are spaced apart exactly with what was observed to be the spacing of the pre and global collapse events.

Idem dito. Gobbledygook.

and NO audio recordings exist that have these pre-initiation explosions that you're fond of.

LIAR. Because you know very well I gave them all in this thread here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Does the name Rick Siegel ring a bell? Blue Media Group? 911Eyewitness?
Open this page :
www.911eyewitness.com... and click on this video :
Sound analysis shows pre-collapse explosions.

So now you at last can hear them with your own stubborn ears.
And can't live in denial anymore, there it is, on a platter.
And listen to the screams of your fellow Americans when they witness thousands of innocent people DIE.
I will get our revenge for the murder of these innocent people, and my friends. And you too should get agitated by my proof.

And you also forgot the Phone boot conversation with those FDNY guys jumping on the sound of that loud and sharp explosion.

And you didn't take your time to Search my personal posts for the words "explosion, explosives". You will be amazed how many witness accounts I posted, with audio and video, that in that search will turn up. Lazy man.
Use the words "terrorize.dk" together with my screen name.


do these coincidents mean nothing to you? or does it raise some red flags?

Yeah, with me regarding your behavior. You clearly look for a confrontation crash course. Be my guest. But stay away from the lies, insults and unintelligent behavior. And learn to count a bit better.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

and NO audio recordings exist that have these pre-initiation explosions that you're fond of.

LIAR. Because you know very well I gave them all in this thread here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Does the name Rick Siegel ring a bell? Blue Media Group? 911Eyewitness?
Open this page :
www.911eyewitness.com... and click on this video :
Sound analysis shows pre-collapse explosions.



And these sounds coincide with the timeline you have laid out?

Nope,

You're the liar, my misguided friend. deny your ignorance and look around a little. don't live your life locked up in some conspiracy loop, where everything that you see wrong in the world is the fault of the CFR, or secret banking cartels, or some shadowy NWO.

These faults you see are in yourself and your preception of reality.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   

And these sounds coincide with the timeline you have laid out?

Nope


No more quasi intellectual humbug.
WHICH timeline I have laid out, and you'd better be very specific!



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Thats it. This stops now!!!

Stop the name calling and insults and get back on topic.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


I did not read them as explosives. I read them as the buildings dropping to the ground. Cutter charges would very likely not leave any abnormal activity level, any more than heavy traffic on the street or a subway rumbling at high speed on tracks.

The waves start initially smaller as the top is starting to drop, and then momentum and velocity picks up from increased weight and mass dropping causing the waves to crescendo. That would be normal with any controlled demoltion registering on a seismograph. The taller and heavier the building - the higher the reading climbs, and then decrescendos as the mass and weight is reduced until dropping is all through.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

And these sounds coincide with the timeline you have laid out?

Nope


No more quasi intellectual humbug.
WHICH timeline I have laid out, and you'd better be very specific!


in the time period immediately preceeding the collapse of 1 and 2. and the time period coinciding 7's drop.

nothing there.



posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   
I suppose the following can assist in validating what I wrote earlier. Cutter charges would not be picked up on seismograph reading. I seriously doubt any smaller sections of either exterior steel wall hitting another building or the ground, would register much on seismograph, if at all. The WTC complex was built on solid bedrock. It would take a massive amount of ground force to register on a seismograph, such as two massive buildings, on at a time, dropping straight down into their own footprints. The weight was compacted not distributed, as in pancake toppling.


911research.wtc7.net...

Comparison with Signals from Earthquakes, Gas Explosion and Mine Collapse

The signals at PAL from Collapse 2 and a small felt earthquake beneath the east side of Manhattan on January 17, 2001 are of comparable amplitude and ML (Fig. 4). The character of the two seismograms, however, is quite different. Clear P and S waves are seen only for the earthquake. The 7-km depth of the earthquake suppressed the excitation of short- period Rg, which is so prominent for the collapse. The difference in the excitation of higher frequencies also can be attributed to the short time duration of slip in small earthquakes compared to the combined source time of several seconds of the complex system of the towers and foundations responding to the impacts and collapses. The waves from the WTC events resemble those recorded by regional stations from the collapse of part of a salt mine in western New York on March 12, 1994 (ML 3.6). That source also lasted longer than that of a small earthquake. A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away.





top topics
 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum