Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

page: 13
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Some additional seismograms, this time from the collapse of the second WTC.



Notice the resemblance to the above seismograms.
A first wave train, followed by a second one.

And these are the seismograms in possession by dr. Wallace, now professor, and promoted to the Los Alamos test labs, from the first and second plane impacts at the WTC. Notice he called them in 2001 "first blast" and "second blast".





In these two seismograms you see a sharp defined start of the seismic signals. No first and second wave trains.

[edit on 10/8/08 by LaBTop]




posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Griff, you missed an essential detail in Dr. Browns notes.
He explains that there are two events per date, an initiating explosives event, followed by the event depicting the collapse of a structure.

What amazes him and me, is the fact that for both dates, the secondary, structure-collapse events, were comparable in total amplitude = energy, while the structures were so different in mass.

The bombing demolished 1/4th, and left 3/4th standing.
That 3/4th part thundering into the ground level, still gave the same seismic amplitude as the first 1/4th part collapsing.



These small snippets of information which came to the public eye could give an indication how much HE was planned to severe essential columns in the Murrah building.
As far as we know by now, several secondary charges did not go off, one timer was faulty because of the first explosion.
SOURCE.

David Hall (who stopped working on the case in late 1995 due to an IRS audit) wasn't aware of the Graham deposition, he did drop a bombshell.

"We do know that explosives were delivered there without a doubt. We know there were six boxes of 25 to 35 pounds marked 'high explosives' delivered to the building two weeks prior to the explosion. We had contact with the truck driver who was involved in that delivery. The name of the trucking company is Tri-State, located in Joplin, Missouri."

Tri-state… is an explosives carrier.

"We've talked to the driver," said Hall. "We've talked to two drivers. Nobody knows what was in them because they were boxed and marked 'high explosive.'"

Then Hall dropped another bombshell.

"We also know that the ATF had a magazine inside the building, which was illegal. But the floor was blown out of that magazine. And there's some question about what was in there too that created that damage, because that was a foot of concrete that was blown out of that magazine."[94]

While several other unexploded bombs were pulled out of the wreckage, none were widely mentioned.

One such bomb was a 2 X 2 foot box marked "High Explosives" which had a timer on it. This was confirmed by Oklahoma City Fire Marshal Dick Miller. The timing mechanism apparently had been set to detonate at ten minutes after nine. Apparently it had malfunctioned due to the initial blast.[95]

According to Toni Garrett, a nurse who was on the scene tagging dead bodies. "Four people — rescue workers — told us there was a bomb in the building with a timing mechanism set to go off ten minutes after nine." According to Garrett, witnesses told her it was an active bomb. "We saw the bomb squad take it away."[96]

This fact was confirmed by an Oklahoma City Police officer who inadvertently began to walk into the building when a fireman yelled, "Hey idiot, that's a bomb!" The stunned officer looked over and saw the 2 X 2 box surrounded by police crime tape. He then heard the fireman yell, "There's one over there and another over there! We're waiting for the bomb squads to come back from hauling off the others."

Investigator Phil O'Halloran has Bill Martin of the Oklahoma City Police Department on tape stating that one of the bombs found in the building was two to three five-gallon containers of Mercury Fulminate — a powerful explosive — one not easily obtainable except to military sources.[97]

Citizens monitoring police radios heard the following conversation on the morning of the 19th:

First voice: "Boy, you're not gonna' believe this!"

Second voice: "Believe what?"

First voice: "I can't believe it… this is a military bomb!" [98]

Apparently, the containers, with "Milspec" (military specification) markings clearly visible, were found in the basement. Could this explain what McVeigh's car was doing in the underground parking garage? Mercury Fulminate is a highly volatile booster material. Volatile enough to create a very powerful explosion.[99]

Shortly thereafter, a fireman up on the third floor of the building noticed two military ambulances pull up to the building, and saw several men in dark fatigues carrying stretchers from the building to the waiting ambulances. What were on the stretchers were not bodies, but boxes, which appeared to contain documents. One of the stretchers had on it what appeared to be a missile launch tube. The missile, apparently part of the Army recruiting office's display, was confirmed the 61st EOD to be inert.[100][101]

What is also interesting is that General Partin stated the building's support structures failed primarily at the third floor level. In speculating who would have access at that juncture, it may be relevant to note that the Department of Defense (DoD) was on the third floor, adjoining column B-3, which Partin believes contained the main detonation charge.[102]

General Partin was also informed by an acquaintance in the CIA that several of their personnel who examined the site discovered Mercury Fulminate residue on several rooftops near the building. [103]

Around the same time as the Eglin Air Force Base report was being made public, William Northrop, a former Israeli intelligence agent, told me that a friend in the CIA's Directorate of Operations informed him that there was plastic explosive residue on the building's columns.

Adding more fuel to the theory of an inside job was the dismembered, wrapped in military fatigues, leg found in the wreckage — a leg not belonging to any of the known victims. (Although authorities would later attempt to attribute the leg to Airman Lakesha Levy.)


That would be 150 to 210 pounds of HE delivered two weeks prior of the explosion on 19 April 1995.

As you can see, everything since the WACO disaster, through the Murrah attack and the first WTC bombing to the second WTC attack in 2001, is intertwined by the same obfuscating federal techniques.
All forensic evidence for all events was trucked off, and buried.
And guarded.

Everything points at a long term, political and military deception.
See what's happening now, the Russians take advantage of the soon coming attack on Iran, and remove a nasty thread to their southern border, where Georgia was seeking NATO membership. Putin knows the US war machine has other things to do now, than interfere in his little border war.
They probably endorse it all the way.

[edit on 10/8/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Well that's interesting.

You're using one conspriacy theory as proof of YOUR conspriacy theory.......

Don't you think that it's better scientificaly to use a neutral source?

If not, then I guess the quote in my signature is right on.....



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop


So, what again, exactly was “wrong”?


[edit on 9/8/08 by LaBTop]


Uhhh, gee.... McVeigh confessed to doing it. He explained where he got the materials for the bomb. it was checked and found to be accurate.

His buddy also corroborated his statement in hopes of a reduced sentence. he didin't get it.

The truck bomb took out the transfer beam that ran across the front of the building. Take out that beam and the whole front of the building will fail exactly as was seen. The many bomb experts know nothing about structures, and were obviously unaware of the transfer beam. If they were, they might realize that an ANFO bomb would be better for "pushing" that beam off its support columns. It was found laying inside the front lobby after the bombing. So the Elgin effect wouldn't apply here.

All your arguments are debunked in that article I posted. Every single one, in every single post you've made here.

I just hope that I've opened some eyes here as to the desperation that you have, trying to prove such a ridiculous theory.



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Care to elaborate with some deep insight, you obviously seem to have?

And not the usual text-only messages, but detailed arguments, so you could convince me that you're worthy of my precious time.



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 



Like I said, the seismic evidence that you give is wrong. It's discussed WHY it's wrong in my link.

But you're missing the point here. Read the quote in my signature line. I believe he wrote that in a direct response to the futility in discussing HE with YOU. He's proven his chops as far as knowing what HE can and cannot do, and yet you were arguing with him about it in another thread.

Which now links to my original post in THIS thread. it's bad enough discussing info with some CT believers here when they just parrot what they've watched on a youtube video. But this is YOUR particular pet theory...... So like I said, who gets to decide when you've been debunked? From what I've seen, you seem to think that you've been debunked only if you agree to it.

But this whole seismic line of reasoning has about the same credibility as the hologram guys. That's without a doubt the stupidest thing I've ever seen. And yet, you don't see them backing down either, regardless of the insanity they talk about.

In short, it is I who is wasting MY valuable time, discussing a theory with a guy that ignores and cherry picks evidence if it doesn't agree with his hypothesis.

This is my last post to you. Revel in your ignorance.....



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Butz: ""Well that's interesting.
You're using one conspiracy theory as proof of YOUR conspiracy theory.......
Don't you think that it's better scientifically to use a neutral source? ""


It’s clear now, that you don’t understand at all what evidence has been provided by me.
Since when are two local seismologists, Dr. Raymond L. Brown and Dr. Charles Mankin of the OGS, Brown's boss, no neutral, scientifically sound sources?
Who have a much better understanding of the local geological strata, than one from California, who by the way had to ask Dr. Brown for those local data.

Both local scientists very clearly distanced themselves from Dr. Holzer’s theory.
With very sound scientific reasons, which have not been countered by Dr. Holzer et all.

Just as all the others distanced themselves:

"Everybody that has looked at the signal has said a refraction (an echo) would really be strange because there's absolutely no loss of energy in the recorded seismic signal. The second event has the same amplitude as the first… The arrival time is wrong for a refracted wave… We've ruled out reflections, refractions, and the air blast… We determined that these two records of these two events corroborate our interpretation that there were two explosions."[74]


I showed you with a simple diagram that the sheer fact of seismic energy absorption negates the whole foundation of Dr. Holzer’s theory, and showed you with his own seismograms of the 23 May demolition, that his whole theory is impossible, since the last “echo” wave train of the demolition of the still standing 3/4th of the ruins showed much more energy than the preceding one. Thus that last “echo” of the preceding wave train can’t be a refracted echo of it, at all.

Butz: ""If not, then I guess the quote in my signature is right on.....
Signature
As soon as you start to challenge people’s theories with facts they get real testy real fast and then you sit and ask yourself why you bothered. But ill admit there’s a certain satisfaction to be gained just from knowing for yourself – Damocles ""


LaBTop: For the neutral readers:
Be so kind to fill in the words “officially fed” in front of his word “theories” in his signature.

You have not debunked me at all; I have thoroughly debunked your pathetic defense of a totally illogical official theory, with a plethora of data, which you can't refute at all.

Further on, I might add, that you did not even touch with a 10 foot pole, the heart of my thesis, the HUGE energy event in front of the far smaller energy event that the global collapse of WTC 7 was.
You don't dare, because everybody who you asked for help will have told you they can't help you with that, since they know very well that I am right.

Sleep well.
Dig a deep shelter, and mind my words, when the Armageddon comes, so wanted by the fundamental Pentecostals in and around the recent White House, who planned and will create that event.
It's the biggest PEST during all human history, those fundamental faith believers, without a shimmer of doubt in their own minds.



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Yeah, I've been stopping in here everyday and I still haven't seen any refutation to the timing and size of the first seismic spike. I haven't spoken up as I've been busy searching for the 4 videos with "timebugs" that they supposedly used to justify the additional five seconds. So far I've found only 1 that they may have used but all the others I've found have been distant shots from the north (i.e. the actual impact is hidden behind the building). Then I got sidetracked with a 10:28:18 problem...but that's a problem for a different thread.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
NIcon, those additional 5 seconds they added in 2006 to all the video and photo material in their possession, isn't doing any good for them, regarding my thesis. These additional seconds only place the start of global collapse signals in the wrong place, even further in their own graphs.

See these graphs for an objective view how the seismic signals originated, and arrived 17 seconds later at LDEO's Palisade's station:

The simple graph:


The thorough graph:


Left-click in both graphs, it opens a new browser window with the full graph in it.
Then PRINT them out first, or you won't understand the next arguments of mine.

Have a good look on your thorough graph print-out, at the black text in the upper right corner (starts with: 17:20:52 Adjusted time etc), where I explained so long ago already, that the NIST 2006, five sec addition on all video and photo evidence, even pushed thus the arrival at LDEO of signals from New York (17:21:09) , further into the global collapse signals written (the second wave train in the WTC 7 seismic chart from LDEO registered on 9/11). That's why I'm quite convinced that those 5 seconds are a faulty conclusion from NIST.

My 17:21:03 arrival of the start of the global collapse of WTC 7 fits perfectly in the graph, while their sudden 2006 proposed 5 sec plus time, 17:21:09, places the arrival of the seismic signals in the middle of the global collapse signals written at LDEO, 17 seconds later than the original signals were starting to shake the bedrock in New York.

All my arguments are based on the Cianca photo time stamp, printed inside that photo from the first visual dent in the east penthouse roof of WTC 7.
Of course this isn't the only visual proof, there are many more visuals from videos and photos in possession of NIST, all showing the forming of that first dent, and all meticulously timestamped with the same time by NIST themselves.
See my thesis for the undeniable proof of that. The NIST pages where you can find the technique used by NIST to evaluate those timestamps are given by me in the thesis, with drawings and photos of these proved times.
That dent-forming time was 17:20:46 on the Cianca photo.

NIcon, do you want me to help you find what you are searching for?
I'll give you first my notes on your 10:28:17 Collapse of WTC 1 problem:

Collapse WTC 1 :

LDEO 2001 time : 10:28:31
FEMA 2002 time : 10:28:31
LDEO 2006 time (3 sec added) : 10:28:34
Relative time NIST Visual Jan 2005 Analysis: 10:28:17
Adjusted time NIST Television Broadcasts 2006 (5 sec added) : 10:28:22

Please note:
All LDEO 2006 times have 3 sec added on the 2001 times, EXCEPT WTC 7, they added a huge 9 sec for that one, 3 times more!
All NIST 2006 times have 5 sec added on their own NIST Jan 2005 times.

In my opinion, NIST concluded in 2006 from the newly released radar data of the FAA about the impact times of planes in the towers, that they needed to cover those new timestamps, and thus worked again from a preconception back to now needed new data. Which is totally unscientific.

Furlong and Ross have written an extensive thesis about the combination of radar data and seismic evidence at the Study of 911 website :

www.studyof911.com...
They probably also linked to video material.
But most video material links about the collapse of WTC 1, the North Tower, can be found in the NIST pages I linked to in my thesis.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

1-That's why I'm quite convinced that those 5 seconds are a faulty conclusion from NIST.

2-That dent-forming time was 17:20:46 on the Cianca photo.



1- We actually agree on this.

2- Is that time with the 5 seconds added or not? Cuz if you redo NIST's error and change the Cianca photo to :41... tell me how you think it lines up on the graph. Cuz I see the east penthouse collapse wave arriving at 20:58, right where it should be. Then the global collapse arrives 21:06, 8 seconds later, again right where it should be.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz


""Like I said, the seismic evidence that you give is wrong. It's discussed WHY it's wrong in my link.""

Now, that's an interesting remark.
Can you defend it against my laid out counter-arguments?

The first and most devastating arguments against Dr. Holzer's pet theory, I posted already, and I see only your usual one liner as your defense.
No meat. No taste.
I'll hammer the next arguments a bit further into your conscience, in my next post.

""But you're missing the point here. Read the quote in my signature line. I believe he wrote that in a direct response to the futility in discussing HE with YOU. He's proved his chops as far as knowing what HE can and cannot do, and yet you were arguing with him about it in another thread.""

I'm missing nothing at all, except his clear absence from that thread after I made his main mistake clear to him, that he calculated the amount of HE necessary to take down a COMPLETE WTC Tower, while I showed him that we should and must discuss only, the amount necessary for the initiating event, the breaking and displacement of a few essential core columns just under the impact zone.
Because his main argument was his opinion, that HIS proposed amount would have been heard as far as New Jersey.
Well, in that he was right, it was heard as far away as that, but as a result of a whole tower thundering down.

I made my opinion very clear, those planes were intentionally aimed at very distinct floors, high up; the ones in BOTH towers, with all those lately renovated and reinforced back-up power accumulator rooms in them, with strong acidic fluids in those accumulators, which would coincide with the planned devastation.

After the initiating event, the blowing up of those essential columns, with cutter charges, be it the ones he was trained in, HE, or the ones I proposed to him in another thread, modern day sophisticated thermobaric cutter devices, with a low frequency footprint, inside the columns, or outside; all the following racing down explosions would totally drown in the subsequent thundering noise of an artificial ""gravitational"" global collapse.
Gravitational for the uninformed global audience, at first.
We know better by now.

By the way, his HE cutter charges are not giving off the so advertised by many truth opponents, "thundering noise", in a still intact, fully enclosed with very strong hurricane resistant glass windows, office or maintenance space, at +300 meters high. The noise of these charges in such an environment are downright disappointing compared to professional demo jobs in totally gutted, empty buildings.

What most of you imagine, when hearing from HE demolition charges, are those fancy videos from demo companies.
But they rip out FIRST all windows, non load bearing walls and other obstacles in a contracted building, before they place and set-off the charges in an essentially totally empty steel and/or concrete carcass.

They don't want to be forced to pay insurance for external damages by flying debris.
All possible sources of debris are meticulously removed before taking down a building.
The explosions in such a job are so clear and loud, because essentially these charges are blown in "the open".

""Which now links to my original post in THIS thread. it's bad enough discussing info with some CT believers here when they just parrot what they've watched on a youtube video. But this is YOUR particular pet theory...... So like I said, who gets to decide when you've been debunked? From what I've seen, you seem to think that you've been debunked only if you agree to it.

Much obliged, that will save me from doing that myself.
Thus our audience can see your debating style, and compare it to my fully referenced arguments, which references are lacking in 95% of your mainly insinuating argumentation.
YOU have been thoroughly debunked, but I doubt you will ever admit that.

Just as you will never admit, I'm sure, that the Gulf of Tonkin "incident" was a set-up to bring the US military-industrial complex into the Vietnam war; or the Pearl Harbor "incident" was a set-up by US intelligence and president Roosevelt to bring the US into WW II; just as the sinking of the Lucitania "incident" was the same kind of set-up to bring the US into WW I; and the Bay of Pigs "incident" was a set-up to bring Castro down, which failed for non-cooperation by president Kennedy; and the Havana Harbor "incident" was the set-up to take Cuba from the Spanish; and there are a few more "incidents", all needed to expand the US global influence sphere.
9/11 was just another "incident" to grab power in the Middle East, and its devastating effect is still rolling on, wait for Iran.
They will find a new "incident" again.
How dumb can a nation be, to repeatedly fall for all these badly played out military "defense" tricks.
The USA has become an offensive nation; under the cloak of defending freedom, it only brings us badly paid slavery, for the last 100 years.
Slavery for the interests of a wealthy few.
Middle classes are exploitable, and worthless in times of tension.

""But this whole seismic line of reasoning has about the same credibility as the hologram guys. That's without a doubt the stupidest thing I've ever seen. And yet, you don't see them backing down either, regardless of the insanity they talk about.""

What a vile manner to pack an insult in a deliberate lie. A lie I proved to you in this whole discussion with you. You did not even dare to touch upon the crux of my thesis, WTC 7's seismic chart.
You keep sidetracking, while you know very well that WTC 7 is the heart of the matter.
And then you come with this kind of pathetic "apples and oranges" reasoning.
How dare you to insult our collective intelligence with such obvious crippled reasoning.

""In short, it is I who is wasting MY valuable time, discussing a theory with a guy that ignores and cherry picks evidence if it doesn't agree with his hypothesis.""

That last line is a "contradictio in terminus", perhaps you'll understand which one.
To set things straight, I'm the one that doesn't run away from your arguments, like you do after each of my posts, only addressing cherry picked details with petty arguments, or not addressing it at all, because you have no solid defense.
I'm the one to have to show you the faulty argumentation in your precious link ( why don't you even have the decency to provide a link ), and this post of yours shows the full weight of your ignorance, you can't defend the arguments in your own links. You can only copy and paste, and fill up the remaining space with hidden insults.
If you post a link, you must stand up for it, and be able to defend the meat of it.
You failed.

I'll follow up with some more background information, why exactly you failed.

[edit on 13/8/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by LaBTop

1-That's why I'm quite convinced that those 5 seconds are a faulty conclusion from NIST.

2-That dent-forming time was 17:20:46 on the Cianca photo.



1- We actually agree on this.

2- Is that time with the 5 seconds added or not? Cuz if you redo NIST's error and change the Cianca photo to :41... tell me how you think it lines up on the graph. Cuz I see the east penthouse collapse wave arriving at 20:58, right where it should be. Then the global collapse arrives 21:06, 8 seconds later, again right where it should be.


It's refreshing that we can agree at least on one point.

Now I'm gonna ask you if you honestly can agree also to my following argument, because your point 2- is exactly what I constantly see as faulty logic probably based on "wishful thinking" by most of my opponents :

That Cianca time stamp is of course the originally published time by NIST themselves in Jan 2005, their Relative Time NIST Visual '01-'05 Analysis.

And NO, the 5 seconds were not added yet, that happened in 2006, when NIST added 5 seconds to ALL the Television Broadcasts and Photos in their possession, based on new data from radar calculations for the first plane impact, which Furlong and Ross (see my Studyof911 link in a former post) strongly disagreed with.

You MUST print out the thorough graph NOW, and keep it with you all the time we discuss anything further, otherwise we keep talking past each-other all the time.

Now have a look at the bottom "U" formed blue and red lines, with the ""20:46 Cianca photo time stamped"" black text on the left, and the, ""21:03 LDEO Seismograph's needle starts to write Cianca event"" red text on the right. With a 17 seconds interval.
That vertical red line ends up exactly between the two wave trains. Agreed?

Now look at the top "U" formed black/red lines above the biggest peaks in the graph, and you will instantly understand, that I showed there, that when we add the 2006 "5 seconds from NIST" to the Cianca time, we end up with a totally illogical placement of first arrival of global collapse signals, 17 seconds later at LDEO Palisades station. Agreed?

I strongly suspect NIST to deliberately having altered all those times in 2006, by adding 5 seconds to ALL OF THEM, to be able to influence readers like you of my thesis, that "something is fishy" with my graphic explanation.
BUT IT ISN'T!

And I repeat, I SOLELY used NIST and LDEO times, all clocked by atomic clocks, to show you all, that clearly there was a preceding HUGE energy event, in front of ANY visual event in New York.

Btw, this is very faulty reasoning by you, I hope you understand by now:

""Cuz if you redo NIST's error and change the Cianca photo to :41... ""

NO!
If you REDO the NIST's 5 sec error, being an ADDITION to Cianca's time of 5 sec, you of course arrive back at the original 2005 Cianca time of 20:46, and not another extra 5 seconds earlier, as you suggested.
Basic school calculus, I told you from the beginning, you don't need any fancy scientific background, to see for yourself that we have been conned, again and again.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
What most of you imagine, when hearing from HE demolition charges, are those fancy videos from demo companies.
But they rip out FIRST all windows, non load bearing walls and other obstacles in a contracted building, before they place and set-off the charges in an essentially totally empty steel and/or concrete carcass.


Actually, they do much more than this. They sever sometimes up to 90% of the load bearing materials before they blow the rest of the building. And yet, sometimes, they still can't get a straight down demolition. How did 19 hijackers do it with a fully intact building to overcome?

You already know this LaBTop I'm sure so this info is for those who are just reading.

Oh, BTW, my question before. You're right, I was looking at it from the explosions side of things and not the collapse of the building. I still think though that the energy for the demolition of the remainder of the Murrah building wouldn't be as much as what would be for an intact building of the same size. Of course, I'm willing to admit I could be wrong. After all, you're the siesmo expert here.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 

LaBTop, thanks for the link to that article, but now you just made me more curious. With their emphasis on the discrepancies in the impact time of flight 175, I'm now more interested in finding these videos. Concentrating so much on WTC7 I kind of accepted as fact that their impact times for the second impact fell within their margins of error and was overlooking any problem here.

I was originally just looking for these 4 videos NIST claimed to have used to verify their new times. I read their explanation a hundred times, but never thought to look myself. It seemed like an easy thing to do; find 4 live broadcasts with "timebugs" showing the impact. But most of what I found were distant shots from the north showing only the fireball emerging from the opposite side. The only viable one I found was this one: www.youtube.com...#

The section I'm talking about starts at 6:00 in the video. Even though due to perspective this video doesn't show the actual impact I thought they could use this to fall into their one second margin of error. But after a lot of pausing and playing I found that at the moment the clock turns to 9:03 the plane is only about three quarters of the way between the "NY Good Day" logo and the edge of the building (not the impact site). I have a screen shot of this and I'd post it if I knew how, but you can see what I see if you have the patience to replay it over and over. To me it looks like the impact on this video would be closer to 9:03:01, but definitely after 9:03:00.

So to me that means there is more videos out there that will show the time at 9:02:59 or that NIST is playing fast and loose with the times.

I put aside the question of how accurate these "timebugs" actually are, as I really thought it would be easy to see what NIST was seeing in the broadcasts. But now I think this really needs to be determined if these bugs are as accurate as they claim they are. I'll explain what I mean later tonight, but for now I've been at this computer all day and I need to get something to eat.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


""Like I said, the seismic evidence that you give is wrong. It's discussed WHY it's wrong in my link.""

Now, that's an interesting remark.
Can you defend it against my laid out counter-arguments?

Easy to do.

You say that the demo charges gave a bigger reading than the building falling, and that's blatantly false.

Look again at the graphs, specifically the synthetic. The event lasts for about 8 seconds, like it says in my previous link. The demo charges go off for 2.5 seconds, then theres a short lull, and then the building falling starts to register.

The readings for the demo charges are clearly smaller than the building falling.

It is a mystery to me that you can see it any other way....



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
First things first.
I asked you two times: Agreed?

What's your answer?

I'm answering your last post in a short while, It will be a long one, but for starters, did it ever come up to you what the word "synthetic" means?



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


I see where you're confusing your timeline. I can't seem to be able to figure out how to insert the table like you guys do with the blue background, so you'll have to go here to view it yourself.

wtc.nist.gov...

page118 of 392 in the pdf

"Note that the building
collapse times are defined to be when the entire building was first observed to start to collapse. In the
case of WTC 7, a penthouse on the roof sank into the building before the main collapse started."

So while NIST indeed added 5 seconds to their times, you've been assuming that the 5:20:52 time was for Cianca's photo. But if you read the above quoted text, it's clear that the 5:20:52 is for the start of the GLOBAL collapse. Subtract the 8 seconds observed between the penthouse collapse and the start of the global collapse and you get NIST's timestamp of 5:20:46 for Cianca's photo.

But we agree that this time is wrong by 5 seconds. Therefore the Cianca photo is also wrong by 5 seconds - 5 must be subtracted and it becomes 5:20:41.

And of course it then works out as I said.


[edit on 13-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Would you rather use the OBSERVED readings from the portable seismograph?

Cuz it shows the exact same thing......



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

Seymour...glad to see your back working on this graph. I questioned the timing on that picture exactly the way you are now and I did notice that quote from NIST about when they are considering the collapse to have begun, but I still have come to the same conclusion that there's a problem in the timing. I'll come up with a post laying out how I determined this but it'll take a while because I'll need to link to quite a few NIST documents. I've drawn my conclusion differently than LaBTop has in his previous posts, so I think there will be things in what I found that he may find interesting. I also would like to get his opinion along with yours on my line of thought.



posted on Aug, 13 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
“”Butz: You say that the demo charges gave a bigger reading than the building falling, and that's blatantly false.””

If you can’t see what I see, it may help to listen again for the third time to a renowned seismology professor :
thenewamerican.com...

But the demolition seismic data from the Murrah site make the latter explanation no longer tenable, says Brown. The demolition charges were detonated in five groups, he notes, and the oscillations on the seismogram from the site correspond closely with those explosions. "Even the smallest of those detonations had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building, which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building. So it is very unlikely that one-fourth of the building falling on April 19th could have created an energy wave similar to that caused by the large [truck bomb] explosion." The most logical explanation for the second event, says Dr. Brown, is "a bomb on the inside of the building."
Dr. David Deming, a professor of geophysics at the University of Oklahoma, agrees that Dr. Brown's assessment is "very persuasive." After reviewing Brown's analysis, Dr. Deming told THE NEW AMERICAN that it is "the most convincing analysis of the event" that he has seen.


Another excerpt, where Dr. Brown explains five possible theories, and their probability:

1. Surface wave velocity dispersion. This phenomenon that occurs with surface waves is due to the fact that low-frequency energy travels faster than higher frequency energy. Surface wave propagation can therefore give the appearance of signaling two events even though there has been only a single seismic source. This phenomenon, says Dr. Brown, "is very much like a car race in which a group of cars has one velocity and another group has a different velocity. If you look at them early in the race they look like one collection of cars, but if you look later in the race the faster cars develop a separate group or package. And that same phenomenon -- called velocity dispersion -- can result in the appearance of two wave forms for a single event. That difference in frequency I don't see here, so I don't feel that is a likely explanation." The seismogram, says Brown, shows two separate signals, each beginning with "a low frequency signal degrading into a high frequency signal."
2. Air wave. This might possibly explain the second event recorded at the Omniplex Museum. "However," says Brown, "it is difficult to describe the second event at the Norman station as an air wave because the speed of travel would far exceed the speed of sound in air [which is] 1,100 feet per second. Admittedly, the velocity of the air wave must be supersonic for a certain distance away from the explosion," but it would be impossible for the air wave to reach the Norman seismometer in the ten seconds recorded between the two signals.
3. Air-coupled Rayleigh wave. This phenomenon, says Brown, occurs when "the motion of the air induces a type of motion identical to the Rayleigh wave that we observe in the subsurface and causes the appearance of a second event. So you could have the first Rayleigh wave from the seismic explosion and then an air wave pushing and inducing a Rayleigh wave which would come trailing in behind." That did not seem a plausible explanation in Brown's opinion, "because most of the felt accounts of the air wave [from the explosion] are out to the north, so most of the air wave was going from south [from the federal building downtown] to the north, not to the south" toward the Norman seismic station.
4. The building collapse. This explanation holds that the seismic signals portray two separate events, the first being the bomb explosion and the second being caused by the collapse of a portion of the federal building following the blast. "If you're trying to explain the second event as a collapse," says Brown, "you're saying the collapse of the building actually has a shorter duration than the explosion itself," since the Omniplex seismogram shows a shorter duration pulse for the second signal. This scenario also suggests that the falling of the tons of building debris would send the same kind of mix of high frequency and low frequency waves as the explosion, which Dr. Brown also finds highly unlikely. Still another problem with that version is the time involved between the blast and the collapse under this scenario: ten seconds would seem far too long a delay.
5. Two explosions. His analysis of both seismograms, says Dr. Brown, leads him to the logical conclusion that there were "two separate seismic events" and that the simplest explanation is "two separate explosions."


And another seismologist, who explains better, why the ten seconds interval between the first and second wave train is highly illogical as an interval between an “original” and an “echo” :


The problem, though, is identifying those different velocity layers, which is what we are in the process of doing.
Dr. Mankin explained that this is done primarily by examining the "sonic logs" recorded by industry in drilling for wells. His OGS scientists have been carefully examining "a ton" of such logs to identify the various rock layers in the region and to see if they can match the rate at which energy travels in different pairs of rock layers and find a very fast one and a very slow one that might account for the ten-second delay recorded on the seismometer at the OGS receiving station on April 19th.

"While the work is not finished," said the OGS director, "I will say candidly that we are having trouble finding that velocity difference. We have not identified a pair of layers that could account for the ten-second difference.


This is another nail in the coffin from Dr. Holzer’s theory.
As you may remember, he proposed two strata layers with a tiny difference of seismic signal speed through them, 6.1 and 6.2 km/sec..
Thus definitely not a very fast and a very slow speed strata.



www.realityzone.com...
The Final Report on the Bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.
Description of the contents:


Compiled by Charles Key, former Oklahoma state representative and member of The Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee. Here is the product of six years of meticulous research showing that (1) the government had prior knowledge of the bombing, yet did nothing to alert the victims, (2) there were two teams of bombers, (3) the building was destroyed by bombs planted inside the building, not by the truck bomb outside, (4) the FBI concealed evidence of the bombs inside the building, and (5) the FBI concealed evidence of a Middle-East connection to the event. You may have heard these allegations before, but here, at last, is the hard evidence. Read it and weep for America.





top topics
 
3
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join