Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

page: 14
3
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


So what do YOU see in that graph?

What someone else SAYS is irrelevant.

I want to know what is there, in YOUR eyes.




posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Told you already.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


“” 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.
Not at all. Read the long black text besides that time in my thorough graph.

“” 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 time stamp of 5:20:46 for Cianca's photo.””

Oops, basic calculus skill again.
52 - 8.2 = 43.8 and not 46. Try at least, to be precise.
So no, you don’t arrive at NIST's time stamp of 5:20:46 for Cianca's photo, as you thought.

“” But we agree that this time is wrong by 5 seconds.””
(LT: yep, but only the evaluated + 5 sec time of 20:52, NOT the original 20:46 time)
“”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.
””

Oops, basic calculus skill again, or are you just extremely sloppy in your argumentation.
Yes, we agreed on at least the WTC 7 NIST-upped event times from 2006 being wrong.

For example 2005 time 20:47 + 5 = 20:52 new NIST 2006 time (new NIST start global collapse time).

But we did not agree that you have to subtract 5 seconds “back” from a NOT yet upped, original NIST time stamp in a photo from 2001, evaluated by NIST in 2005.
17:20:46 = the 2005 NIST time, printed inside the Cianca photo (no extra 5 seconds added yet).
17:20:46 + 5 sec = 17:20:51 should be the new Cianca photo time stamp, according to NIST, in 2006.
If and only if, you wanted to reverse THAT specific 2006 NIST move, you would subtract 5 seconds again from 20:51, and return to the original 2005 time stamp of 20:46.
Agreed?
Did you really seriously believe you were right with that kind of reasoning?

You still owe me 2 other Agreed!


You are totally confused, and thus wrong, and it can be confusing to read all the text in the thorough graph, but if you look under the bottom “U”, you see a black and a red text, left and right. Those are both solely about the original 2005 Cianca event time! Without 5 seconds upped.

Black text/lines refer to NIST events, red text/lines to LDEO events.
Blue line refers to the Cianca photo time of 20:46, the roof dent.

And if you read the full black text above the upper “U”, you realize that this “U” depicts the start of the global collapse 17:20:52, which I in that year called “total collapse”. If you noticed the thin black line under the word “here”, pointing to the right red “leg” of the “U”, then you realize that the time in there, 17:21:09, depicts the moment the LDEO needles should begin to write the start of the global (“total”) collapse, if NIST was right, which they weren’t obviously, since that event ends up now in the middle of the second wave train.

The black text beside the blue leg of the bottom “U” shows the NIST Jan 2005 start time of 20:47, they calculated for the global collapse start in New York. But in 2006 they added another 5 seconds, and thus we switch to the upper “U”, where that time is set as a black line, 17:20:52.

The most confusing problem with those times, Cianca’s dented penthouse photo at 20:46 and NIST’s 2005 global collapse start at 20:47, is that they are only 1 second apart, but they are not the same event, by far not.


See my post #10 in my thesis, and start reading the text under the picture of the 8.2 sec Failure Sequence Timeline.




It is clear by now, that we have to add another 8.2 seconds to the Nicolas Cianca photo of the penthouse dent, to arrive at the real exact time the global collapse of WTC 7 started in New York !
That means global collapse did not start at 17:20:52 as NIST stated in its Table 3-1 column 3, but at :

17:20:46 (Cianca photo time stamp) plus 8.2 seconds before global collapse started, arriving at a time of 17:20:54:02 ,
adding another 2.2 seconds to the already very confusing picture NIST tries to paint.

This comes on top of the already again re-evaluated 5 seconds addition by NIST to the relative time for total collapse start, 17:20:47 , from visual analysis (column 2), the reason why they arrived again in 2006 at a new time stamp for the beginning of WTC 7 total collapse in column 3 of Table 3-1, of 17:20:52 .

The most confusing fact NIST propose now, is the time based on LDEO recent analysis, for total collapse start of WTC 7, the 10 seconds difference of LDEO's 17:20:42 with the NIST adjusted time from television broadcasts, 17:20:52 . And this 17:20:52 time stamp, they say is ""believed to be accurate and also agree with the most recent analysis of seismic signals"".(See chapter 3.6, Absolute Time Accuracy)

There's a whopping 10 seconds time difference, what kind of agreement is that.?
And it's getting worth for NIST.
When we assume that NIST has re-evaluated their Cianca (east penthouse dent) photo time stamp of 17:20:46 publicized in 2005, then NIST now in 2007, must have added another 5 seconds, like in all other visual material in their database, and must the Cianca photo have now, Feb 2007, a new time stamp of 17:20:51 .

See now again the above indisputable 2005 NIST failure timeline, add 8.2 seconds, then we end up now with a re-evaluated 2007 time stamp for WTC 7's start of total collapse of 17:20:59:02 .
And then we have to look again at the 2001 seismic WTC 7 chart from LDEO, and add the 17 seconds signal travel time.
Then we can conclude that the arrival of first signs of the start of total collapse of WTC 7 at LDEO Palisade's station was recorded in 2001 at 17:21:16:02 .

Well, have a look again at the big drawing posted by bsbray for me, and you see that this position is 4 seconds before the whole graph ends.!


I meant back then, the now “thorough” named graph.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Seymour, I noticed the quote from NIST about when they consider the collapse to have begun, but it's not very precise and could be taken multiple ways.

Here's how I figured that the 5:20:46 photo was not updated when they increased all the times. I found the earliest publication that included this photo was this one from June of 2004 page 27/54: wtc.nist.gov... It's used as the example for the "first sign of structural failure" which could mean collapse or maybe not. It's not very precise.

I also found this document also released in June of 2004: wtc.nist.gov... On page 31/56 is the "Timeline of WTC 7 collapse as observed from the northwest" I noticed the language used in the title, this is much more precise. I could stop here as they clearly mark this as the "collapse," but NIST may be playing around with the definition of collapse, so I'll go on.

So I had the timeline of collapse, which was split into fractions of a second, and the picture, which we should assume is stamped with just as much precision. So I tried to figure when the photo was stamped with the time of 5:20:46.

If we take their first working time of 5:20:47, right off I noticed it works within their 1 second margin of error for that time. But if we were to assume this wasn't when the collapse began, we would need to take off 8 seconds and come up with the time of 5:20:39, which is clearly not marked on the photo, but was it the original time stamp? If this were the original time stamped on the photo we would then need to add the 5 second adjustment, but we would only reach 5:20:44.

If we take their second time of 5:20:52, right off it doesn't look right. But if we subtract the 5 second adjustment from this time we come up with 5:20:47, which is within their margin of error. But, again, if we were to assume this wasn't when the collapse began, we would need to take off 8 seconds and come up with the time of 5:20:44, was this the original time stamp? If this were the original time stamp on the photo and we add the 5 second adjustment, we would reach 5:20:49.

So in both of these scenarios, to me it looks like the time stamp on the photo is the original and was never updated with the 5 second adjustment.

Pretty much the same conclusion as LaBTop, but in a much more roundabout way.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by NIcon]

Hopefully now the second link will work. If not here it is again: wtc.nist.gov...

[edit on 14-8-2008 by NIcon]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


NIcon, yes, you arrived at the same conclusion, but based on a few wrong assumptions.
I’ll explain it for you by following the important pieces of your text:

“” It's used as the example for the "first sign of structural failure" which could mean collapse or maybe not. It's not very precise.””

To me, as a retired scientist, it is very clear and precise.
You must read it as it is provided by them.
FIRST sign (visual proof in videos and photo’s) of structural failure. That’s the dent forming in the east penthouse roof, then it took 8.2 more seconds before the roof line started to sink globally.
“First sign” is not the start of the global collapse, which is indicated by NIST as the first sign of the perimeter roof line starting to sink. See my provided Failure diagram in above post. At 8.2 seconds into this failure timeline, the global collapse starts. They made it very clear what they meant with their terminology.

“” So I had the timeline of collapse, which was split into fractions of a second, and the picture, which we should assume is stamped with just as much precision.””

NO, you had the timeline of the “first signs of structural failure”, which took 8.2 seconds, to arrive after those 8.2 seconds at the “start of global collapse”. See my posted diagram in above post.

The start of structural failure was the Cianca dent photo, time stamped 17:20:46, in 2005.
The start of the global collapse was thus 8.2 seconds later, which is 17:20:54.02, in 2005.

Then they added 5 seconds in 2006 to all photos and videos, and it changed to this:

The start of structural failure was the Cianca dent photo, time stamped 17:20:51, in 2006.
The start of the global collapse was thus 8.2 seconds later, which is 17:20:59.02, in 2006.

However, we did not include the 17 seconds retention time in the New York State bedrock.
If we add that to the start of the global collapse, so we can see when the needles of the seismographs in the LDEO station at Palisades would start writing them, we would arrive at a time of 17:21:16.02, which would be 3.8 seconds before the LDEO graph ends.

Do you understand at last, how idiotic all these NIST and LDEO data are, when compared?
Just that will be enough to ask for a totally new investigation of the WTC 7 collapse.
And now you understand, why NIST removed all the inconvenient seismic data, which btw are very precise, don’t let yourselves get fooled by snotty scientists who have no understanding of geology and seismological precision.
This was a deliberate move to fool the US and global audience, and should be punished by prison time, for compromising such a globally important investigation.
Wars were and are being brought upon innocent people, based on this con-job.

Let’s move on with your post.

“” So I tried to figure when the photo was stamped with the time of 5:20:46.””

Look at my thesis, post #11:








“”NIcon: But if we were to assume this wasn't when the collapse began, we would need to take off 8 seconds
--snip--
But, again, if we were to assume this wasn't when the collapse began, we would need to take off 8 seconds.
””

Be sure, NIST really said and meant that those times, 20:47 in 2005 and 20:52 in 2006 were the START of GLOBAL COLLAPSE.
Their total misleading data, and plain sight show of lack of basic school calculus is best to see in my thorough graph.
When you look at my bottom “U”, at its left blue “leg” with the words “NIST time” in it, and you look just beside it to the small black line, with the text above it “20:47 Start total collapse”, where total must be read as global, in these days used terminology, you understand now that blue means “Cianca dent photo with NIST time in it” and black means “all other NIST data”.

Then you see CLEARLY at last, I hope, that this discrepancy of just 1 second, which MUST and can ONLY be 8.2 seconds, is where it all hinges around in my thesis.

They can’t withdraw one or both advertised time stamps, constructed by them selves.
I haven’t introduced one jota of myself; I used THEIR own data to let them trip their own wires.

So they have a huge dilemma, and I know which one, but they don’t even realize where it originates.
It originates at several mouthpieces of the recent and former White House staffs, who pressed several of their “scientists” placed in director chairs of several government institutions to conform to the status quo declared by the White House.
The funny thing is, you can’t compromise SCIENCE this way, it will haunt you in the end, which is now and here.

Repeat: black=NIST-data, blue=only NIST-Cianca-photo-time, red=LDEO-data.
That’s how you must read my thorough graph:




wtc.nist.gov...


The working hypothesis, for the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7, if it holds up upon further analysis,
would suggest that it was a classic progressive collapse that included:
• An initial local failure due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical
column, which supported a large span floor area of about 2,000 ft2, at the lower floors
(below Floor 14) of the building,
• Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse bringing down the
interior structure under the east penthouse, and
• Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of Floors 5 and 7
that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors), triggered by
damage due to the vertical failure, resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire
structure.
The working hypothesis will be revised and updated as results of ongoing, more comprehensive analyses
become available.


As I explained further back in this thread, after being challenged by Butz to show calculations, it only needs about 3.66 lbs of HE to initiate collapse, at a critical column, which supported a large span floor area of about 2,000 ft2, at the lower floors (below Floor 14) of the building, if we follow the calculations of NIST.
That means, that a professional demolition crew of just two men, or a few more, at the most; could have executed this job, if we accept the fact that of course in such a scenario, these men would have been briefed in advance, by a team of specialist in building construction and demolition, who had access to ALL construction blueprints of the WTC 7 tower, with all latest improvements made on tenants floors, as we know now that f.ex. Salomon Brothers reinforced 2 packs of floors, and made from 2 floors, one floor with reinforced bottoms.

However, even NIST at last understands by now, that they can’t hold on to this theory anymore, they in fact gave up, a very UNUSUAL move by the way, and outsourced the whole explanation process of the WTC 7 collapse process to an outside firm, see their latest information on their website.
That firm is very suspicious; it’s a main military contractor. And it does some very interesting research for the military. Google for it, and be surprised.

I suppose, this is my best post to this date, in explaining to even the simplest minds, what exactly is wrong with WTC 7.
I really hope it have helped to get an honest response, even from our adversaries and honest opponents.
Please stop the low intelligence attacks, and let’s all try to find a way to bring this ENORMITY in the OPEN.

PS: thank you, NIcon and Seymour, for the support and opposition alike, to at last be able to express myself as clear as can be, at last.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
It's a good idea NOW, to read this thread from Griff, read the first post by him, and especially the second by ipsedixit.

US Government admits botched job of WTC investigation
www.abovetopsecret.com...

NOTE to administrators:
In my opinion, it could be a tremendous improvement for the boards clarity, to make posts like mine above, with my too big for the window "thorough graph", into "sliding doors" windows, so we could left-click in them, hold and slide the whole graph (or picture) from its far left to its far right.
I know it's possible in the software, we had a thingy like that already years ago in one of my boards.
Don't ask how, I wasn't the software engineer.

MySQL or something?

[edit on 14/8/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


www.studyof911.com...

When we assume that NIST has re-evaluated their Cianca (east penthouse dent) photo timestamp of 17:20:46 publicized in 2005, then NIST now in 2007, must have added another 5 seconds, like in all other visual material in their database, and must the Cianca photo have now, Feb 2007, a new timestamp of 17:20:51 .



As hard as I've tried to confirm this, I cannot. Do you have a link that shows this in a NIST report?



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Why? They said so, in such language, that it can't be interpreted as different words. It's all perfectly clear in my thesis post you linked to.
With their own NIST report links embedded by me.
And yes, their addition moves the arrival of seismic signals for the Cianca dent event even 5 seconds more to the right in the LDEO WTC 7 graph, in a totally illogical position.

Tell me, why you ask such a trivial and totally unimportant question, regarding the level of discussion we at last reached?

And btw, you still owe me three "Agreed."



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   


Relative time from visual analysis : 5:20:47
Adjusted time from television broadcasts : 5:20:52

Now read the partially blacked text above table 3.1.
Read carefully the black portions.
ESPECIALLY the last part: ""before the GLOBAL collapse started"".
Thus these times were definitely NOT the time we saw the dent forming, but 8.2 seconds later, when at last the GLOBAL collapse started.

But they calculated all the 115 Cianca photo's timestamps from his camera in 2005 precisely, as you can see in my above posted 2 screen shots of the Cianca timing procedure by NIST.

So, what's -your- problem?

My problem with NIST is that the NIST Cianca photo timestamp is only ONE second apart from the NIST global collapse time in 2005, and it SHOULD be 8.2 seconds apart in 2005.

Those 8.2 seconds don't magically change in 2006, because ALL photos and videos were upped 5 seconds, so also the Cianca -AND- the global collapse photo material.
And the actually advertised NIST interval of ONE second also doesn't change, when all photos are updated 5 seconds, the gap of just 1 second in all NIST official material still exists.

[edit on 14/8/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Because I believe you're wrong.

The :46 timestamp is from the FINAL REPORT. The same FINAL REPORT that you copied the "5 event timing" from.

But I would be willing to concede if you could give a link to any NIST document that gives the Cianca photo a :51 timestamp. Like I said, I have been unable to find this. It's not trivial to your hypothesis, it's key.

Otherwise it is just your opinion.

My opinion is that you're wrong, and instead I'll go by what I've seen for myself, namely the :46 timestamp. And since we agreed that this is 5 seconds too late, it should read :41. And like I said earlier, add 17 seconds to that and you get :58, which is EXACTLY when the graph starts reacting.

In summation, unless you can come up with a :51 timestamp, we've reached an impasse. Then we'll have to wait for the final release of the WTC7 NIST report, and go from there.



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
That 20:46 Cianca photo time stamp is already from FAR earlier, DRAFT reports.
They just didn't care to change the time stamp when they came with the FINAL report. They left it in the original form from the draft reports.

You didn't read with enough care, my thesis first post:

However, the people at NIST showed us in their draft of their WTC-7 report a time of 17:20:46 (EDT) of the first visual proof of collapse, the dent. (That timestamp was printed in an actual NIST report photograph of the dent, a very important piece of evidence btw, since now you can combine LDEO and NIST time lines!)


Didn't you read also NIcon's NIST links in his above post? Reread its full text.

Then you have now an immense moral and patriotic problem while you must admit that I am right, since you didn't read carefully NIcon's post, and did not click my first links in my thesis, and went back from that link a few links back, every time going back earlier and earlier in my posting dates:
posted on 19/10/05
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then you would find, just as NIcon did in his above post:

""NIcon: Here's how I figured that the 5:20:46 photo was not updated when they increased all the times. I found the earliest publication that included this photo was this one from June of 2004 page 27/54: wtc.nist.gov... It's used as the example for the "first sign of structural failure" which could mean collapse or maybe not. It's not very precise. ""

I'll repeat it for you:
They didn't update the time in the Cianca photo in the FINAL report.

You can see the Cianca photo with the 20:46 time stamp in it in that June 18, 2004 Public Briefing about the WTC Investigation status on page 27 from its 54 pages.



Text:
""Visual Observations for WTC 7
 The first exterior sign of structural
failure in WTC 7 was the sinking of
the east penthouse roof structure
into the building.
 Witnesses reported structural
damage to WTC 7 on its south face
and southwest corner from WTC 1
debris.""

On page 2 you can find this text:
""Second technical progress report being released today; 1,054 pages; full text available on Web site wtc.nist.gov...
Investigation is ongoing; current findings may be revised and additional findings will be presented in final report
• NIST is not making any recommendations at this time;all recommendations will be made in the final report
NIST expects to release the draft of the final investigation report for public comment in December 2004""

Do you believe me now?
I am right. Agreed?



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 

Thanks, LaBTop... I hope the time on this post shows you that you have most likely caused me to stay up late for days on end. It looks like I took a left turn off your thesis, so I'll be digging around along with reading through your posts for what seems to be the 20th time and see where that takes me. But for now I really need to force myself to bed.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   
That was the effect of members living in different time zones, Seymour lives apparently in the USA, and we don't.
He's the one keeping us far too long awake.

He's asleep now.

But it served a good goal, I expect to have opened a few more eyes, with irrefutable, now understandable evidence for a much broader audience, used to absorb only snippets of information, served on a plate by very cunning propaganda specialists.
That's what the world's media have become, servants of the power structure, without the critical thinking we used to enjoy from them in the sixties and seventies of the past millennium.
My biggest disappointment recently, is the immense turn to the right by the BBC.
I hope some of their reporters ever read this thread, and be able to confront their now right-wing politically oriented directors, who show no sign anymore of neutralism, so much enjoyed in former years.

Seymour, I told you already several times now, the NIST management, put in place by former and recent administrations, has deliberately inserted those 5 seconds in 2006, because they know very well that I have them cornered with my thesis.
Their only goal with introducing those very suspicious 5 seconds was to muddy the waters and you fell for it, like so many with you:


Butz: My opinion is that you're wrong, and instead I'll go by what I've seen for myself, namely the :46 timestamp. And since we agreed that this is 5 seconds too late, it should read :41. And like I said earlier, add 17 seconds to that and you get :58, which is EXACTLY when the graph starts reacting.


We DIDN'T EVER ""agreed that this is 5 seconds too late"" for this ORIGINAL Cianca photo time stamp.

This was the original time stamp from their 18 June 2004 Public Briefing, far before they started to publish their first WTC 7 DRAFT reports, and even further before they published their FINAL reports.

But by not changing that 20:46 Cianca time stamp, even in the FINAL reports, they offered a seemingly way out for people like you, who are clearly not used to logical argumentation and absorbing of all old and new info which your peers in a discussion offer you on a plate.

In their final reports they HAD to change that photo with a new time stamp of 5:20:51, since in those finals, they introduced the 5 seconds addition for ALL photos. They were scientifically obligated to do so, BUT THEY DIDN'T do it, for exactly this very special photo !
Because that was their only sleazy way out of my evidence, they were very well aware of my thesis.
They knew they couldn't fool me, but they aimed at people like you, to pull your legs.
And they offered this seemingly way out by means of inserted intriguers at internet forums like JREF. (Insurgents, a word so embraced by the US Army Propaganda Division)

You are fixed on and hooked to a propaganda machine of unbelievable dimensions, active in the USA and Europe, and most importantly, on the INTERNET.


Butz: In summation, unless you can come up with a :51 timestamp, we've reached an impasse. Then we'll have to wait for the final release of the WTC7 NIST report, and go from there.


Of course you know by now that such a Cianca photo with a 5:20:51 time stamp in it does not exist, and that this cunningly argument "silently" offered by NIST and its propagandists insurgents is blatantly false.

We don't have to wait for the final release of the WTC7 NIST report, and you will have to admit that NOW, or you loose all credibility at our forums.
I'll wait for your refutation, or perhaps you wait for more help from your JREF friends?
That won't help you and either them.

It is clear that you are also a member at the JREF forums, just like me, and I repeat it again, bring all the "big guns" from over there on, and I will counter everything they will bring to the discussion table.

Open a thread there on my subject, and I will read it and react on everything reasonable intelligent from there, in THIS thread.

And you know by now, I won't react on the dumb groupies with their intense hate for us "Truthers". A really sad and despicable bunch of propaganda victims.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
LaBTop, actually I'm in Florida. I posted that at 2:00 in the morning when I should have already been in bed.

But anyway, last night I wanted to respond to Seymour's post about moving the time back to 5:20:41 for that photo but had forgotten to. I certainly tried doing that in the beginning and I could have left it at that and been happy and content and just wait for the report that seems to never come. But, Curious George that I am, I also tried to confirm it with the rest of the evidence, i.e. the 8.2 second failure sequence, the 5:20:47/52 times. No luck.

I'm seeing 4 basic (though confused) pieces to the puzzle (the photo, the 8.2 second chart, the collapse time, and the seismic graph). When you just take a guess and subtract 5 seconds from the photo that still only puts 2 pieces of the puzzle together. The two other pieces are still lost under the couch somewhere. So it really doesn't resolve much of anything.

But that may be where I'm going wrong and getting frustrated. I'm looking at all of this with the intent of trying to resolve the discrepancies between the photographic times and the seismic times, when in actuality these two timelines should be developed completely independent of each other and thoroughly checked to make sure they are accurate. Then if we compare them and they match, great! But if they don't match, rather than trying to resolve them so they agree with each other, we should look for explanations of why they are different.

So it's back to examining the original LDEO time of 5:20:33 for me.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop


I'll repeat it for you:
They didn't update the time in the Cianca photo in the FINAL report.

Do you believe me now?
I am right. Agreed?


Time to fall on your sword. NIST updated ALL the photo and video evidence by the June 2004 report.

wtc.nist.gov...

The following is the list of documentary information received or inspected by NIST.

May 2004
Well in excess of 6,000 photographs representing more than 185 professional and amateur
photographers. Organizations that have provided materials include FDNY, NYPD,
Associated Press, Corbis, Reuters, The New York Times, The New York Daily News, and the Star Ledger. Many organizations have provided both published and unpublished
photographs.

wtc.nist.gov...

On 19/50, figure H-4 has them correcting Cianca's photo times.
On 20/50, figure H-5 has them correcting Myer's video clips.
On 21/50, table H-3 has them correcting the global collapse of 7 from :47 to :52.

And the following text - sound familiar? Same as the 2005 final report?

Many of the news broadcasts on September 11, 2001, included small clocks, known in the industry as
“bugs,” imprinted on the screen........

Do you believe ME now? I am right. Agreed?

The only discrepency that is unexplained is the 6 vs 8.2 second thing.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 12:01 PM
link   
That first reported LDEO time where they stated AN event began, is still also very interesting.

I have a suspicion, that this signal was another initiating event, arriving at LDEO, but a third smaller than the huge pre- (first sign of failure) initiating event.

If you look at the first part of my simple graph:



You see that small signal arrived at 17:20:50 at LDEO.
It caused the needle to write a small group of 2 significant peaks, circa 1/3 the amplitude of the biggest peak of the pre- (first sign of failure) event, starting at 20:57 in the graph.

I expect that this first 2001 LDEO proposed event begin was the second initiating charge, because we can see a first, slightly smaller signal at 20:46 on my graph.
These would then be S-waves arriving slightly faster than the rest of the Raleigh waves.
This could btw be signs of possible detonations, such early S-waves.

That would fit in better with a scenario of smaller charges detonating, followed by the backbone breaking event starting to be written at 20:57.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

So the 5:20:41 time may not be a guess at all.

I think the H-4 and H-5 figures are showing the adjustment from the camera's internal clock to the real world time, not the 5 second adjustment. But with the H-3 figure, it's most likely the 5 seconds are shown in the graphs' times.

I noticed in the H-5 figure that shows the Meyer's clip they have the time for the plane strike blank. But if you use the times from clip 6 you come up with 9:02:53 - 9:03:07 (assuming my hurried math is correct) which really doesn't clarify. It would depend if the clip starts with the strike or if it's in the middle of the clip. I would assume it would be at the beginning so they could get the time of contact.

Will have to look at it more, but need to get back to work now.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

1-So the 5:20:41 time may not be a guess at all.

2-I noticed in the H-5 figure that shows the Meyer's clip they have the time for the plane strike blank. But if you use the times from clip 6 you come up with 9:02:53 - 9:03:07 (assuming my hurried math is correct) which really doesn't clarify. It would depend if the clip starts with the strike or if it's in the middle of the clip. I would assume it would be at the beginning so they could get the time of contact.



1- it never was a guess. Like I said earlier in this thread, I previously looked into this, waaaay before I was a member and proved that the timeline was wrong. I've just been hesitatant to dig up all that old stuff since I reformatted my comp and lost all my bookmarks. And I didn't want to make any assertions unless I had backup, so.......

2- the plane strike was at 9:02:59, in the middle of the video. NIST explains how and why they broke up the video clips.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


NIST report has been proven to be wrong so you are not debateing anything here.

Stop useing NIST report you are wasting your time we all have read them!

Anyone who has done a little research on 911 and read the NIST report relies they are reading a white wash report just like the 911 commission report.

There is proof that some of the things that NIST is claiming dose not stand up to Science.

The US administration overwhelmingly lacks any scientific credibility. The fact that civil liberties are being destroyed and the constitution is being flagrantly subverted should be disturbing enough in itself. The Media has done a very poor job of evaluating the credibility of the US government and must start to question and be skeptical of any and all reports that are being released until a trace of credibility has been restored. Credibility is established through repeated believability—the US administration has been shown to lack this. In my opinion their credibility on Iraq is even worse than their credibility on 9/11. When are we going to demand some accountability? When are heads going to roll for the continuous stream of lies and unscientific “science” we are fed and told to accept as the truth? Enough is enough.

One of the fundamental questions about 9/11 is the WTC tower collapses. The 16 million dollar NIST report is considered the definitive report on the subject of the collapse of the Towers.

By the definition of science the NIST report is not scientific. Analysis proves it uses the political method—not the scientific method. NIST deliberately ignores evidence that contradicts its stated thesis.

Apparently, a 16 million dollar study does not buy much these days—NIST does not attempt to explain a fundamental question (i.e. ignoring evidence) about the full behavior of the structural collapse

It seems like a good idea that the NIST report did not try to explain this (at least, from their point of view)—as doing so would have to account for a fundamental law of physics known as conservation of momentum, which would completely disprove their hypothesis that fire and jet damage were the main reasons the buildings completely collapsed.

It can not be emphasized enough: science by definition considers all of the evidence, it does not ignore evidence. Another stunning example of ignoring evidence is seen in the molten metal found in the towers which is not discussed in the NIST report NIST claims.

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.

If this is the case, then why is there molten steel in the basements of the twin towers and WTC7 for three weeks after the disaster? Where do the molten pools of steel come from and what process created this reaction? Why does NIST ignore this question? Ignoring this question is not scientific. Analyzing the steel is a central issue and is fundamental to understanding why the towers collapsed. Indeed, it is very likely related to what actually caused the collapse. If fires did not cause this—NIST has stated on the record that fire did not cause steel to melt; something else must have. It is a fact that normal fires are incapable of melting steel.
If fire can not melt steel, what can?

Here is yet another example of NIST “science” in action: computer models are used to “prove” that fire caused collapse:


World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.

Is proof scientific if no one can see it? To believe that we can trust NIST on this “evidence” is absurd. Science is not a state secret!

NIST data contradicts theory, contradictory evidence is ignored, eyewitness testimony is ignored, and the entire theory is based on a computer simulation that no one can see. Ignoring evidence is the very basis of the political method, not the scientific method. Can any sane person call the NIST report science?

The most reliable form of credibility is based on science.

NIST has failed the American people and they have lost their credibility
in the scientific community.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

It was definitely a guess when I tried it. But, I'm not convinced the timeline is correct as the 5:20:41 time still doesn't make any sense when compared with the announced collapse time and the 8.2 second sequence. As for it corresponding to the seismic graph, I'll accept that as one working theory only when including the variable of LDEO's later announced time of 5:20:42. (I suppose we won't get any more information on this nine second change until the report comes out)

As for the breaking up the clips, I read that they broke the clips into 1 GB files or approximately 4.5 minute clips. So for the Myers clip, it was broken into approximately 13 clips (quick math used there), 7 of which are shown in that image. (Why there's 10 second overlaps, I'm not sure.) Then I notice that Clip 6 includes the time of the strike, so they took this Clip 6 and edited it to make a new clip of just the plane strike.

After a quick read of their method, I didn't see where they explain the method used to make these isolated clips. They chose to start it at 9:02:53 which includes both the 9:02:54 time and the 9:02:59 times, so I'm still on the fence. But I'll need to read more.

But for now, thanks to both you and LaBTop for the discussion so far. It seems, however, more important things have taken over my attention; I'm done with work and it's Friday night, so ... it's time for vodka, vodka, and more vodka.






top topics



 
3
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join