It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.!
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
The working hypothesis will be revised and updated as results of ongoing, more comprehensive analyses
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!)
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.
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.
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?
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.