Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

page: 15
3
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


The :54 time was just a preliminary time, I think they called it a working time or something similar. The actual time of plane strikes never changed as far as its relative time on the video sequence. I'd hazard a guess and say that they broke up the plane strike part so it would be easier to review later without having to load the whole thing and maybe for email purposes.

As noted, I agree that there is an unexplained anamoly as far as the 6 vs 8.2 seconds thing.

White Russians are my favorite way to get my vodka fix - I aspire to be like "Dude". Bonus points if you know the movie that comes from.





posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


wtc.nist.gov... date 18 June 2004.
Page 46 / 50:
H.9 SUMMARY WITH KEY FINDINGS
“”Major events timed to an accuracy of 1 second are:
• First plane strike on WTC 1: 8:46:30 a.m.
• Second plane strike on WTC 2: 9:02:59 a.m.
• Collapse of WTC 2: 9:58:59 a.m.
• Collapse of WTC 1: 10:28:25 a.m.
• Collapse of WTC 7: 5:20:52 p.m. “”
Note that the building Collapse times are defined to be when the entire building is first observed to start to collapse.

Page 21 / 50
Table H–3. Times for major events of September 11, 2001.
Collapse of WTC 7:
Relative Time from Visual Analysis……………………5:20:47 p.m.
Adjusted Time from Television Broadcasts…………..5:20:52 p.m.

Note that for this major event, global collapse start, the Relative time was determined from many photos and videos combined, to arrive at a 1 second accuracy for 20:47.
Then NIST added 5 seconds based on Adjustments calculated back from the observed time of the second impact, WTC 2, and concluded 20:52 for the start of global collapse.


After carefully studying this linked above, 18 June 2004 NIST report, and concluding that NIST already then added those 5 seconds to all “Relative Times from Visual Analysis”, I retract my former suspicion in this thread, that NIST was probably in error with the 5 seconds addition in their Final Reports to obtain new “Adjusted times from television broadcasts”, thus NIST was correct in doing so.

And we better first forget about the Cianca photo and its time stamp in it, to clear things up in a fresh approach, from a different angle, where we stick with all the known data provided by NIST in a new scenario, and keep it as simple as can be.
Otherwise we keep each other stuck in a stale mate position of yes and no positions, and fill up many more pages.

New Adjusted Scenario.
(NIST + 5 sec) :

We start with a time stamp we can now all agree upon.
20:52 start of global collapse – 8.2 sec structural failure time = 20:43.8 which is then the time of the first sign of structural failure, the dent in the Cianca photo.
Thus no need for that photo anymore, and no further word games.

Add 17 sec retention time = 21:00.8, nearly 21:01.
Have a look at my thorough graph, which means that the signal of the Cianca photo, the first dent, got then written 1 second after the huge first pack of peaks arrived at LDEO and which were written from 20:57 until 21:00, a 3 seconds interval.

Thus I need to move my bottom “U” (Cianca photo time – needle starts to write) a mere 2.2 seconds to the left, to adhere to all NIST data provided.
Still the huge peaks are in front of that dent arrival, with a one second margin.

You still have to explain where that huge first energy event came from, before any movement in and on WTC 7 could be observed, as I said before in my thesis. Nothing fundamentally changed in my argumentation.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Please people remember, 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.

Remember its only a Thesis.

I have said this a bunch of times NIST report was paid for by the 911 commission. (16 million dollars)

We read the 911 commission report it was a joke!



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:23 PM
link   
My Old Scenario, Renewed, also all data provided by NIST :

NIST Cianca photo of the dent, time stamped as 20:46, and now clearly an ““Adjusted time from television broadcasts”” if you read all explanations in this report, and thus already upped by 5 seconds from an 20:41 “Relative Time from Visual Analysis”.
On a side note, this dent is not mentioned in Table H-3 on page 21 / 50 as a major event.
Better don’t follow the advice from Seymour Butz, and subtract 5 seconds, that would be totally illogical, since we know by now that this photo was changed already to an Adjusted one, and there’s no need anymore to subtract these 5 seconds again.
He still clings to a suspected 5 seconds mistake by NIST by us two, back in this thread, I definitely don’t anymore, reading all the Cianca EXIF files evidence in this 2004 report.

Dent = 20:46 as a clearly already 5 sec adjusted time for the first visual appearance of the dent in NY.
Dent 20:46 + 8.2 sec structural failure time = 20:54.2 as time of the start of global collapse of WTC 7 in NY.
NIST gave the start of global collapse adjusted time in 2004 as being 20:52, that’s only 2.2 seconds less.

To see where these two times end up in the thorough LDEO graph, we must add 17 seconds retention time for each time.
LDEO first dent signal arrival = 21:03 in the thorough graph.
LDEO start of global collapse signal arrival = 21:11.2 in the thorough graph.
That’s 2.2 seconds further than my upper “U” its right red “leg”, where I wrote in my thorough graph a time of 17:21:09 in-between that thin black diagonal line, for the start of NIST proposed global collapse.

Conclusion :
We have now found a small discrepancy of 2.2 seconds for arrival of the global collapse signal in the LDEO graph, by implementing a bit more precise method of calculation, compared to my earlier work from 2007.
This doesn’t change anything for the heart of my thesis, the arrival of the first seismic signal of the dent, is still the same in this “Old Scenario, Renewed”, right in-between the unknown event, huge peaks and the following pack of collapse peaks.
We now have only found a possible shift to the right, of 2.2 seconds for my upper “U”, which makes it even more illogical.
The heart of my thesis is still the same, what caused that huge pre-collapse energy event.

NOTE:
Reference for Seymour, to show evidently that the Cianca time stamp of 20:46 is an ADJUSTED, already 5 seconds upped one :
The plain fact which you missed in my 3-screenshots-post on page 14, that the screenshots I showed you of the 2006 report, were the same as in the 2004 report, thus proving that the Cianca PHOTOGRAPHS list nr 70 of 115 indicated that all his photos, so also the famous 20:46 dent photo were included in the ADJUSTMENT process shown in this screenshot, they were ADJUSTING, thus adding 5 seconds, to the EXIF files from his digital camera. While they were also correcting in the same process, the 102 sec which all his 115 photos were internally off from the actual NY time because his camera clock was set 102 sec off.(9:25:42 instead of 9:24:00 actual time)
The posted table H-3 on page 21 / 50 from the 2004 report clearly indicates that at that date, the Cianca photos were also already adjusted, because in this table, so early, were already Adjusted times included.

As you can see in the 2004 version, they made a strange mistake above that Cianca diagram.
“”In this example, the Exif time was found to be off by 62 s. (page 19 / 50)
The 2006 version posted in my thesis, an alert editor gave the later corrected value.
“”In this example, the Exif time was found to be off by 102 s. (24:00 to 25:00 to 25:42 = 60s+42s)
The values in both diagrams were exactly the same, only the texts above them were different.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Cashlink, my good man.

Did it perhaps not occur to you, that I am in the process of proving 2 things:

1. NIST delivered us crooked data, or LDEO did.
I have more trust in LDEO, btw.

2. NIST is hiding from the public, a huge energy event, taking place before the start of arrival of seismic signals from the first visible sign of structural failure of the WTC 7 building, at LDEO's Palisades seismic monitoring station.
That energy event packs more power, than the whole following global collapse of a 47 stories high steel building.
NIST tried to fool us by concluding that that event was the breakage of ONE SINGLE column. Don't laugh now, I'm serious.


Or their CEO staff is incompetent, or they are fools, following the party line. The party, who got them those fancy CEO jobs in the first place.
They aren't true scientists, they are a disgrace to honest research.

And remember, the bulk of the NIST lower echelons are law abiding, honest scientists. That's why I use their own material, to let those CEO's trip their own repressive wires.



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 



Wow, that's astonishing. After more than 1 1/2 yrs of defending your opinion that the Cianca photo as being the Achilles Heel of the NIST report, and challenging anyone to prove you wrong, you've thrown it out in a matter of a few hours and have come up with a new thesis.

But now that you've decided that the adjusted times are accurate, and have based your thesis on your opinion that the NIST times are accurate for all 5 events, you've got a new problem.

The plane strike for WTC 2 is at 9:02:59, and the seismic waves arrive at the LDEO graphs at 9:03:11. That's a 12 second retention time. Are you now saying that Dr Kim's 17 second retention time is wrong?

And if you now use the 12 second retention time, and the "Cianca" dent is at :46, then a 12 second retention time takes it to:58..... which, again, is exactly where the LDEO graphs begin reacting.



[edit on 15-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


That is precisely my point I hope you can prove explosion was used. Further investigation and analyses are needed, including consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis which is neglected in all of the government reports (FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports). The 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 on 9-11-01. (Commission, 2004) This is a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened on 9-11.

www.implosionworld.com...
Here you will see the similarity that is so close to WTC7.


wtc7.net...
By Dr Steven Jones.

The paper has undergone significant modifications following an additional set of peer reviews
organized by Journal of 9/11 Studies Editor Kevin Ryan.
An earlier version is now published in a volume edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale
Scott, 9/11 And The American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, Northhampton, MA: Interlink
Publishing, 2006. It is published here by kind permission of the editors. One of the editors
(Prof. Griffin) has explained that there were four reviewers for my paper, all Ph.D’s, two were
physicists. To clarify some apparent confusion: the paper is not published in “The Hidden History
of 9-11-2001,” Elsevier, 2006.
Translated versions are available:

In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the
Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use
of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11
Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all
three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is
suggested by the available data, and can be tested scientifically, and yet has not been
analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 


I think you missed the point. It looked like LabTop was hypothetically taking NIST's timing as correct and showed you that there is still the huge seismic event before the first sign of movement that is unexplained.
Did you also miss this:



Reference for Seymour, to show evidently that the Cianca time stamp of 20:46 is an ADJUSTED, already 5 seconds upped one :
The plain fact which you missed in my 3-screenshots-post on page 14, that the screenshots I showed you of the 2006 report, were the same as in the 2004 report, thus proving that the Cianca PHOTOGRAPHS list nr 70 of 115 indicated that all his photos, so also the famous 20:46 dent photo were included in the ADJUSTMENT process shown in this screenshot, they were ADJUSTING, thus adding 5 seconds, to the EXIF files from his digital camera. While they were also correcting in the same process, the 102 sec which all his 115 photos were internally off from the actual NY time because his camera clock was set 102 sec off.(9:25:42 instead of 9:24:00 actual time)
The posted table H-3 on page 21 / 50 from the 2004 report clearly indicates that at that date, the Cianca photos were also already adjusted, because in this table, so early, were already Adjusted times included.

As you can see in the 2004 version, they made a strange mistake above that Cianca diagram.
“”In this example, the Exif time was found to be off by 62 s. (page 19 / 50)
The 2006 version posted in my thesis, an alert editor gave the later corrected value.
“”In this example, the Exif time was found to be off by 102 s. (24:00 to 25:00 to 25:42 = 60s+42s)
The values in both diagrams were exactly the same, only the texts above them were different.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
For those uninitiated, controlled demolitions were supposed to have been within Building 7, because orders were to "yank the building" like it was pre-planned, according to ATS's Jim Marrs's book :

The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty (Paperback)

This book should be a mandatory read, before anyone even post's on 9/11.


[edit on 16-8-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by PplVSNWO
 



No, it is you that missed the point.

If we take the NIST adjusted times for the 5 major events as accurate, then you must also adjust the retention time to 12 seconds.

Otherwise, the timing is wrong for the 4 other tower events by 5 seconds.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
seymour, I think you are mixing NIST's and LDEO timelines. NIST never technically "added" 5 seconds to 9:02:54. This was their "reference time" which they took from FEMA, who took it from LDEO. So it was actually LDEO's time. NIST found that the video evidence showed a time 5 seconds later at :59 but that didn't change LDEO's time whatsoever.

At that time LDEO explained that it took 17 seconds for it to record the waves and they released the graphs so we could pinpoint their times. But when they did their reanalysis they only increased their time by 3 seconds (on only 4 of the 5 graphs), thus making it a 14 second delay. And if you apply that to building 7 the LDEO graph works. So I think this is where NIST is working towards.

But the problem is, to my understanding, there was precedence before 911 for this 17 second delay time. We don't know the reasoning behind LDEO's 3 second change yet (9 seconds for building 7). So they could argue it should have been only a 14 second delay, but that won't help their case at all with building 7. Will they try to argue there was only an 8 second delay for building 7? But the problem could also be other things, such as the times posted on the graph are off. It'll be interesting to see how they explain the 9 second change in building 7.

What gets me is, in LDEO's first reading of the event I can clearly see where they were referring to at the 50s mark on the graph. It's not a very large spike but it's there. Are they now going to say this was nothing? That someone accidently "bumped the needle"?

This is where my suspicion meters jump. The whole LDEO reanalysis seems to me to be more political pressure than anything else. I would believe LDEO would have checked and double checked (and maybe even triple checked) their information on their first released numbers. So at this point I'm putting most of my faith in NIST's 5 second revised times and LDEO's initial times until I find more information. I'm going to see where that takes me, if anywhere.

By the way, I think I may be sick. Even in my half stupor last night these numbers were still running through my head. And I believe that quote was from The Big Lebowski and I like my vodka as shots between glasses of Cabernet.... sounds sickening, but I found I can go a long time that way.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 

LaBTop, I think it would be good to lay the photo aside for now to take another approach. I don't think we should forget it entirely, though. I still think it's an important piece to the puzzle that will need to be placed into the picture again.

What strikes me is they published this photo at the same time as the 8.2s failure sequence without noticing the severe discrepancies. I would think with the 8.2s sequence they would have been able to place the time on it accurate to the hundredths of seconds.

So to me this photo is proof of something, if nothing else, than just the simple fact for questioning NIST's "methodology" which is being held up in such regard. They sent LDEO back for a reanalysis for God knows what reason, maybe we could send them back to do a reanalysis based on this picture. (That was sarcasm... so the highly strung will understand.)

And just as an aside in the hopes of firing off some new neurons out there for a different perspective: it's not likely but, we haven't proved 100% that this timestamp was updated. It may have been stamped before and just happened to be published in 2004 without no one noticing. There's many problems with the photo so who knows, someone new reading this may think of the solution.

Added: I should read all your posts before responding. I see you brought this photo back in. But I'm still going to ignore it for awhile and just go off NIST's published numbers. There's clearly problems with that photo.

[edit on 16-8-2008 by NIcon]



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
1-seymour, I think you are mixing NIST's and LDEO timelines. NIST never technically "added" 5 seconds to 9:02:54. This was their "reference time" which they took from FEMA, who took it from LDEO. So it was actually LDEO's time. NIST found that the video evidence showed a time 5 seconds later at :59 but that didn't change LDEO's time whatsoever.

2-At that time LDEO explained that it took 17 seconds for it to record the waves and they released the graphs so we could pinpoint their times. But when they did their reanalysis they only increased their time by 3 seconds (on only 4 of the 5 graphs), thus making it a 14 second delay. And if you apply that to building 7 the LDEO graph works. So I think this is where NIST is working towards.

3-But the problem is, to my understanding, there was precedence before 911 for this 17 second delay time. We don't know the reasoning behind LDEO's 3 second change yet (9 seconds for building 7). So they could argue it should have been only a 14 second delay, but that won't help their case at all with building 7. Will they try to argue there was only an 8 second delay for building 7? But the problem could also be other things, such as the times posted on the graph are off. It'll be interesting to see how they explain the 9 second change in building 7.



1- no, I'm aware of where NIST got their reference, or "relative times from. I'm also aware of why they added 5 seconds to that time - to synch with the (maybe) more accurate clocks from network tv.

2-you mean decreased their time to 14 seconds, right?

3- maybe because the first estimate reflected the east penthouse collapsing, and the second reflected the global collapse? Granted, NIST gave an 8.2 second timeline for the collapse events, but also remember that the Cianca photo and the global collapse times were only 6 seconds apart - which as I've noted before, is an unexplained discrepency. So if we take the 3 second adjustment from LDEO, plus the 6 second delay to represent the delay from the Cianca photo, to the beginning of the global collapse.... we get 9 seconds. Or is it 11.2?


FWIW, here's my take.

1- i agree when Labtop states that the "relative time" has been synched to an accuracy of +/- 1 second.

2- I THINK that the 5 second addition, to match network tv's clocks may NOT be as accurate as NIST would like to believe. And therefore the "absolute" time could be in question.

3- i'm not sure what the retention time should be. It's just that a travel speed of the seismic waves of EXACTLY 2 km/sec seems too perfect to me.

4- i think that the only way to weed out these variables is to take a singular event - I like the 2nd plane strike - take the time difference between NIST's published times in the final report and compare it to LDEO's graphs. Then use THIS retention time as a standardized time for ALL subsequent events.

5- if we do this, we arrive at a 12 second retention time. Now this is most likely innaccurate, but it is a standardized retention time that may be useful.

6- using the standardized retention time, start with all 4 tower events, and the times work to within a 1 second accuracy. That is confirmation that our standardization model is a good one.

7- now start with :52 as the start time for global collapse of 7, and that event comes about 1 second (:04) before the graph reacts the second time at :05- not significant. Then go 8 seconds earlier than that, to reflect the 8.2 second collapse sequence time line in the NIST final report, and you get :58, within a second also of when the graph reacts the first time.

Of course the kicker - LDEO adjusted their time 3 seconds.... but did the actual graphs and/or the time "hack" lines on it ever change? Cuz if they did, then I need to rethink. Links if you got 'em to show me any changes.


Ding ding ding!!!! The Big Lebowski it is... I owe you a cookie. And yes, Cab and vodka sucks, unless by "lasting longer" you're referring to private time with the wife/girlfriend.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

1-What strikes me is they published this photo at the same time as the 8.2s failure sequence without noticing the severe discrepancies. I would think with the 8.2s sequence they would have been able to place the time on it accurate to the hundredths of seconds.

2-So to me this photo is proof of something, if nothing else, than just the simple fact for questioning NIST's "methodology" which is being held up in such regard. They sent LDEO back for a reanalysis for God knows what reason, maybe we could send them back to do a reanalysis based on this picture. (That was sarcasm... so the highly strung will understand.)

3-And just as an aside in the hopes of firing off some new neurons out there for a different perspective: it's not likely but, we haven't proved 100% that this timestamp was updated. It may have been stamped before and just happened to be published in 2004 without no one noticing. There's many problems with the photo so who knows, someone new reading this may think of the solution.



1- this is exactly right.

2- my guess is that NIST will redo this time to :44. The 8.2 second timeline is pretty clear - the Cianca photo is described with exactly the same words as 0:0 on that timeline.... and the global collapse time of 8.2 seconds is also pretty clear. Of course, this will result in the - how did you put it - "highstrung" among us to scream from the rooftops that NIST is covering up.... well, you've heard the arguments. But as Labtop pointed out, the 2004 EXIF analysis of Cianca's photos had 102 seconds added to it, but the text above it said there was 62 seconds added to it. People are human, there will be mistakes like this.

3- my take - the Cianca photo never had 5 seconds added to it. It had 102 seconds added to it, at the same time that the "relative" times had 5 seconds to them.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

Just a quick response as I have family coming over:

1. Okay.... just wasn't sure.
2. No, I meant increased their event time from :54 to :57 which then could mean a 14 second delay. If the :54 had 17s then :57 would have to be 14s.
3. That can't be it because if you then take their new time of 5:20:42 as the main collapse (not the penthouse) and add the 14s tentative time it brings us to the first set of spikes; the 16 second mark on the graph, which we've been referencing as the penthouse collapse. Hmm... or maybe that is it....... NIST sent them back to find the main collapse and that's what they came up with.....interesting.

Put another way, even with their addition of the 9 seconds, there's still a 10 second gap between LDEO's new :42 time and NIST's :52 time. That's what will be explaining the difference between the penthouse and main collapse.

Anyway must run...they're pulling up now....



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I leaned back and closed my box for a few days, to see what kind of discussion would enfold. And to calm down.

Seymour, at last we seem to have entered an intelligent discussion, without the usual vitriol between us two. I admit, that I have allowed the vitriol from the veins in my brain leaking out too much occasionally also.

I'm glad that at last we can discuss this important subject in an objective manner. We both need to be grateful for NIcon as a fine intermediate for catalyzing the reactions between us.

You and NIcon together brought some very interesting points to the table, and I applaud you both for it.

I have concentrated all these years, mainly on the WTC 7 seismogram, and just took some occasional time out to consider the other graphs, when opponents brought them up.

As I told many times, the WTC 7 graph is the one where all arguments will ultimately hinge on.
The fact that LDEO completed their first 4 impact and collapse seismograms already on Tue Sep 11 between 16:06 and 16:15, while the WTC 7 one cost them precious time until Fri Sep 14 at 11:52:43 in 2001 was the first fact which attract my attention. See the BATT times at the left bottom of their diagrams.

You brought the second plane impact up, and its implications for the WTC 7 collapse. That was very good thinking and a very valid argument.

The fact that NIST published the LDEO reports as integral part of their argumentation for several years, and then suddenly erased all that evidence from their reports, is telltale, i.m.o.

I just skimmed quickly over all posts after my last one.

My first thoughts:
In seismology, we can observe in many published seismograms, also posted ones by me in all my seismic threads; first arriving S-waves, which are defined mostly as faster high frequency wave trains traveling through the first 300 meters of the upper crust, and in many of them, they have been explained as probably originating from explosions. See the ones from the Russian sub Kursk incident, or the New Mexico pipeline explosion I posted.

I have contemplated on the first huge pack of WTC 7 peaks being an enormous high frequency S-wave. But normally these S-waves dwarf compared to the later arriving more consistent lower frequency Raleigh waves which travel in lower regions of the crust.
S-waves quickly diminish over distance, and 34 km is a considerable distance. If that was a HF wave, something very extraordinary must have taken place inside WTC 7, before we saw the first signs of structural failure.

Remember, the whole WTC 7 graph is depicted in 10 nano-meters per second, a very sensitive manner of recording.
And if you screw up the sensitivity of the 2 Twin Tower collapses to the same 10 nm/s, we saw the same amplitude dual pack of peaks preceding the following enormous peaks of the global collapse, which may be true, or not, have been assisted with other packs of explosive charges, their nature unknown yet, thus writing such enormous responses on the seismographs. The sounds of them, drowning in the enormous complex sound of total collapse.

I am still trying to find seismograms from thermo baric explosions, but since these things are still considered ultra top secret, we will have not much chance to find them online. I hope the Russian Intelligence site will assist me in finding one. I am waiting for their response.

I am going to contemplate now on the very interesting facts laid out by Seymour and NIcon, and will also try to find a common modus operandus.

I hope the bulk of intelligent people at JREF now also understand, that this subject is not a source for screen wars, but something which influenced all your lifes, and has to be resolved as a common goal for all intelligent Internet researchers alike.
I see we at last reached such a consensus, and I am very happy to see this development.

Give me some time; I'll follow your posts in the mean time.

ETA:
See wtc.nist.gov... L-14
Page 18/56 Figure L–17. Typical built-up column details.

As you can see, these were boxed in columns:
""These built-up columns had a W14x730 core with cover plates welded to the flanges (to form a box) or web plates welded between the flanges as shown in Fig. L–17.""

There's a post I referred to in this thread, posted by I believe ???-Benson, who told us that a boxed in column will shatter as glass, when filled with an appropriate thermobaric solution and ignited.

Such an nearly unimaginable high pressure demolition of several fundamental load bearing columns, will send an immense high frequency signal into the bedrock.
And could cause the pre-structural failure huge seismic signals.

We have still an unknown, the sound of such a demo job, how loud it would be, and how far away it would be heard.

It will fit in the signature of the WTC 7 destruction, as if far down a whole pack of floors was instantly removed, and that's why we saw the whole skyline of WTC 7 SINK from the sky, in the first few seconds of the videos shown.

ETA.2
www.abovetopsecret.com...
My Old Scenario, Renewed, also all data provided by NIST, is my latest proposed scenario.
No different than my original thesis, only this new time of the global collapse signal arrival of now 20:54.2 is even stretched 2.2 seconds further, i.o.w. later in the seismogram, thus also changing the arrival of that signal at LDEO to 17:21:11.02.

[edit on 17/8/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 

LaBTop, well I'm not too sure where to go from here. I understand Seymour's point with the 12 second delay time. I understand his thinking, but I think he's combining NIST's times and LDEO times. As I mentioned in a previous post, I would prefer to have the two timelines developed completely independent of each other and then compared. Or to put it another way, the time delay for the seismographs should be found without using any of NIST's times. We could blah, blah, blah about this back and forth, but it would be like discussing whether the sky is "blue" or "light blue."

The point I'm at is: I see there is a possible rough resolution of the problem of the timeline when using a 14 second delay, which leaves me only a 1 second difference (using the best case error of margin times) which could be explained by internal collapse, explosives or whatever. But is this resolution actually what took place in the real world? I'm not sure, and I would need more information because I'm at the end of my very limited knowledge. It looks like I need to explore seismography and LDEO's original information more for me to continue. I suppose I need to do this, also, so when they finally do release their reasons for their 3 and 9 second changes, I'll have some sort of leg to stand on to scrutinize it. (I wonder if they have a "Seismology for Dummies" book.)

I do know I'll also be searching for the 4 broadcasts NIST used for the timing. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I've found one so far and it places the 2nd impact after 9:03. But it's a cheap YouTube video so not much more can be taken from it other than the fact the 2 turns to a 3 before impact.

So like I said in the beginning, I'm not sure where to go in this discussion. I can sit here and throw out many questions, most of which would be rhetorical and/or hypothetical, none of which I should expect either of you to answer. To put it another way: I can sit here and try to pick your brains but I would expect in response the phrase much used on these boards, "do your own research."



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


To be clear here, I'm NOT saying that a 12 second retention time is accurate. I'm saying it could be a useful standardized retention time.

Here's why- I think we can agree that LDEO's times ON THE GRAPH are accurate, in both respects as far as "relative" time, and "absolute" time. This is our best time key.

I think we can also agree that while less precise than LDEO, the NIST "relative" time to be accurate to within +/- 1 second.

I personally have problems with the "absolute" times that NIST gave because I don't think they're as accurate as NIST thinks. Plus, a 12 second retention time is just too far away from Dr. Kim's estimate of a 17 second retention time.

I also have a problem with a 17 second retention time, since it is calculated on an EXACTLY 2 km/sec travel speed.

So what I have proposed is that we standardize the retention times, and apply this to all events. This effectively eliminates the 2 areas that I - and I think sensibly - have a problem with.


*****
Here's another factor to think about - I stated above that I would guess that NIST will change the Cianca photo to :44 in order to match the 8.2 second timeline and the :52 global collapse initiation. There were some minor 1-2 second anomalies with that scenario.

What if they change the :52 to :54? Look what happens there. With the standardized 12 second retention time, those waves get to the LDEO graph at :06.... and when I look at the graph, I see some major activity arriving at :05. This fits the 8.2 second timeline perfectly, since if you examine it and videos, the west roof line of 7 can be seen collapsing at 7.2 seconds in the timeline, about 1 second before NIST calls global collapse. Additionally, 8.2 second earlier takes you to :58, and I again see some activity, this time minor, on the graph starting around :57, which would make sense if portions of the structure are failing below. Does 1 second sound a reasonable time for this to you?

Enough for now, I have smoke coming out of my ears........

[edit on 17-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by Seymour Butz
reply to post by LaBTop
 



Wow, that's astonishing. After more than 1 1/2 yrs of defending your opinion that the Cianca photo as being the Achilles Heel of the NIST report, and challenging anyone to prove you wrong, you've thrown it out in a matter of a few hours and have come up with a new thesis.


You read at time of posting this, probably only my first post, so you could not understand at that time that:
"My Old Scenario, Renewed, also all data provided by NIST"
Was my latest proposal for subtle changes to my thorough graph.
I definitely did NOT throw my thesis out !

Thus you also could not understand by then, what that meant for the NIST Adjusted Time from Television Broadcasts for the start time of global collapse of WTC 7.
I'll explain what it meant exactly by introducing two options, and the NIST 3 seconds fault margin.

1. The Cianca photo time stamp is a correct 17:20:46 time, Adjusted etc. with 5 additional seconds.
EVERYBODY can see this with his own eyes; you see the dent formed, and then we combine that with the assumed precise 5 seconds correction of the EXIF files from all 115 Cianca photos. There is however a fault margin of 3 seconds in this option!

2. When we add to this +/- 3 sec. time stamp (now confirmed by NIST's 2004 report), embedded in Cianca's photo of 20:46, the NIST confirmed iron cast evidence of 8.2 seconds that passed during the first sign of structural failure (the Cianca photo of the dent forming) and the start of the real global collapse, we arrive at a new time of 17:20:54.2 which is 2.2 seconds more as the 5 seconds-corrected Adjusted etc. time from NIST of 17:20:52.
This is also an assumed iron cast evidence, precisely calculated from many video and photo material in NIST's possession.

17:20:52 (endorsed by NIST !) Adjusted time. +/- 3 sec
minus
17:20:46 (endorsed by NIST !) EXIF file adjusted time. +/- 3 sec
=
6 seconds is an unexplainable NIST interval, Seymour thought.
It's not.

6 seconds + 2.2 seconds extra = 8.2 seconds, exactly their exact Structural failure Time, which has no fault margin!

Thus the inevitable conclusion must be, that NIST's own correction of 5 seconds for its own Cianca photo is in this case off by + 2.2 seconds and must be, for THIS special photo, a correction of 7.2 seconds!
Which 2.2 seconds is by the way, within their 3 seconds possible fault for all photo and video material.
And don't forget, the Cianca photo time can be maximum 20:49, or minimum 20:43, when we introduce their + or - 3 seconds maximum fault margin.
So the chance is 50%, that it also could be that the Cianca time stamp should be 20:49, which adds a whole new story to it.
The NIST dent signal would then exactly arrive at the start of the second pack of peaks in the LDEO graph!

Now it seems we are in possession of a Gordian knot. But it’s not.

1. Must we now correct all NIST photo and video times with + 2.2 seconds?
Or
2. Must we correct solely the NIST Cianca photo with - 2.2 seconds, and correct it backwards to 17:20:43.8 ?

It seems that the 8.2 seconds LENGTH of Structural Failure time is pretty sure, but in this comparison, only the EXIF correction method from NIST for the Cianca photo can be flexible within their fault margin of 3 seconds.
So, to conclude, the CHANCE for either 1 or 2 to be wrong is surely for 2.
That would mean that NIST has to correct the time stamp of the Cianca photo of the dent forming, to 2.2 seconds earlier, at 17:20:43.8, to keep in line to its proposed corrected Start of Global Collapse of 17:20:52.
It however can still be the other way round, since all corrected times had a possible fault margin of 3 seconds. Thus it is fairly possible, that the real time of the Cianca photo of 20:46 is correct, and the corrected global collapse time has to be changed to the maximum fault margin, and must then read 17:20:54.2 .

That COULD change my thesis a little bit in the time line, but not enough to bust the crux of it, the arrival of the dent’s seismic signal at LDEO is still MAXIMUM 0.8 seconds after the huge energy event last signals stopped moving the seismograph’s needles.
We still have to explain the huge energy event.

And it has no sense at all to come up with a future correction, since with the corrected 20:43.8 Cianca time stamp we arrived at the maximum border region of the possible fault margin of 3 seconds for all photos, set by NIST already in 2004, and not altered in any later reports.

So we end up with either my New Scenario or my Old Scenario-renewed, BOTH however within the fault margin of 3 seconds set by NIST for photographic material.

Any one got headache after reading this?

As long as we don't have the assumed precise fault margin for specifically the Cianca photo time stamp, we can only work with the by NIST provided fault margins of maximum 3 seconds!!!

Both the minimum and the maximum fault margin still keeps my thesis firm upright.

I'll address the other part of your post later, Seymour.



posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

Seymour, I know you're not saying it's accurate, but neither would using the 14s delay. This is all just working times. My only concern was just the method. I like to keep LDEO times together and NIST times separate as so in the end we have two completely separate forms of evidence both pointing to the same thing. So, to me, NIST's time and the 8.2s sequence is one timeline and LDEO's times and graphs are the second.

I totally agree when you say "I think we can also agree that while less precise than LDEo" and that's why I think we should use LDOE's new times to set the standard.

Plus another thing I just thought of: to standardize it using NIST's time we have a problem if we were ever to use this standardized time for the collapse graphs. There's an additional 6 and 10 seconds there which leaves more room for error. I'm not comfortable saying with absolute certainty that it took exactly 8 seconds and 12 seconds for the debris to crash to the ground. Whereas if we use LDEO's time and work with 14s, this problem will never occur and would always be consistent throughout the 5 graphs.

But anyway, I didn't think it was worth debating because the difference between 12s and 14s falls within the 2 second margin of error (1 for NIST's time, 1 for LDEO's new time). The tentative way we are looking at the graphs now seems to have straightened out the timeline when errors of margin are included. It looks to me what now needs to be confirmed in all of this is everything but the graph (i.e. is 5:20:52 correct, is 5:20:42 correct, is 14s (or 12s) delay correct, etc.)

As for the time on the photo, I really believe they'll need to fix that as explained below:

I'm fine with 1 second difference in the times as I think I read somewhere one of NIST's theories is that some energy started below and ran up to the penthouse breaking some windows or something like that, I'll have to find that again.

The problem I see with this theory is if they move it to :54 then, to my understanding, if all the times trace back to the 2nd impact, they would have to change all the events to reflect this 2 seconds, thus making the 12 second standard time you're using 10 seconds. It looks like that would be a vicious circle.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join