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.
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.
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.
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.
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.