Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

MORE from Seymour’s short post:

“””” 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. ”””””

I have no clue if ALL the NIST times are accurate for all 5 events, but to add to the confusion, I’ll redirect you to the Furlong and Ross study at Study of 911:
www.studyof911.com...

Have a damn good look at all “officially” stated times by several US Institutions, and your head will spin like you’re inside a washing machine.
Let’s see, the second plane impact varies from :

09:02:40 (NTSB report, 2002) to
09:02:54 (LDEO, 2001 and FEMA, 2002) to
9:02:57 (LDEO revised, 2006) to
09:02:54 (NIST, Jan 05) to
9:02:59 (NIST revised, 2006) to
09:03:11 (9/11 Commission Final Report) to
09:03:14 (FAA Report, date ?) to
09:03:17 (Vanity Fair article)

FAA TIMES
Within the Federal Aviation Administration’s “Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11,
2001” are found the impact times of 8:46:35 and 9:03:14.
Link: FAA Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11,2001
What is interesting is, when the 9 seconds found on the Jenny Carr tape are added to the original
LDEO seismic time of 8:46:26, the result is 8:46:35, the exact FAA impact time for AA Flt 11.
And although anecdotal, it is also intriguing that the FAA’s 9:03:14 for UA Flt 175 matches closely
to the time of 9:03:17 found in the recent Vanity Fair article by Michael Bronner.
Link: Vanity Fair article by Michael Bronner This 9:03:17 time occurred when NEADS received
the call notifying them of a 2nd possible hijacking while “almost simultaneously” people in the
NEADS control room watched Flt 175 crash into WTC2 on CNN, including Colonel Marr, the
commanding officer. This adds credibility to the Commission’s impact time of 9:03:11.
Nevertheless, although the 9/11 Commission referred to this FAA Summary many times in its Final
Report, it still based its impact times upon all the data they had and issued impact times of 8:46:40
and 9:03:11.

NTSB TIMES
Within the flight path studies by the National Transportation Safety Board are found approximate
impact times of 8:46:40 and 9:02:40.
Link: NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 11," Feb. 19, 2002
Link: NTSB report, "Flight Path Study-United Airlines 175," Feb. 19, 2002
These reports, as a matter of course, state times of impact as approximate, this done with an
understanding that higher authority will review all data in determining actual times of impact.
The 9/11 Commission’s impact time of 8:46:40 for AA Flt 11 is the same as is found in the NTSB
report that the Commission referred to in its Note 39.
The Commission referred to the NTSB report for the impact time of UA Flt 175 in its Note 51, but
even in doing so, it rejected the NTSB’s approximate 9:02:40 time and issued instead 9:03:11 as the
official time.
When one examines the radar graph from the study on AA Flt 11, it can be seen there was one last
radar position-plot at the end. This coincides with testimony by Controller Dave Bottiglia who
tracked AA Flt 11 that morning: This is from an article that covers this: “It was now being tracked
by New York Centre, where a controller, Dave Bottiglia, saw it disappear from his screen just before
8.47. It had ploughed into the World Trade Centre's north tower.”
Link: Controller Dave Bottiglia, AA Flt 11 Disappears From Radar
Reference is now made to the original source data used by the 9/11 Commission when analyzing the
impact time supplied by the NTSB flight path study for AA Flight 11. Examination of this and
particularly the radar graph supplied by magnification of the ending point area shows the last radar
return from the aircraft before impact at 08.46.40.

Page 8 from 11 speaks for it selves, and NIcon also pointed at this:

NIST used false logic in doing this 5-second addition. It is wrong. Adding 5 seconds is sleight-of-hand
statistics, a non sequitur that is meaningless. The 9:02:59 is from a discrete event with a time
set derived from TV stations (one type of source). The other time of 8:46:25 is from another distinct
event derived from seismic data (another type of source). These then are two detached time sets for
two separate events from two different source types. Therefore, the adding of 5 seconds can not be
done according to either logic or statistics. (In accounting this type of error is known as “mixing
apples with oranges”.) Therefore, the NIST 8:46:30 “Adjusted Time from Television Broadcasts”,
for their first aircraft “impact”, is not real. To reiterate: the NIST 8:46:30 a.m. time labeled as “First
aircraft impact” under the column “Adjusted Time from Television Broadcasts” is artificial.

Table 3
AA Flt 11
2001 LDEO 8:46:26 Original seismic
2004 NIST 8:46:30 Artificial
2001 FAA 8:46:35 Rejected by Commission
2002 NTSB 8:46:40
2004 Commission 8:46:40

UA Flt 175
2002 NTSB 9:02:40 Rejected by Commission
2001 LDEO 9:02:54 Original seismic
2004 NIST 9:02:59 Adjusted per TV
2004 Commission 9:03:11
2001 FAA 9:03:14 Rejected by Commission

This is also recommended reading i.m.o. :

NIST's determination of 8:46:30 time of first “impact” is artificial. It is not only erroneous, but may
be specious if time manipulation is the motive. This phony time for AA Flt 11 is directly
contradicted by the statement made by the NTSB and is not supported by the radar data supplied by
the NTSB. The last radar signal from the aircraft before impact was received at 8:46:40, ten seconds
after the time that NIST now says is when the aircraft impacted the Tower. One wonders again if the
NIST 2005 contract with Dr. Kim to re-analyze the seismic times is also an attempt at time
manipulation in order to find credibility for the bogus 8:46:30 NIST time. An audit by independent
seismological experts to determine the authenticity of the revised seismic times would be in order to
resolve this matter. It would be worth doing as this concerns the mass murder of nearly 3,000
people.

This excerpt is for NIcon, who searches for the same 4 data sets of television stations :

NIST suffers a lack of credibility for its issuance of the false 8:46:30 “impact” time for AA Flt 11. It
is an unreal time and is not an impact. What is needed from NIST are: (1) the names of the four
television stations whose data was used, (2) the actual times of impact from these four stations, and
(3) the procedures used by each station in the regular synchronization process to UTC.

Regarding UA Flt 175, a question remains: What are the main specifics that the Commission based
its time of 9:03:11 on, those that go to the heart of their Note 130? The Commission based it on
something, as one doesn’t just come up with such a precise number out of thin air. “FAA radar data
and air traffic control software logic” needs to be elaborated upon. Something is behind this time,
and if this something is credible, this would confirm once and for all the large time-gap between
seismic and impact, and would be another conclusive demand for a new investigation. Nevertheless,
until the specifics become known, the 9:03:11 remains the official time of impact, and this by itself
demands a new investigation.

Regarding AA Flt 11, there still remains a huge 11 - 14 second time-differential between the
precision times of seismic & impact. This time-gap, along with the many corroborating WTC1
basement eyewitnesses and fire department personnel, demands a new investigation now, and this
can not be emphasized or stressed any stronger.

In closing, I advice to read Furlong and Ross’s Conclusion.

And Seymour, I think that this adds enough “reasonable doubt” to your argumentation about a 12 seconds retention time.
I believe these 17 seconds retention time is quite specific, if one regards the explanation of dr. Kim of how they calculated over the years before 9/11 how the earth’s crust reacted on seismic disturbances.

Originally posted by LaBTop


17:20:52 (endorsed by NIST !) Adjusted time. +/- 3 sec
minus
17:20:46 (endorsed by NIST !) EXIF file adjusted time. +/- 3 sec

This is a wrong assumption on your part. NIST says these times are accurate to within 1 second. Let me assist you here:


wtc.nist.gov...

"To assist in the timing process, relative times for the five major events of September 11, 2001: first plane
strike, second plane strike, collapse of WTC 2, collapse of WTC 1, and collapse of WTC 7 have been
determined with 1 second accuracy."

But for ALL the photos, they have only a 3 second accuracy.

"At the present time, 3,032 of the 6,759 catalogued photographs and 2,673 of the
6,911 video clips in the databases are timed with assigned relative accuracies of 3 seconds or better."

Originally posted by LaBTop

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.

Here, you're using a 17 second retention time with the adjusted by 5 seconds final time.

However, as I mentioned earlier, when you do this, you have a problem with the 4 tower events. Specifically, when you compare to tower 2's strike, adding 17 seconds to :59 makes the waves appear at:16, basically at the end of the seismic event.

In short, the only way to make it all work out is by mixing and matching event times and retention times. And that's bad scientific methodology.

So while I was getting rid of Vista on my laptop last night, I decided to see if I could find these 4 videos. I thought it would be good to try to confirm at least one other piece in the puzzle that we have. I read their description again in NCSTAR 1-5a and it does seem these four videos have these things in common: they were broadcast (I assume they had to be live otherwise they would have to adjust them just like every other video) and they had to have the time "bug" on them. I also found this line in the document: "Video footage was provided by NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and local New York City stations WABC, WCBS, WNBC, WPIX, WNYW and New York City One." So that made it easier to search, though it may not be their complete list and there may be more out there.

I found the following live broadcasts and some startling results. I know they are just low quality videos but the only thing I'm looking to confirm is when the impact takes place compared to when 9:02 turns to 9:03. I would expect they would be close to each other (within 1 second) and I'd expect they wouldn't show much after 9:03.

So here's the four I found that they might have used, with the timing:

ABC - approx. 1 - 1.5s before 9:03 - www.archive.org... (at 31:44 mark)

CNN - approx. 1.5 - 2s after 9:03 - www.archive.org... (at 14:55 mark)

WNYW - approx. .5 - 1s after 9:03 - www.youtube.com... (at the 0:10 mark)

New York City One - may be right on time, but it's from a long distance - www.youtube.com...

Here's the rest that were in the list but I don't think they could have used them:

NBC - doesn't show impact, no bug - www.archive.org...

CBS - doesn't show impact, no bug - www.archive.org...

WABC - can't find actual clip but was used live on CNN (above)

WCBS - doesn't show impact, no time bug - www.youtube.com...

WNBC - no time bug - www.youtube.com...

WPIX - no time bug - www.youtube.com...


But the amazing one I found that wasn't listed was this one:

fox 5 news in Washington - at least 4 seconds before 9:03, though impact is not directly shown I'm basing it off when the fireball shows on the screen on the left - www.archive.org... (31:53 mark)

I think this last one shows that these time bugs are not accurate whatsoever. I'm going to look for higher quality versions of these to be able to see this clearer. But for now I think this shows that their claim of 1s accuracy based off these "bugs" is very suspect.

I'll need to get caught up on the posts I missed, but for now I think I need to get ready for a Tropical Storm/Hurricane coming tomorrow.

Seymour: In short, the only way to make it all work out is by mixing and matching event times and retention times. And that's bad scientific methodology.

Au contraire, it’s a very well known scientific methodology, if we possess reliable data, from either massive observation by many, or from reputable scientific journals.
As I explained before, we only have one choice, to define the most reliable event times.

If possible define them with our own eyes.
The 8.2 sec structural failure time is a fine example of this kind of definition, it is definitely iron clad.
We can clock this time interval with precision clocks following NIST’s own table of that event, and the available network video footages at the Wayback Machine website, where NIcon found most of his footage.

The times found by NIcon from televised events which we can see with our own eyes, are however less definite, since the too broad spread of timed impact times of Tower 1, the second impact, over multiple examples is already a fine example of their build-in uncertainty.
NIST however has had access to underlying atomic clock readings used by the networks, and were able to lock the time “bugs” in the visible footage to the atomic clock time signals also in use by the networks, to slice their programs into available time frames combined with advertisement blocks, so they can hold on to precise airing times.
Since NIcon, and we alike, had no access to this process, he found those discrepancies.
The only quite strange problem I see with the NIST’s adjusting time methods, is that the time stamps for the major events of 9/11 based on adjusting from television broadcasts atomic clocks should be in the millionth of seconds, and not within a one second fault margin, which is a million times rougher.
They worked back, or forth, from the networks hourly time signals, which are based on the NIST atomic clock signal, or the Naval Institute’s signal.

We can also define precise times by reading scientific journals regarding determination by scientists of unknown data, to define them at last within certain fault margins, and then the data were subsequently reviewed by their peers.
We should prefer published, and peer reviewed defined data from dates before 09-11-2001.
LDEO’s seismic retention times for the journey through the earth crust is an example.
Their 17 seconds retention time for events originating in Manhattan are not a solely 9/11 based definition, as some seem to think. That time was defined before 9/11 already by registered earth quakes in the Manhattan region, and from test explosions for the City of New York, to define eventual problems when blasting away old buildings, or bedrock for the Path Way rail road track to the Twin Towers.
All these events were exactly time stamped by very precise atomic clock readings at the time of event origin. See LDEO’s very extensive website for many examples I mentioned. All pre-9/11 recorded.
That’s why this 17 seconds retention time from Manhattan to LDEO’s seismic station at Palisades is an iron clad definition, checked by peers before publication.

Seymour’s move to try to make us doubt the 17 seconds retention time can therefore easily be countered by LDEO’s extensive proof of the methods used and their outcome, the 17 seconds, published far before 9/11.

This means that Seymour’s other proposal, that NIST’s calculations and later corrections for all 5 major 9/11 events are believable and thus the second plane impact time stamp introduces a new problem, is a soft and unbelievable solution for us, since all NIST’s methods used in their reports, are dated far after 9/11, and we strongly suspect that several of their methods and outcomes are funded on political instead of scientific origins.

As I posted the above link to Furlong and Ross work, it becomes quite obvious that a strong undercurrent of politically based outcomes has riddled all investigations by officially funded US institutions since 9/11.
It’s beyond believable, and the sheer spread of major 9/11 event time stamps advertised by them, makes all these institutions a laughing stock of political Institute’s CEO interventions.

CONCLUSION, I stand by my thesis, that the seismic graph of WTC 7 shows external intervention, by introducing a huge energy event before any visible movement on the outside or inside of WTC 7.

When we however re-shuffle my conclusion from my earlier post that NIST used a 3 seconds or better (thus less) fault margin for all their video and photo material, and follow Seymour’s advice that the 5 major 9/11 events were defined by NIST as having a precise fault margin of 1 second, then my whole old thesis stands upright again, without need for any minor change, based on the whole lengthy discussion we had.

See my light-blue line with the text embedded “Relative error, in the bottom “U” in my thorough graph.

NOTE, important!

The only error in my thesis’s thorough graph is the red text to the right of my bottom red “LDEO time” leg, about the rubble falling.
At the time of writing, I based this text of 6.8 sec on a few calculations on our 9/11 forum, one from prof. Jones, how fast and long the WTC 7 rubble fell. It is up till now still unclear, how long it took for the last rubble to come to rest, so this is an open probability, not yet solved.

But the most important thing I forget to include in that piece of text is the 8.2 sec interval for the structural failure time, before global collapse started.
This makes the whole WTC 7 graphic even more totally outlandish, when compared to the NIST figures.

The biggest question slowly submerging in this thread has become this one:
Did 1 or 2 US government funded Institutions provide us blatantly false data?

reply to post by LaBTop


So then can you explain why when we use a 17 second retention time, the other 4 tower events are all out of synch when you use the NIST times?

This is the Achille's Heel in your argument, and why I say you're using bad scientific methodology.

Your effort to prove your theory about 7 also means invalidating the other 4 tower events when you use the NIST times and error range. And when you do THAT, it makes LDEO's estimated event time for the 4 tower events waaay off. Therefore invalidating that part of the puzzle.

In short, all pieces must fit or your assumptions or you are wrong.

I think I've introduced enough reasonable doubt by now to show that there are just too many holes in your theory to be true.

This may not be worth posting, as it seems tomorrow we should be getting NIST's full story, so everything we've been talking about in here may shift to left field. But, I just wanted to make a couple of points I thought of after I went back and caught up on the posts I missed.

LaBTop, I don't think they ever could be that precise with the time for the second impact by viewing the broadcast videos. Even if they had access to this underlying atomic clock reading, the fact is that out of all the videos that I found none of them show the actual impact. The WNYW video is the closest but the building still blocks the plane a fraction of a second before the impact. From the videos I found, it looks better to time the event of debris exiting the North face, which they then could have worked back to the impact, thus the error of margin. They also could have used, what NIST called, the "out takes", the clips never broadcast, but the paragraph in NCSTAR1-5A seems pretty clear that they were broadcast.

Also in that document, I found a clue to the reasoning behind LDEO's time changes. In it, it says, "A reinterpretation of the types of seismic signals received resulted in slightly revised times for major events." So it looks like they'll be changing the type of seismic signal, exactly the part of all of this that I don't understand. I read their paper and didn't understand much, but to me it looks like they determined they were Rg waves and even compared them to previous events and they matched. Are they going to say these Rg waves are now a different kind (maybe B.S. waves)? LaBTop, I think it'll be up to you to analyze this, as my knowledge of waves breaks down to only 2... hello and goodbye.

Also, on the first plane strike time, I assumed they used the Naudet film to determine it, as in another part they talk about finding the speed of the plane by examining how long it took to enter the building. Since this is the only film I know about, I just assumed they used that. How they assume 1s accuracy is beyond me, though, because that camera was inside WTC1 when WTC2 got hit and, I believe, when it collapsed. So any point in the film they used to synch with real world time was well after the main events, which I would think raises the margin of error. Put another way: one film does not an accurate time make.

And finally, just when exactly did NIST ever use their original times? I was digging around their site and found this document from December 2003, wtc.nist.gov... On page 29/41 it shows even at this early date that they were using pretty close to their 5s adjusted times. So exactly how many photos did they time with their original times? Was the Cianca photo included in these? Did the photo ever actually need to be updated?

NIcon, they had another possible source to determine exact impact times from videos.
The sound. If you know the temperature of the air, the distance and a few other data, the sound of impact on the videos will provide a very precise manner of time stamping compared to atomic clocks running in the background of these major networks news feeds.

The Naudet brothers were on route by foot together with some FDNY officers, to make a documentary about the NY Fire Department's daily work.
They were on a crossroads, checking a gas leak report, when one of the brothers heard the plane coming in, and flipped his camera up to follow the plane.
Have you, or will you ever try to pinpoint in one fluent move a plane at full speed coming in, and flying over your head, in between high rises?
That's damn good camera work, if you succeed to do it the way Naudet did it.

Three lengthy next posts will follow, which will give further explanation of the major 9/11 events. Thanks for all your efforts, it is appreciated.

Let us concentrate on the most important last words of Seymour.
They will perhaps not be the words you expected to hear, but they are indeed the ones we ought to concentrate on, after all these tiresome days of debate we had.

Seymour: Your effort to prove your theory about 7 also means invalidating the other 4 tower events when you use the NIST times and error range. And when you do THAT, it makes LDEO's estimated event time for the 4 tower events waaay off. Therefore invalidating that part of the puzzle.
In short, all pieces must fit (or?) your assumptions or you are wrong.

One fact that most of you perhaps did not understood during all these lengthy argumentations on this board, and lately in this thread, is that the Nicolas Cianca photograph of the MOMENT that the first sign of structural failure occurred, the famous east penthouse dent (exhibit 1), is in fact an ironclad piece of evidence.
Neither NIST nor anybody else did alter this event; it was a real time event and recorded by many other cameras present that day.

It is not a by NIST constructed argument; it is one event of 115 digitally photographed events, loaded on a memory card in the digital camera of a New York photographer.
Who handed this camera plus memory card over to the investigators from NIST, who then processed all those 115 photos through a now well-known process, synchronization to UTC times, in which they first determinated that the time stamps on all these 115 photos were all 102 seconds off from the real atomic clocked 9/11 times.

They did this by comparing many visual events photographed by Cianca during the whole 11 Sept 2001 Tuesday with several pieces of evidence in their possession, and this evidence turned out to been hooked to very precise atomic clock times.
Thus, it validated the 102 seconds-off time for this specific set of photos in an ironclad manner, it was based on many events during the day, so we can be assured that the fault margin for the Cianca photo is very small, compared to lots of other photos from other photographers. In addition, NIST compared the same event to many videos taken from the same event, adding even more fine-tuning to the time stamp of that first dent event in Cianca’s photo.
Cianca’s camera clock was set simply 102 seconds-off from real time.
NIST then additionally added 5 seconds in 2004, as adjusted time to all of the 102 seconds corrected ones.
After this process, NIST then stamped all 115 photos with their correct real time stamps.

There are no contradicting opinions about this specific time stamp of 17:20:46 regarding the first east-penthouse roof dent anywhere online.
NIST never altered the Cianca time stamp in all their later reports, also indicative of their faith in the correctness of it.
That is hard evidence that this time stamp is widely accepted as an ironclad piece of evidence.
When we add the fact of the 17 seconds LDEO calculated retention time to Cianca’s time stamp, we arrive at a point in the WTC 7 collapse graph in-between the two main packs of peaks.
Moreover, we thus used two ironclad evidences to get that result.
Which introduces the main problem with that graph; what caused that first, biggest event?

In case we however start our calculations with another event, the by NIST calculated start of global collapse, which they arrived at by using the same process for many photos and videos of that event, we obtain another time stamp for the Cianca photo, namely 17:20:43:8 instead of 17:20:46.0, a minus 2.2 seconds deviation.
Adding the same 17 seconds LDEO retention time places the corrected Cianca photo time stamp still in-between the two packs of peaks.
Which still introduces the main problem with that graph; what caused that first, biggest event?

For the above two sets of Cianca photo calculations we only have to take in account that NIST explained in all their recent reports that all photos in their possession have a fault margin of 3 seconds or better, so possibly less than 3 seconds.
We do not know the exact fault margin for the Cianca set of 115 photos, thus we assume for the time being, the maximum fault margin of 3 seconds, plus or minus the real time stamp.
Then the corrected Cianca photo time stamp of minus 2.2 seconds still falls within this 3 seconds fault margin, it deviates 2.2 seconds back in time from the originally imprinted time stamp in that photo.

As a side-note; as already explained above, the probability of such a broad fault margin for specifically this photo is extremely small, it is quite sure that when NIST will provide the exact fault margin for this Cianca photo, it will be far better than 3 seconds maximum.

The Cianca photo calculations prove with a very high percentage of probability, that NIST’s calculations for the 4 other tower events are faulty, if not even far off from what really happened, if compared to the probability of correctness of this photo.
As accompanying evidence for that opinion, I offered (Exhibit 2.), the Furlong and Ross tables.
Here is their last Table-4 from their investigation, it CLEARLY shows how unbelievably far apart these five US institutions have time stamped the plane impacts.
That includes now the new time stamps from NIST just as well.

NIST sponsored revised seismic times added.
=============Table 4=============
AA Flt 11 hits WTC 1, the North Tower.
------------------------------------------------------
2001 LDEO----------- 8:46:26 Original seismic
2005 LDEO------------ 8:46:29 Revised per NIST contract
2004 NIST------------- 8:46:30 Artificial
2001 FAA-------------- 8:46:35 Rejected by Commission
2004 Commission--- 8:46:40
2002 NTSB------------ 8:46:40

UA Flt 175 hits WTC 2, the South Tower.
--------------------------------------------------------
2002 NTSB----------- 9:02:40 Rejected by Commission
2001 LDEO----------- 9:02:54 Original seismic
2005 LDEO----------- 9:02:57 Revised per NIST contract
2004 NIST------------- 9:02:59 Adjusted per TV
2004 Commission--- 9:03:11
2001 FAA-------------- 9:03:14 Rejected by Commission

The first aspect of these times that must be commented upon is the fact that, after three major
enquiries, we are still left without answers, even on such basic questions as when the various events
occurred. It must be seen as an indictment of these bodies that most people would probably regard
the best evidence as having come from television rather than the official investigations. Are we to understand that NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission did not have access to exactly the same,
many, television sources of the event? It is a sad commentary that the words “9/11 Commission” are
not found once throughout both NIST reports [NCSTAR 1-5 and NCSTAR 1-5A]. And if a word
search is done on the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission for the words “Lamont” or “LDEO” or
“8:46:26”, the answer is the same: nothing. This appalling lack of attention to detail is inexcusable
and can be viewed by some as highly sinister.

NIST suffers a lack of credibility for its issuance of the false 8:46:30 “impact” time for AA Flt 11. It
is an unreal time and is not an impact. What is needed from NIST are: (1) the names of the four
television stations whose data was used, (2) the actual times of impact from these four stations, and
(3) the procedures used by each station in the regular synchronization process to UTC.

Regarding UA Flt 175, a question remains: What are the main specifics that the Commission based
its time of 9:03:11 on, those that go to the heart of their Note 130? The Commission based it on
something, as one doesn’t just come up with such a precise number out of thin air. “FAA radar data
and air traffic control software logic” needs to be elaborated upon. Something is behind this time,
and if this something is credible, this would confirm once and for all the large time-gap between
seismic and impact, and would be another conclusive demand for a new investigation. Nevertheless,
until the specifics become known, the 9:03:11 remains the official time of impact, and this by itself
demands a new investigation.

Regarding AA Flt 11, there still remains a huge 11 - 14 second time-differential between the
precision times of seismic & impact. This time-gap, along with the many corroborating WTC1
basement eyewitnesses and fire department personnel, demands a new investigation now, and this
can not be emphasized or stressed any stronger.

Conclusion 1.

To compare 4 other different 9/11 events to the much later occurring, 5th event, is obviously faulty reasoning, especially in light of the huge discrepancies in the outcome of the timing processes used by several officially endorsed investigations for those first 4 events.

We have now 3 iron-clad WTC 7 evidences, used in the thorough seismic graph:
1. Nicolas Cianca’s dent photo
2. LDEO’s 17 seconds retention time
3. NIST’s start of global collapse time.
All 3 have been proved to be within the 3 seconds maximum fault margin proposed by NIST.
LDEO never altered their thoroughly calculated, peer reviewed 17 seconds retention time, they only altered the first 4 major events start times by adding 3 seconds, and a very confusing 9 seconds addition for the start of the 5th event, the start of the global collapse of WTC 7, altered in their Recent 2006 Analysis.

Conclusion 2.
NIST, LDEO (and FEMA alike), the 9/11 Commission Final Report, the FAA and the NTSB all came up with different start times for the 5 major events of 9/11 (see Table-4 by Furlong and Ross).
This implicates a political process to force several institutions to alter their times to try to bring all those times within a certain fault margin proposed later by NIST.
NIST and their political masters failed miserably.
Especially these big discrepancies are a very strong indication of scientific mishap, since it should be clear to every American, that event times could be easily set to exact values, working from known atomic clock times, in abundance available to all of these researchers alike.

Conclusion 3.
Seymour has not brought to the table any form of reasonable doubt to my thesis. In fact he assisted in unearthing more evidence that his own arguments are faulty and must be surely doubted.
He however assisted in digging up more ironclad evidence for the 3 main objects of my thorough graph.
Thus even further strengthening the obvious, that something is very wrong with the collapse of WTC 7, and we have now even more strong corroborating proof, that it was not a solely gravity driven collapse, but an assisted one.
The question still stands, which entity was involved with that collapse assistance.
Moreover, in what form they assisted.
He also assisted in digging up more evidence, that the other 4 major events time stamps are clearly undecided on, by 5 different US institutions, to this date on.

Seymour’s argument, that he brought reasonable doubt to the discussion is based on 4 other events, which have clearly far-apart placed start times attached by several main US institutions, so that discussion should be started in another thread about these unexplainable discrepancies, since there are obviously no ironclad evidences in play for those 4 first major events.
Even multimillion funded US institutions could not come up with a common consensus, so how could the common citizen ever be able to come up with ironclad evidence to bring them all under the same identical time stamp umbrella?

Exhibit 1. The thorough seismic WTC 7 graph:
www.studyof911.com...


Exhibit 2. The Nicolas Cianca photo in the 18 June 2004 NIST report:
wtc.nist.gov... date 18 June 2004.
wtc.nist.gov... Page 27/54. date 18 June 2004.


Exhibit 3. The Furlong and Ross investigation at Study-of-911:
www.studyof911.com...

Exhibit 4. The 9/11 Television News Archive, all news and private videos from 9/11 known to this date.
A library of world perspectives concerning September 11th, 2001.
www.archive.org...

Exhibit 5. The NIST published Times for major events of September 11, 2001:
wtc.nist.gov... date 18 June, 2004.
Table on Page 21/50.

Exhibit 6. For many in-depth discussion threads of the complicated FAA radar timings subject and NTSB reports, please visit the “Pilots for Truth” website:
www.pilotsfor911truth.org... their forums.
Thread about first impact: “”Time of crash for AA Flt 11.””
pilotsfor911truth.org...

The "official" USAF 84 RADES .XLS spreadsheet puts the last Search (primary) radar return for AA11 "WTC AC#1" at the RIV (Riverhead, NY IIRC) site at 12:45:48.445 Zulu time (GMT), or 8:45:48 EDT, "Height" 2000 feet aMSL. There is an approximately 12.0 second radar "sweep" interval in RADES data FWIW.

That means a possible-only first plane impact between 8:45:48 and 8:46:00 !!!
Let us take the latest possibility, 8:46:00 :
LDEO 2001: 46:26, 26 sec later; LDEO 2004: 46:29, 29 sec later.
NIST Jan 2005: 46:25, 25 sec later; NIST 2006: 46:30, 30 sec later.
Understand please, that is half a minute later than the maximum possible fault margin of 12 seconds in the 9/11 USAF radar return! It takes 12 seconds for the radar dish to make a full 360° turn to pick up the planes radar signal again.
Yes, that is the US Air Force its own 84 RADES report from their Riverhead NY radar station.
And as you can see, they report their times in thousands of a second !!!


I rest my case.
All the timings of these institutions should coincident with each other within a few thousands of a second, not seconds.
Anybody believing Seymour’s argument about the first 4 major events is living in a state of constant denial. They should start reading up a tad bit more than solely 9/11 debunker sites.
You can’t fool radar results.
The only conclusion left over is that the end-editors of all these other institutions pushed their full data sets at least half a minute away from the real times.

Thus, that argument one would expect, should also count for the WTC 7 graph, and in such an illogical case we are still left with the 65,000 dollar question:
How it is possible that the biggest pack of peaks are arriving first, then a 5 seconds interval back to baseline, and then the far smaller signals of total global collapse arrive?

Nevertheless, we just deducted that for WTC 7, all three objectives we based our argumentation on, were in fact ironclad time stamps. The Cianca photo time, the retention time, and the time of global collapse starting.

One deduction is clear as glass, a big group of influential directors and their assistants have seemingly offered blatantly false, doctored evidence.
Or they were all fooled by the same entity.

Like I said in my thesis, there have been efforts by NIST and LDEO to meet each-others records in common grounds.
NIST and LDEO added seconds, after years of opposition to their original reported event times. The interesting effect was, that correcting it the way they did, even more strengthened my thesis.

Tampering of evidence can be expected, since both institutions get their funds from the present politicians in power, through governmental funding.
NIST is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. So it’s part of the fundamentalist capitalism system; profit has to be made in the end as a result of all investments and investigations.
NIST's directors were changed and Bushist's were replaced in those positions of power to influence the final reports.
Search the thread by Griff, regarding the politically infected NIST director changes.
If you look at the dates the reports were finally created, and then edited however again, you see several days’ difference.
Normally scientific reports are written, then edited multiple times, on a personal computer, and then redacted by proofreaders, and then handed out, to be created in their factual form, to another computer at the library, for instance.
These reports were however, redacted again, a few days later.
Can anybody guess by whom? To change what, exactly?


Interestingly, the one theory of tampering with all NIST data that would cover all there obvious deviations from real time events, would be that factions of the US government and military, or a foreign government and its military aided by some crucial American insiders , meticulously planned the 9/11 disaster.

Thus, these factions had main editors positioned in places that had full control of all video and voice feeds before they reached those major US Networks. One of the obvious places would be the internet’s backbone structure, at trivial connection nodes and crossroads. Thus, even the network editors would think that what they saw was real time, when in fact it was for ex. in fact half a minute late.
Enough time to edit out for example, explosion sounds, and change the time bugs.

This process could be easily a computerized one, and in fact be executed within seconds.
The rest of the remaining time could have been used to double check the incoming feeds first, before letting them through to the network editing rooms, where the perpetrators had additional editors also placed to fix eventual remaining small faults.

And that’s a possible reason why the WTC 7 graph is so different from the other four earlier event LDEO graphs, they had to abandon the intercepting of the networks real time reporting news feeds, because too many non-controllable reporters from smaller news stations were at the scenes around late afternoon.

The strange BBC World report about WTC 7 having collapsed already, half an hour before it really collapsed, could be a result of a grave mistake made in these interceptor rooms from the perpetrators.

Originally posted by LaBTop

1-One fact that most of you perhaps did not understood during all these lengthy argumentations on this board, and lately in this thread, is that the Nicolas Cianca photograph of the MOMENT that the first sign of structural failure occurred, the famous east penthouse dent (exhibit 1), is in fact an ironclad piece of evidence.

2-When we add the fact of the 17 seconds LDEO calculated retention time to Cianca’s time stamp, we arrive at a point in the WTC 7 collapse graph in-between the two main packs of peaks.
Moreover, we thus used two ironclad evidences to get that result.
Which introduces the main problem with that graph; what caused that first, biggest event?

3-In case we however start our calculations with another event, the by NIST calculated start of global collapse, which they arrived at by using the same process for many photos and videos of that event, we obtain another time stamp for the Cianca photo, namely 17:20:43:8 instead of 17:20:46.0, a minus 2.2 seconds deviation.
Adding the same 17 seconds LDEO retention time places the corrected Cianca photo time stamp still in-between the two packs of peaks.
Which still introduces the main problem with that graph; what caused that first, biggest event?

[qoute]


1- Ok, so it was in the original theory for 1 1/2 yrs, then a few days ago you said it was worthless. So now it's important and iron clad again? When will you quit moving the goal posts on me? I can debunk all that you say, but NOT when you keep changing your theory. At this point, will you agree that no more changes are allowed by you, or you admit that you are wrong? This is a key question. Think hard about it before you answer... i will give you one last chance to tighten up your theory. The next time you have to change your evidnce to counter my challenges, it will be an admission that you have always been wrong, ok?

2- true, but this time is wrong. Otherwise, the 17 second retention time is wrong when used for the 4 tower events. You used the 4 tower events in your original theory as proof of a 17 second retention time. I say ok, let's use that time as iron clad also. since you have stated that it is peer reviewed over many years, etc. That would also mean that we should use the LDEO times, agreed? This makes the :46 for the Cianca photo and the :52 for the global collapse wrong again, along with the 4 tower events. Once again, you're using LDEO retention and actual times for the tower events, but using LDEO retention times with NIST times. If this is too hard for you to understand, let me put it clearly for you - they are mutually exclusive. If you want to use LDEO retention and actual times for the towers, then use them for 7 also. But you are most definitelty not. You are mixing them at will to reach your preconceived notions.

3- and here's the kicker. You're saying that NIST times are correct for the global collapse. That means that the NIST times are correct for the tower events also, since, as you mention, they are all keyed to the same "relative" time source. But now the NIST time invalidates the 17 second retention time. You arguments are exclusive of each other.

In short, it's very easy to see how your thesis came into being. All one needs to do is read your posts. Nearly every one of them contains something about Bu#ler, or the military/industrial complex, etc.

So sadly, it's apparent that validating your particular politics is more important than facts. Facts aren't political. You should try re-doing your theory, this time without the political bias leading your investigation.

Originally posted by LaBTop

And as you can see, they report their times in thousands of a second !!!

Ahhh, it all makes sense now.

A little bit of simple maths are needed to figure this out, and you seem to think that 2 decimal places means thousandths of a second, while the rest of the world understands that it means hundredths of a second.

Apologizes for wasting my time.......

Seymour: Ahhh, it all makes sense now.
A little bit of simple maths are needed to figure this out, and you seem to think that 2 decimal places means thousandths of a second, while the rest of the world understands that it means hundredths of a second.
Apologizes for wasting my time.......

As you were showing us several times now in this thread, it is you, lacking basic calculus skill, but in fact precise reading skill.
I will chew it out for you again:

at 12:45:48.445 Zulu time (GMT), or 8:45:48 EDT,

48.445 means 48 seconds and 445 thousands of a second.
The first number, 4 after the dot means 4 tenth
The second number, 4 after the dot means 4 hundredth
The third number, 5 after the dot means 5 thousandth.

Can you at last agree on this example of a very simple definition used by the rest of the world in math?

Now start re-reading precisely my three last posts above, and understand at last, that the whole day of 9/11 was one big deception, and must have been a US military-industrial, politically based one.

Especially when you combine it to the ironclad, evidence presented by now 13 eyewitnesses for a North of Citgo flight path in the huge still growing thread by Craig and Aldo from CIT.

Which much better understandable shows to attention lacking Americans and the same whole world you hinted at, that the whole day of 9/11 was one big military deception, and that all data presented by the US military and all involved US institutions were fabricated.

I proved conclusively in this thread, that all WTC data must have been fabricated, because they do not line up at all.
Because, if you stick to the data provided by these officially endorsed institutions, it is clear as glass by now, that WTC 7 is a fabrication. Moreover, the other WTC events just as well.

The 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron (84 RADES) data is lacking HALF a MINUTE to be ever comparable to NIST data, or LDEO data. That is only one example, there are many more.
Do I have to go on and keep talking to a brick wall?

I do not think so, that is indeed a waste of precious time.
I’m off to read further in all the, to this date, 60 pages of Craig&Aldo’s 168 times flagged, and 140 times starred thread:
The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Then we wait for the now any moment coming launch of the NIST Final WTC 7 Report.
That will be interesting, after that, there is no need to hold back anything anymore, and a lot has to be added to that new discussion when that one comes out.

reply to post by LaBTop


I can prove you're makng stuff up to fit your particular political beliefs, if you agree to answer without obfuscation.

Are you up to the challenge?



[edit on 20-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Browsing the new released docs during lunch I've already found one inconsistency. It seems LDEO did their reanalysis in 2003. In 2005 NIST says "The uncertainty for the first aircraft impact on WTC1, the collapse of WTC 2, and the collapse of WTC 1 were reported by LDEO to be 1s, while that for the aircraft impact on WTC 2 is 2s." Now in Appendix B these are reported as +/- 2, +/- 2, +/- 2, and +/- 4, respectively. And their 5:20:42 time has an error of +/- 4. Can we trust their numbers at all?

And that spike at 5:20:50, I guess it was "misidentified." Swept under the rug?

Will have to read more, but for now back to work.

Okay another break and another inconsistency. In 2005 the West Penthouse submerges at 7.9s after the east penthouse moves. Now it's 9.3s. Also it seems their definition of collapse time has changed. In 2005 it was at 8.2s seconds after the east penthouse, or "when the entire building was first observed to start to collapse." Now in 2008 its at 6.9s when the "Initial downward motion of the north face roofline at the eastern section of the building" is observed. Not the whole thing, just the eastern section of the north face.

Last post for today about the seismic data. They're claiming an S wave registered 4s before the other waves only on the WTC 2 collapse and they calculated this to have taken 10s to register. They thus claim all of the times for all events were off by 3 seconds, thus making a 14 second delay. First questions that I have are: why does this 10s delay calculation take precedence over the 17s delay calculation? why do they assume these different waves are from the same event? how do they know this different wave was the result of the debris hitting the ground? couldn't it have been something else? maybe the debris from WTC 2 hitting WTC 1? where are these 10s delayed waves in the four other events? why is this wave different than the other waves?

Just more questions thrown into the void.

More observations. So they are sticking with the 5:20:46 time on the Cianca photo which on the graph for WTC, even if you use their new questionable 14s delay time, comes to the 20s mark, clearly 3s after the major spikes begin. It looks like they are placing the photo at .2s after the east penthouse begins to descend. It looks like they are saying in this document wtc.nist.gov... on page 235/382 that .7s before the Cianca photo the floors around column 79 collapsed, and that they only collapsed down to the 5th floor. Would this have caused the large spikes on the graph even though they didn't impact the ground? Would this have caused the spikes which began approx. 2s before?

It looks like LaBTop is still correct even if we use NIST's new questionable 14s delay time for the seismic waves.

More observations. If you look at NCSTAR 1-9 vol2 page 252/382, Figure 12-65 this shows the interior columns at the time just before the east penthouse starts to descend. Are they really claiming that this is the event that caused the largest spikes on the seismograph?

Is this the event which caused the event at -3s where "Dust and/or smoke are observed being pushed across West Broadway from the east side of the building" (NCSTAR 1-9 vol1, Table 5-3, pg 334/404)?

This is not making sense to me.