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.

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?

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.

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.......

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. 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.