Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

page: 17
3
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
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.


A couple of questions:

1 - do you agree that the NIST times for the 5 events have a "relative" accuracy of +/- 1 second as they state?

2- are you willing to apply a 14 second "retention" time to all 5 events then?

Cuz if you do that, the 4 tower events come consistently 2-3 seconds after the first waves appear on the graphs. Which is consistent with 7's events coming 3 seconds late.

Which bolsters what I've been saying all along : either the tv cameras aren't as precise as NIST thinks, and/or the 17 second "retention" times aren't as precise as Kim thinks.

Consider these quotes from another ( I won't tell due to personal privacy issues) website I frequent:

"I can tell you the XX time is pretty accurate (a few seconds off is possible though). So it is important to have an accurate system clock, and most are not. The problem is due to ACPI, and becomes worse if you have dual core / quad core / multiple processors. My clock was losing 2 minutes per day "

"LOL.

I read this thread and thought wtf ... oh no.

So I checked and XX's time was 20 seconds out from my pc. Bloody Hell. They must be ripping me off.

So I forced my pc to resynch with that atomic clock ... and ... damn it ... my pc was wrong and XX, bless their cotton socks, was ... RIGHT "

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Seymour Butz]




posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

Seymour, I guess I'm questioning all the times now. NIST's times to me seem the most unreliable for two reasons. I haven't been able to confirm their "time from Television Broadcast" which really shouldn't be hard to do. And now with their revised failure sequence for WTC 7 (what we've been referring to as the 8.2s graph). In the past they published their 8.2s graph based off TWO videos (a CBS video in 2004 and CNN Net Dub 7 47.avi in 2005) so I thought this was pretty well confirmed, but now in 2008 those numbers are completely different. It's like they put the video on slow motion. Also, in the past global collapse, was said to begin at 8.2s (in 2005 it says "Global Collapse occurs": 2004 it says "Global Collapse initiates") but now in 2008 at 6.9 it says "The beginning of the global collapse of WTC 7 was detected."

As for the LDEO times I have a little more faith but I don't understand their reasoning behind their adjustment. They found these new different waves 4s earlier on the collapse of WTC2 (which isn't even their reference event that everything is based off, WTC 2 impact) So they estimate these took 10s to reach them and worked back to adjust the 17s to 14s. I don't understand why they assume this different wave was caused by the debris hitting the ground, especially since this didn't happen in WTC 1's collapse. Couldn't these have been caused by something else 3 seconds after the debris hit the ground, something like a basement floor collapsing. This seems to me they are inferring this was caused by the debris when in fact LDEO said "it is not possible to infer (with detail sufficient to meet the demands of civil engineers in an emergency situation) just what the near-in ground motions must have been." I would have given this to them if in fact they found the same waves in the other graphs, but, to me, it seems it would be from another type of event. But then again I need to read up on this subject.

But anyway, my last contention is NIST seems to think the internal collapse caused the waves before the east penthouse event when they say this "This suggests that structural changes inside WTC 7 were occurring several seconds prior to the time when the east penthous began to descend. Not that this is consistent with the seismic data discussed in Appendix B and the analysis of building motions discussed in Appendix C." But then I look at what they describe and it doesn't seem a large enough event and it doesn't seem to impact the ground, but only reaches the 5th floor. If the whole two towers collapsing didn't register until the debris impacted the ground, I'm not seeing how this relatively small event could have registered.

So basically the only evidence I have confidence in is the actual seismic graphs.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

1-Seymour, I guess I'm questioning all the times now. NIST's times to me seem the most unreliable for two reasons. I haven't been able to confirm their "time from Television Broadcast" which really shouldn't be hard to do.

2-As for the LDEO times I have a little more faith but I don't understand their reasoning behind their adjustment. They found these new different waves 4s earlier on the collapse of WTC2 (which isn't even their reference event that everything is based off, WTC 2 impact) So they estimate these took 10s to reach them and worked back to adjust the 17s to 14s.

3-So basically the only evidence I have confidence in is the actual seismic graphs.


1- I agree. I WOULD put reasonable faith in their "relative" times, but I have trouble agreeing with their "absolute" times, since they differ so greatly with LDEO's. A second or 2 would be ok, but 5? I have trouble with that.

2- The only reason Kim changed his 17 second "retention" time to 14 is because NIST was so sure of THEIR "absolute" times. As Labtop pointed out, Dr Kim resisted this, and rightly so. Also, remember that the collapse graphs have a different sensitivity - 100Nm vs 10Nm. Labtop has some expanded graphs in his original work. These show, IMHO, the seismic waves of the collapse BEFORE ext columns began hitting the ground. The duration of these are about 10 seconds for 2, and 12 seconds for 1. These times work out fairly well since 1 was hit higher, and so panels had a farther distance to fall. Again, IMHO.

3- Ok, so do that and use a 17 second retention time, and the nonadjusted timing for the 5 events, which is what LDEO gives. They work out perfectly. Notice that this moves the global collapse initiation for 7 back to :47, and it would be insane to suggest that the :46 time stamp for Cianca's photo of :46 is still accurate. It MUST ALSO be moved back to :41.

So I think you see the point I've been making, not that you necessarily agree with me.

If you get a standardized time for the 5 events (relative time) and you trust it, then apply a standardized retention time to THAT.... they either agree perfectly with the graphs.... or with a 14 second retention time, they are all consistently off by 3 seconds, indicating that 14 is wrong.

Which proves to me that Labtop's claim of a seismic event before anything happens at 7 to be wrong, cuz he's mixing and matching his time lines. And quite cleverly I might add, what with all the obfuscation that is evident in all his posts. Couple that with how nearly every post of his has something about Bu#ler, or the military/industrial/NWO/CFR/Bilderbergs, etc..... and it becomes readily apparent that he is more interested in lying to make the facts fit his politics more than he is about facts themselves, and finding any "truth". IMHO.....



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Dr. Kim did NOT change the well known 17 second retention time to 14 seconds, he still stands by LDEO's 34 km / (2km/sec) = 17 seconds for the main massive (Raleigh, Rg) waves arriving at PAL in all their graphs, not only the 9/11 WTC ones. He still stands by all his pre-9/11 retention times.

They were under pressure by NIST to review their calculations in 2003.
So they came up with something; miraculously someone found a minuscule S-wave, ONLY in one seismogram from the collapse of WTC 2, formerly overseen by all these top notch seismologists, with an S-wave retention time of 10 seconds (not 14 seconds), with a speed of 3.4 km/sec, which divides nicely into 34 km / (3.4/sec) = 10 seconds retention time, ONLY for this S-wave.

Btw, I cannot find any proof for this mysterious S-wave in their old or new reports, up until now.
It is just a fact we must suddenly believe, without any written explanation with accompanying graphs.
It reminds us of the officially pushed seismic mirror wave in the Oklahoma City bombing case seismograms. Which is countered and explained as bad science and impossible in one of this thread's pages by me.


Then they used the back ward working argument that the originating event, the start of global collapse of WTC 2, had to have started 3 seconds later.
I see a difference of 7 seconds between both retention times.

Therefore, they must have pinpointed an S-wave spot on one of their WTC 2 graphs, 4 seconds before arrival of the first Rg wave.
17 – 4 = 13 seconds, then they subtracted 10 seconds, and declared subsequently, that thus the start of global collapse of WTC 2 had been wrongly interpreted by them, and thus must been started 3 seconds later as they first decided.
I would like to see that graph. NIST does not provide it in detail in this final report, as far as I can see.

Then they made a huge leap of faith, and declared that therefore ALL global collapse times needed to be shifted 3 seconds later in time.
EXCEPT the WTC 7 time, that one they shifted a whopping 9 seconds later in time.


Btw, we have, in principle, only squabbled in this thread over the time stamp of the NIST 2003 Cianca photo of the first visible event from WTC 7 depicting that global collapse was imminent, the east penthouse dent forming.

This WTC 7 dent time stamp has never been altered in all these years, definitely also not in this new and final WTC 7 report, as you can see now.

Indeed, it was a senseless loss of time and effort, after all, to counter all these desperate opposition posts in this thread and others.

My thesis still stands as a rock.

PS: don't come up with the argument that that huge first peak in the WTC 7 graph therefore must be an S-wave also; that is clearly a fake argument when you stick to the official lie that no explosives were involved.
S-waves are far smaller than Rg waves in non-explosion graphs.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Seymour, it's clear, that your whole last post is redundant by now, when you look up the simple fact that NIST definitely stands by their 2003 Cianca photo time stamp of :46 in this FINAL WTC 7 report.


Seymour:
-snip- and it would be insane to suggest that the :46 time stamp for Cianca's photo of :46 is still accurate. It MUST ALSO be moved back to :41. -snip-


I hope you can manage to stay sane in light of this proof of my being-right all the time.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Btw, I'm done reading only the first 26 pages of this huge thread of Craig Ranke:
"The North Side Flyover - Officially Documented, Independently Confirmed"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and I must say, I have never seen such desperate and impudent behavior of JREF members as in that specific thread. ATS posters are reacting in a much less aggressive manner, reacting on this baiting, since they seem to feel that a strange sort of tolerance is taking place there. And they know for long already, that moderator reaction can be unpredictable here, at times.

What a disgrace for the ATS adagio of firm intervention, especially in this forum, by some members of the moderation team. I don't believe anymore they hold to their principle of neutral by-standing, and intervention only when blatant forum rules breakage occurs.

I hope I will find moderator intervention in the rest of those 78 pages, but can't find a reason yet, why they did not intervene already in the first 26 pages.

Reheat is the most blatant user of low level, personal attacks and ridicule name-calling, and the strange fact is, that he doesn't seem to realize that his whole theory of impossible flight paths is based on one simple mistake.
He takes the "impact hole" as his end point.

This is so ridiculous, in light of him trying to prove a flyover impossible, since a flyover can't be pinpointed to exactly that point, in principle it can be crossing over, within the whole length of the west wall.
It is exactly the flyover theory, which can't be placed on a map of the Pentagon, since we still have no videos or photos set free by FOIA's of such an occurrence. So all possible fly-over points are valid, until multiple points will be proved wrong in Craig's theory, and one will be left.
Or Craig's theory will be proved wrong, and that plane also impacted or was blown to pieces at the Pentagon's west wall.


My opinion: the CIT eyewitnesses believability on VIDEO grow with every month, and the official eyewitnesses of an officially promoted impact AT THAT ANGLE grow more unbelievable at pace with that.

I am still not convinced that a flyover occurred, but that is not so relevant in light of the north of Citgo passing of that plane.

Therefore the light poles in the official south of Citgo flightpath must have been clipped by other means, not by THIS plane.

I would also like to point to another possibility, a top secret development in the last decennia, of cloaking.
When this has been a military deception operation, and the evidence is growing by the day for that, then look up cloaking of airplanes and missiles at Russian science forums.
The technique of cloaking the exterior of an airplane on and off is researched and in development in Russia, and it will be in the USA also.
It makes a plane invisible for a short period of time, yet, since it needs a lot of energy to keep it invisible. It's done by plasma streaming over the exterior parts.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Links to 2008, 22-23 August New NIST reports, FINAL on WTC 7:

NIST News Release, August 21, 2008
www.nist.gov...
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse.
Report and Recommendations for Improving Building Safety Released for Comment.
At the bottom of this page are the links to all new reports and other new NIST links.

NIST NCSTAR 1A. Gaithersburg, MD, October.
wtc.nist.gov...
NIST 2008. Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Building 7.

A summary report of the investigation into WTC 7, presenting the reconstruction of the collapse of WTC 7, the

principal technical findings, and the NIST recommendations.

Page 76/115:

3.5.1 A seismic signal approximately 10 s prior to the onset of collapse was likely due to the

falling of debris from the collapse.

Can NIST explain to us, how this minor falling mass event, compared to the full building mass collapse, could

induce a far stronger seismic signal?

NIST NCSTAR 1-9
Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7.
Section 5.7 First observation of the descent of the east penthouse.

wtc.nist.gov...
Draft for Public Comment.
Global Structural Analysis of the Response of World Trade Center Building 7 to Fires and Debris Impact Damage.

Page 51/170: Table E-2. Now NIST concluded 9.3 seconds from first dent to when the west penthouse falls below

roofline. Those 9.3 seconds were the observed behavior time, not the simulation time of 6.9 - 7.3 seconds!
The same simulation showed that WTC 7 would have collapsed solely due to the effects of the fires!
The initiation of collapse was virtually the same as for the global analysis -with- debris impact damage.

NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_Vol1. Chapters 1 through 8.
wtc.nist.gov...
A support document for NCSTAR 1A. Presents the techniques and technologies by which the technical results were

achieved.

NIST_NCSTAR_1-9_vol2. Chapters 9 through 14 and Appendixes A through E.
wtc.nist.gov...
A support document for NCSTAR 1A. Presents the techniques and technologies by which the technical results were

achieved.

Page 311/382: Analysis of September 11, 2001 Seismogram Data.


Other links to the September 2005 NIST Final Reports on WTC 1 and 2; and the 2005 draft WTC 7 report can be found in the NIST NCSTAR 1-5A reports.
Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Explosions at WTC 7.
Barry Jennings - 9/11 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview - 1 of 2:
www.youtube.com...
Barry Jennings - 9/11 WTC7 Full Uncut Interview - 2 of 2:
www.youtube.com...

WTC 7 Explosion on Audio (heard by firefighters)
Rescuers at payphone startled by secondary explosion.
Note that one of the rescuers is saying, "We got to get back, 7 is exploding":
www.youtube.com...

"Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon."
www.youtube.com...

White Doomsday plane over Washington on 9/11.
CNN Discusses Mysterious White Plane over W.D.C. on 9/11
www.youtube.com...

Rare footage from the day of the Oklahoma City Bombing that reveals that there were 3 explosive devices planted INSIDE the building.
www.youtube.com...

Pentagon PSYOPS propaganda programs.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.washingtonpost.com...

For the past two years, U.S. military leaders have been using Iraqi media and other outlets in Baghdad to publicize Zarqawi's role in the insurgency. The documents explicitly list the "U.S. Home Audience" as one of the targets of a broader propaganda campaign.


'Leverage Xenophobia'
www.washingtonpost.com...
Two slides from a briefing prepared for Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, describe a U.S. military propaganda campaign that was intended to highlight the role of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, in the Iraqi insurgency. By emphasizing his foreign origin, the "psychological operations" effort sought to play on a perceived Iraqi dislike of foreigners and so split the insurgency.

==============================

WTC 7 FINAL REPORT?

As federal agency declares 'new phenomenon' downed WTC 7, activists cry foul:
rawstory.com...

I took out some of the more eloquent comments on the above article at RawStory.com, from their Comments” link on this article; they speak for themselves:


Well, last December, NIST said that the fires died down in 20 minutes in any given location in the building.

"At any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to be consumed."

wtc.nist.gov...

Do they now explain how such short-lived office fires could have caused ANY steel to weaken in ANY way? According to a Finnish engineering document, a typical office fire can raise the temperature of fire-protected steel to a maximum of 200 degrees Celsius in 20 minutes' exposure.

www.terasrakenneyhdistys.fi...
It seems that a narrow Finnish wooden plank is more fire-resistant than massive WTC steel:

juhannuskokko.blogspot.com...

Wake up, America!


This final report has been “fixed” by ARA; take some time to find out what kind of research in what field exactly this firm does for the US DoD. And what they get paid for it.

As we can see in their final WTC 7 reports, they had an A and a B scenario computed, and they inserted fire exposure times of beams, columns, trusses and girders, of 4 and 5 hours long…… Not 20 minutes as NIST stated all these past years.
I posted a photograph from late morning 9/11 (circa 11:30), which fact can be calculated from the shadows in the picture, and this photo was taken just after most of the heavy dust from the North Tower had precipitated to the ground (which also delivers a fairly accurate time for this picture).
You see a sun lit picture, with the South façade of WTC 7, and the west façade also, clearly having no fires burning in it, and no heavy smoke on that side yet from WTC 5 and 6.
So much for debris invoked fires on the south façade of WTC 7.

------------------------


Thermal expansion doesn't happen? For steel the coefficient is .000012; look it up.


THERMAL EXPANSION.
en.wikipedia.org...
The linear thermal expansion can only be defined for solids, and is common in engineering applications.The thermal expansion coefficient is a thermodynamic property of a substance.
It relates the change in temperature to the change in a material's linear dimensions. It is the fractional change in length per degree of temperature change.
Alpha = 1/L0 x deltaL/deltaT
where L0 is the original length, L the new length, and T the temperature.

The proposed maximum temperature reached in WTC 7 and used by NIST was 735° Celsius.
Calculate now how far the longest beams, when heated over their total length will have expanded, in centimeters.
In addition, contracted back to their original length again, after cooled down again to room temperature of 20° C.

Then look up the Cardington University experiment from the mid-nineties, where Scottish engineers heated a non-fireproofed steel building with a raging fire for prolonged times, and only minor buckling occurred, no collapse, and NO breaking of welded and bolded connections!

--------------------------

Look up the “Tyndall experiment” in your old physics books. It shows thermal expansion and following contraction influenced by heating and cooling, by breakage of a thin iron rod, stuck in a ring at the end of another thick iron rod, which ring’s inner end is shaped like a V.
This thick rod which is threaded at one end, with a nut on it is placed in a long “U” formed thick iron base, and the nut is fastened.
The thick rod is then heated with a Bunsen burner, and then the nut is fastened again, since the rod expanded; and cold water is poured over the hot thick rod.
The thin rod will break by the contracting of the thick rod, with a loud crack.
This works only when you fasten the nut again…. And such external help to fixate one end was not available for the heating-up and subsequently cooling-down of structural steel parts of WTC 7, they were part of a steel structure and had enough freedom to expand and contract again, moving connection points up and down (columns) and left to right(beams and girders). No more than 15 cm, and then only in case the whole length of the steel would have been exposed to that max. temperature of 735° C.
This risk is already known for hundreds of years, and is nothing new, and basic engineering practice in designing fire proving on steel, to protect a structure for a standard time of endurance to fire.
The expansion and contraction would have been visible in displacement of the facades for no more than plus or minus 15 cm at floors with heated trusses in them. But in most cases for much less displacements, since heating of a full length of steel, to the max temperature of 735° C will have been impossible in practice. In that case we should have seen raging inferno’s on whole floors, lasting for hours.
And we did not see that, the fires progressed fairly fast from one room to the other, as we could see clearly in the video from the cascading fire and breaking windows on the west façade, on the 9th floor.
And burned out in the preceding rooms also fairly fast.
There were also no diesel oil fed fires, then we would have seen the same pitch black smoke as in the diesel generator burning at the Pentagon.

------------------------


VIEW THIS SHORT INTERVIEW

www.youtube.com...

the FULL and UNCUT interview with Barry Jennings (Office of Emergency Management)

Barry was in WTC 7 on the morning of 9/11 and puts his account on the record.

He tells of EXPLOSIONS, DEAD BODIES, and a BLOWN OUT LOBBY.

www.youtube.com...


--------------------------


NIST debunked:


Kindly let me explain what NIST is really saying:
georgewashington2.blogspot.com...
George Washington at blogspot.com.
once again....


--------------------------

Now this is the scary part of all comments, this person hit the nail on the head:


For me, what is infinitely more scary than finding out that the Neocons attacked us on 9/11 is that some Americans can learn the truth and say "So what ?". There is one in my department at work. I overheard him laughing at 'truthers' so I went over and clicked a few links with him. After some evidence he got quiet. I asked him what he thought and his response was...

"At this point does it really matter?"

I think the mindset is "we are at war and nothing else matters". Nevermind that your "war" is an invasion followed by a potentially endless occupation. Nevermind that this is all for corporate purposes rather than the defense of our Constitution and way of life. If Cheney held a press conference and went into detail about how he planned and executed 9/11, the (fill in ATS banned word) I work with would still think Bush is a hero. No, really.

This is the most programmable society in history. They think what the TV tells them to think. The TV is their only source of entertainment and reality. Centuries past, we had The Church dispensing myths, now we have television. What the TV says is real, IS real and anyone who doubts it is an outcast, pariah, and blasphemer. This society does not warrant a Nazi SS, as it silences itself. Anyone who does not fall in line is ridiculed and silenced by their fellow citizens.


-------------------------


This is a way for the engineers at NIST, who studied the failure of building seven while under incredible pressure from the false-flagging, duplicitous neocons, to communicate that they were forced to conclude that building 7 fell from a "previously unknown force..."

REALLY? A PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN FORCE?

It is such an easily disprovable hypothesis it appears more like a signal for help and attention and begs others (professional, peer-reviewed scholarly engineers) around the world to test and refute NIST's findings.

Logically, it makes sense. The engineers were not allowed to publish the facts of their original conclusion. (Hence, the 7 YEARS of Study of this One Building, Building 7, omitted completely from the official 9-11 Report) Therefore, they prop up a theory that others in their field cannot ignore and would not believe men of their stature would normally put forth.
20 years from now, these same engineers will proclaim, on their deathbeds or in their memoir’s, that "they were the hero's."


------------------


Let's see: JFK and Governor Connelly were both shot by the same 6.5mm bullet, which passed right through both their bodies (and the car seat, if I recall), before being found, almost undamaged, on Connelly's ambulance gurney.
An incredible coincidence.

Flight 800 was brought down by a spark that occurred in the center fuel tank of the 747, something that had never happened before and has never happened since, despite literally millions of 747 flight hours over about 40 years. Dozens of witnesses who saw a missile fly from the sea upward that ended in a white flash (high explosives), not the yellow flash of a fuel explosion, must have been mistaken.
An incredible coincidence.

WTC Building 7 is brought down by limited structural damage and, in a new theory, those structural beams, which were buried in feet of concrete and swathed in asbestos, expanded and failed due to office fires, although this has never happened before in thousands of fires in steel-framed high-rises.
An incredible coincidence.

------------------------------


I am amazed that only the building WTC 7 collapsed, what about the adjacent buildings, they all stay intact! This point alone sufficed to refute this ridiculous "new phenomenon"...


WTC 5 and 6 were totally engulfed in flames and those fires really raged for several hours, but they did not collapse. They were much lower, but breaking of essential connections should have been far more commonplace in these buildings, but those parts of them which still stood after impact by WTC 1 debris, stood still up, after WTC 7 debris also fell on them.
------------------------------


The fact is that suddenly the building started to descend pretty symmetrically at the average speed of 7 floors per second. This leaves about 0.15 seconds for the dropping AND destruction of each individual floor. All the resistance was suddenly gone.

NIST also states that there was no loud sound of explosion. What, then, about the *very* loud sound of an explosion that startles the first responders towards the end of this video clip?

www.youtube.com...


See George Washington’s blog post for some more WTC 7 explosion sounds, filmed on 9/11



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
Seymour, it's clear, that your whole last post is redundant by now, when you look up the simple fact that NIST definitely stands by their 2003 Cianca photo time stamp of :46 in this FINAL WTC 7 report.

[


Yes, they stand by it, and for the other 4 tower events as well.

So what happens when you apply a standardized timeline to NIST's absolute times?

1- use their final absolute times, add Kim's 17 seconds to it, and all 5 events are 5 seconds too early.

2- use their absolute times, add 14 seconds to it, and all 5 events are 2 seconds too early.

3- use their absolute times, add 10 seconds to it, and all 5 events are 2 seconds too late.

4- this applies to whatever retention time one chooses to use.

5- but, subtract 5 seconds, before correction to the tv cameras, and subtract 5 seconds from Ciancas photo to remain consistent, use a 17 second retention time time, and the events are timed perfectly.

Conclusions:

1- NIST's relative times are accurate to +/- 1 second, as they claim.

2- NIST's absolute times are wrong by 5 seconds too late.

3- tv camera times aren't as accurate as they believe.

4- Labtop is all wrong and can't bring himself to admit it.

This proof is irrefutable to anyone but irrational, paranoid fools suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. drsanity.blogspot.com...



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Couldn't say it better than you:

MY thesis "proof is irrefutable to anyone but irrational, paranoid fools suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome."
In your case Bush succeeded perfectly.

1. You have proved to the whole world in this thread, that you can't master simple calculus.
2. You will never understand yourself what utterly crab you cut in that last post.
3. Come up with a reasonable explanation for that huge energy event in the WTC 7 graph. You can't.
4. Stop trying to bend facts proved by multiple sources.
Not all NIST and LDEO personnel is politically biased, as their directors definitely are.
5. Start at last to concentrate only on the WTC 7 argumentation in my thesis, do not constantly hop to other events, stay on topic.
And don't introduce false "facts" and then shouting victory.
I used facts from NIST and LDEO, and they contradict each other. Period.
You keep introducing your own bended vision of reality, and constantly end up with false conclusions.

When WTC 7 is suspicious, all of 9/11 is.
When the Pentagon event is suspicious, all of 9/11 is.
When the Shanksville event is suspicious, all of 9/11 is.

This whole report is launched in a hurry, did nobody show mr. Sunder the videos with the explosion sounds in it? Don't think so.
The firemen at the phone boot were standing outside the collapse zone, and still that explosion was picked up by the microphone as a thundering sound.
So much for his "non-existing" 150 decibel argument.
But he keeps saying that he is not aware of such events, and that is his reason to dismiss explosives. He lives in a state of denial. Or has to do what he have been ordered to do, a few months before the election date of 4 November.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
For readers with logical skills :
This could be the reason why such illogical events take place in the US decision making ranks since 9/11.

georgewashington.blogspot.com...

See his first post about the "Evidence is Growing: Continuity of Government Plan is Currently in Effect."

Do yourself a favor, and read the whole page, especially the long post with several tens of links to false-flag operations conducted by all kinds of governments.


His second page is here:
georgewashington2.blogspot.com...

This is where he posts on Thursday 21 of August about the final NIST report:
Debunking NIST's Conclusions about WTC 7: Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel.

More evidence of explosions in his underlined links in these lines there:


No Explosive Sounds

NIST also said:

"No blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses."

Oh, really?

What about this, this, this, this, this and this?

Moreover, as discussed below, high-tech explosives don't necessarily make the same loud "booms" that dynamite make.

High-Tech Explosive Residues

And why were there residues for high-tech explosives at ground zero (and see this)?


[edit on 31/8/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop

3. Come up with a reasonable explanation for that huge energy event in the WTC 7 graph. You can't.


Wrong, it's quite easy to explain.

You're wrong about the timing. I proved it in my previous post beyond any doubt whatsoever to anyone with a sound mind.

The huge energy event is the internal collapse, as proved by the Cianca photo. The times are perfect in every respect when the correct time is used. You refuse to do so because it would show your agenda driven theory, one that puts your particular political beliefs, before easily seen facts and logical deduction. That's your problem, not mine.

It's like I said weeks ago. I do not, under any circumstance, expect you to admit that you're wrong. Any reasonable person recognizes that I have shot your theory to hell and gone.


The fact that you cannot or perhaps refuse to see this speaks volumes about your state of mind.



posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop


Do yourself a favor, and read the whole page, especially the long post with several tens of links to false-flag operations conducted by all kinds of governments.



See?

This proves my point.

Vacts aren't political, but you are unable to separate your political beliefs from influencing your evaluation of the facts.

Thank you for proving my point.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
You are clearly living in a denser universe than the rest of us.


The huge energy event is the internal collapse, as proved by the Cianca photo. The times are perfect in every respect when the correct time is used.


You mean your corrected time, ain't it?

Aha, you are suddenly a crack seismologist?
You can magically explain the buckling of ONE column causing an energy event several magnitudes bigger than the whole following collapse of all the other columns, beams, girders, floors, exterior columns and thus the mass of the whole building.
Wow, rocket science. You will receive an Honor Doctorate if you can prove that little fable.

And you haven't understand a bit of the final report.
They did not alter the time table I used all these years, to prove them wrong, compared to the LDEO times.

Thus my thesis did not need any correction at all.
It still stands exactly the same as before.

You come up with ridiculous alterations, to fit your vision into a non-existing reality.
Therefore, you are claiming to know the Cianca time stamp better than NIST.
Which has been calculated by them from multiple atomic clocked sources, from multiple videos and photos, not only the Cianca one, which you seem to think.

We will inform them of that, and you can explain your 5 extra-seconds theory to them.
That will be a real eyeopener for you.

Then you will be understanding at last, that you are not fighting my arguments, but theirs.

They used the :46 time stamp as one of their main arguments in their final report, you still don't get that, ain't it?
So I'm waiting to see you prove THEM wrong, that will make it a lot easier for all of us.
Good luck.

I'm taking another vitriol shower in the North of Citgo thread.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Keep on going Sparky. Every time you argue your points after I've destroyed your theory, it just further proves the line in my sig......

Funny how you are unable to explain away my simple and elegant solution to the NIST times and 17 second retention times not agreeing.

Let's take a look again at our explanations.

Yours:

1- LDEO has remained silent/lied

2- perhaps hundreds at NIST have remained silent/lied

3- perhaps hundreds of emergency workers have remained silent/lied about not hearing cutter charges going off at the collapse initiations.

4- Bushiitler/NWO/Bilderbergs/Mossad/CFR/Bohemian Grove rule the world.

5- it's obvious to those that read tarot cards and chicken bones that your explaination makes the most sense.


Mine:

1- tv cameras times aren't as accurate as NIST believes.


Now tell me why your convoluted, complicated, prone to failure, ridiculous explanation is more likely than mine.

You can't, at least not without first throwing the chicken bones to get your answer.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

Unbelievable, you first tried to prove LabTop wrong using NIST's work. You failed at that and now are trying to prove NIST wrong in order to prove LabTop wrong. Do you not see a problem with this? When are you going to be a convert as you said you would earlier if there were video evidence of the explosions? There are plenty of videos out there, several posted by LabTop here already, with explosions from WTC 7. Are you going to go ahead and dismiss this? Oh, I guess you are right. NIST's times were wrong and yours are right so LabTop is wrong.....



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PplVSNWO

1-Unbelievable, you first tried to prove LabTop wrong using NIST's work.

2- prove NIST wrong

3-When are you going to be a convert as you said you would earlier if there were video evidence of the explosions?


1- wrong. I in fact DID prove him wrong. His political agenda/personal issues with BDS prevent him from admitting this. As I predicted.

2- why is this bad? I'm not a defender of NIST, they are not omnipotent, a standard that troofers want to apply to them ( a ridiculous standard, btw). I accept that they can have some things wrong, with the overall thrust of their report being right. If NIST gets the timing wrong, it does not invalidate their findings, it is not critical to their work. However, it DOES invalidate Labtop's piece of junk. Interestingly, troofers apply a strange standard , Labtop included. "You" all disagree with the various NIST findings, calling it a fraud at every level, and yet on THIS issue, because it can be used to your advantage, it is beyond reproach. Only a twisted mind could dismiss the bulk of the report, and then attempt to use a piece of it to prove them wrong. Truly delusional.

3- Liar. I said that I would be a convert if there was videos and/or testimony that corroborate explosives being used at collapse initiation. NIST has scientifically determined how loud and what window/blast effects would be seen if explosives were used. Labtop nor anyone else has produced this evidence. Now, will YOU become a convert?



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
I see perfectly what Seymour is arguing, but to me if we were to take this approach and consider the case solved we would lose any scientific rigor for the results. The videos recorded what they recorded at one specific time and the seismographs recorded events at another specific time, but the only way to know these are the same events is to determine them separately and see if they match. Did the seismographs actually respond 5s before the planes impacted? It seems this would be crucial to determine, as there are reports of "bombs in the basement." I'm not arguing that there were, but to me this bit of evidence would be pretty conclusive, but it's not. (I know it's also argued that no other physical evidence of explosives was found but I also read about how much other evidence was not found, was passed over, and/or disregarded, i.e. bodies, pools of molten metal, steel respectively)

If we are to argue that NIST's adjusted times are wrong and that they pressured LDEO to change their interpretation of their graphs, to me, as a layman, the first questions that would pop into my mind are: a) what else did NIST get wrong, and b) who else did they manipulate to concur with their wrong data. I believe one of the arguments by "truthers" is that the NIST reports were manipulated to fit their preconceived conclusions, so to me, to find out who's correct, the best thing to do is try and determine what's correct and what's not, Which in itself is a pretty odd thing to have to do for such "conclusive" reports.

I've taken time off to read more of the report and besides the points I've found earlier in this thread, here are some other problems I'm having:

1. The nine videos - they said they had 16 videos and they chose 9 to analyze (Why only 9?) but it seems to me they did not include the video that appears to have captured the most. In FEMA's report Chapter 5 Figures 5-21 and 5-22 on page 5-25 they included two frames from a video that appears to capture everything NIST's nine videos captured but it also looks like it captured the lower floors. I don't think they didn't select this one based on a quality issue as it appears to be equal to, if not better, quality than their Camera 2 video. I'm currently hunting for this video on the internet as I've never seen it before.... if anybody knows of a link, please post it.

2. Audio Characteristics Based on Video Soundtracks - I hope they release more, as this to me is very inconclusive. The only thing I get out of it is that different cameras recorded different sounds. I assume their second interview clip showing people responding to a sound from WTC7 is the NBC video of Banfield(?) and the mother and child but I'm not sure. They say the people were responding to the sound of the east penthouse collapsing, but did the camera also capture this sound? did they analyze this sound if it was captured? If it's not captured, then why, since the people heard it? Also in their blast analysis they calculate the sound for no buildings in the way but here they say there's "numerous buildings" between it and the cameras. Where's their acoustical analysis for echoing effects? The reason I ask this is, there is a video of the 2nd impact that's taken pretty close to the building... we hear the plane approach but you don't hear the sound of the impact at all, not even echoes. So I don't think it's enough to say the sound would have echoed everywhere. I'll find the link and post it.

Need to continue in another post



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
3. I'm not sure if this is included in the report as I haven't read it all yet In this released tape, www.radiofirehouse.com... , 15 minutes in it's clearly heard (if you turn it way up) "I have a progress report from Division 1 Chief Harring(?) ... okay, we removed the trapped member from off(?) 5 World Trade Center... uh, there's no longer a collapse .. uh.. condition in 7 World Trade Center, we're going to be operating there..." It's interesting they thought it was a collapse situation, then they didn't, then they did again. If you read section 2.2.3 in their main report it gives the impression that from 11:30 on they always considered it would collapse. I also listened to the end of this clip but never heard of them moving again away from WTC7 or any other reports, but it ends early. In section 6.6 of Vol 1 they mention the people showing up about the time of the recording but they don't mention the fact it was considered a collapse situation before hand, then it wasn't, and then it was again.

4. Also in section 6.6 they include the quote "and we had put a transit on that, and we are pretty sure she [WTC7] was going to collapse" Did they include this information from the transit in the report? This information would be definitive proof of the damage. I haven't found it yet, but I'm still reading.

Added after I read Seymour's latest post, as it took me awhile to write this whole thing: I don't think we should so easily wipe away any errors of NIST on the seismograph and videos. These are physical evidence, of which there is not much. To me that means it would have and always will have a greater degree of accuracy then simulations and/or approximations, i.e. the removed fire protection, amount of damage resulting from the impact. I'm willing to accept their estimates of these, but then for me to turn around and say they are wildly off on the physical evidence just doesn't sit right. Is their 5s adjusted time right? I'm not sure but they can darn well check. Go examine the networks' computers, find out exactly when they were synchronized with NIST's time server on that day. If they're anything like the servers I administer they'd have had log files for this (probably not now though). If they were off, correct them and figure out the exact time. Maybe they did this, but if they did, they should state it in their report. If they didn't, why not? So to me their simulations could be correct, there is really no way to be absolutely verified, but their interpretation of the physical evidence should have been absolutely verified and should always be able to be absolutely verified (with the proper error of margin). Put another way much more succintly: if they don't get the physical facts right, why should I assume they get the estimates right?

And just to be clear, as I never really stated my position before, some days I'm a "truther" and other days I'm a "believer." The only thing that I'm conclusive about is the response to 911 was seriously flawed and our "leaders" are all phoney and incompetent, but I've believed that ever since I was politically aware, so nothing new there. The only advantage I really see in any of this would be for me to drop all of this and get on with my other projects.



posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
1- Did the seismographs actually respond 5s before the planes impacted?

2-If we are to argue that NIST's adjusted times are wrong and that they pressured LDEO to change their interpretation of their graphs, to me, as a layman, the first questions that would pop into my mind are: a) what else did NIST get wrong,

3-and b) who else did they manipulate to concur with their wrong data.

4-I believe one of the arguments by "truthers" is that the NIST reports were manipulated to fit their preconceived conclusions,

5- 1. The nine videos -



1- they absolutely did for the 4 tower events when you use the final times and Kim's 17 seconds. And like I've noted, the exact same relationship exists for 7. So what seems more likely, a vast conspiracy that has bombs going off in all cases exactly 5 seconds too early, or that the adjustment is wrong?

2- it depends on what can be shown. If it is a non-critical to their findings, like the absolute times, it has no effect on their report.

3- this would necessitate a vast conspiracy on many levels.

4- that's what they say, but it's a lie. NIST did in fact change variables in some of their models, but not to fit their preconceived notions of what happened. They fit the models to agree with observable facts. For instance plane impacts. They manipulated speed and angle of impact to agree with observed events like landing gear exiting the far side of the building - so if a simulation DIDN'T result in that, more than likely the simulation is wrong, agreed? Another is fire temps. The temps that windows will break is a known and observable factor. So if their sims didn't result with an agreement with what can be seen, then the sim is wrong and fire temps/fuel load must be adjusted.

5- have you been using the compilation on ATS. I understand it is excellent.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join