Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

page: 18
3
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

1. I don't think we can use the 2 collapses in the case your arguing as their times have large discrepancies between NIST time and LDEO's which is being explained by the fall time for the debris. There's much room for error as it could be argued that the waves started 7s after collapse rather than 12s in the case of WTC1 or 3s rather than 8s in WTC2. I haven't found solid proof of the delay time independent of their posted times. With everything going on in the collapse I find it hard to prove this even if they had clear video.... did the first piece of debris hitting the ground start the waves, or was it the second or third? Was it actually pieces hitting the side of WTC2 or WTC1? or was it something else? I don't know where to begin to determine this.

So that leaves me only the two impacts to compare with which I find perfectly plausible for explosions if there were a conspiracy. Remember with errors of margins it could be anywhere from 3 to 5 seconds so saying that something happened from 3 to 5 seconds in three cases doesn't strike me as unusual (if it was exactly 5 seconds on each, I would). It may not be likely, but that's the whole reason I'm looking into this is to try to get rid of the "likely" arguments and come to more solid conclusions.

2. I agree that the actual times doesn't have an effect of their theory of what happened after the start time. But if it's proven that their actual times are off, to me it says their facts are wrong so I question their other facts and estimates or if they are absolutely correct that there are other possibilities of what took place, i.e. explosives or something else. That's why I think this is crucial to get right.

3. If we are to assume their times are off and they already manipulated LDEO to change their times, how vast of a conspiracy is that already? Do we consider all of NIST in on this manipulation of LDEO? And all of LDEO and all of the other people in the other seismic stations? My first instinct is this isn't a conspiracy, but the fact most people in these organizations didn't notice as it was no concern to their area of interest and the people who did the manipulation were biased beforehand and didn't look at the evidence with a clear enough mind. But couldn't we also apply this scenario to other aspects of the report without it having to be converted into a vast conspiracy?

Also, I'm not worried about vastness...exactly what is vast? 5000 people? 10000 people? Out of a nation of 300 million do we consider this vast? I certainly believe there are groups in the US this size or larger out there that would do something like this to overthrow the government if they could (i.e. neo nazis). I like to keep the case of the Smedley Butler case from the '30s always in mind ( en.wikipedia.org... ) I believe this event was true. Not saying the neo nazis did 911 but I do see the potential for a group to do it. Even if it were determined to be a conspiracy from inside there would still be a whole lot of work to pin it on anyone in the government.

4. It's my understanding that the most severe model for WTC 1 still didn't result in the landing gear exiting the other side, which was found at the corner of West and Rector. I read this here: www.abovetopsecret.com... and the pdf from NIST is here: www.911proof.com... It seems that NIST is claiming that the contents inside would result in uncertainties which resulted in this not happening in their model. I agree about the window breakage on the fire simulation, but how far would that translate into the interior of the building? IF a window breaks how far into the building can we assume that temperature reached? 10ft.? 50ft? What exactly does it say about their interior simulation (i.e. core) if it matches on the exterior visually? Are there other scenarios that would result in the same visual result? (all just rhetorical questions)

5. No... I didn't know there was a compilation here. I've been here for a while and still don't know half of what this site does.




posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

NIcon: 1. I don't think we can use the 2 collapses in the case your arguing as their times have large discrepancies between NIST time and LDEO's which is being explained by the fall time for the debris.


NIcon, that's pure BS what they (NIST?) try to sell there. If you ever stood beside a pile-driver driving piles in the ground, for foundation construction, you have felt the shocks through your soles.
So they want us to sell that the whole top impacting the rest of the building, and then progressively destructing that building, didn't send a huge seismic signal into the underlaying bedrock?

That's a straight out fairytale, meant for the ignorant masses.

I hope you don't fall for it, how on earth could a progressive collapse not send signals, until 12 seconds later the first exterior panels hit the ground? See the BBC camera man running while filming backwards.

The NIST theory of tower destruction is based on a progressive gravitational collapse. How could an exterior panel, dwarfing in mass compared to the whole structure falling THROUGH itself like they said, be the first seismic signal, 12 seconds after collapse started?
Do you see their complete senseless lie?

It seems like you are just starting to investigate the day of 9-11, so it would be an eyeopener, if you visited one of the best history sites on the Net.
It's constantly correcting their data, when new info emerges for a historic timeline of before, during and after 9-11:

www.historycommons.org...
Their intentions:

The History Commons website is an experiment in open-content civic journalism. It provides a space for people to conduct grassroots-level investigations on any issue, providing the public with a useful tool to conduct oversight of government and private sector entities. It is collaborative and thus allows individuals to build upon the work of others. Each investigation is organized as a “project,” which is made up of at least one timeline. You can contribute to a project by adding new events to the timeline associated with that project. All submissions are peer-reviewed by other users before being published.


Then visit this link for a complete timeline of 9-11:

www.historycommons.org...

It is stocked to the neck with mainstream press article links, to build the timeline on. You can't say that they use biased sites.
Still, a worrying stance of corruption rises from this pile of official information, when all these decades of momentum leading to 9-11 and its later repercussions for all individuals on earth become obvious.

Sorry for the time it will cost you, but it is definitely worthwhile, one of the most unbiased historical truth seeking sites around.

[edit on 3/9/08 by LaBTop]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 

LaBTop, I'm not falling for it one bit, I'm just using their arguments in the different modes of thinking that I'm going through.

In fact, I think that was one of the first things I questioned you about when I first ran into you months ago. I didn't understand then, and I still don't understand now, how they can argue that the planes severing up to 10 interior and 35 exterior columns could register but when the collapse destroyed the remaining 205 exterior and 37 interior columns, it wouldn't. I have always wondered why LDEO couldn't detect the beginning of the collapses, especially now with this new report. It seems NIST is saying that column 79 buckled 1.3s before the east penthouse kink, so that's definitely what they are matching up to the seismic event (when you use their new questionable 14s delay time). But it seems that the only thing that happened up to that point was a partial collapse of floors 6-13 which impacted only the 5th floor. So now they are arguing LDEO could register this relatively very minor event that didn't reach the ground, but, at the same time, could not register the massive collapse of the towers before the debris hit the ground. This sounds pretty ludicrous to me.

Also, yes I'm relatively new at seriously looking into this. I've been casually exploring it for a few years but haven't really had time to be serious until a little while ago since I started working at home and got rid of a daily 3 hour commute.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

I didn't understand then, and I still don't understand now, how they can argue that the planes severing up to 10 interior and 35 exterior columns could register but when the collapse destroyed the remaining 205 exterior and 37 interior columns, it wouldn't.



You're falling for Labtop's lies.

The beginning of the collapses are indeed caught on the graphs, and have roughly the same magnitude as the collisions.

It's just that exterior panels hitting the ground resulted in such a large event, they had to move the scale of the graph from 10nM to 100nM. 7's collapse was on the 10nM scale. Labtop lays this all out in his theory on the other website. He even expanded the graphs so that you could see the beginning of the collapses. It's just about the only thing he gets right.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

Seymour, it's not LaBTop's "lies" I'm falling for, it's NIST's explanations that I'm not falling for. I read over my last post and I suppose I should have emphasized more that it was NIST's arguments/reasoning that I don't agree with.

When someone reads in NCSTAR 1-5A, "When the times required for falling debris to reach the ground are subtracted from the LEDO (sic) times, the collapse times also agree within the reported uncertainties." the only conclusion one could reach is that they are arguing that the first 9s and 11s did not register. Or when one reads in the newly released NCSTAR 1-9 vol2 pg 315/382 "a seismic signal, though, is not generated until a substantial portion of the building debris hits the ground" that's the only conclusion we can reach from their argument. That's crystal clear they are saying the first part of the collapses did not register.

Put another way: In 2003 LDEO reanalyzed their readings and found a wave with a 10s delay arriving four seconds prior to their previous time on WTC2. So if they were analyzing the time before their original start time, using NIST's reasoning, my first question would be, did they still not find any waves from the collapse of the building (rather than when debris hit the ground)? Was this 10s delayed wave all there is? Why is this? Couldn't LDEO analyze it on the 10nM scale and find these previous waves from the building collapse?

So to me it's very questionable why NIST would be comfortable with this discrepancy in times and just say that the first part of the collapses did not register. It's also questionable to me why LDEO is pinpointing their time if there is activity beforehand.

Edited: fixed spelling and punctuation errors

[edit on 4-9-2008 by NIcon]



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NIcon
 


Even the airliner impacts supposedly registered on the seismic charts, and that represents forces being applied to the columns at a 90 degree angle from where the energy would have to be transferred to reach the bedrock and produce signals.

Does it make sense that significant seismic energy is supposedly registered when columns are struck by a smaller mass moving shear to the columns, but not when a larger mass drops and should cause a lot more compression in that very same direction? For everyone here that is brain dead, the answer is "no," not "yes."



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

That's crystal clear they are saying the first part of the collapses did not register.



Ahh, you're talking about 7 then.

I was talking about the towers.

The collapses can clearly be seen before the ext columns begin hitting the ground on Labtop's expanded graph. And they ARE similar in magnitude as the collisions.

LDEO did do another graph that shows it too, but I'm in no mood right now to go find it for you. It's out there though.

If you REALLY need to see it in order to see what I'm talking about, I'll look for it later.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Does it make sense.........



Wow, an argument from incredulity.

This holds absolutely NO weight to the rational.

That's why these kinds of arguments are "proof" to troofers.....



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

Seymour, no, this is what they are arguing for the two towers collapsing. Here's the full paragraph from NCSTAR 1-9 vol 2 page 315/382:

"When the current estimates for the time of impact of WTC 1 and WTC 2 by the first and second aircraft, respectively, are compared to the videographic evidence presented in NCSTAR 1-5A and Table 5-3 of Chapter 5 of this report, the agreement is within 2s, as can be seen by comparing the first two entries of column 4 to the first two entries of column 5 in Table B-2. The times attributed to the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2, however, differ between the seismic study and NCSTAR 1-5A by about 10s (compare entries 3 and 4 of column 4 to entries 3 and 4 of column 5 in Table B-2). The reason for the discrepancy is that NCSTAR 1-5A used the sudden tilting of the upper portion of the towers to signal collapse initiation; a seismic signal, though, IS NOT GENERATED UNTIL a substantial portion of the building debris hits the ground. If this time interval is accounted for, the NCSTAR 1-5A times compare well with the seismic origin times."

So that's crystal clear to me. They are claiming the first 10s of the collapse of both towers DID NOT GENERATE ANY seismic activity. So NIST is completely ignoring all that activity you see on LaBTop's graph. It does not exist for them.

And now they are claiming with WTC 7 that the partial collapse of only 8 floors, which only fell to the fifth floor (and did not hit the ground yet), DID GENERATE seismic activity.

Also, they are in this same document on the same page saying that the seismic activity for WTC 7 started 10s before their time of collapse initiation. They also claim that the east penthouse started 7s before the same time. So that means the seismic activity started 3s before the east penthouse started to descend. I'll leave it up to you to take a look at what they said happened 3s before the east penthouse descended. (hint: it's not as big a plane crashing, nor is it as big as a tower collapsing)



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

"When the current estimates for the time of impact of WTC 1 and WTC 2 by the first and second aircraft, respectively, are compared to the videographic evidence presented in NCSTAR 1-5A and Table 5-3 of Chapter 5 of this report, the agreement is within 2s, as can be seen by comparing the first two entries of column 4 to the first two entries of column 5 in Table B-2. The times attributed to the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2, however, differ between the seismic study and NCSTAR 1-5A by about 10s (compare entries 3 and 4 of column 4 to entries 3 and 4 of column 5 in Table B-2). The reason for the discrepancy is that NCSTAR 1-5A used the sudden tilting of the upper portion of the towers to signal collapse initiation; a seismic signal, though, IS NOT GENERATED UNTIL a substantial portion of the building debris hits the ground. If this time interval is accounted for, the NCSTAR 1-5A times compare well with the seismic origin times."

So that's crystal clear to me. They are claiming the first 10s of the collapse of both towers DID NOT GENERATE ANY seismic activity. So NIST is completely ignoring all that activity you see on LaBTop's graph. It does not exist for them.



Context is everything. Reread that paragraph again, and think of context as it relates to Dr Kim.

What NIST is saying is that the reason there was such a large discrepancy between the collapse initiation times is that for Dr Kim, the preceeding energy did not exist.

THEY don't ignore it, Dr Kim did in his first estimation of the collapse initiation.



posted on Sep, 5 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Seymour Butz
 

Seymour, Dr. Kim ignored them in his second estimation, too, and NIST was still satisfied with his results. Even with Dr. Kim's new analysis under the direction of NIST (i.e. when he was working for the NIST investigation) when he found this new 10s delayed wave 4s prior to his original time, he still did not report any other activity for this time. So they didn't exist for Dr. Kim and they didn't exist for NIST because they accepted and published his results.

You say NIST didn't ignore this activity but I have yet to find where they mention it. In fact in their FAQ from August 2006 where they are offering evidence that the seismic record does not show signs of explosives, they still do not mention what happened in this approx. 10s time:

"The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers." - from wtc.nist.gov...

Notice how they talk about about "10s after" and "prior to" but no where do they explain the actual 10s. This would have been a perfect place to mention any activity they did find during this 10s.

In the above I say "they" as, during Dr. Kim's second analysis, I'm considering him as a part of the NIST investigation. Or as they put it in NCSTAR 1-9 vol2 pg 311/382 "The Investigation Team attempted to extract as much information as possible from these signals, which in some cases were not much greater than background noise." So it seems they considered him onboard the NIST ship.

Also interesting right after the above quote it says "This report documents the activities performed by LDEO, including the analysis of the seismic records, the characterization of the observable seismic signals, and the association of identifiable seismic signals with possible collapse events using information available at NIST." So Dr. Kim was comparing his records with NIST's data, so he knew exactly when the towers started collapsing and he still did not find seismic activity at the initation of collapse?

So basically I'm saying that the activity you, LaBTop and I all see on the graphs is not being reported by NIST through Dr. Kim's work, therefore it doesn't exist for either of them. If NIST was aware of this activity, why would they publish Dr. Kim's work which ignores it? Did they not do a review of his work?

To me this is a problem. They find signals for both plane impacts and supposedly only 8 partial floors collapsing down to the fifth floor but not when 12 and 29 total floors are compressing the remaining structure of the towers down into the bedrock six stories below ground. Mighty strange indeed.




new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join