Did NIST Edit WTC 7 Footage To Hide Evidence Of Implosion?

in the first couple of seconds of this video (right hand side of collapse) there is definate outward movement of debris going up the right hand side, is this not indicative of a controlled collapse ?

Can't be detected in the OP vid as it looks over-exposed.

reply to post by GenRadek


Hey is there any chance your going to address the op? Sorry if I missed it, but I have yet to see you address the original op regarding NIST editing videos.

Did NIST edit the footage to hide implosion??? My opinion is no, I think the timer was added by NIST to study the collapse. But that doesn't mean I buy the official story I just think Alex Jones jumped the gun on this one.

We haven't begun to scratch the surface of all the videos and photos that have been obtained by a FOIA request by dedicated 9/11 researchers. This should be a treasure trove of new information.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Did NIST edit the footage to hide implosion??? My opinion is no, I think the timer was added by NIST to study the collapse.

I think the point of the OP was that the footage was edited to remove the penthouse collapse - I for one can't understand why they did that as it backs up NISTs theory on a central collapse prior to the complete collapse unless it was indicative of a controlled collapse as so often concluded by theorists.

Audio was also edited out of some of the released video's prior to this FOI release.

I think it's highly questionable that an organisation tasked with conducting a scientific analysis puts out edited footage at all - if they had nothing to hide why do that ?

reply to post by digitalf

My opinion is that it is far more likely they were studying the footage and did whatever they felt necessary for that purpose. I could be wrong but that is my take thus far. As far as editing the audio I will leave that for the experts. I think much more will be revealed as the photos and video are released.

However I will note there was a delay in obtaining the info. NIST ignored the request at first and finally were forced to release the documents. This could have given them the time necessary to remove incriminating evidence.

reply to post by ANOK


No ANOK, all you did was show how an implosion brings down a building. You did not explain how it is impossible to have the same reaction from structural failure from fires, at all. All you essentially said was, Because I said so.

And again, what makes YOU the specialist ANOK? Just because you say so, means diddly squat, and showing me a site about implosions means squat because this was not an implosion. But what I gave you was a long, emails, and phone numbers to call and tell them yourself how they are all wrong about WTC7. I'm sure they will be tickled pink to know that all their years of work and knowledge pail in comparison of your "BECAUSE I SAID SO!"

The people who don't question 9/11 can't come to grips that their government or the "good old U.S.A." could be part of such a terrible tragedy. People just like to continue with their daily life and avoid anything that may frighten them, or burst their bubble of every good thing they always believed in. The people of the U.S. put their heads in the sand. Until something drastically affects their pocket book or life style, they feel everything is fine.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by ANOK

 

No ANOK, all you did was show how an implosion brings down a building. You did not explain how it is impossible to have the same reaction from structural failure from fires, at all. All you essentially said was, Because I said so.

Oh dear, again you show your failure to understand, or read because I DID explain this in every post about this.

I'll try just for you one more time...

Objects always fall to the path of least resistance, do you understand that?

The path of least resistance for the outer walls of a building would be outwards, where there is no resistance from the building they are attached to. OK, with me so far?

So IF a buildings collapse is uncontrolled, like from fire, the outer walls are going to fall to the path of least resistance, outwards.

The only way to get the walls to fall inwards is by causing the center of the building to fall first, then the outer walls are dropped. Timed correctly the falling of the center of the building creates a space, and the outer walls are pulled inwards to land ON TOP of the rest of the building.

It's all in the TIMING, if the timing is not right the building will not land in it's footprint. It is the hardest form of controlled demolition to accomplish.

Seeing as you refuse to click the link and read...

Sometimes, though, a building is surrounded by structures that must be preserved. In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.

Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.

science.howstuffworks.com...

The amazing thing is you think it can happen naturally, this is what shows you do not understand physics, or you are just trolling. You have been asked for years now to show evidence that a building can collapse that way from fire. You fail because there isn't one, period!

If it was as easy to do as you want to think by fire alone why do they go to all that bother?

Now stop playing ignorant...

[edit on 9/4/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


Oh not this claptrap again that you are spouting without having a clue. Yes object fall through the least amount of resistance. I guess that means that the interior of WTC7 has already collapsed to allow for the rest of it to collapse into itself eh? How would you be able to tell a structural failure collapse of a building from an implosion?

Now again, asking for the fourth time, are your remotely aware of the design of WTC7? Are you sure that the outer walls would just flop over just like that when the interior collapses? Does that means that the walls were not interconnected to the interior? Why couldnt the interior collapses bring in the walls itself? Once again, your limited knowledge of building collapses is showing. And I know you have no clue to how WTC7 was designed.

I know full well how an explosive demolition works. The question is, do you? Are you seeing what is constantly missing ANOK from WTC7? I'm not hearing any detonations of a series of demo charges going off prior to collapse. Oh I know, there were quite a few explosions heard all over ground zero after the collapses of One and Two. But ANOK, arent you forgetting something? Since when does an explosion hours earlier bring down a building "in its footpring" as you put it? You are aware that a demolition has a whole series of detonations seconds before the actual movement of the building, correct? Where was this at Seven? Random explosives going off at random times isnt very controlled is it? What is to stop it from going earlier?

ANOK, this comes to another question, when exactly did they plant all these magic charges? Since you know so much about just how explosive demolitions are suppose to go, and how buildings are suppose to fall, well then you are also suppose to know how they can plant explosives all over without a soul noticing? And better yet, keeping them safe from massive fires and heat burning inside for hours on end.

GenRadek, perhaps I can lead you in the right direction.

GenRadek :Oh and that video you speak of with the firefighters supposedly hearing an explosion from WTC7, didnt you notice how the audio of the video itself is in mono while the explosion itself is in stereo? How does that happen VRYA?

That's an unconfirmed theory from one of your colleagues, who I invited to show me his proof two months ago. Did not see him showing up with it until now.
He based his THEORY on another video, which was duplicated and posted on YouTube by a planted debunker, where some audio was altered by him in the duplicated video, but it was definitely NOT in the first, original online one.
The little church, near the WTC-complex, video.

To me, the whole posting of that duplicated and falsified video, and the following debunking, stinks like a combination set-up.
Post a false video, debunk it, and shout HURRAY, see, we debunked that whole video.

Sadly for the Debunkers, it was quickly revealed that is was a false video they debunked.
As I said, I strongly suspect the Debunkers to have posted the false one.
So, please do not post unconfirmed PRIVATE theories as if they were true, in the future.

Secondly, did you miss all the talk about thermite explosives on the web in the past years?
Harrit and Jones : thermite in WTC dust.
www.bentham.org...

You can construct for yourself a thermobaric explosive cutting device based on thermite, if you follow the instructions in one of my posts (search ATS for "Hellhound" and "LaBTop") and combine it with my thermobaric posts describing how the Russians flattened the steel and concrete buildings of the capital of Chechnya. This device will explode and will cut like a knife through butter through all four thick WTC 7 steel columns where it hung or stood in the center position of each four columns, disguised as a stainless steel ash-tree or steel plant-pot or a hanging big lamp or any other disguised object like f.ex an (empty) computer box.

Its explosive gaseous cloud will be shaped like a disk with sharp edges, until it is ignited by the thermobaric spring coiled device in the bottom of the container in the center of the explosive cloud. Then it will explode and expand with many times the supersonic speed of sound, cutting the now thermite reaction white-hot circle-formed front through any steel barrier it meets, like the WTC 7 columns.

Imagine now the even more devastating capabilities of nano-aluminum thermobaric devices in the US Army arsenal.
These kinds of thermobaric thermite explosive devices will have a very low frequency audio ear-print.
Meaning, any outside observers would only feel it in their stomachs, but with all the loud noises Manhattan was drenched in that day, its audio ear-print would be far too low to be noticed by many observers which were all send away several blocks around WTC 7.
And it was positioned inside a still intact high rise with double glass windows and thick insulation panels on its walls.
(Btw, was it really necessary for all intact police, fire department, ambulance and other aid services cars to keep their idiotic damn loud sirens exploding this noise cushion around southern Manhattan all day long? For sure very convenient for the perpetrators of 911, to hide all these low frequency explosion signals.)

This WTC 7 situation was not at all like in all these online demolitions, where all buildings were stripped naked to facilitate a smooth demolition sequence. And thus all explosion sounds are easily discernible, and all dust spits out of the empty floors, with their wall panels removed.
In WTC 7, column cutting devices would expel only small amounts of dust, which would be cushioned off by many dry wall dividing walls inside the building.

When you follow NIST's conclusion that the global collapse was initiated by the failure of just one column, then why would it be so outlandish to propose an investigation of intentional demolition of this one column?

Thirdly, did you miss the implications of that FEMA seismic diagram posted in here?

i50.tinypic.com...


How on earth do you think gas tanks from cars could have the same seismic footprint as a plane impact?
Because those 20 minutes inter-spaced explosions AFTER both WTC collapses, recorded by seismic stations all around New York, did have at least the same amplitude as the plane impacts !
And the 11:15:04 EDT ""further collapse"" (yep, for sure! NOT.) is a few magnitudes more massive than the first plane impact.
They were really trying to bring down WTC 7 with any means possible.

And again, gas lines are forbidden in high rises! Why do you think all the diesel tanks installed were for? And those were even allowed on much too high floors in WTC 7.

There were no gas explosions after the collapses. There was no gas to explode, all gas lines for south Manhattan were cut-off early in the morning already (around 10:00) by the CON-EDison operators inspecting the CON-ED station at the base of the north side of WTC 7.
BEFORE both collapses!
They also cut the Electricity Main lines, and then all electricity for WTC 7 came from the diesel powered generators, that's why you see in some videos of its loading docks basements some faint electric lights in the ceilings. Which were gone after the second collapse.

Hess and Jennings also complained already about the lack of common electric lights in WTC 7 when they entered it after nine o'clock, and found the OEM offices on two floors, already evacuated. Very strange indeed.
Who knew those towers were prone to collapse? The two NYPD helicopter pilots who warned for the first time that WTC 2 its top started to lean, radioed that to the ground MUCH later than the WTC 7 evacuation. And that warning was the FIRST structural sign that eventually the towers could come down.

Major (edit: Mayor ) Giuliano and especially his First Assistant from that day should be one of the first to stand trial. Since they used those pilot reports as their excuse to give the order to evacuate WTC 7.
A complete and utter lie.
That order was already given much earlier, before Hess and Jennings entered the OEM offices to find them EMPTY, at about 09:30 AM EDT. Just after the second plane impact!
See Barry Jenning's last interview with Darryl Avery before he died (or was murdered). YouTube.


[edit on 5/9/10 by LaBTop]

Fourthly,

GeneralRadek : And again ANOK, its already been explained to you. When columns 79 I believe failed, causing the penthouse to collapse into WTC7, where do you think it went? Fell down and began the internal collapses. A few seconds after that, the exterior shell fell over and into the hole left by the internal collapses earlier. Again, are you or are you not aware of just how WTC7 was designed and those pesky transfer trusses used for the floors over the Coned substation's levels? Also recall the fact that according to seismic data, the building was having internal collapses for 18 seconds in total. A building is not a solid block that will fall in one unit. We are dealing with steel beams, steel bolt connections, welds, they are not going to all in one solid piece move down. They are going to deform, fail, putting more stresses on the surrounding steel sections until they all start failing, and that is called a global collapse.

It was 8.2 seconds between the first visible on video, dent in the eastern penthouse on the roof of WTC 7, and the onset of GLOBAL WTC 7 collapse. Not 18 seconds! Always try to get your facts right. I admit in the heat of the debate to type too fast too sometimes. But this kind of facts are too important to get changed by a typing error, and then repeated endlessly by ignorant posters.

And did you forget this evidence of more than 2 seconds of physically proven WTC 7 free fall which was reluctantly admitted by NIST themselves :
WTC7: Nist Finally Admits Freefall (Part I-II-III) :

I : www.youtube.com...



II : www.youtube.com...



III : www.youtube.com...



And did you realize yet, that we all saw the full outlined outer shell of WTC 7 sink down as a whole block, the main roof and all visible sides in the videos did not DEFORM !
That means that all internal columns and trusses at several, much lower floors were gone, while the whole outer shell steel wall thundered down.
Otherwise we should have seen parts of columns sticking out above the demolished roof-front.

It looked as if a cook quickly chopped all underlaying parts away with a big chopping knife.
Like cutting and slinging away the bottom parts of an erect cucumber.
In a real natural internal columns collapse, the outer shell walls should have been sucked inside the building, by the trusses still connected to the failing columns.

But we saw a nearly perfect intact outer-wall block sink down to earth.
Only a few windows shattered, but the walls and corners kept their structural appearance all the visible way down.
Like an empty paper bag falling, like when its bottom part was instantly burned away.
And that's natural?
Common, show me ONE NATURAL collapse of a steel building reacting like this.
You'll never find one, only demolished ones.


Seismic evidence :

1. A New Study of the Seismic Signals on September 11, 2001 in New York -- Signs of the Times News :
Seismic Signals Reveal Explosives Were Used at the WTC on 9/11, according to geophysicist André Rousseau (*) Doctor André Rousseau, former researcher in geophysics at CNRS and specialist in sound waves, presents us with the results of his analysis :

www.sott.net...

2. My own numerous seismic posts on ATS. (search for "seismic" "LaBTop").

3. This is my seismic evidence page at my ATS Media pages with a lot of diagrams and pictures :

Seismic evidence gallery by LaBTop

Look at the first diagram in the top left corner, LDEOseismic-discrep-WTC7-LT :

Click this original size, big diagram:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9de0eb1e6e68.jpg[/atsimg]

This is a small example of it, so no one can say they can't find it :

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7cc10dc5bd2.jpg[/atsimg]

It was made by me many years ago, and please explain to me how on earth debris from inside WTC 7 which hit the ground inside WTC 7 could have been present at all and have made the FIRST, biggest amplitude seismic signal, at a point in time when in New York no one could see anything changing in the appearance of the outside shell of WTC 7, so also not any movement of the eastern penthouse roof or the western penthouse roof? Thus, no POSSIBLE debris launched inside WTC 7 to impact the ground, which is of course a dumb proposal, since then all the internal structure would resist the downfall from parts of a column inside the building and slowing it down, like a cushion of smaller steel parts.

Your whole quote above is semi-scientifically hogwash, and I invite you to prove me wrong regarding any seismic evidence covering all three WTC towers, and especially the WTC 7 seismic evidence, the most damning to the officially spewed out, clearly false 911 story.

And this is where it all began, the officially timestamped photo by NIST, never retracted :

File name: wtc7penthousenist :

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fbbe69122acc.gif[/atsimg]

And that one, combined with all the LDEO information, conclusively proves that 911 was an inside job. Because with that OFFICIALLY APPROVED timestamp we can connect at last all LDEO seismic diagrams timestamps with the NIST videos and photos timestamps.

Be brave, try to counter my arguments, and those of Doctor André Rousseau.
I only used the NIST provided Cianca photo with NIST's timestamp on it (east WTC 7 penthouse dent forming), all LDEO's information web pages and seismic diagrams, and NIST's own published final research results. And a few NIST research items that magically disappeared after they saw my seismic research pages.

Board Message :
Keep opposing all the bended and twisted, illogical and completely invented arguments-from-nowhere from the believers.
Keep confronting the official story believers, do not sink away in lethargy, because every day, more people start seeing all the evidence through our eyes.

DO NOT GIVE UP HOPE.
WISDOM will WIN in the end.

[edit on 5/9/10 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop

It was 8.4 seconds between the first visible on video, dent in the eastern penthouse on the roof of WTC 7, and the onset of GLOBAL WTC 7 collapse. Not 18 seconds! Always try to get your facts right.

sorry but you jumped the gun a little there. Notice what I stated in bold?

Also recall the fact that according to seismic data, the building was having internal collapses for 18 seconds in total.

Seismic data as reported and recorded and used in NIST's analysis.
So that would mean it was collapsing for about 18 seconds in total, from first interior collapses to final debris impacting the ground.

Also, so you are saying that we should ignore the rest of the collapse after the global collapse has started? no offense, but why is that? And my response to the 2 seconds of "freefall" is so what? I guess that means that somewhere in there the structural failure cause a whole section below to let go and allow the building to fall without much problem. However, LaBTop, I am sure that you are at least aware of the design peculiarity with WTC7? In particular the transfer trusses over the ConEd substation creating that large open space at the base? Couldnt that open space been responsible? I dont see why NIST should look into it becuase they were interested into what caused the collapse to start, not what cause which piece to go where how fast. That is just nit-picking and the equivalent of asking how many toilet seats were up in men's room on the 34th floor in the NW corner of the building. Does NIST worry and wonder abotu that "freefall" period? Not really.

Also, that seismic data is showing the building's interior failing. Wouldnt that send shocks of the interior failing? The steel beams snapping? Some impacting the ground already? Why is it that not one seismologist has discovered any explosive traits in the data? Not one. I'm not interested in the armchair sleuths and what they discover in their mom's basement while staring at YT videos claiming they "found" evidence of bombs. I'm talking about actual professional seismologists who could interpret the data properly. Why arent they mentioning any explosive signatures?

The time for convincing people of the reality of 9-11 is probably obsolete at this point. I have had these discussions with about every person I can get a hold of and in the end most are too mentally lazy to even think about the implications.

Your attitude is ridiculous. Think of all the kids that were 9 years old when this happened. they weren't old enough to either comprehend or vote when it happened, now they are old enough for both.

GenRadek : Why is it that not one seismologist has discovered any explosive traits in the data? Not one. I'm not interested in the armchair sleuths and what they discover in their mom's basement while staring at YT videos claiming they "found" evidence of bombs. I'm talking about actual professional seismologists who could interpret the data properly. Why arent they mentioning any explosive signatures?

AHA. YOU CAN NOT COMPREHEND and READ !
Did you really miss this and OBVIOUSLY did not READ it ??? :

""A New Study of the Seismic Signals on September 11, 2001 in New York -- Signs of the Times News :
Seismic Signals Reveal Explosives Were Used at the WTC on 9/11, according to geophysicist André Rousseau (*)
Doctor André Rousseau, former researcher in geophysics at CNRS and specialist in sound waves, presents us with the results of his analysis :
www.sott.net... .""

I'll give you his professional conclusion :

Conclusion

At the moment of the impact by the planes on the Twin Towers and their collapse, as well as that of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are only created by brief impulses, and (2) that low frequencies are associated with an energy (magnitude) that is comparable to a seismic event, these waves undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes' impact and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude was insufficient to be recorded 34 km away, and they should have been similar.

However, the composition and magnitude of the seismic signals show significant differences, above all in their propagation speed, even though their paths were identical under identical conditions. This last difference being physically unexplainable in the official version, we must put into question the calculation of the speeds effectuated from the origin shown on the video images. We can only conclude that in reality, the (explosive) source was manually detonated, thus accounting for the variable shift for each origin in relation to the videos.

The composition of the waves is revealing both in terms of the location of the source and the magnitude of the energy transmitted to the ground. The subterranean origin of the waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S volume waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves, which are present in all five explosions. The placement of the source of the four other explosions is sub-aerial, attested by the unique presence of Rayleigh waves. The aerial explosions visible on the videos of the upper floors of the Twin Towers do not produce seismic waves 34 km from the source.

There is a factor of ten between the power of the explosions at the time of the impacts on the twin Towers (as well as at the time of the collapse of WTC7) and the strength of those more powerful ones at the time of their collapse, the subterranean explosion under WTC1 being the one that transmitted the most energy to the ground.

Note as well that the degree to which the surface waves disperse (their speed depends upon their frequency), the duration of the recorded signal is not representative of the duration of the signal at the source.

Finally, the controlled demolition of the three towers, suggested by the visual and audio testimony, as well as by observations of their collapse, is thus demonstrated by the analysis of the seismic waves emitted at the moments of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapse.

Be so kind to READ his professional references.
And especially his Curriculum Vitae.

In my opinion, he puts a lot more weight on the scale than you.

And it's a lame excuse to now act as if you meant to write 18 seconds for the total collapse sequence.
In that case, one never uses the term "internal collapses", but bluntly call it global collapse or total collapse. Since we can also talk about external collapses of the four walls.

How would you be able to tell a structural failure collapse of a building from an implosion?

We would first have to have a structural failure that was both 100% and simultaneous to not be able to tell the difference. And if we had that it would be rather obvious that it was CONTROLLED.

And unfortunately that's what we appear to have, 3 times in one day.

GenRadek : However, LaBTop, I am sure that you are at least aware of the design peculiarity with WTC7? In particular the transfer trusses over the ConEd substation creating that large open space at the base? Couldnt that open space been responsible?

Ahem, there was no fire at all in or just above that space. That's the lobby space and the CON-ED station behind it.
Those trusses were NEVER in touch with any fire.
So, how could they ever fail caused by fire, like NIST explained the WTC 7 collapse away, with their ridiculous iron expanding theory?

And I posted many times an oral report from a firefighter inspecting all four sides of the building from the inside following all corridors on and above floors above the fifth floor, which was mentioned by NIST and the Firefighters Journal.
And he did not find any constructional failures anywhere, and surely not at the South side where everyone of you Debunkers in 2001 already said that heavy damage occurred caused by debris from the WTC 1 North Tower collapse.
Hogwash.!
There was no damage up to the 14th floor on that facade. Only at the southwest corner, and that was reasonable and not dangerous to the structural strength of the building, as NIST also said.

So tell me, how could that wide open space of yours, collapse when no fire was ever near it?
And we have posted pictures of those trusses and columns at the construction time. They were super huge, far more massive than obviously needed to hold the weight of 40 floors above them.
I suppose CON-ED wanted and got some extra security in strength above their precious station.

And did you notice that Hess and Jennings were trapped on the 8th floor, where there was no fire at all?
And that they were trapped near that famous column 79 that failed according to NIST.
If you looked up from there, you saw the eastern penthouse above there, which showed the first sign of imminent collapse just before global collapse that afternoon. The Cianca photo !

And that they were TRAPPED ! They could not escape downwards, because the stairs were blown below them ! Clearly an indication of manual destruction of the area around that famous column 79 already in the early morning ! And still the building would not go down, until many hours later, after more explosions.
And they were trapped at the NORTHEAST corner, where NO DEBRIS ever could have hit that part of the building.
But the stairs were blown out under them already long before the first collapse, see Barry Jennings final and last interview with Darryl Avery on YouTube. That says it all.
Rest in peace, Barry. And my condolences to the family.
He was a brave MAN.
Not like many other Americans, who were silenced too, by their superiors.

Btw, where were those longest trusses situated, those V-formed complexes?
On the east or west side? Did they connect to column 79?

The most telling aspect, is that a few crucial moments of the collapse of WTC7 have been edited out prior to releasing the video.

If there is nothing to hide, why edit out the exact moment when a bomb could have been heard by the camera recording the event?

Stinks to high heaven in my opinion.

Does anyone know who was the third person rescued along with Michael Hess and Barry Jennings, R.I.P. Early reports mentioned this. It was a security officer, but that's all I know so far, but surely "He" would have a tale to tell too.