It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WTC 7 was IMPLODED : irrefutable seismic evidence from LDEO and NIST itself.

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 02:58 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by GenRadek

A static electricity front as is reported by several survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing who were sitting behind their desk inside and felt and heard the static load in the air.


Originally posted by LaBTop
The same bombing, of which a secret Pentagon commission reported one year later to the upper brass, that 5 highly sophisticated bombs went off, instead of one crude ANFO bomb in a truck, by Timothy McVeigh and friends.


Originally posted by LaBTop
Time for you to do some overdue home work (ATS-search).

Thanks for my daily belly laugh.

posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 10:16 PM
reply to post by Reheat

ATS Search results (0.16 seconds)

Title : Barometric or A-neutronic bomb, any more info? ( 3 pages, posted on 22/1/2007) :

According to General Partin and many explosive experts that .... wave and a static electricity charge immediately before the windows blew in.

Title : The Complete 9/11 Timeline ( interactive ). ( 2 pages, posted on 25/7/2005):

"It made a real loud static electricity sound. ... Nuclear Physicist Galen Winsor, General Ben Partin, and KPOC manager David Hall went to the building and ...

The interested reader should read these two threads its 5 pages, I wrote already many years ago.
Real thermobaric devices are still classified.

Don't pretend you did not read my recent answers to you, giving you already the links to all my thermobaric posts.
(A page full of my thermobaric, seismic and USGS links)
(My list of thermobaric posts links, in that same page)

posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 11:40 PM
reply to post by Reheat

ATS Search results (0.31 seconds)

NIST WTC7 status report, page 6

... who declared the Oklahoma City event to be a one bomb explosion, without even being informed that a secret Pentagon commission already had declared the event to have been the result of 5 sophisticated placed and detonated bombs connected to the center columns of the Murray Building.
See :

This post of mine (posted on 31/10/2006), in that page 6, has the links to that secret report in it.
By the way, that thread is a seismic discussion thread, highly interesting for my OP in this thread.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:16 AM
My link to my old secret Pentagon commission post in this above page post of mine, here at ATS, is now defunct.........???????
It gives a totally white page. I saved it, so nobody can accuse me of whatever they want.

What's happening lately here at this ATS 9/11 forum? Agency activity? Bad bug-removal attempts? Still ongoing hacking attempts? Are my posts being targeted? How many other conspiracy posters here, are targeted?

Events happened to me while posting at ATS in the last two weeks :

1. Hackers who hacked my ATS password about two weeks ago, and I got a new password from an ATS administrator after some email to the Staff here. More members were affected, I was initially told in a text window I got, when I tried to log-in again at my old Media portal page here, but I have seen no posts from others, about them experiencing the same password hack.

I am convinced that a message board owner has to be open about this kind of events, most bulletin board software is so secure these days, that we ought not to be too alarmed about it. Other members need to know this too. Deleting of my posts about this subject will have a negative effect in the end on readers of these pages.

However, I am alarmed. Not about the ATS staff, I got help all the time when there was a problem in the last 7 years.
It seems as if outside forces can get into the forum software lately.
I lost some huge posts I had prepared in advance, after my attempt to login here with my normal password. That's what I always do, prepare them in a Wordpad window, when I intend to post a personal thread regarding factual evidence about a 9/11 conspiracy subject. The original prepared file on the HD and the backup on a memory stick were both deleted, and no recovery software like Recuva could bring the deleted huge 1.5 Gb files back. The memory stick was not used/written to, after the file deletion hack.
Recuva found 84 files back that could be recovered if I wanted to, and a lot of irrecoverable older files. But not THAT 1.5 Gb file.
Why does that happen specifically to me all the time?

2. ATS-Anomaly Sat.10March2012--16-50hrs :

This above thread page for this thread is what I got yesterday. It had many more pages in it then I could access. I suppose it's a forum software bug.
But why does that happen specifically to me all the time?

3. ATS-Anomaly Sun.11March2012--05-44hrs :

My former post with the links and my text about that secret Pentagon commission that investigated the Oklahoma City bombing, from 2006 is defunct, gives a blank page, it is this post link number, I already included in my above post :
(single post number=1775330)
As you can see above, the link of the page is shown in the tab, but the page is white.
Who removed that post, and why?

I changed the last number of that link to 31, and that link also gives a white page.
I've gone up to 40, all were white. That seems to have been a very crude deletion, by someone in a hurry. A whole range of concurrent pages were deleted from ATS.

As you, the admins here know, the chance that 10 concurrent pages were all posted in the same thread, is bordering to a zero chance here at ATS, because of the intense post traffic here.
So, this must have been a hacker attack. Or, you have a rogue admin. Or just clumsy.
Or someone with good hacking skills does not like my posts here, or "they" are silently deleting posts here.
But why does that happen specifically to me all the time?

If this post is again deleted without mod comment to me, or PM, I will re-send it to the staff forum.
Then it's obvious you want to keep this quiet. And you want to discuss it behind the scenes.
It is however obviously happening to me, in this thread, two times in 24 hrs now.

I am obstructed to refute an opponents insinuation.
And i.m.h.o. this post is thus on-topic, because I explain the reason why.
I get a tad bit upset about it.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:40 AM
I found that white-out page text back, but with a totally different link-text :

This is the recent link text, which delivers a white page :

Originally posted by LaBTop

Computed origin times and seismic magnitudes are listed in Figure 1.
Origin times with an uncertainty of 2 s were calculated from the arrival times of Rg (Rayleigh) waves at PAL using a velocity of 2 km/s.

For a seismic Rg signal to reach the PAL station from the WTC site through that specific bedrock in between, about 17 sec.(at 2km/sec) pass, since the distance from WTC to PAL is 34 km. See description of fig.4 in the .pdf-link for an explanation.
So that could have been minimal 15 sec to maximal 19 sec, when one includes the 2 sec uncertainty.

Conclusion 1: The zero points in the LDEO graphs are the visually and news-networks recorded timestamps of all of the WTC collapses, and you must go to the 15 to 19 seconds points, to compare visual and recorded times of starts of collapses with seismic data of the collapses, which arrived about 17 sec later at the Palisades seismic station.

Now we have to interpret the conclusions of another (forensic) geoscientist, prof. Wallace, from the University of Arizona, who is mentioned in above report from dr. Kim from LDEO at Columbia university, where prof. Wallace stated this in the following article on Jun 03, 2002 :

The terrorist bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, was also seismically recorded. The first seismic records looked unusual, and prompted some researchers to conclude two separate blasts -- that is, two separate bombs -- were involved, Wallace said. But when the Murrah Building later was demolished, the seismic record was identical leaving experts to conclude there had been a single terrorist bomb. "In some sense this is derivative, but it's really important for providing independent constraints on what happened," Wallace said.

Prof. Wallace's forensic-seismologic conclusion is however strongly countered by this conclusion from March 20, 1996:

The End Notes Section, full of References from the book written by David Hoffman :
The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror :

Then on March 20, 1996,Strategic Investment Newsletter reported that a Pentagon study had been leaked which backed up General Partin's analysis:
A classified report prepared by two independent Pentagon experts has concluded that the destruction of the federal building in Oklahoma City last April was caused by FIVE separate bombs. The two experts reached the same conclusion for the same technical reasons. Sources close to the Pentagon study say Timothy McVeigh did play a role in the bombing but peripherally, as a "useful idiot." The multiple bombings have a Middle Eastern "signature," pointing to either Iraqi or Syrian involvement. [ref.60]"
A classified Pentagon study determines Oklahoma bombing was caused by more than one bomb," Strategic Investment Newsletter, 3/20/96.

Did the DoD (the Pentagon) and FBI not inform prof. Wallace about this much older classified report originating from a Pentagon study by themselves, and let him come to a nowadays more favorable conclusion?
Does this also implement that seismic reports are not sensitive enough to detect strategically placed cutter charges on weight-bearing columns in buildings such as the Murrah Building, so also not sensitive enough to detect eventual cutter charges in all the WTC buildings which came down on 9/11 ?

Conclusion 2 : It surely looks like that.

NOTE: University of Arizona forensic-seismologist prof. Terry C. Wallace personal website: is now "Forbidden", while all other faculty scientist's personal websites are still open to the public.

Is his forensic seismologic work too sensitive to be seen by others?
Comparable behavior to nowadays standard procedures from the FBI, who still won't release, after 4 long years have passed, some simple Pentagon impact video recordings, basing this on the fact that those recordings are so utterly important in a pending case against a caught terrorist who already confessed.
That's more important than to show the whole world what exactly happened?

Do they have to hide one or more Pentagon defensive missile(s) fired at flight 77 and impacted it just before it hit the wall, or is there more to see than the public really wants to see? All these kinds of questions keeping all the visitors of websites like these could be answered in a few minutes by releasing these tapes.
But that one supposed terrorist's court case outclasses the curiosity of the rest of worlds populations.
These guys seem to always need a JFK Magruder film. So the impact of proof can be quenched by too many years gone by, when at last some honest scientists can interpret the real data.

Please see this excellent website from Russell Pickering with quite a lot of formerly unknown pictures and info about the Pentagon attack :
and while you are at it, also have a look at the very strange radar avoiding pattern of all 4 airplanes on 9/11 :
"They" cunningly exploited vulnerabilities in the radar that only the US Military and the FAA should have been aware of.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:53 AM
It is highly advisable for readers interested in my former seismic and WTC-explosives posts (thermobaric or HE cutter charges) to read both my thread pages :

Title : The Complete 9/11 Timeline ( interactive ).

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 05:06 AM

The following are all my former seismic drawings and pictures from my first seismic thread at the now a few years already, defunct StudyOf9/11 website, which original text I posted in the ATS Sequel thread of this one, that is 2 pages long, but closed.
It would be appreciated if a moderator or administrator would place the following posts of mine at the end of page 2 of my SEQUEL thread. Then will all my old seismic evidence text be attached to the old drawings, NIST reports screen-shots and pictures (and keep it closed, please) :

Title : SEQUEL : WTC 7 was IMPLODED : irrefutable seismic evidence from LDEO and NIST itself.

The original 2 plane impact seismic WTC charts and the original 3 WTC tower collapses their seismic charts are to be found in this LDEO page :

Title : Record of the Day.

I will include them here at ATS as repository and reference drawings, so you can see for yourself that when you compress them they will result in the rescaled sixth and seventh drawing by me, below the first five LDEO ones :

Seismograms recorded by LCSN Station PAL (Palisades, NY)
1. First Impact WTC1 North Tower : 12:46:26 (UTC), 08:46:26 (EDT)

2. Second Impact WTC2 South Tower : 13:02:54 (UTC), 09:02:54 (EDT)

3. First Collapse WTC2 South Tower : 13:59:04 (UTC), 09:59:04 (EDT)

4. Second Collapse WTC1 North Tower: 14:28:31 (UTC), 10:28:31 (EDT)

5. Third Collapse WTC7 Building: 21:20:33 (UTC), 17:20:33 (EDT)

This below originally 100 nm/sec scaled LDEO seismic chart of the collapse of WTC2 (South Tower), is stretched to the same 10 nm/sec scale as the WTC7 collapse chart from LDEO, to show that the preceding pack of smaller peaks have the same magnitude, for all three 9/11 collapses, which gives reason to believe that three identical initial explosive charges were used to start each implosion :

3C. A blow-up to a 10 nm/sec scale of the seismic chart of WTC2's (South Tower) its first occurring collapse :

4C. The same stretching to a 10 nm/sec scale, done for the LDEO seismic chart of the second occurring collapse, of WTC1 (North Tower) :

Compare these two packs of preceding peaks their magnitude now to the above WTC7 collapse chart its preceding pack of peaks magnitude.
They're all three equal, now that they are expressed in the same 10 nm/sec scale.

5A. WTC7 seismic chart by LDEO of its collapse, with a lot of my additional remarks.
As you can see, the preceding pack of peaks has the same magnitude as the two packs of preceding peaks in the WTC1 (NT) and WTC2 (ST) collapses.
In this WTC7 graph is the preceding pack of peaks however the one with the greatest magnitude. The global collapse following both penthouses their full sinking into the roof structure, results in a second pack of peaks with quite lower magnitude, that shows the total breakdown and collapse of a whole 44 stories tall building.
Note that the first pack of peaks was written on the graph paper, when in Manhattan nothing had been seen yet, on the outside of WTC7, no movement at all. The first movement recorded was the Cianca photo of the first denting of the east penthouse its roof line, and when both penthouses had disappeared from camera sight, then the vertical window line breaking on the north facade around internal column 79 occurred and was registered on several video tapes :


posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 05:12 AM
Research the historical documents of the buildings. The World Trade Center buildings were constructed with explosive charges built into them. The buildings were designed with de-construction in mind from day one.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 05:31 AM

Originally posted by XXX777
Research the historical documents of the buildings. The World Trade Center buildings were constructed with explosive charges built into them.

Actually according to some truthers they were constructed with mini nukes in the basement, and also came pre installed with paint on thermite....

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 06:09 AM

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by XXX777
Research the historical documents of the buildings. The World Trade Center buildings were constructed with explosive charges built into them.

Actually according to some truthers they were constructed with mini nukes in the basement, and also came pre installed with paint on thermite....

Won't no termite neither. Thems all still buildins not wooden like your head.

They got splosive hid up in 'em.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:45 AM

CIANCA-photo from the first sign of the WTC7 collapse sequence. It shows WTC7 its east-penthouse dent-forming, timestamped-by-NIST, which stamp was compared to known network (CBS) video-reporting during the day of 9/11 that was found to be connected to NIST its own time servers and automatically synchronized with servers. That CBS video had all day a digital time running in the footage its corner :

Floor-plan of WTC7 with the pressurized diesel line shown as a thin dark-blue line, protected by that wall, and on the far north side of the floor. It has been proposed that diesel leaking under pressure could have fed the WTC7 fires. This is not correct, and also rejected by NIST. Most of the smoke seen covering the south facade all day, was sucked up by the constant wind from the northwest that formed a vortex behind the south facade of WTC7, it came from the really raging fires in WTC5 and 6, just 50 meters/yards away to the south of the south facade. I have posted a link to a NIST report, that quoted a fire fighter that was ordered shortly after the second collapse of the North Tower, to inspect the south side of WTC7 its floors. He reported back at that early time after possible impact from pieces of the North Tower, that there was no damage done on the first 14 floors he had inspected in the corridors and rooms at the south side of that corridor, looking out south. That report does in fact negate all the talk about big chunks of the North Tower having impacted the center of the south facade. The only damage he reported was the gash in the southwestern corner, about 6 floors high but no more than a room deep maximum. Fig 5-6a :

WTC7 its failure time sequence from Cianca dent to global collapse, 8,2 or 8.3 seconds, depending on what NIST report you read, the later ones have the 8.3 seconds mentioned :

NIST's method of comparing timing of video and photo material, and adding thus comparable timestamps to all that material. Synchronized from video material which had all day long atomic clock based, digital time counters, on screen in it :

NIST Nicolas Cianca timings method explanation from the NIST report I already linked to one page back.
The NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, WTC Investigation report :

NIST Nicolas Cianca timings-2 :

NIST Nicolas Cianca timings-2a :

NIST Nicolas Cianca timings-3 :

Seismic WTC charts from LDEO, re-scaled to a 0-10 nm/sec scale :

Thermobaric Explosion In Room :

Thermobaric Explosive Pressure compared to HE explosive pressure :

WTC7 Seismic details LDEO graph with labels inserted by member/former-ATS-moderator wecomeinpeace. He was the first clever one in 2006 who immediately understood the grave consequences for the officially fed news stories of those days, of my first posts about the now possible exact synchronization of events recorded on tape or digital camera in Manhattan, with seismograph-needle writing-times at Palisades, N.Y.State in the LDEO Institute seismographs.
The connection of the Cianca photo (which then in 2006 suddenly was explained by NIST as atomic-clock-connected time-stamped by them), with the writing time of the seismograph's needle at LDEO.
Which needle is also connected to the same NIST time servers, and constantly updated, just as your own computer also does, when you allow your system to connect periodically to the server, to keep your box its time at atomic clock precision level :


WTC7-NIST+LDEO-timing-nr2 :

WTC7-NIST+LDEO-timing-nr3 :

WTC7-NIST+LDEO-timing-nr4 :

These following provisional 2006 reports, ordered by NIST and written by f.ex. the same Dr Kim who wrote his first report, one week after 9/11/2001. And the above 2005 report by him. His first September 2001 report on seismic events for 9/11 is still online, but all these reports below, are not to be found anymore in any NIST publication. They have been accessible for a very short time in 2006 (And been saved by some). They have deleted them all however from their databases.
WTC7-NIST+LDEO-timing-nr5 :

WTC South Tower collapse on 9/11at 09:59:04 a.m., vertical records ( 0.6 - 5 Hz) :

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 08:03 AM

Originally posted by LaBTop

NIST Nicolas Cianca timings-2 :

Excellent. I see that you figured out yourself how your "atomic clock time-stamp" for those images in the OP was actually a bunch of non-sense, and NIST is actually saying that there can be errors. Good job

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 08:38 AM
Regarding what is printed in that part of the NIST report for my link to my above listed screenshot (4th from the bottom up) :
WTC7-NIST+LDEO-timing-nr3 :

This is the strange idea which is proposed :

The times based on visual analysis refer to the time when the collapse of a tower first became evident, while the times based on seismic records likely indicate the time when the falling debris first struck the ground.

And then they explain why they added 5 seconds to all photos and videos.
Because only in those cases when precise times were reported for their Investigation, they seemed to agree with their (READ CAREFULLY NOW) most recent analysis of seismic signals.

Now here should the funny researcher cartoon start in your head.
I linked to their most recent seismic analysis of seismic signals in the two next links, in my above post. The 2005 and 2006 Kim, W.X. analysis.

Who will win the Pulitzer Price this year?
He/she only has to come up with those references I showed you in :
WTC7-NIST+LDEO-timing-nr4 and WTC7-NIST+LDEO-timing-nr5.

Especially the Kim, W. 2006 report, NIST NCSTAR 1-6G report, where they base those in 2006 added additional 5 seconds for all photo and video material on, but, they will not show you that report, whatever pressure you put on NIST. They act for years now, as if it never existed. was online for a short period, and has been copied.....

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 08:50 AM
reply to post by LaBTop

Made up horse manure you've gotten from conspiracy theory sites and known poseurs such as Gen Partin, contrary to your opinion, are not credible sources... Neither is speculative garbage invented by you and posted at ATS..

I'm amazed that you think your stuff is so credible. You simply take a comment from any source you find and mold it to fit your conspiracy while ignoring all other credible evidence. This is evident in virtually everything you write...

Let's see..... How many more years and how much wasted bandwidth is it going to take for you to realize that you're simply a poseur posting on fringe Conspiracy Theory sites, but fooling no one with any degree of intelligence and common sense...

All evidence contrary to your trumped up crap is either staged or faked... Any fringe lunatic theory that has been invented is stretched to it's limit in order to fit into your conspiracy regardless of whether or not there is any credible evidence to support it...

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:17 AM
reply to post by -PLB-

-PLB- : Excellent. I see that you figured out yourself how your "atomic clock time-stamp" for those images in the OP was actually a bunch of non-sense, and NIST is actually saying that there can be errors. Good job

Another one (constantly the same ones) that does not want to read what is written, or probably does not have the faintest idea how to read and interpret this kind of references correctly :

You linked to my screenshot from the NIST NCSTAR 1-5A, WTC Investigation report, and you majestically failed to understand, or i.m.h.o. faked to misunderstand why I did the fat black line underlining of that text in paragraph 3.1.1. Photograph Tools, the first screenshot by me, in your above quoted text of mine.

My WTC7-NIST+LDEO-timing-nr3 link above :

---- Recalling that uncertainties for times of the major events based on the television broadcasts are estimated to be 1s, it can be seen from Table 3-1 (linked to by me above) that the two aircraft impact times derived by NIST and LDEO now agree within the combined uncertainties

Come on, prove to us that you know where to find these combined uncertainties.!
Or go waste your time on another forum, where you can impress members with quasi intelligent but baseless posts, insulting everyones intelligence all the way to the exit.

As usual, you do not give any solid explanation why you posted those few sentences, you do not even dare to defend your own words and give us pointers about what you insinuate, your only hope when posting baseless drivel like that above post, is that a few gullible and easily distracted readers will now scratch their heads and ask themselves if its worth their time to read a bit more into my posts, since such a superior debater/poster as you act to be, seems to be so sure that the OP is a raving idiot, in a somewhat more polite expression, but nevertheless, I must be an idiot to waste so much of my last years on earth on this 9/11 seismic subject.

Are you really believing that your tactic will convince anyone here?

You guys must be quite desperate, it starts to leak from your keyboards.
You are getting nervous, and desperate, since you know that you can not win a dispute with me over this subject. And if you think you can, bring it on then.
Facts, arguments, but not these constant insults, and not a single serious argument.
You people are seriously wrecking this forum.
And giving this 9/11 board a web wide bad reputation, post by insulting post.

For those that don't want to waste anymore time on these types of charlatans, lets give you the hints to find the combined uncertainties NIST worked with.

1. Look it up in my above posted REFERENCES post, in my own remarks in my WTC7 collapse seismogram 5a. It's clear as glass noted on the left and right borders/sides of the LDEO timeline printed in there :
Right side : Error margin +/- 1 sec max. for visual of video/photo (by NIST)
Left side : Arrival of signals at LDEO : 17 sec.
Left side : Delay Error margin +/- 1-2 sec (by LDEO)
That's a maximum combined uncertainty of 2 seconds. In case that it was in reality for the Cianca photo that max error margin, the onset of that first pack of peaks is still starting somewhere 17 seconds back on that graph from the point where the needle started to write the Cianca event. The first distinct oscillation of the needle.
And the onset of the huge peaks starts about 7 seconds in front of the same Cianca event on the graph.

2. WTC7-NIST+LDEO-timing-nr1:
"".....and collapse of WTC7 were determined with 1 sec accuracies.""
""It is not only important to assign relative times for photographs and videos, but also to provide an indication for how accurately they are known. For this reason, timing uncertainties were estimated for each time determination and included in the databases.""
The Cianca photo was a very accurate timestamped one, since that moment in time was recorded not only by him, but by many video cameras from private filmers, but even more from news crews. As you can read in my screenshots, when there is one particular well known event filmed or photographed by many cameras, then the whole row of photos from one single camera, has a calculated error margin which is the lowest possible, under 1 sec error margin. The more measurements related to an atomic clocked event you possess, the better your fault margin for THAT event. In this case, the first DENT.

3. Read the NIST report screenshot I posted with paragraph number 3.1 and 3.1.1 and its text in it, again, but realize yourself that for example all the 115 Cianca photos NIST had received from him, were ALL 102 seconds off from the real actual time on 9/11, but their software package re-calculated with one single button press, for all of them their real atomic clock connected times.
See my : NIST Nicolas Cianca timings-2
See my :WTC7-NIST+LDEO-timing-nr2
(read the by me blacked out text lines : ---- generally less than 1 s.)
(---- estimated uncertainty is 1 s.)
See all my timing related drawings and screenshots.

And then he and his ilk will still act as if they are right, without ever offering a single coherent sentence to refute the text in my NIST references.

Or bring a coherent argumentation to the table to refute the obvious conclusion you have to arrive at when you start to understand what is laid before you, in so many sentences already :

That some huge external force was introduced, starting 17 seconds before the eastern penthouse roof was moving a single inch in Manhattan.
Which had nothing to do with any kind of acceptable gravitational collapse onset.
First came the explosion(s) that cracked the columns from inside, then the cutter charges that accompanied and initiated the, also by NIST reluctantly admitted, 2.3 seconds free fall.

Anyone that understands the conditions for a free fall, will know that you have been tricked, into starting endless wars and endless greed.
It is coming to every street now, the poor are flooding the system.....
Your masters have abandoned you, they bought huge penthouses or villas in Dubai, Hong Kong, Jakarta, ranches in South America, they relocated to safe hiding places, because they know they left America and Europe with one single possibility left, bleeding its youth and elderly into poverty.
You see it being done to you, and you do not act.........? You are the next victim, but you are conditioned to keep your hopes high, till it hits you personally, at last, frontal in the face.

reply to post by Reheat

Good god, do you ever stop insulting every intelligent poster here?
To address you with your own baseless drivel, you are the only one who constantly collect pieces of horse manure and post it here.
There's not one single rebuttal in all your insults.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by -PLB-

Right side : Error margin +/- 1 sec max. for visual of video/photo (by NIST)
Left side : Arrival of signals at LDEO : 17 sec.
Left side : Delay Error margin +/- 1-2 sec (by LDEO)
That's a maximum combined uncertainty of 2 seconds.

LaBTop, I have to continue to take issue with you over how you treat the above tolerances. If the seismic signals took 17 seconds +/- 2 seconds from the WTC to LDEO then surely that means the travel times could have been anything from 15 to 19 seconds; a range of 4 seconds. Similarly, your other error margin of +/- 1 second on the vide/photo means a possible range of 2 seconds. So if you add them together you get a maximum combined uncertainty of 6 seconds, not 2. This is vital when you are only arguing about a handful of seconds anyway.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by Reheat

Good god, do you ever stop insulting every intelligent poster here?
To address you with your own baseless drivel, you are the only one who constantly collect pieces of horse manure and post it here.
There's not one single rebuttal in all your insults.

Would you please point out an intelligent one that I've insulted? Hay, I'm only doing what my handlers allow. Any detailed rebuttal to the stuff you've posted here is classified. You said so yourself...

BTW, you ought to realize that what I told you previously is still true. You're simply getting too close to the "truth", so the perps are going to delete more of your valuable data. You won't be able to stop it without extensive help from experts if you can even find someone bright enough to diagnose the culprit.

So, you think McVey bought all of that fertilizer because he was planting corn?

He then rented the Ryder truck because he didn't want to drive a regular sedan, right?

You know, he's probably causing some of your problems from the grave simply because you didn't bring all of this inside information to the attention of authorities to prevent him from being executed. Shame on you.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:51 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop
This is the strange idea which is proposed :

The times based on visual analysis refer to the time when the collapse of a tower first became evident, while the times based on seismic records likely indicate the time when the falling debris first struck the ground.

I forgot to address my own subject.
If we may believe the NIST editing team, they want us to believe that when a 110 floors high steel building starts to collapse, which means that huge columns must snap like matches, huge cross beams do the same, that NO SERIOUS SEISMIC reaction is registered?
All that immense weight impacting the structure under it, did not send a huge seismic signal through the still erect huge steel columns all the way down into the bedrock, with the speed of sound traveling through steel. We once looked it up, was something much faster than sound through air, about 22,000 meter/s, if I remember it right. It was to tell the janitor, Rodriguez, that he first heard the impact of the plane high up carried through the steel columns, nearly instantly, and then, about a second later (333 m/s through air), the sound of the jet fuel explosion and the plane its impact on and through the structural steel.

Do they really propose that we do not see any serious reaction of the seismograph its needle during the first 9 to 11 seconds of the real-time related event in Manhattan (still oscillating as usual 17 secs later), when the first seismic signals of huge columns and beams breaking and collapsing had to arrive? Do they really believe their own ideas?

Did you see that video where the camera man is running for his life, while holding his still running video camera in his hand, its lens aimed at the thundering down debris from the tower collapsing behind him.
I used that video to show the majority here, that the collapses took much more time than needed when in free fall.
The first outer panels (Vierendael triplets, portions of three facade columns welded together) hit the ground just 30 meters away from the bottom facade, about 9 to 11 seconds after collapse started high up.

Its an even more interesting theory for WTC7, since that was a bottom up implosion. Thus, that by NIST proposed single column piece (Nr. 79) breaking away over a height of 14 floors which breaking started, they say, internally at the fifth floor or so (hold your breath now), must have impacted nearly instantly (half a sec or so later) the bedrock WTC 7 stood on. Then we had to wait out the penthouses sinking (8.2 or 8.3 secs), and then the whole damn building came thundering down.

Ehh, NIST, that's not what the seismogram shows. That shows for a starter, about 16.5 seconds before the needle reacted on the first dent forming in the east penthouse roof-line, a slight oscillation of the needle, then a few seconds back to normal, then the onset of the biggest magnitude of seismic peaks (and that's definitely not normal, it should be the smallest peaks first to show one column breaking and falling), starting still about 7 seconds before in Manhattan anything happened on the WTC7 facades or on the roof(s). That pack of peaks then died down totally, still 3 seconds before anything moved outside at WTC7, and then after those 3 seconds the sinking of the two penthouses into the roof started in Manhattan which did cost an extra 8.3 seconds precious time.
And then, after those 8.3 secs, the quite smaller magnitude of the next pack of seismic peaks set on, indicating the global collapse had begun. And died also down 10 to 12 seconds later.

Do you get the crux of the matter?
A single one column breaking (Nr. 79) is according to NIST causing the biggest seismic reaction on that whole damn seismogram. And then later, when all the other 30 or so, just as thick columns are thundering down together with those extra strong crossbeams spanning over the ConEdison electric station situated in the bottom 4 north side floors, the same way that single column went, NIST says that indeed, that smaller pack of peaks at the end of that seismogram shows that massive collapse of the whole weight of that 44 stories high building.

And NIST does not give in, they even try to explain away the 2.3 secs free fall of all the facades in a fluent fashion, at the onset of global collapse.
I won't bother you with that, this is enough to seriously ask yourself, why they seem to think that you are part of a silent majority.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by Reheat

We have a lot of fun together, ain't it so!
Do not forget to feed the canary. Or do you have a pet puma? Then he has at least today some food.
I think you're a cat guy. Dogs are too slavish for you. You like those fat, egoist cats. I think. Hehhe.

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:35 PM
reply to post by Reheat

No, Timothy did detonate that ANFO load. Where did I say he did not?
Did you study the bleed off pressures of an 3,500 kg ANFO bomb like he and his friends constructed?

(Btw, the investigation upped the total ANFO weight about every week, then month up, to be able to counter the online message boards experts their valid calculations that showed them that with the estimated ANFO weight they kept coming, that gap in the facade never could have resulted.)
Impossible to rip such a huge bite out of that steel bar reinforced concrete building facade and very thick internal columns and floor surfaces, with that single truck load, so far away from the facade. And no, it was not parked against the facade wall, it was parked along the sidewalk.

I said the leaked report to that monthly publication, concluded that 5 other bombs connected to columns, were detonated.

Don't you find it amusing yourself, that when you do not want your military experts to come at play, you instantly declare them to be raving idiots, but when you need them, you throw them in with the handfuls.

EDIT : Aha, the board software comes up with that double post numbers line page and additional page numbers on that page I linked my screenshot to already, when you quickly edit a post, and fill in the reason for the edit.

edit on 11/3/12 by LaBTop because: Blead =bleed

edit on 11/3/12 by LaBTop because: Test

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in