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

page: 13
57
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Tip for those members experiencing the same "bug" as I do now repeatedly engage, click the ">>" tab at the end of the page numbers line, to get back to a normal ATS page, otherwise you keep getting this page :



As I said, when you edit within a few seconds your post, and fill in the reason for your edit, you keep now getting this above page.

I'm of course due now for a ten thousand points bonus, for saving this board from the "evil edit monster".
Do something about it, you lazy rökkers. This means in my language something totally different than in yours.

Has something to do with "memory" stickies.
Aya, Reheat, wanna play around?




posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
The Oklahoma City Bombing and the Politics of Terror :
This is the digital version of OCBPT : www.constitution.org...

Read this page first : www.constitution.org...

It's the first digital chapter, about the Mannlicher-Carcanno bomb (ANFO its nick name based on the JFK murder with that type of Italian rifle)
There's lots about ANFO and other explosives in it, you perhaps did not know before.
And what an ANFO cook can and can't do to prepare such a load.
How fast the explosive pressure bleeds off, the further its blast front advances from the initial explosion center.


Chapter 1: "My knowledge comes from practical handling of explosives," added Gronning. "And my belief is that 4800 lbs of ANFO wouldn't have scuffed the paint on the building!"

The FBI also changed the size of the bomb numerous times. They originally claimed that it weighed 1,200 pounds, upgraded that figure to 2,000 pounds, then to 4,000 pounds, and finally, they issued a press release stating that the bomb weighed 4800 pounds.

"It appears the government keeps up-grading the size of the vehicle and the 'fertilizer' bomb to coincide with the damage," said retired FBI SAC (Senior Agent-in-Charge) Ted Gunderson.

The government also originally claimed the bomb cost less than $1,000 to build. Then just before the start of McVeigh's trial, that figure was upgraded to $5,000. Their rationale was based on the "discovery," almost two years after the fact, that the suspects had constructed their magic bomb with racing fuel, not diesel fuel, which is far less expensive.



Footnote* from Chapter 1, page 13, of the printed version of OCBPT its English version :


Other people who were working in office buildings at the time reported that sparks flew out from their computers just before the blast. The manager of the Journal Record parking garage, two blocks from the Murrah Building, reported that the electronic computers in at least half a dozen cars had malfunctioned as a result of the blast.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

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.


Alfie1, damn, nearly missed your above post, cramped in between the litterers.
Btw, thank you for your well mannered posting behavior. Its a relief.

This is an UK site, that makes it easier for us both, I hope :

A Beginner’s Guide to Uncertainty of Measurement.
www.wmo.int...

Do read the first paragraphs first, up to 3.2, and then take the time to contemplate on the case we have at hand. And yes, you can talk about a r a n g e of uncertainties, but in this case it has no sense to use that expression, since we only take the worst case for my thesis in account.

I am arguing, that a certain, one time measurement, namely that pesky WTC7 seismogram, is declared by the operators of the seismograph it was written on, at the LDEO institute, to have a margin of error (which is not the same as a margin of uncertainty) of 1-2 seconds. That means it has a max error of + 2 secs. or - 2 secs.
This margin is usually obtained by collecting as many samples of earlier registered seismograms, also originating from Manhattan. And then calculate them using the known formulas (see my link) for the standard acceptable margin of error. In this case it seems to be another margin again of 1 second, since they use a margin of + 1 to + 2 secs., or - 1 to -2 secs., as found over perhaps a hundred years period, which resulted in thousands of measurements to use as their sample collection for the error calcs.
For us it's not of importance how they achieved that value, since we have no access to their data bases of all these seismograms. So we have to take them on their word.

Manhattan is a known quite active seismic region, which you perhaps would not expect, however, it is one. Usually within the lower boundaries for Richter values of seismic activity.
So, thousands of seismograms is not out of the ordinary.

In this particular case, there is however an extra factor we have to take in account.
When you want to aim for the + 2 secs max error (19 secs travel time for seismic signals), please be my guest, because in that case, the Cianca photo-time its registration (stamped on it) by the seismograph is shifted even 2 secs further in the future on the by LDEO printed time scale under that WTC7 graph. Thus making the gap with the preceding huge pack of peaks even wider. Which would strengthen my case with an extra 2 secs max.

So in this one, particular case, I need only to defend my case against the for my theory worst case, being the - 2 secs max error margin deviation from the mean norm, which is set by LDEO as being 17 secs for the first seismic signals to arrive at LDEO its seismograph's needle.
In that worse case, that thus the max error of 2 secs-less than the normal 17 secs arrival time for seismic events is taken in account, then it means that the needle starts to oscillate to register the arrival of the Cianca dent event with its specific, known exact time stamp attached, at 15 seconds after that event in reality took place at the WTC7 in Manhattan.
This will still place that Cianca dent-event at a point, 1 second after the whole pack of first, biggest peaks died out on the graph paper.
(Note that NIST added in 2005 an extra 5 secs to all their photo and video material, thus they let specific, known events like the Cianca photo, begin even 5 seconds later on their time scale under the WTC7 seismogram at LDEO. I already showed you that that NIST decision is unreal).

As you can see, that sequence of biggest peaks events started with a slightly bigger oscillation by the needle, about 16.5 seconds on the graph its paper, before that seismograph recorded the Cianca dent event in Palisades, upper N.Y. State.
The dent forming, being the first sign of any movement at all at WTC7.
It's 0.5 seconds after the point on my graph, where I drew in my vertical dark-blue line at the bottom of that WTC7 graph, with my "NIST time" text in it. My black text ""20:46 Cianca photo time stamped"" under my horizontal dark-blue line, that expressed the 17 secs norm travel time through the N.Y. State its upper crust.

Now we also have to take in account the error margin set by NIST for all photo and video material, the + or - 1 second margin in this case, for the Cianca photo its time stamp.

That means, that in the most worse case scenario for my thesis, the Cianca time stamp must read as 20:46 - 1 sec = 20:45.
That would add another 1 sec to the already worse case its 2 secs, that's 3 secs in total.
Which means that in the most worse case for my thesis, the needle starts to write the Cianca event, at the EDT 17:21:00 point on the LDEO printed time line, just after the first pack of the biggest peaks on that graph, died out.

However, as I already pointed out, the Cianca event has an error margin of much less than the max -1 sec, because that event could be cross checked by many news media time stamped videos that shot the same event. By then tens of news crews were filming the WTC7 collapse sequence. Thus for that event, the sample pool is bigger than for other photos or videos.
We may say that the Cianca time stamp is nearing the mean value of nearly zero error.
Which does get us back to the EDT 17:21:01 position on WTC7's graph, one second after the biggest peaks died out.

Shall we not further insist to insert those ridiculous extra 5 NIST seconds?
Because then the Cianca event ends up when the worse case scenario is used, at the EDT 17:21:07 position, which is 2 secs earlier than my red vertical line with "LDEO" in it, at the top right of my WTC7 graph.

I hope you can follow my above explanation, if not, take three pieces of plastic foil, draw on one my 17 secs gap U-drawing, on the second one a 15 seconds gap U-drawing, and on the third a 19 secs gap U-drawing, and start to play around with those 3 foils over my WTC7 graph, then it will clear everything up for you in one strike of insight.
Then you also understand that you do not have to make a tiny 1 sec gap U-drawing for the max error margin for the Cianca photo time, see for that my above words.
Ignore that 1 sec max error gap, hold on to its original time stamp of 5:20:46 p.m.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
For Reheat, I nearly forgot he really seems to be fond of this man and his expertise, read his credentials at the bottom of the page :

physics911.ca...
Bomb Damage Analysis of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building,
Oklahoma City, by Benton K. Partin Brigadier Gen. USAF (Ret.)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


LaBTop, I looked through your links and I tried, Lord knows how I tried, to find anything credible on your magical "Thermobaric/Barometric" explosives, and I end up constantly going in a circle from one conspiracy site to another, and virtually NOTHING credible to back it up, except for an excerpt taken from an alleged "official" source saying that the Murrah Building was blown up by your magic "barometric bomb", which has zero documentation or anything credible to back it up, aside from bouncing conspiracy sites to conspiracy sites, and no mention of this stuff anywhere. Also, reading up on it, it seems that there virtually NO credible evidence for your magic bomb anywhere.

Ted Gunderson? Michael Riconosciuto? Oh boy, if you cannot smell the scent of BS from your computer screen, the God help you. Let us look into some facts regarding your poster boys for your magical barometric bombs:
Ted Gunderson:

Truth on Ted Gunderson

Oh yeah and even in conspiracy circles, he cannot be trusted!

Who is Ted Gunderson?



Ah and the sad saga of the "whiz kid" Michael Riconosciuto. who even saw an alien autopsy being held. Oh yes and you may want to read up on his accounts of the "Dulce Complex".

Dulce Complex and Riconsciuto.

Michael Riconosciuto

Your two poster boys are attention whores and mentally unstable. Nice!
You base all of your "research" and "proof" on the rantings and ravings of a troubled and mentally unstable man, who has virtually ZERO things to back up his wild claims, oh, and HE is the only source. Why should they be the only sources?

Have you ever looked into their history, besides what you read on those conspiracy sites? Gunderson was a huge supporter of the chemtrails nonsense. Its too bad his website is no longer around either. Darn.


Wow!
This has been most revealing LaBTop! Your primary sources are falling apart like toilet paper in a hurricane!

Now that some light and facts have been shed on your "theories" (I use the term loosely), can you show me some actual credible evidence with regards to your fantasy barometric bombs? I mean besides using mentally unstable people and attention whores to support your "theory"?

Now dont get me wrong, I do enjoy a good story, like the ones about the fabled Dulce Complex which may or may not exist, and the secret alien presence and such, but after 20 minutes of searching your magic barometric bombs, I end up with stories of aliens, NWO, Illuminati, Area 51, Dulce Complex, all directly linked to your Michael Riconosciuto and Ted Gunderson.
LaBTop, you may want to start doing some serious research before hanging your hat on such dubious and nebulous "sources".

But LaBTop, i want to thank you for such a fun ride down Conspiracy Lane. Your insistence on doing some actual research into your touted "research" has educated me well beyond what I had hoped for. I am now better educated and have seen the light. Michael Riconosciuto and Ted Gunderson. Two very troubled and very dubious sources. If they told me it was sunny outside, I would have to go out and check myself.
edit on 3/12/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


So, you read my link to the OCBTP report by Jim Hoffman.
And then went on and on about two names. I doubt you have read the References page.
And no, lots of Jim's references you can't click. You have to take your lazy ... to a university library, or a newspaper archive, or where ever you have to go to find those highly interesting references.
You also need to contact real people, no online entities, but real humans. Look them in the eyes, talk to them. That's how we do research.

Can you write and read Cyrillic Russian? Farsi? Hindi? Arabic? Mandarin Chinese? German? Dutch? French? Spanish? Japanese?
Then you can do a search in those languages. They are not so hellbent on National Security as you and your allies.
Or you could try a Patent search, on all different online sites. With the right credentials, you will be amazed about what there is to be found. Best is of course to go to the real Patent Offices. (Damn, need a level 3 or higher pass)

But, to really find the interesting pieces, you must have physical access to the closed-off parts of libraries.
Or be a member of certain Think Tanks. Or belong to psi-op demolition teams.
Or just have enough chips on your shoulder, eh, uniform.
And, of course, must possess much better research skills than you show up to now.

There's hope for you, however. If you really search all my former posts, you will find what you so dearly look for to destroy. The Truth. Also about thermobaric devices, they do exist. In lots of countries already. You could make a simple one, if you followed my posted advices how to make one. (It is not deleted, yet. I think they did not notice it here, or they don't care if you blow up yourself.)
Be careful, you would be quite surprised about its demolition power.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Well those references sure seem impressive. I like the mentions of nuclear explosives, and other CT ideas.

Oh my, you mention Jim Hoffman.
The same man that signed on to the hilariously erroneous Jones magic thermite chip paper?

Your references link is almost as funny as the rabbit hole I had to follw to find any info on the man who claims to have created the magical barometric bomb, that is only supported by a lackie that is just as dubious.
edit on 3/12/2012 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I think there are a few more Hoffman's in the US than you think.
This man has done more impressive research than you up till now laid out.

Btw, aren't you the same person that still thinks that Morin stood outside the Navy Annex Wings?

GenRadek, your comments about Terry Morin are very old and have become stale, and are refuted many times in other threads by Mr Morin's own words from later interviews, clearly to hear from his own voice in online posted phone interviews.
It was all explained for you in f.ex. the one you also participated in lately, where the PfT member here, thoroughly laid it out for you and your ilk, with links to all the phone interviews with Terry Morin. In which he precisely corrected what he wrote in that online piece of text by him, published shortly after 9/11.

And those are the last words I am going to spend on the Terry Morin subject. If you still do not want to hear what he explained very precise, then it has no sense to spend one more word on it, to you.

He explained thoroughly where he exactly stood, namely 10 feet/3 meter inside the path between Annex Wings 4 and 5, and the plane's body was flying right above his upwards looking eyes, thus on a path inside/over the Annex roofs. Its left wing was totally over those roofs and its fuselage too, only part of the right wing was over the parking between the Annex-Wings and the fence along the Pike, about 40 meters further away.
edit on 12/3/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Btw, it's the old same ATS song again, 13 pages into the subject, and only Alfie1, a Brit, gives a serious effort to address the subject of this thread, the irrefutable seismic evidence.

Come on, you fairy tale believers from JREF, you must do much better to floor me..... as if you ever could.
Send in the heavy weights from your piss poor vitriolic forum, just as the last time, when I chased them away and they had no arguments left anymore.

You know very well, that ONE, presumably (NIST : caused by an office fire) impaired, column breakage can't have that HUGE effect on the WTC7 seismogram. And then when ALL the other columns come thundering down, the total effect measured in energy, is much less as that one column break?
Are you nuts to believe NIST?

On the other hand, you read that professor Brown from Oklahoma explained that the seismic effect of explosives, onto the bedrock, was PER explosive charge ignited, much bigger than the whole still standing Murrah building remnants coming thundering to the ground, after it was decided to demolish it, weeks after "McVeigh" brought half of it down.....every single charge gave a bigger oscillation on the seismograms recording the official demolishing of the still standing rest of the Murrah building, than the seconds later impacting heavy concrete remnants of that collapsing left-over of that building.

That's why you keep dodging the subject.
You know very well that I am right, but you can't bring yourselves to start the mourning process regarding civil rights in America. There is only martial law left in your country, but they manage to indoctrinate you in believing that you live a protected and safeguarded live.
Yep, as long as you do not endanger "their" way of life. Then the repercussion starts.

And I can be just as vitriolic as you are taught there at your JREF home base.
And still keep it civic. And that's what you guys lack.
Intrinsic decorum and a well bred standard of civilization.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Well the Hoffman I found is the one that talks about 9/11, so, I do not see how I made an error of the person.

Also regarding Terry, why are you ignoring his first account, which is verified as it was said by him, and instead rely on a second version that was "told" years later, which is nearly unrecognizable to his first account, on the phone, which itself is also highly suspect? Also its by CIT. You call that credible?

Once again, you use uncorroborated and incorrect sources to fulfill your pet "theory" and ignore everything else that is counter to your own ideas. Only to you its old and stale as you try and try to ignore and bury his correct account, since it debunks your version. No surprise. Maybe you can explain how Terry has forgotten everything he has done in his initial account, only to be remember years later and totally different? He was very clear in his account of being out from between the two wings. This means he was no longer in between the wings. I can see that your grasp of the English language is lacking in verbal nuances. Also, you fail to explain where exactly did he run uphill, when the only "uphill" around the Pentagon is a slight rise, but he would have to run 100ft towards Wing 1 on the Annex to get a slight 6-7 ft height advantage. Hell I'll just re-link to what I stated earlier regarding that:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But that is Off Topic, so let us stay On Topic..



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by LaBTop
 


Well the Hoffman I found is the one that talks about 9/11, so, I do not see how I made an error of the person.

Also regarding Terry, why are you ignoring his first account, which is verified as it was said by him, and instead rely on a second version that was "told" years later, which is nearly unrecognizable to his first account, on the phone, which itself is also highly suspect? Also its by CIT. You call that credible?

Once again, you use uncorroborated and incorrect sources to fulfill your pet "theory" and ignore everything else that is counter to your own ideas. Only to you its old and stale as you try and try to ignore and bury his correct account, since it debunks your version. No surprise. Maybe you can explain how Terry has forgotten everything he has done in his initial account, only to be remember years later and totally different? He was very clear in his account of being out from between the two wings. This means he was no longer in between the wings. I can see that your grasp of the English language is lacking in verbal nuances. Also, you fail to explain where exactly did he run uphill, when the only "uphill" around the Pentagon is a slight rise, but he would have to run 100ft towards Wing 1 on the Annex to get a slight 6-7 ft height advantage. Hell I'll just re-link to what I stated earlier regarding that:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But that is Off Topic, so let us stay On Topic..


There are more Hof(f)man(n) 's who talk about 9/11, I once made that same mistake.

My grasp of the English language is good enough to correct you time and time over.
Let's correct you as usual again over the Morin subject, and then it's OP-time again :

Yes, I know about word by word what he wrote in 2002. Then they printed his words, that he was a few steps out of those Wings.
But I also know by heart how he corrected those words in the later interviews, which you can personally listen to.

Let's look at it from another angle.
We have Brooks and Lagasse on video and audio, who vehemently defend the NoC flying plane.
We have Sean Boger, who does the same.
We have many others, who do the same.

Did Morin change his first printed words, because he knew what the others above had expressed in their interviews?
Or was he pressed to change his first statement by any one in the military?
Or did he change his first words, because they did not fit what he really saw?
Did he honestly correct himself?

When you listen to his phone interviews, he gets more and more pissed off on CIT, but vehemently defend his latest words, which place him, according to his words, ""about 10 feet inside, in between the Wing 4 and 5 area, and that plane's body flew right over my head."" And that's why he wasn't sure about the company colors and striping on the plane, he could not see them, that's what he also explained to CIT.

And when you now combine his latest words with all the NoC witnesses, most of them phone or video interviewed, which I prefer a thousand times above any form of printed words, especially when the printing was done by mainstream news media, well biased to the government line of reasoning, then you have a combined case which witness and plane placements fit the NoC path to the millimeter.

We know your usual response on my words.

Stop it for once, go talk to one or more of these NoC witnesses, stop posting here until you did, and come back when you really can counter our arguments.
Now it is a repeat of insults to any witness we come up with, they must be all delusional in your eyes.

So, go talk to them, and prove your case........And I provided you guys with many more NoC witnesses, never interviewed by CIT. Have a field day, hurry up, or some one with more guts will beat you to it.



posted on May, 23 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
I see the usual shills are refuting the obvious evidence again! It doesn't matter how good the evidence is, they're paid to say otherwise!

There was seismic recordings before any impacts on WTC 1 & 2, and consistent with eye witness accounts.

Also, there is this seismic that you present for WTC7.

Seismic records do not lie and cannot be debunked by the shills!

The shills can say what they want, one part of the OS has been proved as a lie, and because of proved lies, none of the OS can be taken seriously.

I guess these dumbass shills dont have the skills to do any other kind of job!


Good post OP.


Keep handing the shills their asses on a plate!





new topics
top topics
 
57
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join