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

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Click " CTRL + " on your keyboard 7 times to expand this graph 7x in your Firefox browser.



I was contemplating why perhaps only a handful of ATS members seem to understand the grave repercussions for the official WTC 7 explanations, of my above WTC 7 seismogram with my added time lines.

Perhaps this may help anybody who still does not see in the blink of an eye, how devastating this evidence of an explosion (introduction of an external energy source) in fact is for the Official WTC 7 story line.

If this was a simple gravitational collapse, the graph would have been REVERSED, smaller pack of peaks first, then the biggest pack of peaks that showed the total collapse of the building.
This did not happen, the by NIST proposed snapping of only ONE internal column (79) should according to them, be the start of the collapse.
Then, 8.3 seconds later all the other interior and exterior columns over 14 floors somewhere down also snapped. A truly stupid FAIRYTALE.
They knew about this seismic evidence.....
And they also knew about David Chandler's famous 2.3 free fall evidence they had to gruntingly admit.....
That's why they deleted all later than 2001 seismic evidence reports by Dr Kim from their servers. And managed to get them deleted too from the Wayback websites.


LDEO and NIST STORY-LINES :
Story 2001, LDEO says event begins in NY at 17:20:33.
Story 2005, NIST brings out the Cianca photo, atomic clock timestamped at 17:20:46 as their starting point event of the full, total collapse sequence event.
The denting of the east penthouse roof-line !
The next event happened 8.3 seconds later, the start of the sinking of the parapet line of the WTC 7 roof.



Story 2005, NIST "corrects" event start at 17:20:47.
Story 2006, NIST "corrects" all times for TV broadcasts with + 5 secs, effectively adding 5 seconds to all related original photos and videos they "borrowed" from the owners.
Most of this material is not returned to private lenders.


The timestamp for the Cianca photo should thus read from now on, according to the editor group at NIST, 17:20:51 p.m. local New York time.
That are my flipped-down, U-shaped, black/red lines in the top-right corner of my above WTC 7 seismic graph, which is the original LDEO 9-11-2001 seismic recording of the WTC 7 collapse in Manhattan, NY.

A child can see now, that thus since 2006, according to NIST, the Cianca photo event, which they declared now in 2006 as beginning on 17:20:52 (they added 1 sec for unknown reason! ) and being their own first sign of the WTC 7 collapse sequence-start, must be connected to the 17 seconds later reacting seismographic needle on its graph at LDEO at a point on that graph, at its (printed under the graph) EDT 17:21:09 time stamp.

That's the little vertical red line with my red text "LDEO" in it in the top-right corner of my graph, with a thin black line pointing at that point with "17:21:09" in it.

For the keen observer of my graph, it is now immediately crystal-clear, that the start of the global collapse of WTC 7 (sinking of the parapet line on the real roof) which took place 12.3 seconds later than the low frequency ..Boooom... you can hear in the NIST collapse-of-WTC 7 video (the added 5 secs of all NIST photos on top of them = 17.3 secs) and also 8.3 secs later than the first sinking of the penthouse roof line (Cianca photo).
Thus that lays another 8.3 seconds further on that WTC 7 graph chart, which is at the end of the seismogram, just to the left of the last EDT 17:21:20 text printed on the bottom time-line by LDEO, on that chart.
The EDT 17:21:17.3 seconds point on LDEO's own time-line.

ADMIT it at last, all you patriotic blind sighted Americans, coming here to harass me and the rest of us at this 9/11 CONSPIRACY forum at ATS :


YOU HAVE BEEN MAJESTICALLY CONNED BY YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY ! AND BY ALL ITS INSTITUTIONS !

9/11 WAS A CONSPIRACY, BY THOSE YOU VOTED INTO power !
TAKE THAT power BACK, IF YOU ARE A TRUE PATRIOT !



Two of my three U-shaped lines, the green/red U, and the bottom darkblue/red U with the black text "NIST time" on its left and the red text "LDEO time" on its right, are exactly 17 seconds wide. They both depict a time-shift gap of 17 seconds on that graph.
That's the travel time of signals through the New York state upper crust.

The black/red U line on the right top side however, is 18 seconds wide. Read its text.
When you look at the left darkblue side of the bottom U-shaped darkblue/red U-line, you see the text "20:47 Start total collapse" at a position of one second to the right of the black "NIST time" text.
This time originates from a NIST time table of impact and collapse starting times.
That's why I had to add 1 second to the "Adjusted time from television broadcasts for start total collapse."

It is beyond my understanding why NIST did not hold onto their own Cianca photo, which they themselves printed that atomic clock certified time (20:46) on, but instead switched to a time in their 2006 own time table for the beginning of the total collapse time frame, which is however 1 second later (20:47).

This is the FOIA-liberated video that NIST did not want to publicly get known :




The Cianca photo shows beyond doubt, the first instance that something moved on any facade face or on the roof of WTC 7. The roof contour line of the eastern penthouse structure build on top of the huge roof floor. Which huge roof floor was sealed off with a parapet. That one sank 8.3 seconds later, thus, sinking of the two penthouses down into the building itself took 8.3 seconds.
That was the real photographed first indication of the very beginning of the progressing process of the full collapse, that thus took 3 + 8.3 = 11.3 seconds from the moment the deep ...Booom.. can be heard in that above NIST video of the WTC 7 collapse sequence, to proceed during these 11.3 seconds to the point in time that the whole parapet roof line started to sink, which time stamp NIST indicated as the start of the global collapse of WTC 7. (EDT 17:21:09)

So, NIST used confusing descriptions, one time they used the term "start total collapse at a 1 second later point (20:47) than the timestamped Cianca photo (20:46), and all the other times NIST used the sinking of the parapet roof line as a (21:09) timestamped moment. They in fact differ a huge 11.3 seconds in time span.

Neglect the (flipped over down; i.o.w. reversed) green U-shaped lines I did draw in.
They were only added, to show the first publications in 2001 by LDEO for their assumed time stamps and time lines at that early time (same week as 9/11), which they have retracted when NIST turned up.
But it is also an easy U-shape to visualize for you, the 17 seconds gap in time between what happened in Manhattan and AT THE SAME TIME in the seismograph, still drawing its constant small peaks on its graph-paper roll at the LDEO institute in Palisades, northern NY State, but lagged 17 secs in time compared to Manhattan time.

It took seismic signals from f.ex. a column snapping in WTC 7 about 17 seconds (1-2 sec error margin) to reach the seismograph, while that one calmly wrote its constant line of small earth tremor peaks. Then, when the tremor signals from the first demolition event inside WTC 7 at last arrived at the seismograph, its needle started to swing up and down in cadence with the tiny movements of its bedrock-coupled concrete block under it.
Concentrate on the 17 secs time lag in that seismogram, and suddenly all will clear up for you.




posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
I am going to repost now in their raw form, as copied from the original thread at the now defunct former Study of 9/11 Truth website, all my posts in that thread (their were only a few others posting in there, bsbray11 was one.

Would everybody bring up the peace of mind to wait until I tell you all that I am ready with reposting (END) so we do not get the usual childish comments squeezed in by immature posters.

Thank you in advance, LT\



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Why do you need two threads on the same topic in one week?



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
why is this being rehashed over and over again, is the better question.

Try to debunk the debunking , and come back with your rebuttals.

ETA: yes most of the buildings around the towers were purposefully brought down, after the towers fell. because they were all damaged, probably beyond economical repair.




edit on 2-3-2012 by LoonyConservative because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
Why do you need two threads on the same topic in one week?


Because the other one didn't convince anyone so,
he's trying again to fail twice within a week.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Studyof911 Board > 9/11 Forums > Building 7

Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Interpretation of Seismic 9/11 charts from LDEO, compared to NIST photo time stamp, Time stamps from NIST and LDEO do not compare to the official collapse

Options V
LaBTop

post Jan 4 2007, 11:35 AM
Post #1


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




Originally posted by LaBTop
posted on 28/10/06 at 02:17 (post id: 2579235) in this thread and page :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seismic events :

I still strongly believe and am convinced that those 5 seismic charts from PAL EHE proved without a doubt in my mind that 3 equally strong bombs or packs of bombs were used in WTC 1, 2 and 7. They didn't have a smaller one for WTC 7, so they used identical one's.

Proof of that is to be found in the (comparable, nearly identical) pre-peaks in the seismic charts from LDEO.

And the fact that in the very beginning of all the turmoil right after 9/11, a few -very telltale- seismic facts slipped under the radar from the huge team of damage and risk controllers lurking around, payed by all those agencies which clearly knew what huge positive effects the day of 9/11 would have on their longterm political and geo-strategical wish lists.

And I wrote about it more than a year ago, and am still baffled that anybody else still does not see the significance of these anomalies in the 3 collapse charts of the five charts, which can be compared to the other 2 charts (the plane impacts).

bsbray11 :
QUOTE
A 40-second seismic record for WTC7 can be found here:
911research.wtc7.net...
It would be interesting to match up with the collapse, because there were reports of huge explosions near the base of the building some seconds before the unresisted global collapse.
Your link to that WTC 7 seismic chart showed me an interesting development.
911research.wtc7.net has removed the text lines ABOVE those seismic charts of LDEO, depicting the EDT collapse times proposed by LDEO for the seismic events received at the Palisades NY seismic station, which STILL can be viewed at this LDEO site page :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu... (Record of the Day, 5 seismic WTC graphs).

Do yourself a favour, and open this page in another tab of your browser, so you can see the text above the graphs clearly, since this text does not show up in the next 5 LDEO graphs !!!

There was f.ex. a 7 seconds difference in actual EDT collapse time proposed by LDEO and the PAL EHE graph start times on the WTC 7 collapse chart. So we lost 7 important seconds at the front of that chart.
So 911research does not see the importance of those small details above each chart.
They also did not see that the 17 seconds time interval between origin of the signals in New York and receiving them at LDEO was definitely not clearly indicated.

See my note in this AboveTopSecret forum post :
www.abovetopsecret.com... :

QUOTE
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

--SNIP--

Note:
These next charts are the seismographs recorded by LCSN Station PAL (Palisades, NY) :


1. Seismic record of the first plane impact at the North Tower (WTC-1) at 08:46:26 (EDT).



2. Second plane Impact at the South Tower (WTC-2) at 09:02:54 (EDT).



3. First Collapse of the South Tower (WTC-2) at 09:59:04 (EDT)
Note: sensibility of graph 10x lower.



4. Second Collapse of the North Tower (WTC-1) at 10:28:31 (EDT)
Note: sensibility of graph 10x lower.



5. Building 7 Collapse: 17:20:33 (EDT)


(This very important EDT collapse time proposed by LDEO has now been deleted as a text line from above all 5 of the 911research graphs!!!
It only reads now inside the Bldg7.jpg graph top : start time 21:20:40, it's a 7 seconds difference between 33 and 40, which makes all the difference in the world for the interpretation of that WTC 7 graph! As you could see in numerous videos, the visual implosion time of building 7 for example only took about 8 seconds! )

=== === ===



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Originally posted by LaBTop
posted on 28/10/06 at 02:22 (post id: 2579242) in this thread and page :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Next :

timeless test :
QUOTE
The problem with this record is that the falling of the penthouse and the structure beneath it is difficult (or impossible) to distinguish from the collapse of the main structure although I have to say that even if we assume that the main collapse doesn't commence until the second major spike there is still an awful lot of stuff hitting the ground at least 10 seconds later.
Exactly.

That same anomaly drove me to write all these seismic posts one year ago in this thread :
1. www.abovetopsecret.com...
Title : Popular Mechanics Is Correct? (Seismographs)
Read first this post :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which explains the confusing way the PAL EHE seismologists did describe their seismic signal charts, they tried to imprint the impression in the readers mind that their charts zero points were also the REAL TIME event stamps in New York, which clearly they were not.
They included in the graph a 17 seconds delay of signals before they arrived at their seismic station.

Especially the WTC 7 chart missed 7 seconds in front, and on top of that, the WTC 1 and 2 charts scale was 10 times less sensitive than the WTC 7 chart.

Then read this post :
www.abovetopsecret.com... :
Note: I have edited now some confusing text of mine at the beginning of this post to try to be more clear :

LDEO stated -above- their graph: Building 7 collapse time : 17:20:33 (EDT).

And in their graph that the graph's +0.0 start time was set at 17:20:40 (EDT)
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT to notice!

That must mean they also included in the graph a 17 seconds delay of signals before they arrived at their seismic station.
When you insert their 17 seconds seismic recording signal delay, their seismographs thus recorded this event of LDEO's presumption of the first sign of collapse in New York at local NY-time of 17:20:33 (EDT), plus 17 seconds signal travelling time, then the signal is arriving at LDEO at 17:20:50 (EDT).
Said otherwise:
On arrival at LDEO Palisades station 34 miles north of New York (2 miles per second travelling of signals, total time 34/2=17sec) the time there was 17:20:50 (EDT), (50 - 17 = 33 ) which is the 10s position on their graph, because their +0.0 starting time mark is explained in the graph's top left corner as 17:20:40 (EDT). (50 - 40 = 10 sec).
When you just print the graph and put 40 there at the +0.0 position, all the rest of this post will become clearer to see.


www.studyof911.com...
Thanks very much to the one who uploaded this 17 seconds delay time seismic chart to StudyOf9/11.

However, the people at NIST showed us in their draft of their WTC-7 report a time of 17:20:46 (EDT) of the first visual proof of collapse, the dent. (That timestamp was printed in an actual NIST report photograph of the dent, a very important piece of evidence btw, since now you can combine LDEO and NIST time lines!)
The event signal then took 17 sec to travel to Palissades to be recorded there at 46 + 17 = 17:20:63 (EDT), which is the LDEO graph position of 23s. (63 - 40 = 23)
17:20:63 (EDT), is ofcourse real time 17:21:03 (EDT), it is depicted as :63 to be able to show the 23s position clearer.

That is a huge discrepancy of 13 seconds between LDEO and NIST.

QUOTE
(the rest of my past post follows now in its original form smile.gif

It seems that LDEO took a look at that graph, and just as we can see, they noted the start of signals coming in at the 10s position on their recording. I can not find a conclusive visual event in New York which could connect to that 10s position.

Surely we have that dented roof from the NIST website, with the time added. Somehow I have more faith in that data, which everyone can see for themselves :


www.studyof911.com...

That means the first collapse signs from NIST (collapse of the east penthouse), recorded at a PalisadeSRecordingTime on the 23 s position is at least a confirmed one.
See now again this graph :



Then we are left with the biggest graph-signals positioned 4-5 seconds in advance of that 23 sec position, and they have an equal energy load as the first plane impact, (check signal peaks in LDEO graph of first impact) and that event surely did not went unnoticed.
However, LDEO wants us to believe that the WTC-7 collapse started 13 seconds earlier than the first obscure signs of starting collapse, the dent.

That can only mean one thing.
13 seconds before NIST can find a visual, some seismic event comparable to the head-on collision of a huge air plane on each WTC 1 and 2 towers, shook the bedrock at the WTC-7 building.


I have posted much more on this subject at ATS, see this thread at these forums for more ATS links by bsbray :
WTC7: Seismic times vs FEMA times, Most likely cause for collapse :
www.studyof911.com...
Post #4 by Bsbray : www.studyof911.com...#
Craig T. Furlong showed in that first thread post another seismic signals time stamp discrepancy between the 911Commission report and the NIST report.


PS: could an administrator show the LDEO graphs in their original form in this post, images are at the moment automatically reduced to 64%, which does no good to the intention of this post, to see directly and clearly in the graphs what is meant.
The graphs are literally unreadable at this moment.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
LaBTop

post Jan 4 2007, 01:43 PM
Post #2


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com... ( last page at this date, Jan 04 2007 )

Read and look at the diagrams and photo's in those pages please, and follow links provided.

I do agree to this day with Wecomeinpeace that we need a confirmation from multiple sources about the NIST time stamp on that Cianca picture showing the first dent in the east penthouse on the roof of WTC 7, preferably by CBS time stamped news coverage, or by the photographer himself.
To put an end to the NIST and LDEO seismic time stamp discrepancies.

NIST must have corresponded with Cianca, for sure, to obtain his original footage.

This post has been edited by LaBTop: Jan 4 2007, 01:46 PM



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
LaBTop

post Jan 4 2007, 06:14 PM
Post #3


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




Here is the post by ATS member Long Lance, with his two x10 resized seismic charts of both collapses of WTC 1 and 2.
So you at last can compare all 5 LDEO seismic charts to each other in the same 0-10.0 nm/s scale.
www.abovetopsecret.com... :
Posted by Long Lance, on November 26, 2005 at 12:03 GMT at the ATS forum, where you can't see the 2 charts anymore.

QUOTE
ok, let's see, resized x10 in the vertical:

first collapse


images5.theimagehosting.com...
or
server5.theimagehosting.com...&fullsize=1


second collapse


images5.theimagehosting.com...
or
server5.theimagehosting.com...&fullsize=1

third (wtc #7) resized, so this time my link


images5.theimagehosting.com...

collapse of wtc7 in the last pic starts (if i'm not mistaken) with the second series of spikes (follow the arrow), which can be seen by comparing signal proliferation times, like LabTop has already done


strange stuff outside the boundaries is distorted text, which i left in on purpose


personal comments: wtc7's precursor events appear to be even stronger than the other two, i'd really like to know what was in the basement, especially considering that bldg.7's remains were allegedly on fire for ~3 months.


PS: d'uh if you tell me to i will use thumbnails, otherwise, i'll keep them fullsize

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

resized images



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
bsbray

post Jan 5 2007, 05:15 AM
Post #4


Administrator
***

Group: Administrator
Posts: 140
Joined: 2-September 06
Member No.: 2




I think it's with the software, so someone else would have to edit it to fix the problem.

Until then, you can just click the black headers of the images for a full-size pop up.


Collapse 1:



Collapse 2:




Building 7, which is already hosted:




And WCIP's explanatory diagram from ATS:



This post has been edited by bsbray: Jan 5 2007, 05:20 AM



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
LaBTop

post Feb 11 2007, 06:22 PM
Post #5


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




Quote from my post above :
They included in the graph a 17 seconds delay of signals before they arrived at their seismic station.

Caused by the overwhelming amount of reactions of brave American citizens posting in this thread (sarcasm included), on this in plain sight proof of demolition of WTC 7, the need for clarification of a very important point was felt.

There seem to be a need to proof to the obvious far too casual reader, that LDEO indeed did include the 17 sec delay in their recordings of received seismic signals from New York on 11 September 2001 in their seismic charts.

And that the event time stamps printed by LDEO above the "Seismograms recorded by LCSN Station PAL (Palisades, NY)" of the plane impacts and building collapses were the actual times of the incoming signals at PAL.
Not the actual event times in New York.!
There is a 17 seconds delay time for the seismic signals to travel through the upper crust from NY to PAL, as stated by LDEO them self.


Just look at the seismic diagrams of the 2 tower impacts and the 2 tower collapses :
Record of the Day, so named by LDEO.

Open this link in a second window or browser tab, so you can see with your own eyes how your banks conned all of you.
Included your government, president and advisers. They walk around with blindfolds, willingly or unknowingly.
No excuse for both behaviours.
It were ultimately the banks who wanted the Kennedy's removed from power, when the brothers wanted to wipe out the Federal Reserve notes, and return to the Gold or Sterling Silver Standard from before the Feds coup under Woodrow Wilson.
It was the Mafia hired as usual by the CIA and the FBI who choosed to do it the brutal way. By cheap bullets.
Because it's the banks which were and will always be your ultimate enemy, the enemy within.
They are the paymasters of the military-industrial complex, the media moguls, and the politicians, and about everyone else who doesn't take the truth at face value, all over the world.
And they intrinsically need to create fear and greed, that's the root of their becoming in full existance in the 1800's.!
Btw, since the brute Kennedy's turmoil, they prefer untraceable poisons, or genetically improved deadly diseases.
It provides the same, if not psychologically heavier impact on the still living adversaries.

Then pay now careful attention to the following :

1. First Impact: 12:46:26 (UTC), 08:46:26 (EDT).
Sensitivity 0 -10 nm/sec.
Graph start time 12:46:30 (+ 4 sec, why?)
26 + 17 = 43 sec. (43 - 30 = 13 sec). This is the 13 sec position on the chart.
Exactly the start of bigger than background noise signals in the first plane impact chart.
My first undeniable proof that LDEO included the 17 sec delay time in their seismic charts.

2. Second Impact: 13:02:54 (UTC), 09:02:54 (EDT)
Sensitivity 0 -10 nm/sec.
Graph start time 13:02:55 (+ 1 sec, why?)
54 + 17 = 71 sec. (71 - 55 = 16 sec). This is the 16 sec position on the chart.
Exactly the start of bigger than background noise signals in the second plane impact chart.
My second undeniable proof that LDEO included the 17 sec delay time in their seismic charts.

3. First Collapse: 13:59:04 (UTC), 09:59:04 (EDT).
Sensitivity 0 -100 nm/sec = 10x less!
Graph start time 13:59: 07 (+ 3 sec, why?)
04 + 17 sec delay = 21 sec. (21 - 07 = 14 sec). This is the 14 sec position on the chart.
Exactly the start of bigger than background noise signals in the first, South Tower collapse chart.
My third undeniable proof that LDEO included the 17 sec delay time in their seismic charts.
Have a look again at the reduced to 0-10 nm/sec sensitivity, First Collapse graph in the former above posts, to see the preceding seismic signals comparable to the plane impacts!

4. Second Collapse: 14:28:31 (UTC), 10:28:31 (EDT)
Sensitivity 0 -100 nm/sec = 10x less!
Graph start time 14:28:30 (minus 1 sec, why?)
31 + 17 sec delay = 48 sec. (48 - 30) + 1 = 19 sec).
This is the 19 sec position on the chart.
Exactly the start of bigger than background noise signals in the second, North Tower collapse chart.
My fourth undeniable proof that LDEO included the 17 sec delay time in their seismic charts.
Have a look again at the reduced to 0-10 nm/sec sensitivity, Second Collapse graph in the former above posts, to see the preceding seismic signals comparable to the plane impacts!


Now comes the biggest questioning of scientific evidence :

5. Building 7 Collapse: 21:20:33 (UTC), 17:20:33 (EDT).
Sensitivity 0 -10 nm/sec.
Graph start time 21:20: 40 (+ 7 sec, why,why,why?)
33 + 17 sec delay = 50 sec. (50 - 40 = 10 sec).
This is the 10 sec position on the chart.
No start of conclusive bigger than background noise signals in this Building 7 collapse chart.
No undeniable proof that LDEO included the 17 sec delay time in this seismic chart, but scientific proof of reproducibility of standardized data is enough for us to assume they did.
We are sure that LDEO used a 17 sec delay in 4 charts, thus we may 100% sure, assume the same delay in the fifth, WTC 7 chart.

Since NIST knows far too well by now, that the following time stamped photo says it all, they keep delaying their WTC 7 final report,
(see my above posts again for an explanation what is wrong with the 2 collapse and WTC 7 charts) :



So, the people at NIST showed us in their draft of their WTC-7 report a time of 17:20:46 (EDT) of the first visual proof of collapse, the photographed dent in the east penthouse roof.
That timestamp was printed in an actual NIST report photograph of the dent, a very important piece of evidence btw, since now you can combine LDEO and NIST time lines :

LDEO notes the beginning of WTC 7 collapse as 17:20:33 (EDT),
NIST notes the first visual effect, the east penthouse roof dent, as 17:20:46 (EDT)
That is a huge discrepancy of 13 seconds between LDEO and NIST.

The event signal then took 17 sec to travel to Palissades to be recorded there at 46 + 17 = 17:20:63 (EDT), which is the LDEO graph position of 23s. (63 - 40 = 23)
17:20:63 (EDT), is of course real time 17:21:03 (EDT), it is depicted as :63 to be able to show the 23s position clearer.

It seems that LDEO took a look at that WTC 7 graph, and just as we can see, they noted the start of possible faint signals coming in at the 10s position on their recording at LDEO actual time. I can not find a conclusive visual or audio event, photographed or filmed, in New York actual time, which could connect to that 10 sec position.

Surely we have that dented roof photo by Nicolas Cianca from the NIST website, with the time added. Somehow I have more faith in that data, which everyone can see for themselves.
It is strange that mr Cianca 's website with his 9/11 photographs disappeared from the Net after I first mentioned in a post at ATS the 13 seconds discrepancy between LDEO and NIST. This I checked with the Internet Archive website shortly after posting.
1. Library of Congress, Minerva, September 11 Web Archive:
lcweb2.loc.gov...
2. Internet Archive: Wayback Machine:
www.archive.org...
Advanced Search Wayback Machine:
web.archive.org...
3. Archive.bibalex.org:
archive.bibalex.org...

The two collapse charts, when reduced to the same sensitivity as the 3 others (0 -10 nm/sec), clearly show preceding seismic events, just as big as the (23 sec chart position) preceding seismic event in the WTC 7 chart.

THUS I REPEAT :

That can only mean one thing.
13 seconds before NIST found their first visual event proof of building failure, the east penthouse roof dent photograph by Nicolas Cianca, some seismic event, comparable to the head-on collision of a huge air plane on each WTC 1 and 2 towers, shook the bedrock at the WTC-7 building.
And the same comparable seismic events preceded the 2 Collapsing Towers.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   
LaBTop

post Feb 13 2007, 03:04 AM
Post #6


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




Nicolas Chianca has a website here :
www.cianca.com...
In fact it is totally defunct now, only 3 uninteresting pages regarding 9/11 are left over, with a small bit of text.
The main page is the only one left, with a long list of links, all defunct.
Especially his link to his photo's of the day of 11 September 2001 are not working :
Sept 11 2001 - Tuesday : www.cianca.com... :

QUOTE
Not Found

The requested URL /wtc/tuesday-september-11-2001/ was not found on this server.
Apache Server at www.cianca.com Port 80
Trying to find that page back with the WayBack Machine :
archive.bibalex.org...*/ww...tember-11-2001... :

QUOTE
0 pages found for www.cianca.com...

Sorry, no matches.


Searching in the WayBack Machine for all pages on cianca.com/ doesn't give a result either.

You can ask about the time stamp on that NIST picture, and contact Nicolas Cianca directly via this page, it seems :
www.linkedin.com...

This link also is defunct : pictures.cianca.com...


I am convinced however that the time stamp on his photo of the dented roof of the WTC 7 east penthouse accords to atomic clock readings used by NIST from CBS or other Media Network video footage from the same dent.

For some explanation of NIST time readings off video footage see post nr 233 in this forum thread :
forums.randi.org...
and also post nr 413 at page 11 for LDEO time stamps via GPS, not UTC :
forums.randi.org...
This poster goes a long way to try to imply that a 13 sec difference -could- occur. A truly hairsplitting effort.

The name of this thread is : Siesmic Evidence Proves Inside Job? (typo by the author of that thread)
The whole thread (11 pages) is worth reading, pro and mostly contra Graig T.Furlong and Gordon Ross's paper on offset times of plane impact times by NIST , LDEO seismic times and other official institutes time stamping, contra FAA radar times.

This is all important for the two main subjects of my theory here, the Cianca/NIST dent photo and the LDEO seismic time stamps.

This post has been edited by LaBTop: Feb 13 2007, 03:37 AM



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
LaBTop

post Feb 16 2007, 10:59 AM
Post #7


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




Here is my extended version from the LDEO WTC 7 seismic chart with extensions by me,
so you can observe all the discrepancies between NIST and LDEO :

Big drawing URL , 890 x 766 pixels :


Normal size for this forum URL , 400 x 344 pixel :


img=400x344 :


TickH, Brian, WinstonS, Code Guru, please help again to show the big picture above.
It is of utterly importance to be able to see it in this thread, as you all will agree I hope.

This post has been edited by ThichHeaded: Aug 21 2007, 08:37 PM



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
LaBTop

post Feb 16 2007, 01:16 PM
Post #8


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




QUOTE
Studyof911.com Image Library
To submit images: submissions@studyof911.com

Error
Disk quota exceeded
You have a space quota of 1024K, your files currently use 1020K, adding this file would make you exceed your quota.


Could you also give me more upload space, there need 12 files to be uploaded, to support the above drawing of mine.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   
bsbray

post Feb 16 2007, 02:49 PM
Post #9


Administrator
***

Group: Administrator
Posts: 140
Joined: 2-September 06
Member No.: 2




Enlarged:

Go to the top of the page


+Quote Post
LaBTop

post Feb 16 2007, 09:15 PM
Post #10


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




In the above mentioned external thread discussion from randi.org, posts nrs 120 (page 3) and 204, 206 and 208 are worth reading.
The following quoted post explains perfectly well, why intelligent posters all the time got duped by LDEO's non-depicting of the 17 sec delay times in all there seismic drawings, while LDEO however mentioned it in the dr. Kim report text, and also explained the 1 to 2 sec error margin of their data in that text.
That very important feature of 17 sec delay should have been printed inside all their drawings of seismic signals of 9/11. Here is that post :

-------------------------------------------------------------
forums.randi.org... ; post 208 by Kent1 :

QUOTE
Originally Posted by quicknthedead (which is Craigh T. Furlong btw)
Responding to apathoid 1937059
quote:
Regarding WTC7, at 5:20:33 there was an 18 second seismic event that had a dominant signal of .6 Richter per LDEO; however, the FEMA report states that the building visibly began to collapse at 5:21:03 and went down in approximately 6.5 seconds. However, no seismic signal occurred during the 6.5 seconds of this 47-story skyscraper's collapse....???

Now remember, the plane "impacts" as first reported by LDEO were only .9 and .7 Richter. Now compare these seismic readings of .9 and .7 to the WTC7 seismic reading of .6 for a "building collapse".

Can explosives explain this puzzle?
end quote.
-------
Kent1 : Thats FEMA. NIST states 5:20:52. Siesmic events should have been recorded prior to the visible collapse considering that the building started an internal collapse first before it progressed vertically to the penthouse. The time NIST seems to use 5:20:52 is when the total outer frame begins to fall. See NIST chapter 3.5 in this report :
wtc.nist.gov...

Nicolas Cianca's photo shows a time stamp of 5:20:46 as the penthouse first starts to collapse.

wtc.nist.gov...

Match from Cianca photo, add 14/15 seconds from video that makes about 5:21:00 -+1 :

www.terrorize.dk...


LEDO has 5:20:42, you then add the 18 seconds of seismic activity, which brings the seismic end-time to 5:21:00.

I think everything seems to match well.
Last edited by Kent1 : 19th September 2006 at 11:58 PM.

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

Now you can see that it didn't match at all, when you insert the extra 17 sec delay of signals to arrive at LDEO, you see the error of mr Kent1. And he inserted 14 to 15 sec from the terrorize.dk video, which is a direct link to that site, and thus not time-corrected by the method of NIST, thus untrustable and probably an incorrect time to compare to NIST times.

However, in the 2005 NIST timeline link wtc.nist.gov/pubs/ etc from mr. Kent1, we find the next blow to the whole NIST house of carts.
Failure Sequence Timeline (page 26 of 42) :

Attached File NIST_DentToTotalCollapse8.2sec.JPG ( 49.92k ) Number of downloads: 3




It is clear by now, that we have to add another 8.2 seconds to the Nicolas Cianca photo of the penthouse dent, to arrive at the real exact time the global collapse of WTC 7 started in New York !
That means global collapse did not start at 17:20:52 as NIST stated in its Table 3-1 column 3, but at :
17:20:46 (Cianca photo time stamp) plus 8.2 seconds before global collapse started, arriving at a time of 17:20:54:02 ,
adding another 2.2 seconds to the already very confusing picture NIST tries to paint.

This comes on top of the already again re-evaluated 5 seconds addition by NIST to the relative time for total collapse start, 17:20:47 , from visual analysis (column 2), the reason why they arrived again in 2006 at a new time stamp for the beginning of WTC 7 total collapse in column 3 of Table 3-1, of 17:20:52 .

The most confusing fact NIST propose now, is the time based on LDEO recent analysis, for total collapse start of WTC 7, the 10 seconds difference of LDEO's 17:20:42 with the NIST adjusted time from television broadcasts, 17:20:52 . And this 17:20:52 time stamp, they say is ""believed to be accurate and also agree with the most recent analysis of seismic signals"".(See chapter 3.6, Absolute Time Accuracy)

There's a whopping 10 seconds time difference, what kind of agreement is that.?
And it's getting worth for NIST.
When we assume that NIST has re-evaluated their Cianca (east penthouse dent) photo timestamp of 17:20:46 publicized in 2005, then NIST now in 2007, must have added another 5 seconds, like in all other visual material in their database, and must the Cianca photo have now, Feb 2007, a new timestamp of 17:20:51 .

See now again the above undisputable 2005 NIST timeline, add 8.2 seconds, then we end up now with a re-evaluated 2007 timestamp for WTC 7's start of total collapse of 17:20:59:02 .
And then we have to look again at the 2001 seismic WTC 7 chart from LDEO, and add the 17 seconds signal travel time.
Then we can conclude that the arrival of first signs of the start of total collapse of WTC 7 at LDEO Palisade's station was recorded in 2001 at 17:21:16:02 .

Well, have a look again at the big drawing posted by bsbray for me, and you see that this position is 4 seconds before the whole graph ends.!

This post has been edited by LaBTop: Feb 17 2007, 09:42 AM



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
LaBTop

post Feb 16 2007, 09:45 PM
Post #11


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




For NIST's timing techniques for 9/11 events, recorded by photo or video equipment, and the mentioned margins of error by NIST, see :
wtc.nist.gov...

They stated recently in this above report, in 2006, after numerous revisions, a 1 second margin of error for the WTC 7 collapse.
Expressed in relative times from visual analysis, see table 3-1, Times for major events of September 11, 2001.
Thus the time stamp on the Cianca photo also has a relative time error margin of 1 second.
NIST has first analyzed in 2005 all the video recordings of the WTC 7 east penthouse dent and put a conclusive relative time stamp on those, with a margin of 1 second, then printed in 2005 that NIST declared time stamp in the Nicolas Cianca photo of the dent in the 2005 NIST reports : 5:20:46 p.m..

Then they calculated in 2006 the adjusted time from television broadcasts.
See for proof wtc.nist.gov... ,

Chapter 3.5 , first lines and last lines :

QUOTE
relative times for the five major events of September 11, 2001 -- first aircraft impact, second aircraft impact, collapse of WTC 2, collapse of WTC 1,and collapse of WTC 7 -- were determined with 1 second accuracies. Note that the building collapse times are defined to be when the entire building was first observed to start to collapse. In the case of WTC 7, a penthouse on the roof sank into the building before the main collapse started.


They time stamped in 2005 that sanking, in the Cianca photo, at 17:20:46. According to their own 2006, Table 3-1, total collapse then started at 17:20:47.
That's one second later.
Which is totally wrong according to their own 2005 WTC 7 Failure Sequence Timeline. (see further on for a screenshot of it).
Must be in fact 8.2 seconds later.

QUOTE
Ultimately, 3,357 of the 7,118 catalogued photographs and 2,789 of the 6,982 video clips in the database were timed with assigned relative uncertainties of 3 seconds or better.


Whatever they mean with that, it has no real meaning, since they don't give access to a list of the 2006 relative uncertainties for each photo or video in their database.
And don't indicate in this 2006 report which of them they were unable to provide with any calculated uncertainty.
Perhaps if you buy the whole most recent voluminous reports of them in print, you could find those data.
I'm pretty sure you will not, that will be undisclosed following their first statement in every NIST report up till now, about privacy and security reasons.


And in chapter 3.6 :

QUOTE
Recalling that uncertainties for times of the major events based on the television broadcasts are estimated to be 1 second, (etc.)


NIST added in 2006 a full 5 seconds to all television broadcast and photographed events in their developed timeline database, after re-evaluating 4 independent video clips of the second plane impact at the WTC 1 North Tower, concluded now a time for that impact of 9:02:59 a.m., and inflicted that extra 5 seconds to all photo and video material in that new 2006 database.
See column 3 in NIST Table 3-1 here :
wtc.nist.gov...
As we all know there were very few video recordings of the first impact, I know only of the Naudet brothers film.


The mentioned margins of error by LDEO are 1 to 2 seconds, mentioned in this 2006 NIST 1-5A report, and LDEO mentioned in this undated report :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...
in the text of fig-1 :

QUOTE
...Sampling is done for 14-second time windows starting about 17 s after origin time....


The text of this report has changed several times over the years, the first one was publicized in Nov 2001.
I have copies saved of all changes.
This last one has NO date when it was last altered! Text was however altered the last time on 31 Jan 2006, to my knowledge, after dr. Kim was contracted by NIST to re-evaluate his former statements. Dr. Kim was stubborn, and adjusted the error margin with 1 second, and added 3 sec to all 5 major event time stamps by LDEO, that was all he was prepared to do. It is of course a bit difficult to change the surface waves propagation time through the New York state's upper crust from 2 km/sec to something more convenient to NIST, and the distance from New York to LDEO's station can not change from 34 km to something else. Thus 34 km divided by 2 km/sec still gives in 2007 a 17 seconds delay time for seismic signals originating in New York, to arrive at LDEO's Palisades station.
Dr. Kim could not alter the 17 sec delay time, since he was aware of the same exact matches for the 2 plane impacts and the 2 WTC tower collapses, as mentioned by me in post of 12 Feb., my 4 undeniable proofs that LDEO inserted the 17 sec delay times in the first 4 graphs, and consequently also in the fifth, WTC 7 graph.
NIST can try to push a sincere scientist to alter up to 3 seconds, but not to an extra 17 seconds.




And what do we find here at last in the same NIST report.?
The timing correction method in 2006 of the Nicolas Cianca set of photographs obtained from him by NIST :
Chapter 3.1 : VISUAL MATERIAL INCORPORATING TIMESTAMPS.
Pages 115 + 116 from 392 (Actual report pages 19, 20).

Here are screenshots from these pages, archived at StudyOf9/11.org, so you can see for yourself, even if the official material will disappear or change over time, as I have seen happening many times over the years.

Attached File NIST_NicolasCianca_timings.JPG ( 115.77k ) Number of downloads: 4




Attached File NIST_NicolasCianca_timings_2.JPG ( 71.44k ) Number of downloads: 2




Attached File NIST_NicolasCianca_timings_2a.JPG ( 81.1k ) Number of downloads: 3




Attached File NIST_NicolasCianca_timings_3.JPG ( 24.65k ) Number of downloads: 2






Especially chapter 3.5 to 3.7 : TIMES FOR THE FIVE MAJOR EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
Pages 118, 119, 120 from 392. (Actual report pages 22, 23, 24),
is revealing quite some disturbing discrepancies between NIST's relative Visual Analysis- and adjusted Television Broadcast times, with the recent LDEO seismic charts analysis and its attached LDEO time stamps. (with a declared timing error of 1 to 2 seconds as quoted by LDEO)

I can not quote from this report in the usual form, thanks to the non-copy attribute from the 'reader-friendly' editors and publishers of NIST.
So I had to take screenshots and upload them here. (Alt+Shift+PrtScr, then Paste in Paint, and Save after cropping and colouring, as a JPEG file).
This is the interesting part of NIST's timing methods :

Attached File WTC7_NIST_LDEO_timing_nr1.JPG ( 98.91k ) Number of downloads: 15




This is the very important Table 3-1 from NIST, which clearly shows the WTC 7 collapse timing problem NIST has to overcome.
This is one of the main reasons NIST keeps postponing its Final WTC 7 report for 3 years already.

Attached File WTC7_NIST_LDEO_timing_nr2.JPG ( 108.14k ) Number of downloads: 10




Attached File WTC7_NIST_LDEO_timing_nr3.JPG ( 139.36k ) Number of downloads: 2




Attached File WTC7_NIST_LDEO_timing_nr4.JPG ( 39.08k ) Number of downloads: 0





In page 48 from 392 (actual page xlvi) we find a few other references, and also the latest 2006 LDEO report from dr. Kim :

Attached File WTC7_NIST_LDEO_timing_nr5.JPG ( 87.23k ) Number of downloads: 0





Find the 2006 NIST NCSTAR 1-6G report, that's the next intelligency test.

This post has been edited by ThichHeaded: Aug 7 2007, 11:27 AM



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
LaBTop

post Feb 17 2007, 12:17 AM
Post #12


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




Have a good look at the text in this screenshot from the Nist report :
www.studyof911.com...



I do agree that when you subtract 9 seconds for WTC 2, resp. 11 seconds for WTC 1 , from the LDEO revisioned collapse times (Table 3-1, column 5), needed by the first debris to hit the ground, you end up within the error margins set by NIST for televised events (Table 3-1, column 3).
This is advertised by NIST as 2 top down collapses.

However, this does not match at all for the WTC 7 collapse.
This is advertised by NIST as a bottom first collapse.
So the first heavy internal debris should have hit the ground within 2 seconds.
That needs to be first said, to be clear about all the NIST confusion methods.

And if you do what NIST proposes for all 3 collapses, and subtract 6.8 seconds WTC 7 debris fall time from the 2006 revised total collapse time for WTC 7 by LDEO of 5:20:42 a.m. (a real sloppy typo for a 24 million $ report, must be p.m.!!!), you end up at 5:20:35:02 p.m., which is certainly not within NIST's own error margins for televised events.
It is nearly exactly 17 seconds earlier as 5:20:52 , the NIST declared exact time for the collapse start of WTC 7, derived from numerous video clips from television broadcasts, which were time clocked by NIST's own atomic clocks.

Now that's a well known number by now, it is the same amount as the 17 seconds delay time for signals travelling from New York to LDEO.

That means however, that NIST is caught up in its own trap, since they declared 5:20:52 as ACTUAL New York event time, namely the visual start of WTC 7's collapse, and we know by now that the seismic signals connected to this event, need 17 seconds to travel to LDEO.
And thus arrive at 5:21:09 !

What is all the energy then depicted in the LDEO WTC 7 seismic chart, preceding the 21:09 position ?
Enough energy to be more than, or equal the seismic energy depicted in each of the 2 plane impacts charts of WTC 1 and 2.

SO, am I wrong or is NIST, or LDEO wrong, or straight out fixing data to let these confirm to the official collapse theory.?

LDEO did revise in 2006 the event start times for the 2 plane impacts and the 2 first collapses, which they took in 2001 from the FEMA report, upping them to 3 seconds later for all 5 events.
They were taken from the FEMA report's event start times, printed above the 5 graphs. (See NIST table 3-1)
LDEO stated in the 2001 report by dr. Kim, that all these 5 graphs were recorded with a 17 sec delay compared to actual New York event times :
www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

QUOTE
Origin times with an uncertainty of 2 s were calculated from the arrival times of Rg waves at PAL using a velocity of 2 km/s. --snip-- subscript under Figure 1. --snip-- distance 34 km --snip-- Displacement amplitude spectra in nm-s from main impacts and collapses shown at right. Sampling is done for 14-second time windows starting about 17 s after origin time.


However, the LDEO WTC 7 collapse start time was revised to 9 seconds later, in 2006, from the original FEMA time of 5:20:33 p.m., upped to a later time of 5:20:42 p.m., and still did not come close to the actual NIST declared event start time of 5:20:52 p.m. It comes 10 seconds short.

One thing is obvious by now.
The 2006 NIST WTC 7 initial collapse actual time, does not compare to the 2006 LDEO WTC 7 initial collapse revised actual time.

I wait now for your constructive input, pro or contra.

This post has been edited by ThichHeaded: Aug 21 2007, 08:39 PM
Go to the top of the page


+Quote Post
LaBTop

post Feb 17 2007, 11:05 AM
Post #13


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




Here is my own first constructive input :

www.angelfire.com...
This website criticizes the NIST reports.
It's advisable for many researchers to read the whole page, not just my quotes of it.

Highly interesting for my last remark "intelligency test, find NCSTAR 1-6G" in one of the above posts is this excerpt :

QUOTE
NIST reports vanish

On its website, the NIST says that the main WTC7 report has been deferred until October 2005.

It is unclear whether the postponed report is the one titled 'Structural analysis of the response of World Trade Center 7 to debris damage and fire' which is cited in prefatory material to various NCSTAR reports but is nowhere to be found on the NIST website. The NIST awarded Ramon Gilsanz and his New York engineering firm a contract to do computer simulations of the WTC7 collapse. Omitted from the NIST website is NCSTAR 1-6F, the report by Gilsanz and nine others.

Also omitted was NCSTAR 1-6G: "Analysis of Sept. 11, 2001 seismogram data" by W. Kim.
Won-Young Kim of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory has done previous analysis of 9/11 seismographic data.

No explanation is given for the seismic report's deletion, though it likely contains information concerning WTC7's collapse.


One can constantly observe NIST deceleration methods for a solid explanation of WTC 7's global collapse sequence, methods aimed at trying to fit undeniable facts into a deniable official theory.

That 2006 NCSTAR 1-6G report from dr. Kim is indeed not present anymore at the index page of NIST NCSTAR 1-6 :
wtc.nist.gov...
Only 1-6A to D. The rest of the earlier mentioned sub-reports are absent.


And this is another highly interesting remark on NIST's WTC 7 still trailing Final report :

QUOTE
THE THIRD COLLAPSE

At 5:20 p.m., some seven hours after WTC1 fell, the 47-story WTC7 collapsed almost straight down, meaning collapse must have begun on a lower floor.

The NIST's principal analysis of that collapse has been 'decoupled' from twin towers analysis and postponed; the agency says staff workload necessitated the separation.

In a March 2005 Popular Mechanics article titled, '9/11: debunking the myths,' lead investigator Sunder is quoted as saying that new evidence indicates that WTC7 showed severe structural damage following the tower collapses and that this weakening, abetted by a longterm fire, was the agency's working hypothesis.

Some 10 lower stories, or about 25 percent of the building vertically, was 'scooped out,' he is reported to have said. (A Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, report also cited such damage, but did not view it as compelling.)

Yet NCSTAR 1-3, p114, says that NIST made no effort to check high-strain or impact properties of the type of steel used in WTC7 because 'WTC7 did not suffer any high strain rate events.'

Sunder said that an oddball design implied that failure of even one column on a lower floor might trigger collapse and suggested that a fuel-oil-fed fire contributed critical weakening.

However, NCSTAR 1-1J, found that the standard safeguards for the building's several fuel oil systems would likely have blocked a longterm fuel-oil-fed fire, an idea first mentioned by sceptical FEMA probers.

The most likely source of the leaking fuel oil would have been the Salomon Brothers system, NCSTAR 1-1J says, with probers citing two possibilities: a fuel spill from a 250-gallon 'day tank' on the fifth floor or fuel continually pumped up from an underground tank. But they suggest failsafes should have worked.

FEMA probers have said 250 gallons couldn't yield enough heat to inflict critical damage.

The NIST's contracted probers, Raymond A. Grill and Duane A. Johnson, say it is barely conceivable that an electrical malfunction caused pumps to keep bringing up fuel from a 6,000-gallon tank buried underground. But they are puzzled as to the source of the electricity. Power to the building would have been shut off the morning of Sept. 11, though the building's emergency generators were powered by fuel oil.

The electrical schematics for the fuel system are missing, along with building maintenance records that might have yielded clues to the electrical system. Grill and Johnson succeeded in finding much other WTC7 documentation, however.

In the May 2002 FEMA report, investigators wrote: 'Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis' for fire-fed building collapse 'has only a low probability of occurrence.' They demanded further inquiry as to how key supports could have given way.

In addition, the fuel oil had to pool in a mechanical room where possibly a truss was not fire sheathed, they said.

In general, however, the FEMA report is not nearly so pointed. That report was edited by Theresa P. McAllister, who handled much of NIST's collapse analysis. She coauthored a lengthy report, NCSTAR 1-6, on the collapse scenarios that makes no mention of "soffit".

It has been reported that Larry A. Silverstein, the real estate man who ran the trade center, was quoted in a PBS report as saying that he gave the go-ahead to the 'er-Fire Department' to 'pull' the building. A search of the PBS site for the interview proved fruitless, but Silverstein has put out a statement saying the FEMA report determined that fire was responsible for WTC7's collapse.

There is no record of steel-frame buildings over 10 stories high collapsing as a result of fire, probers say. The FEMA enquiry points out that in the 1990s the British Steel and Building Research Establishment fire-tested an eight-story steel structure, leaving secondary beams unsheathed by fireproofing. The building remained upright at the end of all six experiments.

The public comment period for the twin towers draft report ended Aug. 4, 2005, with the final version issued in September 2005.

During the public comment phase of the twin towers report, the NIST web site did not make clear that the principal WTC7 report had been omitted. Since then, the NIST has posted a sketchy document dated April 2005 that has a series of photos and a limited discussion with little supporting data. It contains a large disclaimer saying the agency had found no evidence of destruction by controlled demolition, missiles or bombs, but does not substantiate that assertion. [See 'NIST reports vanish' below]

Even so, the NIST has issued a set of findings and recommendations for building safety improvements without bringing in WTC7 data.


NIST supports the initial collapse starting at a lower floor, thus heavy debris from that floor would have impacted the ground level first, no more then 2 sec into the global collapse sequence.

Another link from the same website :
www.angelfire.com...
QUOTE
A major defense contractor has come to the aid of a stalled federal probe of the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, which housed Defense Department and CIA offices, after a previous WTC 7 study was quietly killed by the government.---


This post has been edited by LaBTop: Feb 17 2007, 02:54 PM
Go to the top of the page


+Quote Post
LaBTop

post Feb 23 2007, 04:29 PM
Post #14


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




I really expected a tad bit more interest in the subject there, which in my opinion, is the first true smoking gun laying on the doorstep of the 16 million dollar NIST report. NIST will not be able to counter my accusations, as far as I can see.

If they try, their only possible way out will be to suddenly say, that the 2 impact and 2 collapse LDEO Palisades seismic station graphs were depicted with the 17 sec signal travel time delay included, and that the LDEO WTC 7 seismic chart was depicted in NIST New York real EDT events time , excluding the 17 seconds delay.

This will however for sure trigger a vicious reaction from LDEO and dr. Kim, since in that case dr. Kim's scientific reputation will be at risk, including the scientific credibility of LDEO and all its academic personnel.
No academic will ever use 2 different standards in a list of 5 charts in one report, without explicitly mentioning it.
Which dr. Kim for sure did not. He definitely stated that the seismic signals travelled the 34 km to Palisades station with an upper crust traversing speed of 2 km/sec., thus arriving 17 sec after each New York 9/11 seismic signal triggering event.

A few extra notes to consider :
1. Dr. Kim's 2006 latest 9/11 seismic report written under contract with NIST has not been published by NIST.

2. NIST declared as its main contract goal, to come to conclusions which would facilitate preventing high rise collapses in the future.
Regarding their efforts and the disappointing outcome, please read this academic report from the Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering :
www.civag.unimelb.edu.au...
Title : 9/11: Five Years on - Changes in Tall Building Design?
This is obvious by now, the real goal of the NIST reports was to enormously muddy the waters, so the average citizen would be drowned in facts, and wouldn't be able to spot the small and big lies hidden within these massive reports.

3. If we rigorously follow NIST's own latest exact-timing rules, the whole LDEO-NIST picture becomes even more disturbing, see my remarks in post # 9 to 12 .

4. It really is the combined and compact might of the prime and secondary global banks which is the enemy within all governments. These men and woman at top echelon bank seats rule the world and are in effect the real paymasters of the second layer echelons, not governments.
Not the generals, not the corporate CEO's, not the politicians, not their bureaucrats, as you all seem to think.
Go to the top of the page


+Quote Post
LaBTop

post Feb 24 2007, 01:18 AM
Post #15


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




I have the impression that an even more in depth explanation is still needed, even for academically schooled readers, since the behaviour of NIST researchers needs to be addressed more by forensic deduction methods than scientific methods.

How NIST "falls in it's own sword" :

Look at my post # 5, (NIST 2003 to 2005 Draft report) Nicolas Cianca photo, with included 5:20:46 time stamp by NIST, with a 1 sec accuracy stated by NIST above Table 3-1, which gives a NIST margin range between 5:20:45 and 5:20:47.
Add 5 seconds (NIST 2006 Final report) revised time, which results in a (NIST 2006 Final report) actual time for that photo time stamp of 5:20:51 , with a 1 sec accuracy stated by NIST above Table 3-1, which gives a NIST margin range between 5:20:50 and 5:20:52.

Then go to my post # 11 and see NIST Table 3-1 (in NIST report chapter 3.5), and read carefully their own explanatory 5 text lines above Table 3-1.
It's crystal clear written by NIST, that "building collapse times are defined to be when the entire building was first observed to start to collapse". They even implicitly mention "in the case of WTC 7, a penthouse on the roof sank into the building before the main collapse started".

So ask yourself, and NIST, why they definitely still used in Table 3-1 column 2, the (start of the east penthouse roof denting) Nicolas Cianca photo time stamp, with their own (maximum) 1 second accuracy margin (unscientifically inaccurate) added, as their "Relative Time from Visual Analysis" for the start time of WTC 7's entire building collapse, and printed a time of 5:20:47 p.m. in column 2.

Apply the undeniable former (Draft reports) and latest (Final reports) explanations by NIST to this penthouse roof dent event and implement the 8.2 sec delay after sinking of the east penthouse roof to arrive at the official start of global collapse, so meticulously explained by NIST in their "Failure Sequence Timeline", pictured in post # 10.
Those extra 8.2 seconds observed in the 2003-2005 NIST Draft report are of course still applicable for the NIST Final 2006 report.
Also implement the (2006 Final reports) revised extra 5 seconds on top of all WTC 7 real time events to arrive at the NIST 2006 Table 3-1 "Adjusted Time from Television Broadcasts". (column 3)

That's 13.2 seconds undeniably needed to be added to the Cianca photograph time stamp (column 2), to arrive at a correct real time stamp of the main WTC 7 collapse start (the time in column 3 by NIST is not correct), as noted in videos and photographs.

Thus, the NIST "Adjusted Time from Television Broadcasts" for the main collapse start of WTC 7 should read either 5:20:59.2 (based on Cianca photo time stamp), or 5:21:00.2 (based on NIST Table 3-1, column 2 value), and definitely NOT 5:20:52, as now shown in Table 3-1, column 3.
And then you still must add the 17 seconds delay, to indicate the arrival at LDEO of the seismic signal connected to that main collapse start of WTC 7, which is thus the 5:21:17.2 p.m.(17:21:17.2) point, nearly the end of the WTC 7 seismic chart by LDEO.


Conclusion:
1. NIST time lines calculations can not be trusted.
or, worse,
2. NIST kept re-writing their own data, when it didn't fit with other (LDEO) external research data.
The chance is not zero, that NIST did not realize the 17 second delay time in dr. Kim's charts, and thus seem to have worked to a timeline for WTC 7, which concurred with New York real time stamps attached to seismic signal arrivals in the WTC 7 LDEO chart.
But that chart was written by the seismograph, in LDEO signal arrival real time, as stated by dr. Kim.
That means 17 seconds later as the originating signals in New York.

The fact that they omitted the latest 2006 seismic 9/11 report from LDEO's dr. Kim, contracted by NIST them selfs to write it, from their own final report, list of sub-reports, is really worrying and needs a thorough explanation by NIST.

NOTE :
Even when we assume that LDEO's fifth seismic 9/11 graph of the collapse of WTC 7 is suddenly expressed in New York real time instead of LDEO real signal arriving time (as the first four definitely are, see post # 5), thus not including 17 seconds delay, it then still depicts signals of greatest magnitude written by the needle, before the now calculated and proved real time of the main collapse start, 5:21:00.2 p.m. (see drawing in post # 9)

However, the chance that dr. Kim will revise his 17 second delay time for one or all 5 original seismic charts is equal to zero in my opinion.
Go to the top of the page


+Quote Post
LaBTop

post Apr 4 2007, 02:19 AM
Post #16


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 51
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 14




Regarding my own remarks in the last posts :

QUOTE
Dr. Kim's 2006 latest 9/11 seismic report written under contract with NIST has not been published by NIST.
The fact that they omitted the latest 2006 seismic 9/11 report from LDEO's dr. Kim, contracted by NIST them selfs to write it, from their own final report, list of sub-reports, is really worrying and needs a thorough explanation by NIST.
NIST published their latest evaluation report on WTC 7 on 12 December 2006 :

wtc.nist.gov...

Some points out of the Progress to Date pages, from pages 15 and 16 :

QUOTE
6/06 Completed evaluation of thermite as a possible heat source substance for review.

8/06 Awarded contract to ARA (with CDI and SGH as subcontractors) for analysis of hypothetical blast events and assistance with structural analysis of initiating events.

8/06 Completed analysis of visual evidence: fire progress and building damage.

8/06 Completed analysis of seismic data.

10/06 Updated south face damage.

12/06 Developed hypothetical blast scenarios for analysis of overpressures.


They have completed the analysis of seismic data, so why did NIST remove, or not included, Dr. Kim's 2006 latest 9/11 seismic report?
Is it to stop us outsiders, to evaluate the contents of that seismic report?
So we can't have the time to directly attack the Final WTC 7 report from NIST on this specific point, when they publicize it.

The US media propaganda machinery in place, knows very well that they have succeeded in brainwashing most of the American public to pay attention to news for no more than a week. Then they flood them with other "important" news, and intent to bury that report into oblivion.

We'll see if they succeed.



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I'm quite sure the usual suspects have tried to wreck this thread again, To squeeze as many posts inbetween, to wreck the flow of posts. Let's see how it looks like.

I will try to make screenshots of all posts with their original drawings, seismic charts and photos in them, then post them again as pictures you can click, or read by using "CTRL + " seven times again.

END



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Isn't there a rule against this???



posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by LoonyConservative
 


That whole page has one "seis" word in it. (use your search browser-function)
And the guy can only count seconds regarding his few sentences about a seismograph.
That's all he understands about seismologic events.

It does not even address the 2.3 seconds free fall period found by David Chandler and admitted at last by NIST-.
Piece of majestic disinfo.





top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join