Originally posted by LaBTop
EDIT : Those were some whopping deep sounds from a mile away on the other side of the Hudson River, seconds before collapse, do you agree?
Damocles, the scale of the graphs is nm/s. That's nanometer per second. A nanometer is a very small part of a meter as a displacement of the needle. Look up on LDEO's site how they calculate nm/s to scale of Richter, they have a FAQ part somewhere. Richter scale is non-linear! Higher numbers are MUCH more devastating in their seismic effects than the preceding number.
It's a logarithmic scale or i.o.w. hyperbolic scale.
What were those BIGGEST seismic signals, if not buried under WTC 7, explosives?
Far in advance of 7's global collapse and ending just before signals from the START of penthouse movement came in.
And as I said to Haroki up there, not one video indicated a significant MOVEMENT INSIDE the building before the first penthouse movement was observed.
So, NO Massive INSIDE part of the building crashed down first, we see no sign at all of that !!!!
i have YET to see any evidence of actual explosions, particularly of any that would register the magnitude seizmic waves on the ldeo sensors.
Originally posted by Pilgrum
There may be a clue in the construction and contents of WTC7.
The bottom 5 floors were actually covering 2 large electricity substations plus there was emergency generating capacity in there of 20MW with a total fuel (diesel) storage capacity of around 42 000 gallons max contained mainly in 6000 and 12000 gallon tanks. At least one 6000 gallon fuel tank was ruptured by damage from the tower collapses and subsequently ignited - the uncontrollable fire weakened the support structure over the 5 story internal substation until it collapsed.
I agree with all of that, except your last sentence. The big tanks were situated in the lowest basement floor, 5 floors under street level.
They were NOT ruptured by debris from WTC 1 north tower, but only one was found ruptured during the collapse of WTC 7 self. It's left-over diesel did not ignite at all, but sipped into the ground. See NIST report for further details. NIST explicitly reported that PERHAPS a 250 gallon emergency diesel tank on the NORTH side of the building COULD have been ruptured. That one provided a much higher situated tenant's small dynamo with emergency diesel power. Through very thick iron lines, which were also protected by another shielding thicker pipe. And if you noticed in video material from NIST and other sources, there nearly was no fire at all until collapse, at WTC 7's north side, where that small fuel line ran up to Salomon Brothers floor.
I posted extensively on the exact position of that fuel line, with diagrams attached.
Why did you not include those very important details, easy to be found in the NIST report?
Could that seismic spike be part of the inside of the building falling 5 stories into the substation? and remember those substations were fully energised and operational at the time of collapse so electrical explosions (transformers, oil-filled ceramic current transformer housings etc) were to be expected.
The support columns going all the way to the penthouse were held up mostly on that 5 story high structure over the substations so shortly later the penthouse caved in then the whole building caved in as it was really only a hollow shell by that stage.
Just my 2c
No, definitely not, the 5th floor beams and underlaying construction were very strong beams and columns, the whole over-cap of the ConEd substation was ridiculously over engineered, exactly to be safe for such a thought.
Search for photo's posted by bsbray11 lately, from the construction phase.
You can also find them in the photo-video library from www.studyof911.com.
Another reason why this could not have occurred :
If 5 stories length fall that height to the ground, the video camera's would have noticed all the windows breaking and floors at the window level sagging immensely, because the floor beams would have sucked all perimeter wall connections with them downwards, for sure however the whole global collapse would have started then at that moment already..
We did NOT see that, first the only thing we noted was the sagging of the roof top of the penthouse, then the sinking of that penthouse in the upper roof line, THEN global collapse. See the NIST 8.2 seconds relay table I posted in this thread.
No, the building was not energized at or around collapse, ConEd operators already very early in the morning had closed down the station, see NIST report.
So also all these excuses for the now famous phone boot guy, not surprised by an enormous explosion sound, while the by-standing firefighters all yelled "what the F... was that!", are moot, since there could not have been transformers fully juiced, and been exploding, the juice was off early on already. That phone boot explosion sound was an EXPLOSION. Very short audio signal, same as an HE audio-footprint.
""The support columns going "" etc. ""then the whole building caved in as it was really only a hollow shell by that stage."" is a totally unsubstantiated remark.
Just look at the NIST report, there were in fact only a few floors on fire, and higher up then the 5th floor, so how could they have any effect on that damn strong famous 5 story high ConEd protective construction???
Where you got that idea of "a hollow shell" is beyond my grasp.
The fires noticed by firemen allowed till in the afternoon in the building (see NIST report), were not by far 'raging' enough to form an imminent danger to the building, and several firefighters questioned the decision of one fire chief to leave the building alone. They were in fact surprised that such an order was given. This is already covered in former posts at this forum, and can be found in the NIST report with all the witness reports.
The inside of the building, inspected by various persons on 9/11, showed no serious construction failures caused by debris or fire, the whole building was standing firm to at least around 14 hrs in the afternoon. And still firefighters after that time entered the building, since there seemed no imminent danger of collapse.
Most expositions of collapse theories invoke the "tremendous energy" of falling mass impacting the floors below to explain the thorough destruction of the Towers. Yet the seismic records clearly show that the vast majority of this mass did not participate in the destruction of the Towers since it evidently did not encounter substantial resistance to its descent until it reached the ground.
Copyright (c) Jim Hoffman and 911Research.WTC7.net 2006
Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by Haroki
Well haroki, over the last couple weeks ive read a lot of your posts and you have raised some good points on various topics. for that i applaud you.
however, ive been discussing these topics with griff for somewhere over a year or so and despite your personal opinion of him ive found that he's consistantly one of the few people who disagrees with me overall that i can have an intelligent conversation with on here without the bs posturing and name calling that is the hallmark of so many 911 debates. He has conducted himself as a consumate professional in every discussion we've had and when he's been wrong on an issue is the first to admit it and try to correct his errors when possible.
Above all he remains one of THE most OPEN MINDED people the 911 truth movement has representing them on this board (not to imply he's part of any organized 911truth movement, just that anyone who disagrees with the official story is tacitly part of the "truth movment" for the sake of this post, by some definitions even i am part of the truth movment if you want to take a broad view of it) and as such has earned MY respect, for what its worth.
Griff is a guy who sees things that he cannot reconcile with his training and experiences and wants answers from the people we pay to give them to us, answers that make sense to someone with the backround to be asking such questions.
So haroki, RESPECTFULLY, i would personally submit that if you and griff are at odds, it MAY be that you seem to have a confrontational attitude with people (griff isnt the only one ive noticed it with) who disagree with you, which IMHO isnt the best way to actually discuss the topics at hand. This isnt to say griff is never confrontational, just that i see it so rarely it may have escaped my notice. also, i will admit that with certain members in the past i too have taken a confrontational stance and so i may be being a hypocrit, yet i dont think so as i am willing to acknowledge the fact that i can come off as an arrogant prick at times.
But, and this is just my opinion, griff is among the last people on ats ive ever felt the need to do that to.
Just an observation, take it for what its worth. or dont, all the same really. but keep up the good research regardless. just remember the whole flies and honey analogy.
Originally posted by LaBTop
has anyone taken the video record of any of the events and tagged where an event would have had to occur on the video to correspond with the seismic data?
It took the penthouse 8.2 seconds to slide down in the roof line, then global collapse occurred according to NIST. See my copy of their 8.2 table I posted here.
NIST timestamped that global collapse effective since Feb 2006 as 17:20:52.
Thus the first GLOBAL collapse signals took 17 sec to arrive at LDEO's needles.
That's 17:21:09. Like I said above already to Haroki.
Thus the first VISUAL signs of failure of the penthouse roof, were arriving at LDEO at 17:21:00,8 on their graph.
That's exactly 00,8 seconds after the 20s position on LDEO's WTC 7 graph.
[edit on 12/12/07 by LaBTop]
Originally posted by Damocles
reply to post by gottago
call me an idiot if you will, but do it politely in regards to the new tighter rules 'round here lol, but where does one find legit copies of the wtc7 plans?
id LOVE to have a gander at them. id love the chance to do with those what i did with the leaked wtc1/2 plans (though their authenticity is suspect) and see if i can apply some demo guy stuff to them in theory and see if it at all possible to drop that building with a small enough demo package to keep it covert. yes you read that right, id love the chance to see if its possible to drop that building and still have it fit the parameters of what we saw. i will of course "show my work" and ya'll can verify it for yourselves.
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.