Times LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo

originally posted by: [post=20953942]LaBTop

However, the Vierendeel facade plates that were launched from the explosive parts of the collapse initiation fronts ABOVE THEM, were clearly to see in the videos, expelled upwards and then followed huge wide parabolae,

You're just pulling this out of thin air, aren't ya?

Don't claim otherwise until you produce this feature in a video. Include your motion tracking resulys for all to see,

Otherwise, it is rejected as a lie.

BTW, don't try reversing the burden of proof here either. It's YOUR CLAIM. Time to put up the evidence that you base this statement on or admit that you're lying.....

a reply to: MrBig2430

Don't make Labtop angry. LaBTop will just post 509 paragraphs and push your comment back two or three pages. It will mostly be pictures, screen shots, and links from YouTube.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: MrBig2430

Don't make Labtop angry. LaBTop will just post 509 paragraphs and push your comment back two or three pages. It will mostly be pictures, screen shots, and links from YouTube.

LOL

Yeah well obfuscation, ignoring posts that challenge the conspiracy believers position, and lame attempts at reversal of the burden of proof is all that these guys have.

My guess is that since he's got nothing conclusive that backs his statement, and since I've eliminated the typical CT believer lame responses, he'll just ignore it all and pretend that these posts don't exist. Everyone can see it for what it is though....

a reply to: MrBig2430

For now. Looks like that Alaskan professor on the 911 architects payroll is going to tell the conspiracists what the want to hear about WTC 7. Unbiased and open minded my bottom. Think the 2000 remaining 911 conspiracists are entrenched now, just wait.

I don't understand how they think one anomaly out weights hundreds of other facts. Like how there is NO physical evidence of explosives and when has a single charge ever been used in a controlled demolition. They don't even get they contradict themselves. A single charge would not look like a controlled demolition.

Does LaBTop include scales on the seismographs. I know at work, you can trend a temperature that is flat then zoom in until the single noise looks crazy. If you didn't know the total span was only 0.1 degrees for a 1000 degree process, you would think the control valve was out of control? But you can Photoshop what ever values you want?

a reply to: neutronflux


It's pretty obvious that there's zero evidence to back the claim that the exterior columns can be seen being "blown upwards" by any explosives.

I've challenged every CTer I've ever seen make this claim - and not just on this forum - and none can provide evidence of it. So obviously, this claim is a lie, repeated by either unimformed believers or liars.

I mean, it's their choice to believe whatever they want to. Realistically, there's no harm in that in a similar way that believing in God does no harm. Unless it's carried too far.....

a reply to: MrBig2430

I get that. I was in the military. I know everything has its 10 to 20 percent bad persons. But it still boggles my mind the manpower needed to pull off any one element of 911 as a conspiracy.

I guess the things the makes me very sad are, one: to say there was no victims on this flight or that flight. Two, not acknowledging the manpower used to look for human remains and evidence in the WTC debris. To say the WTC steel was shipped to China with total abandonment and ignore those who worked to recover remains and evidence. But it's not part of the conspiracists narrative.

a reply to: neutronflux

Because it did happen, whatever was required to stage the 911 false flag was entirely possible and practical.

Start with a training exercise atmosphere to confuse rank & file FAA types, insert a few dozen "injects" on the radar screen, and voila, FAA and NEADS guys are asking each other "Is this real life or exercise?"

Fly drones into the towers, claim they are AA11 and UA175, and the deception is beautiful and unquestioned by the media and masses.

Put charges in place at the Pentagon to get rid of those pesky congressional auditors and their records, fly a Boeing by low-level to impress the civilians, and you're doing pretty good. Yes, the timing wasn't perfect, but it was close enough.

Conduct a similar operation at Shanksville, pressure the local coroner to retract his first statement, and all the elements come together nicely, especially after making a movie about it.

See? Not so difficult. Especially considering the perps were on the inside all the way 'round.

Those records were not computer files backed up to an off site disaster server?

The lost money has been explained over and over again. The spent money was not lost, it was not properly documented. Big difference. Like persons submitting the purchase orders but goofed up the authorising paper work or if purchase orders were paid out of the wrong account. For example. A new computer is needed at work to document and design a project. Should the computer be purchased from the office supplies account, IT account, or the project account. It was paid by the office supplies account, but should have came out of the project budget. So the project account is found owing the office supply account during an audit. Sorry, truth is more tedious than sensationalized narratives.

a reply to: neutronflux

Sorry, it's the illusion that was important to the planners. The illusion of airliners at WTC and elsewhere.

ONLY the illusion. Like Northwoods, REAL airplanes made to appear to be airliners when they were actually drones.

Not too difficult.

a reply to: Salander

I feel sorry that you cannot see real terrorists took control of real jetliners and killed real people, and the only way you feel safe is you believe in a all controlling government. Sorry that you cannot see the real conspiracy was that the US government was not in control that day due to straight incompetent. It really is that simple. So no staged crashes, no planted demolitions, and a conspiracists movement so lacking in truth there is no consensus in facts. You will find the truth when you stop believing in false narratives pushed by snake oil salesmen looking to make money and a living of 911.

a reply to: neutronflux

Actually, I did believe the same illusion you still do believe today. But, the more I studied the more obvious it became that the official story cannot withstand even superficial scrutiny.

Do I feel sorry for you? No, but I do understand the dynamics of cognitive dissonance.

The craft that struck the towers were not AA11 and UA175, that much is certain. Equally certain is that Wally Miller's first statements to the media were true and accurate, and that his second statement to the media was an effort to "be a team player" for the FBI agents he was dealing with.

And there was no airliner, no AA77 crashed at the pentagon. Great movie material, and a great deception, but not factual.

The big red flag for me is WHY did NIST remove all of its seismic evidence or data completely from the internet after the OP uploaded all of his on the net??

Surely if NIST was watertight and the truth then it would have stood its own ground.

That NIST removed all of that data is a sure sign of nervousness and guilt.

originally posted by: K-PAX-PROT

The big red flag for me is WHY did NIST remove all of its seismic evidence or data completely from the internet after the OP uploaded all of his on the net??

Surely if NIST was watertight and the truth then it would have stood its own ground.

That NIST removed all of that data is a sure sign of nervousness and guilt.

Delusional? If you were not dependent on academic laziness, you would have more credibility.

One, prove all the 9/11 seismic data is not publicly available from the LEDO library?

Two, are you saying all references and seismic data was scrubbed from the 9/11 reports?

Three, you can google and find article after article with the 9/11 seismic data?

Four, prove the 9/11 seismic data was removed from all peer reviewed journals.

Example of 9/11 seismic data still being addressed in current news.

voices.nationalgeographic.com...


A Morning That Shook the World: The Seismology of 9/11
Posted by Kevin Krajick of Columbia University’s Earth Institute on September 9, 2016

Article references and displays the 9/11 seismic data.

a reply to: K-PAX-PROT

NIST was simply a political statement meant to sustain the official fairy tale. It was not scientific, it did not employ common sense even.


Like the 911 commission itself, it was meant to protect the guilty parties and misinform the masses.

a reply to: Salander


Like to give an example, or just rant?

a reply to: neutronflux


Just today AE911 Truth included a letter to the editor from Peter Michael Ketcham who worked for NIST for 14 years. The letter was published in Europhysics News.


Mr. Ketcham is effectively a whistleblower, after the fact. Late to the party, Mr. Ketcham points out how the NIST analysis is a huge disservice to rational analysis. It does not follow logic and is but a coverup.

Read it and weep, if you dare.

a reply to: Salander

Asked you for an example, not commentary. Like to state an actual fact for debate?

One person telling you what you want to hear does not nullify all the actual science, research, and peer review of the NIST.

In fact, what are you talking about specifically? WTC 1 and 2? WTC 7? The research into construction bolting? The research into welds? NIST reports on fire spread and temperatures? NIST reports on seismic activity? The role of insulation? Floor leading? Weaking of steel under load to heat?

Or was it just more generalizations with no facts and lots of innuendo?

a reply to: Salander
Just read the commentary, please list any thing specifically listed as false in the NIST reports?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
MrBig2430, posted on Aug. 24, 2016 a quote from me :

Originally posted by: [post=20953942]LaBTop
However, the Vierendeel facade plates that were launched from the explosive parts of the collapse initiation fronts ABOVE THEM, were clearly to see in the videos, expelled upwards and then followed huge wide parabolae,

www.abovetopsecret.com... :

MrBig2430, posted on Sep. 2, 2016 : This is what I've been asking you to do when you make the claim that exterior columns can be seen to be "blown" upwards and then into a parabolic arc.
Why is it so hard to back your claims?

My explanation for that erroneous remark of mine ( it should have been "clearly" instead of plainly the word clearly) you can find in that same thread by me (WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY solved), in this post, posted on Sep. 10, 2016 :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

LaBTop : At 1:17:57 / 1:40:40 in this August 2013 re-published "9/11 Eyewitness" video which was originally made by Rick Siegel in 2004, he and his team (that he abandoned not much later) are looking at the projectile motion of the North Tower WTC1N debris.
Click this link to start that video at that point :
youtu.be...

They first show you, that a cannonball trajectory when shot away horizontally, does not fit the dust cloud form they used, to show you the unnatural NON-gravitational behavior of these dust clouds.
They also show you some chunks falling near to the tower sides that DO act gravitational.

Then they show you that an UPWARD shot cannonball trajectory PRECISELY fits that formed dust cloud.
What they did is find a trajectory that precisely fitted the LOWER and upper boundary of that formed right side dust cloud.

That's however wrong.
They should have used a solid piece of steel or alum-cladding debris, from the moment it came in sight, and followed its unfolding trajectory outwards, then find a fitting cannonball trajectory that covered that outer trajectory part precisely. And then they should have projected that trajectory backwards to find the originating point at the side of that tower. Using horizontally AND upwards shot sample cannonball projectories as comparisons. And thus find the real starting speeds and the force needed to first break those wall pieces loose, then launch them that far outwards.
If it would have been solely the weight of all the situated steel above those pieces , it would have followed the same pattern as the top floors facade steel columns did, that broke away and fell closely to the sides, in the Madrid Windsor Tower fire.

Of course it seems as if the dust clouds at WTC are forming as first upwards and then downwards oriented parabolic trajectories, but that upwards part of the dust its trajectories is partly a result of the immense suction effect on that dust from the collapsing building debris, if those dust trails are taken from a mid-collapse, trajectory-starting point.

There still are (however less explicit in the very beginning of their trajectories) lots of downwards oriented parabolic trajectories of solid steel or aluminum cladding to observe at the onset of the collapse.
And of course also in- and outside the rest of the lower dust cloud movements, those starting trajectories are however quite distorted by the huge suction effect of the thundering down building debris.
Especially in the first part of their trajectories, its trailing concrete dust is sucked back in, and downwards by the loosely compacted center of the huge amount of downwards falling debris pieces.
That's why you need to ONLY calculate with trajectories of solid steel or alum-cladding debris pieces.

Concrete dust weights far less than concrete debris pieces. Which pieces were fairly absent in the debris heaps. The huge dust clouds were spread over the whole S. Manhattan area and part of the Hudson River. So that concrete (dust) had no influence of any importance on the supposed mass that kept the collapse going.

One thing is sure however on 9/11, the far too wide spread out trajectories of multiple metric tons weighting steel debris pieces is enough to show you effects that can only be achieved by explosions.
Such wide spreads will not occur in a natural collapse, as can be observed in the Madrid Windsor Tower fire its natural steel parts collapsing videos.
The burning steel pieces collapsing and breaking off there, from within the burning top floors that were the only ones with non-insulated steel, fell down very closely to the sides of that tower.
And were certainly not catapulted hundreds of yards/meters away from its sides. They buckled, broke and fell down as if tumbling over after breaking away from their original bottom positions. Indicating that the weight of the steel still above them, forced them to first buckle, then break and then topple over the sides. They were however never catapulted away over serious distances.
See for it, my former posts on that Madrid Windsor Tower fire, a few days ago in this thread.

The Twin Towers however, did not topple, but collapsed in on themselves.

Only when such huge buildings completely or partly topple over to one side, can steel end up as far as, in the case of the North Tower, into the SE corner of WFC3.
That was a distance of more than 2 x the width of a side facade of that tower, traveling all over the double lanes of West street and the free space adjacent to WFC3, and all over the full length of the pedestrian North Bridge that lead into the Winter Garden from WTC6 and the NW corner of WTC1N.

You can try to come up with as many excuses as you can, you will never be able to defeat simple Newtonian science laws for that case. That catapulting of a triple Vierendeel steel facade plate, weighing several metric tons, supposedly coming loose from somewhere at the western facade side of the North Tower, into the SE-WFC3 corner was not the result of a natural collapse.

You know, those steel parts had ID numbers pressed in them.
Did they tell us, based on those identification numbers in that triple column piece, stacked high up in the corner of SE-WFC3, after comparing them to the original steel factory orders, and the building's blueprints, where that Vierendeel piece that was stuck in the SE-WFC3 corner originated from.? Or did they not offer that information in the NIST reports.?
The lower it would come from, the more idiotic it would be to keep defending the natural collapse scenarios.

I post that text here too, otherwise it would look as if there was no answer to a legitimate question.

Answer to a post by neutronflux :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

neutronflux : Does LaBTop include scales on the seismographs. I know at work, you can trend a temperature that is flat then zoom in until the single noise looks crazy. If you didn't know the total span was only 0.1 degrees for a 1000 degree process, you would think the control valve was out of control? But you can Photoshop what ever values you want?

Yes, it's funny you asked. Since it shows your lack of reading or understanding of my opening posts.
I did, and scientifically honest too, I offered all Palisades seismograms in the same Y-scale of 1 to 10 nm/s soil movement against a seconds in time X-scale, and not like NIST did, the WTC 1 and 2 collapses in an insensitive 1 to 100 nm/s scale, and the WTC-7 collapse in a sensitive 1 to 10 nm/s, to hide both Twin Towers their pre-collapse explosions.


It seems you missed my seismic posts, at the very start of this thread, where you can find those WTC-1 and 2 collapse seismograms by NIST, which I re-scaled back from the NIST de-sensitized scale of 1 to 100 nm/s, to the original ten times more sensitive 1 to 10 nm/s ground motion amplitudes from the original WTC-1 and 2 seismograms received at Palisades N.Y.. You could do the same, and see for yourself that it's not a fabrication by me.
Those seismograms are still online, prove it to yourself, that all the inherent data points are still locked up inside them.

Then at last, you can clearly see that in all three collapses the exact same "small" pre-collapse explosion vibration amplitudes are situated in front of the huge global collapse vibration amplitudes peaks, when the explosive sound vibrations and the following global collapse sound vibrations started to travel through all the still erect vertical steel of these three towers at a speed of 5950 m/s, downwards to the bedrock, then spreading with only 2000 m/s through that upper rock strata towards the seismologists at their seismographs, 34 Km further North, at Columbia University its Palisades N.Y., seismological institute, and thus these vibrations arrived 17 seconds later there then their origins in New York, at the needles of those seismographs.