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

a reply to: LaBTop

You have proof the cameras out in the field used on 911 have atomic clocks and set correctly. Please post the camera model numbers the studious would have used in the field at that time that time stamp with an automatic clock. Also show proof the field recording time pieces were set to lab precision. Lad certificates.

Only about four atomic clocks in the USA. None tied to network TV.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

NIST maintains one of the four atomic clocks in the USA

A reply to: neutronflux

I strongly suggest to READ my screenshot 33 and the following "ditto" pages, before making any more of these posts.
Use "" Ctrl + "" , repeatedly to "blow up" my screenshots, to make them easily readable.

I also suggest you READ the FULL photo & video timing subject in the NIST WTC 7 report.
I must warn you, it's a LOT of pages to READ.
My compacting of them, in my last post and in my screenshots, is however by far enough to understand them.
Just Google for " NIST 9/11 Reports " if you still don't want to believe me.

a reply to: LaBTop

My compacting of them, in my last post and in my screenshots, is however by far enough to understand them.

What qualifies you as an expert in seismology ?

Originally posted by: neutronflux

Originally posted by: Jason88
A reply to: samkent

Sam - what are your thoughts on the persistence of LaBTop? As in the years and time he has put into his effort. Thanks.

neutronflux : Yet no effort to conjure credible research for a peer review paper.The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a great and ethical group for impartial peer review!

If you READ my FIVE links under all my posts (only readable for ATS members), you will find the peer reviewed article of 23 pages, by long time French seismologist Dr. Andre Rousseau :
www.journalof911studies.com...
Interesting reading INDEED, ain't it so.? And no seismologist worldwide has countered his (or my) reasoning.
They don't dare to touch the subject with a 12 foot flagpole....

Dr. Rousseau : CONCLUSION
Near the times of the planes' impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and (2) low frequencies are associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin.

Even if the planes' impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another.
As we have shown, they were not.
The types and magnitudes of the seismic signals show significant differences.
The greatest differences occur in their propagation speeds, even though their paths were essentially identical under identical conditions. This difference is physically unexplained in the interpretation of the events offered by the LDEO researchers, the 9/11 Commission and NIST.

Therefore, we must question their calculations of wave propagation speeds based on their assumption that the wave origins are shown on the video images of impacts and collapses.
We can only conclude that the wave sources were independently detonated explosives at other times, thus accounting for the variable discrepancies for each wave origin in relation to the videos.

The composition of the waves is revealing both in terms of the location of the source and the magnitude of the energy transmitted to the ground. The subterranean origin of the waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S body waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves.
The placement of the source of the four other explosions is sub-aerial, attested by the unique presence of only Rayleigh waves.

The aerial explosions visible on the videos of the upper floors of the Twin Towers do not produce seismic waves 34 km from the source.
There is a factor of ten between the power of the explosions at the time of the plane impacts on the Twin Towers (as well as at the time of the collapse of WTC7) and the strength of those more powerful explosions at the times of their collapses, the subterranean explosion under WTC1 being the one that transmitted the most energy to the ground.
Note that in accordance with the degree of dispersion of the surface waves (i.e., their speeds depend upon their frequencies), the duration of the recorded signal is not representative of the duration of the signal at the source.

Finally, controlled demolition of the three towers, suggested by the visual and audio witness testimony as well as by observations of video recordings of their collapses, is thus confirmed and demonstrated by analysis of the seismic waves emitted near the time of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapses.

American researchers are not too fond of putting their career at risk, they know for some decades already that just as in the Russia of Putin, leaving the path of official explanations in these politically tainted events/situations, is a sure road to unemployment.
Just try it out, when you're a seismologist in the USA with a wish to change careers.
There for sure is no INDEPENDENT academic research left over in the Western world. Everything is now paid for by lobby groups for the army, agencies or the heavy industry.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: LaBTop

My compacting of them, in my last post and in my screenshots, is however by far enough to understand them.

What qualifies you as an expert in seismology ?

Please be so kind to post your OWN telephone number and home address, then we can talk further.....

a reply to: LaBTop

The university of Edinburgh doesn't like the NIST reports, but still concluded fire brought down the towers. Do They fear losing their jobs?
www.research.ed.ac.uk...(39a911d2-779a-4c93- a655-2be220f1c398).html

You didn't even know your time stamps rely on the few atomic clocks in the USA which are ran by the NIST or the government. You have to rely on NIST or government info. Hypocrite.

Still waiting on proof how field cameras and TV networks utilized what you implied were their own atomic clocks

Calling members a hypocrite is frowned upon here, in this special forum.
Please refrain from insults, I know the drill, from time to time some seemingly newbie comes along and tries to enrage me. That phase in life I passed a long time ago, I just feel pity for you and the likes.

You didn't even know your time stamps rely on the few atomic clocks in the USA which are ran by the NIST or the government. You have to rely on NIST or government info. Hypocrite.

Still waiting on proof how field cameras and TV networks utilized what you implied were their own atomic clocks

Are you serious..? Of course I knew that. I told you so in my screenshots.
And of course those Networks used not any owned by themselves atomic clocks, try to understand even my most basic reasoning.
The TV and Radio networks use the atomic clocked signals of f.e. NIST to use those in their screen time stamps bands and clock timers in view in their news spots, or as beeps at every hour in radio broadcasts, for fifty years or more already.

Listen while viewing the Rick Siegel recordings of the whole day of 9/11 from those two Piers in the Hudson, every new hour you hear an atomic clock triggered BEEP in the radio broadcast from his radio he had hung on his video camera tripod.
Based on these very precise time beeps, NIST calculated back and forth to events like the collapses. But also could place other events visible in that and MANY MANY more videos or photos on their now very accurate timescale of recorded 9/11 events.
You still didn't read the NIST report their reasoning for their time framing of video and photo material, where I based all my seismic material on, that's quite obvious by now.

I was the first to tell members here in 2005 that TV Networks relied on the officially endorsed atomic clock institutes in the US, is that too hard to understand, or to READ in my screenshots?

Are you looking for a fight or a discussion?
Moderators, I get really tired from this kind of rude online forum behavior, he needs correction of his attitude.
And you should tell him to READ the offered reasoning before going on an endless crusade based on his own misconceptions and unwillingness to READ.

He doesn't even understand that my seismic evidence is based on the data provided by two well known US Institutes, paid by the US Government and the US taxpayers, namely NIST and LDEO.

And those two data sets firmly exclude each others conclusions, simple as that.
The NIST time-stamp-provided Cianca photo doesn't fit in any timely manner in the seismogram recorded by LDEO which also based ALL their seismograms times on NIST's atomic clocks, when the NIST provided atomic clock RE-calculated Cianca photo time stamp is considered ironclad evidence. It's clearly not. P E R I O D

Go look up the Cianca file-set of photos from his camera in one of my screenshots, after my nr 33 screenshot in my O.P.
The whole Cianca set of photos was 102 seconds off from the recalculated NIST atomic clocked time.

I specifically did choose the Cianca photo set, BECAUSE that was the EXACT photo set that NIST used to explain their timing methods to stubborn non-readers. That's the reason they were so in panic when I pointed them at the discrepancy between their Cianca photo and the WTC 7 seismogram, they never ever couldn't retract that photo set its re-calculated timings anymore, since I waited patiently until they had publicized that specific photo set in their Final WTC 7 Report, before I published my findings.

And how did NIST conclude that Cianca's camera time setting was 102 seconds off from real time?
Because Cianca had some events photographed that appeared also in the videos from f.e. CBS, that had the second plane impact in them. And NIST had already re-calculated those newsreels their times in their totality to the by the network themselves inserted atomic clock based NIST times.

F.e., when just before or after a major event on 9/11, the TV's on-screen clock flips from 09:59:59 to 10:00:00, NIST now had an atomic clocked time stamp to use, to calculate back and forth from, to all other continuously shown events in that specific newsreel. It's that simple. And it's that simply laid out too, in the explanation by NIST in their 9/11 Reports.
And in the same manner did they compare all continuous material in possession with known atomic clocked 9/11 events.

YouTube Title (His English is hard to understand, but his science isn't. Remember, he's a bloody Frenchman) :

9/11 Dr. Andre Rousseau Only Explosives Can Create These Kind of Shear Seismic waves
www.youtube.com...


Another video of Dr Rousseau :
www.youtube.com...


9/11 Earthquake Data Folder Download
(WARNING : data overload for one line readers/posters)
You first have to Download the ZIP file by clicking on the center top arrow.
168 Wave form data sets for the seismic evidence from the earth movements on 9/11 :
docs.google.com...
Click on New Folder (5), the next screen will unfold with 28 wave form data sheets, have fun with clicking them all. Then click the folders : New folder and Waveform_Data_All

danp5648 : Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory Discrepancy shows 9-11 Cover up.

CLICK this link : Washington's Blog : Seismic evidence proves controlled demolition on 9/11/2001.

danp5648 : LDEO BRNJ Station view. The shock wave was so large it broke the machine.

www.imdb.com...
Film Trailer of Operation Terror :
CIA agent Aaron Delgado works with a team of agents and engineers to implement a plan to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, pinning the blame on Muslim Terrorists.

Storyline :
James McCullough, from the mysterious "Council", assigns CIA agent Aaron Delgado to implement a plan to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and pin the blame on Muslim Terrorists. Delgado and fellow agents, Phillip Singer and Chase Jordan, work with a group of unsuspecting engineers to develop unmanned jets to hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. The CIA agents have to deal with an increasingly suspicious George Poole, the lead engineer working on the drones. Also the Army and the FBI begin to uncover the plot, forcing Delgado to shut down their investigations. On the day of the attacks, Delgado becomes livid as the media reports on the destruction of WTC Building 7 before it is blown up and that there are no signs of planes hitting the Pentagon and the supposed crash site of Flight 93. Written by Art Olivier

The next Trailer is : Severe Visibility, both Hollywood-group based films that try to show possible plots for 9/11.
A US Army major discovers that his life is on the line when he finds out that the official, governments version of what happened on 9/11 at the Pentagon is a deception.

They show a cruise missile, which of course wasn't used as a missile for the Pentagon attack on 9/11 at all, it was simply that well known B-757, Flight 77, remotely steered into the west wall of the Pentagon. Seen by an overload of eyewitnesses.
The only problem, too many of them saw it fly NORTH of the CITGO gas station, from where it never ever could have clipped those five lamp poles in the official story.

For remarks on that, go to one of my Pentagon based threads, NOT this one, this one is solely for seismic discussion and its implications.

The film industry is already for the good part of a hundred years used by the military industrial complex, to indoctrinate the world's populace.

You should keep that in mind, ALWAYS.

a reply to: LaBTop

So the field camera films live, sends to the news van, then van sends to the network, then the network time stamps with government ran atomic clocks. Lots of network lag time. Only your word the networks time stamp with atomic clock. still no proof the network time stamp with certified lab accuracy. There is no proof the video is synchronized with the seismographs time. Sry.

a reply to: LaBTop

So the field camera films live, sends to the news van, then van sends to the network, then the network time stamps with government ran atomic clocks. Lots of network lag time. Only your word the networks time stamp with atomic clock. still no proof the network time stamp with certified lab accuracy. There is no proof the video is synchronized with the seismographs time. Sry.

a reply to: LaBTop

Calling members a hypocrite is frowned upon here, in this special forum.
Please refrain from insults, I know the drill, from time to time some seemingly newbie comes along and tries to enrage me.

I don't think anyone on here is trying to enrage you.
They just don't accept your conclusions.

I for one don't believe you have any qualifications in the field of seismology.
So anything you post on here is your speculation from a layman's point of view.

A reply to: neutronflux

You seem to genuinely believe that you are quite busy proving MY timing method wrong.

Well, I have news for you, you are however trying here and now, very hard and utterly wrong, to prove the NIST video and photo timing technique conclusions to be wrong.
Thank you for your (fruitless) assistance in that.

Press your Ctrl and your + key simultaneously to enlarge these three screenshots,
so you can check the NIST phraseology regarding their method to find reliable time stamps for video-graphed and photographed 9/11 events :

37.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
THE CIANCA CAMERA EXIF FILE that was 102 seconds off from 9/11 real time, as found by NIST.
Let me repeat, THUS not found by me, LaBTop.


38.
files.abovetopsecret.com...
NIST's timing the clips taken from a 9/11 videotape. A function similar to that in their Photo Timing Tool.

Tell us what you don't understand in the above sentence written by NIST (thus, not by me), visible in my screenshot nr 38 :

-- For a broadcast video that was filmed in real time, the timing of every clip in the video, except for replays, could be set from knowing the time at a single point.

Now read the NIST sentences in my nr 39 screenshot about their 3 seconds uncertainties for most of their material. Also note their remark about the estimated uncertainty of less than 1 second for the major events, like the WTC 7 collapse, in discussion in this thread.....


39.
files.abovetopsecret.com...


Then read the blacked sentences near the bottom of my above screenshot nr 39 in their chapter 3.6 ABSOLUTE TIME ACCURACY.
Now, that's the atomic clocks explanation by NIST that I am talking about all the time, but that you try to glue to me as their texts originator. I assure you, it's solely NIST that came up with this idea :

Checks with several broadcasters indicated that the bugs should be quite close to the actual time because the clocks used as sources for the bugs (LT : bug = current time imprinted on the screen) are regularly updated from highly accurate sources such as geopositioning satellites or the precise atomic-clock-based timing signals provided by NIST as a public service. Careful checks showed small time differences between different video recordings, but these were generally less than 1 s.

And then comes the descriptions of your hobbyhorse - video signals their transmission lag periods :

These small discrepancies were likely due to variations in transmission times resulting from the different pathways that the video signals took to the sites where they were recorded.

Thus, all your remarks about lags in the broadcast techniques are now sufficiently countered, I hope. Those lags were generally less than 1 second.

Something tells me your not the type (yet) to tell us you realize you were wrong in attacking me. The unnecessary use of name calling is a sure indication for certain character mindsets.
That kind of honesty seems lacking in every debunker I met online since 9/11, but is abundantly present in O.S. doubters, they have no difficulty in chivalrously admitting they were wrong, when they were proved to be wrong.
I did it several times, you can still find those few events back here at ATS.

We Doubters learned to live with the obnoxious online behavior we meet all the time online, especially in this forum or at the former JREF forum.
When you loose all planted "certainty" you were raised with, you first start to kick around and try to discredit the honest messenger with dishonest attacks. Try to become genuinely honest, also against your "opponents", it's the first step towards healing from the ever existing online and offline state-sponsored INDOCTRINATION.

Become an ORIGINAL thinker, not a phony-news fed COPYCAT.

a reply to: neutronflux

So the field camera films live, sends to the news van, then van sends to the network, then the network time stamps with government ran atomic clocks.

Can you show evidence to support your "opinion" please.

Lots of network lag time.

How much time are you saying is lost during a lag time, a few seconds, or minutes, if it is minutes please give us the evidence to support your "opinions".

still no proof the network time stamp with certified lab accuracy. There is no proof the video is synchronized with the seismographs time. Sry.

If you had the certified lab accuracy evidence, in my opinion I don't believe you would be convinced anyway.

What you are asking for has never been done anywhere in the world, your question is redundant in my opinion.

a reply to: samkent

I for one don't believe you have any qualifications in the field of seismology.
So anything you post on here is your speculation from a layman's point of view.

I just wanted to address your comment here. Since we are discussing facts in LaBTop presentation, can you give us your evidence that proves LaBTop presentation is not correct?

Remember your "opinions" are not facts unless you can back them up.

a reply to: neutronflux

Your post is not persuasive in the least.

You think nothing has changed since 1945 nuclear technology, I think that is an absurd position. As much progress has been made in nuclear technology as has been made in aviation or computer technology.

Jeff Prager's book goes into much detail on that point.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: LaBTop

Calling members a hypocrite is frowned upon here, in this special forum.
Please refrain from insults, I know the drill, from time to time some seemingly newbie comes along and tries to enrage me.

I don't think anyone on here is trying to enrage you.
They just don't accept your conclusions.

I for one don't believe you have any qualifications in the field of seismology.
So anything you post on here is your speculation from a layman's point of view.

I'm glad you indicated the layman's point of view.
That's exactly why I write the way I do. Otherwise people like you and many other unlucky ones will never understand the repercussions of what I try to tell you now. Which is btw just a case of adding and subtracting, nothing fancy at all.

If I write usual academic phraseology in these kinds of forums, only a tiny part of my audience will get the message, however now, all of you unlucky ones, that were not given the opportunity to really spread your always present but hidden intellectual wings, can grasp the science-based truth behind the usually too complicated phrased physics subjects.
By the way, it's never too late to get a college/university graduation. If you really want it, you can do it. But choose your study carefully, opt for the one you are passionate interested in.

Good luck Sam, with your by now, well known beliefs. You have become my online mascot, I hope you will persevere in your ideological crusade, it's a fine example for the truth seeking readers, how not to proceed.
And you keep the fresh ones away from the well known 9/11 hoaxes, so I don't have to do that ungrateful job.
In other words, there's an online niche for every character...my advice : start a geophysics study, then you will finally understand.

a reply to: LaBTop

Ask a simple question and you give me paragraphs? Just asked how network news in 2001 professionally had their times set on their field cameras to ensure they had the correct time. There is a process in science and industry to ensure equipment that measures is calibrated accurately and periodically. The calibration is usually set by a calibration lab. The lab documents how accurate the device is working. Simple statement. Prove that network news follows a standard to ensure time accuracy and how they conform / document to that standard. Then you need to prove the seismographs adhere to the same standard or a greater standard.

Something like this for starters. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

You act like you know nothing about lab procedures. What you are implying without proof is the video time stamps are of scientific lab quality with no proof what standard the news networks hold themselves to.

a reply to: LaBTop

Atomic clock is not a standard is accuracy. Atomic clocks are a precise device held to a standard and maintenance schedule. Thier use dictate by lab procedures. Big difference.

a reply to: neutronflux

Just asked how network news in 2001 professionally had their times set on their field cameras to ensure they had the correct time. There is a process in science and industry to ensure equipment that measures is calibrated accurately and periodically.

If it is so easy why don't you pick up the phone and call the networks?

I am sure they would be happy to help you.