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

A reply to: neutronflux

Started to dig other sources of seismologists.

So where are your links to them, and the excerpts from them.?
Reference your online remarks, and explain in your own words why you defend their, and your words, otherwise its the opinion of a passer-by.

Now Professor Brown did the actual research in OKC.
Now you have to show how you find flaws in his findings.

a reply to: neutronflux

Simple answer: read them yourself and make your own conclusions.

You can find Prof. Brown's actual research in here :

ATS Search for LaBTop Dr Brown :

About 60 results (0.29 seconds)

Did you mean: LaPTop Dr Brown (NO . ! )

Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition, page 12
Aug 6, 2008 ... So far, Labtop's work is the best evidence we have of the WTC7 demo. ..... LaBTop: What Dr. Brown is hinting at, is the fact that the seismic ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

9/11 Eyewitness Audio Reveals Hundreds of Explosive Pops! (Must ...
These are the ATS-Search results for : LaBTop USGS ..... Dr. Brown has an honest difference of opinion with folks at the U.S. Geological Survey ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007 ...
I also included the thread where LaBTop proves R.Mackey wrong. ... Dr. Brown has an honest difference of opinion with folks at the U.S. ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

post by LaBTop
edit on 8/12/12 by LaBTop because: (no reason given) ..... But Dr Brown from the Geology Department there kept to his story, that never in the ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved., page 1
Jul 27, 2015 ... Dr Brown, now professor, found that explosives going off, on or near .... LaBTop : There were a LOT of 'handheld' seismic instruments at several ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved., page 5
Dr. Brown probably deserves 24/7 security so that he doesn't commit .... LaBTop, this dovetails nicely with the public statements by Barry ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11 ...
edit on 7/1/15 by LaBTop because: Clarification links added ..... Since Dr. Brown, the colleague of Dr Holzer (his boss at the time), explicitly ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ANALYSIS of the events of 9/11 ...
Mar 25, 2015 ... Hi LaBTop, you are correct about the money being spent on Black Projects. .... Dr Brown did not agree to the 10 seconds later, second seismic ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved., page 103
How about debunking what LapTop proved. ... Dr Brown, now professor, found that explosives going off, on or near columns and/or beams, are ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved., page 111
Nov 8, 2015 ... My seismic data came from LaBTop and the proof is, you cant debunk it. ... Dr Brown, now professor, found that explosives going off, on or near ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
======================================================

What then follows are 5 more ATS Search pages with 10 results each.

a reply to: LaBTop

Aren't you making quite a huge assumption that bombs was used that day? What evidence do you have that bombs was used?

A reply to: bastupungen

Friendly advice :
People usually write that a bomb was used, not like you, that bombs was used.
Next time you should write : bombs were used.

For starters :
Read my opening post, take notice of that huge seismic amplitude peak in the WTC-7 collapse seismogram, which was recorded several seconds before even anything moved on the outside of that building, in all videos of the collapse.
In itself that is not abnormal, it could be the, invisible for the cameras, seismic output of a steel failure initiation event inside WTC-7.
However, the following pack of seismic peaks, which depicted the failure of ALL the vertical and horizontal steel plus concrete in WTC-7 during its global collapse, were far less in amplitude (a recording of seismic force, i.o.w. earth movements records) than that first huge peak.
Now take notice of what NIST and ARA explained as the initiation event, namely the breakage of all connections to horizontal beams over 10 floors, from column nr 79, a SINGLE column thus.

First question you should ask yourself : why don't we see then during the seismic recording of the following total global collapse of that WHOLE building, AT LEAST the same high amplitudes when the rest of all those vertical steel columns broke also loose from their supporting horizontal steel beams.? And on top of that the whole building debris heap that impacts the bedrock after the first 2.25 seconds, and starts massively decelerating on that rock hard bottom, sending additional amplitudes through the New York State upper stratum.
Which we don't see at all. All following amplitudes are smaller than that first huge pack of peaks.

Next. What do you think caused 2.25 seconds of truly free fall acceleration during the onset of the global collapse of WTC 7.?
Do you have any other explanation, based on solid physics, math and engineering rules, than EXPLOSIVES causing an implosion.?

That WTC-7 building suddenly fell in a neat geometrical fashion, 10 stories worth of vertical distance in 2.25 seconds.
That's evidence in that time-span for collapsing at absolute free fall acceleration, PERIOD.
Explanations and solid evidence for that 2.25 seconds period of F.F.Acc. are all over the Internet.
NIST themselves later on came up with even better fitting calculations for F.F.Acc., during those 2.25 seconds.

Shyam Sunder, the head of the NIST 9/11-investigation, explained it himself, before he thought about the grave repercussions for their own NIST WTC-7 Final Report which he was busy defending at the time during the presentation of their Final WTC-7 Report :

""Shyam Sunder : F.F.Acc. would mean there is no physical resistance under it.""

NIST themselves gave up after years of fruitless searching for acceptable explanations, and then both NIST and ARA, still kept that 2.25 seconds period of absolute free fall acceleration out of their Final Report.
That Final WTC-7 NIST Report got at last construed by an external contractor, ARA (which got and gets heavy paid Dept of Defense contracts) in such an illogically and secretively manner that the data they used for their calculations can not be peer reviewed. That behavior already is too ridiculous to even spent a grin on.

Simply said, F.F.Acc. means that tons and tons worth of vertical structural steel mass, which upheld 10 floor spaces, plus all the massive horizontal re-bar reinforced concrete floor slabs, were suddenly absent in the statics calculations.

How do demolition firms get such a massive work of force done.....?
You guessed it :

E X P L O S I V E S !

There is no other SANE explanation possible.
ONLY when you start neglecting all engineering knowledge in the world, you can come up with INSANE explanations.

Next, read my opening posts and more, in the following threads, where you find OFFICIALLY FOIA-released videos with audio of huge explosions during the onset of all three WTC collapses :

This whole thread,
WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY solved :
www.abovetopsecret.com... to page 115
Times LDEO collapse seismogram of WTC-7, compared to the by NIST time-stamped Cianca 9/11 photo :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
FDNY Chiefs KNEW WTC 2, 1 and 7 would FAIL :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Keep also an eye in the coming year on this thread :
University of Alaska Fairbanks Professor Launches New 9/11 Research Project :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Then click and read my 5 Signature thread-links found here just below, full with evidence of explosions and/or their distinctive sound patterns recorded on 9/11, which you name bombs.

a reply to: neutronflux

If I hold your comments to the same standard--the source of the claim--you're in deep trouble in the debate process. That, because your entire case is built upon the claims of government figures with a strong reputation for mendacity.

Really, how solid can a case be when it is built upon the claims of known liars?

a reply to: Salander

So they took the time to dig through tons of debris and I think they even did DNA testing to return remains to family. That's a shotty and mediocre investigation?

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux

If I hold your comments to the same standard--the source of the claim--you're in deep trouble in the debate process. That, because your entire case is built upon the claims of government figures with a strong reputation for mendacity.

Really, how solid can a case be when it is built upon the claims of known liars?

Again, an insult and discredit to those that dug through debris to find evidence and human remains. Wonder why truthers get little respect.

Once again this conspiracy is supported by speculative claims from people who have no degree in the associated field and who have not personally examined the physical evidence.

It's more of a witch hunt.
Why aren't these so called experts filling law suits in court ?
Why do they only present their claims at paid conventions ?
Why do they publish for profit books ?

This is worth quoting in its totality for its blind INSULTS. A fine example of the well known techniques used by forum disturbers to appeal on the underbelly feelings of the not so hardened 9/11 subjects readers.

When 9/11 was a false flag event, which it for sure was, everything will have been planned meticulously, and 50 % of their efforts will have been spend on a huge post-events damage control operation that will last for decades.
As long as the culprits are not smoked out.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: LaBTop

How many thousands of bone fragments did they find while they examine the debris of the WTC at the investigation staging ground. Yet no fragments or remains of charges, shaped charges, cut steel, blasting caps, remote detonators, evidence of steel being worked on by explosives, detonation systems. I think you are the one that needs to stop falling for truther lies. Everything you referencee is held to accountability by who. They are govern by what academic standard? You are an obscenity to those that shifted through debris to find human remains and evidence. You are a joke to those at MIT, Purdue, and the insurance company over the WTC 7's policy who tried to truly understand what caused the buildings to fall.

What on earth has your really dirty first insult, bolded by me, to do with the ongoing discussion?
Why did you feel the need to add that to your earlier arguments? To influence the weak of heart? To collect compassion points from the still undecided readers.?

Your overlords don't have that problem, they decide every weekend how many more PRECIOUS human beings have to be killed by the thousands in the, CIA and NSA sponsored, present killing fields, to keep the US at the forefront of the secretly ongoing economic, energy and water wars with the EU, Russia and Asia.
And on its path to its only goal, global supremacy. Do you really believe in that commercially broadcasted circus you call a presidential election.? It's a dog and pony show for billionaires, get real and ask why you don't have a choice for independent truly concerned candidates.

They found years later a whole pack of old 9/11 bone fragments, on top of the Deutsche Bank building, when they started to demolish that from the top down, by hand.
Do you realize the insane notion of that find.? Bone fragments that traveled that far from the South Tower.? By natural collapse forces.? Only explosions can launch human remains that far. Paper or plastic flying on the collapse resulting wind streams, yes; but not much heavier human remains.
Did anybody ever asked the discoverers if omnivorous birds like crows nestled there,?

Pay attention, I already told you that the one modern explosive I bet my cards on, thermobarics, do NOT leave any traces like conventional HE charges. All that's left after their huge detonations are gasses spreading in the air rather quickly within minutes, and perhaps micro pieces of the eventually used piezoelectric barometric devices. Which look, not surprisingly, much alike pocket lighter parts.

And please, don't insult our intelligence, we read that more than thousand people who died in the Twin Tower demolitions, were missing in the DNA count. There's no trace found of them. NOTHING.
Thus, anybody who believes the propaganda from your overlords, that every tiny piece of debris was inspected and two times flipped over, really need a reality check. They started trucking every piece of evidence off to barks in the Hudson with hundreds of brand new dump trucks (YouTube) already the evening of 9/11, which shipped all of it, they said, to Freshkill Island. If ever a inappropriate name was used, it's for sure this time.

Did you never ask yourself why the majority of both ends of the outer wall steel columns, still welded within their mostly intact Vierendeel triple columned facade plates, were not bend at all.? While in 99% of them, the bolts and welds that connected them to their upper and lower counterparts were cleanly sheared/shaved off. And they were fitted quite deep inside the ends of those adjacent columns...
Indicating that those floors were every three floors lifted up at their ceilings and pushed down at their floors, by the enormous expanding gaseous forces that results from a few TB's detonated inside the core columns area of every third floor area. Core columns were bolted together at every third floor in the top floor regions. Just look at the WTC collapse videos, and then look at online videos of TB explosions. Lower down they were welded together every third floor.
See for all of that the highly interesting website of Major Tom.

In a natural collapse, those columns would have been buckling or been bended for the most part first, before breaking and then falling in or outwards. The whole natural process would show very chaotic features, not like the smooth and geometrical collapse front descends we saw in all three collapses.

Mathematical engineering also prognoses that, see for that the 3 papers by Charles M. Beck.

originally posted by: samkent
Once again this conspiracy is supported by speculative claims from people who have no degree in the associated field and who have not personally examined the physical evidence.

It's more of a witch hunt.
Why aren't these so called experts filling law suits in court ?
Why do they only present their claims at paid conventions ?
Why do they publish for profit books ?

Aha, it's good old Sam again with his old adagio :
If you can't attack the message, tackle the messenger.

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: bastupungen


Next. What do you think caused 2.25 seconds of truly free fall acceleration during the onset of the global collapse of WTC 7.?

Truly free fall acceleration? This claim is wrong. The acceleration curve is all over the place, sometimes above it and sometimes below. You should know this by now....

Do you have any other explanation, based on solid physics, math and engineering rules, than EXPLOSIVES causing an implosion.?

Tony Szamboti agrees that an 8 story buckle can achieve ffa. No explosives needed. You know who he is, correct?

A reply to: MrBig2430

Yes. Link please to HIS words, not yours.!

Truly free fall acceleration? This claim is wrong. The acceleration curve is all over the place, sometimes above it and sometimes below. You should know this by now....

Inside less than a half percent error margin as by NIST calculations, they came even closer to truly free fall acceleration. In a vacuum...
You dare call that "all over the place". That's really extremely daring.

A true free-fall means NO energy is lost, not "little." Though this would be theoretically impossible to achieve 100%, WTC7 fell within a ridiculously close margin of error of this acceleration. We are not talking about a free-fall acceleration that includes drag. We are talking about 9.82 m/s^2, within some small margin of error, which is gravitational acceleration in a vacuum. You do understand that 9.82 m/s^2 is absolute free-fall in a vacuum, don't you? Look it up if you have to.

If you are going to debate something with someone the FIRST thing you need to learn is to correctly interpret what they are saying and not put words in their mouth. That is called a straw-man.

A reply to a post by : MrBig2430
And to another post by : MrBig2430

Did you mean with your strange remark : "The acceleration curve is all over the place, sometimes above it and sometimes below", this many years old video.?
In which the authors were the first-ever to do some -slightly less than precise- measuring of WTC-7's free fall time :

Video title : WTC 7 Solid Implosion Evidence :
www.youtube.com...

The editors are examining acoustic and visual evidence of the EXPLOSIVE events in Manhattan on September 11, 2001, especially in this case the WTC7 collapse.
They compare an animation of a free falling iron ball with the speed of fall of 100 meters of the WTC7 height. There's no difference to be observed, just as David Chandler later proved to NIST, who then did their own NIST calculations and came even closer to the speed of fall in a vacuum. In other words, free fall acceleration.

I would advice the readers to read the screen text at 4:15 and further on up to 4:46, where the video ends.
Do not FORGET TO READ the supporting evidence on screen, especially nr 2 and most interesting, nr 3 :

Rick Siegel's tape recorded a large explosion 9.5 seconds before any signs of "collapse" were visible.

LISTEN to Rick Siegel's explosion, 9.5 secs before global collapse, you hear the same deep sound of an explosion as in this, now well known FOIA freed NIST video :
WTC 7 - HUGE DEEP EXPLOSION (by Charles Ewing Smith, CBS-Net_Dub5_09) :

www.youtube.com...


Realize that they did not clearly see the penthouses sink away from the 2.5 miles distance on the other side of the Hudson, filming from a Pier there, so they counted 9.5 seconds back from the moment the parapet roof rim of WTC-7 started to sink at FFA speed.
Subtract the 8.3 seconds NIST extracted from their video material to describe the time it took for both penthouses to sink into the roof area, and we find the same deep explosion sound, in both the Rick Siegel records, and the CBS-Net_Dub5_9 video recording, 1.2 second before we saw the first dent appearing in the roof of the eastern penthouse situated on the WTC-7 roof area.
Then during the following seconds, the western penthouse also sinks away in the roof area of the 47th floor, and global collapse begins 8.3 seconds later.

This means we have now another video, corroborating with the Charles Ewing's video, also recorded with original audio of the huge explosion that happened 1.2 seconds before the first sign of collapse was recorded by many video cameras.

Note that Rick Siegel's video came out very early already, when nobody ever heard or saw the years later FOIA released one. So you can't say that Rick mixed in the explosion sound, to fit the FOIA one. They are completely unrelated, and still both have that huge explosion in them, 1.2 secs before we see the E-penthouse on the roof of WTC-7 start to sink.

Original files SOURCE Dub5_09.

The original file source on YouTube, use good earphones or audio-equipment, the deep boom is really there :
www.youtube.com...


More explanation here : www.abovetopsecret.com...

A reply to post by : MrBig2430

Tony Szamboti agrees that an 8 story buckle can achieve ffa. No explosives needed. You know who he is, correct?

YES, I know Tony Szamboti.
So, second time, second day try :
LINK(s) please to Tony's words or writings, where he says exactly that (not your interpretation).

Or did you get your "The acceleration curve is all over the place, sometimes above it and sometimes below" remark from here, his Part III ? :

David Chandler's YouTube channel :
www.youtube.com...

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (in Nov. 2008) (Part I) (10:47 min)
by DavidChandler911, 11.681 views, posted 2 years ago.
www.youtube.com...


WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II) (5:40 min)
www.youtube.com...


WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part III) (10:18 min)
www.youtube.com...


Watch Part III carefully from 2:05 on, then tell me what significant deviation (error margin) from FFA you see in his second, revised graph with his as good as straight line of thick red FFA-dots over a period of 2.8 seconds, calculated by David Chandler.

MrBig2430 : Truly free fall acceleration? This claim is wrong. The acceleration curve is all over the place, sometimes above it and sometimes below. You should know this by now....

You clearly are talking here about the triple partitioned bogus FFA explanation in the NIST Final WTC-7 Report, which is also in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9.
You, just as NIST, include the by them added extra seconds before, and after the real absolute FFA of 2.25 secs, which extra secs show no FFA at ALL.!
And yes, then, and only then THEIR artificially extended acceleration curve is all over their inserted seconds positions. But the 2.25 secs absolute FFA portion is even closer to FFA, with neglectable error margins for this discussion of what it means, FFA. It means no resistance of any importance under the collapsing 34 top floors, PERIOD.

You can far faster find and view NIST's bogus, extended-periods, FFA-diagram in the above Part III from Chandler (at 2:10), there you find their curvature, smeared out over 5.4 secs, instead of concentrating on the 2.25 absolute FFA that NIST also found in those dragged out 5.4 secs.

I declare your "all over the place" remark regarding your uninformed opinion that the FFA-error margin is much greater than what is however depicted in both the Chandler and NIST diagrams, as completely bogus, and your post served only one goal :
DERAIL THIS THREAD

You force me to defend my words, over and over again, while you can easily check them first by using the ATS Search. Or Google.
As a result I can't spend that time on more research-time regarding the important, serious new 9/11 discoveries, still dormant in many reports by NIST and other Institutes, and also dormant in reports from yet unknown to us, old eyewitnesses reports sources.
Instead you could have first done your own research here on ATS by reading my posts, and those from others.
Well done, you wrecked another day of my not so long lasting life again.

David Chandler :

The WTC7 series has elicited a number of questions from people unclear on the details of how I did the measurements, compared to how NIST did them and how the representatives of NIST described their measurements. I have therefore created a WTC7 Measurement FAQ page:
www.911speakout.org...
I will also use this FAQ as a place of reference for other questions that arise as well.

Go to www.911speakout.org... for much more information

? Or did you do some authentic research yourself at last, and went to NIST's explanation ?
Let's see what YOU are capable off, show us NIST their FFA-research. Or shut up.

Where you can hopefully find what you think the error margin was in their discovery of 9.81 m/s2 gravitational acceleration a.k.a. FFA calculations during 2.25 seconds of the collapse.
And then they tried to hide these discovered 2.25 secs of absolute FFA, measured over a vertical distance of approx. 8 stories or 32.0 meter (105 ft) inside their bogus heap of EXTRA ADDED seconds, totaling 5.4 secs, in other words, their de-facto conspiracy based, triple period "explanation". That totally bogus explanation is a real conspiracy, to fool the uneducated masses.

There were 2.25 seconds video-recorded from multiple angles, in which there was no significantly measurable resistance under the sinking 34 top floors of WTC-7....in other words :

The building went from full support to zero support
I N S T A N T L Y

For every physics and engineering informed being, that's enough to DOUBT every explanation by US officially backed sources. And start their own private investigations.

I see that I forgot to include the links in an above post, to the scientific correct publications from Major Tom et al., and Charles M. Beck.
For those eager to learn the basics behind the impossibilities regarding the WTC-collapses, explained by academics, engineers and concerned researchers, here they are :

WTC Progressive Floor Collapse Model - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research

Perimeter Wall Collapse Model - World Trade Center Evidence-Based Research

1. arxiv.org... (6 pages, 1 figure)
Title : Role of Compaction Ratio in the Mathematical Model of Progressive Collapse.
Charles M. Beck, submitted to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics.


2. arxiv.org... (24 pages, 7 figures)
Title : Descent curve and the phases of collapse of WTC 7.
Charles M. Beck.

3. arxiv.org... (15 pages, 7 figures)
Mathematical Models of Progressive Collapse and the Question of How Did the World Trade Centers Perish
Charles M. Beck, also submitted to ASCE Journal of Engineering Mechanics

ASCE is the American Society of Civil Engineers. They accepted his thesis.
So it's not some bloke blowing off steam, he was accepted in their journal as a serious contributor.

Read also my posts here :
www.abovetopsecret.com... and further ones there.