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

The MOST IMPORTANT video-film ever posted on YouTube about the REASONS for the false flag operation that 9/11 was.
Based on Mr Guyat and Mr E.P. Heidner their deep investigations.
Note the beginning minutes remark about the ongoing ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) investigations before 9/11, into many huge economical scams operations, like f.ex. ENRON, WorldOnline, etcetera.

From 15:00 minutes on, he goes himself deeper into the Why and How :

Video title : 911-Conspiracy Finally Solved!:
Names, Connections, Motives, 911Matrix of Details Exposed! ( 600,961 views ) 43:28 minutes :

www.youtube.com...


An interesting comment by :

IamaFreeWillOffering : This video, while not the easiest to listen to, due to the almost monotone dialog (LT : in the first 15 minutes), is, nevertheless, the most important single video, based on a "damning information per minute" criteria, of all the videos I've seen.

I'd encourage everyone who has friends who think you're a loon for questioning your government, to appeal to them to simply pay attention to this one video and tell them that if they listen carefully and pay attention, and then are still of the same mind, you'll never address it with them again.

No one can pay attention to this video and walk away pretending there are not numerous serious issues of conspiracy, fraud, theft, murder and cover-up that reveal a very corrupt government, laden with massive guilt.

Fresh members and readers will need to listen several times to this hit-piece on the PLANNERS, to really start to understand what is laid out in this superb 9/11-explanations list.
Check his long 9/11-links list, in his video-description chapter, too.


Then we have this, a fresh film (2015) from a 9/11-group of concerned journalists.
They call themselves "Press For Truth" :

Title : 9/11: Decade of Deception (Full Film NEW 2015)
Press For Truth (1.426.214 views) 2:04:54 hrs.

www.youtube.com...



And, what about this video, 59:27 minutes :
Title : 9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money
BEST DOCUMENTARY EVER MADE 2016 :

www.youtube.com...


Worth the time spend on viewing it, realize that the excuse used by slightly better informed OS Trusters is that no real money was lost. They couldn't find the receipts.

That's not what it really means.
They lost TRACK of those trillions, that were first allocated by Congress to the military, expecting them to keep controllable bookkeeping about its expenditures, so Congress could check where it ended up.
That bookkeeping was deliberately obfuscated, to camouflage where those huge funds really were spend on.
And sure, secret commissions from Congress will have got some fund allocations, however the bulk of it was lost on 9/11.
And I doubt any Senator ever saw the full expenditures list.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

Your neutrons must be fluxing mate. The word is "shoddy".

Truthers first claim, explosives. No physical evidence or audio of demolitions.
Truthers second claim, thermite cause it's quite. No physical evidence.
Then it was nuclear bombs. No physical evidence.
Truthers then jumped to missiles clouded in holograms. No physical evidence.
Now it's lasers and energy waves. Yeap, no physical evidence of explosives, Thermite, nukes, or missiles. Again, truthers discredit themselves. As soon as one truther speculation is proved false, they change the narrative.

Again, sticking to colleges and universities held to academic standards and accountability. Not believing some ambiguous person playing Hollywood producer. There are well produced videos on YouTube claiming the earth is flat and man has never been to space. They also call themselves truthers. Bet you fall for those too.

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: MrBig2430

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

So you didn't know this? What kind of research do you do? Half arsed won't cut it.

Heck he even has corrected David Chandler on this issue. Chandler's original statements were that ALL columns must be cut over 8 stories in order to achieve ffa. Tony corrected him on this and has publicly said so.

Catch up

A reply to: MrBig2430

You should catch up with posting rule nr one, post links to your arguments, or shut up.

Originally posted by: neutronflux

Truthers first claim, explosives.

LT : We are proud to be called DOUBTERS, and a name like TRUSTERS you can be equally proud of, that one is used by us to indicate those SERIOUS opponents who show total or partly trust in the officially backed 9/11 explanations.

While you (and well known others) clearly use the Truther name-calling as scornful, sneering, sarcastic, disgraceful, shameful, scandalous, infamous, ignominious and derogative as possible.

It has become a downright outrageous INSULT.!

And a disgrace and dishonor to civil forum posting at ATS.

No physical evidence or audio of demolitions.

LT : "No physical evidence" : FEMA found thick WTC-7 steel corroded to razor sharpness, in some sulfur assisted heating process. Then NIST got the contract to investigate all possibilities, did not follow up on FEMA's findings, declared all investigations into explosives-use fruitless based on their single notion that they had not found loud enough audio-evidence of explosions.
Anybody listening to the "Phone boot" WTC-7; the Rick Siegel Day of 9/11; the _BoneZ_ N.Tower collapse; the Trinity Church; the Chapel; the Ashley Banfield WTC-7; the Charles Ewing videos with their audios of explosions, already knows far better.
In short, NIST did not want their personnel to search for physical evidence, they forbid them to do so.
I.o.w.: "We don't hear what we want to hear, so we don't search for evidence, and if we find it, we neglect it, since we don't want to hear or see it".
"No audio of demolitions" : How dare you say that, after we DOUBTERS posted numerous OFFICIALLY FOIA freed videos full of AUDIO of explosions all over this place.

Truthers second claim, thermite cause it's quite. No physical evidence.

LT : it's quiet, not quite. And NIST did not want to find physical evidence of intended demolition, they ruled that out at the very first day of their investigation, the only result they wanted to investigate was finding causes for natural collapses, they worked the other way round, from intended result back to sole causes that perhaps indicated their intended result. And excluded any other unnatural cause.

Then it was nuclear bombs. No physical evidence.
Truthers then jumped to missiles clouded in holograms. No physical evidence.
Now it's lasers and energy waves. Yeap, no physical evidence of explosives, Thermite, nukes, or missiles. Again, truthers discredit themselves. As soon as one truther speculation is proved false, they change the narrative.

LT : SIGH. Your truther-repetition INSULTS are used in a really desperate-uncertainty form.
It's not strengthening in any way your "arguments".

Serious DOUBTERS have abandoned all the hoaxes many years ago already. It's quite juvenile to keep throwing this rubbish into every serious 9/11 discussion, STOP IT !
And don't sneakily slip explosives and thermite in the hoaxes-pile, those are still serious possibilities, only NIST for sure didn't want to find any of it, nor any other evidence for intended demolition.

Again, sticking to colleges and universities held to academic standards and accountability. Not believing some ambiguous person playing Hollywood producer. There are well produced videos on YouTube claiming the earth is flat and man has never been to space. They also call themselves truthers. Bet you fall for those too.

LT : You clearly don't understand academia.
There are thousands of academic publications proved totally or partially wrong, shorter or later.
That is the crux of all academic exchanges, the constant DOUBT.

You really have a very strange, non-logical way, to connect things that are totally unrelated.
I do not consider you serious anymore, if you go on like this. Get your facts together, is my last friendly advice.

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: MrBig2430



You should catch up with posting rule nr one, post links to your arguments, or shut up.

Or shut up? Lol. I believe I will ignore that and instead point out that since you know who he is, it should be easy to find where he posts ( hint : he usually uses his real name as a screen name ) and ask him yourself.

Or, you can get all huffy and not.

Your choice.

But in the meantime, I will just have a good chuckle at your expense.

A reply to: LaBTop
Top of this page, my post, click the last, third video and WATCH it.!

9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money
BEST DOCUMENTARY EVER MADE 2016

Do I have to find all new material all by myself.?
You lean back and let me do all the hard work all alone.?
Not one of you participating anymore in checking and posting all evidence you found in these new videos.?

Is there not one DOUBTER, who has noticed in the past postings of f.ex. hellobruce or samkent et al. :
Their immediate jumping in, every time when the 2.3 TRILLION missing from the Pentagon books was brought up.?

And now you have the chance at last to let them shut up with their misinformation, that most of those funds their receipts were found back in the years after 9/11/2001.

Go to view that video from the 50:00 minute on, up to the 57:00 minute, and hear and see what this superb 2016 Corbett Report hit piece on all the officially backed obfuscation regarding everything 9/11-related, has to say about that kind of misleading the masses :

The military spending accountability obfuscating, and its wide open chances for everyone participating,
for funds embezzlement meant for private enrichment, and to obfuscate the real black projects on an immense scale.

And type out and post their conclusions and their even more shocking, much higher unaccounted for in one year, TRILLIONS amounts here, in this thread. (8 Trillion dollar)
And what happened to the back-ups in WTC-7, and how a former ENRON executive was put in the 9/11 Commission, while most ENRON evidence collected by the auditors who all died in the Pentagon was lost on 9/11.

Then listen to, and view up to the 50:00 minutes point, the rest of the allocations by Corbett...enough to start several other interesting threads.

PARTICIPATE AGAIN, GET ANGRY AGAIN, POST AGAIN.!

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: MrBig2430
You should catch up with posting rule nr one, post links to your arguments, or shut up.

Or shut up? Lol. I believe I will ignore that and instead point out that since you know who he is, it should be easy to find where he posts ( hint : he usually uses his real name as a screen name ) and ask him yourself.
Or, you can get all huffy and not.
Your choice.
But in the meantime, I will just have a good chuckle at your expense.

Well, to put it bluntly, you leave me no choice than calling you a misinformant.
And I don't belief your Szamboti remarks, until YOU prove otherwise.

It's the additional context which, perhaps interests me, to add to these 5 publications, full of evidence that the 9/11 collapses were not natural collapses.

Here, and in every other self respecting forum, YOU have to bring forth YOUR evidence, not the other way round.

If not, I'll neglect you as a proven teaser.

I think you are making false assumptions.
911review.com...

www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi4ncfdyZDNAhXHMSYKHW9BCxQQFgggMAM&usg=AFQjCNGxtSX17KY9VXhTjMytPiC2mzmOEQ&sig2=b a8d_sG3qFzSp-_ZU311dw

Strange the Colombia University points out the WTC truck bomb in 93 with 1000 pounds of explosives did not produce seismic activity that could could be detected by the closest station 16 km away.

www.911myths.com...
Which time line are you using?

Let's try to concentrate once more on WTC-7, the subject of this thread. My opening posts.

17:07 to 28:09 / 2:04:53 David's superb WTC-7 COLLAPSE-FORCES EXPLANATION :
CLICK to start video at the 17:07 position.!



VIEW and LISTEN to these 11 minutes of logical explanation by David Chandler, of the structural and failure forces at work in the WTC-7 collapse, just open the second video in my above top post, in this thread's page 11, or click my above link so you start a new YouTube-window at the 17:07 position where David starts explaining. Or slide the slider in the linked-to shown video to 17:07 and double click, or click the right-arrow.

21:00 / 2:04:53 : David : One seemingly logical remark posted by many Trusters : the falling mass is so great, that the natural collapse has to follow a near free fall acceleration time line.

Which is blatantly wrong, since the steel in WTC-7 (just as in the Twin Towers) was designed to uphold 3 to 5 times its own mass, on every floor (meaning that the architect tapered the steel thicker, the lower its position in the building), thus providing an enormous, and increasingly resistance to any debris of eventually, NATURALLY, failing, then falling floors.
Falling obviously through the path of most resistance.

He's bringing MUCH more to the WTC-7 discussion than the above subject alone, in these 11 minutes !
Now debate me on that subject, with your arguments and linked to supporting evidence.

After that, you are invited to debate me on the C.M. Beck and Major Tom arguments.
Links to their arguments provided in my bottom post on page 10 of this thread. And in the above post.

PS : Especially samkent is invited, so he can prove us his extensive education, after trying smearing mine repeatedly.
He left that debate already once, after trying to confront me on the Charles M. Beck three thesis.
Just as the usual other visiting Trusters did then. When it comes to serious debate, their usual one-liners don't cut the meat. (I have the thread/posts links, you have them too, I'm sure)

Yep, let's go for the WRITTEN ARGUMENTS CONFRONTATION again with those shallow-seated Truster posts.
Since I don't see any serious argumentation brought forth by them, against all my OP threads subjects.
Why? They can't, so observe the constant smear, smudge and other distraction techniques, brought in, 10 pages long already again.
Attack the messenger when they can't confront the message.
Despicable behavior.

BRING it ON.
It's time, at last, to weed out the seeds and roots of 15 years of distraction.

originally posted by: LaBTop
logical explanation by David Chandler,

You mean this David Chandler?

screwloosechange.blogspot.com.au...

Please provide Evidence Silverstein bought the buildings....
Please provide evidence the Port Authority tried to get a demolition permit for the WTC several times....

a reply to: LaBTop

Don't have to bring it on. Columbia university staff and other persons held to academic standards and accountability have determined and shown there is no seismic proof of explosives. Sorry. You are held to standards and accountability to who? Only yourself, your faulty logic, and faulty time lines. You act as you have done ground breaking work. Yet, even the seismic activity has been examined by everyone and their brother. It's been proven explosives would not have created recordable seismic activity.

Remember, flat earthers and people convinced man has never been to space are called truthers. They also have their own well produced "documentaries" on YouTube. You need to kick YouTube to the curb and start reading some science based university studies. Until then, debating your self fulfilling pseudo science is a waste of time.

Simple questions. Was it 3 times its mass or Five times it mass? Big difference. You sure the design was not for a specific load? At what temperature was that rated for. The buildings were not already load with equipment? And the question that never gets answered. If structural steel is impervious to fire, why does it by code need time rated fire insulation?

1. 9/11Myths page link : That's an old 2006 page about Flight 11 and 175, thus regarding the Twin Towers.
This thread is about the WTC-7 seismogram, no plane involved.

I gladly debate you on the seismic Twin Towers subjects in that linked to, 10 years old page, I invite you to start a new thread by your own if you dare to do that, I'll then gladly tune in there.

There was already enough distraction in this thread, so avoid another crusade in the wrong direction.
It's interesting enough for me, but I'll address my points in your eventually started thread.

One first hint to reconsider : READ THIS thread's opening posts, it explained the Twin Tower seismograms partially in there too.

See the two, by me 1-10 nm/s "amplitude-blown-up" seismograms for WTC2S and WTC1N, do observe the two, comparable in AMPLITUDE to the WTC-7 collapse, pre-collapse amplitudes for both Twin Towers their ten times less sensitive 10-100 nm/s seismograms, now recalculated to the same sensitivity of 1-10 nm/s as the other three seismograms (the 2 plane impacts, and the WTC-7 collapse, all three were posted by LDEO in 1-10 nm/s sensitivity) .

Further on, that is a work written in 2006, we are 10 years further and many revelations further too. Read Dr Rousseau's seismic study, to begin with.


2. Timelines : NIST's revised two times their timelines, ending up with an addition of FIVE SECONDS to ALL their video and photo material. I addressed it already in 2005/6 extensively, see my O.P. screenshots, the ones you seem to avoid to READ, as the plague.

Now observe my texts in my posted WTC-7 O.P.-seismograms, and see for yourself that the NIST-revised LDEO-arrival time, solidly connected to their new, 5 secs later time-stamped Cianca photo-event now suddenly ends up :

17 secs retention time in crust + 5 NIST secs = 22 secs later,

near to the very END of the WTC-7 collapse seismogram.
Cianca took a picture from the first dent in the roof of the E-Penthouse, which stood on top (the roof area) of WTC-7. The Cianca photo-event, named so by me.

Conclusion : NIST made an even greater joke of their seismic studies, and after realizing that, after reading my swift retaliation, they withdrew immediately ALL there seismic studies from all their websites.......If that ain't peculiar, what is not; you should ask your self.

At least you try to read my opponents web sites first, for starters, that's better than loose accusations, it's the slow start of realizing the embezzlement the last few US governments have served us, and the whole world too, about 9/11 and the resulting bloodshed.
All those young lives lost....for GREEDY CAPITALISM (you don't hear or read that word much anymore, the genuine SHAME begins to shimmer through the cracks in western society).

PS : this is the stumpiest time I have to post this kind of simple explanation, it seems very few Trusters here really (want to?) understand the clues of the Cianca time-stamp, when compared to the LDEO time-stamped WTC-7 seismogram. Especially since we know for SURE that both times were recalculated to NIST's own atomic clock times.

Clue : The Cianca photo time-stamp had to CHANGE to 5 SECS later in real time, after NIST's "recalculations", but these did not change the LDEO registered times, since those had nothing to do with photos or videos, they were registered by their clocks, not NIST their huge cameras photo/video material heap.

Do YOU, all these still questioning me, Trusters :
NOW UNDERSTAND my seismic reasoning, at last.?

And understand at last, now too, that NIST fell in their own "5 secs-recalculating" sword.?

a reply to: LaBTop

I didn't mention NIST. I referred to University studies that find no seismic activity associated due to explosives. There is no audio to indicated one massive blast that had the potential to be recorded by seismic recorded. During the investigation and recovery of thousands of remains from the rubble / debris, no physical evidence of explosives or compnates of explosive devices. You just have your interpretation of your narritive.

originally posted by: LaBTop

originally posted by: MrBig2430

originally posted by: LaBTop
A reply to: MrBig2430
You should catch up with posting rule nr one, post links to your arguments, or shut up.

Or shut up? Lol. I believe I will ignore that and instead point out that since you know who he is, it should be easy to find where he posts ( hint : he usually uses his real name as a screen name ) and ask him yourself.
Or, you can get all huffy and not.
Your choice.
But in the meantime, I will just have a good chuckle at your expense.

Well, to put it bluntly, you leave me no choice than calling you a misinformant.
And I don't belief your Szamboti remarks, until YOU prove otherwise.

It's the additional context which, perhaps interests me, to add to these 5 publications, full of evidence that the 9/11 collapses were not natural collapses.

Here, and in every other self respecting forum, YOU have to bring forth YOUR evidence, not the other way round.

If not, I'll neglect you as a proven teaser.

The sad thing on display here is that I'm sure you consider yourself a stellar researcher. Right?

How will your views change when you find out I'm telling the truth, exposing your shoddy research skills? What will happen to your credibility?

Who knows....

One thing for certain though is that you will twist your story to incorporate this new info, never once questioning the underlying belief that 9/11 was an side job. Right?

So, answer those questions and I will provide links for you to verify just how poor your research is....

Why would there be anything natural in the collapse of a man made building? Are you saying technology that side steps all laws of physics was used? Then how would there be any predictable seismic activity. You don't get the logic?

originally posted by: neutronflux

911review.com... ANSWERED
www.911myths.com... ANSWERED

Neutronflux his too long link to LDEO's dr Kim's page.

Strange the Colombia University points out the WTC truck bomb in 93 with 1000 pounds of explosives did not produce seismic activity that could could be detected by the closest station 16 km away.

Friendly advice : next time OPEN that page in a new tab page of your browser, instead of bluntly copying that complicated Google link from 9/11Myths pages or Google, while not reading it, since the answer to your above "did not produce seismic activity" remark is in his few 9/11 pages there :

Read LDEO's and later, NIST's explanation : they proposed that since the 1993 bomb was not directly coupled to the floor or columns, but stood inside a van, which of course rested on rubber tires and steel springs, much of the initial kinetic energy was lost, and that's why the blast was not recorded. (Which is in my opinion a fairy tale)


The McVeigh VAN with the OKC bomb in it also stood on rubber tires and had steel springs. The blast was still recorded in many seismic stations around OKC.

I once also posted a few times (see REFS) about the seismogram found by Prof Wallace from the August 7, 1998 VAN-blast in Nairobi, Kenya.
That Al-Qaida US-Embassy bombing was also recorded on a seismogram, and executed with a VAN on rubber tires and with steel springs, and that huge blast's start time was registered with an accuracy of ms = milliseconds.

While LDEO doesn't come further than a amazingly wide spread 1 to 2 secs = 1000 to 2000 ms accuracy for the starting TIMES of all 9/11 seismograms, which I said in 2005 already, is VERY suspect in geophysics circles, see also the recent remarks about that in Dr Rousseau's publication. (see REFS)

I think the 1993 blast WAS of course recorded, just as the OKC and the Nairobi, Kenya one, but "they" clearly managed to make it disappear.
For what logical reason? You start to think. Well, this certainly sounds logical to me :

Because they knew that their FIRST, 1993 demolition attempt to topple one tower into the other failed, so NEXT TIME in 2001, they needed much stronger explosives, much more of them, so that 1993 seismogram would have been a damn inconvenient one, if registered in Geophysical Journals, since it must have REGISTERED A CLEAN EXPLOSION in a WELL KNOWN WTC Tower. Just as in 2001 by the way.

We all would really like to have seen that FIRST 1993 WTC-blast seismogram, recorded FOR SURE ALSO by LDEO, as originating from the same WTC tower position.
Do you really believe their fairy tale, that a 1993 blast that blew a gigantic hole in the parking garage and base floors of that WTC Tower, did not register on their LDEO seismograms, while a 2001 near-miss plane impact, high up in WTC2S, its steel shearing- and impacting amplitudes strongly deafened by 300 m descending in thick steel before reaching the bedrock, did however cleanly register.

That 1993 seismogram would immediately make everything crystal clear to all those Trusters, still trusting their heinous Government(s).
We simply could have compared the (lost) 1993 first one then, to the second, third and fourth 2001 ones...
Note also, that the since 1993 existing, newly situated seismic station in Manhattan, was closed, a few months before 9/11/2001.....How convenient.

I gave you the HUGE Indian atomic blast one, compared to the LDEO one with the two HUGE blasts (they call it collapses); you can however also see them in that 2006 9/11Myths page you so conveniently posted up there.
If you do not see the glaring similarities, you're lost in your Government's Misinformation Space :


Indian nuclear blast compared to earthquake in that same region.


My saved LDEO seismogram.
NOTE it is registered on a MINUTES SCALE, just as the above one, but not as in the LDEO registered, 5 WTC ones, which were registered on a seconds scale.

www.911myths.com...
9/11Myths their saved LDEO seismogram.


Saved it too.

Since we know about that FBI triple agent, the former Egyptian Army Major Ali Mohamed (see my link to the long video with him shortly mentioned and shown in it), who was the middleman between his FBI handlers and those three 1993 Arab bomber-patsies, and we know also that he recorded on tape his conversations by phone with his FBI handlers (since he strongly mistrusted their real intentions), we know that the 1993 bombing was a false flag operation too.
He asked them to provide him with some harmless white powder to give by him to those patsies, but his FBI handlers insisted to let him deliver the real deal, high explosives powders, the Arab patsies had ask for.

It all went smoothly in the, by now, well known "mainstream Networks their memory hole "; thus, again, ain't that quite strange, such a story just disappearing (forced) from their investigative radar....?

SEISMIC REFERENCES :

Seismic analysis NYC 9/11
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Title : RousseauVol34November2012.pdf
www.journalof911studies.com...

Title : Seismic resolution.doc - Seismic_resolution.pdf
folk.uio.no...

Title : I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)
www.abovetopsecret.com...
AT LAST : I found my original post with the quotes from Prof Raymond Brown back, regarding the by far greater presence in seismograms of demolitions of the amplitudes of the demo-charges, while the impact of the huge demolitioned chunks of concrete from a demolitioned building into the ground give a far less impressive presence :

"Even the smallest of those detonations (from the May 23rd demolition of the REMAINS of the Murrah building) had a larger effect on the recording than the collapse of the building",
he added, "which demonstrates that the explosives are much more efficient at exciting the ground motion than is the collapse of three-fourths of the building. So it is very unlikely that one-fourth of the building falling on April 19th could have created an energy wave similar to that caused by the large [truck-bomb] explosion."[75]
-snip-
experts say that the "crack" of a C-4 cutting charge is "downright disappointing" to hear.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Title : I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)
Prof Terry Wallace found the start time of the Nairobi bombing with an accuracy to the millisecond (1 thousand of a second).
Keep this in mind when you hear or see "seismologists" trying to tell you that the exact 9/11 seismic times could differ within a 2 SECONDS error frame. That's 2,000 milliseconds above the possible error margin!

Title : Seismic Time–Frequency Analysis via Empirical Wavelet Transform (PDF Download Available).

Official Full-Text Publication: Seismic Time–Frequency Analysis via Empirical Wavelet Transform on ResearchGate, the professional network for scientists.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
References to former Egyptian Army major Ali Mohammed, the 1993 FBI informant/triple agent who gave the goods he got from the FBI, high explosive powder mixes, to the 3 Arab bombers. He taped his FBI handlers, so don't say it's a hoax.


WTC-7 collapse LDEO-seismogram amplitudes 1-10 nm/s


WTC1N center plane impact LDEO-seismogram amplitudes 1-10 nm/s


WTC2S off center plane impact LDEO-seismogram amplitudes 1-10 nm/s


WTC2S collapse LDEO-seismogram amplitudes : my 1-10 nm/s amplitudes, instead of orig. LDEO's 10-100 nm/s


WTC1N collapse LDEO-seismogram amplitudes : my 1-10 nm/s amplitudes, instead of orig. LDEO's 10-100 nm/s


If the Cianca photo is 5 secs later shot, which NIST proposed in its Final Report on WTC-7, after their photo and video re-calculations efforts, then you really should NOTE where it, 17 secs later, thus arrives on the above LDEO WTC-7 seismogram, so WHEN (at what time stamped spot under the graph) the LDEO seismograph its needles should have started to register that "precisely" timed event.
Yep, in the middle of the global collapse.
BUT, it took 8.2 long secs more, before the roof line started to sink : the start of the global collapse of WTC-7.!
Thus, these whole 5 extra secs calculated by NIST do not fit at all in the above and below WTC-7 seismograms.


Read the remarks.


Remarks speak for themselves.


Remarks speak for themselves.