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

a reply to: Mianeye

As the world trade center 1 and 2 collapsed it was from the point were the plane hit (the top down), which is clearly shown in videos, that mean that if explosives were used, they were placed up in the air(the top of the building), i doubt any seismic tremble would reach the ground and further more be recorded as LaPTop is showing, i could understand if the explosives were at ground level, then maybe the trembles from explosives would be picked up.

To prove that you have absolutely no idea to what you are talking about LaBTop thread is about "WTC 7", we are not talking about WTC 1 & 2 are we.

a reply to: neutronflux

Seismographs only pick up explosions. How do seismographs pick up earthquakes. Are they caused by explosions?

Redundant response.

a reply to: Informer1958

From the man himself, which is what my answer was aimed towards, he recommended reading his other post, so that i did.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I still strongly believe and am convinced that those 5 seismic charts from PAL EHE proved without a doubt in my mind that 3 equally strong bombs or packs of bombs were used in WTC 1, 2 and 7. They didn't have a smaller one for WTC 7, so they used identicals. Proof of that lays in the comparable pre-peaks in the seismic charts from LDEO.

a reply to: neutronflux

It's not that simple. It is quite complex and sophisticated actually, how they have refined nuclear devices. They can control the radiation among other things.

They've come a long way baby, since 1945.

a reply to: Mianeye

From the man himself, which is what my answer was aimed towards, he recommended reading his other post, so that i did.

I still strongly believe and am convinced that those 5 seismic charts from PAL EHE proved without a doubt in my mind that 3 equally strong bombs or packs of bombs were used in WTC 1, 2 and 7. They didn't have a smaller one for WTC 7, so they used identicals. Proof of that lays in the comparable pre-peaks in the seismic charts from LDEO.

However this thread is specifically about WTC 7. Not WTC 1 & 2.

I don't think you understand this thread Topic or the science that is being demonstrated here.

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

My StudyOf911 title was :

Interpretation of Seismic 9/11 charts from LDEO, compared to NIST photo time stamp
NIST time stamped their Cianca photo, shot when the first dent appeared in the roof of the eastern penthouse, situated on the 47th floor deck of WTC 7.
The time stamped on a NIST photo made by Cianca, and the LDEO seismogram stamped times, do not compare to the official collapse as filmed by the TV networks and as photographed by Cianca.

In short : when one looks at the timestamps under the WTC 7 - collapse seismogram and compare them with the timestamp on the Cianca photo, one thing immediately jumps out :

The main and first, huge seismic peak on that seismogram is situated a few seconds before the comparable time that in New York a mr. Cianca took a photograph of the first sign of the onset of the collapse of WTC 7 on the roof of that tower.
And that the rest of the next seismic peaks in that WTC 7 seismogram are smaller (lower in amplitude) than that earliest huge peak.

So how can a failing single steel column 79, according to NIST, cause that first huge earth shaking amplitude peak?
When 8.4 seconds later all the other identical steel columns fail all together at once, evidenced by a 2.6 secs free fall of the top of that building.
That means over 34 meters, there was no resistance at all against a free fall of building material.
Logic should have shown us a whole pack of peaks at least identical to that first one, however, we don't see that at all, they are all lower in amplit

So in reading LaBTop material where does he considerate about WTC 1& 2?

The fact is LaBTop is able to prove his claim by using the seismic charts, there was no resistance on 34 meters of the collapse and because there was no resistance the speed of the WTC 7 was falling was indeed 2.6 seconds faster then a natural free fall.

Meaning several things here:

What happened to all the floor joists and support beams during the 34 meters collapse, where did they go?

What would cause 34 meters of all floor joist and support beams to vanish in thin air?

The only thing scientifically that can explain this is demolition. It is my understanding that A&E forced NIST to change their time stamp of the speed because of this. NIST did adjust their time stamp of the speed and have now admitted that WTC 7 fell 2.6 seconds faster.

This fact is now scientifically Indisputably.

Scientifically that means office fires alone could not have created the 2.6 seconds of speed that happened during the collapse.

a reply to: Informer1958

It's been proven by vedio over and over again that the buildings fell slower than free fall.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Informer1958

It's been proven by vedio over and over again that the buildings fell slower than free fall.

Except this new evidence proves otherwise.

a reply to: Informer1958

It's relevant as to him being wrong with the seismographs surrounding tower 1 and 2, if he is reading that wrong, he is wrong overall.

As i said i doubt any tremors from explosives placed high in the towers would be readable in any of the seismographs, they can't even record seismic tremors from other demolition or to some part explosions.

That is what he claims in the post i quoted.

Btw: the actual topic, call it side topic if you will, was this claim from you, which you have avoided.

The fact is, there are several videos that were recorded that day with the sounds of explosions.

To which i answered this.

Yes, the sound of explosions, no sound of explosives, stop pretending the sound of explosions means explosives, there is a big difference, the sound of explosives is very distinctive and there are no sound of that in any recordings.

a reply to: Salander

No. You are so wrong. Do they now use different radioactive elements at low concentrations for bombs? Hell no. There is a reason it's nuclear weapons grade baby. It's has to be concentrated to reach the point it can be fussed to make a nuclear explosion. Fuel rod concentration is enough to support a chain reaction, not enough to make a nuclear explosion for example. The amount of radioactivety in a fuel rod would make people very sick. When the weapons grade elements undergoes fission, a majority of atoms will split in two kinds of radioactive atoms. Very distinct signature. They will in turn decay into distinct radioactive atoms. But you just contradicted yourself, if there is enough contamination to make people sick then there is lots of it and detectable. One curie source if turned to dust would actually creat a great deal of contamination. If it remains intact, a person could work by that source one foot away up to 50 hours before showing health effects due to radiation.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Thank you.

I see none of the official narratives supporters have no comment that can scientifically disprove LaBTop presentation.

I would like to continue to stay on this topic to see what excuses I get for the 2.6 seconds of speed increase from the few posters who do not support this science.

a reply to: neutronflux

It's been proven by vedio over and over again that the buildings fell slower than free fall.

I would like to see these new videos that you speak about?

a reply to: Mianeye

It's relevant as to him being wrong with the seismographs surrounding tower 1 and 2, if he is reading that wrong, he is wrong overall.

That is an old thread posted in 2006. Please stay on topic.

a reply to: Informer1958

Which is linked in OP...thereby ontopic.

Sigh...what ever dude

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

It's been proven by vedio over and over again that the buildings fell slower than free fall.

I would like to see these new videos that you speck about?

www.debunking911.com...
m.youtube.com...
www.911myths.com...
m.youtube.com...
mobile.dudamobile.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

I am not interested in the yellow journalism, or bias websites that support the official narratives thank you.

I have seen all those videos before, so tell me how does all these video disprove the 2.6 seconds speed?

a reply to: Informer1958

www.skeptic.com...

Video shows how you are wrong, sorry.

a reply to: neutronflux

www.skeptic.com...

Video shows how you are wrong, sorry.

Care to show the evidence that proves there was no 2.6 speed?

Because I don't see it in your source.

originally posted by: neutronflux
POST REMOVED BY STAFF

It's an established fact, and admitted to by NIST themselves, that building 7 experienced free-fall acceleration for a period of 2.25 seconds. If you have a problem with that, maybe you should take it up with NIST.

It's necessary to answer this post on page 1 first (however, the lack of stars indicate the rest of the audience seems to understand his question quite well).
EDIT: It's repeated at the bottom of page 3 again by the same poster, there seems time to post, but not to READ my posts.
www.abovetopsecret.com... ENDEDIT.

Originally posted by: neutronflux
How do you know all the clocks stamping the time were set to the same time? I have a new camera I never set the time on? Both time devices set by a calibration lad and certified?

Just read my OP's nr 33 screenshot-post and all my following "ditto" screenshots about the same timing-subject :
NIST calculations for timestamps on photo/film
33.

If anything's after that is still unclear, ask and I'll try to explain.

I.m.h.op., it's self-explanatory.
NIST took the second plane impact as their atomic clocked timing standard, which impact was filmed by numerous TV networks, who ALL have atomic clocks attached to their recording and sending equipment.
They then compared all their photo and video material they got from those networks later on, and from concerned US and other countries citizens, and searched for photographed or filmed events which were also in those stacks of material, thus came to other important events which were now firmly connected to the Networks recordings of those same events.
And now could connect all that material to atomic clocked times of identical events recorded by those Networks cameras, and the private cameras they got all that other material from.
Btw, ask yourself WHY there was so little material submitted from security cameras in Manhattan. While there must have been thousands in working order at the times of all events.

An exceptional thing happened directly after I published my seismic evidence, that now was connected to an event (Cianca photo) that was already atomic clock-connected to NIST's own standard event (impact of plane 2) by NIST themselves.
They suddenly ADDED 5 seconds to ALL their video and photo material.

However, that did nothing good to their move to get my evidence off the table, since their moving of all recorded events 5 seconds later in time, made no difference on the seismograms. It only moved all New York-Manhattan real times to a 5 seconds later position on that graph, so the first huge amplitude peak stayed in the same position on that seismogram, but the CIAnca photo position was now suddenly even FIVE SECONDS LATER positioned, so that huge first peak "happened" according to NIST even 5 seconds earlier than the moment CIAnca took that photo.
Even more ILLOGICAL, the start of the global collapse of WTC 7 started now (according to panicking NIST editors) nearly at the end of that seismogram.....

An indication that those panicking secretly editing NIST persons were not trained in even basic physics or other beta based studies, but were politically oriented alpha studies persons with no shimmer of basic understanding of the implications of what I brought to the physics discussion table.
Let it be they even had understood the most basic seismic implications.