NIST WTC7 status report

The time difference between each of the figures was approximated from time given on the videotape.
~5:20:33 p.m. WTC 7 begins to collapse. Note the two mechanical penthouses at the roof on the east and west sides in Figure 5-20.

~5:21:03 p.m. Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building.

Can we find any other precise timestamp accompanying a photo or video from that specific east penthouse dent forming ?

I understand your reasoning, better double sure than wrong, but o'reilly,
both FEMA and NIST hand us these timestamps plus visuals, and those are the mega million institutes who did the "real" thorough investigations into the events of 9/11.

Can we compete with them? No. Not on that mega million dollar scale.
But can we use their own research results ? Why not ?

Are'nt we getting a tiny titbit too much in the defensive with trying to triple proof there own double proof timestamps?
Let's kick your devils advocate's butt and declare it a double win.

[edit on 30/10/06 by LaBTop]

You cite the investigative power of FEMA and NIST as absolute confirmation of the accuracy of that time, yet FEMA had a different conclusion to NIST. So which of these always-correct institutes was wrong?

If I'm being defensive, it's because I realize the importance of this discovery. Perhaps you don't consider this to be the huge smoking gun that I do, and hence you don't understand my tenacity in encouraging you to make it absolutely watertight. Perhaps you see my posts as attempts to undermine the evidence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I was trying to help, especially since you'd communicated to bsbray11 that you wanted to bounce the theory off of some opposition, but I can see where this is going so I'll leave it at that. Excellent work, LabTop.








[edit on 2006-10-30 by wecomeinpeace]

Do we have any live feeds of WTC7 with timestamps? Even if it doesn't show the Penthouse collapse directly?

And even if it was the Penthouse collapsing, why did it have an energy load equal to or greater than a plane impact, and why did it have a greater energy load than the GLOBAL collapse (which was only about 8 seconds)?

The time stamp would be a definitive nail in the coffin, but even without it, those seismic charts are damning.

[edit on 30-10-2006 by bsbray11]

Quick question.

Why should we believe your interpretation of the seismic data, over that of the geophysicists and seismologists who work at the lab that take the data?

Are they also in on this conspiracy to cover up mass murder?

www.popularmechanics.com...

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

www.globalsecurity.org...

Geophysicists have already contributed critical data to terrorist investigations. It was geologists who determined there were no secondary explosions at the base of the World Trade Center towers — but only the impact of the airplanes and subsequent fires — that contributed to the towers' collapse on Sept. 11".

www.jnani.org...

This is easily shown to be fallacious. Firstly, as the one of Columbia authors confirmed in a later email, their seismic data “are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact times …” (Commission, p.462)

that's how the kind of reasoning is called from your third link.

However, this statement of signals being too weak etc. comes from the 9/11 Commission report, has been contradicted by FEMA, and especially by NIST at a much later time (years later) together, since they both have used the timestamping from LDEO to proof their cases.
NIST seemed so sure that they had the exact timestamping, because they have used even better techniques to pinpoint timestamps from the CBS video and other photo and film material.

Let's not forget we talk about SECONDS differences here, not milliseconds like in auto racing circles.
Seconds you can see go by, with your own eyes.

For me, the biggest question still is:
How and why did FEMA come to their conclusion that 20:33 was the initiation of WTC 7's collapse ?
I saw nothing happen in form of visual effects BEFORE the famous penthouse denting.

please see the defending of this "smoking gun" as a common goal, not as something I naturally should do, since I came up with the "facts", in this thread about the latest status of the WTC 7 NIST report.
These "facts" were already proposed by me one year ago, and still nobody else did check the "facts" up. That has priority NOW.

It is much more important to proof there was not only forknowledge, but even worse and in fact catastrofic, there was compliance and planning of deeds.

I invite ANYONE to email anybody to get as much proof on these timestamps as can be.

In short, I do not feel to be the "owner" of any theory or train of thoughts, more important is the accumulation of all these thoughts to get to a solid proof of wrong deeds by people who should be our defenders, not our advisairies.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do we have any live feeds of WTC7 with timestamps? Even if it doesn't show the Penthouse collapse directly?

No all the crap I have seen on Live TV and net never had time on it.

Only thing we would find like that is a security camera or something.. But you know how easy that is to come by.

That really doesn't answer the question.


While you may have problems with the third link, what about the other two?


Why should we believe this alternate theory when the geophysicists and seismologists interpret the data to mean that no bombs were used?


And really, are you saying that the people in the third link are covering up mass murder?

[edit on 31-10-2006 by LeftBehind]

Your third link has a lot more text around your snippet of it, so I will show the whole text around your small quote :

3.3 Seismic Recordings.

Many CD theorists draw attention to seismic recordings as evidence of the CD theory. Griffin (for example), drawing on Hufschmid, cites seismic data from Columbia University to support the CD theory:

‘In each case, “the shocks increased during the first 5 seconds then dropped abruptly to a lower level for about 3 seconds, and then slowly tapered off.” This pattern, Hufschmid suggests, reflects the fact that the first explosives detonated were those near the tops of the towers, where the steel columns were the thinnest. The shocks get stronger as the detonation pattern, controlled by a computer programme worked its way down.’ (Griffin TNPH, p.19)

This is easily shown to be fallacious. Firstly, as the one of Columbia authors confirmed in a later email, their seismic data “are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact times …” (Commission, p.462) But the key mistake however, is the idea that any building is demolished by a progressive wave of explosions either working its way up or down a building.

The bolded text solely indicated the seismic signals regarding flight 93 !
The one writing this debunking has a strong tendency to not quote links !

If I ever saw a contradictory in terminis from that named Columbia author, it's this above "fallacious" statement. For my "why", see the next paragraph lines, and I once posted here something about dr Wallace, a seismic forensic expert, who declared the Oklahoma City event to be a one bomb explosion, without even being informed that a secret Pentagon commission already had declared the event to have been the result of 5 sophisticated placed and detonated bombs connected to the center collumns of the Murray Building.
See : www.abovetopsecret.com...
And READ it CAREFULLY.

Now see www.spacedaily.com... :
This same dr Wallace however pinpointed the Kenia US Embassy bombing on milliseconds exact, calculated far later than the actual real time event, from SEISMIC records. And declared to be very proud that they were now able to calculate the exact timeframes for seismic events, so they could also pinpoint eventual secret atomic explosions by "rough" states.

but Wallace, Koper and Hollnack used its high-quality data in an analysis that found precisely when the explosion occurred, at 10:39:19.8 local time -- plus or minus two-tenths of a second, and the size of the bomb. The Nairobi bomb was deadly but fairly small, equivalent to 3 metric tonnes of TNT.

Seismic energy from the first collision between the American Airlines Jet and the WTC recorded on the PAL east-west component. The P/S wave arrivals are tiny, but the surface waves, particular the Love wave, is strong. Images by Wallace et al

I also had a good look at page 462 from the 9/11 Commission, and it is a footnote which hinted on the possible calculation fault in SECONDS in the used seismic record for the impact time of flight United 93 at Shanksville on 9/11. The same LDEO scientist, dr. W-Y Kim from LDEO confirmed this to be a measly max ±5 seconds.
He never said however that the WTC 7 collapse signals were weak.

Page 462 : We also reviewed a report regarding seismic observations on September 11, 2001, whose authors conclude that the impact time of United 93 was "10:06:05±5 (EDT).)."Won-Young Kim and G. R. Baum,
"Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001,Terrorist Attack," spring 2002 (report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources). But the seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to-noise ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR, ATC, radar, and impact site data sets.These data sets constrain United 93's impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community.

LeftBehind, you really should try to read more of the surrounding contexts in your rebuttal links.
And these "seismic" remarks were btw made at the time years ago when some researchers stumbled upon the fact that about 5 -6 minutes of flight recordings were missing from the United 93 black box recordings at the end. We think they were erased. And that crash times were off 5-6 minutes with the official crash time of 93.
Why erased? Passengers screaming: Who shot those rockets? Why the hell did they shoot us down just when we recovered the plane! ?


PS : www.abovetopsecret.com...
""21. - terrorize.dk...
...It was just this incredible force of wind and debris that came actually UP the stairs, knocked my helmet off, knocked me to the ground...""

NO EXPLOSIONS?

O'reilly?

Really?

For me, the biggest question still is:
How and why did FEMA come to their conclusion that 20:33 was the initiation of WTC 7's collapse ?
I saw nothing happen in form of visual effects BEFORE the famous penthouse denting.

I see only one sane conclusion : someone high up forced or planted the idea in LDEO 's investigating minds, that this 20:33 seconds point was the start of all WTC 7 collapse events, because that someone had realized that that was the ONLY convenient way to mask what really happened, and that 33 + 17 is 40 (Edit :sorry, it's 50), which is the 10s point on that seismic graph, which so conveniently preceeded all following seismic signals above the standard background noise levels.

Any later start of events timestamps would raise a LOT of eyebrows.
So, who came up with that 33 figure ! AND THE REASON for it, to use it !
Were there rumbling sounds at 20:33 ?
Or was it solely based on seismic interpretations? Which ones?


And LeftBehind, nobody can be accused, nobody who did REALLY and honestly did not see the immense indications of that NIST timestamp on that Cianca photo, compared with the LDEO data explanations.

I think nobody at LDEO at the time their report came out, ( a few weeks after 9/11 already) ever saw that photo, it popped up in the much later government appeased reports.
And when the first reports came out, still nobody but me saw the repercusions of a side by side view of the LDEO graph and the Cianca photograph.

PS : Cianca's personal website (google full name) is down...... where you could find his 9/11 photo collection, and his remarks. He is the one who can explain a lot about the reason NIST put that timestamp on his photo.
Even the WayBack website can not bring back a coordinated effort to find that photo and the accompanying text from Cianca him self.

His site disappeared around the time I posted the first time about the discrepency between his timestamped photo and the timestamps on the WTC 7 LDEO chart.

They will not remove that photo, it is impossible, they realize that, they will take care that the right answers will be given.... trying to weaken the arguments.



[edit on 31/10/06 by LaBTop]

found something interesting in LeftBehind's third link, btw an interesting piece of work :
Just above this line : 2.6 Early Drop of North Tower Antenna

Returning to WTC 7, Popular Mechanics interviewed a NIST official and reported as follows:
-SNIP-
Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other.

My only flimsy reason to eventually doubt that these cracks or kinks are the events NIST used to pinpoint the 20:33 timestamp is their usage of the words "just before".

But since FEMA also already used in their past report the words :

~5:20:33 p.m. WTC 7 begins to collapse. Note the two mechanical penthouses at the roof on the east and west sides in Figure 5-20.
~5:21:03 p.m. Approximately 30 seconds later, Figure 5-21 shows the east mechanical penthouse disappearing into the building.

And NIST themselfs came up with the two even closer timestamps, the first, identical with FEMA, the 5:20:33 p.m. as iniating event,
and the second, 5:20:46 p.m. printed on that Cianca photo, which means they thought 13 seconds past in fact, instead of the 30 seconds from FEMA.

Thus I really think they used the visual cracking and kinking in the building's facade as their anchor point for initiating collapse event at 20:33 !

And I am damn SURE that they had a very sophisticated method to connect those seconds to that event, and they can not retract that method suddenly, now they come to see that some huge error is made by them.
They have explained the method.

Ok, disregard the third link.

Why should we believe you over the geophysicists and seismologists who actually work with seismic data every day?

Because I used their own clocks against them.
Because I have used their own full expertise in the field, crosslinked it against an unexpected, evenly expertly deducted "unknown" (at the moment of their publication they had not conducted timeframing of video streams), and proofed them wrong in their most important interpretation of their own data :

The arrival time of the first main collapse surface waves.
And showed us all that there are even more massive waves arriving in front of those.

Used mainly logical deduction, and was aided by a lot of studied accepted seismic knowledge.

And I provided in my last posts a lot of food for thought about the credibility level of scientists. A lot of them HAVE to follow politically correct rules, or their grants will disappear in thin air, especially in the USA.
They are very susceptible to pressure from their mecenae, wether they are government or capital investment firms. Or even clerical institutions.
Or their Dean will explain them how lightning fast you can loose any credibility in your cosy scientific circles, if a dedicated adversary decides it is time to smear and discredit you.
Prof Jones is probably encountering all I said already on a massive scale.
We need to help him if help is needed.

Originally posted by LaBTop
and proofed them wrong in their most important interpretation of their own data :

The arrival time of the first main collapse surface waves.
And showed us all that there are even more massive waves arriving in front of those.

But you really haven't proved anything. All you've done is shown the data and then given your opinion on it.

I am not talking about whether or not the NIST report gets the times right, I am talking about the scientists who say that the seismic records show that no bombs were used at all, regardless of the times NIST uses.

Your only answer is that they are such cowards that they would not risk their jobs and reputations on uncovering the largest mass murder to ever occur on American soil.

I can see your point on how some scientists will fudge data to acquire grants, but we are talking about complicity in the murder of 3000 people, I would think that they would speak out about it. After all, if the data pointed to bombs they could always claim that the terrorists also had suicide bombers in the building.

Not only that but they freely give out the seisimic data, so why havent any other seismologists or geophysicists come out and said that the seismic waves show proof of bombs. Is every one of them in on it too?

""All you've done is shown the data and then given your opinion on it. ""

If these data from themselfs are right within the boundaries of the fault-rules they applicated themselfs on these situations, then it's not an opinion, but an irrefutable outcome of their own calculations on the irrivocable seismic records.

Those seismic records can't lie, only people interpreting them can do only as much as give their opinion on it, based on other data surrounding the event.
Especially timeframes handed to them.

And at the time of interpretion, the LDEO scientists did not have the data from NIST to compare to. NIST was not even at the playing field yet.

And I am sure NIST calculated those timestamps connected to the various CBS and other providers's video frames in a secure and sophisticated manner. FEMA did not use the finetuned techniques NIST used later in my opinion.

They only both never laid their own timetables beside the times under the LDEO graph.

They forgot you should find as many crosslinked data as can be, to proof your theory is right.

And ofcourse not all of these scientists are ""in on it"", they did not have the recent crosslinked data at the time of their publications.

That's btw the third time I explained this now, would you please refrain from imprinting a wrong and rather harsh assertation on my person? Thanks in advance.
(I can however see where you got that assertation, but let me assure you, in my rants I know exactly which people I address, only you assert it to be the bulk of the scientists involved. No, certain politicians, agencies and their hidden movers. These people must represent you, but they despise you as the sheep you became, they think they are the clever ones to crawl out of the pack. They are wrong as usual.)

And up till now these scientists did not get the same simple idea as I got,
place the 2 sets of data beside eachother,
and voila, there it pokes you in the eye.

And then suddenly you have to totally change your mind on it, if you accept the calculations of FEMA and NIST.
Must we expect interesting discussions to surface in the near future between these groups inside FEMA, NIST and LDEO ?

And do you know how fast the science community moves on after reading a first time publication?
Only a few will pay a few weeks more attention, after no serious opposition to a certain thesis is published.
Then quickly that publication has become part of the bulk, it does not jump out anymore, and the whole pack moves on to newer thesis to plant their skilled teeth in.

Yes this is the third time you have explained it and you still have not explained why the seismic records show proof of bombs.

Have you shown that there were seismic events that might not match up with what is said in the NIST report?

Sure, why not.

Have you proven that these seismic events are explosives?

No.

It is a logical fallacy to conclude that if something is wrong with the official story that somehow that automatically proves bombs.

While the data you present is certainly interesting regarding the collapse times, I for one will agree with the proffesionals on this one.

www.popularmechanics.com...

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

To a seismologist explosives would have stuck out and been immediately recognizable. The time frame is not going to make explosives data appear when there never was any to begin with.

There is more involved with identifying explosives then matching up times. They didn't look at the data and then look at the time and say, "Oh that must be the collapse because of the time."

They looked at the data and saw that no explosives were used, then attempted to match it up with the known collapses.

The timeing of the seismic signals had no bearing on wether or not they detected explosives.

We have a saying : catching eachothers fly's. That's what we are doing here.
I concider that as lost life time, and I am in a hurry to make the best of my left time.

Let's try to concentrate on evidence gathering, the kind of scientific evidence you so dearly want to see.

We have a contra-expertise aimed at an explosives theory of seismic evidence from an article by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn, reprinted in Serendipity.li ,on the following page :
911review.com...
which offers quite some helpfull assistance with interpreting seismic records, by the debunking author himself.

And there is strong evidence contradicting the idea that the seismic spikes indicated underground explosions including:

* There is no support in the large body of photographic and video collapse evidence for the idea of powerful explosions in the towers' basements at the onset of the collapses. Instead the evidence shows waves of destruction proceeding methodically downward from the crash zones to the ground.
(LT/: however there is strong evidence in the 3 seismic records of preceeding explosion signals!)

* Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves, but the seismic stations registered only strong S waves.
P waves oscillate horizontally -- parallel to the direction of travel; whereas S waves oscillate vertically -- perpendicular to the direction of travel.

I really first have to take you on a quick detour regarding that "methodically"-remark from that author.

Short Note on the "evidence", from myself, LaBTop :
It is exactly the "methodically downward" collapses "from the crash zones to the ground" of all 3 towers, which intuitively triggered most viewers antipathy against the official explanation of a natural gravitational collapse for those 3 buildings.

One would in the case of a natural collapse of a steel high-rise, expect a combination of chaotic sub-collapses, each of them held or slowed down for milliseconds to seconds by buckling and breaking of huge parts of the exterior steel plates plus cladding, combined with unseen brakage of core collumns, at a much lower point than the actual observed collapse front. You can see that kind of natural, fully gravitational collapse, in the YouTube video of the burning collapse of the top part of the Madrid tower in the night. Steel parts keep tumbling, hanging and tumbling again onto eachother on their way down, you do not see a methodical collapse front.

Especially the 3 strongly reinforced mechanical floors in both North and South towers should have caused a sure visible slowing down of a real gravitational collapse, and would have been great tower body movement blockers and changers, causing various parts of the collapsing towers to change direction, tilting or turning around the vertical center axis of collapse.

Exactly that methodical collapse is a strong indication of unnatural interference by humans.

Back to this thread topic :
""P waves oscillate horizontally -- parallel to the direction of travel; whereas S waves oscillate vertically -- perpendicular to the direction of travel.""

Now we observe the WTC 7 seismic graph again, however now we are realizing that the 23s position indicates the first visual effect in real time of the denting of the east penthouse roof in New York.




Well, now I personally see from 11s to 16s ""horizontally oriented oscillations -- parallel to the direction of travel"" (P-waves), and from 16s to 21s ""vertically oriented oscillations -- perpendicular to the direction of travel"" (S-waves).

-Next-

Now follows an explanation from the same debunking author, how timestamps were (scientifically correct) crosslinked to collapse events and seismic signal features.

Exactly what was in some way asked by wecomeinpeace, to be as sure as possible that the Cianca photo-timestamp of 17:20:46 for sure was correct. He wanted me to contact CBS or whoever with eventually a subpoena or FOIA request in hand, but I do not have the means for that. Anybody is invited to do so however.
I am convinced that the following technique also was used for the timestamp of the Cianca photo in both the FEMA and NIST reports !

A Timeline for the North Tower.

It would be useful if collapse events evident in videos could be associated with seismic signal features.
Since some news broadcasts have real-time clocks on their banners , it may be possible to match visual events with features of the seismic signals.

Consider the North Tower, whose entire collapse was recorded by the abovementioned CNN live feed, which has a clock on its banner. That clock does not have a second counter, but its minute counter flips to 10:29 37 seconds after collapse starts, which places the collapse start, according to the CNN clock, at 10:28:23.

Various pages on columbia.edu put the origin time of the signal at the source at 10:28:31, plus or minus 1 second. This is based on an estimate of 2KM/s travel speed for the S waves, which, given the PAL station's distance of 34 KM from the WTC, gives a travel time of 17 seconds.

Do we really have to doubt the FEMA and NIST timestamping techniques, after reading the above?

YES, if they still use LDEO's timestamping technique, whatever that may be.
NO doubt, if they use the "CNN's banner clock" method. Which I can check with my own eyes, and not that LDEO method.

Since however the North Tower calculation is off for a whopping EIGHT seconds
between the two calculation methods ( 10:28:31 minus 10:28:23 = 8 seconds ),
we NOW also can NOT trust anymore the LDEO timestamps on the NORTH and SOUTH Tower collapse seismic charts.



Remember also this one again from my above post? :


Seismic energy from the first collision between the American Airlines Jet and the WTC recorded on the PAL east-west component. The P/S wave arrivals are tiny, but the surface waves, particular the Love wave, is strong. Images by Wallace et al

No extended P and S waves to be seen for the 2 plane impacts.

Why we see them however for all 3 tower collapses in front of the first visual signs of collapses ?
And much better to be seen when you compare all 3 collapses to the same 0-10 nm/sec sensibility !
Have a good look again on these 2 recalibrated and 1 original seismic records from WTC 1, 2 and 7 posted by me above.
All 3 have the same kind of P and S-waves arriving first, before real collapse initiated, accompanied by the huge surface waves, the R or Raleigh-waves.

Now for the most contradictionary last remark from that author :

That the larger spikes of the seismic signatures of the tower collapses were produced by falling rubble does not preclude that the towers were destroyed with explosives. In a typical demolition, numerous small explosives are used to shatter the columns supporting the building. Unless the explosives are detonated simultaneously, they are unlikely to produce detectable seismic signatures. If explosives were responsible for the towers' destruction, they were numerous and were detonated in a synchronized but progressive manner, contributing little to the recorded seismic disturbance.

In my opinion, he tells you, LeftBehind, that all your links to seismic scientists declaring not seeing any explosives signs in the LDEO graphs, are worthless, since ""they are unlikely to produce detectable seismic signatures"" and ""contributing little to the recorded seismic disturbance"".

He's telling you and me to do not bother with a quest for explosion marks, since there never will be any......

And regarding your remark :
""They looked at the data and saw that no explosives were used, then attempted to match it up with the known collapses.""
I can see where that comes from.
Nearly no american is capable of believing that parts of his own government, which should represent him and definitely not attack him, could be responsible for a vicious attack on own soil against the very people who voted for them.
This idea is so utterly unbelievable for the bulk of the US voters, that they do not want to believe it, on a very instinctively basic level.

In such cases, even scientists are going to fit the proof to the need to trust their rulers.
Because the sole thought of such evil, is repented with all their heart.
The problem is, those people planning all this, have no hearts at all.
That space is occupied by GREED.


[edit on 1/11/06 by LaBTop]

Originally posted by LaBTop

That the larger spikes of the seismic signatures of the tower collapses were produced by falling rubble does not preclude that the towers were destroyed with explosives. In a typical demolition, numerous small explosives are used to shatter the columns supporting the building. Unless the explosives are detonated simultaneously, they are unlikely to produce detectable seismic signatures. If explosives were responsible for the towers' destruction, they were numerous and were detonated in a synchronized but progressive manner, contributing little to the recorded seismic disturbance.

In my opinion, he tells you, LeftBehind, that all your links to seismic scientists declaring not seeing any explosives signs in the LDEO graphs, are worthless, since ""they are unlikely to produce detectable seismic signatures"" and ""contributing little to the recorded seismic disturbance"".

Ok, so what evidence does he provide for this? He is not a proffesional seismologist or geophysicist, nor does he give a source for this assertation.

He writes for the American Free Press, not exactly a bias-free publication.

Why should we believe him over the proffesionals who rule out the use of explosives, and where are the proffesionals who say this points to explosives.

He's telling you and me to do not bother with a quest for explosion marks, since there never will be any......

So what are you saying? This isn't proof of explosives now?

Not only that, but he is clearly wrong in this assertation. During the demolition of the Kingdome, the explosives were clearly recorded on seismographs, even though the bombs were not in the foundation, and set off in sequence. Exactly what Bollyn claims is impossible.

geopubs.wr.usgs.gov...

The Seattle Kingdome was a domed sports stadium located in downtown Seattle near the Seattle fault. The Seattle Kingdome was imploded (demolished) at 8:32 AM local time (16:32 UTC) on March 26 (JD 086), 2000. The seismic energy produced by implosion of the Kingdome was equivalent to a local earthquake magnitude of 2.3. Strong impacts produced by the implosion of the Kingdome generated seismic arrivals to frequencies as low as 0.1 Hz.

If Bollyn is correct then none of the bombs would have been detected and we should only have detected the fall. He is obviously mistaken.

And regarding your remark :
""They looked at the data and saw that no explosives were used, then attempted to match it up with the known collapses.""

Yeah regarding that remark, why should they apply imaginative fantasy to data that to them shows no evidence of explosives?

It is good science to change your hypothesis to fit the data.

It is bad science to imaginatively interpret the data to fit your hypothesis.

Originally posted by LaBTop
ofcourse you are right, I was too hastely trying to depict to the reader how the effects of planes and explosives would work out on such huge buildings. And speed of the hitting object must also be included, if over a certain speed, the object will go through the whole building like it was butter, and then far less impact energy would have been transfered to the building. Imagine a black belt karateka slicing with his hand through a plank.
That's why you see less seismic energy in the half miss plane impact. Also less core collumns were hit in that case.

Hi, LaBTop,

FYI
Just so you're clear on this matter of comparing seismic signals of the plane impacts to the seismic signals of WTC7, here are the facts:
The seismic signals for the plane impacts WERE NOT THE PLANES IMPACTING AT ALL; instead, these seismic signals were basement explosions that occurred before the planes hit...BECAUSE THE PLANES HIT LATER...even as much as 14 to 17 seconds later.

I hope this helps.

It's all in this report:

Summary:

Plane Impact Times – Indicting New Evidence of 9/11 Coverup & Involvement

“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: www.scholarsfor911truth.org...
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross
Scholars for 9/11 Truth: www.st911.org... /

One World Trade, September 11th, 2001
American Airlines Flight 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - LDEO/NIST
Both times: real, accurate to the second

Q- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event ~10 seconds before the aircrash?
A- The only possibility...huge explosion(s).

Q- Who caused these explosions?

Notes:
Ginny Carr audiotape ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements before the plane crashed, and NIST avoided the witnesses as well.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time of the aircrash.

Now is the time for the new 9/11 investigation, THIS TIME ONE WITH TEETH.

Justice waits.
[There is no Statute of Limitation on murder.]