I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)

I understand it at last.
Thank you for educating us.

You actually want me to put online after I gave you the links days ago, also a photo album of the perpetrators trainings camps, full names, Curriculum Vitae, copies of the order forms for their explosives, photo's of their placements of them in the buildings, payments for their services through their various bank accounts in their Cayman Islands, Bahamas and Swiss banks.
And after I give that to you too, you will triumphantly return with your very mature 3 thumbs down smileys, to tell me that I forgot to prove who their contractors in the US government were, and since I said that parts of the US government and military complex are responsible for the black operation that 9/11 was, my whole reasoning is faulty, and thus void.

Something akin as me showing you a chicken, while you are eating three hardboiled eggs.
But you keep telling me that since you know that your mother gave birth to you, that must be the case for all chicken too.
Mom and chicken are mammals. No eggs involved.
Conclusion : eggs don't belong to chicken.

And I showed you only ONE chicken. (3 thumbs down thrown in by you again)

[edit on 8/1/08 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop


I also have studied the south tower. It is more difficult to get a more exact time, due to the outside lean of so many of the floors at the top, while blocking pertinent visibility at the bottom. That applies to WTC 1, 2, and 7.

I deeply respect all the hard work and analysis you put into what may well be a highly sound theory, not merely hypotheis. Please give me the same courtesy. At this point, neither of us can prove ourselves completely 99.9% accurate beyond a reasonable doubt. We can not even make the normal plus/minus three point range. One of us may well be wrong, and both of us could be wrong, in not being nearly as accurate as we need to be.

I will iterate this. The only ones who know for certain, concerning the timing, are the pros bringing down the buildings, and we do not know who they are. Too much of the visibility was lost as the buildings started dropping closer to the ground, plus, all that pyroclastic blast surrounding both towers.

We both worked with a great of visibility hinderance, as have many others. Seismograph is an excellent indicator, but also lacking for exactness, in correctly distinguishing between direct and indirect wave movement of platelets. The platelets will keep moving and registering after the final drop has hit (secondary aftershock).

=====================

Note to MikeVet - You have no idea of what you write when you address people having done extensive study of what occurred on 9/11/2001.

reply to post by LaBTop


Did you see the top of the north tower wobble slightly? It is barely noticeable, and after a very small delay, the building starts dropping straight down from under it as the mass of the top gives it more initial momentum and velocity impact speed to drop, by collapsing on one side and then the other in rapid succession. Occurring most probably by having the supports manually dropped at least 4', depending where they set the cutter charges. The higher up the support, the harder the drop when cut and slide takes place.

No one would necessarily see or hear, particularly when surrounded by all that street noise and looking up at odd angles at the time, any muffled cutter charges, in highly sound proofed buildings. People would have to have visibility to the center core supports.

They sound like a slightly loud child's cap gun (snapping sound) that high up. Then delay before all cut top supports slide at 45 degrees off the bottom of supports.

It is cut cut cut cut cut (until all have been symmetrically rapidly cut ...........delay possibly with a barely or no noticeable wobble............ symmetrically start sliding off one another when the first opportunity arises for the first cut supports, to start sliding (collapse one side to lean on that lower exterior wall, then the other drops down on the other exterior wall.

If it is not done right with precision timing, the top ends up looking like WTC 2. Which rifted at least 3 stories above some alleged Boeing 767 impact. I, personally, think it was very probably intentional. So false assertions could be made of "plane cutting through center core." It was obviously done wrong to pull off that false assertion, in order to fool the entire world not involved with what occurred on 9/11.

The effect on WTC 1, 2, and 7 was most assuredly that of controlled demolitions dropping buildings straight down into its own footprints. WTC 7 was cut differently but achieved the same effect as sloppy as it was.

Initial aftershock initial collapse is what the seismograph started read at the initial cutting of 1 and 2. The WTC 1 antenna alone was over 100 tons. One site reporting 360 tons of weight.

I would seriously be surprised if WTC 7 registered anywhere near that of WTC 1 and 2 because of the way it was cut so differently, coupled with much less weight and mass, and being rectangular not square. Thus falling so differently than either 1 or 2.

reply to post by MikeVet


Audio? How can it get any better for more precise measurement than seismograph, under such circumstances as 9/11? As long people take into consideration secondary aftershock may well still be resounding though the primary activity has stopped, and accounts for that, it cannnot get much better.

Seismograph is "hearing" the sound and movement waves of the platelets, from ground motion caused by something else.

reply to post by OrionStars


OrionStars, I do understand you well.
And I see you are a true laborious researcher, but do not had access yet to all the sources we have found during ten years of investigation.
We are not publishing a dissertation, theory or thesis here. We are mostly "thinking aloud". A process which could hopefully lead to finding the true historical facts, so we can prove the made-up history, false.

A false history made up by those mainstream media who lean heavily on mass hypnoses techniques, borrowed from their advertisers.
The advertisement industry has done a lot of damage to honest reporting.
They rely heavily on result, not on actual facts. They must sell a product, not prove its quality, in fact they don't want you to compare the quality, because that would cost them their part of the contractors budget, since then, the contractor would have to spent more money on quality than on advertisement.
See for examples, McDonalds (fast food, low quality), Coca-Cola (changed from one drug addition, coc aine, to another, caffeine) and of course the Tobacco industry.
This whole process has been copied by politicians and results in disastrous politics and policy.
Honesty has been abandoned for the big fat lies, lend from the advertisement industry and their statistical lies.
Shortly said, this is the adagio from the politicians and their mouth pieces in the media :
""How can we fool the public to think and believe what WE told them to be the truth.""

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by LaBTop

 

I also have studied the south tower. It is more difficult to get a more exact time, due to the outside lean of so many of the floors at the top, while blocking pertinent visibility at the bottom. That applies to WTC 1, 2, and 7.

We both worked with a great of visibility hindrance, as have many others. Seismograph is an excellent indicator, but also lacking for exactness, in correctly distinguishing between direct and indirect wave movement of platelets. The platelets will keep moving and registering after the final drop has hit (secondary aftershock).

I now think you did not had the chance to look frame by frame to the BBC reporter's video. Try opening that video in a full screen Windows Media window.
And concentrate first on the first 14 seconds of that video, not on the slowed down pieces, however they are interesting for the "squibs".

Count the seconds from when you see the first collapse signs when he is pointing his camera up to the WTC 2 south tower top, to when you see that first big exterior panel chunk hitting the grass at the base of the tower.
That chunk can only be seen hitting the ground, if you look at the BBC footage, frame by frame during the time the camera man is running away, with his camera pointing back, and a bit up.
Here is that BBC footage link again from that other thread post of me and a partial quote :

Originally posted by LaBTop

www.youtube.com...

This is the clearest example of demolition traces running down the building's facades, especially when you see the inverted colour footage at the very end of this BBC video footage from the collapse of WTC 2, south tower, the first collapse.
Watch first the black bulb emanating many floors under the demolition front, then see the sudden black bulb enfolding just in front of the crashing down demolition front ring of smoke, bursting out of all the buildings faces.

I used this exact video btw a few years back to prove that the total collapse time of the total structure of the building must have been about 12 + 12 seconds, since you can count the seconds after the first sign of implosion on WTC 2 faces, until the first big chunk of perimeter column packet thunders into the Plaza's ground level, at 12 seconds. At that point, still about half of the building stands. Thus about 12 more seconds were needed to let the last rubble come to rest. (more)

Please have a look also at this whole thread, "Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited" and its page 7 posts of mine :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and my 5 posts at page 9 here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Regarding your seismic remarks, a secondary aftershock is ANOTHER event in an earthquake event, not some sort of mirrored part of the main event on 9/11, which was not an earthquake ("shifting platelets" in your words) originating miles deep, but a registration of vibrations caused by soil attached objects, in the first few meters of the top soil and rock.
And that's why I used those 0.6535 Hertz and one component of motion, the East-West component filtered out, very specific seismograms from LDEO, because they have filtered OUT all those effects you addressed.

[edit on 8/1/08 by LaBTop]

reply to post by LaBTop


That is all I am basically doing also. Think tanking with others. I appreciate the opportunity to do so in such a civil, and even cordial, manner with some people in these discussions.

As for my methodogy, I have to take an entire unclear picture apart, and work it back detail by detail. I have to pick each detail to work on then find the next correct piece.

I picked the most obvious - the way the buildings were felled based on what I knew was completely against the laws of physics and quantum mechanics. This is where I placed my initial investigation - WTC on 9/11/2001 - and concentrated there until just recently.

I started with the fall of the buildings. Never in the recorded history of nature has nature ever felled buildings the way WTC 1, 2, and 7 were felled. I learned, through much study of controlled demolitions, only controlled demoltions can fell buildings that way by using implosion technique. I have studied video after video of controlled demolitions, along with articles from experts in legal controlled demoltions. CDI being only one of them.

CDI was conveniently on WTC site, as a paid contractor for the federal bureaucracy for clean-up work. Who would know better what to clean up for evidence destruction, than someone, not necessarily CDI personnel, expert in controlled demolitions? Who would know better what to tell FEMA to save for NIST, of no actual forensic value, or immediately haul away to be recycled in India and China with no forensic investigation being done?

If anyone can show me where nature has felled buildings, particularly steel and reinforced concrete, the same way WTC 1, 2, and 7 were felled, I have no problem genuinely reconsidering my study on how the buildings came down by what method nature can realistically offer. So far, all I have located is nature toppling buildings, and not pulling them into their own footprints without help from humans.

Any time correct controlled demolition implosion is used, the buildings will fall at near free fall speed outside a vacuum, because the most resistance has been strategically removed. That would be be the most primary load bearing (lateral and vertical) supports at the top, middle, and bottom. At WTC, they needed no cutting done at exterior walls,and I did not see any cutting and sliding done, at the puffs, on the exterior. Quite frankly, I have no idea where on those exterior walls they could have planted it inside anything.

I have seen puffs of white smoke, on videos, at very few places on the outside walls. What I saw was inconsistant with controlled demolition placement on exterior walls, to result in the effect of stategically disconnecting the facade and exterior load support wall sections.

If the building was stripped, those puffs and crisp snapping sound is what people see and hear from the inside, when cutting the most primary gravitational and lateral supports inside. WTC 1, 2, and 7 would be the cores of those buildings. The buildings were not stripped and were highly sound proofed. In legal demolitions of buildings, they strip buildings, particularly anything that can result in outward flying objects in heavily congested areas such as NYC. I am referring only to buildings deliberately pulled in on themselves in their own footprints, not all controlled demolitions of buildings.

I know how difficult it can be to do so much work and discover people still do not agree. However, I take the attitude I am not the best judge of my own work at all times, when something presented cannot be proved to be irrefutable by anyone else. I always depend heavily on the laws of nature for my proved irrefutable substantiation. If I cannot get something to work with nature, I know my direction is wrong. I just have to be honest enough with myself to admit it, particularly when there is no other objective party available to ask legitimate questions of me.

Originally posted by LaBTop

And I see you are a true laborious researcher,


but do not had access yet to all the sources we have found during ten years of investigation.

1- this takes the cake....

2- 10 years? explain that one.....

reply to post by MikeVet


How much more petty are you going to get? I have yet to see you refute anything LabTop and others of your opponents have presented. You think you have but have not.

""I have seen puffs of white smoke, on videos, at very few places on the outside walls. What I saw was inconsistent with controlled demolition placement on exterior walls, to result in the effect of strategically disconnecting the facade and exterior load support wall sections.""

That same observation has been done by many of us, and that's why I searched for a unknown by then, demolition technique which would be very localized, inside a building, but not breaking the windows, if used in smaller amounts first, before global collapse initiation.
To shatter a foot high piece out of a core column. A TBE will do that, as if a glass pillar is shattered in the mid section by a discus of supersonic gases.
The real big bangs were going off after that initiation, because then the massiveness of the total event would mask every precise observation of each separate event, of course.

Thermobarics are the latests in building demo's.
And as I explained, the right ones will blow out 2 to 3 floors worth of ceilings and floor construction, because most of the explosive force can be steered up and downwards. In a ring like pattern close around the core of the building, inside that building. And then the bleeding-off explosion fronts will blow out the facade exterior panels.

And the three big booms you hear a few people telling about in this video,
9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used? (56:03 minutes long)



were surely the three main thermobarics taking out the reinforced mechanical floors core columns.

Listen to the man on the ambulance stretcher (02:30) :
""You heard bang bang bang bang bang and then suddenly three BIG explosions""

Then listen to 05:18 :
""I was two blocks away and heard Explosions, three thuds and turned around to see the building we just got out of, antenna tipped over""

Just before that, the FDNY guy tells us the air actually went up the stairs, and blew his helmet off. That's a sign of an implosion effect, like thermobarics do present, when consuming all the oxygen in the air when detonating.

MikeVet, you are a prime example for implication of the new rules set out for this forum, the term trolling used by the site owners fits you as a glove.

My last answer to you, I won't loose any more time and effort on your childish behaviour :

It's in fact much more than 10 years, I definitely changed my opinion about America and its agencies when John and Robert Kennedy and dr. King were murdered.
And the Vietnam mass murder kept going on. And the Contra Affair and its mass murder of Middle American people.
Then the Ruby Ridge murder, Wacko mass murder, Oklahoma mass murder and the 1993 WTC bombing and mass murder didn't much good either to change my state of mind back.
But 9/11 topped it all.
America's institutions have become the main evil on this globe.
How did you all let it come so far...

I see you as a one of those who will defend their "nation" against all odds, while not realizing that their "nation" is taken over already a long time ago by factions who don't give a damn about one human life, let it be thousands of them.
They are pure egoists and only live for GREED.

reply to post by LaBTop


Thank you. I need to obtain the link to the video so I can watch it when I am not signed in. That video looks to be highly informative from what I did view. It got as far as the words "controlled demolitions", and it highly peaked my interest. I do want to see how they arrived at their conclusion and match it to mine.

I never doubted from the day those buildings came down, it was not by plane, jet fuel, or nature. After I thoroughly included the study of the structure design and materials used, in addition to the study on controlled demolitions, I had to conclude it was controlled demolitions.

I do not know what explosives they used, or where exactly on which floors they placed them, but I know those center cores were symmetrically stratgically sliced - top, middle,and base - to bring WTC 1 and 2 straight down into their own footprints as they fell. They could have been removing core supports all the way down. If it was done as it normally was, we might have caught it as the video appears to do in a couple places but not many. Through that pyroclastic blast, we would never have seen it going on once that started interfering with our visibility.

I have yet to view a normal controlled demolitions video or photo that had anywhere near that type of effect for debris flying out, even in buildings not completely stripped. They, too, have many reinforced concrete floors, and may still have the drywall intact as well.

The blast we witnessed on TV is more in line with an atomic bomb for effect. I also compared those primarily for comparison of pyroclastic blast and what causes those. I have only located, to date, that same monsterous pyroclastic blast effect from two sources - a volcano and atomic bomb. Atomic energy fission is designed to use implosion, the same way explosives normally used, in controlled demolitions, use implosion pulling buildings in on themselves to land in their own footprints or pancake on purpose.

Some years of experience working in the construction industry helped with learning how buildings will fall, and what can and cannot control the direction they fall. The principles are always the same with any building. If done wrong, nature will take care of those mistakes, but it will not be straight down into any building's own footprints. That is a given.

Then I saw what was reported as all that alleged weight redistribution, I could not see impacting or penetrating all the way inside, on only one side and not other, doing what actually did happen. My first thought is, that top will topple toward the side of the heaviest weight - the impact side - if it does any movement at all. That did not happen, according to all the laws of physics and quantum mechanics as the only way it could happen. When they started dropping straight down, I knew then, without a doubt, it was artificial not nature.

If the core supports were not cut, except at the top, this is what should have happened with all that weight and mass - conservation of energy caused by all resistance below the top:

Kaboom - delay to move all lower steel supports, reinforced concrete, any other physical matter, air, etc. out of the way - kaboom - ditto - kaboom - ditto.......... all the way down. And that is provided the top does not lose balance (center of gravity at the core) over what is still underneath it pounding into the ground, and topples off.

If cut only from the ground level base, either a shorter building sinking into the sublevels will be seen and possibly still standing at a very precarious angle, or landing at an unsteady angle at a sublevel and toppling over.

Originally posted by LaBTop

My last answer to you, I won't loose any more time and effort on your childish behaviour :

It's in fact much more than 10 years, I definitely changed my opinion about America and its agencies when John and Robert Kennedy and dr. King were murdered.
And the Vietnam mass murder kept going on. And the Contra Affair and its mass murder of Middle American people.
Then the Ruby Ridge murder, Wacko mass murder, Oklahoma mass murder and the 1993 WTC bombing and mass murder didn't much good either to change my state of mind back.
But 9/11 topped it all.
America's institutions have become the main evil on this globe.
How did you all let it come so far...

I see you as a one of those who will defend their "nation" against all odds, while not realizing that their "nation" is taken over already a long time ago by factions who don't give a damn about one human life, let it be thousands of them.
They are pure egoists and only live for GREED.

Ah yes. This is an excellent frame of mind for seeking truth.



Since I know you love those.....

reply to post by MikeVet


Prove him wrong in any of what he says. I'll not agree with the "evilest nation" part though. There are some pretty nasty people out there.

Look how many people our leaders have sent to death in Iraq to see how much they value our lives.

But, I'll probably get labled a dissodent and put on some watch list. This is how America has let it happen IMO Labtop. Look into "deepthroat" and the Nixon afair and ask yourself why it still took "deepthroat" over 30 years (and on his deathbed) to out himself. What was he still afraid of?

Originally posted by Griff

Prove him wrong in any of what he says. I'll not agree with the "evilest nation" part though. There are some pretty nasty people out there.

Look how many people our leaders have sent to death in Iraq to see how much they value our lives.

But, I'll probably get labled a dissodent and put on some watch list. This is how America has let it happen IMO Labtop. Look into "deepthroat" and the Nixon afair and ask yourself why it still took "deepthroat" over 30 years (and on his deathbed) to out himself. What was he still afraid of?

I'm not sure what you're trying to insinuate here.

We know that Linda Lovelace (shows my age :lol DID in fact come forward spill the beans. That he kept his identity secret is no mystery, who would want that kind of publicity.

Jeeze, it would be SAFER to get your id out there. Cuz if something happened, there would be a #estorm about your death.

You have a high opinion of yourself if you believe your baseless statements will put you on some kind of "watchlist".

Originally posted by MikeVet
You have a high opinion of yourself if you believe your baseless statements will put you on some kind of "watchlist".

Really? I'd bet by just being a member here, that we are both on some kind of watch list.

If you don't think so, IMO, you're very naive.

Originally posted by MikeVet
That he kept his identity secret is no mystery, who would want that kind of publicity.

Yes, who would want the publicity of being the man that told the truth in this government.

Jeeze, it would be SAFER to get your id out there.

You mean like Valery Plame?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by MikeVet
You have a high opinion of yourself if you believe your baseless statements will put you on some kind of "watchlist".

Really? I'd bet by just being a member here, that we are both on some kind of watch list.

If you don't think so, IMO, you're very naive.

You really believe that?

If you think so, IMO, you're delusional paranoid.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by MikeVet
That he kept his identity secret is no mystery, who would want that kind of publicity.

Yes, who would want the publicity of being the man that told the truth in this government.

Jeeze, it would be SAFER to get your id out there.

You mean like Valery Plame?

I notice you avoided the fact that contrary to what you're trying to imply about some sort of danger in "outing" powerful politicans, Deep throat DID come froward and spill the beans.

Why did you avoid addressing this? Is it because contrary to CT believers, people WILL come forward if they have information. CT's use the baseless belief that nobody will come forward with the "truth" cuz they're scared, using the fact that no one HAS come forward with solid proof AS proof that they're correct in their belief.

All the while ignoring the possibility that no one has come forward because THERE WAS NO LIHOP NOR MIHOP.

Originally posted by MikeVet
If you think so, IMO, you're delusional paranoid.

You're entitled to your opinions. I'm entitled to mine.

In 2005 the Federal Communications Commission granted an FBI petition and expanded CALEA to broadband Internet access and VOIP services.

www.cdt.org...

reply to post by MikeVet



Well, first, Nixon didn't kill anyone at Watergate and didn't send out letters filled with anthrax to people as a warning.

Plus, you are forgetting the fact that deepthroat didn't ID himself until his deathbed days. Why not? What was he afraid of? He may have secretly brought down Nixon but was too afraid to ID himself for over 30 years. Again...what was he afraid of?

Also, if someone today came out as "deepthroat II" and spilled the beans...would you and your ilk take it as fact? Or would you publicly denounce this person as a "dissident", "disgruntled employee", or "crazy conspiracy theorist", etc.?

I'd bet my next weeks salary, it's the latter.