WTC 7 was IMPLODED : irrefutable seismic evidence from LDEO and NIST itself.

reply to post by Res Ipsa


You are right, just ignore them.

So, here's the FOX News version for the ones struggling with the straight out irrefutable evidence I gave you in the last 8 pages.

Building, 47 stories high, is slightly touched by falling debris from the second collapsed tower.
Starts burning, but not immediately but later, after one firefighter made his round through the corridors spanning the south facade of it. And reported no fires had been found by him, and no constructional damage of importance.

Building fires proceeded through the east, south and west facades, at specific floors, but died out at most places after having burned up most if not all combustible offices equipment.
Fires progressed to the north face, on a few floors only. Followed also the path set by wind direction. And died out where it passed.

In essence the building was sparsely burning at a few floors around the time of collapse initiation.
Lots of smoke emitted from the south facade, but that was mostly sucked up from the real heavy fires burning in the three much lower buildings across the street, north of the south facade.
One fire chief reported to have set up a device to keep an eye on the facade its rigidity, and reported back that it looked as if part of the building was shifting at that corner. This was the southwest corner, and it had a minor gasp in a few floor corners, made by a piece of the outer wall of the North Tower.
We first had for a few years a photo from a NYPD helicopter, where it looked as if it was a much bigger gasp.
Later we found a series of better, original copies of the same photographer, where it became clear that the real damage at the southwest corner was just superficial, and not deep at all, surely not deep enough to expose real danger for a global building collapse. Only a minor, partial collapse of some facade panels, perhaps.

All in all, when a real gravitational collapse would have occurred, there would have been registered a totally different seismogram, showing a small pack of peaks with small magnitude, to indicate the breakage of a few essential columns at the few places where the steel columns could have been still exposed to actual fires.
All the spots where fires had passed and died down, would have contained only cooling off steel, regaining most of their original strength.

Then over a prolonged span of time, more like hours than the few seconds we really saw the building coming down, the seismograph would have recorded more and stronger peaks, until the building would have totally collapsed. That would have registered most of the peaks, with the biggest amplitudes.

What we saw and heard in reality from 4 blocks away, after all citizens and rescuers and FDNY and PDNY personnel was ordered -and also physically pushed- out to a 4 blocks safety perimeter line around the burning building, is this :

www.youtube.com...


As you crank up your audio, you can hear at the 1 second point, a deep rumbling sound. That's the explosion that took out those columns in those 14 floors, that initiated the following global collapse. In the rest of the collapse video, you hear NO SOUND made by the collapse, even coming slightly near to the sound level of that first video-second sound. That means that that first sound must have been deafening, when a person would have stood beside that building. Listen just to the 2 towers collapses on video, that's a collapse sound.

At this below point in time started the first externally visible sign that the building interior got compromised :



And after that first sign of compromise of structural elements, both penthouse shacks sunk down into the roof line, out of camera sight, which took 8.3 seconds, and then suddenly the whole roof line evenly sank to the ground, without showing any signs of beams or columns sticking out through the visible facades.
The first 2.3 seconds were measured by David Chandler to show that roof line to follow a free fall trajectory, which means that the only force acting on that top part of that building during its descent was gravity.
No resistance to "brake" that descent. Calculations show that over a trajectory of 14 floors somewhere out of sight in the lower part of that building all columns holding that building up must have been out of the way, since otherwise they would have exerted a "speed of descent braking force" on the 47 -14= 60 floors top part mass coming thundering down.

It means in reality, proven by the form of the seismogram, and the time stamps plotted by me into that, that a much greater form of energy was artificially introduced by hand, to facilitate that building collapse.

reply to post by LaBTop

It means in reality, proven by the form of the seismogram, and the time stamps plotted by me into that....

And thats exactly where, like WTC 7, your whole fantasy comes crashing down.

reply to post by hooper


Hooper, it really behoofs me why you are still allowed to post this kind of childish drivel in this forum.

"Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals."

reply to post by LaBTop

Hooper, it really behoofs me why you are still allowed to post this kind of childish drivel in this forum.

It behoofs you??????

"Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

Listen, I can't help it that your multi-paragraph postings, chock full of very technical looking drivel, all contain simple and fatal flaws that can be pointed out in a short single sentence.

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by Res Ipsa

 

You are right, just ignore them.

Yup, just ignore hard questions, so you can keep believing in your fantasy. Ignorance is bliss.

Every one with a shimmer of education will know by now that my evidence brought forth in my opening posts on page one of this thread, is so damning, that the whole wolf-pack of hobby-debunkers has to fall over me.

Because it is obvious, that you cannot refute NIST's own data, own video, own photo, combined with LDEO's own seismogram.
These are all government paid loan-slaves, ordered to come up with a white wash report.

I am only the messenger here.
I connected the dots for you all, hopefully it helps you to get red hot angry on the devils in disguise who plotted this filthy plan, to enrich themselves and their followers.



PS: Alfie1, you were the only one showing some sort of meaningful arguments, and some respect.
If you still cannot understand what my seismogram exactly shows us all, do you need help in PM?


I try again for you and the rest of our readers who have the same problem :
The last option NIST introduced back in Feb 2006, pushed thus the Cianca photo 5 seconds further OVER the seismogram, placing it 5 more seconds further away OVER its fixed own time scale under the seismogram written by the LDEO-needle in the Palisades institution.

The decision of NIST in 2006 to up all their original photo material with 5 extra seconds, did nothing to the original written irrefutable evidence in the form of the seismogram. That stays firmly in place on that paper it was written. Including its printed time scale under it.
Only the plotted points/lines by me, that depict actual events in Manhattan have to be shifted 5 seconds to the right, moving them a further 5 seconds away from where the first HUGE peaks were written by the needle.

Imaging it as one paper, the original seismogram.
Now take a piece of plastic sheet, put it over the seismogram, and take a pencil and draw over ONLY my added plotting points and lines on this sheet.
Now move the whole plastic sheet 5 seconds to the right, using the underlaying shining through seismogram its time scale as your time reference points.

See?
In the worst case for my discovery, when you take your so precious to you, error margin of 1-2 seconds in account, you still are ending up with the vertical line you just drew-over on your plastic sheet, from my original graph, for that precise moment the Cianca photo was shot in Manhattan, now laying over the original seismogram, more than 5 seconds further away than I have plotted that real-time moment on the LDEO seismogram.



NIST killed any possible rebuttal available for them, to eventually to be used by them against my discovery, and that is why they suddenly withdrew all seismic material other than the original 2001 work by Dr Kim, from all their web pages in March 2006, when they did read my answer and realized that they could not retract their own stupidity anymore. They should have fixed all the photo material 5 seconds back in time......
Now it's so blatantly clear that that first pack of peaks show explosives, it's even understandable for 6 year olds.

The interesting thing is their own FOIA-liberated video data base which brought me that collapse video, with audible audio. There was no such thing before that FOIA. As if they had removed all audio traces of the sound of the WTC 7 collapse from all videos online up to that moment.

But when you count the seconds in the video, from ...Booom.... to the first downward move of the full roof line around WTC 7, you find out that those seconds prove with no doubt, that the whole 5+ seconds move by NIST in 2006, which they still stuck to, is hog wash.
Because those seconds are synchronous with my calculations and their own pre-2006 ones.
8.3 + 3 +1 = 12.3 seconds from the ...Booom... to start of global collapse. One second extra for the speed-of-sound delay through air. No shimmer of any extra 5 seconds shifting in that video.

The problem persists, I still can not get to my ATS Media Portal saved seismic files to show you all calculation screen shots and further massive evidence how NIST cooked their books.
Admins, .....Pls help......are you still working on my request?

reply to post by LaBTop

Only the plotted points/lines by me, that depict actual events in Manhattan....

Again that fatal little flaw. A six year old can see it.

Originally posted by LaBTop
**snip***

This is another filthy sneaky manner they operate in, changing my words and post them in such a manner as if it were obvious that it were my words. Which they were not.

***snip***

You still have to adress the fact that your timeline, by your own admission, is measured from the time that the roofline starting to go down.
You very conveniently disregard the fact that the northeastern corner buckled and started going down at least 7-8 seconds before the penthouses.

This collaps of one of the three main trusses could perhaps even explain your "smoking gun spike" on your seismological sheets?

A friend of mine attended the Danish School of Media and Journalism. He quit when his morals were violated because he was told that he should "find an angle for the story he wished to tell. Then collect data supporting it and ignore data that didn't support or even contradicted it. EVEN if said data was reliable and from a reputable source."

Your original post reminds me slightly of this and your subsequent post support it. I haven't read any of your posts in this thread that contradict this notion.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by Res Ipsa

 

You are right, just ignore them.

Yup, just ignore hard questions, so you can keep believing in your fantasy. Ignorance is bliss.

I am the only one answering questions here.
You have not added anything worthwhile to this whole discussion. You clearly love to debate, with rigged rules, your rules. Pretty much the standard greedy capitalist behavior.
Not a shimmer of genuine interest in the events of 9/11 shown yet.

Answer mine. What about NIST's video, combined with what the LDEO graph shows?

Originally posted by LaBTop
I am the only one answering questions here.
You have not added anything worthwhile to this whole discussion. You clearly love to debate, with rigged rules, your rules. Pretty much the standard greedy capitalist behavior.
Not a shimmer of genuine interest in the events of 9/11 shown yet.

You only answer questions you like. And the answers you come with are useless, as I pointed out already. Of course you ignore that, and blame it on my high debating standards. Somehow you link that to "standard greedy capitalist behavior". Another one of your completely nonsensical lines of reasoning.

I have asked, repeatedly, to come with a link that demonstrates your fantasized bomb in action. Either just say it does not exist, or post it already.

Answer mine. What about NIST's video, combined with what the LDEO graph shows?

What about it? There seems to be a seismic event. Most probably as a result of structural members failing. That is a perfectly logical explanation that is in no way refuted by you. You just plug in explosives because that is what you want it to be. You start with a conclusions, explosives, and try to fit all data you find into that theory. Data that does not fit is ignored.

Its not me who has a high standard, it is you who are lacking any standard to ensure the quality of your argument.

Originally posted by LaBTop
***snip***
I am the only one answering questions here.
***snip***
Pretty much the standard greedy capitalist behavior.
***snip***

Although you answer here isn't for me, I notice that the only answers you provide are elaborate wrtings about the same old same old.

Why not answer the few questions put forward that touches some of the critical points of your conclusions.

BTW.
I'm not a capitalist. I'm not even greedy. I guess I'm a "leftie", and I disclose that well knowing that some Americans consider a polical standpoint a yard stick for how much an argument should be trusted.

A bit like the upcoming elections where you can be lying through your teeth and still be considered trustworthy as long as you are Pro Life AND Pro Guns.

reply to post by HolgerTheDane

You still have to adress the fact that your timeline, by your own admission, is measured from the time that the roofline starting to go down.
You very conveniently disregard the fact that the northeastern corner buckled and started going down at least 7-8 seconds before the penthouses.

This collaps of one of the three main trusses could perhaps even explain your "smoking gun spike" on your seismological sheets?

I can behave condescending too :

You're a journalist or a student of journalism?
It's: address, roof line and collapse.
My first advice : use a spell checker.

Second advice : learn to read what exactly was written.
You have my data points majestically mixed up in your own head, as if you were working towards the conclusion you wanted to read in it.

Please enlighten me where I wrote this (especially the "own admission" part of it) :
"".... your timeline, by your own admission, is measured from the time that the roof line starting to go down.""

You should write: "started" or inserted an: "is" , behind "line".
End of condescending lecturing.

Yes, I too can behave and act as a condescending prick, just as lots of members here.



Serious answer : No, that's where my timeline of 1 + 3 + 8.3 seconds ends.

One second for the delay of sound waves through 333 meters of room temperature air at standard pressure.
Result : That ...Boooom... was already 1 second old when it reached the microphone of the registering camera, which stood about 333 meters away from the collapse. But your eyes saw that event one second ago already.
The only problem with it was that it happened in WTC 7 its interior, which you could not see.

And if you would have installed a remote camera inside WTC 7 that would have sent its real time footage back to a screen beside you, you would have seen it at the same moment that you saw its internal columns been blasted away on your screen. But the sound of it would still have taken 1 second of your precious time, before you would be able to hear it.

Three seconds before you see the eastern penthouse its roof line starting to sag-in.

Eight point three seconds before both penthouses disappeared totally out of sight behind the parapeted roof line.

Twelve point three seconds in total for all events described above to take place, counted from the moment in real WTC 7 time for that ...Booom...

And that parapeted roof line its sinking-down was the starting point for the 2.3 seconds free fall calculations by David Chandler, who put the whole multi million NIST report its crooked editing team back in the place where they rightfully belong.
CHEERS, David!

Now tell me, where this above explanation differs greatly from what I wrote before.

Originally posted by LaBTop
reply to post by GenRadek

 

You again miss the quintessence, general.
Windsor was a chaotic fire with a chaotic hours long partial collapsing of floors and sagging and buckling of columns and beams, that took hours to slowly develop on many floors.

Nope, it is you who is not getting it. Fire progressed and caused the collapses of the Windsor's floors within 2 1/2 of starting, without anything impacting it, or spraying fuel, or anything. Also, the fact that it had a massive steel-reinforced concrete core and two heavy concrete technical floors, helped it from not collapsing the way the WTCs did. WTc7 did not have anything like it.

WTC was also a chaotic fire, however with one distinct difference :
That sudden total global collapse. Hot mass falling through all the cold mass under it. Not avoiding it, but falling straight through it.

No, WTC7 did not have a massive concrete core supporting it. Also, the design of the WTC7 is another reason why it collapsed they way it did. That pesky ConEd substation for starters at the base and the large transfer trusses over it, and the heavy fires located there for over 5 hours of direct fire. That is what did it in. It didnt collapse through 'cold mass". I dont know where you are pulling this from.

And that's what is unbelievable, but when you introduce any kind of explosives, it suddenly makes sense.

And when you try to secretly demolish a building, your first concern is to keep it secret. To let it look like a normal gravitational collapse. Muffle the initiating sounds and drown them in the noise of hundreds of crazy loud sirens, and hide/camouflage the flashes. After that, all noise will be explained as a normal gravitational collapse.
It's just the first second of cuts, that needs full camouflage attention. After that, yes, then really gravity takes over. But they wanted a neat demo, so they added a lot more charges, to force the buildings as much as possible into their own footprints.

But you cannot muffle the sound of cutter charges detonating inside, and cause a tremor picked up miles away either. A very loud explosion will cause a tremor. A quiet explosion will not. A quiet explosion means a low power blast, not enough to sever the large beams. Why is every demolition of smaller buildings so darn loud, and yet WTC7 collapsed without warning, when it would have needed the same type of explosives? Also, more explosives, means more loud kabooms. All lacking. Explosives do not create a low barely noticeable rumble.

In the case of WTC 7 :
Take away about 14 stories worth of vertical beams with thermobaric cutter charges, which leave only a vague gas trail, which is gone in seconds. There are ThB's, which are placed inside huge boxed-off thick steel columns, and are capable of shattering the steel like crystal.

Care to show us evidence of such cutter charges? Do you even know what a thermobaric explosive is? It is another word for "Fuel-air explosive". They create a pressure blast using a fuel-air mixture which on ignition creates a massive shock that is perfect for closed in structures like tunnels, bunkers, or buildings, and for flattening structures above ground with the pressure blast and fireball. However, for cutting a steel beam, it is not
the most efficient. Thermobaric devices require the flammable gas to be dispersed in the area and mix together with the oxygen, which is then ignited. But it is no good for any steel cutting. Its mind boggling you would even give a second of thought to this idea. Hell I'd sign up faster on the thermite idea than this one. It is right up there with a nuclear demolition idea they throw around. If such was used in WTC7, you would have seen a MASSIVE fireball blowing through the structure, blowing out all the windows BEFORE any movement in the structure. It is similar to what happens in a dust explosion like a grain elevator, or a coal mine. And the blast would have been heard loud and clear, even to those nearby the building.

reply to post by LaBTop

As can be seen in the Chandler videos, that creates 2.3 seconds time of free-fall of the above structure of the building, through that 14 stories gap you just created inside, out of sight for video and photo cameras.
These columns are deep inside the building, and surrounded by all the still intact and present rooms and dividers. When you also order all rescue personnel away from the building at least an hour before collapse occurs, there's little left anymore to worry about that first cutting charge its low frequency footprint.
Btw, very little light or flash to be seen either.

But there was no explosion that ripped out the gap. No one heard anything explode like that.

Later you sprinkle a few stories on the Internet by seemingly honest officials, who say that they were standing beside the same building, and heard nothing while they saw the top of the building coming down on them.
First, how the heck did he manage to still stand there, when EVERYBODY was ordered out long ago already.
Second, how can a building start to come down with no sound at all? Of course there was an immense rumble, in both cases. Either natural collapse, or aided collapse. And you know what?

A thermobaric sounds like a deep rumbling noise.
And leaves no traces of importance.

Rumbling noise? You have no idea how thermobaric devices work do you?





From all accounts I see and hear, a thermobaric explosion is more powerful and therefore, LOUDER. The bigger the blast, the louder it is. Show me a quiet explosion that can do some serious damage.

reply to post by hooper

Listen, I can't help it that your multi-paragraph postings, chock full of very technical looking drivel, all contain simple and fatal flaws that can be pointed out in a short single sentence.

Well, genius, help me out. I like a good fight.
Bring on your short single sentence.
Which would floor me instantly.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Bring on your short single sentence.
Which would floor me instantly.

It has already been done here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by LaBTop

 

Only the plotted points/lines by me, that depict actual events in Manhattan....

Again that fatal little flaw. A six year old can see it.

Damn, you're easy to get...

That's the prime reason why ONLY you can see that "fatal" little flaw.

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by LaBTop
I am the only one answering questions here.
You have not added anything worthwhile to this whole discussion. You clearly love to debate, with rigged rules, your rules. Pretty much the standard greedy capitalist behavior.
Not a shimmer of genuine interest in the events of 9/11 shown yet.

You only answer questions you like. And the answers you come with are useless, as I pointed out already. Of course you ignore that, and blame it on my high debating standards. Somehow you link that to "standard greedy capitalist behavior". Another one of your completely nonsensical lines of reasoning.

(1) I have asked, repeatedly, to come with a link that demonstrates your fantasized bomb in action. Either just say it does not exist, or post it already.(end 1)

Answer mine. What about NIST's video, combined with what the LDEO graph shows?

What about it? There seems to be a seismic event. Most probably as a result of structural members failing. That is a perfectly logical explanation that is in no way refuted by you. You just plug in explosives because that is what you want it to be. You start with a conclusions, explosives, and try to fit all data you find into that theory. Data that does not fit is ignored. (2)

Its not me who has a high standard, it is you who are lacking any standard to ensure the quality of your argument.

A prime example of your technique is your point (1).
Ask for (don't smile now) online videos of highly classified new explosive techniques, which are known to be withheld from the public for the well known reasons. Only the bits and pieces I did find in libraries and weapon forums, which are mostly closed down now.
What I did found, has been linked to, by me. That you do not explore it to the boundaries is your problem.

Your point (2) is explained logically. How can breakage of one column exert much more whump on the bedrock than the 12.3 secs later following breakage of all the other same columns combined with all cross beams and the rest? And the thundering down.
The amplitude in that seismogram would have been reversed, small peak first, huge pack of peaks later.

This is only ONE page of one thread :
First, bsbray11 his FAE video : www.abovetopsecret.com...
Then, the barometric bomb discussion started :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Tom of Bedlam's research hint into shattering steel columns like glass :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
My answer : www.abovetopsecret.com...
Tom's answer : www.abovetopsecret.com...
My follow up : www.abovetopsecret.com...
Damocles tuning in : www.abovetopsecret.com...
Me offering Damocles links : www.abovetopsecret.com...
Then up till the page end all the posts by Tom Bedlam, about high-impulse thermobaric like the HIT in the SMAW-D HIT warheads, which is sort of like a SMAW-NE on steroids.
The kinepak (kinetic pack) comment by Tom in his last post is very telling what work he was in. Then it goes on to the next page. read what Tom said here about columns filled with thermobaric mixtures that would bring the towers down, without much of a bang : www.abovetopsecret.com...
Then bsbray11 shows a video of NE and a SMAW fired into a building :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Then Tom answers with this : www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't have the numbers at hand, but if I did I couldn't post them, I don't think, which is why I've been whining about not finding them in an open source.

NE is a first-generation reactant metal slurry. The HIT in a D is different in that you get a very sharp impact at first followed by a breaching charge second component. So you get more of a masonry buster followed by a charge to shove the rebar apart.

Compared to C4, NE sounds a lot more smooth and low pitched, more of a whump than a crack. The two-stage thermobarics have a sharper sound up front with a whump at the end. It's hard to compare the sound pressures, C4 hurts your ears more but NE is plenty loud.

I can probably get that paper I sent you the abstract URL for, about pumping various grades of iron and steel tubes full of thermobarics and shattering them, is it possible to attach one to a U2U?

Yes, they use various reactive metals and halogens, in various particulate sizes. It's the new thing.

I can go on endlessly, but Tom also indicated the touchy nature of this research, you could loose your job in the army, or your life when talking too much. That's why he left ATS I suppose, he got warned by his superiors.

reply to post by LaBTop


Why numb nutz are the windows still intact in Verizon building adjacent to WTC 7 ?

If there were some massive explosion to destroy the building would have been powerful enoungh to
break not only the windows in Verizon, but those for several blocks around....




Notice how most of the windows are still there. Only few have been broken - and those by debris

Originally posted by thedman
Why numb nutz are the windows still intact in Verizon building adjacent to WTC 7 ?

If there were some massive explosion to destroy the building would have been powerful enoungh to
break not only the windows in Verizon, but those for several blocks around....

That is because the invisible ninja's that installed all the silent explosives also quickly and secretly replaced all those windows to cover up the "fact" that silent explosives were used....