How were demolition blasts concealed from the public?

[1337m4n]

I'm sure we've all seen this video before, but I noticed something very interesting--I can't believe I didn't notice it before.

79sJ1bMR6VQ

Pay attention to the base of the building. That is the point from which the collapse proceeds. Now you can see at 00:17-00:18...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/168034822563e3e62b.jpg

But there's more than just sight. There's also sound. Listen to the sound that you hear at the very moment the fireball appears.

None of the three WTC buildings had anything like that. If they were demolitions, the demolition somehow had to be concealed from the public.

Can you think of any method the perps might have used to accomplish such a feat?

[johnny karate]

This is one of the CTers' major Achille's heels.

Most have no response and will simply ignore it as they do with any piece of evidence that contradicts their ideology. But I suppose a brave few will provide us with the testimony of a handful of people that heard random small explosions and try to pretend that these are in fact the detonation charges that in every other controlled demolition in history are enormously loud and very distinctive, and are heard by everyone in the area for miles around.

[Corsair 115]

How was it concealed? The answer is simple: magic!!

[MIKILLINI]

Perhaps there are "silencers" for explosives to create quiet detonations. I can't believe the NWO didn't send out a memo regarding this.:p

[Brainache]

Obviously they used soundproofing. You know, like, egg cartons stapled to the walls like LC has in his home recording studio...

[LastChild]

Did no one claim to hear any explosions?

[parky76]

we've all seen tons of video of the collapses. none of them include the large amounts of explosion sounds that would accompany a controlled collapse.

if bombs did go off...the sound would have echoed through the canyons of skyscrapers and be heard atleast a mile away. did people a mile away from the WTC ......even blocks away...hear explosions?

NOPE

[LastChild]

So how were witnesses who heard explosions kept from the debunkers?

[kookbreaker]

Dude.....Black Op!

[LastChild]

4GHblYsBMQw

cBKulgWoVRA

5CMjgWVqVg4

QlEXoY1HCWI

cZ4dVo5QgYg

[theauthor]

How were demolition blasts concealed from the public?

Were they?


9/11/2001 radio broadcast: "...I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was... well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock."

http://wrhstore.com/IMAGES/wtc7_med2.wma

[DC]

Did no one claim to hear any explosions?

yes alot ppl reposrted things like explosions, and thanks to JREF and other Debunkers we know now that those ppl all heard something else, but not explosives, cause the buildings was not demolished, and we know that because noone reported explosions :)

[Arus808]

theauthor proves that he doesn't undersand what Demolition sound like. It wouldn't be just "one" clap of thunder. IT would A SUCCESSION of MANY explosions.

Again, theautbhor REFER to ALL the videos on Controlle demolition, there is one thing similar in all of them

THE MANY MANY MANY SOUNDS OF EXPLOSIONS, ALL HAPPENING IN SUCCESSION!


none of that were heard on 9/11/2001

[Arus808]

I'm sure we've all seen this video before, but I noticed something very interesting--I can't believe I didn't notice it before.

79sJ1bMR6VQ

Pay attention to the base of the building. That is the point from which the collapse proceeds. Now you can see at 00:17-00:18...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/168034822563e3e62b.jpg

But there's more than just sight. There's also sound. Listen to the sound that you hear at the very moment the fireball appears.

None of the three WTC buildings had anything like that. If they were demolitions, the demolition somehow had to be concealed from the public.

Can you think of any method the perps might have used to accomplish such a feat?



dont forget to add that there WERE MANY explosions heard in succession , in all Controlled Demolition videos. Why wasn't any of these MANY explosions heard on 9/11/2001?

[theauthor]

theauthor proves that he doesn't undersand what Demolition sound like. It wouldn't be just "one" clap of thunder. IT would A SUCCESSION of MANY explosions.

Again, theautbhor REFER to ALL the videos on Controlle demolition, there is one thing similar in all of them

THE MANY MANY MANY SOUNDS OF EXPLOSIONS, ALL HAPPENING IN SUCCESSION!


none of that were heard on 9/11/2001

Really?

CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the ****'s hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."

[DC]

Really?

Bartmer heard something else, he must be misstaken, cause WTC7 was not demolished, we know that cause noone reported explosions.

[Arus808]

Really?

nice. Theuathor proves again that he doesn't understand controlled demolition., YOU do know that hte explosions (succession) happens PRIOR to collapse.

AGain, WATCH ALL THE VIDEOS on Controlled demolition. NONE of the exploision HAPPEN DURING collapse.

You are really bad at this.

[DC]

nice. Theuathor proves again that he doesn't understand controlled demolition., YOU do know that hte explosions (succession) happens PRIOR to collapse.

AGain, WATCH ALL THE VIDEOS on Controlled demolition. NONE of the exploision HAPPEN DURING collapse.

You are really bad at this.

lol your in denial, sad

[theauthor]

Arus808 please do not strain yourself carrying those goalposts.

[DC]

9/11/2001 radio broadcast: "...I was just standing there, ya know... we were watching the building [WTC 7] actually 'cuz it was on fire... the bottom floors of the building were on fire and... we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder... turned around - we were shocked to see that the building was... well it looked like there was a shockwave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out... it was horrifying... about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that... we saw the building crash down all the way to the ground... we were in shock."

Describes that big kaboom prior to the collapse........

[CHF]

OK, LostChild, I get it.

"People heard explosions!"....but you can't produce a single video that records the deafening noise of a demolition sequence.

You know something that sounds like BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG!!!

If someone heard the charges then there'd certainly be video of it given how many cameras were around GZ that day.

Besides, haven't twoofers learned anything from the Pentagon? Over 100 people can see a plane hit the building....but we don't know for sure what happened unless we have a picture! :D So get it to twoofers: find that recording of the CD charges taking down the towers or WTC7!

As for how the NWO covered up the sound so well, I asked Doug Plumb of AE911 that question back in July and he assured me that we didn't hear the charges because the noise blended in with the sound of the collapse itself. :eek:

[gumboot]

Really?


That's the sound of the floors collapsing on each other. Quite a few firemen reported it.

[Arus808]

Before collapse
Ph7HzxcLEkI


Before collapse
h0S-vlpU1BE


Before collapse
7XG-l3N1YfQ

Before collapse
vdJTDuYB_h8


Before collapse
cRaNwPGcQcM


before collapse
Ks-3k8-Ac1c

[gumboot]

Describes that big kaboom prior to the collapse........


Incorrect. When they looked at the building, collapse was well under way. My guess is the sound they heard was the east penthouse collapsing.

[DC]

That's the sound of the floors collapsing on each other. Quite a few firemen reported it.

LOL

[theauthor]

OK, LostChild, I get it.

"People heard explosions!"....but you can't produce a single video that records the deafening noise of a demolition sequence.

You know something that sounds like BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG!!!

If someone heard the charges then there'd certainly be video of it given how many cameras were around GZ that day.

Besides, haven't twoofers learned anything from the Pentagon? Over 100 people can see a plane hit the building....but we don't know for sure what happened unless we have a picture! :D So get it to twoofers: find that recording of the CD charges taking down the towers or WTC7!

As for how the NWO covered up the sound so well, I asked Doug Plumb of AE911 that question back in July and he assured me that we didn't hear the charges because the noise blended in with the sound of the collapse itself. :eek:

So are the witnesses who heard the explosions lying? Is Craig Bartmer and the guy who described the thunderclap lying? yes or no?

Also, it is no good to just have the witness testimony of the inferno in wtc7, we need a photo. There were lots of cameras that day, can you show us a photo of this fully involved inferno?

[DC]

Incorrect. When they looked at the building, collapse was well under way. My guess is the sound they heard was the east penthouse collapsing.

oh the penthouse, and why dont we hear that in the videos of WTC7?

[theauthor]

LOL


ROFL

Perhaps putting gumboot on ignore was a mistake lol

[Arus808]

Arus808 please do not strain yourself carrying those goalposts.


please do not use that phrase when you do not understand its usage.

YOur comment from your witness does not support a controlled demolition, and anyone with half brain could see he was using a SIMILE (you know that term that you troofers have hard time understanding. ask Dylan cause he was schooled by a BBC interviewer on what it means)

Again, I told YOU TO WATCH ALL VIDEOS OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS, so you CAN GET when those successive explosions happen. apparently, you are not even capable of understanding how to do that on your own.

Do you have to be told how to do things?

[DC]

about a second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that...

a second after the boom the building started to fall down.....

[Arus808]

Incorrect. When they looked at the building, collapse was well under way. My guess is the sound they heard was the east penthouse collapsing.


also these geniuses do not realize that sound travels slower than light (what you see happens before the sound will get to them)

[Arus808]

a second after the boom the building started to fall down.....



and how far was the person who witness this happening, from the building? You do know that sound travels slower than light.

[DC]

also these geniuses do not realize that sound travels slower than light (what you see happens before the sound will get to them)

no really? strange its mostly Debunkers that claim the video is faked when one does adjust the ausio track on 9/11 videos to remove that delay

[theauthor]

Sound travelling slower actually weakens your argument. If he heard the sound a second before collapse then that means it happened 2 seconds before collapse.

LOL you arent very good at this are you?

[DC]

and how far was the person who witness this happening, from the building? You do know that sound travels slower than light.

you tell me, they heard the penthouse collapsing according to gumboot, they heared it 1 second before the building visually started its downward movement.

so im sure you can tell me how far way they have must been.

[theauthor]

Sound travels at 331 meters per second. If we assume he was about 300 meters away then the sound he heard a second before collapse actually occured 2 seconds before collapse.

[CHF]

So are the witnesses who heard the explosions lying? Is Craig Bartmer and the guy who described the thunderclap lying? yes or no?

No I'm sure they heard loud noises. The question is do those reports and sounds match what we would expect from a controlled demolition? The answer is no.

In the case of a CD everyone hears the charges going off and every video captures the noise.

Yet you have only a few people claiming to have heard a CD sequence and no video.

So what did those people hear? Possibly the sound of steel beams failing. For example, here's a steel crane coming down.

cxM83_hHJC8

Also, it is no good to just have the witness testimony of the inferno in wtc7, we need a photo. There were lots of cameras that day, can you show us a photo of this fully involved inferno?Ah so now we need photos/video again all of a sudden :rolleyes:

Are the FDNY lying when they say there was a massive fire?

[Arus808]

Sound travelling slower actually weakens your argument.
actually it doesn't. You really need to do some research on your own and posses a modicum of reading comprehension


If he heard the sound a second before collapse then that means it happened 2 seconds before collapse.

and please give a frame of refernece how the person knew it was 2 seconds. Did he count one-onethousand, two-onethousand when he heard the "boom" and the saw the building collapse? OR was this is his "guess". You do realize that many people have no sense of time in chaotic situations?

If he heard it "2" seconds before collapse (again, we dont even know if this is true), then that "sound" happened more than seconds before. And again, YOU IGNORE THIS:

WHERE ARE THE many MANY SUCCESSION OF BLASTS?

by your own quote he said maybe all of 5-7 "boom, boom boom".

AGAIN, PLEASE WATCH ALL THE VIDEOS ON CONTROLLED DEMOLTIONS. if yoU BOTHERE TO DO SO, YOU'D NOTICE ONE THING THAT IS IN THEM THAT wasN'T THERE ON 9/11/2001

(psst.. its thousands of explosions. not 5-6 of them)



LOL you arent very good at this are you?
actually. Im very good at showing that you know not what you talk about.

[gumboot]

you tell me, they heard the penthouse collapsing according to gumboot, they heared it 1 second before the building visually started its downward movement.

so im sure you can tell me how far way they have must been.

Sound travels at 331 meters per second. If we assume he was about 300 meters away then the sound he heard a second before collapse actually occured 2 seconds before collapse.


The east penthouse collapse 8.2 seconds before the exterior wall, so assuming the sound he heard occurred 2 seconds before he saw the exterior collapse, that means it happened 6.2 seconds into the collapse.

[Arus808]

Sound travels at 331 meters per second. If we assume he was about 300 meters away then the sound he heard a second before collapse actually occured 2 seconds before collapse.

please give a reference of how this witness determined the time of which he heard the "boom boom boom" and then the collapse.

Also show evdience that this person hear more than 5-6 booms but thousands needed to bring down Wtc 7


please also provide evidence of all the footage showing wtc7 collapse on why they did not cpature the THOUSANDS of explosions going off

[theauthor]

I don't know what im talking about? Well I don't need to when you are giving me such great arguments. Thanks for pointing out that the boom he heard was actually a second EARLIER. I wouldn't have thought of that:D

[CHF]

If no twoofer can present a video of a CD sequence from 9/11 then perhaps it's time to start thinking of the OP.

Just how on earth did the NWO cover up the sound? :confused:

[theauthor]

please give a reference of how this witness determined the time of which he heard the "boom boom boom" and then the collapse.

Also show evdience that this person hear more than 5-6 booms but thousands needed to bring down Wtc 7


please also provide evidence of all the footage showing wtc7 collapse on why they did not cpature the THOUSANDS of explosions going off

Please show me how the delay due to the speed of sound strengthens your argument. You have now proven that the bang was actually TWO seconds before collapse. Thanks. That has made CD a greater possibility.

[theauthor]

If no twoofer can present a video of a CD sequence from 9/11 then perhaps it's time to start thinking of the OP.

Just how on earth did the NWO cover up the sound? :confused:


If no debunker can produce pictures of the inferno in wtc7 then perhaps it is time to start thinking just how did the NWO cover up the flames.

[Arus808]

I don't know what im talking about?
You've proven with every post you make that you dont.

Well I don't need to when you are giving me such great arguments. Thanks for pointing out that the boom he heard was actually a second EARLIER. I wouldn't have thought of that:D

you do realize that the penthouse collapsed into the building first right. imagine that. hearing the penthouse collapsing prior to the building collapsing.


DID YOU BOTHER TO WATCH ALL THOSE DEMOLITION VIDEOS YET?


seeing that you rather post, i doubt it


go on proving that you dont know what you are talking about.

[fullflavormenthol]

Please show me how the delay due to the speed of sound strengthens your argument. You have now proven that the bang was actually TWO seconds before collapse. Thanks. That has made CD a greater possibility.
Okay, dude; I am going to stop you right there. I am going to point out that no one has proven that anything occurred 1 to 2 seconds before. What has been brought up is that there is no way of knowing if your 1 to 2 seconds is accurate considering it is based upon the perception of a single person during a traumatic experience. Stop using stupid emoticons to express your joy at proving some point that you haven't

[Arus808]

Please show me how the delay due to the speed of sound strengthens your argument.

again you prove you do not know what you are talking about

Please provide a reference as to which how this witness determined the time from when he heard the "boom boom boom" and the collapse


If you can't, then how do you know it was only "2" seconds?

[CHF]

If no debunker can produce pictures of the inferno in wtc7 then perhaps it is time to start thinking just how did the NWO cover up the flames.

More importantly....how did the NWO get the FDNY to lie about seeing massive fires that weren't there?

[DC]

why dont we hear the penthouse Collapse on the videos???????

[theauthor]

More importantly....how did the NWO get the FDNY to lie about seeing massive fires that weren't there?

More importantly....how did the NWO get Craig Bartmer and the guy interviewed on the radio to lie about massive noises that werent there?

[DarkMagician]

So are the witnesses who heard the explosions lying? Is Craig Bartmer and the guy who described the thunderclap lying? yes or no?

The thing is that the sound of controlled demolition explosions are nowhere near the level of what you hear on 9/11. Other things can sound like explosions, but demolition explosives have a volume that those other things didn't reach.

In short, they can be telling the truth and it still doesn't help your claim. We're looking for proof of an explosion of a specific volume or higher that would help your case. You might want to try and find proof of that before you go ahead and show the witness statements. We don't know the level of sound from what they say, unless they had their eye on a decibel measurer at the time.

Also, it is no good to just have the witness testimony of the inferno in wtc7, we need a photo. There were lots of cameras that day, can you show us a photo of this fully involved inferno?

We already know you're going to move the goalposts after we show you pics, so why bother asking the question when we know you're going to redefine inferno to something that's not useful to anyone involved? Besides, it's off topic, but search for other threads on it before starting your own. We've heard this [rule 10] before.

[theauthor]

again you prove you do not know what you are talking about

Please provide a reference as to which how this witness determined the time from when he heard the "boom boom boom" and the collapse


If you can't, then how do you know it was only "2" seconds?

Admit you made a mistake about the sound delay. If you can't then your intellectual dishonesty means you go on ignore.

[Brainache]

why dont we hear the penthouse Collapse on the videos???????

Because there were no demolition charges going off.

[fullflavormenthol]

Admit you made a mistake about the sound delay. If you can't then your intellectual dishonesty means you go on ignore.
Wow...ultimatums are always a sign of a strong argument. Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, you might want to look back at an earlier post in which you blatantly engaged in a false dichotomy.

[Arus808]

Admit you made a mistake about the sound delay. If you can't then your intellectual dishonesty means you go on ignore.

excuse me but you're the one being intellectually dishonest here. You are the one claiming that person heard 5 booms then 2 seconds later saw the building collapse

yet you forget:

1) sound travel slower than light
2) the penthouse was shown to COLLAPSE first before the entire building collapse (do you honestly believe that the penthouse collapsed silently?)
3) that said witness did not hear the THOUSANDS of explosions needed to bring down a building the size of wtc 7?

HE, in your own example GAVE only 5 booms (count them).


So, who is being dishonest here? NOt me . YOu are.

You are twisting the claims of ONE (count them ONE) witness; twisiting his SIMILE (you do know what that is right?), to describe A CHAOTIC event


So explain why there weren't thousands of explosions?

[theauthor]

excuse me but you're the one being intellectually dishonest here. You are the one claiming that person heard 5 booms then 2 seconds later saw the building collapse

yet you forget:

1) sound travel slower than light
2) the penthouse was shown to COLLAPSE first before the entire building collapse (do you honestly believe that the penthouse collapsed silently?)
3) that said witness did not hear the THOUSANDS of explosions needed to bring down a building the size of wtc 7?

HE, in your own example GAVE only 5 booms (count them).


So, who is being dishonest here? NOt me . YOu are.

You are twisting the claims of ONE (count them ONE) witness; twisiting his SIMILE (you do know what that is right?), to describe A CHAOTIC event


So explain why there weren't thousands of explosions?

:rolleyes: Ignore it is then.

[Arus808]

:rolleyes: Ignore it is then.

yup, you can't handle it when you're painted into a corner WITH YOUR OWN WORDS


So your dishonesty is noted, and you have proven yet gain you're nothing more than a liar.

[fullflavormenthol]

:rolleyes: Ignore it is then.
You that is just what I was saying when I read your post. Arus808 explained themself and did so in a logical way that was by no means intellectually dishonest.

What you are doing is using juvenile behavior (the lol's and smileys) to put across the appearance that you are confident in what you are writing, which you are not confident. You are not confident because you grabbed onto the most flimsy excuse to ignore someone making an effective counter argument.

Meaning you have no interest in an actual debate; hence you go on ignore.

[gumboot]

why dont we hear the penthouse Collapse on the videos???????


I'm not aware of any videos close enough to WTC7 during its collapse to pick up any sounds from the collapse.

[DC]

and why dont we hear that penthouse collapse in the videos?

[Brainache]

and why dont we hear that penthouse collapse in the videos?

Because there were no demolition charges going off.

If there was demolition charges big enough to sever the structural supports, they would have been audible for miles around ground zero.

Well done Dick! You have debunked the WTC7 CD theory.

[DC]

Because there were no demolition charges going off.

If there was demolition charges big enough to sever the structural supports, they would have been audible for miles around ground zero.

Well done Dick! You have debunked the WTC7 CD theory.

oh really? what explosive and how much would it need, you seem to know more, tell us pls.

[Arus808]

oh really? what explosive and how much would it need, you seem to know more, tell us pls.

and why should we do your homework? you can contact many controlled demolition companies to get this answer.

[Edmund Standing]

For the CD believers...

Did firefighters hear explosions?

Or explosive sounds?

See this analysis (http://www.jod911.com/sounds.pdf) of the reports.

[Brainache]

oh really? what explosive and how much would it need, you seem to know more, tell us pls.

Did you watch any of those CD video clips posted earlier in this thread? They had lots of very loud charges going off and they were all in buildings which had been prepared for demolition. You know, the supports are already partially cut before they set off the charges, so in the case of WTC7 the charges would have had to be even bigger than the ones in those clips.

[theauthor]

What you are all forgetting is that CD expert Danny Jowenko reckons that wtc7 was demolished on the fly. He doesn't think it needed 1000's of charges covering all the floors.

[Arus808]

What you are all forgetting is that CD expert Danny Jowenko reckons that wtc7 was demolished on the fly.
what you dishonestly ignore is that all he was shown was a video of the WTC 7 collapse, and was given biased information from acouple of truthers, by having them tell him that hte building was used by the CIA.

Please provide his paper that he has written, that shows his analysis of the building's collapse. and of course the evidence he used to prove his accounts

He doesn't think it needed 1000's of charges covering all the floors.

actually, that is not what he said, but we know that you are a liar.

[gumboot]

What you are all forgetting is that CD expert Danny Jowenko reckons that wtc7 was demolished on the fly. He doesn't think it needed 1000's of charges covering all the floors.


He's not actually qualified to make that claim. Implosion companies don't actually lay the charges, nor calculate the amount - they subcontract a blaster to do that job. Blasters typically work for companies that make demolition explosives. The amount and number of charges used is only determined after very careful physical inspection of the building as well as a close look at plans.

[orphia nay]

I'm sure we've all seen this video before, but I noticed something very interesting--I can't believe I didn't notice it before.

79sJ1bMR6VQ

Pay attention to the base of the building. That is the point from which the collapse proceeds. Now you can see at 00:17-00:18...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/168034822563e3e62b.jpg

But there's more than just sight. There's also sound. Listen to the sound that you hear at the very moment the fireball appears.

None of the three WTC buildings had anything like that. If they were demolitions, the demolition somehow had to be concealed from the public.

Can you think of any method the perps might have used to accomplish such a feat?

Note the flash of light in the pic.

Perhaps there are "silencers" for explosives to create quiet detonations. I can't believe the NWO didn't send out a memo regarding this.:p

Perhaps there are "darkeners" for explosives to explode without any visual effect as well. Another memo goes missing. Woooooo... :boggled:

I can't wait for the twoofers to bring up the "squibs". :newlol :rolleyes:

[DC]

and why should we do your homework? you can contact many controlled demolition companies to get this answer.

its you Conspiracy-Deniers that keep saying it need 1000 of explosives.
so it looks like you guys know how much it would need, but no seems that just another lie from your side.

[DC]

what you dishonestly ignore is that all he was shown was a video of the WTC 7 collapse, and was given biased information from acouple of truthers, by having them tell him that hte building was used by the CIA.

Please provide his paper that he has written, that shows his analysis of the building's collapse. and of course the evidence he used to prove his accounts



actually, that is not what he said, but we know that you are a liar.

stop it with the lies pls.

Jovenko did not only see the video and the info he was given was NOT biased, because it is actually a ANTI CT docu they made, but when it came to WTC 7 , the expert was pretty sure it was CDed.

liar.

[DC]

He's not actually qualified to make that claim. Implosion companies don't actually lay the charges, nor calculate the amount - they subcontract a blaster to do that job. Blasters typically work for companies that make demolition explosives. The amount and number of charges used is only determined after very careful physical inspection of the building as well as a close look at plans.

misstake

Danny Jovenko is a Blaster. he is the guy that calculates and places the explosives. read his homepage.......

[DC]

He's not actually qualified to make that claim. Implosion companies don't actually lay the charges, nor calculate the amount - they subcontract a blaster to do that job. Blasters typically work for companies that make demolition explosives. The amount and number of charges used is only determined after very careful physical inspection of the building as well as a close look at plans.

ok lets ask an Expert (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html)

NOVA: What kind of analysis goes into figuring out how to demolish a building?

SL: Well, we've got what we refer to as our historic database, which is largely in my father and my uncle's brain. Ninety-five percent of our knowledge has come from hands-on experience—learning, watching different structures, watching the way they move. A lot of times my father and my uncle will walk in a building and they'll say, "Oh, this is just like the such and such building. This is what we're going to do." So, there really isn't a class you can take. There's no book you can read that's going to teach you how to do this. It's really a practical physical understanding of how buildings work. You know, just because an engineer designed a building to work one way, it doesn't mean that, when they built it, that that's actually how it's working. We have to go in and decide what is load bearing, what is not—what is safe to remove, what isn't. So there's quite a bit of in-the-field analysis that goes on.

NOVA: Do you tend to look at blueprints?

SL: Well, 90 percent of the time we don't have them. A lot of times those plans have been misplaced or have disintegrated into dust. But when we do have them, yeah, we use them but we don't rely on them. There's a difference between 'as drawn' and 'as built'. And you never trust the drawings. That's why we do test shots, which is going in and picking out a few key columns and actually loading them with explosives and shooting them ahead of time, to understand the loads within the columns.

[gumboot]

LIAR !!!!

Danny Jovenko is a Blaster. he is the guy that calculates and places the explosives. read his homepage.......



Sorry, you're quite right. I read an Explosive Engineer as something different to a Blaster, and all of the demolition jobs I've been able to find for Jowenko have another company subcontracting the blasting. My apologies.

[gumboot]

ok lets ask an Expert (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html)


That doesn't refute what I said. So you agree that Danny Jowenko lacks sufficient knowledge to make any determination about an explosive demolition of WTC7?

(Unless of course you're claiming he went and visited the building before it fell down)

[DC]

Sorry, you're quite right. I read an Explosive Engineer as something different to a Blaster, and all of the demolition jobs I've been able to find for Jowenko have another company subcontracting the blasting. My apologies.

ok i retract the liar then in this case :)

[Dave Rogers]

ok lets ask an Expert (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html)


And you never trust the drawings. That's why we do test shots, which is going in and picking out a few key columns and actually loading them with explosives and shooting them ahead of time, to understand the loads within the columns.



This scores a point against CD hypotheses - doesn't it seem rather interesting that this was clearly not done with any of the WTC buildings, when this expert suggests it's always done in any CD? "And you never trust the drawings." Not exactly a conditional statement, is it?

Dave

[DC]

That doesn't refute what I said. So you agree that Danny Jowenko lacks sufficient knowledge to make any determination about an explosive demolition of WTC7?

(Unless of course you're claiming he went and visited the building before it fell down)

he would not be in a possition to know exactly what explosives and how much is needed, but he is still an expert that has some abilitys to know if something was a CD or not. and sure, the info he got was not that much.
im sure he would have more info if NIST would bring out the report.

[DC]

This scores a point against CD hypotheses - doesn't it seem rather interesting that this was clearly not done with any of the WTC buildings, when this expert suggests it's always done in any CD? "And you never trust the drawings." Not exactly a conditional statement, is it?

Dave

yes that was indeed not done i guess. im pretty sure it was not.

on the other hand, they also did not remove the drywalls or weakened the bunker, those things the same expert in the same interview told us would act as stifeners.

and still you belive that asymetric damage and uncontrolled fires can do the same like those experts need weeks for. with test shots, calculations, prepwork etc....

[gumboot]

he would not be in a possition to know exactly what explosives and how much is needed, but he is still an expert that has some abilitys to know if something was a CD or not.


Sorry, I should be clear. I don't think it refutes his conclusion that it was CD, which is primarily based on how it looks. In fact I agree with him. I think the collapse of WTC7 does look very much like a CD.

I was using it more to refute his claim (or at least the claim others have attributed to him) that it could be rigged quickly.

[Confuseling]

Does anyone have an even approximate estimate of how many people would be within audio range of WT7 at the point when these explosives were set off?

Got to be in the thousands, I'd have thought.

[Dave Rogers]

on the other hand, they also did not remove the drywalls or weakened the bunker, those things the same expert in the same interview told us would act as stifeners.

That's not "on the other hand", it's more examples of things that weren't done that are always done in CD's, and for good reasons. Therefore, without pre-weakening of the structure, the demolition blasts would need to be even stronger - hence, louder - than in a conventional CD. Yet they were so quiet that nobody can agree whether they even happened or not. Doesn't that look a bit strange to you?

Dave

[LastChild]

Before collapse
Ph7HzxcLEkI


Before collapse
h0S-vlpU1BE


Before collapse
7XG-l3N1YfQ

Before collapse
vdJTDuYB_h8


Before collapse
cRaNwPGcQcM


before collapse
Ks-3k8-Ac1c

Do they usually set off the explosives AFTER the collapse?

That's some debunking there.

[DC]

That's not "on the other hand", it's more examples of things that weren't done that are always done in CD's, and for good reasons. Therefore, without pre-weakening of the structure, the demolition blasts would need to be even stronger - hence, louder - than in a conventional CD. Yet they were so quiet that nobody can agree whether they even happened or not. Doesn't that look a bit strange to you?

Dave

oc nobody heard it, becuase JREFers know much better what those ppl heard that was there. its so easy, nobody heard explosions and when someone did he must be simply misstaken.....

[WildCat]

Really?
Are you claiming there was a bomb in the radio? :rolleyes:

[Alferd_Packer]

The thing is that the sound of controlled demolition explosions are nowhere near the level of what you hear on 9/11. Other things can sound like explosions, but demolition explosives have a volume that those other things didn't reach.




I have personally witnessed two separate building demolitions. the first one involved a complex of five apartment buildings. I was a quarter mile from two of the buildings and a half mile from the other three. They were blasted in sequence starting with the ones nearest me. All of the blasts were quite loud and clear and the sound of the blasts were distinctly louder and different from the sound of the buildings collapsing.

In the second demolition I witnessed, I was again a quarter mile from the buildings when the charges went off.

In both cases, from a quarter mile off, (and to a lesser degree from a half mile away) not only were the charges loud and distinct, but you could actually feel the shockwaves from the blasts hitting your chest cavity (like someone thumping your chest with their fist).

There are no reports of this sort of a blast effect in any of the witness statements.

[Disbelief]

So are the witnesses who heard the explosions lying? Is Craig Bartmer and the guy who described the thunderclap lying? yes or no?

Also, it is no good to just have the witness testimony of the inferno in wtc7, we need a photo. There were lots of cameras that day, can you show us a photo of this fully involved inferno?

So, you need a photo of the wtc7 inferno, because the eyewitness testimony of many firefighters is not enough, but you will take the testimony of Bartmer without audio evidence of CD blasts? Why the inconsistency?

[CHF]

More importantly....how did the NWO get Craig Bartmer and the guy interviewed on the radio to lie about massive noises that werent there?

At no point did I say the noises were not there.

The question is whether or not the noises heard match up with what would be heard during a CD. The answer to that is NO.

I suppose we just found another of those "first time ever" events that the twoofers think happened on 9/11.

First ever top-down demolition of a skyscraper...first ever use of thermite in a demolition...first ever demolition with a plane flown into the set-up...and now the first ever demolition where the noise of the charges was too quiet to be captured on tape.

[LastChild]

At no point did I say the noises were not there.

The question is whether or not the noises heard match up with what would be heard during a CD. The answer to that is NO.

I suppose we just found another of those "first time ever" events that the twoofers think happened on 9/11.

First ever top-down demolition of a skyscraper...first ever use of thermite in a demolition...first ever demolition with a plane flown into the set-up...and now the first ever demolition where the noise of the charges was too quiet to be captured on tape.

Were all the explosive noises witnessed caught on tape?

[CHF]

Were all the explosive noises witnessed caught on tape?

No, because the noises apparently weren't loud enough to be caught on tape.

Do you think that would the case in the event of CD charges?

[LastChild]

No, because the noises apparently weren't loud enough to be caught on tape.

Apparently? All these witnesses heard explosions and you can't point to any audio of them?


Do you think that would the case in the event of CD charges?

I didn't know that's exactly what was claimed. I thought one of the main conspiracy theories was thermate coupled with explosive devises. (at least in the towers). Now if it's your claim a fire and structural damage to a few floors near the top can take down an entire building then just how many cd charges in addition to that would be needed that would also have to be caught on tape from deep inside the tower and maybe a few floors under ground?

How many CD charges did it take in Oklahoma City?

[WildCat]

Apparently? All these witnesses heard explosions and you can't point to any audio of them?
Exactly! Because they weren't nearly as loud as demolition charges. You have debunked yourself!

How many CD charges did it take in Oklahoma City?
One, and it was so loud it was heard 15 miles away and felt 30 miles away.

You are expert at debunking yourself LC!

[Alferd_Packer]

Apparently? All these witnesses heard explosions and you can't point to any audio of them?



YOU can't point to any audio.

In addition, as I pointed out, they heard sounds, not explosions.

Explosions are accompanied by shock waves which can be felt for some distance out.

[DC]

oh and nobody describes how he heard and FELT explosions? you better go read those 503 NYFD testimonys, very interesting....

[WildCat]

oh and nobody describes how he heard and FELT explosions? you better go read those 503 NYFD testimonys, very interesting....
Were they heard and felt from miles away, like actual demo charges? Or did you have to be practically on top of them to hear and feel them? :rolleyes:

[DGM]

Exactly! Because they weren't nearly as loud as demolition charges. You have debunked yourself!


One, and it was so loud it was heard 15 miles away and felt 30 miles away.

You are expert at debunking yourself LC!
Actually there was 420 charges.:D

CDI crews worked on a fast-track basis to prepare the structure for subsequent explosives placement. Less than 150 pounds of explosives placed in 420 locations was used to fell the structure.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqMode=1&reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030317124730

[CHF]

Apparently? All these witnesses heard explosions and you can't point to any audio of them?

Yeah, it's pretty inconsistent with a CD, I know.

I didn't know that's exactly what was claimed. :confused:

I thought one of the main conspiracy theories was thermate coupled with explosive devises. (at least in the towers). Now if it's your claim a fire and structural damage to a few floors near the top can take down an entire building then just how many cd charges in addition to that would be needed that would also have to be caught on tape from deep inside the tower and maybe a few floors under ground?

In addition to that? I don't claim any CD charges were necessary or that any were used.

It seems like you're providing us with yet another example of a twoofer asking debunkers to do their homework for them.

You are the one who thinks the WTC was a CD, LC.

You are the one who thinks the buildings could not have collapsed from structural damage and fire.

So maybe it's time you figured out how much exploives would be needed to do what you claim was done. Be sure to factor in the "removal of all resistance," the concrete that was "blasted into dust" or the steel beams that were "ejected horizontally by the force of the explosives," or whatever other idiotic CD talking-points you believe.

Once you've figured out the answer then you can start to figure out why the explosives didn't make more of a noise.

[aggle-rithm]

Let me get this straight:

Any reports of any kind of noise support the controlled demolition theory.

However, firefighters eyewitness reports and numerous pictures of the huge volume of smoke pouring out of WTC7 do NOT support the idea that WTC7 was heavily involved in fire. The truthers require SOLID EVIDENCE! Pictures of ACTUAL FLAMES!!

Would you guys be willing to explain why the standard of evidence seems to be different for you than for anyone else?

[DC]

Let me get this straight:

Any reports of any kind of noise support the controlled demolition theory.

However, firefighters eyewitness reports and numerous pictures of the huge volume of smoke pouring out of WTC7 do NOT support the idea that WTC7 was heavily involved in fire. The truthers require SOLID EVIDENCE! Pictures of ACTUAL FLAMES!!

Would you guys be willing to explain why the standard of evidence seems to be different for you than for anyone else?

like JREFers use the same standard for them self and for others.....

[aggle-rithm]

like JREFers use the same standard for them self and for others.....

I'll give you a pass, DC, because I can never figure out what the devil you're talking about.

[mrbaracuda]

you Conspiracy-Deniers
stop it with the lies pls.

I could swear I remember you saying "I'm not a twoofer" a month or two ago.

Jovenko did not only see the video

No, but were other informations shown to him other than one floor plan? In the interview (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3271662324445998224&q=jowenko&ei=QfYiSPWhHIaG2wLDkJC_AQ) he even says "I don't know the construction of the building" [1:25]. At around the 5th minute [5:09] he says "...let's say there were H-profiles", showing he does not know what kind of columns were used in the construction. After being asked "Could this building [WTC7] spontaneously collapse for example because these columns are damaged in this way?" he says "I have absolutely no single picture of the side of those big towers, building number seven" [the translation seems to be pitiful from what I can say as a German; what he says is more akin to "no single picture looking from the sides of the world trade center towers towards building number seven"]. He repeats this and the interviewer agrees they don't have more at the end of the 16th minute [16:55]. Then, at the end of the 8th minute he says after being asked whether or not fire could have had something to do with the collapse he says he can't imagine burning pieces could fly so far, but also "I don't know, it's guessing for me." And so on. In the 11th minute he says (again) "I don't know the building."

when it came to WTC 7 , the expert was pretty sure it was CDed.

There goes your expert. He's pretty sure it's a "CD" after sighting a single level floor plan, the radius the debris spread and some videos of most likely only one side of the building. Not much to base something on, don't you agree?

and the info he was given was NOT biased, because it is actually a ANTI CT docu they made,

So information given in an anti-CT documentary is not biased? Okay. Maybe so. But why then comments from you such as this one:
oc nobody heard it, becuase JREFers know much better what those ppl heard that was there. its so easy, nobody heard explosions and when someone did he must be simply misstaken.....

In any case, what's with this WTC 7 talk anyway? Like I said here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3669415&postcount=180):

Even if WTC 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition, what does it prove? People can bring down buildings with explosives? As fas as I know, the NIST report about WTC 7 is so 'late' because WTC 7 was not of much or any interest for the investigation and not a reason for the war with Afghanistan. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even if this was a controlled demolition, it proves nothing and does not support the NWO crap in any way.

[Drudgewire]

I could swear I remember you saying "I'm not a twoofer" a month or two ago.

We convinced him it was an inside job. It's what we do. :rolleyes:

[Almo]

ROFL

Perhaps putting gumboot on ignore was a mistake lol

Putting anyone on ignore is a mistake.

[Drudgewire]

Putting anyone on ignore is a mistake.

I've currently made 10 of them then. :D

[lapman]

Before collapse
Ph7HzxcLEkI


Before collapse
h0S-vlpU1BE


Before collapse
7XG-l3N1YfQ

Before collapse
vdJTDuYB_h8


Before collapse
cRaNwPGcQcM


before collapse
Ks-3k8-Ac1c
Did anybody else notice that in all of those videos, the penthouses did not collapse into the buildings first or faster than the building section they were on top of?

[lapman]

Were all the explosive noises witnessed caught on tape?
IIRC, there is one video that the twoofers uses as "conclusive proof of explosives" that turned out to be bodies hitting the roof of the WTC lobby area. Funny how that noise could be recorded, but the noise of the explosive sequence couldn't. Go figure. :rolleyes:

[LastChild]

Exactly! Because they weren't nearly as loud as demolition charges. You have debunked yourself!

So how did so many people hear them?

One, and it was so loud it was heard 15 miles away and felt 30 miles away.

You are expert at debunking yourself LC!

Hmmmm… really? Because I thought it was a fertilizer bomb placed outside the building. Fertilizer bombs equate cd charges now? Whataya know? You hear something new from you debunker revisionists everyday around here.

Heard 30 miles away huh? Wow… so where’s the audio of it?

[e^n]

Hmmmm… really? Because I thought it was a fertilizer bomb placed outside the building. Fertilizer bombs equate cd charges now? Whataya know? You hear something new from you debunker revisionists everyday around here.

Heard 30 miles away huh? Wow… so where’s the audio of it?

Fertilizer bombs are considered (as far as I know) to be a primary explosive. They have a peak amplitude lower than secondary explosives which are used in CD charges. They are quieter than CD charges.

edit: Actually it would appear depending on confinement that ANFO can serve as both, you would have to talk to an explosive expert to determine the classification, but in any situation the explosive used in Linear Charges is usually RDX or something similar, a secondary explosive.

Are you really asking for audio of a bomb as proof it existed? How about you find me audio of the 1996 Manchester City Centre bombing. I heard that personally but hey I guess if you can't find audio it never happened!

[lapman]

Hmmmm… really? Because I thought it was a fertilizer bomb placed outside the building. Fertilizer bombs equate cd charges now? Whataya know? You hear something new from you debunker revisionists everyday around here.

Heard 30 miles away huh? Wow… so where’s the audio of it?I don't know. But I bet is souded something like:
5VC1swoNoZo
or
pLncctqEHfA

[e^n]

Both of the above videos are excellent examples of high explosives, notice the extremely short duration and extremely high amplitude of each sound. This is what is missing from videos of the towers and WTC7s collapse. Such sounds are exceptionally loud, the pressure wave alone is capable of causing serious injury to the brain and other vital organs.

Only one sound remotely similar to these has ever been located on video and it is at an indeterminate point after the initial collapse of at least one tower.

[CHF]

LastChild....

It seems like you're providing us with yet another example of a twoofer asking debunkers to do their homework for them.

You are the one who thinks the WTC was a CD, LC.

You are the one who thinks the buildings could not have collapsed from structural damage and fire.

So maybe it's time you figured out how much exploives would be needed to do what you claim was done. Be sure to factor in the "removal of all resistance," the concrete that was "blasted into dust" or the steel beams that were "ejected horizontally by the force of the explosives," or whatever other idiotic CD talking-points you believe.

Once you've figured out the answer then you can start to figure out why the explosives didn't make more of a noise.

Feel free to answer that here or in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113215).

[Almo]

I've currently made 10 of them then. :D

Hmm. I wonder who. Not me apparently. :relieved:

[1337m4n]

LastChild, Dictator Cheney, and theauthor:

Please, watch the video I posted in the OP.

Why didn't THAT happen?

None of you have answered my question. The Landmark Tower demolition was visible AND audible from MILES away.

Here it is again:

79sJ1bMR6VQ

All you have--I repeat, ALL you have--are witness accounts who were right there. But if there was really a controlled demolition, it should have been audible from the distance shown in this video!

All of your witness accounts, I'm afraid, are irrelevant.

Furthermore, you never addressed the fireball that I pointed out in the OP! Where was the fireball visible from that distance?

[Mangoose]

Check out one of the implosion videos that Arus808 mentioned above:

Ph7HzxcLEkI

There are nearby buildings and you can see the reverberations of the exploding charges on buildings across the street, at 0:02-0:03, at 0:58, at 1:25, at 1:32, and at 2:32. The last clip is also interesting because it is a more closeup view of the reverberations and you can see the reactions of people to the sudden loud sounds.

[DC]

LastChild, Dictator Cheney, and theauthor:

Please, watch the video I posted in the OP.

Why didn't THAT happen?

None of you have answered my question. The Landmark Tower demolition was visible AND audible from MILES away.

Here it is again:

79sJ1bMR6VQ

All you have--I repeat, ALL you have--are witness accounts who were right there. But if there was really a controlled demolition, it should have been audible from the distance shown in this video!

All of your witness accounts, I'm afraid, are irrelevant.

Furthermore, you never addressed the fireball that I pointed out in the OP! Where was the fireball visible from that distance?

NOVA: I understand your demolition of the Landmark Hotel served as a backdrop for the movie, "Mars Attack." Do you do a lot of movie work?

:eek:

[DC]

but CD's are normaly pretty loud, thats true.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa6z41EOt4o

[DC]

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=txGeTAsIrnE&NR=1

[johnny karate]

DC, you're terrible at this.

First of all, that first video you linked? It was a failed controlled demolition. It failed because all of the charges did not go off. And the one charge that did go off was still very loud and distinctive.

Your second video also featured two very loud and distinctive detonation charges that were heard and recorded from a considerable distance.

Keep searching Youtube, sparky. I'm sure something will turn up.

[DC]

DC, you're terrible at this.

First of all, that first video you linked? It was a failed controlled demolition. It failed because all of the charges did not go off. And the one charge that did go off was still very loud and distinctive.

Your second video also featured two very loud and distinctive detonation charges that were heard and recorded from a considerable distance.

Keep searching Youtube, sparky. I'm sure something will turn up.

what does, pretty loud mean?

and i found much louder ones

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=VFJ-YFuxM7o&feature=related

with nice big squibs

[johnny karate]

what does, pretty loud mean?

Which word don't you understand? I'm not going to play semantic games with you just because you're in denial about what those videos demonstrate.

and i found much louder ones

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=VFJ-YFuxM7o&feature=related

with nice big squibs

That doesn't really help your case. You're trying to find examples of controlled demolitions that aren't loud and distinctive.

[Evilgiraffe]

It's not entirely clear what DC's trying to prove.
It almost looks as though he's just here to troll.

[DC]

Which word don't you understand? I'm not going to play semantic games with you just because you're in denial about what those videos demonstrate.



That doesn't really help your case. You're trying to find examples of controlled demolitions that aren't loud and distinctive.

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

[johnny karate]

Your concession is noted. Feel free to run away from this thread now.

[lapman]

what does, pretty loud mean?

and i found much louder ones

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=VFJ-YFuxM7o&feature=related

with nice big squibs
Wow, so the best you can do to find a "silent" CD is one that the sound of the explosives was replaced by a music track. Not very good for your case. Oh, and Johnny, in the failed demo, they were trying to topple the structure. However, the unblasted supports could not handle the extra weight. Kinda like what happened with WTC 7 when 1 of the 3 main supports failed or in the towers when many of the columns failed.

[mrbaracuda]

I'm sad to see no twoofer's taken on my post!

[lapman]

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
Thank you for conclusively proving our point by posting the last portion of the collapse that is completely devoid of any explosive sequence that is in the other videos. So you have now proved beyond a shadow of doubt that WTC 7 was not a CD.

[DC]

Wow, so the best you can do to find a "silent" CD is one that the sound of the explosives was replaced by a music track. Not very good for your case. Oh, and Johnny, in the failed demo, they were trying to topple the structure. However, the unblasted supports could not handle the extra weight. Kinda like what happened with WTC 7 when 1 of the 3 main supports failed or in the towers when many of the columns failed.

you should have watched the complete video.

wich columns exactly initiated the WTC7 collapse according to you?

[lapman]

you should have watched the complete video.

wich columns exactly initiated the WTC7 collapse according to you?
I have watched the complete video. You hear the building collapse and then a relative silence. No explosive sequence at all. The support below the east penthouse is what collapsed. That's obvious by the east penthouse collapsing into the building. Now, can you provide proof that the remaining supports would have been able to support the added weight, especially after being exposed to heat for 7 hours?

[1337m4n]

NOVA: I understand your demolition of the Landmark Hotel served as a backdrop for the movie, "Mars Attack." Do you do a lot of movie work?

http://iputatextonimage.com/wp-content/lol-huh.jpg

[1337m4n]

It's not entirely clear what DC's trying to prove.
It almost looks as though he's just here to troll.

I could be mistaken, but it almost looks like he's agreeing with me.

Not that there's anything wrong with that :D (after all I was trying to be persuasive). I just find it unusual.

[DC]

I have watched the complete video. You hear the building collapse and then a relative silence. No explosive sequence at all. The support below the east penthouse is what collapsed. That's obvious by the east penthouse collapsing into the building. Now, can you provide proof that the remaining supports would have been able to support the added weight, especially after being exposed to heat for 7 hours?

wich colums did support that penthouse? and on what floor the gave away?

[johnny karate]

wich colums did support that penthouse? and on what floor the gave away?

FYI: Just because you ask an average person a technical question that they might not have the expertise or knowledge to answer, doesn't automatically render your version of events correct.

You still have to provide evidence of your own, which you struggled to do in this thread, failed to do so, and then simply ignored and deflected the issue by asking nonsensical questions.

And how is that Youtube search going? Find a "silent" controlled demolition yet? No? Well, keep at it. I'm sure it's out there.

[gumboot]

:dl:

[Slayhamlet]

DC, you're terrible at this.

First of all, that first video you linked? It was a failed controlled demolition. It failed because all of the charges did not go off. And the one charge that did go off was still very loud and distinctive.

Your second video also featured two very loud and distinctive detonation charges that were heard and recorded from a considerable distance.

Keep searching Youtube, sparky. I'm sure something will turn up.

The second video was also poorly recorded. The volume was so low you can only faintly hear the people yelling right next to the camera.

[theauthor]

FYI: Just because you ask an average person a technical question that they might not have the expertise or knowledge to answer, doesn't automatically render your version of events correct.

You still have to provide evidence of your own, which you struggled to do in this thread, failed to do so, and then simply ignored and deflected the issue by asking nonsensical questions.

And how is that Youtube search going? Find a "silent" controlled demolition yet? No? Well, keep at it. I'm sure it's out there.


The controlled demolition of building 6 was pretty quiet.

[gumboot]

The controlled demolition of building 6 was pretty quiet.



Building 6 was pulled down with cables, as were all buildings in the WTC complex. The demolition contractor (Controlled Demolition Inc.) ruled out using explosives because the buildings were so badly damaged and because they didn't want to rupture the slurry wall.

[DarkMagician]

The controlled demolition of building 6 was pretty quiet.

That's because, as has been noted, that building was demolished by attaching and pulling cables. Unless you want to argue one or more of the buildings that fell that day were pulled down by this method instead, this is not helping your argument.

If you want to argue that at least one of WTC 1, 2, or 7 were taken down by cables, you're going to have more problems.

[e^n]

wich colums did support that penthouse? and on what floor the gave away?

The East Mechanical Penthouse was supported by columns #76-81. NISTs preliminary theory proposes a failure of column #79 at or below floor 15. The exact location of the failure is unknown but may be more accurately determined in NISTs final report.

edit:
the buildings were so badly damaged
It should be noted this was for the safety of those setting charges, rather than technical difficulty. Regardless it's entirely plausible that cables were in fact an easier proposition than setting charges.

[LastChild]

How are all the witnesses to explosions on 9/11 still concealed from the duh duh duh bunkas?

Maybe it's all the sand in the duh bunkas ears they get when they bury their heads?

[e^n]

How are all the witnesses to explosions on 9/11 still concealed from the duh duh duh bunkas?

Maybe it's all the sand in the duh bunkas ears they get when they bury their heads?

It would appear you are committing suicide by moderator action. It is a pity that even the more vocal and eloquent of the truth movement eventually resort to such petty insults.

I will not be sad to see you go. RedIbis is a much more interesting personality.

[pomeroo]

theauthor proves that he doesn't undersand what Demolition sound like. It wouldn't be just "one" clap of thunder. IT would A SUCCESSION of MANY explosions.

Again, theautbhor REFER to ALL the videos on Controlle demolition, there is one thing similar in all of them

THE MANY MANY MANY SOUNDS OF EXPLOSIONS, ALL HAPPENING IN SUCCESSION!


none of that were heard on 9/11/2001


I don't know how many times I've asked this question, but I have never received a response--any sort of response.

A controlled demolition does not involve random blasts at random intervals. There would be a thunderous series of explosions, going off almost simultaneously. The liars simply avoid the issue entirely.

[pomeroo]

you should have watched the complete video.

wich columns exactly initiated the WTC7 collapse according to you?


Just a reminder:

http://scheuermanwtc7paper.googlepages.com/homehttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.29/t.gif (http://scheuermanwtc7paper.googlepages.com/home)

[pomeroo]

How are all the witnesses to explosions on 9/11 still concealed from the duh duh duh bunkas?

Maybe it's all the sand in the duh bunkas ears they get when they bury their heads?


After you tell us who heard that simultaneous series of explosions characteristic of controlled demolitions, you can return your head to whatever substance you store it in.

[theauthor]

It would appear you are committing suicide by moderator action. It is a pity that even the more vocal and eloquent of the truth movement eventually resort to such petty insults.

I will not be sad to see you go. RedIbis is a much more interesting personality.


He can say what he likes about the group of people known as duhbunkers. He isnt attacking anyone personally. Unless you think we should be reporting all instances of "trooofers" being generically attacked.

[Evilgiraffe]

I could be mistaken, but it almost looks like he's agreeing with me.

Not that there's anything wrong with that :D (after all I was trying to be persuasive). I just find it unusual.

It could be part of a new truther strategy, spearheaded by Jones, to emphasise which parts of the official narrative they agree with.

It certainly beats trying to win the argument on points they disagree with.... Or does it look like surrender?

[DC]

Just a reminder:

http://scheuermanwtc7paper.googlepages.com/homehttp://i.ixnp.com/images/v3.29/t.gif (http://scheuermanwtc7paper.googlepages.com/home)

i hope NIST will present theyr thesis more detailed than Arthur did :)

[johnny karate]

DC, how's the search for "silent" controlled demolitions going? Or have you given up that futile enterprise to spare yourself further embarrassment?

[Arus808]

and why has theauthor still not addressed the series of successive explosions that are heard before a collapse in a normal controlled demolition? why has he ignored this?

[DC]

DC, how's the search for "silent" controlled demolitions going? Or have you given up that futile enterprise to spare yourself further embarrassment?

when did i search for silent CD's? i posted CD's all with loud sound, even the one first with music, has later huge explosions that almost blew up my subwoofer.

[johnny karate]

when did i search for silent CD's? i posted CD's all with loud sound, even the one first with music, has later huge explosions that almost blew up my subwoofer.

Oh, I see. Just helping the cause then? It's good to see you're onboard with the idea that controlled demolitions yield very loud and distinctive explosions, none of which were present on 9/11.

[Corsair 115]

How are all the witnesses to explosions on 9/11 still concealed from the duh duh duh bunkas?Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of similies. People were quoted as saying they heard things which sounded like explosions. That does not mean what they heard was, in fact, explosives detonating. It's rather like how a handgun firing is sometimes described as sounding like a car backfiring.

In any case, it was demolition via explosive charges then those charges go off before the building collapses, not during the collapse. Also, demoliton charges are extraordinarily LOUD. Just about everyone in Manhattan would have heard demolition charges going off, and certainly every working camera microphone in the area would have easily recorded such sounds. No one would have missed or confused such distinctive sounds.

Then there's the fact that powerful explosives produce flashes of light and a significant blast wave. Curiously, neither of those unalterable physical effects of powerful explosives are present on any video of the collapses.

But I expect the above will not dissuade you from clinging to your notions of conspiracy...

[DC]

Oh, I see. Just helping the cause then? It's good to see you're onboard with the idea that controlled demolitions yield very loud and distinctive explosions, none of which were present on 9/11.

i agree that normaly a CD with explosives is very noisy. you can do it relatively silent with concrete, and maybe it can be done silent with steel buildings, when using therm?te linear cutters.

on the other hand, several ppl did report loud explosions.

[Confuseling]

That's just it though, isn't it?

Several people. How many people do you think were in the area? Got to have been multiple thousands within audio range, surely?

Which seems to leave you with thermite, and let's face it, that's not an elegant solution.

[DC]

when those thermite devices work, it is a very elegant and silent way to demolish.

[Confuseling]

The same could be said of fusion powered lasers.

[johnny karate]

i agree that normaly a CD with explosives is very noisy. you can do it relatively silent with concrete, and maybe it can be done silent with steel buildings, when using therm?te linear cutters.

So which was it? Explosives or thermite?

on the other hand, several ppl did report loud explosions.

None of which were consistent with a controlled demolition. Better stick with thermite. Oh wait... you don't have any evidence of that either.

[johnny karate]

when those thermite devices work, it is a very elegant and silent way to demolish.

Another classic from the Truther Playbook:

"Has your ridiculous assertion that the towers collapsed via controlled demolition been laughed away due to a staggering lack of evidence?

Tell 'em it was thermite!"

DC, now I remember why I usually ignore you.

[Disbelief]

and why has theauthor still not addressed the series of successive explosions that are heard before a collapse in a normal controlled demolition? why has he ignored this?

For the same reason he refuses to answer this:


So, you need a photo of the wtc7 inferno, because the eyewitness testimony of many firefighters is not enough, but you will take the testimony of Bartmer without audio evidence of CD blasts? Why the inconsistency?

Brought up again by aggle-rithm

Let me get this straight:

Any reports of any kind of noise support the controlled demolition theory.

However, firefighters eyewitness reports and numerous pictures of the huge volume of smoke pouring out of WTC7 do NOT support the idea that WTC7 was heavily involved in fire. The truthers require SOLID EVIDENCE! Pictures of ACTUAL FLAMES!!

Would you guys be willing to explain why the standard of evidence seems to be different for you than for anyone else?

Also the same reason he/she runs away from hard questions in other threads.

[WildCat]

when those thermite devices work, it is a very elegant and silent way to demolish.
What thermite devices? Do you have an example of a building demolished with "silent and elegant" thermite linear cutters (whatever the hell those are)?

[adoucette]

when those thermite devices work, it is a very elegant and silent way to demolish.

Really?

Please provide a link to an example of where they have ever been used in a CD.

Clearly what we have here is people who have jumped to a conclusion and are now stumbling around trying to find evidence to support it. What takes it into Wooland is their amazing ability to discount all the evidence that shows their initial conclusion was wrong.

[DC]

when i would have an example of a demolition with Therm?te, i would KNOW that they work :)

[DC]

mmmh i guess "When they work" means in english, "they sure work" ......

[DC]

NIST also jumped to a conclusion. initiated collapse = global collapse.
and also they jumped to the conclusion that impact damage and fires alone initiated collapse.

[CHF]

Another classic from the Truther Playbook:

"Has your ridiculous assertion that the towers collapsed via controlled demolition been laughed away due to a staggering lack of evidence?

Tell 'em it was thermite!"

Know what's really funny?

Even when the thermite card is played they usually still cling to all the CD talking-points like "blasted into dust," "ejected beams horizontally," and "explosions."

[Alferd_Packer]

From one of the firemen who was in WTC 1 whe n WTC 2 collapsed.
A few seconds after we got all our gear off, the building shook violently, damn near knocked you off your feet. You could hear a faint sound of a rumble. It wasn't loud, it was just a very faint rumbling sound. It lasted maybe about four seconds and then it got quiet and the lighting went out and the emergency lighting came on. The radios were completely quiet.

Then we heard this sound, this boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. I'm like what the hell is that? It was four ESU cops coming down the stairs and they weren't even touching the tread. They were going from landing to landing. We had to put our backs up against the wall to get out of the way.


The ESU police did it!!!

[Furi]

Hadn't someone calculated the approximate amount of explosive required to yield the structural collapse, I was just wondering what energy level would be required, and given the approximate speed of detonation we could calculate the peak over pressure and short range audible distance.

This would not include the propogation of the wave when it 'loses coherance' (err don't know the technical word for it) ie stops being a CRACK - (shock pause) - BOOM and Becomes a CRACKERKERKERKEKRBOOOOOORUUUUUUUUUMBLLLLLE, which is audible for One hell of a disFORKtance further than the distinct sound. (I don't just mean from reflection and tranducted sound, but where the blastfront peters out and the audio front catches up to it)

ETA - I mean when the shockwave degenerates into a sound wave IIRC it is a -cubic intensity/square distance function but brain no worky to well at demomo, in need of alcohol. will prob go and read up my fluid dynamics again, I will do so however when I want to (not for a random fundy)

Have any CD flavoured truthers ever had the misfortune to be near a lightning ground strike (within say 100m (sub 1 second if you are a flash and count type person)) compared with one say a 1.4km away (around 4 seconds)) they are very different types of sound, in some cases the sound can be louder the further away you are due to prolonged nature of the sound against just a painful shattering blast.

Have any of them ever been even to a small demolition, or a quarry, A tank show, played with simfire units, fired a shot gun, made pipe bombs or even anything to do with bloody explosives, and listened to them without LALALADigits in ears or idiot muffs on.

A commercial High Explosive (Not your subcrit or sosound combustible Black powders or Hmex) are more than loud, the difference in the intensity versus payload in the two is HOOOge, and would have been audible over the actual collapse over a much larger area,

Advice to the CD crowd go find an active quarry (you have net access or you wouldn't be a troother (never met one yet without net access)), ask if they do blasting do they allow public spectators to come and watch, if they do expect to be placed quite a distance away indeed if they do, and possibly made to wear ear protectors

[adoucette]

NIST also jumped to a conclusion. initiated collapse = global collapse.
and also they jumped to the conclusion that impact damage and fires alone initiated collapse.

Years of intense work dedicated to determining how the event unfolded is not the same as jumping to a conclusion.

And while I think it was from an educated perspective about the events of the day upon the as built structures, regardless of how they reached their conclusion, in the years since the report has been out, no one has shown either conclusion to be wrong.

[aggle-rithm]

Truthers use thermite the way other woos use Quantum Mechanics -- they have no idea what it is or how it works, but they believe it has magical qualities that can make the most stubborn flaws in their belief system melt away...

[Confuseling]

I've taken to calling it Quantum Visa Electron Dynamics.

As in: "Luminous beings we are, hmm? Could you sign here please. Not this crude matter! And the date please."

[jhunter1163]

Have any CD flavoured truthers ever had the misfortune to be near a lightning ground strike (within say 100m (sub 1 second if you are a flash and count type person)) compared with one say a 1.4km away (around 4 seconds)) they are very different types of sound, in some cases the sound can be louder the further away you are due to prolonged nature of the sound against just a painful shattering blast.


I've been within 50 feet (15m or so) of a lightning strike, and I assure you that it's a very, very different type of sound indeed. I don't agree that it would be louder (that was no doubt the loudest sound I ever heard) but it was a BOOM! sound, not the drawn-out rumble one usually associates with thunder.

[CHF]

Hadn't someone calculated the approximate amount of explosive required to yield the structural collapse, I was just wondering what energy level would be required, and given the approximate speed of detonation we could calculate the peak over pressure and short range audible distance.

I've been trying to prod the twoofers in that direction by first seeking to establish what exactly they think the CD charges did (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113215). From there we can figure out how much explosives would be needed.

So far three twoofers have responded: LastChild and theauthor refuse to answer the question while Dictator Cheney hasn't decided what he thinks happened.

[DC]

Years of intense work dedicated to determining how the event unfolded is not the same as jumping to a conclusion.

And while I think it was from an educated perspective about the events of the day upon the as built structures, regardless of how they reached their conclusion, in the years since the report has been out, no one has shown either conclusion to be wrong.

when you take a look in what steel NIST was interested, you can clearly see they already jumped to a conclusion very very early.

and still i do consider NIST the best avaible source for information.

[Furi]

I've been within 50 feet (15m or so) of a lightning strike, and I assure you that it's a very, very different type of sound indeed. I don't agree that it would be louder (that was no doubt the loudest sound I ever heard) but it was a BOOM! sound, not the drawn-out rumble one usually associates with thunder.

It's fun isnt it :D (in a EEEK! sort of way)

I agree it is an Ear splittingly, pube tingling, Sphincter factor 9, experience, I think I missed a "Seems" out to denote more the ability to pick up the prolonged Bass at volume and record it as a sound, rather than the "[Rule10]ing [Rule10]! what the [Rule10] was [Rule10] [Rule10] [Rule10]?, [Rule10] me!" sort of shock effect where the adrenaline injection is enough to make your hair sparkle more than the static.

[Mangoose]

Anyone from New York knows the approximate location of the Naudet footage of the collapse, that is, how many blocks away they were when it happened? I think they were at a firehouse at the time. But you can hear SOME noise from the collapse in that footage; no distinct reports from explosives but just a general noise of the collapse. Since the detonation of explosives would have been much louder than the sound of the collapse itself, the absence here is very significant.

I have been to two implosions myself, and the closest I got was three blocks away and I most definitely felt the shockwave of the BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM. I am certain that the reports would have been heard at four times the distance, if not more.

[adoucette]

when you take a look in what steel NIST was interested, you can clearly see they already jumped to a conclusion very very early.

Collection of steel samples began in Oct of 2001 and ended in Oct 2002.

The NIST project didn't start until Aug 2002.

However, as NIST points out the collection done primarily by FEMA/Building Performance Assessment Team (supported by a large number of professional engineer volunteers) and their instructions included "Any pieces that in the engineer's professional opinion might be useful."

Doesn't sound like that instruction means they are doing a closed search.

[jhunter1163]

It's fun isnt it :D (in a EEEK! sort of way)

I agree it is an Ear splittingly, pube tingling, Sphincter factor 9, experience, I think I missed a "Seems" out to denote more the ability to pick up the prolonged Bass at volume and record it as a sound, rather than the "[Rule10]ing [Rule10]! what the [Rule10] was [Rule10] [Rule10] [Rule10]?, [Rule10] me!" sort of shock effect where the adrenaline injection is enough to make your hair sparkle more than the static.

It was one hell of an adrenaline rush, once I realized that I wasn't dead.

[BigAl]

Hadn't someone calculated the approximate amount of explosive required to yield the structural collapse, I was just wondering what energy level would be required, and given the approximate speed of detonation we could calculate the peak over pressure and short range audible distance.


The 1993 blast was roughly equal to 1,000 pounds of TNT and located several floors below street level. It was was was heard inside most of the WTC complex buildings. I can't find a news report to confirm it, but a friend was a long block away at the time and he said he heard the blast. It would have taken several (many?) of these charges to bring down one tower in any way similar to the way it happened.

In 2001, any similar blast would have been caught on the sound track of every video camera in operation.

IMO, most CD proponents are unaware of just how big the towers were and how massive the resulting structural elements were compared to those in any other man-made demolition.

[DC]

Collection of steel samples began in Oct of 2001 and ended in Oct 2002.

The NIST project didn't start until Aug 2002.

However, as NIST points out the collection done primarily by FEMA/Building Performance Assessment Team (supported by a large number of professional engineer volunteers) and their instructions included "Any pieces that in the engineer's professional opinion might be useful."

Doesn't sound like that instruction means they are doing a closed search.

and what steel from what floors did they investigate closer?

[adoucette]

and what steel from what floors did they investigate closer?
They tested steel from all levels but clearly they performed the most testing on the samples they had from the Fire/Impact floors.

Makes sense, since those floors were CLEARLY where the planes impacted, the fires evolved and the collapses initiated.

So looking there is NOT jumping to a conclusion.

[aggle-rithm]

They tested steel from all levels but clearly they performed the most testing on the samples they had from the Fire/Impact floors.

Makes sense, since those floors were CLEARLY where the planes impacted, the fires evolved and the collapses initiated.

So looking there is NOT jumping to a conclusion.

It's POSSIBLE that there were explosives set off in different parts of the building. However, since no effects from these explosives were observed, it's safe to say that they weren't a factor in the collapse.

It also does not detract from the culpability of the people who plotted to fly planes into buildings.

If you look carefully at the "evidence" presented by the truthers, it all has a common purpose: To link someone within the US to the 9/11 attacks. It would not have a realistic purpose in terms of committing the actual crime -- only in implicating someone's preferred suspects.

[A W Smith]

I could swear I remember you saying "I'm not a twoofer" a month or two ago.



No, but were other informations shown to him other than one floor plan? In the interview (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3271662324445998224&q=jowenko&ei=QfYiSPWhHIaG2wLDkJC_AQ) he even says "I don't know the construction of the building" [1:25]. At around the 5th minute [5:09] he says "...let's say there were H-profiles", showing he does not know what kind of columns were used in the construction. After being asked "Could this building [WTC7] spontaneously collapse for example because these columns are damaged in this way?" he says "I have absolutely no single picture of the side of those big towers, building number seven" [the translation seems to be pitiful from what I can say as a German; what he says is more akin to "no single picture looking from the sides of the world trade center towers towards building number seven"]. He repeats this and the interviewer agrees they don't have more at the end of the 16th minute [16:55]. Then, at the end of the 8th minute he says after being asked whether or not fire could have had something to do with the collapse he says he can't imagine burning pieces could fly so far, but also "I don't know, it's guessing for me." And so on. In the 11th minute he says (again) "I don't know the building."



There goes your expert. He's pretty sure it's a "CD" after sighting a single level floor plan, the radius the debris spread and some videos of most likely only one side of the building. Not much to base something on, don't you agree?



So information given in an anti-CT documentary is not biased? Okay. Maybe so. But why then comments from you such as this one:


In any case, what's with this WTC 7 talk anyway? Like I said here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3669415&postcount=180):

take a look at these column profiles. How could you access the web of the column without torching off the plates?


http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/bld7nistcolumns.jpg


now lets talk about thermal expansion. The column to the right in particular. what would happen to the web of that column if the built up plates began to expand due to exposure to fires? with the web being insulated from the fire by the air space between the web and the filler plates. Could the column split or fracture at the intersection of the flange and web?

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Perhaps there are "silencers" for explosives to create quiet detonations. I can't believe the NWO didn't send out a memo regarding this.:pWe did but some never got it.

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

Did no one claim to hear any explosions?

We have been over this before.
This twoofer claimed that ALL camcorders that people were using during 9-11 had their noise filter ON and AUTOMATICALLY when they were recording.
I asked him to provide with such evidence and he linked me to an european camcorder with noise reduction.
We the members of the NWO are sending him again on another vacation, all expenses paid in full.

[gumboot]

Anyone from New York knows the approximate location of the Naudet footage of the collapse, that is, how many blocks away they were when it happened?


Which collapse?

Jules was in the lobby of WTC1 when WTC2 collapsed and Gideon was at the Firehouse.

When WTC1 collapsed Jules was about a block away and Gideon was a little further away.

When WTC7 collapsed they were both at the firehouse and didn't catch it on camera.

[gumboot]

The 1993 blast was roughly equal to 1,000 pounds of TNT and located several floors below street level. It was was was heard inside most of the WTC complex buildings. I can't find a news report to confirm it, but a friend was a long block away at the time and he said he heard the blast.



One particular office worker in the towers initially thought an aircraft had hit the building, ironically enough.

Also to consider, the Oklahoma City Bombing was felt (let alone heard) 55 miles away.

[Mangoose]

gumboot: So the footage of the WTC7 collapse in the CBS "9/11" video wasn't filmed by the Naudets? Interesting ... I didn't know that.

[gumboot]

gumboot: So the footage of the WTC7 collapse in the CBS "9/11" video wasn't filmed by the Naudets? Interesting ... I didn't know that.


No, the documentary "9/11" by the Naudet brothers includes quite a lot of footage from other sources.

[mrbaracuda]

Could the column split or fracture at the intersection of the flange and web?

I don't know why you're asking me, but where's the intersection of the flange and web to be found? Is it those little black parts? :confused:

[aggle-rithm]

No, the documentary "9/11" by the Naudet brothers includes quite a lot of footage from other sources.

For which I'm sure they didn't forget to ask permission...

[A W Smith]

I don't know why you're asking me, but where's the intersection of the flange and web to be found? Is it those little black parts? :confused:

I was using your post because it quoted Jowenko. I was asking CTs in general in this thread. not you, the flange is the thicker blue part in the cross section. Te web is the skinny blue part in the cross section

[ryanebelhar]

Also to consider, the Oklahoma City Bombing was felt (let alone heard) 55 miles away.

Yup. I have a friend that was several miles away at the time of the blast. It knocked her down and shattered the windows of the gas station she was at.

[pomeroo]

NIST also jumped to a conclusion. initiated collapse = global collapse.
and also they jumped to the conclusion that impact damage and fires alone initiated collapse.



A THOUSAND serious researchers--structural engineers, fire safety specialists, physicists, metallurgists--worked for almost four years to produce TEN THOUSAND pages of analysis, graphs, simulations, tables, diagrams, etc., and they JUMPED TO A CONCLUSION????

Do you people shovel this stuff without laughing out loud?

[twinstead]

A THOUSAND serious researchers--structural engineers, fire safety specialists, physicists, metallurgists--worked for almost four years to produce TEN THOUSAND pages of analysis, graphs, simulations, tables, diagrams, etc., and they JUMPED TO A CONCLUSION????



You've just opened the floodgates to the standard truther response to your statement:

Oh yea? What serous researchers--what engineers, what fire safety specialists, what physicists, what metallurgists? What did each of them say? Do you have any direct quotes from them? How do we know they REALLY support the official story?

See. Around and around it goes. It obviously makes NO difference who one is, no matter how qualified one is, no matter what evidence is presented, nothing could ever change their minds about anything that happened on 911.

[DC]

A THOUSAND serious researchers--structural engineers, fire safety specialists, physicists, metallurgists--worked for almost four years to produce TEN THOUSAND pages of analysis, graphs, simulations, tables, diagrams, etc., and they JUMPED TO A CONCLUSION????

Do you people shovel this stuff without laughing out loud?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

[twinstead]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

Here's a better page for you, DC:

http://wtc.nist.gov/contacts/

Email these folks and tell them they have no idea what they're talking about.

[DarkMagician]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/

And you post a list of the project heads and special positions.

Didn't all the "Project Leader"s and "Co-Project Leader"s wave a red flag before you posted the link?

[DC]

post a list of those 1000 NIST scientists that worked on WTC 1 and 2 and i stand corrected :)

[twinstead]

Cheney why don't you simply explain why so many of these experts disagree with you instead of playing the ridiculous little game that I properly predicted in my post 193 above. Do your own research. If the opposing side to your argument has lots of very qualified people who support it one would think you would be the one finding out who they are, because if they indeed exist you must ask yourself WHY.

So, let's just replace thousands with 'lots and lots of really qualified people from around the world' and go from there. Do you know something they don't?

[DC]

well i know where to find a list of those ppl. in the NIST report. but somehow it was nowhere near 1000, or i must have missed that part of the NIST report. So before i going to claim that Pomeroo once again is caught lieng. i would have hoped you can post me a list of those 1000 NIST WTC investigators.
maybe the number is correct. i just missed that part of the NIST report.

[lapman]

DC, I'm still waiting for you to post a video of a CD that was done before or since 9/11 that did not record the sound of the explosives. Not some video that has a sound track replacing the audio track of the raw video or has the audio removed or muted. A video where you hear the people around talking and reacting to the demo that is reasonably close and no sound of the CD explosives on it. I hope that makes it very clear what I expect from you. It's time for you to adhere to the level of standards that you expect from us.

[Furi]

post a list of those 1000 NIST scientists that worked on WTC 1 and 2 and i stand corrected :)

You could always contact some of the project heads in a friendly manner and ask How many people worked on the Structural Analysis/Fire Propagation etc parts of the report,

Or you could email the General Media contact and ask if there is a list of those individuals. You do have net access I take it, or if all else fails you could write them a nice letter, sometimes the old ways yield nicer results.

You could say it is for research or whatever word you wish to use when you find out those little details (facts) to back up your thoughts and assumptions (accusations). I would recommend that you do not Go off on one in the Email/Letter otherwise I might get a phone call in the middle of the night to steal occasional socks or premerturely curdle your milk Walk slowly infront of you dressed as a fat elderly lass on a narrow path (I get all the cruddy NWO jobs, they have to be done but when do I get to remote detonate peoples heads, 'tsnot fair *pout*)

[johnny karate]

DC, I'm still waiting for you to post a video of a CD that was done before or since 9/11 that did not record the sound of the explosives. Not some video that has a sound track replacing the audio track of the raw video or has the audio removed or muted. A video where you hear the people around talking and reacting to the demo that is reasonably close and no sound of the CD explosives on it. I hope that makes it very clear what I expect from you. It's time for you to adhere to the level of standards that you expect from us.

Yeah, he's moved on to "thermite" now, so don't hold your breath. Just wait a month or so once this and other related threads have died down, and he'll be claiming explosives again. It's the Circle of Truth!

[Furi]

Yeah, he's moved on to "thermite" now, so don't hold your breath. Just wait a month or so once this and other related threads have died down, and he'll be claiming explosives again. It's the Circle of Truth!

This 'ere Truth Ring Road we are merrily pootling along, before we get back to thermite are we going to be stopping soon at " ~ Space Beams ~", home of Judy's Noodles and Gentlemans Club , or do you think we'll be heading straight to the MicroNuke Bar and Grilll, as I am bustin for a slash, and getting a bit of a thirst on.

Maybe This time we won't miss any the multiple exits with big illuminated signs flashing

<--- <--- <--- <--- <--- <--- <--- <--- <--- <
LITTLE RATIONALITY UPON BRAIN
Every Right Turn
<--- <--- <--- <--- <--- <--- <--- <--- <--- <


this time 'round.