[Split Thread] 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse? [Archive]

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 11:10 AM

Thread split from "experiment to test for eutectic reaction" thread here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=180570).

15 years of firefighting experience, and a masters in Fire Science. I have written 4 PROPER peer reviewed papers in my field of study.

So, if WTC7 was a CD, show me another CD that looks like it, and also sounds like it. I'll wait.No two CD's are exactly the same. WTC 7 looks like a CD to anyone not in denial. It fell straight down at free fall acceleration for 100 feet and then a little to one side. All the video recordings were made several blocks away using directional mikes that are set to filter out low frequencies. This video examines one video clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=player_embedded

The phone call explosion and video clip saying "And then we heard another explosion" were not at the time of the WTC 7 collapse. They are included to demonstrate that there were explosions going on.

uke2se

25th July 2010, 11:29 AM

No two CD's are exactly the same.

He didn't ask for a CD looking exactly the same. He asked for a CD that looks like the collapse of WTC7. You should be able to provide one as your next sentence is:

WTC 7 looks like a CD to anyone not in denial.

I would alter your baseless assertion here to be a bit more accurate:

WTC 7 looks like a CD to people who wants it to be a CD, and who have no training in controlled demolitions.

It fell straight down at free fall acceleration for 100 feet and then a little to one side.

So, it didn't fall straight down then?

Also, it didn't all at free fall acceleration. That's simply a lie made up by desperate truthers.

The phone call explosion and video clip saying "And then we heard another explosion" were not at the time of the WTC 7 collapse. They are included to demonstrate that there were explosions going on.

Or that people heard loud bangs and mistook them for explosions, you know, like a big load of debris falling on city streets, or a building collapsing.

alienentity

25th July 2010, 11:58 AM

No two CD's are exactly the same. WTC 7 looks like a CD to anyone not in denial. It fell straight down at free fall acceleration for 100 feet and then a little to one side. All the video recordings were made several blocks away using directional mikes that are set to filter out low frequencies. This video examines one video clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=player_embedded

The phone call explosion and video clip saying "And then we heard another explosion" were not at the time of the WTC 7 collapse. They are included to demonstrate that there were explosions going on.

Just curious to see what kind of claptrap C7 was peddling today. Good grief!

Firstly, Chandler has messed with the EQ to accentuate certain frequencies, and C7 tries to claim that the microphone was too directional to pick up high explosive shockwaves that would have resonated at extremely high SPL's.

Nevermind that his claim isn't backed up by any evidence whatsoever (what's new with truther claims? They can just make stuff up and believe it to be true!)

If you listen to the unfiltered video of Ashley Bamfield, you will hear:

Traffic noise
What appears to be a police whistle

ie: fairly low-level ambient noise.

The sound of WTC7 falling is there, but not loud. It is basically a steady-state rumble.

Now, supposing C7 were correct, and there were a series of extremely loud high explosive pressure waves. Look to Ms. Bamfield, her subject, or anyone else in the video and see if they appear to even flinch from them.

Answer: NO

Strangely, even though the huge explosions are not heard, what we do hear is the sound of the crowd screaming and moaning at the spectacle.

Now - contrast with any (and I mean any) video of an explosive controlled demolition on youtube which has sound and video, and you will quickly see that WTC7 was NOT an explosive controlled demolition.

You will quickly see that C7 and David Chandler are yet again manufacturing something that just didn't happen, and for which there is no evidence. They are both charlatans, for the same reasons.
Luckily for us, these are among the best arguments coming from 9/11 Truth - meaning that 9/11 Truth is a dead dog. Really. Dead.

O-WZpXiEKAo&videos=GZp6O5IWMT0

ETA couldn't resist this whopper 'WTC 7 looks like a CD to anyone not in denial'. Uhuh. Where are the CD explosions at the time of collapse then? M.I.A.; the high-velocity flashes and squibs on the perimeters? M.I.A.; The evidence of cutter charges on the steel? M.I.A.

Yup, there's a lot of denial going on all right. We deny your right to just make stuff up with no evidence, and to lie and misrepresent the truth. Yes, you are denied that privilege.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 12:32 PM

WTC 7 looks like a CD to anyone not in denial.
WTC 7 looks like a CD to people who wants it to be a CD, and who have no training in controlled demolitions. You are in denial.

Also, it didn't all at free fall acceleration. That's simply a lie made up by desperate truthers.This only proves that you will deny anything that proves CD. :D

Or that people heard loud bangs and mistook them for explosions, you know, like a big load of debris falling on city streets, or a building collapsing.Of course dear. Explosions are NEVER caused by explosives.

uke2se

25th July 2010, 12:39 PM

You are in denial.

No, but it's obvious that's you're pretty gullible. :D

This only proves that you will deny anything that proves CD. :D

No, it proves that I am able to think for myself and do my own research, as opposed to you who just parrot anything said on nutty truther sites.

Of course dear. Explosions are NEVER caused by explosives.

Are you deliberately lying about what I said or do you really have this poor a reading comprehension?

I notice that you've stopped attempting to come up with arguments and instead resorted to retarded trolling. Good for you. It's a step up.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 12:43 PM

Firstly, Chandler has messed with the EQ to accentuate certain frequencies, and C7 tries to claim that the microphone was too directional to pick up high explosive shockwaves that would have resonated at extremely high SPL's.You have no idea what kind of explosives were used or how loud they would be so stop pretending that you do. There are sounds of explosions on the recording. The give away is the way Ashley turned around suddenly. You will deny this as you deny anything that counters the denier mantra "where is the boom". The booms are there, however faintly. You know that reporters mics are directional and set to pick up only what is a few inches away but you pretend that you don't.

uke2se

25th July 2010, 12:48 PM

You have no idea what kind of explosives were used or how loud they would be so stop pretending that you do. There are sounds of explosions on the recording. The give away is the way Ashley turned around suddenly. You will deny this as you deny anything that counters the denier mantra "where is the boom". The booms are there, however faintly. You know that reporters mics are directional and set to pick up only what is a few inches away but you pretend that you don't.

You hear that guys? There ARE sounds of explosions! There are TOO! I am super serial! Why won't you trust my word and absolute lack of evidence?

YOU'RE ALL IN DENIAL!!!

:talk036:

alienentity

25th July 2010, 12:50 PM

'Explosions are NEVER caused by explosives. '

You cannot and never will 'prove' that the random explosions were in fact high explosives, and not from other sources. Not going to happen.
You can waste everyone's time by repeating such claims, as I'm sure you'll do.

But you will never be able to provide positive and concrete evidence, since there isn't any. Dance around the facts all you like, you're not fooling us.

You see, (back to the relevant facts) what you lack is ANY evidence of loud, identical-to-controlled-demolition-style explosions PRECISELY at the time the whole building begins fall.

You just can't produce any evidence. Neither can the foolish David Chandler, despite all his amateurish efforts to skew the data.

If we are to believe C7 and Chandler, then one can hear background noise and crowd reactions, but not exceedingly loud explosions.

Riiiiiiiight. How stupid do you think people are? Come to think of it, are you that stupid that you don't understand the impossible arguments you're making? I'm beginning to think you are.

alienentity

25th July 2010, 12:52 PM

'You know that reporters mics are directional and set to pick up only what is a few inches away but you pretend that you don't. '

Complete bull shiite. HER MICROPHONE PICKED UP THE SOUNDS OF TRAFFIC AND THE CROWD REACTION.

Stop lying.

ETA this guy is as bad as Jammonius, who can't tell the difference between a jet engine, a bus, and a subway. IF C7 is serious, this is a really bad joke.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 12:53 PM

'You know that reporters mics are directional and set to pick up only what is a few inches away but you pretend that you don't. '

Complete bull shiite. HER MICROPHONE PICKED UP THE SOUNDS OF TRAFFIC AND THE CROWD REACTION.

Stop lying.Put your accusation of lying where the sun don't shine!!!

uke2se

25th July 2010, 12:55 PM

Put your accusation of lying where the sun don't shine!!!

If you don't like being called a liar, maybe you should stop lying. Just a thought.

alienentity

25th July 2010, 01:03 PM

C7, let me just clarify how incredibly stupid your argument really is.

The area of lower Manhattan is a dense collection of hirise buildings, which have hard, reflective surfaces. Any loud explosive sounds would reflect very quickly and efficiently between them, ricocheting in various directions, but not losing much energy.

ie: the sounds of explosions would rapidly reach the immediate vicinity of WTC center, at a variety of angles, and it is inconceivable that such a sound would not be picked up by ANY live microphone in the area, regardless which direction it was pointed.

Your argument that such sound wouldn't be picked up is really pathetically flimsy. You don't appear to understand the effect of signal-to-noise ratios, and that a cardioid microphone is only at best somewhat directional, and will ALWAYS pick up noise from almost everywhere, just at sufficiently lower levels than directly in front so as to provide some focus.

I've spent years in recording studios, where we have to deal with ambient noise interruptions. For example, if you point a microphone at a performer, and someone makes a noise from BEHIND the microphone, you will still pick up the noise. That's just a fact. ETA and it doesn't have to be an especially loud noise either. Pick whatever microphone you like, set it up, and try it. Make a sound (like a cough or phone ring) from behind a cartioid mic and see what you get.

Now, high explosives in a Manhattan block will definitely be heard at very high SPL's for many blocks. They will easily overcome the ambient noise levels of traffic and conversation, and will easily be picked up by any live mic in the area. Period.

there's no point arguing the opposite, unless you really are an idiot. Your call.

Further personal experience: CD recording, concert hall. Ambulance drives by with siren on, opposite direction from where microphones are facing. Result: retake required due to sound of siren.
C7's argument is a bad joke. He hasn't got a clue what he's talking about, period.

alienentity

25th July 2010, 01:10 PM

Put your accusation of lying where the sun don't shine!!!

Stop lying about microphones. You are lying. That's dishonest and shameful.

You have no business making false claims, and you are a fraud for making them. So you stuff it, 'kay?

alienentity

25th July 2010, 01:23 PM

There you have it folks. C7 is just making things up, writing outright lies about acoustics, all in support of the phony CD claim.

He hasn't got a shred of evidence to support his lies, so I'm calling them lies, since I can provide lots of technical support for the truth.

By definition C7's claims are lies, using this standard:
'something intended or serving to convey a false impression'

If you check microphone specs, you can read for yourself what the off-axis drop off in db is.

From Audio Technica:

'A word of caution: these polar patterns are run in an anechoic chamber, which simulates an ideal acoustic environment - one with no walls, ceiling or floor. In the real world, walls and other surfaces will reflect sound quite readily, so that off-axis sound can bounce off a nearby surface and right into the front of the microphone. As a result, you'll rarely enjoy all of the directional capability built into the microphone. Even if cardioid microphones were completely "dead" at the back (which they never are), sounds from the rear, also reflected from nearby surfaces, would still arrive partially from the sides or front. So cardioid microphones can help reduce unwanted sound, but rarely can they eliminate it entirely. Even so, a cardioid microphone can reduce noise from off-axis directions by about two-thirds.

The directional microphone illustrated in Fig. 5 is about 25 dB less sensitive at 180° off-axis, compared to on-axis. This means that by rotating the cardioid microphone 180°, so that it faces directly away from the sound source,'
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/site/aa901ccabf1dfc6b/index.html/

Now, taking Ashley Bamfield's case, her microphone is about 90 degrees off-axis to WTC7, meaning several db reduction in sensitivity in that direction. If she were facing 180 degrees away, a typical cardioid would reduce a 115db explosive sound down to about 90db, in the worst-case scenario. Of course it's not going to reduce that amount, because of reflection from buildings.

But assuming a 10db reduction off-axis, and a 115db sound-pressure wave, you would pick up 105db, without any building reflection at all. This sound pressure level is similar to front row at a rock concert.

That's what Chandler and C7 are trying to lie about: they're trying to bullpucky these facts away as if they didn't exist. It is just not even remotely possible that CD explosions wouldn't have been picked up by Bamfield's microphone at that distance (2 or 3 blocks max). Not possible.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 01:28 PM

The area of lower Manhattan is a dense collection of hirise buildings, which have hard, reflective surfaces. Any loud explosive sounds would reflect very quickly and efficiently between them, ricocheting in various directions, but not losing much energy.
ie: the sounds of explosions would rapidly reach the immediate vicinity of WTC center, at a variety of angles, and it is inconceivable that such a sound would not be picked up by ANY live microphone in the area, regardless which direction it was pointed.The sounds of the explosions were picked up by Ashley's mic. I also have extensive experience with recording and live performances. Reporters use directional mics that are designed to pick up what is directly in front of them and filter out low frequencies to minimize traffic noise. There will be some sound picked up from the sides but very little. Please note that Ashley holds the mic a few inches from herself and then points it directly at the lady with the baby, holding it just a few inches away.

Now, high explosives in a Manhattan block will definitely be heard at very high SPL's for many blocks. You have NO idea what kind or how much explosives would be used, nor do you have a clue how loud the explosions would be so stop claiming you do.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 01:32 PM

There you have it folks. C7 is just making things up, writing outright lies about acoustics, all in support of the phony CD claim. You guys call people liars so much that it becomes meaningless. Anything you don't want to believe is considered a lie. Give it up. You have "cried wolf" far too often.

uke2se

25th July 2010, 01:33 PM

You have NO idea what kind or how much explosives would be used, nor do you have a clue how loud the explosions would be so stop claiming you do.

One would have to assume at least as much explosives as in this actual controlled demolition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

Note the many loud bangs, and how it does not resemble any of the collapses on 9/11.

uke2se

25th July 2010, 01:34 PM

You guys call people liars so much that it becomes meaningless. Anything you don't want to believe is considered a lie. Give it up. You have "cried wolf" far too often.

Well, as you keep lying, we'll keep calling you a liar. Did you expect we would grow tired of doing it if you just lied enough? Does this explain your disproportionate amount of lying?

Captain_Swoop

25th July 2010, 01:41 PM

You have NO idea what kind or how much explosives would be used, nor do you have a clue how loud the explosions would be so stop claiming you do.

What kind of explosives werre they?
What happened to your Thermate claims?

Which was it explosives or thermate?

or do you hink it was both?

twinstead

25th July 2010, 01:48 PM

You have NO idea what kind or how much explosives would be used, nor do you have a clue how loud the explosions would be so stop claiming you do.

Nor do you, so how can you be so sure explosives and/or thermite was used? If we are right, and the amount of explosives required is excessive, there being no evidence of it pretty much puts your theory to bed. You'd think you would be very interested in finding out how much explosives would be necessary.

It's called INVESTIGATION.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 01:49 PM

One would have to assume at least as much explosives as in this actual controlled demolition:Only if one is looking for a reason to deny the obvious; WTC 7 was a CD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

Note the many loud bangs, and how it does not resemble any of the collapses on 9/11.It has not occurred to you that they would try to minimize the sounds of the explosions. In spite of this, over 100 first responders and survivors said they heard explosions. Your denial will not permit you to accept that what they all heard, and in some cases felt, were explosives. Don't bother with the denial tactic "it could have been something else" as you will NEVER admit that it "could have been explosives".

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 01:55 PM

Nor do you, so how can you be so sure explosives and/or thermite was used?Lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, stated:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance.

The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure simultaneously with explosives.

funk de fino

25th July 2010, 01:56 PM

It has not occurred to you that they would try to minimize the sounds of the explosions. In spite of this, over 100 first responders and survivors said they heard explosions. Your denial will not permit you to accept that what they all heard, and in some cases felt, were explosives. Don't bother with the denial tactic "it could have been something else" as you will NEVER admit that it "could have been explosives".

You do know that many of them were interviewed by NIST again?

funk de fino

25th July 2010, 01:57 PM

Lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, stated:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance.

The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure simultaneously with explosives.

I thought they said "near" freefall or "close" to freefall?

twinstead

25th July 2010, 01:59 PM

The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure simultaneously with explosives.

You appear to be in the abject minority though, because I don't recall any respected engineering, law enforcement, or scientific organizations declaring this. You might want to try to convince some of them if you think you are right.

Why should I believe you?

AZCat

25th July 2010, 01:59 PM

I thought they said "near" freefall or "close" to freefall?

It doesn't really matter - C7 is butchering the meaning of Sunder's quote anyway. He's confusing the difference between a "free fall time" and a "period of free fall acceleration".

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 02:02 PM

Well, as you keep lying, we'll keep calling you a liar. Did you expect we would grow tired of doing it if you just lied enough? Does this explain your disproportionate amount of lying?Who made you the arbitrator of truth? Y'all call EVERYBODY who says something you don't like a liar. It has become meaningless, a joke. :rolleyes:

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 02:06 PM

I thought they said "near" freefall or "close" to freefall?You are incapable of thought. :rolleyes: [just kidding]
NCSTAR 1-A pg 45 [pdf pg 87]
"The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2(9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

Captain_Swoop

25th July 2010, 02:07 PM

I think he calls obvious trolls and liars like you a liar.

What explosives are silent?
You have been given an example of a CD. ALl those explosions were very obvious.

What kind of explosive can you think of that doesn't go bang?

uke2se

25th July 2010, 02:10 PM

Only if one is looking for a reason to deny the obvious; WTC 7 was a CD.

Something which has remained unproven for close to 9 years, and for which there appears to be absolutely no evidence, unless you're willing to accept fantasy as reality.

It has not occurred to you that they would try to minimize the sounds of the explosions.

Ah, the famous Hushaboom argument. How, pray tell, would someone go about to conceal sounds of explosions of the magnitude we witnessed in the video I posted? Super secret gubmint experiments? Alien technology?

In spite of this, over 100 first responders and survivors said they heard explosions.

Despite this, thousands apparently did not. I'm sure you are aware that there were significantly more than 100 people near ground zero on that day.

Your denial will not permit you to accept that what they all heard, and in some cases felt, were explosives.

I tend not to accept assertions without evidence. You have presented none.

Don't bother with the denial tactic "it could have been something else" as you will NEVER admit that it "could have been explosives".

It couldn't have been explosives for a few reasons:

1. Explosives weren't needed to induce the collapses we saw on 9/11.
2. No traces of explosives have been found in the WTC remains.
3. There appears to be no way for gubmint NWO agents to plant explosives throughout the buildings without anyone noticing.
4. Explosives don't react well to being hit by airplanes.
5. There is no evidence, aside from a scattered few people's claims, of any explosions from demolition charges being heard on 9/11. Large bangs don't mean explosions, explosions don't mean demolition charges.

Now, I realize you are in complete denial and that you're going to continue to cling on by your fingernails to the delusion you have built up your world around, but I would urge you to come back to reality. It's nice out here. No global conspiracy, no gubmint men in black helicopters coming after you. Sure, there are evils in this world, and things happen that we don't want, but we get by and remain rational in the face of it all.

Step into the light.

uke2se

25th July 2010, 02:12 PM

Who made you the arbitrator of truth? Y'all call EVERYBODY who says something you don't like a liar. It has become meaningless, a joke. :rolleyes:

No, I call you a liar because you lie. It might be unintentional on your part, but as you have spent a lot of time here having many people explain to you why what you think is BS, there's really no excuse.

So, stop lying, liar.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 02:18 PM

I think he calls obvious trolls and liars like you a liar.Name calling is childish and supposedly against the "rules".

What explosives are silent?The sound of explosions can be dampened somewhat. Ashley suddenly turned her head because she heard explosions, your denial notwithstanding.

uke2se

25th July 2010, 02:27 PM

Name calling is childish and supposedly against the "rules".

Something for you to think about, then.

The sound of explosions can be dampened somewhat.

First, prove that you can dampen the sounds of demolition charges.
Secondly, prove that you could dampen the sounds of explosives needed to bring down a structure like the Twin Towers or WTC 7.
Thirdly, prove that this was done.

The Hushaboom argument is possibly one of the stupidest arguments that have arisen from the twoof-movement these last 9 years. It's right up there with demon-faces in the billowing smoke and space beams.

ETA: Clunkityclunk was pretty damn stupid as well, let's never forget that.

Ashley suddenly turned her head because she heard explosions, your denial notwithstanding.

Or she suddenly turned her head for any number of other reasons. Am I to believe that every time you suddenly turn your head, an explosion is going off behind you?

ETA: Having watched the tape, it seems fairly obvious that she's reacting to the collapse of one of the buildings, not an explosion.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 02:57 PM

Something which has remained unproven for close to 9 years,IYO

and for which there appears to be absolutely no evidenceHello? Free fall acceleration is proof that explosives were used to simultaneously remove all the supporting structure.

Despite this, thousands apparently did not. I'm sure you are aware that there were significantly more than 100 people near ground zero on that day.You have no idea who heard what yet you refuse to accept that these people heard explosives.

It couldn't have been explosives for a few reasons:The deniers playbook. :D

1. Explosives weren't needed to induce the collapses we saw on 9/11.Or so we are told. Explosives were needed to bring them to the ground. NIST could not explain how the towers disintegrated so they just skipped that part.
2. No traces of explosives have been found in the WTC remains. NIST did not look for explosive residue or thermite even though the NFPA guidelines specifically call for it.
3. There appears to be no way for gubmint NWO agents to plant explosives throughout the buildings without anyone noticing.Assumption
4. Explosives don't react well to being hit by airplanes.True
5. There is no evidence, aside from a scattered few people's claims, of any explosions from demolition charges being heard on 9/11. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl=)
Large bangs don't mean explosions, explosions don't mean demolition charges.Never, ever, ever :D

DGM

25th July 2010, 03:04 PM

Free fall acceleration is proof that explosives were used to simultaneously remove all the supporting structure.

How's that?

Repeating something does not make it true.

Captain_Swoop

25th July 2010, 03:04 PM

[quotehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl=[/quote]

Argument by Youtube.

Spot on.

grandmastershek

25th July 2010, 03:07 PM

[quotehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl=

Argument by Youtube.

Spot on.[/QUOTE]

duh...of course it was a bomb. he just said so. it was one of those bombs that was dampened thats why you cant hear them when the buildings collapsed. it was one of those dampened bombs that ashley turned her head due to hearing it and is unrecordable on her camera which we seem to hear on this one. makes total sense.

uke2se

25th July 2010, 03:14 PM

IYO

Not really, no.

Hello? Free fall acceleration is proof that explosives were used to simultaneously remove all the supporting structure.

Hello? No, it isn't. Are you a clunkityclunker as well as a hushaboomer? Figures.

You have no idea who heard what yet you refuse to accept that these people heard explosives.

You have no idea who heard what yet are perfectly convinced that whatever these people heard, it had to be explosives, despite a complete lack of evidence.

The deniers playbook. :D

Yes, you're running every play.

Or so we are told. Explosives were needed to bring them to the ground. NIST could not explain how the towers disintegrated so they just skipped that part.
NIST did not look for explosive residue or thermite even though the NFPA guidelines specifically call for it.

Explosives weren't needed because science tells us so. NIST didn't need to explain why the towers "disintegrated". They explained everything that happened up to the collapse. Once the collapse was in motion, disintegration was just a natural result.

I did not know that the NFPA guidelines specifically called for NIST to look for explosive residue or thermite in the WTC dust. Would you care to point out exactly where in the NFPA guidelines this is written?

Assumption

Not unless you can provide a window of opportunity. The burden of evidence is on you, dear twoofer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl=)

Fair enough. I should rephrase: There is no evidence, aside from a scattered few people's claims, of any explosions from demolition charges being heard before or during the collapses on 9/11. As you can see from the video, these explosions occurred after the collapses.

Never, ever, ever :D

It appears you have trouble understanding causality. Do you believe that every large bang is an explosion? Do you believe that every explosion is from a demolition charge? Your gullibility is remarkable.

uke2se

25th July 2010, 03:17 PM

duh...of course it was a bomb. he just said so. it was one of those bombs that was dampened thats why you cant hear them when the buildings collapsed. it was one of those dampened bombs that ashley turned her head due to hearing it and is unrecordable on her camera which we seem to hear on this one. makes total sense.

C7 is spreading his weak arguments in all directions, no matter if they are mutually exclusive. It's a version of the shot-gun approach called the "explosion" approach, or if you will, the "uncontrolled demolition" approach.

AZCat

25th July 2010, 03:51 PM

NIST did not look for explosive residue or thermite even though the NFPA guidelines specifically call for it.
Oh? That's news to me, since I checked the NFPAs when I first heard this claim. Please list the NFPA code and section(s) that is your source for this claim.

DGM

25th July 2010, 03:58 PM

Oh? That's news to me, since I checked the NFPAs when I first heard this claim. Please list the NFPA code and section(s) that is your source for this claim.
And to add to that, The NFPA is a members organization with absolutely no jurisdiction on this matter what-so-ever.

What do you say, Chris?

uke2se

25th July 2010, 04:00 PM

Oh? That's news to me, since I checked the NFPAs when I first heard this claim. Please list the NFPA code and section(s) that is your source for this claim.

C7 is lying again.

:whistling

uke2se

25th July 2010, 04:02 PM

And to add to that, The NFPA is a members organization with absolutely no jurisdiction on this matter what-so-ever.

What do you say, Chris?

To be fair, if the NFPA guidelines had - as C7 says - specifically asked for checking for explosive residue or thermite, I would agree that NIST should have done so. However, the NFPA guidelines says no such thing.

DGM

25th July 2010, 04:07 PM

To be fair, if the NFPA guidelines had - as C7 says - specifically asked for checking for explosive residue or thermite, I would agree that NIST should have done so. However, the NFPA guidelines says no such thing.
I'm sure he will be posting soon the recommendations (and that's all they really are) for investigating "fires of suspicious origin".

uke2se

25th July 2010, 04:13 PM

I'm sure he will be posting soon the recommendations (and that's all they really are) for investigating "fires of suspicious origin".

I know what C7 is babbling about. Firefighters for 9/11 truth did a piece on the NFPA guidelines where they claimed it was outrageous that NIST didn't test for explosives because the guidelines said that terrorists might use bombs. Yep, terrorists might use bombs, and that means NIST had to test the WTC dust. Fff911t didn't think it was enough with all the other evidence for no demolition. NIST had to test the dust because NFPA said terrorists might use bombs.

Relevant blurb from NFPA:

N.F.P.A. 921 19.4.8.2.6
Extremism-motivated firesetting is committed to further a social, political, or religious cause. Fires have been used as a weapon of social protest since revolutions first began. Extremist firesetters may work in groups or as individuals. Also, due to planning aspects and the selection of their targets, extremist firesetters generally have a great degree of organization, as reflected in their use of more elaborate ignition or incendiary devices. Subcategories of extremist firesetting are identified as follows.
(a) Terrorism. The targets set by terrorists may appear to be at random; however, target locations are generally selected with some degree of political or economic significance. Political targets generally include government offices, newspapers, universities, political party headquarters, and military or law enforcement installations. Political terrorists may also target diverse properties such as animal research facilities or abortion clinics. Economic targets may include business offices, distribution facilities of utility providers, banks, or companies thought to have an adverse impact on the environments. Fires or explosions become a means of creation confusion fear, or anarchy. THE TERRORIST MAY INCLUDE FIRE AS BUT ONE OF A VARITETY OF WEAPONS, ALONG WITH EXPLOSIVES, USED IN FURTHERING HIS OR HER GOAL…

(Capitals by fff911t)

SOURCE (http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8)

So basically, C7 lied about what the NFPA guidelines said. It's possible that he didn't know, but that would mean he doesn't read his own sources and is thus misrepresenting them, which is tantamount to lying.

DGM

25th July 2010, 04:22 PM

I know what C7 is babbling about. Firefighters for 9/11 truth did a piece on the NFPA guidelines where they claimed it was outrageous that NIST didn't test for explosives because the guidelines said that terrorists might use bombs. Yep, terrorists might use bombs, and that means NIST had to test the WTC dust. Fff911t didn't think it was enough with all the other evidence for no demolition. NIST had to test the dust because NFPA said terrorists might use bombs.

Relevant blurb from NFPA:

(Capitals by fff911t)

SOURCE (http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8)

So basically, C7 lied about what the NFPA guidelines said. It's possible that he didn't know, but that would mean he doesn't read his own sources and is thus misrepresenting them, which is tantamount to lying.
Thanks! I can't say I've ever read anything from firefighters for "truth" (life's too short).

Chris is making it up as he goes along using only "truther" sites as his "research". You should read some of his early stuff.

Captain_Swoop

25th July 2010, 04:51 PM

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth?

Are there realy Firefighters who buy into this crap?

uke2se

25th July 2010, 04:56 PM

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth?

Are there realy Firefighters who buy into this crap?

If they are anything like AE911Truth, they are most likely just a small core of actual gullible firefighters (stupid people exist in all lines of work) with a padding of secretaries, weekend reservists and interns.

Oystein

25th July 2010, 05:03 PM

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth?

Are there realy Firefighters who buy into this crap?

There's one young fireman from Seattle who buys into this crap.
I read some opinions about him from his peers in NYC.
They were not nice. Not nice at all.

ElMondoHummus

25th July 2010, 05:14 PM

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth?

Are there realy Firefighters who buy into this crap?

Pfff... there's one who claims he's 1. A firefighter, and 2. That he buys into it, but he got his head handed to him when he tried to recruit other firefighters to his cause:
http://www.firehouse.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107457

We kicked this around back in '08:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121987&highlight=FIrefighter

Bottom line: There are kooks in any field, but their claims still need to meet the standard of being correct. And regardless of any authority a person in a specific profession brings, he's got to validate his point. Repeating long refuted 9/11 claims isn't the way to do that.

ETA: Errr, edit: We kicked around the idea of a "Firefighters for 9/11 Truth" back in '08. Obviously, the Firehouse forum thread I just linked was done in '09.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 05:39 PM

First, prove that you can dampen the sounds of demolition charges.That is self evident but if you can't figure it out:
We control noise levels [at 18:20]
http://www.weloo.com/videos/66410/dc---911-mysteries-part-1-demolitions-2of3wmv.html

Secondly, prove that you could dampen the sounds of explosives needed to bring down a structure like the Twin Towers or WTC 7.
Thirdly, prove that this was done.
Get serious. The point is: The noise level can be reduced.

Or she suddenly turned her head for any number of other reasons. Am I to believe that every time you suddenly turn your head, an explosion is going off behind you?
ETA: Having watched the tape, it seems fairly obvious that she's reacting to the collapse of one of the buildings, not an explosion.You are groping for a reason to deny. The building had not started to collapse. Mr. Chandler points this out in the video.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 05:56 PM

Free fall acceleration is proof that explosives were used to simultaneously remove all the supporting structure.
How's that?
Repeating something does not make it true. Free fall acceleration means "falling thru air - NO resistance". I can see where a person of your intelligence would have a problem with this. Ask any high school student.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 06:06 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&eurl=Argument by Youtube.

Spot on.Deniers seem to think evidence is no longer valid if it is on youtube. You speak of "youtube" as a pejorative. This is a rather silly assumption and only an idiot would buy it. Perhaps that's who you are trying to fool.

dafydd

25th July 2010, 06:12 PM

Deniers seem to think evidence is no longer valid if it is on youtube. You speak of "youtube" as a pejorative. This is a rather silly assumption and only an idiot would buy it. Perhaps that's who you are trying to fool.

True,we all know that the vids on YouTube have been subjected to extensive scientific investigation and peer review.

dafydd

25th July 2010, 06:14 PM

C7 is spreading his weak arguments in all directions, no matter if they are mutually exclusive. It's a version of the shot-gun approach called the "explosion" approach, or if you will, the "uncontrolled demolition" approach.

If he fires enough crap around some of it might stick.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 06:16 PM

Explosives weren't needed because science tells us so. NIST didn't need to explain why the towers "disintegrated". They explained everything that happened up to the collapse. Once the collapse was in motion, disintegration was just a natural result.What science? You are confusing supposition with science.

I did not know that the NFPA guidelines specifically called for NIST to look for explosive residue or thermite in the WTC dust. Would you care to point out exactly where in the NFPA guidelines this is written?
Read: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8
Watch and listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TULmLtqRXZ4&feature=player_embedded

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 06:42 PM

If he fires enough crap around some of it might stick.Childish prattle. :D

grandmastershek

25th July 2010, 08:36 PM

What science? You are confusing supposition with science.

wow...just write "NUH UH!" next time ok? sure, somehow NIST's conclusions are the consensus of the scientific community, but its not science.

how is it that ppl still cite 9/11 mysteries? anyone who take a movie seriously who compares volcano debris to building debris solely on the looks of it really needs their head examined. that movie a was a pure case of moron baiting.

"We control noise levels"is not evidence of any form of hush boom explosive that would require the effect you guys hope and pray for.

triforcharity

25th July 2010, 08:43 PM

Titanic Explorer

25th July 2010, 08:58 PM

How did the thermate get there, Chris?

Clearly installed by Bigfoot....
The fact Bigfoot was not seen at the WTC is in itself proof he was there...;)

triforcharity

25th July 2010, 09:13 PM

You have no idea what kind of explosives were used or how loud they would be so stop pretending that you do. There are sounds of explosions on the recording. The give away is the way Ashley turned around suddenly. You will deny this as you deny anything that counters the denier mantra "where is the boom". The booms are there, however faintly. You know that reporters mics are directional and set to pick up only what is a few inches away but you pretend that you don't.

What about the hundreds of other CDs that have been videotaped, and you hear the explosions just fine? Yeah, thought so.

Explosives work in a very specific way. Do you understand that an explosive that makes no noise, is, not an explosive?

triforcharity

25th July 2010, 09:16 PM

Put your accusation of lying where the sun don't shine!!!

It is clearly demostrated that you lied. You say the microphones are only set to pick up the sound from a few inches. I will even give you the benefit, and say a few feet. Why do we hear the rumble of the collapse then?

You're lying.

triforcharity

25th July 2010, 09:23 PM

The sounds of the explosions were picked up by Ashley's mic. I also have extensive experience with recording and live performances. Reporters use directional mics that are designed to pick up what is directly in front of them and filter out low frequencies to minimize traffic noise. There will be some sound picked up from the sides but very little. Please note that Ashley holds the mic a few inches from herself and then points it directly at the lady with the baby, holding it just a few inches away.

Liar.

You have NO idea what kind or how much explosives would be used, nor do you have a clue how loud the explosions would be so stop claiming you do.

Explosives capable of cutting a core column would be in the range of 140 db.

Do you understand how loud that is?

Stand behind a jet engine. Rev that SOB up. You stand 100 feet away, and you are most likely going to sustain hearing damage.

http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html

It's amuzing watching you lie, and lie, and liesome more, while more and more facts are slapped across your face, and yet, you continue to go on with your lying.

Stop lying C7.

leftysergeant

25th July 2010, 09:27 PM

The sound of explosions can be dampened somewhat. Ashley suddenly turned her head because she heard explosions, your denial notwithstanding.

You need to learn how people react inan emergency situation. Ashley did turn quickly, but in response to a visual clue when people started trunning near the limit of her peripheral vison. She did not flinch as though she had heard an explosion.

As for the fire fighters who mentioned explosives, a lot of those cited by ignorant turds like MacQueen were describing the collapse of the towers as heard from inside anoither building, or cars cooking off in spot fires on the street. One whom idiot boy MacQueen cites is Karen Deshore who specificly said that she was describing cars cooking off. Patricia Ondrovic, who was at the same location, just talked of flames and explosions coming out of the ground, but was clearly describing her impression of what Deshore reported. That Ondrovic was not totally in control of her mental processes at the time is clear in the fact that she went running down the street with her turnout coat on fire. This is not what they teach you to do in the fire department. She LOST IT. Not admissible as a witness to contradict Deshore.

That her coat was on fire, in itself, is an indication as to what sort of explosion she witnerssed. It clearly involved Class B fuels cooking off. She was hit by gasoline or similar burning petroleum products. Had there been enough heat to ignite her coat, she would not have survived. She would have died on the spot. Were she close enough to a high-explosive charge to be burned by it, she would have been frapped.

Do learn something about fire investigations.

triforcharity

25th July 2010, 09:28 PM

Name calling is childish and supposedly against the "rules".

The sound of explosions can be dampened somewhat. Ashley suddenly turned her head because she heard explosions, your denial notwithstanding.

Yeah, they can. But, not much, maybe 10-20 decibels at best.

Now, show me those techniques there C7. This 'aught to be good....

triforcharity

25th July 2010, 09:30 PM

.
NIST did not look for explosive residue or thermite even though the NFPA guidelines specifically call for it.

Please, I would love to discuss this further in another thread. It is OT on here, so please, start another thread and we will discuss this.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 10:25 PM

wow...just write "NUH UH!" next time ok? sure, somehow NIST's conclusions are the consensus of the scientific community, but its not science.The "conclusion" that the impact and fires brought down the Trade Towers is a supposition, not an established scientific fact, and there is no consensus in the scientific community.

how is it that ppl still cite 9/11 mysteries? The quote is by a CDI employee.
"We control noise levels" is not evidence of any form of hush boom explosiveThe quote supports my statement that the noise level can be reduced.

Christopher7

25th July 2010, 10:50 PM

All CD look and SOUND almost IDENTICAL.Hogwash.
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20879

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6aY_gzmWhU

Now, what were you saying about the cameras not being able to pick up "low" frequencies. Guess what, You're wrong. I did not say "camera", I said "A reporters mic".

And this freefall stuff. Show me another CD where this occurs.CD's usually fall at a little less than free fall but that is irrelevant.

You don't seem to understand basic physics. Free fall acceleration can only occur if all the supporting structure is removed simultaneously with explosives. Even Mr. Sunder admitted this.
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

Why can't you grasp this simple fact?

BTW: Mr. Sunder admitted in this statement that the NIST hypothesis did NOT fall at free fall acceleration because "there was structural resistance".

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 01:17 AM

You need to learn how people react inan emergency situation. Ashley did turn quickly, but in response to a visual clue when people started trunning near the limit of her peripheral vison. Wrong. Ashley was the first to react.

As for the fire fighters who mentioned explosives, a lot of those cited by ignorant turds like MacQueenPut your "ignorant turd" back where it came from. :D

were describing the collapse of the towers as heard from inside anoither building, or cars cooking off in spot fires on the street.You are just trying to find alternate explanations. Can you bring yourself to admit that they may have heard explosives going off?

One whom idiot boyPlease put your "idiot boy" comment with the "ignorant turd". :rolleyes:

At 0:40 the reporter says "that huge explosion that we all heard and felt"
At 2:00 a survivor says "there was another explosion and everybody went flying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNVvZXR6VsI

Deniers do a great deal of mental gymnastics trying to come up with alternate explanations. Anything to deny the possibility of explosives.

funk de fino

26th July 2010, 02:46 AM

You are incapable of thought. :rolleyes: [just kidding]
NCSTAR 1-A pg 45 [pdf pg 87]
"The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2(9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

Not that part. There is another where they ay something like "essentially or near or close" to freefall.

funk de fino

26th July 2010, 02:55 AM

Deniers do a great deal of mental gymnastics trying to come up with alternate explanations. Anything to deny the possibility of explosives.

You do know that NIST interviewed a lot of the survivors who mentioned explosions again don't you?

Senenmut

26th July 2010, 06:05 AM

HA HA HA!!! You have no idea what a NRC is do you? It is a Noise Reduction Coeffecient.

NRC of .74 is about the same as 1" of fiberglass. 1" ain't **** considering what is going to happen to this stuff when it is blown to kingdom come from the explosion. You know that stuff can be scraped off with a pocket knife, right?

Also, this NRC is for certain frequencies, and it is actually more for low lever noise. Not huge explosions!

No, go back and try again.

put layers upon layers of the thermitic material prof jones found and cover that material with blazeshield.

do you remember when you and your firefighting buddies couldnt explain this obervation:
"Dr. Astaneh-Asl said that in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue."

uke2se

26th July 2010, 09:03 AM

Read: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8
Watch and listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TULmLtqRXZ4&feature=player_embedded

Try to keep up, Chris. I've already dealt with that crap. Now, how about you provide evidence that the guidelines says NIST had to test for explosives? Oh right, you lied about that, didn't you?

alienentity

26th July 2010, 10:26 AM

OK, just for posterity, and to decisively show what a incorrigible obfuscator C7 is, I have done a spectrographic audio analysis of a real controlled demolition.

Now, remembering that C7's specific false claim is that the frequencies from a massive high-explosive demolition are too low to be picked up on a reporter's microphone (or any other video camcorder that day which was aimed at the towers, for example), simply observe the frequency bands to the left; you'll notice that the upper range on this clip cuts off at 10 khz and the low range is 0 khz. The timescale is linear starting at zero seconds on the left, and ends at 37 seconds on the right.
The explosions start at roughly 10.5 seconds. Before that there is background noise including a helicopter sound.

You can actually see the percussive bands as the explosions go off in very distinct vertical spikes.

Judge for yourself whether C7 is lying again about microphones and frequencies. I think the proof is very obvious. Keep in mind that 6 khz is higher than the highest note on a violin. A - 440 hz is the main orchestral tuning note, which corresponds with the 3rd string on a violin. Double that frequency and you get 880 hz, double again and it's 1760 hz , about 2/3rds the way up a violin fingerboard. Double again to 3520 hz and you're almost off the end of the fingerboard.

This gives you a relative idea of the amount of high-frequency sound these explosions produce - it's a hell of a lot. So the 'low frequency filter' canard offered by Chandler and his parrot, C7 is categorically irrelevant, as is the equally dishonest and technically incompetent claim about directionality of cardioid mic patterns.

More lies in support of 9/11 Truth myths....what's new?

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/WTC%20stuff/Landmarkwhole.jpg

Senenmut

26th July 2010, 10:39 AM

alienentity

26th July 2010, 10:46 AM

For comparison, here is the audio spectrograph for WTC7 collapse, using the NBC Ashley Banfield interview (I had the spelling wrong earlier).

I started the analysis just before the collapse begins. On the clip, as noted by David Chandler, you really cannot hear anything significant except a low-level rumble which grows in the BG. The collapse can be heard at around 5 seconds into this graph.

Again, the crowd noise, talking, police whistle and the conversation are far louder than the alleged 'explosions' claimed by Truthers. Obviously it's not an explosion of any kind, and you can see it the Spectrograph that at the 5 s mark there is not a notable change in the signal as in the Landmark Demo. there is a growth in Low and Mid frequencies up to about 3 khz which corresponds with the screams and shouting from the crowd (which are heard very well! Funny how the mic picks those up so readily, yet fails to find the massive explosions!!! LOL)

For those who want to look at the Banfield video, my analysis begins at roughly the 35 s mark in the clip. I'll post the link below for your convenience.

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/WTC%20stuff/Banfield.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo&videos=cEzTSE8cTq0

uke2se

26th July 2010, 10:57 AM

alienentity

26th July 2010, 11:06 AM

Regarding the evidence of off-axis microphone placement, this still frame is taken around the time the building begins to fall in the BG.

Note it is pointed slightly towards WTC7, not at all directly away from it. This is the most clear evidence that the sound of explosions, had there been any, would have readily been picked up by this microphone.
The phony argument that it was too off-axis is exposed as yet another fraudulent idea.

But that won't stop C7 from continuing to push these fraudulent ideas, I'm sure. Remember, as a Zombie Doctrine, 9/11 Truth myths cannot be killed with facts - they just keep coming back!!

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/WTC%20stuff/BanfieldMicrophone.jpg

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/WTC%20stuff/BanfieldMicrophone2.jpg

ETA Cardioid pattern FYI. Clearly Banfield's mic is less than 90 degrees off-axis, which means a few db less sensitive, but of course any loud sound would be picked up. Since it was not, we are forced to conclude that there never were loud explosions at the time WTC7 collapsed, based on video and audio evidence.
Another one bites the dust....

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 12:05 PM

Not that part. There is another where they ay something like "essentially or near or close" to freefall.The only place I have seen that is here.

This it the part that gives the actual data. Someone characterizing it as "near" free fall does not change the fact that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration. [within 0.1%]

"The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2(9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 12:23 PM

NIST mentioned one of the two samples though eh?NIST did not mention either sample in the final report. They made conflicting statements in other reports.

WTC 7 melted beam conundrum

NIST Chapter 1 pg 17 - Progress report June 2004
No steel from WTC 7 has been identified from the pieces of recovered WTC steel in NIST's possession.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf

NCSTAR 1-3 pg 36 [pdf pg 84] September 2005
5.2.5 No steel elements have been positively identified from WTC 7. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3.pdf

*NCSATR 1-3C pg 5 [pdf pg 55]
No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Damage%20and%20Failure%20Modes.pdf
NIST Q and A 8-21-08 (Updated 4-21-09)
Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders’ efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

OTOH:
FEMA 403 appendix D pg 13 it says:
"Pieces have been identified that are from WTC 1, 2, 5 and 7"
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf

*NCSTAR 1-3C pg 233 [pdf pg 283]
A study further states that temperatures were in the range from 700°C to 800°C (Finding 5).
However, very limited supporting evidence was given for this claim. Unlike the analysis of the steel from WTC 7 (Sample #1 from Appendix C, BPAT/FEMA study) where corrosion phases and morphologies were able to determine a possible temperature region, no comments were made concerning the microstructure observed in the corroded regions in which may have yielded additional information in which to make the assertion of the temperature range for Sample #2. The present analysis found, through a microstructural evaluation, that the temperature excursion was much higher than the range stated.
[URL needed]

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

BBC "The Third Tower" At 48:00
[Professor Jonathan Barnett, Fire Protection Engineer, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger]
It came from a much larger beam… This was the size of steel that they used in the construction of Tower 7. They didn't use this particular kind of steel in Tower 1 or Tower 2. So that's why we know its pedigree.It was a surprise to me because it was so eroded and deformed and so we took it for analysis in the lab.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250#

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 12:27 PM

You do know that NIST interviewed a lot of the survivors who mentioned explosions again don't you?They hand waved the reports of explosions and the NFPA standards that clearly state that if pulverized concrete is found, explosives are indicated. A real investigation would have considered the possibility of explosions.

Miragememories

26th July 2010, 12:42 PM

"Regarding the evidence of off-axis microphone placement, this still frame is taken around the time the building begins to fall in the BG.

Note it is pointed slightly towards WTC7, not at all directly away from it. This is the most clear evidence that the sound of explosions, had there been any, would have readily been picked up by this microphone."

Still up to your old disinfo tricks I see alienentity.

Your audio analysis is pure bs.

You don't have a decent, clean (not over modulated) audio recording of the WTC 7 collapse itself, let alone a recording that would reveal the existence of pre-collapse core failures.

The reporter is directing her microphone every which way as it is pointed out to her that WTC 7 is in full collapse.

But can we hear the actual collapse of that 47-story highrise on her microphone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo&videos=cEzTSE8cTq0

I don't know about you but I would have thought that sound would have been louder than any internal
demolitions that triggered it.

Hers, and near by voices can be heard clearly during this silent collapse.

Too funny.

MM

uke2se

26th July 2010, 01:01 PM

Still up to your old disinfo tricks I see alienentity.

Your audio analysis is pure bs.

You don't have a decent, clean (not over modulated) audio recording of the WTC 7 collapse itself, let alone a recording that would reveal the existence of pre-collapse core failures.

The reporter is directing her microphone every which way as it is pointed out to her that WTC 7 is in full collapse.

But can we hear the actual collapse of that 47-story highrise on her microphone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo&videos=cEzTSE8cTq0

I don't know about you but I would have thought that sound would have been louder than any internal
demolitions that triggered it.

Hers, and near by voices can be heard clearly during this silent collapse.

Too funny.

MM

Wow, way to miss the point...

Also, it's amazing that whenever a twoofer has his lies thwarted by science, he reverts to the old "disinfo" crap. It really shows how deeply dishonest the twoof-movement is, both externally and internally.

funk de fino

26th July 2010, 01:10 PM

NIST did not mention either sample in the final report. They made conflicting statements in other reports.

WTC 7 melted beam conundrum

NIST Chapter 1 pg 17 - Progress report June 2004
No steel from WTC 7 has been identified from the pieces of recovered WTC steel in NIST's possession.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf

NCSTAR 1-3 pg 36 [pdf pg 84] September 2005
5.2.5 No steel elements have been positively identified from WTC 7. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3.pdf

*NCSATR 1-3C pg 5 [pdf pg 55]
No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-3C%20Damage%20and%20Failure%20Modes.pdf
NIST Q and A 8-21-08 (Updated 4-21-09)
Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?Steel samples were removed from the site before the NIST investigation began. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, debris was removed rapidly from the site to aid in recovery efforts and facilitate emergency responders’ efforts to work around the site. Once it was removed from the scene, the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified. Unlike the pieces of steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2, which were painted red and contained distinguishing markings, WTC 7 steel did not contain such identifying characteristics.

OTOH:
FEMA 403 appendix D pg 13 it says:
"Pieces have been identified that are from WTC 1, 2, 5 and 7"
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf

*NCSTAR 1-3C pg 233 [pdf pg 283]
A study further states that temperatures were in the range from 700°C to 800°C (Finding 5).
However, very limited supporting evidence was given for this claim. Unlike the analysis of the steel from WTC 7 (Sample #1 from Appendix C, BPAT/FEMA study) where corrosion phases and morphologies were able to determine a possible temperature region, no comments were made concerning the microstructure observed in the corroded regions in which may have yielded additional information in which to make the assertion of the temperature range for Sample #2. The present analysis found, through a microstructural evaluation, that the temperature excursion was much higher than the range stated.
[URL needed]

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

BBC "The Third Tower" At 48:00
[Professor Jonathan Barnett, Fire Protection Engineer, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger]
It came from a much larger beam… This was the size of steel that they used in the construction of Tower 7. They didn't use this particular kind of steel in Tower 1 or Tower 2. So that's why we know its pedigree.It was a surprise to me because it was so eroded and deformed and so we took it for analysis in the lab.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250#

They mention one of the samples in the NIST report into the WTC towers. NCSTAR 1-3C. Did you just debunk yourself?

All the steel was examined by forensic investigators, demo team members and public officials. There were a few pieces like this. There should be tons of it.

ETA - This piece was deemed to have been atacked in the pile.

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 01:14 PM

Now, remembering that C7's specific false claim is that the frequencies from a massive high-explosive demolition are too low to be picked up on a reporter's microphone Typical JREF misquote and babble. You are the one doing the lying.

I said: Reporters use directional mics that are designed to pick up what is directly in front of them and filter out low frequencies to minimize traffic noise. There will be some sound picked up from the sides but very little.

alienentity

26th July 2010, 01:15 PM

Still up to your old disinfo tricks I see alienentity.

Your audio analysis is pure bs.

You don't have a decent, clean (not over modulated) audio recording of the WTC 7 collapse itself, let alone a recording that would reveal the existence of pre-collapse core failures.

The reporter is directing her microphone every which way as it is pointed out to her that WTC 7 is in full collapse.

But can we hear the actual collapse of that 47-story highrise on her microphone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo&videos=cEzTSE8cTq0

I don't know about you but I would have thought that sound would have been louder than any internal
demolitions that triggered it.

Hers, and near by voices can be heard clearly during this silent collapse.

Too funny.

MM

Yes, in your world, objective reality is disinfo! LMAO!!.

Funny how your truther minds allow that a mic could pick up voices but not explosives. That's just laughable. Which is the only reason I bothered posting it, just to see you create more pathetic denials.

alienentity

26th July 2010, 01:16 PM

Typical JREF misquote and babble. You are the one doing the lying.

I said: Reporters use directional mics that are designed to pick up what is directly in front of them and filter out low frequencies to minimize traffic noise. There will be some sound picked up from the sides but very little.

Funny how the mic can pick up traffic noise, the rumble of the collapse and peoples screams and yelling, but strangely...

NO EXPLOSIVES!!

The evidence (not the speculation and unsubstantiated theories) proves your lies to be untrue. Period.

Give it a rest and please stop lying.

funk de fino

26th July 2010, 01:17 PM

They hand waved the reports of explosions

That is a lie. They went and actually interviewed them again. What have you done? Who have you contacted? Remember my signature.

and the NFPA standards that clearly state that if pulverized concrete is found, explosives are indicated. A real investigation would have considered the possibility of explosions.

The NFPA are guidelines for investigations into possible arson attacks. Everyone knew what started the fire. There is no need to follow those guidelines they are not mandatory. You have no idea what you are talking about. Collapsing buildings cause pulverised concrete, but you knew that.

alienentity

26th July 2010, 01:26 PM

Truthers can run from the truth, they can misdirect and misrepresent, but in the end, the facts speak loudly for themselves.

The main truther theories are not supported by the actual evidence, and truthers are openly hostile to actual evidence. This is why they become either deluded or just dishonest, stretching cognitive dissonance to such levels that sanity is not possible.

Thus a simple sound-pressure-sensitive device like a microphone magically fails to pick up an alleged enormously loud sound, and yet picks up background noise quite efficiently. Only in trutherland, that is.
But in the real world (verifiable by empirical methods) the microphone simply fails to pick up a sound which wasn't there. Really not a big deal.

I guess these blowhards get some ego gratification from the attention here....but their arguments are failures.

I'm outta here. It's been fun spanking C7 for a couple days, but I'm busy and have better things to do.

cheerio

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 01:41 PM

They mention one of the samples in the NIST report into the WTC towers. NCSTAR 1-3C. Did you just debunk yourself?They did not mention the samples in the final report on WTC 7.
Note that the list of conflicting statements it titled "WTC 7 melted beam conundrum"

NIST debunks themselves with the conflicting statements.

"No steel from WTC 7 has been identified from the pieces of recovered WTC steel in NIST's possession."

"No steel elements have been positively identified from WTC 7."

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7."

"the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified."

""Pieces have been identified that are from WTC 1, 2, 5 and 7"

"Unlike the analysis of the steel from WTC 7 (Sample #1 from Appendix C, BPAT/FEMA study)"

"An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7"

"This was the size of steel that they used in the construction of Tower 7. They didn't use this particular kind of steel in Tower 1 or Tower 2. So that's why we know its pedigree."

All the steel was examined by forensic investigators, demo team members and public officials. There were a few pieces like this. There should be tons of it.You have no idea how much of the steel was inspected before it was destroyed.

Miragememories

26th July 2010, 01:41 PM

"Thus a simple sound-pressure-sensitive device like a microphone magically fails to pick up an alleged enormously loud sound, and yet picks up background noise quite efficiently.

But in the real world (verifiable by empirical methods) the microphone simply fails to pick up a sound which wasn't there. Really not a big deal.

I guess these blowhards get some ego gratification from the attention here....but their arguments are failures."
So I guess in your world, the sound of the 47-story WTC7 building totally collapsing to the ground could never have occurred.

The reporter's microphone should have picked it up loud and clear but strangely, did not!

Too funny.

MM

funk de fino

26th July 2010, 01:45 PM

They did not mention the samples in the final report on WTC 7.
Note that the list of conflicting statements it titled "WTC 7 melted beam conundrum"

NIST debunks themselves with the conflicting statements.

"No steel from WTC 7 has been identified from the pieces of recovered WTC steel in NIST's possession."

"No steel elements have been positively identified from WTC 7."

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7."

"the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified."

""Pieces have been identified that are from WTC 1, 2, 5 and 7"

"Unlike the analysis of the steel from WTC 7 (Sample #1 from Appendix C, BPAT/FEMA study)"

"An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7"

"This was the size of steel that they used in the construction of Tower 7. They didn't use this particular kind of steel in Tower 1 or Tower 2. So that's why we know its pedigree."

I never specified the WTC7 report did I? One of the pieces was tested by NIST in the report and was deemed to have been attacked in the pile. Yes or No?

You have no idea how much of the steel was inspected before it was destroyed.

Brent Blanchard does, and he states that all the steel was examined. Are you saying he is lying? How about you contact him or the demo team?

funk de fino

26th July 2010, 01:47 PM

So I guess in your world, the sound of the 47-story WTC7 building totally collapsing to the ground could never have occurred.

The reporter's microphone should have picked it up loud and clear but strangely, did not!

Too funny.

MM

Can you show us a controlled demolition using explosives where you can hear the collapse but not the explosions?

alienentity

26th July 2010, 01:47 PM

So I guess in your world, the sound of the 47-story WTC7 building totally collapsing to the ground could never have occurred.

The reporter's microphone should have picked it up loud and clear but strangely, did not!

Too funny.

MM

Since you misrepresent (surprise, surprise) what I've written, let me direct you to what I actually wrote:

'you really cannot hear anything significant except a low-level rumble which grows in the BG. The collapse can be heard at around 5 seconds into this graph' post 843 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6161926#post6161926)

The low level rumble is in fact the sound of WTC7 collapsing. You can hear it, and the mic did pick it up. Just not the explosions that truthers fantasize about.

Your attempts to obfuscate do nothing for you except dig you deeper into your lies. :)

alienentity

26th July 2010, 01:51 PM

Can you show us a controlled demolition using explosives where you can hear the collapse but not the explosions?

If you watch the Landmark demolition and wait until the explosives are finished, the collapse is also heard, albeit as a rumble. Not at all dissimilar to the rumble of WTC7, which was heard WITHOUT explosions immediately preceding.

E8yUR-sM4lU

funk de fino

26th July 2010, 01:52 PM

They did not mention the samples in the final report on WTC 7.
Note that the list of conflicting statements it titled "WTC 7 melted beam conundrum"

NIST debunks themselves with the conflicting statements.

See below

"No steel from WTC 7 has been identified from the pieces of recovered WTC steel in NIST's possession."

"No steel elements have been positively identified from WTC 7."

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7."

"the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified."

Identified where it came from in the building.

""Pieces have been identified that are from WTC 1, 2, 5 and 7"

"Unlike the analysis of the steel from WTC 7 (Sample #1 from Appendix C, BPAT/FEMA study)"

"An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7"

"This was the size of steel that they used in the construction of Tower 7. They didn't use this particular kind of steel in Tower 1 or Tower 2. So that's why we know its pedigree."

Identified what building it came from. Your cherry picking is legendary.

Miragememories

26th July 2010, 01:58 PM

"Since you misrepresent (surprise, surprise) what I've written, let me direct you to what I actually wrote:

'you really cannot hear anything significant except a low-level rumble which grows in the BG. The collapse can be heard at around 5 seconds into this graph'

The low level rumble is in fact the sound of WTC7 collapsing. You can hear it, and the mic did pick it up. Just not the explosions that truthers fantasize about.

Your attempts to obfuscate do nothing for you except dig you deeper into your lies"
No misrepresentation other than removing all your infantile ramblings intended to offend the 9/11 Truth Movement.

So we are in agreement.

All you've got is a barely detectable "low-level rumble" sound.

You cannot hear a true recording of what must have been a huge cacophony of sound from the total collapse of the 47-story WTC7.

So why do you blather on about how the microphone would have picked up the pre-collapse inside sounds?

Your logic needs peer reviewing desperately.

MM

carlitos

26th July 2010, 02:04 PM

Mirage Memories, maybe you could rephrase what you just wrote there, because it doesn't appear to refute what you quoted.

Pathmark Demolition = HUGE explosion sounds plus low-level rumble.
WTC7 = NO explosion sounds plus low-level rumble.

Your explanation?

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 02:09 PM

Explosive charges capable of cutting or otherwise significantly compromising structural members produce very loud sounds.

Such sounds, if produced, would have been recorded on all audio recording devices in the area that were in use at the time.
No such sounds were recorded.

Therefore, no explosive charges cut or significantly compromised structural members.You are not an explosives expert nor do you understand how microphones work. As Miragememories just pointed out, Ashley's mic didn't pick up the sound of the collapse. By your reasoning, WTC 7 did not collapse. :D :D :D

carlitos

26th July 2010, 02:11 PM

While MM is formulating his answer, he/she can also please explain why the explosives didn't blow out the windows of the facing buildings...

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 02:14 PM

I never specified the WTC7 report did I? One of the pieces was tested by NIST in the report and was deemed to have been attacked in the pile. Yes or No?Yes

Brent Blanchard does, and he states that all the steel was examined.Source?

Miragememories

26th July 2010, 02:19 PM

"Mirage Memories, maybe you could rephrase what you just wrote there, because it doesn't appear to refute what you quoted.

Pathmark Demolition = HUGE explosion sounds plus low-level rumble.
WTC7 = NO explosion sounds plus low-level rumble.

Your explanation?"
Different rigging.

As a safety precaution, the windows are removed from such buildings prior to their demolition in order to protect against flying broken glass.

A building with all its windows gutted is going to allow every internal sound to be heard quite well.

How often have you walked past large sealed buildings that you know are noisy inside but you can't hear a peep?

Yes, WTC 7 had a few broken windows, but the majority were intact and sealed.

So back to your question, if the microphone only picked up a "low-level rumble" when the whole building was disintegrating, is there any wonder that any preceding internal noises from the sealed WTC7, would not be recorded at all?

MM

Miragememories

26th July 2010, 02:22 PM

While MM is formulating his answer, he/she can also please explain why the explosives didn't blow out the windows of the facing buildings...

You assume that I believe conventional demolition explosives were employed.

Wrong again.

MM

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 02:22 PM

While MM is formulating his answer, he/she can also please explain why the explosives didn't blow out the windows of the facing buildings...

CDI - Hudson's
There was far less window breakage in adjacent buildings than glass company crews were prepared to handle. Many of the broken windows appeared to have been those which were cracked before the implosion, according to Dave Miller of Schnabel Engineering, the third party geotechnical firm hired to do pre/post blast surveys and record the vibration from the blast. Miller said that the vibration from the fall of the structure was well within allowable limits as recorded at adjacent properties. There was no apparent damages to underground utilities.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

DGM

26th July 2010, 02:37 PM

As a safety precaution, the windows are removed from such buildings prior to their demolition in order to protect against flying broken glass.

If you only understood why you just debunked yourself. :o

:rolleyes:

Redtail

26th July 2010, 02:40 PM

CDI - Hudson's
There was far less window breakage in adjacent buildings than glass company crews were prepared to handle. Many of the broken windows appeared to have been those which were cracked before the implosion, according to Dave Miller of Schnabel Engineering, the third party geotechnical firm hired to do pre/post blast surveys and record the vibration from the blast. Miller said that the vibration from the fall of the structure was well within allowable limits as recorded at adjacent properties. There was no apparent damages to underground utilities.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807
Adjacent...

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 02:44 PM

You assume that I believe conventional demolition explosives were employed.

Wrong again.

MM
http://a.imageshack.us/img507/8717/figure5142.jpg

Thermite produces white smoke. There was no sign of or reports of fires on floors 5 and 6 in the east half of WTC 7 at any time, just this plume of white smoke.

Miragememories

26th July 2010, 02:51 PM

If you only understood why you just debunked yourself. :o

:rolleyes:
You wish.

That's old ground.

Anything to run up your post count I see.

MM

alienentity

26th July 2010, 02:56 PM

You are not an explosives expert nor do you understand how microphones work.

Talking to yourself again..

As Miragememories just pointed out, Ashley's mic didn't pick up the sound of the collapse. By your faulty and dishonest truther reasoning, WTC 7 did not collapse. :D :D :D

Why, nobody but you truthers is claiming that the sound of collapse wasn't captured. But you've been wrong about every other thing as well, including that.

We get your latest dodge now, when confronted with the evidence: you deny that the rumble is caught on video. Yet even your hero Chandler acknowledges this sound and analyzes it as sounding like explosions.

You truthers sure like to argue against each other while claiming victory on the same point!! Very amusing to watch.

But unfortunately MM and yourself are not fooling anyone, not even yourselves, I suspect. The rumble is indeed caught by the microphone.

Another one bites the dust! Watch the truthers scurry like ants with no nest...

alienentity

26th July 2010, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

As a safety precaution, the windows are removed from such buildings prior to their demolition in order to protect against flying broken glass.

If you only understood why you just debunked yourself. :o
:rolleyes:

Too damn funny!!

ps for truthers - no broken glass just B4 WTC7 fell means no explosives. Just as no explosions mean no explosives.

You guys are zero for 2 on your own phony points, got any other dumb ideas we can destroy?

tsig

26th July 2010, 03:17 PM

Still up to your old disinfo tricks I see alienentity.

Your audio analysis is pure bs.

You don't have a decent, clean (not over modulated) audio recording of the WTC 7 collapse itself, let alone a recording that would reveal the existence of pre-collapse core failures.

The reporter is directing her microphone every which way as it is pointed out to her that WTC 7 is in full collapse.

But can we hear the actual collapse of that 47-story highrise on her microphone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-WZpXiEKAo&videos=cEzTSE8cTq0

I don't know about you but I would have thought that sound would have been louder than any internal
demolitions that triggered it.

Hers, and near by voices can be heard clearly during this silent collapse.

Too funny.

MM

How can the collapse be louder than the explosions that triggered it since the explosions had to precede the collapse?

DGM

26th July 2010, 03:19 PM

You wish.

That's old ground.

Anything to run up your post count I see.

MM
What would make the "glass fly" and why would we not hear it? (I gave you a hint as to why you self debunked).

I'll be nice and give you another clue. Why did no one "feel" it?

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 03:24 PM

Why, nobody but you truthers is claiming that the sound of collapse wasn't captured.
We get your latest dodge now, when confronted with the evidence: you deny that the rumble is caught on video. Hello? The sound of the collapse was not heard on the video. You hearing is as impaired as your reading ability.

Yet even your hero Chandler acknowledges this sound and analyzes it as sounding like explosions.Wrong. Listen to the video again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=player_embedded

Redtail

26th July 2010, 03:25 PM

http://a.imageshack.us/img507/8717/figure5142.jpg

Thermite produces white smoke. There was no sign of or reports of fires on floors 5 and 6 in the east half of WTC 7 at any time, just this plume of white smoke.
Thermite, explosives, thermite, explosives, no evidence of either but truthers gotta try.

DGM

26th July 2010, 03:31 PM

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 03:33 PM

Thermite, explosives, thermite, explosives, no evidence of either but truthers gotta try.Deniers are funny. I just presented evidence of what could have been smoke from thermite and you say there is no evidence. :D

Go ahead, do some mental gymnastics and come up with another explanation for the plume of white smoke in an area where there was no fire at any time.

The hottest spot in the debris pile was where column 79 was. The same area where the white smoke plume was. Hmmm. :cool:

Miragememories

26th July 2010, 03:37 PM

How can the collapse be louder than the explosions that triggered it since the explosions had to precede the collapse?
So you believe a building covering a city block area and standing 47 storys high, could totally collapse to the ground and make less explosive noise than the core failure that caused it?

MM

DGM

26th July 2010, 03:39 PM

I just presented evidence of what could have been smoke from thermite and you say there is no evidence. :D

Or it could have been steam!(yeah, that's white) What's your proof again?

:rolleyes:

Miragememories

26th July 2010, 03:41 PM

MM:
I want to relate an experience, I've been to 3 CD's (in person) with a friend of mine that happens to be deaf. She likes to go because it's one of the few things she can actually "hear" (earthquakes are another).

Why do you think this might be?
Thanks for the great insight into the fact that deaf people can
feel vibrations.

I don't suppose she was near WTC 7 on 9/11?

No.

I didn't think so.

Carry on.

MM

alienentity

26th July 2010, 03:41 PM

Hello? The sound of the collapse was not heard on the video. You hearing is as impaired as your reading ability.

Wrong. Listen to the video again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=player_embedded

LMAO. Now you're lying about Chandler's video! Can you not stop yourself from misrepresenting things? Apparently not!! LOL

Chandler claims that explosive sounds can be heard. What device (hint: microphone) captured those sounds?

And yet according to you two nitwits, the mic didn't capture the sound of the collapse. BTW, the sounds Chandler is looking at are occurring long after the building is already into descent....... But not at the point where it begins to descend.

So explosives are de facto ruled out by Chandler's own analysis. He's just too stupid to realize this.

God, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Next canard please...

Miragememories

26th July 2010, 03:42 PM

Or it could have been steam!(yeah, that's white) What's your proof again?

:rolleyes:
Steam oh wise one is invisible.
:rolleyes:

MM

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 03:42 PM

Or it could have been steam!(yeah, that's white) What's your proof again?

:rolleyes:There were NO fires reported below floor 7 in the east half of WTC 7 at any time so how do you get steam?

alienentity

26th July 2010, 03:44 PM

Deniers are funny. I just presented evidence of what could have been smoke from thermite and you say there is no evidence. :D

Go ahead, do some mental gymnastics and come up with another explanation for the plume of white smoke in an area where there was no fire at any time.

The hottest spot in the debris pile was where column 79 was. The same area where the white smoke plume was. Hmmm. :cool:

Where there's smoke there's fire. I thought there were only small fires in WTC7, according to lying truthers.

Also, lying truthers like to pretend that the building fell in 6.5 seconds at freefall speed, and that all support was simultaneously removed.

What does column 79 have to do with that theory? You're confusing the actual events (the failure of the E side of the building into itself behind the curtain wall) with your phony theories.

Keep your phony theories straight please! Try not to contradict your own ideas too often, it spoils the punchline...for you.

alienentity

26th July 2010, 03:45 PM

There were NO fires reported below floor 7 in the east half of WTC 7 at any time so how do you get steam?

So there is no chance of water and heat mixing in the debris pile?

Are you sure you want to take that position? It's pretty dumb.

DGM

26th July 2010, 03:46 PM

Steam oh wise one is invisible.
:rolleyes:

MM
Do I need to find a video of a steam train (or any steam release for that matter) to show your pathetic?

Wait would that be like saying clouds are also "invisible"?

Miragememories

26th July 2010, 03:47 PM

...And yet according to you two #$%$$#@, the mic didn't capture the sound of the collapse...
Never said that.

The truth is obviously not your forte.

MM

alienentity

26th July 2010, 03:48 PM

Strange.

When I hear your video voice alienentity, you sound like an adult
capable of functioning responsibly in society.

Then I see all these pathetic, rambling baiting attempts and
I wonder if some 7 year old is replying.

You've obviously been playing in this sandbox too long.

Too funny.

MM

This is the appropriate reaction to the stream of lies that you truthers try to peddle. Derision, mocking and contempt. Yes, that applies to you in large measure.

What do you expect? You present things which are blatantly false, and attempt to blame innocent people for killing thousands. You are despicable. I would compare you to bottom-feeders, but that would be an insult to bottom-feeders.

Miragememories

26th July 2010, 03:51 PM

Do I need to find a video of a steam train (or any steam release for that matter) to show your pathetic?

Wait would that be like saying clouds are also "invisible"?
I realize the accurate use of scientific terms is of little importance to you DGM but the fact remains that steam is invisible and water vapor is not.

The two are not the same.

MM

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 03:51 PM

LMAO. Now you're lying about Chandler's video! Can you not stop yourself from misrepresenting things? Apparently not!! LOL Talk to yourself much? You said the sound of the collapse was picked up by the mic. Now you have shifted to the explosions. Your accusations of lying are based on this misrepresentation. Give it up. :rolleyes:

Chandler claims that explosive sounds can be heard. What device (hint: microphone) captured those sounds?

And yet according to you two nitwits, the mic didn't capture the sound of the collapse. BTW, the sounds Chandler is looking at are occurring long after the building is already into descent....... But not at the point where it begins to descend.Wrong. Mr. Chandler clearly establishes that the explosions occur BEFORE the collapse begins. Watch the video again. :D

DGM

26th July 2010, 03:51 PM

Holy crap MM. This train's burning "thermite"

fKFXjldCXsY

Sucks to be you!

:rolleyes:

alienentity

26th July 2010, 03:52 PM

But can we hear the actual collapse of that 47-story highrise on her microphone?
....

Hers, and near by voices can be heard clearly during this silent collapse.

Too funny.

...The reporter's microphone should have picked it up loud and clear but strangely, did not!.

MM

MM, you can't even keep your own lies straight! You called it a 'silent' collapse. You say the microphone did not pick up the sound.
C7 immediately backed you up claiming the mic didn't capture the sound of collapse......

Now you deny writing this. Cognitive dissonance much?

uke2se

26th July 2010, 03:58 PM

So I guess in your world, the sound of the 47-story WTC7 building totally collapsing to the ground could never have occurred.

The reporter's microphone should have picked it up loud and clear but strangely, did not!

Too funny.

MM

It did pick it up, that was the whole point. I realize science and logic isn't your strong-point, but at least try to keep up in the discussion.

The mic picked up the low rumbling of the collapse as well as voices and traffic, but no explosions. That's because they were not there.

alienentity

26th July 2010, 03:58 PM

Talk to yourself much? You said the sound of the collapse was picked up by the mic. Now you have shifted to the explosions. Your accusations of lying are based on this misrepresentation. Give it up. :rolleyes:

Wrong. Mr. Chandler clearly establishes that the explosions occur BEFORE the collapse begins. Watch the video again. :D

Know what? I'm not going to watch it again. It was idiocy the first time and the second time. I don't think things will improve.

2:34 into the video where Mr. Chandler tells us to listen for a 'low rumble', the building is already collapsing.

Yes, he's really that dumb. And apparently so are you.

And as for Mr. Chandler's trick of finding explosions by emphasizing low frequencies (remember I already showed empirical evidence that frequencies of a typical CD are well into the 6 khz range) and making fake lines.
Well, look to the left of his lines and you see exactly the same patterns. His reference point is arbitrary and incorrect, as the collapse is already underway, yet he doesn't seem to realize this.

ETA he adds a video from another perspective and claims that he has synchronized the start time, yet gives no frames of reference to calibrate or verify.
You are left to simply believe what he says, without his claim meeting the burden of proof. It's just his word. Aswhen he claims there are nanothermite rockets in the WTC tower collapses...... I'll be kind and just say that he's grossly incompetent.

But when you make stuff up, the truth doesn't matter. Chandler doesn't care about the truth, and neither do you. That's very clear to us.

DGM

26th July 2010, 04:04 PM

I realize the accurate use of scientific terms is of little importance to you DGM but the fact remains that steam is invisible and water vapor is not.

The two are not the same.

MM
So what? Do you agree that C7 calling the white smoke (steam, water vapor or "white fluffy looking stuff") is not proof of "thermite" in any way shape or form?

uke2se

26th July 2010, 04:05 PM

alienentity

26th July 2010, 04:11 PM

Seriously, are these trolls the only thing the twoof-movement can muster these days? Man, how they have fallen since the glory days of 2006, where thermite was new and shiny and dunces flocked to the "cause". Now we're left with trolls who flat out denies obvious evidence making us doubt their sanity even more.

It's amazing, really.

Indeed. Whatever small amount of respect one might have had for the 'leaders' of the movement was destroyed long ago by their insane insistence on these bizarre and unsubstantiated claims.

Chandler went so far off the deep end as to suggest 'nanothermite rockets' in his smoking gun videos.

Steven Jones suggested HAARP caused the Haiti earthquake.

DRG is a breed of no-planer

Harrit envisions pallets carrying tons of conventional explosives getting by bomb-sniffing dogs.

And those are supposedly the best minds. This lot posting at JREF are far from the best minds; they're not even mediocre, they're absolutely batty.

DGM

26th July 2010, 04:15 PM

Indeed. Whatever small amount of respect one might have had for the 'leaders' of the movement was destroyed long ago by their insane insistence on these bizarre and unsubstantiated claims.

Chandler went so far off the deep end as to suggest 'nanothermite rockets' in his smoking gun videos.

Steven Jones suggested HAARP caused the Haiti earthquake.

DRG is a breed of no-planer

Harrit envisions pallets carrying tons of conventional explosives getting by bomb-sniffing dogs.

And those are supposedly the best minds. This lot posting at JREF are far from the best minds; they're not even mediocre, they're absolutely batty.
Let's not forget Gage who parrots all of them.

:o

Myriad

26th July 2010, 04:22 PM

You are not an explosives expert nor do you understand how microphones work. As Miragememories just pointed out, Ashley's mic didn't pick up the sound of the collapse. By your reasoning, WTC 7 did not collapse. :D :D :D

You are not an explosives expert either. Therefore my claim that explosives make loud noise, and any counterclaim to the contrary that you wish to make, would have equal standing as far as arguing from credentials is concerned.

However, credentials aside, my claim is correct and any claim to the contrary would be ridiculous. Furthermore, this is completely obvious.

I do, in fact, understand how microphones work, in considerable technical detail. Also Ashley's mic did in fact pick up the sound of the collapse, but that is a moot point as my reasoning is in no way based on the characteristics of sounds collapsing buildings make.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 05:03 PM

So there is no chance of water and heat mixing in the debris pile? :D The photo was taken before the collapse. You are just wasting column space with your childish bating and absurd questions.

alienentity

26th July 2010, 05:07 PM

:D The photo was taken before the collapse. You are just wasting column space with your childish bating and absurd questions.

No, it was you who mentioned the debris pile where column 79 was. I was responding to that comment.

You've baited yourself.

ETA if there was thermite for some odd reason at column 79, why didn't the white smoke continue (ie thermite burning) once the building collapsed?

Are there any other possible sources for white smoke besides thermite? Before or after collapse?

I guess not, in your world.

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 05:12 PM

2:34 into the video where Mr. Chandler tells us to listen for a 'low rumble', the building is already collapsing.Wrong. The building does not start to collapse until after Ashley says "This is it". Mr. Chandler is referring to the low rumble of the explosions. You are consistently lying thru your teeth in an attempt to cloud the issue.

You are fooling no one but the fanatically faithful OCTers. :rolleyes:

alienentity

26th July 2010, 05:15 PM

Uh Oh! White smoke! Must be thermite! Quick call Dr. Jones!!

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/Deutsche_Bank_Building_fire_8-18-07_09.jpg

alienentity

26th July 2010, 05:21 PM

Wrong. The building does not start to collapse until after Ashley says "This is it". Mr. Chandler is referring to the low rumble of the explosions. You are consistently lying thru your teeth in an attempt to cloud the issue.

You are fooling no one but the fanatically faithful OCTers. :rolleyes:

Funny, the waveforms look the same before Mr. Chandler picks an arbitrary spot in the middle.

The rumble (you can hear it if you listen with headphones) starts at approx 41 seconds, 'this is it' is at 49 seconds. That's a full 8 seconds after the collapse is already underway, not including the East Penthouse collapse, which started another 10 seconds before that. (your column 79 being chewed by your phantom thermite, I suppose! LOL)

So, no, you're wrong again. Same old.

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 05:21 PM

No, it was you who mentioned the debris pile where column 79 was. I was responding to that comment.Give me a break. :D You are playing a game of mixing up statements.

Are there any other possible sources for white smoke besides thermite? Before or after collapse?Not before the collapse because there were no fires in that area at any time. You are just wasting everyone's time with your ridiculous double talk.

Have a nice day. :)

alienentity

26th July 2010, 05:29 PM

OMG!!! More white smoke! Must be thermite. Look to the left.
NOTHING else could cause this color of smoke except thermite.

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/sndPoint4.jpg

alienentity

26th July 2010, 05:30 PM

Give me a break. :D You are playing a game of mixing up statements.

Not before the collapse because there were no fires in that area at any time. You are just wasting everyone's time with your ridiculous double talk.

Have a nice day. :)

So you're saying there can NEVER be white smoke unless thermite is present?

Is that your position?

Have a nice day.

alienentity

26th July 2010, 05:32 PM

Why is this picture all blue? Someone has altered the color to fake the smoke. You've been duped.
Looks like smoke to me.
http://a.imageshack.us/img507/8717/figure5142.jpg

Anyway, the smoke looks yellow, not white. Can't be thermite. If you color correct the image it's more orange. That's probably agent orange - just like Vietnam!

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/Yellowsmoke.jpg

leftysergeant

26th July 2010, 05:57 PM

Thermite produces white smoke. There was no sign of or reports of fires on floors 5 and 6 in the east half of WTC 7 at any time, just this plume of white smoke.

You've got at least three veteran fire fighters watching this BS. ANY structural fire will produce white smoke, black smoke and all gradients between. Paper burning with a loit of air produces white smoke. There was water everywhere in the buildings to produce steam. You have nothing here that an experienced fire fighter would not expect to finds in any fire.

Grizzly Bear

26th July 2010, 06:43 PM

OMG!!! More white smoke! Must be thermite. Look to the left.
NOTHING else could cause this color of smoke except thermite.

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/sndPoint4.jpg

Amazing that he still has no idea about simple chemistry in combustion. Yet he continues to argue as if white smoke has absolutely no other source than thermite... If he'd only search google for a few seconds and...

triforcharity

26th July 2010, 06:47 PM

They hand waved the reports of explosions and the NFPA standards that clearly state that if pulverized concrete is found, explosives are indicated. A real investigation would have considered the possibility of explosions.

OT, AND ************. It does not apply when you know WHY the concrete is pulverized, such as in a COLLAPSE!!

triforcharity

26th July 2010, 06:53 PM

you are not an explosives expert nor do you understand how microphones work. As miragememories just pointed out, ashley's mic didn't pick up the sound of the collapse. By your reasoning, wtc 7 did not collapse. :d :d :d

you can hear the ******* rumble in the background!! Ffs!!

triforcharity

26th July 2010, 06:55 PM

Different rigging.

As a safety precaution, the windows are removed from such buildings prior to their demolition in order to protect against flying broken glass.

A building with all its windows gutted is going to allow every internal sound to be heard quite well.

How often have you walked past large sealed buildings that you know are noisy inside but you can't hear a peep?

Yes, WTC 7 had a few broken windows, but the majority were intact and sealed.

So back to your question, if the microphone only picked up a "low-level rumble" when the whole building was disintegrating, is there any wonder that any preceding internal noises from the sealed WTC7, would not be recorded at all?

MM

A explosive capable of cutting a core column would have been heard in Hoboken NJ.

Are you seriously comparing the sound of an office, to the sound of a H.E?

Is that like a stundie or something???

triforcharity

26th July 2010, 06:59 PM

http://a.imageshack.us/img507/8717/figure5142.jpg

Thermite produces white smoke. There was no sign of or reports of fires on floors 5 and 6 in the east half of WTC 7 at any time, just this plume of white smoke.

Isn't this like an hour and a half before the collapse? I thought you claim that whatever removed the steel support was instantaneous?

BTW, I see no smoke in that picture, between floors 5-6.

triforcharity

26th July 2010, 07:12 PM

Give me a break. :D You are playing a game of mixing up statements.

Not before the collapse because there were no fires in that area at any time. You are just wasting everyone's time with your ridiculous double talk.

Have a nice day. :)

HVAC systems vent to the outside, which is, IIRC, exactly what the louver looking openings are.

triforcharity

26th July 2010, 07:13 PM

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 08:35 PM

you can hear the ******* rumble in the background!! fs!! The collapse does not start until AFTER Ashley says "This is it" and then all we can hear is her voice. You are blowing sm:rolleyes:ke.

alienentity

26th July 2010, 09:44 PM

The collapse does not start until AFTER Ashley says "This is it" and then all we can hear is her voice. You are blowing sm:rolleyes:ke.

Wrong again. The rumble clearly starts several seconds earlier, you can even see it if you look carefully.

ETA the rumble does not change over time substantially, except it grows in volume slowly. Sounds exactly like a building collapsing, actually.

Are you deaf?

This is as silly as the piffle coming from Jammonius, where he denies something which is obvious to everyone else. PLease don't tell me you're going to go that route. One insane truther on these forums is already enough...

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 10:02 PM

Wrong again. The rumble clearly starts several seconds earlier, you can even see it if you look carefully.You are playing a game and just lying about what is in the video to waste time and column space. This is a sick joke.

At 4:02 "When we hear the sharp regular series of sounds in the background, the building has not yet started to fall. When we hear the reporter say "This is it", the building has not yet started to fall. The fall of the building corresponds to the crescendo of the crowd response. Here is another street scene with the building in full view. The crowd responds almost immediately as the building starts to fall. This occurs just after the reporter says "This is it".

You will continue to lie about what is in the video and accuse others of lying but the video doesn't lie, you do.

alienentity

26th July 2010, 10:19 PM

Here's an EQ'd version of the Banfield audio, I can't upload the aiff but the rumble starts at about 5 seconds into this clip, just as Banfield is saying 'You've got Karalina(sp) here'.

Again, Chandler's attempt to calibrate this timing with another video is laughable, it's so phony. He is guessing, and worse, he's making it look the way he wants to. Not dissimilar from his WTC7 collapse time manipulations where he arbitrarily decided that the building at a certain time - of course different from NIST's time - and then proceeded to accuse them of fraud.

Of course, fraud is exactly what he's perpetrating once again, through more phony analysis.
http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/BanfieldEQAudio.jpg

ps again here's what a real demolition spectrograph looks like: (Landmark Demolition)

http://i900.photobucket.com/albums/ac206/alienentity1/WTC%20stuff/Landmarkwhole.jpg

Christopher7

26th July 2010, 11:57 PM

Here's an EQ'd version of the Banfield audio, I can't upload the aiff but the rumble starts at about 5 seconds into this clip, just as Banfield is saying 'You've got Karalina(sp) here'.There is a faint rumble starting where you say. If you can hear that then you can hear the thum,thum - thum,thum,thum,thum as Pauliana(?) says "They, they" at 3:30.
Ashley is the first to turn around in response to the thum,thum.
At 3:38 someone says "That's the building coming down". The building fell in 6.6 seconds and it was still "coming down" 8 seconds after the thum,thum - thum,thum,thum,thum. The rumble corrolates with the internal collapse of the 21 core columns under the screenwall and west penthouse about 1 to 2 seconds before the building started down.

BigAl

27th July 2010, 05:14 AM

You're frikkin' joking right? We're talking about lower Manhattan on 9/11, hours after a rather large perimeter was established and you think there would be over 20 recording devices able to pick up the collapse.

So what if there were?

So what if there were not?

So what?

What recordings we have are consistent in not recording any man-made demolition and consistent with all eyewitnesses, the early warnings, the seismic data and the post-collapse engineering analysis.

funk de fino

27th July 2010, 05:21 AM

Source?

I have given you this information many times. You handwave it and say that you do not need to to seek confirmation. There are names and companies you can contact to verify his claims.

Page 8, assertion 6.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

Will you contact those people named?

Dave Rogers

27th July 2010, 05:25 AM

You're frikkin' joking right? We're talking about lower Manhattan on 9/11, hours after a rather large perimeter was established and you think there would be over 20 recording devices able to pick up the collapse.

The 'rather large' parameter, if I recall correctly for WTC7, was 1.5 times building height, rather less than a quarter of a mile. The sound level prediction for any explosive device capable of severing a single core column, if I recall correctly, was 130-140dB at up to half a mile. The perimeter therefore covered less than a quarter of the area in which the sound level would be expected to cause temporary hearing loss.

(No cases of temporary hearing loss were reported.)

Dave

funk de fino

27th July 2010, 05:35 AM

You're frikkin' joking right? We're talking about lower Manhattan on 9/11, hours after a rather large perimeter was established and you think there would be over 20 recording devices able to pick up the collapse.

You made the claim, back it up or rather simply provide a list of those documented sources for the audio of the collapse or spare us the goofy attempt at "debunking."

You know there were many demo officials who were within a couple of hundred feet who did not hear any explosives don't you?

Why is that?

RedIbis

27th July 2010, 05:46 AM

The 'rather large' parameter, if I recall correctly for WTC7, was 1.5 times building height, rather less than a quarter of a mile. The sound level prediction for any explosive device capable of severing a single core column, if I recall correctly, was 130-140dB at up to half a mile. The perimeter therefore covered less than a quarter of the area in which the sound level would be expected to cause temporary hearing loss.

(No cases of temporary hearing loss were reported.)

Dave

You do not recall correctly on either count. For one thing, NIST's "prediction" was the sound unobstructed, which is not particularly helpful since lower Manhattan isn't exactly a gentle, rolling meadow.

And even if it were, again, where is the list of 20+ recordings that Myriad suggests would have likely been in the area to pick up the sound of the collapse?

Let's start with one.

triforcharity

27th July 2010, 06:26 AM

The collapse does not start until AFTER Ashley says "This is it" and then all we can hear is her voice. You are blowing sm:rolleyes:ke.

can you even see the building collapse in the bckground? No? Oh, imagine that.

Listen, I know it hurts your little fantasy when we present facts and conclusive evidence, but....of well.

Stop lying. You have been proven wrong time and time again in this thread. Either admit you were wrong and move on, or continue lying and beaing beat over the head with facts over and over and over.

BigAl

27th July 2010, 07:47 AM

You do not recall correctly on either count. For one thing, NIST's "prediction" was the sound unobstructed, which is not particularly helpful since lower Manhattan isn't exactly a gentle, rolling meadow.

And even if it were, again, where is the list of 20+ recordings that Myriad suggests would have likely been in the area to pick up the sound of the collapse?

Let's start with one.

So if we can only identify 19 cameras and none of them recorded the very loud and distinctive sound of man-made demolition, that proves to you that it was man-made CD?

What a silly line of argument.

Grizzly Bear

27th July 2010, 10:13 AM

Well hell if we wanna be nit picky about cameras near the collapse area then I think I have a right to ask why the guys that filmed this one aren't complaining about any loud bangs or ear drum damage following a loud explosion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIbqaybkbWI

And redibis, I'll be blunt right now; the man you reference in your OP is incompetent. This might be a little difficult to grasp but he does not have any concept of how basic research works, and he hasn't the faintest idea how to study architecture or structural engineering. Tony Szamboti cited him once before and I've seen some of his other work and his research is quite deplorable. Wrong man to cite as an example if you're trying to demonstrate research that is more competent than NIST's.

RedIbis

27th July 2010, 10:23 AM

uke2se

27th July 2010, 10:31 AM

For another, this camera is many blocks from the site.

And yet, the mic picks up the sound of the collapse and not any demolition charges.

Thanks for helping to illustrate the point.

uke2se

27th July 2010, 10:35 AM

What is this, Breitbart? Did you miss the first sentence of my post?

First, I'd appreciate if you don't call me names. Second, no I didn't. It's not relevant to the point I was making:

The camera picked up the sound of the collapse. It did not pick up the sound of any demolition charges.

Another video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk) - from a truther no less - where the sound of the collapse is picked up, but no demolition charges.

RedIbis

27th July 2010, 10:39 AM

First, I'd appreciate if you don't call me names. Second, no I didn't. It's not relevant to the point I was making:

The camera picked up the sound of the collapse. It did not pick up the sound of any demolition charges.

Uh, I wasn't calling you names, I was referring to a played out news story... oh never mind.

There's an edit right before the bldg collapses, which is when any demo charges would have occurred, assuming of course, internal demolition charges would even be picked up by a camcorder condenser mic.

alienentity

27th July 2010, 10:43 AM

While we're nit pickng, there's an edit right before the collapse starts. For another, this camera is many blocks from the site.

1) How many blocks? What would be the expected attenuation of sound from that distance? (feel free to reference known CD's if you wish)
2) Since the microphones pick up any sound without prejudice, how is it that they uniformly pick up ambient sounds, yet no explosions? No truther has been able to answer that question without resorting to absurd handwaving.

Question for C7.
You made the claim that 'white smoke' is from therm*te.
Are you going to stand by that claim? If so, you need to state clearly that white smoke is ALWAYS, without exception, an indication of therm*te.

Otherwise you are forced to back down and admit that the smoke may have had a different source.

If you fail to answer this question, it indicts you as someone who will not even stand by their own statements. That diminishes your value to zero. What's it gonna be?

The beloved Dr. Greening wrote, in his paper investigating sources of sulfur 'In order to estimate the total amount of sulfur that could have been released by firing thermate charges placed at pre-selected locations in the WTC we need to know how much thermate was used on 9-11. If we
assume that a single thermate cutter charge consists of about 20 kg of reagents and 100 charges were needed per building, we conclude that a total of 2000 kg of thermate was used to demolish each WTC
building. This implies that the production of SO2 from thermate was no more than about 40 kg per building.'
Sulfur and the World Trade Center Disaster
by
F. R. Greening (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.911myths.com%2FSulfur.pdf&ei=0hVPTIKeKYigsQPPiuGsBw&usg=AFQjCNHCEsYaflGUxYNPSz0MeAQ7bVlAEg&sig2=VogaSne-KxOStNzahN_B-Q)

ie about 88 lbs for you non-metric Yankees

Is Greening correct? If not why?
If not, what else is he incorrect about? He doesn't see the sulfur in gypsum being the only source, but maybe he's wrong about that too.

What if all of you are wrong and there was no thermate or thermite? What does that do to your conspiracy theories? Anything?
Do you even care whether you're right or wrong? (personally I see no evidence that you do care)

My quick analysis of 9/11 Truth: As time goes on, the inherent contradictions in truther theories reduce adherents into increased cognitive dissonance, whereby they simply cannot let go of a single theory for fear that the whole thing will collapse (it will).
They therefore attempt to juggle ALL the ideas as ACTUAL, not merely theoretical thought experiments. This reduces the movement to increasing absurdity and irrelevance.

C7's repetition of Gage's 6.5 second talking point is a good illustration of this mental paralysis: if they admit that the actual collapse began sometime before the E PH collapsed from the roof into the building, then they admit the collapse was far more complex than they are allowing.

They won't do that, as their reputations hinge on this 6.5 s fiction.

Same with microphones and the complete absence of demolition explosions at the time of collapse. Truthers such as C7 cannot accept that the lack of evidence means that there were no demolition explosions, even if that's the truth. So they are forced to various desperate and absurd arguments as to how the sounds 'magically' were not recorded.

Again, this reduces their positions to no more than a pseudo-scientific, anti-intellectual farce.

C7, MM, Gage, Fetzer, Harrit, Jones and the rest are a JOKE. Nothing more. Intellectual frauds, IMO.

alienentity

27th July 2010, 10:45 AM

Uh, I wasn't calling you names, I was referring to a played out news story... oh never mind.

There's an edit right before the bldg collapses, which is when any demo charges would have occurred, assuming of course, internal demolition charges would even be picked up by a camcorder condenser mic.

If you're referring to WTC7 collapse, you are directly contradicting the work of 'luminary' David Chandler.
Are you saying his analysis is wrong? He can 'prove' the explosions happened at a particular time, caught on the video.

Please tell me that he's wrong. I'd love to hear that. Either he is, or you are, btw. You can't both be right.

uke2se

27th July 2010, 10:46 AM

There's an edit right before the bldg collapses, which is when any demo charges would have occurred,

In fact, the collapse has already started at the beginning of this video. You can see the Penthouse has collapsed. As such, the edit couldn't have been long, and we should have been hearing charges going off. We didn't.

Then there's the added evidence of the camera man. He makes no reference to any demolition charges going off, and he would have heard them. Everyone in lower Manhattan would have.

assuming of course, internal demolition charges would even be picked up by a camcorder condenser mic.

Again, demolition charges are much much louder than the sound of a building collapsing, so yes, the camera would pick it up.

alienentity

27th July 2010, 10:48 AM

There's an edit right before the bldg collapses, which is when any demo charges would have occurred, assuming of course, internal demolition charges would even be picked up by a camcorder condenser mic.

Why didn't seismic devices pick up the explosive detonations?

They do with other controlled demolitions. Why not in this case?

Why didn't the windows get blown out by the huge explosions? You need to explain this anomaly in scientific terms, using calculations for the amount of explosives, their placement, and the lack of pressure waves.

And why are there no explosive flashes as required when perimeter columns are allegedly cut? You can't have it both ways: either the columns were cut, or your theories are wrong.
Your own doctrine demands that the supports were cut simultaneously.

Grizzly Bear

27th July 2010, 10:54 AM

Of course if anybody is concerned about the video "jump" part way through the collapse the conspicuous lack of any reaction to explosives both during and immediately following the collapse that the "jump" had absolutely no chance of obfuscating might be a rather important detail to pay attention to. I'm pretty sure if I'm not expecting a loud bang to go along with the collapse I would need more than a few brief seconds to "express" myself.

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 12:40 PM

"The beloved Dr. Greening wrote, in his paper investigating sources of sulfur 'In order to estimate the total amount of sulfur that could have been released by firing thermate charges placed at pre-selected locations in the WTC we need to know how much thermate was used on 9-11"

Your "beloved Dr. Greening" also wrote to the NIST in response to their public draft of the WTC 7 Final Report.

Dr. Greening writes;

"I therefore believe that the National Institute of Standards and Technology, through its Draft Report, has fallen well short of substantiating its own collapse initiation hypothesis but could, on the contrary, be said to have provided evidence that a single column failure, brought on by thermal expansion of floor framing beams and girders, did not precipitate a global collapse of WTC 7 -the reason being that the NIST simulation predicts a slow collapse initiation which was not observed.

Therefore I believe that an alternative collapse initiation and propagation hypothesis is called for -one that more accurately reflects the reality of what happened to WTC 7 on September 11th, 2001."

He does explain his conclusions in greater detail but I didn't want to subject you to more reading than you are comfortable with.

You can read his complete response here;
http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/GreeningCommentsNCSTAR1-9.pdf

MM

twinstead

27th July 2010, 12:43 PM

From what I remember when he posted here, Greening DOESN'T consider controlled demolition an "alternative collapse and propagation hypothesis".

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 12:57 PM

Two years later, and the NIST have made no attempt to address Dr. Greening's concerns.

Something brought WTC 7 down and it certainly wasn't the office cubicle
fires that the NIST lay the blame on.

MM

Captain_Swoop

27th July 2010, 01:39 PM

was iit thermite or explosives then?

In some posts thre is a claim of one, then in the next post a claim of the other. I have seen both claimed in the same post!

alienentity

27th July 2010, 02:07 PM

Why was that sound not picked up by one of those microphones which you so inexpertly claim;
"... the microphones pick up any sound without prejudice, how is it that they uniformly pick up ambient sounds, yet no explosions?"

Clearly the externally collapsing East Penthouse must have made a horrifically loud sound. But not one single microphone was able to detect it.

MM

Two interesting statements MM

1) I am an expert on audio. That's just too bad for truther's phony excuses.

2) And your expertise on what the structural failure below the E. PH is....?
Please give your professional expertise in structural engineering and acoustics.

I've studied acoustics at university and am a professional audio engineer, amongst other things. Careful boy.

TSR

27th July 2010, 02:12 PM

Clearly the externally collapsing East Penthouse must have made a horrifically loud sound. But not one single microphone was able to detect it.

.
And your explanation for this apparent disconnect is ... ?
.

UNLoVedRebel

27th July 2010, 02:25 PM

Clearly the externally collapsing East Penthouse must have made a horrifically loud sound. But not one single microphone was able to detect it.How about you operationalize a "horrifically loud sound" for us so it doesn't become another meaningless truther term.

uke2se

27th July 2010, 02:40 PM

How about you operationalize a "horrifically loud sound" for us so it doesn't become another meaningless truther term.

Isn't it enough that he claims to have been in the broadcasting industry for 40 years? I mean, do you really need evidence as well? Sure, Alienentity provided evidence for his assertions, but you don't really need that from someone who has been in the broadcasting industry for 40 years?

:p

alienentity

27th July 2010, 02:40 PM

MM, you don't get to decide what my professional training and credentials are.

What you can do is offer your own qualifications.

All you're doing is to try to attack me personally instead of attacking the arguments made.
The argument is that cardioid mic patterns are not rigidly directional in real-world situations, and that off-axis sounds are attenuated but still present.

If you would like to intelligently debate that point, please do so now. Personal attacks on my qualifications are not intelligent debate, nor is lying about microphone characteristics.

Perhaps you can rebut the points with references to manufacturer specs, as I have already done. If you were professional, this would be your course of action.

alienentity

27th July 2010, 02:43 PM

BTW, I recently engineered the strings for a CD released by a major Hong Kong singer.

Your real problem is that I DO have the required expertise in audio.

What was your training and expertise in audio? How many recordings have you produced?
I've produced 50 soundtracks for corporate clients. And you?

ETA what is it with truthers and lies?

TheRedWorm

27th July 2010, 03:17 PM

Do you have any actual evidence that microphones behave the way you think they do?

Captain_Swoop

27th July 2010, 03:20 PM

What did you do in broadcasting for 40 years? I know people who have worked for the BBC for that length of time and never even saw a microphone.

TSR

27th July 2010, 03:47 PM

We know the collapse of WTC 7 was LOUD.

We know the pre-collapse of the WTC 7 East Penthouse had to be LOUD.

.
And once again -- your explanation for this apparent disconnect is ... ?
.

alienentity

27th July 2010, 03:53 PM

Funny, the cheap camcorder mics that people use at controlled demolitions never have any trouble at all picking up the explosions, even from several blocks away.

But mysteriously NONE of the mics on 9/11 picked up anything more than a rumble.

How many db was the internal collapse of WTC7 from 3 blocks away, MM?
How many db is a typical high explosive demolition charge from the same distance?

You should know these figures if you are making a serious claim. You don't, and you aren't. You're just making it up as you go.

How much audio experience do you actually have? I gave you some of my qualifications, nothing from you. Yet you make the accusations......hmmm. bit of a double-standard huh?

TSR

27th July 2010, 03:53 PM

Try and explain your question so those of us who speak english might understand what you are asking?

Or is that too difficult a challenge for you TSR??

.
Which of the words is confusing you? No one else seems to be having any problems...

Here, let me type it slowly for you:

Y o u . h a v e . s a i d . t h e r e . s h o u l d . h a v e . b e e n . s o u n d s . b u t . t h e y . w e r e . n o t . r e c o r d e d .

W h a t . i s . y o u r . g u e s s . a s . t o . w h y . t h e y .w e r e . n o t ?

And I'd drop the personal attacks -- they aren't doing what little credibility you have any good.
.

DGM

27th July 2010, 03:56 PM

MM:
You never answered if you agreed with C7 that the "white smoke" was proof of "thermite"? You wouldn't want to get accused of just "toeing" the line and not standing up for yourself.

alienentity

27th July 2010, 03:57 PM

Watch MM try to evade this info:

NLkmnc6_syY

In case MM doesn't comprehend how badly he's been pwned, listen to the 'rumble' as WTC2 collapses almost directly onto WTC1. The microphone picked up that sound just fine, but no explosions. Doesn't sound that loud on this recording either, until it's almost directly on top of them.
With WTC7 it's exactly the same kind of rumble, and not particularly loud.

Gee, all the mics were faulty that day, huh? LOL

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 04:18 PM

"Funny, the cheap camcorder mics that people use at controlled demolitions never have any trouble at all picking up the explosions, even from several blocks away.

But mysteriously NONE of the mics on 9/11 picked up anything more than a rumble.

How many db was the internal collapse of WTC7 from 3 blocks away, MM?
How many db is a typical high explosive demolition charge from the same distance?

You should know these figures if you are making a serious claim. You don't, and you aren't. You're just making it up as you go.

How much audio experience do you actually have? I gave you some of my qualifications, nothing from you. Yet you make the accusations......hmmm. bit of a double-standard huh?"
All you've done is reiterate my point about how difficult it is to acquire good sound recordings in a big city environment.

Most of the demolition videos that I've listened to, were lacking that NYC cacophony of street sound. Probably because there was an informed audience anxiously awaiting the occurrence of the event.

It is you that is avoiding the issue.

Of course there are sound recordings of the collapses at the WTC on 9/11. Some of them quite loud.

But we don't have good recordings that disprove the existence of internal demolitions inside sealed buildings.

In spite of all the media coverage, we don't even have a camera mic recording of the WTC 7 East Penthouse collapse. Obviously, recording conditions were less than ideal or we would have it along with the video.

All you have proved by your little video is that 'some' audio was recorded.

A point I've never disputed.

MM

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 04:20 PM

MM:
You never answered if you agreed with C7 that the "white smoke" was proof of "thermite"? You wouldn't want to get accused of just "toeing" the line and not standing up for yourself.
White smoke is proof of white smoke.

I don't believe it was steam or water vapor.

It could be evidence of thermite.

MM

TSR

27th July 2010, 04:21 PM

But we don't have good recordings that disprove the existence of internal demolitions inside sealed buildings.

.
And what can be expected to happen, physically, to a sealed building when you set off CD-type explosives inside?
.

alienentity

27th July 2010, 04:22 PM

All you've done is reiterate my point about how difficult it is to acquire good sound recordings in a big city environment.

No, all I've done is REFUTE your point by showing you that all the mics captured the sound of collapsing buildings very faithfully.

Of course there are sound recordings of the collapses at the WTC on 9/11. Some of them quite loud.

But we don't have good recordings that PROVE the existence of internal demolitions inside sealed buildings.

MM

Corrected your misleading statement. ALL of the recordings with audio captured the sound of collapsing buildings, without exceptions.

NONE, not a single one, captured typical controlled demolition explosions, nothing at all like any that are available online.

This simply disproves that there is any evidence to support your claim.
It's that simple. No need for your personal attacks.

You have no evidence.

alienentity

27th July 2010, 04:26 PM

MM tries to lead the argument into proving a negative. Of course there are zero recordings of things which NEVER happened.
That's childishly simple.

What you can NEVER do is to provide actual proof, using audio, that there were demolitions explosives used. You will always fail in this effort. Mark my words - it's hopeless for you.

TheRedWorm

27th July 2010, 04:29 PM

...But we don't have good recordings that disprove the existence of internal demolitions inside sealed buildings...

First of all, define sealed.

Second of all, any blast powerful enough to sever any steel structural members would have blown out windows of the WTC towers, and likely any nearby buildings, which didn't happen.

Plus, how the hell could anything disprove a fantasy that has no evidence to support it in the first place?

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 04:36 PM

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 04:42 PM

.
Which of the words is confusing you? No one else seems to be having any problems...

Here, let me type it slowly for you:

Y o u . h a v e . s a i d . t h e r e . s h o u l d . h a v e . b e e n . s o u n d s . b u t . t h e y . w e r e . n o t . r e c o r d e d .

W h a t . i s . y o u r . g u e s s . a s . t o . w h y . t h e y .w e r e . n o t ?

And I'd drop the personal attacks -- they aren't doing what little credibility you have any good.
.

My guess?

Poor mic placement.

MM

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 04:47 PM

Tell me, what exactly did they use to minimize the sound? Some of the best silencers that I have ever seen can only take the sound of a gunshot down around 35 dB (from ~140 to around ~110) which is still very loud. What type of material can you use to silence an explosive so that it goes from "fatal injuries at close range and hearing damage for a significant distance from close ranges" to "indistinguishable from background noise"?
You are confusing the sound source (silenced gun) with the sound recording device (microphone).

Go out on a busy Manhattan street and fire off a few of your 'silenced' rounds while shooting with a camcorder.

Compare what you heard with what the microphone heard.

MM

TSR

27th July 2010, 04:47 PM

My guess?

Poor mic placement.

.
Which then proves ... what?

I mean, given that no eye witness reports sequential explosions consistent with CD, either...
.

TheRedWorm

27th July 2010, 04:51 PM

You are confusing the sound source (silenced gun) with the sound recording device (microphone).

Go out on a busy Manhattan street and fire off a few of your 'silenced' rounds while shooting with a camcorder.

Compare what you heard with what the microphone heard.

MM

First, address this post...

First of all, define sealed.

Second of all, any blast powerful enough to sever any steel structural members would have blown out windows of the WTC towers, and likely any nearby buildings, which didn't happen.

Plus, how the hell could anything disprove a fantasy that has no evidence to support it in the first place?

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 05:00 PM

.
Which then proves ... what?

I mean, given that no eye witness reports sequential explosions consistent with CD, either...
.
Tell that to Barry Jennings widow.

MM

TSR

27th July 2010, 05:09 PM

Tell that to Barry Jennings widow.

.
Why? He didn't hear explosions consistent with CD, either.

Remember -- he was in the building when he heard the explosions? If those explosions were consistent with CD, the build would have been demolished around him.

It wasn't.

Not to mention that he did not report *sequential* explosions even then.

So, let's try again, and try not to dodge this time: What does this lack of recorded CD explosions mean, given that none of the eyewitnesses report explosions consistent with CD? How do you place a mic such that it can record sequential explosions that never happened?
.

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 05:10 PM

First of all, define sealed.

Second of all, any blast powerful enough to sever any steel structural members would have blown out windows of the WTC towers, and likely any nearby buildings, which didn't happen.

Plus, how the hell could anything disprove a fantasy that has no evidence to support it in the first place?
Sorry your question got buried under a collapse of other posts.

Apparently only you noticed.

Sealed?

Enclosed well enough that internal sounds are too dampened to be picked up by a normal set up of an audio recording device.

Your second point assumes blasting would have had to occur.

I don't agree.

I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could not be used to create a core failure.

What fantasy?

MM

TSR

27th July 2010, 05:12 PM

I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could not be used to create a core failure.

.
And you've also yet to demonstrate that it could.

Core failure -- this means core columns, right?
.

alienentity

27th July 2010, 05:14 PM

I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could not be used to create a core failure.

MM

Asking to prove a negative again. You have it exactly backwards:

There is NO proof that thermite or any derivative COULD be used or WAS used to create a core failure.

Again, you act as if having NO proof is the equivalent of HAVING proof. That is nonsense. Unfortunately, that's the way truther logic operates most of the time.

alienentity

27th July 2010, 05:18 PM

Here is some advise on these matters from a wise man. One of the main lessons is 'you can't prove a negative'

qWJTUAezxAI

TheRedWorm

27th July 2010, 05:21 PM

...<snip>...I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could not be used to create a core failure.

What fantasy?

MM

Why do you keep asking us to try to prove a negative? This is very dishonest.

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 05:29 PM

.
Why? He didn't hear explosions consistent with CD, either.

Remember -- he was in the building when he heard the explosions? If those explosions were consistent with CD, the build would have been demolished around him.

It wasn't.

Not to mention that he did not report *sequential* explosions even then.

So, let's try again, and try not to dodge this time: What does this lack of recorded CD explosions mean, given that none of the eyewitnesses report explosions consistent with CD? How do you place a mic such that it can record sequential explosions that never happened?
.

Well I beg to differ with your conclusion.

Barry not only heard, but he witnessed first hand an explosion inside WTC 7.

It has been argued that the explosion he witnessed was part of a failed preliminary attempt at collapsing WTC 7.

I'm not "dodging" anything.

It's not true that there are no eyewitnesses to explosions.

Whether an eyewitness hearing an explosion would know that it was, or was not, part of a CD attempt is impossible to tell. You are asking for speculation.

How would I place a mic to record sequential explosions that you claim never happened?

Well you are answering your own question aren't you?

Now, if I wanted to record sequential explosions, that would happen, depending on how many audio tracks, mixing board etc., I had available, I'd probably plant multiple RF mics reasonably close to the elevator lobbies. I have never recorded live explosions inside a building so my methodology might not be the best.

RF mics do have range issues so an alternative might be required.

MM

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 05:30 PM

Why do you keep asking us to try to prove a negative? This is very dishonest.
What negative?

It is only dishonest if I know it to be dishonest.

MM

Reactor drone

27th July 2010, 05:33 PM

Sealed?

Enclosed well enough that internal sounds are too dampened to be picked up by a normal set up of an audio recording device.

Your second point assumes blasting would have had to occur.

I don't agree.

I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could not be used to create a core failure.

What fantasy?

MM

I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could be used to create a core failure.

The only demonstrated ways are explosive severing and verinage. Since an explosive shockwave travelling at 20,000 fps would rapidly "unseal" a building we can rule that out and since no-one reported finding huge hydraulic rams in the debris verinage isn't looking too good either.

So, building failure due to damage caused by unfought fires is looking pretty good. It matches the observed state of the buildings, the sound levels, the recovered debris and the known properties of the bulding materials.

TSR

27th July 2010, 05:33 PM

It has been argued that the explosion he witnessed was part of a failed preliminary attempt at collapsing WTC 7.

.
By whom, and what proof is offered of this?
.

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 05:35 PM

.
And you've also yet to demonstrate that it could.

Core failure -- this means core columns, right?
.

Since I don't perform controlled demolitions, I am unable
to demonstrate what professionals have stated is quite doable.

Core failure does indeed refer to the failure of a sufficient number of
core columns as to cause a building implosion.

MM

TheRedWorm

27th July 2010, 05:36 PM

Well I beg to differ with your conclusion.

Barry not only heard, but he witnessed first hand an explosion inside WTC 7.

Then why are you arguing thermite? Which was it, explosives or thermite?

It has been argued that the explosion he witnessed was part of a failed preliminary attempt at collapsing WTC 7.

So what? "It has been argued" that man never went to the moon, and that smoking has no ill health benefits. Arguing something offers nothing as to that things veracity.

It's not true that there are no eyewitnesses to explosions.

Explosions != explosives

Whether an eyewitness hearing an explosion would know that it was, or was not, part of a CD attempt is impossible to tell. You are asking for speculation.

If you have a problem with speculation, why did you even mention thermite?

How would I place a mic to record sequential explosions that you claim never happened?

Well you are answering your own question aren't you?

Now, if I wanted to record sequential explosions, that would happen, depending on how many audio tracks, mixing board etc., I had available, I'd probably plant multiple RF mics reasonably close to the elevator lobbies. I have never recorded live explosions inside a building so my methodology might not be the best.

RF mics do have range issues so an alternative might be required.

MM

Explosions still != explosives. Explosions being heard does not mean anything except that explosions were heard.

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 05:38 PM

I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could be used to create a core failure.

The only demonstrated ways are explosive severing and verinage. Since an explosive shockwave travelling at 20,000 fps would rapidly "unseal" a building we can rule that out and since no-one reported finding huge hydraulic rams in the debris verinage isn't looking too good either.

So, building failure due to damage caused by unfought fires is looking pretty good. It matches the observed state of the buildings, the sound levels, the recovered debris and the known properties of the bulding materials.

Well as I stated in an earlier post to this thread, Dr. Greening disagrees with you. Or to state it another way, he disagrees with the basis for the NIST conclusion as to why WTC 7 collapsed.

MM

TSR

27th July 2010, 05:39 PM

Since I don't perform controlled demolitions, I am unable
to demonstrate what professionals have stated is quite doable.

.
Which CD professionals have stated that a CD can be accomplished by therm*te?

Or are you going to go with hush-a-boom cutting charges -- which CD professionals state that these even exist?

And how, exactly, was the building prepared for CD without anyone noticing?
.

Core failure does indeed refer to the failure of a sufficient number of
core columns as to cause a building implosion.

.
Great! Now all you have to find some way to make therm*te cut horizontally, or for hush-a-boom cutting charges to have been deployed.
.

uke2se

27th July 2010, 05:40 PM

What negative?

It is only dishonest if I know it to be dishonest.

MM

Fair enough. Asking someone to perform a logically impossible action - such as proving a negative - in order to win an argument is dishonest. Please stop doing it.

So, to summarize, there's no evidence of explosives. All the videos captured sound from the collapses. None of them captured sound from any demolition charges. We get two different explanations for this from our twoofers: A hush-a-boom was used (i.e, the explosions where somehow dampened, a feat that has yet to be shown even remotely possible) and the mics where improperly placed to pick up explosions (which seems odd given the mics managed to pick up the sounds of the collapses just fine). In short, our twoofers are struggling with this huge hole in their "theory".

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 05:48 PM

"Then why are you arguing thermite? Which was it, explosives or thermite?"
I believe nano-thermite has an explosive characteristic.

"Explosions != explosives"
That is not a question.

"If you have a problem with speculation, why did you even mention thermite?"
Because it has been found extensively in the WTC dust. This is not speculation.

"Explosions still != explosives. Explosions being heard does not mean anything except that explosions were heard."
Your point?

You asked the question about mic placement.

Explosions being heard, but not recorded. Ears are more sensitive and more prevalent than microphones.

It's difficult to answer when too many of your questions are obviously meant to be rhetorical.

MM

TheRedWorm

27th July 2010, 05:51 PM

Let me ask you then, how explosive is nano-thermite? Is it powerful enough to replace regular explosives like RDX and dynamite?

BigAl

27th July 2010, 05:56 PM

I believe nano-thermite has an explosive characteristic.

The characteristic you are looking for is called "brisance" where high values are explosive and low values, not so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance

Please explain why you believe that nano-thermite has a high brisance value.

If you can't point to a source, you are flat-out making stuff up.

TSR

27th July 2010, 06:01 PM

Because it has been found extensively in the WTC dust. This is not speculation.

.
No, it is a flat-out untruth.
.

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 06:06 PM

Fair enough. Asking someone to perform a logically impossible action - such as proving a negative - in order to win an argument is dishonest. Please stop doing it.

So, to summarize, there's no evidence of explosives. All the videos captured sound from the collapses. None of them captured sound from any demolition charges. We get two different explanations for this from our twoofers: A hush-a-boom was used (i.e, the explosions where somehow dampened, a feat that has yet to be shown even remotely possible) and the mics where improperly placed to pick up explosions (which seems odd given the mics managed to pick up the sounds of the collapses just fine). In short, our twoofers are struggling with this huge hole in their "theory".
When you explain where I'm asking someone to; "perform a logically impossible action - such as proving a negative - in order to win an argument", I'll stop. Until that time, I don't know what you are talking about?

Regarding your summary;

You have not proven there was no evidence of explosives, some, not all, of the videos captured collapse sound, I'm not qualified to state whether the sound of demolitions was, or was not embedded in the sound recordings, I don't know what the hush-a-boom reference is about, the mics did not pick up the collapses "just fine" and I give that as my professional opinion.

I also don't like the derogatory term "twoofer". If you use that term again don't expect a reply. I manage not to insult you with such a label and I think can show me the same respect. Okay?

MM

Christopher7

27th July 2010, 06:07 PM

No, it is a flat-out untruth..That is flat-out denial.

http://a.imageshack.us/img204/3239/redgraychipswithspheres.jpg

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 06:08 PM

.
No, it is a flat-out untruth.
.
Well until you can do more than say it is untrue, I stand in disagreement with you!

MM

Miragememories

27th July 2010, 06:16 PM

The characteristic you are looking for is called "brisance" where high values are explosive and low values, not so much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance

Please explain why you believe that nano-thermite has a high brisance value.

If you can't point to a source, you are flat-out making stuff up.
Well since you like to do your research at Wikipedia, I give you their response on the subject of nano-thermite and super thermite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

"Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates.

But because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.

MICs or Super-thermites are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.

Nanoenergetic materials can store higher amounts of energy than conventional energetic materials and can be used in innovative ways to tailor the release of this energy.

Thermobaric weapons are considered to be a promising application of nanoenergetic materials.

Research into military applications of nano-sized materials began in the early 1990s."

MM

TSR

27th July 2010, 06:16 PM

That is flat-out denial.

.
Those pictures are flat-out not therm*te.
.

TSR

27th July 2010, 06:17 PM

Well until you can do more than say it is untrue, I stand in disagreement with you!

.
You made the affirmative claim, it's up to you to provide support for it.

I'll wait right here...
.

Christopher7

27th July 2010, 06:19 PM

The characteristic you are looking for is called "brisance" where high values are explosive and low values, not so much.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrisancePlease explain why you believe that nano-thermite has a high brisance value.

If you can't point to a source, you are flat-out making stuff up. Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.
"The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says.
Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly.
"Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times," Son says, resulting in a very rapid reactive wave.
Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates.
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/14105/?a=f

uke2se

27th July 2010, 06:19 PM

I believe nano-thermite has an explosive characteristic.

It doesn't. For something to be classed as an explosive it needs to be an actual explosion, defined (by wiki) as: a sudden expansion of the material after initiation, usually accompanied by the production of light, heat, sound, and pressure.Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_material)

Nano-thermite reacts like ordinary thermite, although with a much higher release of energy. There is no explosion.

TSR

27th July 2010, 06:24 PM

http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/14105/?a=f

.
And when is that article dated?
.

BigAl

27th July 2010, 06:26 PM

Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.
"The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says.
Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly.
"Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times," Son says, resulting in a very rapid reactive wave.
Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates.
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/14105/?a=f

Please quote the paragraph in the above that you believe supports your claim that there is some nano ecplosive as powerful as TNT/C4/RDX, etc, and silent.

uke2se

27th July 2010, 06:30 PM

When you explain where I'm asking someone to; "perform a logically impossible action - such as proving a negative - in order to win an argument", I'll stop. Until that time, I don't know what you are talking about?

Fine. Right here:

"I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could not be used to create a core failure."

The proof you require would demand us proving a negative, i.e, that thermite could NOT be used. That is logically impossible. We can rule it out based on evidence, and have done so, but we can't prove it. The proper sentence, using the right burden of evidence would be this:

"I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative COULD be used to create a core failure".

This requires positive evidence, and the burden rests on the person suggesting that thermite did play a role in bringing down the towers.

Regarding your summary;

You have not proven there was no evidence of explosives,

Again with reversing the burden of evidence? Neither I or anyone else have to prove that there were no evidence for explosives. You and others like you asserting that there were explosives have to provide such evidence. You have not. The logical conclusion is that no explosives were used.

some, not all, of the videos captured collapse sound,

The videos where the cameras were close to the towers did capture the sound of the collapse. They did not capture any sounds of explosions.

I'm not qualified to state whether the sound of demolitions was, or was not embedded in the sound recordings,

I thought you said you were an expert? Nevertheless, alienentity, who is an expert in this has checked, and there are no sounds of demolition. Only the clear sound of collapse. Really, no further analysis is needed. It's cut and dry: We can hear the collapse but no demolition charges - conclusion: there were no demolition charges.

I don't know what the hush-a-boom reference is about, the mics did not pick up the collapses "just fine" and I give that as my professional opinion.

I'm just as qualified as you to say that the mics did pick up the collapses just fine. As evidence, I point you to the videos of the collapses where we can clearly hear them.

I also don't like the derogatory term "twoofer".

Tough.

If you use that term again don't expect a reply.

Don't care.

I manage not to insult you with such a label and I think can show me the same respect. Okay?

You insult the memory of the 3000 people that died that day with your loony assertions. Expect no respect from me.

triforcharity

27th July 2010, 06:34 PM

That is flat-out denial.

http://a.imageshack.us/img204/3239/redgraychipswithspheres.jpg

Tell me something. How did it react in a vaccuum? This would be a telltale sign, as thermite creates it's own oxygen.

phunk

27th July 2010, 06:34 PM

But we don't have good recordings that disprove the existence of internal demolitions inside sealed buildings.

Actually we do. All the videos that don't show the windows exploding are excelent recorded proof that there were no internal demolition explosions.

TexasJack

27th July 2010, 06:37 PM

uke2se, I can't believe you have to explain what proving a negative is. These guys come in with a whole suitcase of logical fallacies, don't they?

Christopher7

27th July 2010, 07:11 PM

Actually we do. All the videos that don't show the windows exploding are excelent recorded proof that there were no internal demolition explosions.The videos don't show the bottom part that exploded. Eight of the lower floors were removed with explosives. This is the only way the top part could fall at free fall acceleration.

Hand waving and denial cannot change this is a simple fact of physics.

TSR

27th July 2010, 07:17 PM

The videos don't show the bottom part that exploded. Eight of the lower floors were removed with explosives.

.
In your opinion.

And that opinion is supported by what relevant training or experience, again?
.

This is the only way the top part could fall at free fall acceleration.

Hand waving and denial cannot change this is a simple fact of physics.

.
It is not a simple fact, it is your opinion.

One contradicted by every other recognized authority who has looked at the matter.

So, what is your relevant training or experience that we should take your word over theirs?
.

Redtail

27th July 2010, 07:20 PM

The videos don't show the bottom part that exploded. Eight of the lower floors were removed with explosives. This is the only way the top part could fall at free fall acceleration.

Hand waving and denial cannot change this is a simple fact of physics.
Oh, a simple fact of physics? What's the formula for the collapse then?

Christopher7

27th July 2010, 07:27 PM

.
In your opinion.No, it is a matter of fact and your denying it proves you are in denial.

And that opinion is supported by what relevant training or experience, again? Lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, stated:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance.

The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure simultaneously with explosives.

Christopher7

27th July 2010, 07:30 PM

oh, a simple fact of physics? What's the formula for the collapse then?ffa = cd

TSR

27th July 2010, 07:35 PM

ffa = cd
.
So, your opinion *isn't* supported by any physics which you can demonstrate.

All you have left is your training and expertise -- which is *what*, exactly?
.

Christopher7

27th July 2010, 07:37 PM

.
So, your opinion *isn't* supported by any physics which you can demonstrate.

All you have left is your training and expertise -- which is *what*, exactly?
.Hello? I guess you missed this:
Lead investigator for NIST, Shyam Sunder, stated:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance.

The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure simultaneously with explosives.

TSR

27th July 2010, 07:38 PM

The only way to get a building to fall at free fall acceleration is to remove all the supporting structure simultaneously with explosives.

.
Except for the teeny tiny fact that the *building* did not fall at free fall.

One small portion did, and that only for a few seconds.

Why would they only CD *part* of the building?

And I guess you missed the part where you were supposed to tell us all your training and expertise or the part where you were supposed to actually *demonstrate* the physics involved by doing the math?
.

Reactor drone

27th July 2010, 07:44 PM

.
Except for the teeny tiny fact that the *building* did not fall at free fall.

One small portion did, and that only for a few seconds.

Why would they only CD *part* of the building?

.

And, more specifically, why CD partof the building after the building had started falling. Surely it's a bit redundant to start demolishing a building after it's started to fall.

Christopher7

27th July 2010, 08:03 PM

.
Except for the teeny tiny fact that the *building* did not fall at free fall.

One small portion did, and that only for a few seconds.

Why would they only CD *part* of the building?

And I guess you missed the part where you were supposed to tell us all your training and expertise or the part where you were supposed to actually *demonstrate* the physics involved by doing the math?.I'm quoting NIST. WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration.
NCSTAR 1-A pg 45 [pdf pg 87]
"The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2(9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 588 [pdf pg 250]
the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit

Denial is a powerful thing. No matter how conclusive the proof, it just won't be accepted. :D

triforcharity

27th July 2010, 08:18 PM

I'm quoting NIST. WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration.
NCSTAR 1-A pg 45 [pdf pg 87]
"The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about 1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15) allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2(9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." [within 0.1%]

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.1 pg 588 [pdf pg 250]
the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit

Denial is a powerful thing. No matter how conclusive the proof, it just won't be accepted. :D

Quotemining is a very weak thing, considering we can destroy it with one post.