'What about building 7'?

[jaydeehess]

That's very much more plausible than your insinuation that an explosive powerful enough to destroy and remove structure within a few meters of their position did not kill them outright.

You have no clue how such explosives work.

Destroy and remove core structure a few dozen feet from the NW corner of the building, which itself was removed by WTC1 debris. So according to MM, the core suffered explosive removal of some of its western structure, THEN, later, when WTC1 came down it also lost the SW corner columns for 15+ floors. What was holding up the SW portion of the building for another half dozen hours?

 

[jaydeehess]

http://archive.org/download/Michael...MichaelChan_southeastviewofWTC7before9-11.jpg.
Pre911 southeast corner of wtc7 showing pedestrian walkway into #7. post Office building is to the right of this picture. No vehicle ramp.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=95e_1319603090&comments=1
Video of Jennings at window above vehicle ramp.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5_files/fig-5-15.jpg
View of WTC7 from the north with Verizon building on the right. Vehicle ramp is in the NW corner of the building, thus so was Jennings when at the window.

Perhaps MM can describe the view of the towers from windows on the north side of WTC7 for us.

 

[Miragememories]

MM, can you point us to the videos in which the street noise saturated the audio circuitry.

In an analog system the recording would over modulate. Usually resulting in spillover into the video as wavy diagonal bars in the video. Similarly an over mod white in the video results in noise in the audio and a tearing picture.

In a digital system the sound samples simply are all "1" s, the max digital level. No such thing as over mod , it hits full scale of 0 dbfs ( which stands for decibel full scale audio levels in a dbfs scale are either all negative numbers or 0 dbfs) and stays there until sound lessens.

Save the lecture for yourself.

In 2001, the camcorders mostly in use were Sony SP Betacams which recorded analog audio and AFM audio tracks.

When sound levels are excessive, analog audio recordings are over-modulated and present heavily distorted sound.

The spillover into video you refer to is known as harmonics (often observed when recording live music performances of which I have done many) but they do not necessarily mean over modulation distortion of the accompanying audio.

At "too high" audio input, digital recordings 'clip' and present a screeching unintelligible sound which is absolutely useless. For this reason peak record levels are usually set at about -3db.

http://archive.org/download/Michael...MichaelChan_southeastviewofWTC7before9-11.jpg.
Pre911 southeast corner of wtc7 showing pedestrian walkway into #7. post Office building is to the right of this picture. No vehicle ramp

.
Nice photo but you give no explanation as to why you have provided it?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=95e_1319603090&comments=1
Video of Jennings at window above vehicle ramp.

I do have a copy of that video.

Here you reveal your poor knowledge.

That is Mr. Michael Hess (NYC Corporation Counsel) in the window.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5_files/fig-5-15.jpg
View of WTC7 from the north with Verizon building on the right. Vehicle ramp is in the NW corner of the building, thus so was Jennings when at the window.

Perhaps MM can describe the view of the towers from windows on the north side of WTC7 for us.

Like I said, that was not Barry Jennings (not that it matters since they were both together).

Also you have their location wrong.

They were at the NE corner of the 8th floor of WTC7.

In the interview, Barry Jennings said he knocked out several windows.

 

[DGM]

They were at the NE corner of the 8th floor of WTC7.

And the view of the towers from that location would be?

 

[Africanus]

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/NIST5-95_zpsa1dc3196.png[/qimg]

Happy now?

Yes, as you no longer base your argument on a fraudulent figure.

As you can see, the damage from WTC1 debris fall is well away from the destroyed 6th floor stairwell.

This picture that you took out of the NIST report just shows the "removed columns and floor segments" and tells us nothing about the debris distribution inside the building. So I think it is still very likely, that the debris caused the "damaged stairwell".

 

[Africanus]

Barry Jennings (Emergency Coordinator) said he was driving to his office at the WTC, under excellent traffic conditions when he was informed that a small Cessna had hit the WTC (9:52 am) and he was asked to man the Office of Emergency Management (OEM) at WTC 7 on the 23rd floor.

I think, your time is off an hour. BTW we don't know where and when Jennings got the call, so I think it is highly speculative to give such an exact time.

The OEM was locked so they returned to the ground floor lobby and police and security took them back up in a freight elevator and they were able to get into the OEM.

He observed that the OEM was deserted.

According to the NIST Report on WTC7, at 9:03 am there was a short power outage when WTC2 was struck. This would have made the elevators inoperable.

At 9:59 am when WTC2 collapsed, all power was lost to the WTC complex but this was temporary at WTC7 as its emergency generator would automatically have switched on.

Many claim that it was this second power interruption, which inhibited Jennings and Hess from taking the elevator, was in fact the 9:59 collapse of WTC2. We are asked to believe that from approximately 8:52+ am to 9:59 am Barry Jennings was consumed by such limited activity and that at no time was he informed by police or security about the second impact and the obvious WTC7 early evacuations.

Jennings reached the OEM-EOC much later than he stated in his testimony. His account is not corroborated by other accounts like the accounts of Abdo Nahmod, Richard Zarillo oder Richard Bylicki.

We are also expected to believe that it took them almost half an hour (9:59 am-10:28 am) to arrive at the 6th floor landing (I timed this myself in the building where I work and it took me about 5-6 minutes at an unhurried pace.)

No, Jennings and Hess were searching for the stairwell, as was mentioned by Jennings in the LC interview:

After I called several individuals, one individual told me that, um "to leave, and leave right away." Mr. Hess came running back in. He said "we're the only ones up here, we gotta get out of here." He found the stairwell

 

[Africanus]

In the interview, Barry Jennings said he knocked out several windows.

And on September, 11th he sais:

I took a fire extinguisher and I bust a window out.

 

[jaydeehess]

Jennings at the NE corner? The video shows people standing at the corner of WTC7 talking to Hess or Jennings. To the right is another building,, the Verizon. If the camera were looking south at the NE corner the other building, the P.O., would be on the left.

These people and the camera are also just out from the vehicle ramp which is at the NW of WTC7.

You ask why I showed the SE corner of WTC7. Standing at the SE corner and looking at #7 you would have the post office to the right but the video of him at the window cannot be at the SE corner because there's no ramp there and it would have the remains of the walkway. Obviously they werent at the SW corner since that was gouged out.

Now you say they were at the NE corner. I show thats wrong but.........My whole point is that no one can see the towers from any window on the north face.

 

[jaydeehess]

Levels set to -3db?

What scale? dbV, dbmv, dbU?

N.A. analog studio level is +4 dbu, consumer equipment its +10dbV= +7.78 dbu
24 dbu= 0 dbfs
dbfs is the max in a digital system representing an audio sample that is digitally represented by all 1s. Yeah it clips because it cannot represent anything as being louder. For that reason, in digital recording, the normal level of the input to the system is commonly set to -18 to -20 dbfs.

Camcorders usually have a fixed preamp but pro systems will be able to set preamp, sometimes labeled as "sensitivity". For quiet enviroments a high sensitivity will allow greater capture of ambient sound. In a noisey enviroment set to low sensitivity and place mic close to the specific sound source you want to capture. In a live stage event you combat feedback by lowering sensitivity (lower preamp setting) and using fader channel or final mix amp to increase house sound.

So, MM, how's it coming finding those recordings analog or digital, in which we can hear ovetmodulation by street noise that could mask the sounds of explosions?

Then there are those explosive sounds in the above video. Those are likely car tires blowong as they burn, or chunks of damaged buildings falling off.

 

[Miragememories]

In the interview, Barry Jennings said he knocked out several windows.

And on September, 11th he sais:"I took a fire extinguisher and I bust a window out."

Not in the interview I watched;

"I asked Mr. Hess to test the phones as I took a fire extinguisher and broke out the windows.
Once I broke out the windows, I could see..outside below me."

 

[Spanx]

I wonder why Barry had to break out more than one window to see outside ?

Where they really small ? Either way it's still not evidence of the great inside job but I guess that's the whole idea.

 

[pgimeno]

Jennings at the NE corner? The video shows people standing at the corner of WTC7 talking to Hess or Jennings. To the right is another building,, the Verizon. If the camera were looking south at the NE corner the other building, the P.O., would be on the left.

It probably was, but obscured by smoke. When the camera points east, the Fiterman Hall building is clearly visible to the left (north, across the street from WTC7). That's in minute 1:26 to 1:36 of the video, approx.

Fiterman Hall closeup, for façade and windows comparison:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg

 

[Realtruthseeker]

Sorry for my late reply.

Thank you all for your various replies to my observations and statement. I'm sorry I didn't re-post more quickly, I'm busy now and am not in front of my computer in daytime.
Here at JREF I admit to being a little saddened to find that there are still so many victims of the media industrial complexes lies and cover-ups of all that is going on in our rather complex world. Thank you Miragememories for your well researched knowledge. I was hoping, perhaps naively, to discover a few more sceptical, critical thinkers who at least understand basic physics and have researched deeper in a genuine search for the truth and are able to see past the lies we have all been fed by the media. We were all victims to start with.
Several say that I'm wrong in my straightforward application of Newtons 3rd law but appear unable to explain why. Can anybody explain how a building can fall in free-fall acceleration, or anywhere near it, without the use of controlled demolition? All I ask is that your theory obeys Newtons 3rd law.
The initial NIST draft report of August 2008 was based on a theory of progressive collapse and denied any period of free-fall. When confronted by David Chandler, physics teacher, with multiple and absolute video proof of free-fall, easily checked and measured by anyone, they had to revise their report and in November 2008 issued the modified final report where they now admit 2.25 seconds of free-fall. This then invalidated their whole 3 years of theoretical simulation attempt to create a computer model showing a progressive collapse. The latest and therefore present NIST report on WTC 7 is therefore a nonsense because any period of free-fall within the 7 second collapse negates the theory of progressive collapse. Progressive collapse involves things hitting other things, bending and breaking things on the way down. There could not be free-fall while this is happening because it would be slowed down. Free-fall requires zero resistance. Free-fall is what we measured and is therefore what happened.
I don't think anyone seriously believes Chris Mohrs personal theory of cantilevered, accelerated descent resulting in a net zero resistance. Certainly not NIST and certainly not any qualified engineer that I've come across and neither is it supported by any observation I've seen.
The theory that the inside of the building collapsed leaving an empty shell which then collapsed at free-fall is not proposed by NIST and is not supported by video evidence. It is physically impossible and could not be repeated in an experiment on any scale. The penthouse was seen to go down half a second before the rest and this confirms a classic implosion. A technique used in controlled demolition to help collapse the structure into its own footprint. The interior leading and pulling in the outside as it goes.
The comparison of the loudness of the explosive sounds relative to known controlled demolitions is interesting but irrelevant because nano-thermite was used, an incendiary not an explosive. There were, in any case plenty of witnesses who also heard explosives as well as the video evidence.
I am trying to gently help people to wake up but I can see that some peoples instinct to cling to what they want to believe is too strong to allow an open mind to simply observe and believe what you see and the laws of physics, not what you've been told that you see. I'm sorry to not be able to help you more but I hope through calm rational research on truth sites such as ae911truth.org you will one day discover the truth before it's too late. Try to accept the obvious fact that governments and mainstream media lie, most of the time. Thank goodness there are over 100 000 NYC residents who have signed the demand for the High Rise Safety Initiative which must therefore now go ahead.
If I believed that buildings could fall at close to free-fall just by office fires then I would never go inside a building again.
For those ready to learn more I also recommend the 4 ½ hour film by Massimo Mazzucco; September 11, The new Pearl Harbour.
Thank you.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Thank you all for your various replies to my observations and statement. I'm sorry I didn't re-post more quickly, I'm busy now and am not in front of my computer in daytime.
Here at JREF I admit to being a little saddened to find that there are still so many victims of the media industrial complexes lies and cover-ups of all that is going on in our rather complex world. Thank you Miragememories for your well researched knowledge. I was hoping, perhaps naively, to discover a few more sceptical, critical thinkers who at least understand basic physics and have researched deeper in a genuine search for the truth and are able to see past the lies we have all been fed by the media. We were all victims to start with.
Several say that I'm wrong in my straightforward application of Newtons 3rd law but appear unable to explain why. Can anybody explain how a building can fall in free-fall acceleration, or anywhere near it, without the use of controlled demolition? All I ask is that your theory obeys Newtons 3rd law.
The initial NIST draft report of August 2008 was based on a theory of progressive collapse and denied any period of free-fall. When confronted by David Chandler, physics teacher, with multiple and absolute video proof of free-fall, easily checked and measured by anyone, they had to revise their report and in November 2008 issued the modified final report where they now admit 2.25 seconds of free-fall. This then invalidated their whole 3 years of theoretical simulation attempt to create a computer model showing a progressive collapse. The latest and therefore present NIST report on WTC 7 is therefore a nonsense because any period of free-fall within the 7 second collapse negates the theory of progressive collapse. Progressive collapse involves things hitting other things, bending and breaking things on the way down. There could not be free-fall while this is happening because it would be slowed down. Free-fall requires zero resistance. Free-fall is what we measured and is therefore what happened.
I don't think anyone seriously believes Chris Mohrs personal theory of cantilevered, accelerated descent resulting in a net zero resistance. Certainly not NIST and certainly not any qualified engineer that I've come across and neither is it supported by any observation I've seen.
The theory that the inside of the building collapsed leaving an empty shell which then collapsed at free-fall is not proposed by NIST and is not supported by video evidence. It is physically impossible and could not be repeated in an experiment on any scale. The penthouse was seen to go down half a second before the rest and this confirms a classic implosion. A technique used in controlled demolition to help collapse the structure into its own footprint. The interior leading and pulling in the outside as it goes.
The comparison of the loudness of the explosive sounds relative to known controlled demolitions is interesting but irrelevant because nano-thermite was used, an incendiary not an explosive. There were, in any case plenty of witnesses who also heard explosives as well as the video evidence.
I am trying to gently help people to wake up but I can see that some peoples instinct to cling to what they want to believe is too strong to allow an open mind to simply observe and believe what you see and the laws of physics, not what you've been told that you see. I'm sorry to not be able to help you more but I hope through calm rational research on truth sites such as ae911truth.org you will one day discover the truth before it's too late. Try to accept the obvious fact that governments and mainstream media lie, most of the time. Thank goodness there are over 100 000 NYC residents who have signed the demand for the High Rise Safety Initiative which must therefore now go ahead.
If I believed that buildings could fall at close to free-fall just by office fires then I would never go inside a building again.
For those ready to learn more I also recommend the 4 ½ hour film by Massimo Mazzucco; September 11, The new Pearl Harbour.
Thank you.

Sorry old chap, but your knowledge of physics and structural engineering is insufficient to know who to trust, and who to go to for an honest explanation of the days events.

That, or you watched a few you tube videos and now believe you are an expert in these areas. Here's a heads up - the only thing you're an expert in is self delusion and are an obvious candidate for a textbook example of Dunning-Krueger Syndrome.

You need to just realize that your opinion means nothing cuz you don't have enough experience in these matters in order for your "common sense" to have any validity. Maybe it has served you well at other times. But this is not one of them. at our age, we have experienced enough failures to know that we are not always right, or at times, not even in the ballpark.

Time for you to grow up.....

 

[Spanx]

So there we have it, a lengthy post from realtruthseeker with no evidence of CD. Nothing new just a selection of meaningless words.

When will truthers ever present any evidence of an inside job ?

 

[DGM]

Here at JREF I admit to being a little saddened to find that there are still so many victims of the media industrial complexes lies and cover-ups of all that is going on in our rather complex world...............................

This is as far as I got. I guess I have a problem with being assumed clueless.

 

[JayUtah]

Save the lecture for yourself.

His "lecture" makes sense to me. I routinely work with a variety of analog and digital signal formats. Rather than answer his questions, you simply provide your own distractionary lecture.

In 2001, the camcorders mostly in use were Sony SP Betacams which recorded analog audio and AFM audio tracks.

When sound levels are excessive, analog audio recordings are over-modulated and present heavily distorted sound.

The spillover into video you refer to is known as harmonics (often observed when recording live music performances of which I have done many) but they do not necessarily mean over modulation distortion of the accompanying audio.

At "too high" audio input, digital recordings 'clip' and present a screeching unintelligible sound which is absolutely useless. For this reason peak record levels are usually set at about -3db.

For all this expression of pomposity, you have not provided an example of what you refer too in defense of your belief -- namely that the audio captured on video during the WTC 7 collapse, or suitably prior to it, displayed any evidence whatsoever of being saturated according to any mode that would render the sound of high explosives inaudible on the recording.

In other words, you have made a claim that explosions occurred, but were not recorded on audio recordings being made at the time. That claim is testable according to existing evidence, but you refuse to show that you tested it. Others are asking you for it. Will you pony up the evidence? Or will you simply continue pursuing your raw, unsupported belief?

 

[LSSBB]

Here at JREF I admit to being a little saddened to find that there are still so many victims of the media industrial complexes lies and cover-ups of all that is going on in our rather complex world. Thank you Miragememories for your well researched knowledge. I was hoping, perhaps naively, to discover a few more sceptical, critical thinkers who at least understand basic physics and have researched deeper in a genuine search for the truth and are able to see past the lies we have all been fed by the media. We were all victims to start with.

Interesting mind-reading fail. I learned my physics and mechanics in undergrad and grad school (plus 2 years of physics in high school), not from the media industrial complexes, whatever the heck they are.
By the way, IMO, feeling victimized is no way to go through life, son. That is one of the major drawbacks with choosing a conspiricist lifestyle, from my point of view.

Several say that I'm wrong in my straightforward application of Newtons 3rd law but appear unable to explain why. Can anybody explain how a building can fall in free-fall acceleration, or anywhere near it, without the use of controlled demolition? All I ask is that your theory obeys Newtons 3rd law.
The initial NIST draft report of August 2008 was based on a theory of progressive collapse and denied any period of free-fall. When confronted by David Chandler, physics teacher, with multiple and absolute video proof of free-fall, easily checked and measured by anyone, they had to revise their report and in November 2008 issued the modified final report where they now admit 2.25 seconds of free-fall. This then invalidated their whole 3 years of theoretical simulation attempt to create a computer model showing a progressive collapse. The latest and therefore present NIST report on WTC 7 is therefore a nonsense because any period of free-fall within the 7 second collapse negates the theory of progressive collapse. Progressive collapse involves things hitting other things, bending and breaking things on the way down. There could not be free-fall while this is happening because it would be slowed down. Free-fall requires zero resistance. Free-fall is what we measured and is therefore what happened.
I don't think anyone seriously believes Chris Mohrs personal theory of cantilevered, accelerated descent resulting in a net zero resistance. Certainly not NIST and certainly not any qualified engineer that I've come across and neither is it supported by any observation I've seen.
The theory that the inside of the building collapsed leaving an empty shell which then collapsed at free-fall is not proposed by NIST and is not supported by video evidence. It is physically impossible and could not be repeated in an experiment on any scale. The penthouse was seen to go down half a second before the rest and this confirms a classic implosion. A technique used in controlled demolition to help collapse the structure into its own footprint. The interior leading and pulling in the outside as it goes.
The comparison of the loudness of the explosive sounds relative to known controlled demolitions is interesting but irrelevant because nano-thermite was used, an incendiary not an explosive. There were, in any case plenty of witnesses who also heard explosives as well as the video evidence.

What you are terming free fall is when something acheives the acceleration of gravity when moving in a direction toward the center of the Earth. That is something of a misnomer, in this case, because just because something acheives that acceleration, that does not mean it is freely falling, i.e. with no resistance to it's fall. Something can also acheive the acceleration of gravity by having an additional force applied to it which is counteracting or overcoming the resistance to it's fall.

In the case of a collapsing building, that counteraction on the exterior of the building comes from the pull of the interior of the building, which collapsed first. We know the exterior collapsed first, because on video the East Penthouse collapses well before the exterior, along with some other evidence of interior collapse.

This counteracting pull, called leverage, is very real. It can even result in acceleration downward greater than 'g', the acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s²). If you look up the actual measured acceleration graph of the exterior, you will see that the accleration builds up for a time, then passes 'g', bounces aroung 'g', then comes back down. That is not behavior that something freely falling exhibits. It is behavior that can be explained by the interior collapsing, applying a load to the exterior, forcing the exterior columns to break, and continuing to force the exterior as it now collapses under it's own weight plus a portion^* of the weight of the exterior, minus any remaining resistance at the bottom.

I hope this helps.






* - There is only a portion applied because the interior weight is being applied by beams and girders dragging down at an angle.

 

[Spanx]

http://youtu.be/CqSriVVgBhQ

I think you will find MM has provided his evidence.

All of this from a grown man

 

[JayUtah]

Here at JREF I admit to being a little saddened to find that there are still so many victims of the media industrial complexes lies...

Nope.

Then you go on basically to characterize the discussion so far as almost exactly the opposite of what it really is. Simply calling your critics brainwashed morons is not a good way to make your case.

Several say that I'm wrong in my straightforward application of Newtons 3rd law but appear unable to explain why.

Nonsense. You were told that your application was too simplistic in that it didn't fully encompass what Newton meant by a "particle" in his formulation.

All I ask is that your theory obeys Newtons 3rd law.

All we ask is that you display some understanding of what Newton actually formulated, not what you think he said.

For those ready to learn more I also recommend...

At least we know who your physics "teacher" is. I suggest you do what many of us have done and actually obtain credentials and professional qualifications and experience in these fields. Watching a YouTube video doesn't suddenly qualify you as a Newtonian physicist or a structural engineer.