'What about building 7'?

[Jrrarglblarg]

MM, if you were trying to get people to skip your posts, throwing in umpteen seeded quotes and bright blue text would be a good way to go.

Amazing! You predicted exactl how I moved through the thread catching up!

 

[JayUtah]

Interesting how you bypass that answer to YOUR question.

I'll be the judge of whether you've answered my questions to my satisfaction. Your allegation is a quantitative question but you provide no quantitative argument to support your expectations. Therefore they are rejected.

Yes you do.

No, I really don't. As much as you'd probably like to spin that particular argument endlessly, there is no point in rehashing it for your continued denial.

No [not claiming to be an engineer].

You made several statements that were obviously intended to establish some form or degree of expertise, in response to challenges to the foundation for your expectations and judgment. Since you are pitting your judgment against that of nearly the entire field of engineering, that foundation seems especially important.

What do you now claim those expectations and judgments are based upon if not engineering expertise?

I never said thermite 'is' an explosive.

Fair enough, you seemed to be using the terms interchangeably. Thank you for clarifying your meaning.

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf
Synthesis and Characterization of Mixed Metal Oxide Nanocomposite Energetic Materials

I worked at LLNL. They don't agree with your findings.

I stand by my claims regarding my work experience as a professional audio/video editor and recording engineer.

I don't care what you "stand by." You were asked to provide certain specific evidence of the effects you claim. You have not done so. You simply continue to assert your belief regarding why no relevant explosions were recorded in 9/11 audio.

The person you cite apparently bamboozled you with his text book recitations.

He invited you to refute him and to provide evidence similar to what I asked for. You refused both invitations.

There were a number of witnesses to explosions at the WTC.

Continue.

Barry Jennings was a good choice...

No, you likely considered him a good choice because he supported your belief. Others similarly situated such as Hess were adamant that they did not hear explosions. Explain why his testimony would not also have been a good choice.

Being "familiar" is just another way of saying you don't know much.

Do not put words in my mouth.

I suspect Tony gave up on arguing with a narcissist.

Do not put words in Tony's mouth.

Your blustery tirades are awfully tiresome.

Then report my posts for moderation or ignore them. Do not disingenuously make such accusations simply for rhetorical effect. Need I remind you that you're the one calling your critics "clowns" etc. and accusing them of being on drugs.

I see. Now you are "reasonably familiar."

Followed by more of your bafflegab.

You simply mocked the argument and did not address it. Please do so now. I assume by the derogatory "bafflegab" that you did not understand the argument. Please ask specific questions if you do not understand, rather than pretentiously dismissing it.

It seemed like a logical explanation given the absurdity of his response.

The proper method is to show what about your opponent's argument is absurd. Accusing people of being drunk or high simply because they disagree with you is not an appropriate argument.

Please note that once global collapse is initiated, the generated sound volume would make it very difficult to identify sound sources.[/color]

Try.

 

[DGM]

Until you become God, your opines are only meaningful if they debunk the arguments that show the serious flaws in the NIST fire-induced steel expansion hypothesis.

This would be a place to start. Show that these "flaws" were serious. I'd settle with you explaining how they effect the NIST hypothesis as a whole. This would be a first if you could.

 

[JayUtah]

This would be a place to start. Show that these "flaws" were serious. I'd settle with you explaining how they effect the NIST hypothesis as a whole. This would be a first if you could.

His first step should be to read the lengthy refutation of Szamboti's misleading claims I wrote some months ago, to which Szamboti has been directed several times by other posters, and which he steadfastly refuses to acknowledge.

No, I really don't have to rehash all that handwaving nonsense, because I already had that "discussion" with the guy Miragememories is trying to cite. Szamboti may be able to fool laymen like MM into thinking there's some meat in his objections, but to those of us who have made our living at times doing terascale FEA, his claims are just buffoonery. They're based entirely on his presumptive assertions for how those models are made and how they're used in forensic engineering.

 

[beachnut]

The vast body of data does show the markers;

-collapse symmetry
-roofline kink
-freefall
-total high speed collapse
-lower floor core implosion

When the Gage-Bopp comet is coming to take 911 truth followers to the promise-land of woo.

Love symmetry, then MM shows the "roof-line kink", and forgets the symmetry claim.

What does symmetry mean to 911 truth followers? A simple tag line so you can BS your way to the fantasy of CD, with super duper thermite.

What is the "total high speed collapse" claptrap?

How can anyone put together useless phrases better than 911 truth.

Don't tell 911 truth followers gravity is the primary energy source to destroy buildings using CD, E=mgh

And remember, we can't hear the louder sounds of explosives, because the softer loud sounds of collapse are hiding the louder sounds of explosives... etc

Building 7, because WTC 1 and 2 are too hard for 911 truth to make up big lies.

This fire was fought, yet simple office fires (cold fire as 911 truth liars would say) did this damage to a building; a building never used again due to fire, the same as WTC 7, but 7 was not fought, and the damage done by fire caused the collapse as seen.


911 truth, in the 13th year of lies and fantasy

 

[beachnut]

...

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf
Synthesis and Characterization of Mixed Metal Oxide Nanocomposite Energetic Materials

It begins: “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives...using sol-gel chemistry.”

Please note that once global collapse is initiated, the generated sound volume would make it very difficult to identify sound sources.

Did you know blue is not focused properly by the eye?
Yeppers, when I shot a raccoon in the back yard, turning up the movie real loud covers the sound of the gun shot ... lol, nope, it makes me "rewind" the movie to see if the gun shot was in the movie. lol !@ Are you serious?

911 truth takes sound science to fantasy land. Do you know you are making it up as you go, or are you unable to control the constant flow of BS.

Love it, post studies of stuff not used on 911, and try to add it to the CD fantasy. How did they use thermite? Who put the thermite in the WTC complex?

WTC towers fires, office fires before collapse were equal in heat energy to more than 2,700 TONS of Thermite? Why would a fantasy use thermite when office fires had the heat energy of 2,700 TONS of thermite?

Why is fantasy thermite evidence not found on the steel, it leaves behind IRON. Where is the iron from the delusional thermite fantasy? No steel found with thermite damage.

Did you know wood ash has iron in it? lol - is your google broke, you could find that too.

Jones made up thermite out of the blue, four years after 911 because he did not like Bush - now Bush is gone, where is Jones? How many years did it take Jones to figure out Bush was gone.

 

[pgimeno]

The important point is that 8 storeys of WTC7's collapse was falling at an acceleration that showed virtually zero opposition.

No, the important point is that the "opposition" was less than zero:

it was negative.

How can it be negative?

It can't.

Therefore that proves that there were more forces into play that you aren't acknowledging.

It can, but it can't?

What are you smoking?

You're missing the point.

I put "opposition" in quotes for a reason.

My point was that, if the structural members made opposition and that was the only intervening force other than gravity, that opposition would have to be negative in order to produce acceleration greater than g. That isn't possible, therefore it was not the only force into play.

Given the method of determination (video analysis) and the amount of deviation involved, I would chalk it up
to % error.

That has been discussed in length. The difference between the acceleration and g can't be explained by error. Believe me, it took me a big while to get definitely convinced that the acceleration went over g.

Another possibility is that objects moving through air create a 'draft'. If propelled by means other than gravity (explosives), it would seem possible that such forces as you suggest might be observed.

Ridiculous. Had there been booms powerful enough to move the building like that, they would have been heard from many miles away by tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[turingtest]

I'm not sure I get why Mm is so proud of this paper that he felt the need to link to it twice in one post. It's from over two and half years after 9/11, and is about experimental results on the nanoscale- two orders of magnitude removed from the macro-scale that would be needed for the controlled demolition of a big honking building like WTC7 by an "explosive formulation" of "nano-thermite in combination with sol-gel chemistry." The two orders of magnitude more material needed for such a result would also seem to necessarily leave two orders of magnitude more evidence for the cause of it- is there any evidence at all that such a formulation was used, other than the assumption that it could have been?

And, no, I have no idea what numbers would be involved here for what would need to be found; but then, since it's not my hypothesis, I'm not the one who needs to provide them, or find the proper amount of residue. That's a burden of falsifiability that needs to be borne by the proponent of the idea; without the ability to meet that criteria, you might just as well say "death beams from space!" or even just default all the the way to "goddidit!" and be done with it.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not sure I get why Mm is so proud of this paper that he felt the need to link to it twice in one post.

Because it's all he has. Just like he grasps at the Jennings straw, he must continue grasping at the LLNL straw. I worked briefly at LLNL just after 9/11. I promise you there is no sympathy whatsoever among LLNL researchers for controlled-demolition theories for the 9/11 building collapses, and I can pretty much guarantee that neither Gage nor Miragememories has contacted the authors of that paper to elicit comment on their theories.

It's fairly common for conspiracy theorists to cite or link to materials they don't understand, but which seem to the layman to confirm or lend credence to their theories. The citation seems like a reference to supporting scholarly material, but the connection between the scholarship and the conspiracy theorist's theory is always the product or invention of the theorist and are meant to be trusted even if the conspiracist has no relevant expertise.

It's from over two and half years after 9/11, and is about experimental results on the nanoscale- two orders of magnitude removed from the macro-scale that would be needed for the controlled demolition of a big honking building like WTC7 by an "explosive formulation" of "nano-thermite in combination with sol-gel chemistry."

Nano- in the context of the paper refers to formulating the particulate distribution at the nanometer scale, not the amounts produced. However the experiment notes the preparation only of very small samples and the inherent difficulties in manufacturing it (i.e., that it is dangerously exothermic and can only be mixed in small quantities).

Where orders of magnitude come into play is where the "energetic" reaction described in this work is still an order of magnitude below that which would be necessary to damage structural steel. "Energetic" does not mean per se explosive in the same sense as high-order explosives such as RDX are concerned. Gunpowder, for example, is "energetic" in the sense intended by these authors, but merely burns rapidly. It must be confined in order to produce any mechanical effect.

 

[Animal]

You're missing the point.

Ridiculous. Had there been booms powerful enough to move the building like that, they would have been heard from many miles away by tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

AND it would have shown up on the seismic recording and several stations in the area.

 

[jaydeehess]

I stand by my claims regarding my work experience as a professional audio/video editor and recording engineer.

The person you cite apparently bamboozled you with his text book recitations.

Gee, text book information, nah you couldn't trust that.
I stand by my claims regarding my 30+ years as an electronic tech, the last 20 being in television.

In 2001, audio digital recordings of News events were not commonly made in the field. Digital recordings made with too high an input level are totally contentless and produce a distinctive screeching sound.

Yes, and no. In digital recording we will hear such distinctive audio if sound level is too high. There were no sounds digitally recorded that would indicate a very loud sound, that distinctive noise. Were there? Examples? Pro digital recordings generally try to keepsound to -12, -18, or -20 dbfs, depending on the standard for the company. There is a movement to make -20 dbfs the N.American standard accross the board. This gives one a headroom in audio of a max of 20 db. Action movies will use an even lower reference in order to allow for greater dynamic range for explosions and gunfire. What we can hear is street noise and we do expect an explosion to be much greater than street noise and therefore if there is no indication of sounds that drive the digital level to 0dbfs there were no sounds greatly louder than this street noise. No explosives. At least not on any digitally recorded media, unless you have an example. ( your claim back it up)If you do manage to locate such 0dbfs recording and it is an explosion then I'm sure we will see people reacting to it or other indication , for eg. a pressure wave distorting light passing through it( check a myriad of examples in the Myth busters videos of things that they make go boom).

Analog recordings made with too high an input level, become over-modulated and their content is degraded proportionally to the amount of signal received

yes and no. Analog sound circuits in say, tape machines, would clip. Clipped signals produce a lot of high frequency harmonics. Those high frequency harmonics result in the distinctive loud "hashy" audio. A lot of high level signal will also result in bleeding between the audio track on tape and the video track which will result in video artifacts that change in step with the sound. For instance a steady bass drum doing this would be seen in the video as lines corresponding to the sound of the drum along with , if clipping occurs, that hash sound.

Because of the high sound levels at the WTC on 9/11, over modulation was common in many of the recordings which resulted in audio that was either useless or lacking in conclusive detail.

You've been asked to supply examples yet........
However, this would be significant if and only if every audio track displayed this clipping and they don't do they.
In addition it is very easy, at least with pro equipment, to adjust for high ambient sound by lowering the gain on the camera. You, as a videographer know this full well. Assuming you are a videographer and not a video editor who has never shouldered an ENG camera.
Consumer cameras such as DVD recorders, us a very heavy sound compression circuitry with a slope that will lower loud sound. It does have a rise and release time though that won't combat a fast rising sound of a gunshot or explosion very well. Street noise, no problem.

There were a number of witnesses to explosions at the WTC.

There were a number of witnesses who characterized sounds as explosions. In the video of Hess at the window we hear many sounds that could be characterized as explosions and indeed many probably are car tires on fire and exploding, gas tanks popping off, others may well be the sound of large chunks falling off severely damaged structures of WTC 3, 4, 5 , 6, and indeed,7.

 

[DGM]

Odd how every controlled demolition I've been to, I was able to record the sound. Every video seen of them also contained sound, some by those crappy news set-ups those hacks use. Some close by, some not so much. Only on 9/11 were explosives not able to be recorded. Is this another case where 9/11 defied the laws of physics?





ETA: I think I told the story about my deaf friend I go to CD's with. She like's them because it one of the few things she can "hear".

 

[jaydeehess]

:

What occurred was a controlled demolition implosion including the classic "kink" before global collapse.

So you are changing your scenario to one in which the CD involved only taking out col 79, or col 79 plus core columns?

Good to know

Or is it CD of col 79, the core columns and then, later, after the kink and after the core CD, those columns under the cantilever trusses and along the WTC7 perimeter?


If you have said where these explosives were in order to first cause EPH falling in, and the kink, and the later moment frame collapse, I must have missed it.

 

[JayUtah]

Odd how every controlled demolition I've been to, I was able to record the sound. Every video seen of them also contained sound, some by those crappy news set-ups those hacks use. Some close by, some not so much. Only on 9/11 were explosives not able to be recorded.

I was about to make this same point. Nowhere else in the world do audio engineers (or even amateur cameramen with consumer-grade equipment) seem to have any problem picking up the demolition charges in a controlled-demolition scenario.

MM tells us the cameras near WTC 7 didn't pick up any such detonations on their audio because of any of a number of electronic and signal-processing artifacts. To be sure, we've asked him to produce any example of such an effect, but he hasn't done it. Specifically we've asked him to show that the audio at the WTC 7 was actually so affected -- the way he describes it, we should hear certain things on the audio if the effects to which he alludes were then in play. Again, no requisite production of evidence.

But our survey of explosive demolition footage tells us that audio recording of the detonations is the rule rather than the exception. So MM would have us believe that all the video cameras within earshot WTC 7 at the final collapse suddenly became affected in the ways he describes so as not to record any detonations. That seems to violate the rule.

MM tells us that once the global collapse starts, it's hard to pinpoint sound sources. I guess he's trying to tell us there's no hope trying to pick out demolition charge detonations amidst all that rumble -- of the collapse caused by the previous detonation of the charges. That claim is self-refuting.

 

[DGM]

I was at this one in 1988 and was able to record it on my Panasonic VHS video camera. This is not my video but, it sounds just like it. Strange how you can't hear the sound of the building itself collapsing only the explosives and the street noise. I find it hard to believe MM when he says the sound of the collapse would drown out the explosives.

 

[LSSBB]

I was at this one in 1988 and was able to record it on my Panasonic VHS video camera. This is not my video but, it sounds just like it. Strange how you can't hear the sound of the building itself collapsing only the explosives and the street noise. I find it hard to believe MM when he says the sound of the collapse would drown out the explosives.

Thanks, DGM! I notice it wasn't symmetrical either. I think you were misled, it therefore could not have been a CD, since symmetry is a classic sign of CD. This building tilted and fell over.

 

[JayUtah]

Now you two clowns are going to tell me you didn't see the airplane fly into the building before it fell.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I was at this one in 1988 and was able to record it on my Panasonic VHS video camera. This is not my video but, it sounds just like it. Strange how you can't hear the sound of the building itself collapsing only the explosives and the street noise. I find it hard to believe MM when he says the sound of the collapse would drown out the explosives.

Yep MM claims of audio limitations in 2001 are an outright lie, here's another video recorded more than a year before 9/11. Note the very loud bangs.

 

[Miragememories]

Yep MM claims of audio limitations in 2001 are an outright lie, here's another video recorded more than a year before 9/11. Note the very loud bangs.

You do know what a lie is don't you?

Wow, all this scrambling to provide YouTube videos of building demolitions, dating back to DGM's borrowed video.

Audio that supposedly matches DGM's memory of how the audio sounded in a video he believes he shot 26 years ago on VHS.

Yet, where are all the videos with HQ audio from the biggest building demolitions in U.S. history?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

This video has a good example from the demolition of WTC2 at 00:08:26;

"This is as close as we can get to the base of the World Trade Center. You can see the firemen assembled here,
the police officers, FBI agents and you can see the two towers, a huge explosion now raining debris on all of us, we better get out of the way!!"

The reporter's audio sounded fine, and he was obviously a witness to, and terrified by, the huge explosion that occurred while he was speaking to the camera.

All things considered, (and if you don't watch the background picture), the recorded sound (increasing rumble), hardly testifies to the severity of the massive thunder storm that was actually occurring.

The recorded audio simply does not capture the event clearly enough for people to claim there were no explosions occurring during that collapse or that of WTC1 and WTC7.

Here is another compilation;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_GpPdgAGwk

 

[JayUtah]

The recorded audio simply does not capture the event clearly enough for people to claim there were no explosions occurring during that collapse or that of WTC1 and WTC7.[/color]

Your pseudo-technical prediction has been challenged with no material response from you except to reiterate your beliefs. Further your predicted outcome has been soundly (pun intended) empirically disproven.