'What about building 7'?

[jaydeehess]

MM

Here's where you people get into trouble.

You've previously stated that the "explosions" Barry Jennings experienced in WTC 7 was the so-called smoking gun. But you've got yourself a contradiction.

That occured several HOURS before the clip in that quote.

Please make sense of that.

In addition " just prior to" global collapse is apparently 8-10 seconds. That is a time period ignored by truthers normally. Its the time during which the 40 storey fall of EPH contents takes place, or if time delay between light and sound is taken into account its the time at which column 79 fails, something that won't take place quietly.

Note also that we are told that the rapid onset of free fall indicates the use of explosives on all of the interior and perimeter columns of WTC7. That's a lot of muffling! Its also certainly not indicative of a rapid onset. If free fall was caused by explosive demolition of all those columns and the camera is a mile away from WTC7 then the sound of the explosion would be heard 8 seconds after global collapse of the remaining structure ( the rooftop structures having already failed). No matter how far away the camera is though, the sound of this inexplicably muffled explosion sound be recorded after, as opposed to prior to, global collapse.

Seems MM might have debunked himself.

 

[Redwood]

[much snipping]

The hearing range and flexibility of a human ear/brain combination is far superior at accurately processing audio scenarios like that experienced by people at the World Trade Center on 9/11, than a directional close proximity microphone.

Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) (Ladder 22)
"... I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes."

Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode."

[much snipping]

This is just pathetic. It's well over a decade since 9/11, and Truthers are still quote-mining emergency personnel statements made long ago. AFAIK, not a single truther has ever interviewed any of these people for clarification of or expounding upon their statements, or even attempted to interview them.

This is something which would have to be done if they were ever to get their dream of a "new, independent investigation", so there's no reason not to have done it long ago, and plenty of reasons why it should have been done long ago, if Truthers were actually serious. A single Truther working only on weekends could have done hundreds of interviews by now.

Face it: Trutherism never amounted to anything more than political/intellectual masturbation.

 

[000063]

Actually, they have tried to talk to first responders, who tend to get very angry at them.

In addition " just prior to" global collapse is apparently 8-10 seconds. That is a time period ignored by truthers normally. Its the time during which the 40 storey fall of EPH contents takes place, or if time delay between light and sound is taken into account its the time at which column 79 fails, something that won't take place quietly.

Note also that we are told that the rapid onset of free fall indicates the use of explosives on all of the interior and perimeter columns of WTC7. That's a lot of muffling! Its also certainly not indicative of a rapid onset. If free fall was caused by explosive demolition of all those columns and the camera is a mile away from WTC7 then the sound of the explosion would be heard 8 seconds after global collapse of the remaining structure ( the rooftop structures having already failed). No matter how far away the camera is though, the sound of this inexplicably muffled explosion sound be recorded after, as opposed to prior to, global collapse.

Seems MM might have debunked himself.

Indeed. What on earth sort of CD involves charges being detonated with such large gaps?

 

[NoahFence]

Seems MM might have debunked himself.

Again?

 

[Miragememories]

One of the best and clearest examples is this one, to which the firefighter on the phone reacts immediately. Other explosions are also highlighted in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5757317&postcount=23

nope

Wrong.

Much effort has been put into attempting to discredit this video in the past.

I first defended it back in 2010 but it frequently gets challenged.

The audio from that video is matching 2-channel mono, though it was previously argued by others that it was faked using a stereo sound sample of an explosion mixed with original audio.

I confirmed it was all mono by loading the video into Final Cut Pro and examined the audio waveform.

Quoting myself: "And yes the people in the video did react! The firefighter on the phone reflexively turned at the sound of the explosion.

The cameraman immediately pans towards the sound and two other firefighters are clearly heard in the recorded audio;

firefighter off camera:"...we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

Let's not let this one slip by.

Miragememories, why did you edit that particular quote in order to remove the portion that clearly disputed your interpretation of it?

I did not edit that quote. I originally posted the link in my post 1583 of this thread. Apparently you neglected to read it at that time.

The edited was obtained here;
http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html
Witnesses to the Towers' Explosions

I do not feel that the edit made by 9/11 review significantly alters what was observed.

 

[DGM]

Wrong.

Much effort has been put into attempting to discredit this video in the past.

I first defended it back in 2010 but it frequently gets challenged.

A simple yes or no will do (remember you're putting your bias aside). Would there be reason to expect sounds of explosions (not explosives) in a large building fire?

You can run but, you can't hide...............

 

[000063]

Wrong.

Much effort has been put into attempting to discredit this video in the past.

Implying that it's both some unassailable bastion and that debunkers are obsessed with knocking it down.

I first defended it back in 2010 but it frequently gets challenged.

Yes, persecution narrative, move on.

The audio from that video is matching 2-channel mono, though it was previously argued by others that it was faked using a stereo sound sample of an explosion mixed with original audio.

I confirmed it was all mono by loading the video into Final Cut Pro and examined the audio waveform.

Because someone couldn't have flattened the sound and reupped the video to correct that mistake.

Quoting myself: "And yes the people in the video did react! The firefighter on the phone reflexively turned at the sound of the explosion.

The cameraman immediately pans towards the sound and two other firefighters are clearly heard in the recorded audio;

firefighter off camera:"...we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

Interesting how you don't actually address the claim raised in the post linked; the video is from a documentary and the sound has been added. Aside from the dude on the phone, no one there looks like they've just heard an explosion.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5757317#post5757317

There, the rest of the thread. Heck, several members claim to have personally seen the original clip, without audio. One even linked to a video which was later deleted.

I did not edit that quote. I originally posted the link in my post 1583 of this thread. Apparently you neglected to read it at that time.

The edited was obtained here;
http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html
Witnesses to the Towers' Explosions

I do not feel that the edit made by 9/11 review significantly alters what was observed.

Literally saying that he now thinks it wasn't an explosion still means it was an explosion. Just like saying he ran for cover afterward wasn't him being in fear for his life, I assume.



I realize you're committed to defending the narrative at any cost, but you're just embarrassing yourself.

 

[JSanderO]

I recently spoke with a FDNY first responder who was under 2WTC and specifically asked him ifhe heard explosions. He did not. He said they were told not to be on the plaza level because of falling debris.

 

[pgimeno]

So I am verifying all quotes from MM's collection now (actually copied from 911review).

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10179355#post10179355

"You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down."

Complete quote:

[...] everyone just saying come on, keeping coming, keep coming. That's when it went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was scattering. From there I don't know who was who.
​

As I noted in my previous message, he was walking away from the building (I said running away earlier, but that wasn't precise, sorry) when the building started to collapse. He looked back and saw the building when it was already collapsing, so the three explosions he reports to see (not hear) are probably the dust ejections.

"I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down."

That quote is accurate. It's unclear whether the explosions were the sound of the collapse itself. It's interesting that it needed such a close distance to hear (he was in Vesey Street, which is the one in the north side of WTC5 and WTC6).

"I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.

I was there in '93."

So he matched it against something that he had memories of. Unsurprising. The testimony is very confusing, though. It's even unclear whether it refers to the collapse of tower two. It looks like it does.

It goes like this:

Meanwhile we were standing there with about five companies and we were just waiting for our assignment and then there was an explosion in the south tower, which according to this map, this exposure just blew out in flames. A lot of guys left at that point. I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93.
​

No mention of explosions. By the time it reached about the fifth floor, he "figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing", not because he saw or heard any.

"... I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes."

I could not find that quote in the PDF of Kevin Gorman's testimony in the collection from which allegedly that quote is taken for (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html). It appears that MM also copied it verbatim from http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html without verifying it, as that quote appears in there exactly as MM copied and attributed to the same person.

"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode."

It's another confusing testimony.

[...] I saw the second building of the World Trade Center, still unbeknown to me the first one had collapsed.
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially and orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.
​

What can you guys attribute that to? I'd say fire increasing in intensity and windows blowing. She's talking about WTC1, judging by the highlighted part.

"And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out."

Already commented, but I'm reproducing the important part that follows here, for completeness:

[...] a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go.
​

"Then we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down. Crazy."

The quote is accurate and doesn't seem to miss any context. But given Turi's testimony, and even from the N.J.Burkett (apparently from ABC, not from Fox5 as I said earlier) video, it's obvious that the sound of the start of the collapse appeared to many like an explosion.

"... there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."

No missing context either. I have to say, however, that first, in such a stressing situation I wouldn't put much attention to the accuracy of the testimony, as the perception of time may become distorted. And second, the collapse indeed was like that, as every camera caught: first the ejections started, hiding the upper block from the view of the people who were at a lower level, and then the collapse started to progress through the lower part of the building. So that's actually consistent with the visual record, and in no way indicative of an actual explosion, but "what appeared to be at first" an explosion.

To sum up, nothing to see here. It's all completely coherent with lack of explosives, and it's obvious that some people perceived the start of the collapse as if it was an explosion.

 

[JayUtah]

I do not feel that the edit made by 9/11 review significantly alters what was observed.

The witness clearly attributes what he observed to a specific cause. You -- or rather, the sources you uncritically cribbed from -- simply remove that attribution so that you can substitute your own.

Please explain how that's not dishonest.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Because someone couldn't have flattened the sound and reupped the video to correct that mistake.

Which was done shortly after the disconnect was pointed out.

Fitz

 

[ProBonoShill]

With regard to explosions, everyone seems to have their own anecdotal story about what they have heard.

Many here believe, and I do mean believe, rather than actually know, that explosions inside WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 should have been quite audible.

Because of their real life experiences and/or because they have heard the recorded explosions shown in building demolition videos, it is a strongly held belief that eyewitnesses as well as recording devices should have easily heard any explosions.

To consider this issue fairly, you have to set your biases aside and consider the 9/11 World Trade Center events objectively.

Is it reasonable to dismiss eyewitness testimony and recordings that substantiate the existence of pre-collapse explosions?

It has been argued that because explosions from commercial controlled demolitions can be easily recorded, the same should hold true for the explosions at the World Trade Center on 9/11.

One of the best and clearest examples is this one, to which the firefighter on the phone reacts immediately. Other explosions are also highlighted in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

If you listen closely and crank up the volume, you can hear a muffled explosion (around the 11 second mark), in this WTC7 video just prior to its global collapse;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus

A big reason for why there are so few comparable recordings is sound proofing.

As I have mentioned previously, a building prepped for a commercial controlled demolition is emptied and its windows are removed. The sound from core explosives easily reflects off the hard surfaces of exposed floors and walls and easily radiates through open perimeter window frames.

Other than localized broken windows, the same conditions did not exist at the World Trade Center towers.

Regardless of whether or not partitions and floor furnishings stand from floor to ceiling, they are highly sound deadening. It may be claimed that these office environments are noisy but without those sound absorbing partitions it would be a loud cacophony. Additionally, the surrounding sealed perimeter windows (securely designed and installed to withstand the forces of nature), totally deflect all but the loudest sounds from inside and out.

It also must be considered that a commercial CD has nothing to hide, and therefore demolition engineers can focus on removing the core immediately to initiate a total building implosion.

Obviously in the case of a covert demolition masquerading as a collapse from plane impact and subsequent fire, a dramatic display of pre-collapse explosions would have been difficult to dismiss.

This would explain the presence of nano-thermite. As observed at the WTC2, once the corner column was cut and the upper section began to topple, pre-planted cutter charges could be ignited in a timed sequence. The sound of explosions, if evidenced (as they were by some eyewitnesses), could now be dismissed as the sound of the collapsing building.

In the case of WTC1 and WTC2, I would therefore suggest that until each began to topple above the impact zones, there would have been a minimal use of explosives.

Again, I point out that the three towers were huge and the energy release from their high speed collapses must have generated an enormous amount of sound.

At some time or another, we've all heard the loud explosive-like boom of a lightning's atmospheric thunderclap.

Yet, with the World Trade Center towers, while the eyewitnesses and public saw and heard something far more intense, the audio recordings largely failed to do it justice.

I thought you said the explosions weren't recorded due to limitations of audio/ video equipment circa 2001?
I guess you're now ignoring that ridiculous assertion, good call.

Too bad you're still clinging to your delusions about office furniture and sealed windows. I predict you'll abandon this nonsense too after you've been embarrassed enough.
Here in the real world windows are no match for explosives. Explosives can't simultaneously cut steel columns while leaving windows intact. There's a reason windows are removed before a controlled demolition. Care to guess what it is?

You claim to want a "new investigation".

The reason you'll never get one is due to illogical conclusions like those in your post above.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Wrong.

Much effort has been put into attempting to discredit this video in the past.

I first defended it back in 2010 but it frequently gets challenged.

The audio from that video is matching 2-channel mono, though it was previously argued by others that it was faked using a stereo sound sample of an explosion mixed with original audio.

I confirmed it was all mono by loading the video into Final Cut Pro and examined the audio waveform.

Quoting myself: "And yes the people in the video did react! The firefighter on the phone reflexively turned at the sound of the explosion.

The cameraman immediately pans towards the sound and two other firefighters are clearly heard in the recorded audio;

firefighter off camera:"...we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

Just because you're gullible, doesn't mean the rest of us are.

I did not edit that quote. I originally posted the link in my post 1583 of this thread. Apparently you neglected to read it at that time.

The edited was obtained here;
http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html
Witnesses to the Towers' Explosions

I do not feel that the edit made by 9/11 review significantly alters what was observed.

Well of course you don't, you're a truther. Deception and lies are your main tools.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Interesting how you don't actually address the claim raised in the post linked; the video is from a documentary and the sound has been added. Aside from the dude on the phone, no one there looks like they've just heard an explosion.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5757317#post5757317

There, the rest of the thread. Heck, several members claim to have personally seen the original clip, without audio. One even linked to a video which was later deleted.



Literally saying that he now thinks it wasn't an explosion still means it was an explosion. Just like saying he ran for cover afterward wasn't him being in fear for his life, I assume.

That thread is gold and proves once again how untrustworthy MM is.

 

[TJM]

Which was done shortly after the disconnect was pointed out.

Fitz

I believe this is the original fake at about 30 seconds in.

 

[turingtest]

...
It also must be considered that a commercial CD has nothing to hide, and therefore demolition engineers can focus on removing the core immediately to initiate a total building implosion.

Obviously in the case of a covert demolition masquerading as a collapse from plane impact and subsequent fire, a dramatic display of pre-collapse explosions would have been difficult to dismiss.

This would explain the presence of nano-thermite. As observed at the WTC2, once the corner column was cut and the upper section began to topple, pre-planted cutter charges could be ignited in a timed sequence. The sound of explosions, if evidenced (as they were by some eyewitnesses), could now be dismissed as the sound of the collapsing building.
...

That's some nice circular reasoning you got going on there- "The way my scenario ["covert demolition"] works explains the presence of the nano-thermite, which explains how my scenario works, which explains the presence of the nanothermite, which explains..."

No; your scenario doesn't "explain" the presence of nano-thermite, it requires it. You don't get to invent out of necessity some magical substance that your story needs to work, then claim the story demonstrates the magical substance. You could insert Judy Woods' magical space beams here, or a thousand little elves with tiny cutting torches working in perfectly timed unison, and have as much logic behind your scenario. It's the logic of Hollywood (bad Hollywood, at that- something like Sharknado, maybe), not the logic of real life.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'd still like to know if MM is abandoning explosives on the perimeter columns of the towers and #7 since there'd be no muffling by office furniture for those.

He now says there would be a huge noise from the collapse of these buildings. Yes because that is a lot of mass, therefore a lot of energy. In fact that energy is responsible for creating that sound. But explosives are supposed less energetic.

 

[DGM]

I'd still like to know if MM is abandoning explosives on the perimeter columns of the towers and #7 since there'd be no muffling by office furniture for those.

He now says there would be a huge noise from the collapse of these buildings. Yes because that is a lot of mass, therefore a lot of energy. In fact that energy is responsible for creating that sound. But explosives are supposed less energetic.

He also claims that the only way to achieve "free-fall" is to remove ALL structure for 8 stories of building 7. Explain how you do this and keep it quiet (let alone not level several city blocks).

 

[Miragememories]

One of the best and clearest examples is this one, to which the firefighter on the phone reacts immediately. Other explosions are also highlighted in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5757317&postcount=23

nope

Because someone couldn't have flattened the sound and reupped the video to correct that mistake.

Interesting how you don't actually address the claim raised in the post linked; the video is from a documentary and the sound has been added. Aside from the dude on the phone, no one there looks like they've just heard an explosion.

Which was done shortly after the disconnect was pointed out.

Fitz

I believe this is the original fake at about 30 seconds in.

According to YouTube, the video montage you posted above (911 WTC7 collapse collapses Ground zero WTC 7 firefighters) was uploaded on Nov.28, 2009.

The clip (9/11 - WTC 7 Explosion on Audio (heard by firemen, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM) was uploaded on Mar.15, 2008.

There is no evidence to support that the video was a fake other than your wish.

The only fakery that I have determined comes from attempts by members at misrepresentation going back as far as Gumboot's and fitzgibbon's posts from 2007.

Gumboot claimed the audio has a stereo insert which it is not.

I'm not pretending they're fake. It's obvious they are? Are you saying you actually think that explosion is genuine?

How? Where did the cameraman hide his second microphone? Why do the people not react like they just heard (and felt) an enormous explosion?

I did. I told you to watch them with the sound muted. It makes it patently clear the explosions are fake. I also explained that the explosions were in stereo, with significant channel separation. This is impossible to achieve in-camera, thus the explosion must have been added...

Fitzgibbon tried to pretend, and he still does, that the firefighters shown on camera were not reacting as they would be expected to be.

There may have been some sort of noise in that general direction as he does kind of look up a bit when he turns around. That said, given the loudness of the "explosion" his mildness of ducking and as you pointed out, the lack of reaction of his buddy or the other arriving firemen also flags this as FAIL

What? He was expected to dive under a car?

As I noted, all those present when the explosion was heard reacted reflexively to it.

The firefighter on the phone immediately turns. The camera operator also immediately reacts, breaking away from an established shot and rapidly panning in the direction of the explosion. They would not do that without dramatic cause. Think of the shot of WTC1 when it was hit by the first plane. The camera operator reacted in the same manner and managed to capture the impact as a result. Additionally, the two nearby firefighters react, coming forward and warning their buddies "we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

This is not a reaction to a ambient street noise.

I tried to track down the source of this video but that only lead to more apparent misinformation.

The footage is credited to Lucia Davis of BNN (formerly Camera Planet), but strangely does not seem to appear in any of her online 9/11 videos.

A portion of that video was used in the HBO documentary IN MEMORIAM - NEW YORK CITY.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68W-eA5vrw
Unfortunately the director of that documentary chose to cut out of the video just as the explosion was about to occur.

The complete video with the explosion was also used in another commercial broadcast documentary.
911 Stories From The City.mp4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfIDbItt2PA#t=11

The explosion exists in that production (though muted under Hungarian narration), from Reality TV.

Reality TV, which was launched in 2002 broadcasts in the UK and is now owned by CBS.

The significance of this is that a commercial production would have to license and pay for any footage they use. They would purchase their footage from an agent for the source and thus obtain the best copy possible. I know this from my own experience in TV where we regularly sold our field recordings to other TV networks. It would make no sense for the seller to have added a bogus explosion to licensed footage.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'd still like to know if MM is abandoning explosives on the perimeter columns of the towers and #7 since there'd be no muffling by office furniture for those.

He now says there would be a huge noise from the collapse of these buildings. Yes because that is a lot of mass, therefore a lot of energy. In fact that energy is responsible for creating that sound. But explosives are supposed less energetic.

MM?