How were demolition blasts concealed from the public?

[mrbaracuda]

you Conspiracy-Deniers

stop it with the lies pls.

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

Jovenko did not only see the video

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

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

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

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

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

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

In any case, what's with this WTC 7 talk anyway? Like I said here:

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

 

[Drudgewire]

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

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

 

[Almo]

ROFL

Perhaps putting gumboot on ignore was a mistake lol

Putting anyone on ignore is a mistake.

 

[Drudgewire]

Putting anyone on ignore is a mistake.

I've currently made 10 of them then.

 

[lapman]

Before collapse



Before collapse



Before collapse


Before collapse



Before collapse



before collapse

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

 

[lapman]

Were all the explosive noises witnessed caught on tape?

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

 

[LastChild]

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

So how did so many people hear them?

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

You are expert at debunking yourself LC!

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

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

 

[e^n]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[lapman]

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

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

I don't know. But I bet is souded something like:

or

 

[e^n]

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

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

 

[CHF]

LastChild....

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to answer that here or in this thread.

 

[Almo]

I've currently made 10 of them then.

Hmm. I wonder who. Not me apparently.

 

[1337m4n]

LastChild, Dictator Cheney, and theauthor:

Please, watch the video I posted in the OP.

Why didn't THAT happen?

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

Here it is again:



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

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

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

 

[Mangoose]

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



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

 

[DC]

LastChild, Dictator Cheney, and theauthor:

Please, watch the video I posted in the OP.

Why didn't THAT happen?

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

Here it is again:



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

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

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

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

 

[DC]

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

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

 

[DC]

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

 

[johnny karate]

DC, you're terrible at this.

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

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

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

 

[DC]

DC, you're terrible at this.

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

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

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

what does, pretty loud mean?

and i found much louder ones

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

with nice big squibs

 

[johnny karate]

what does, pretty loud mean?

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

and i found much louder ones

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

with nice big squibs

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