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

[triforcharity]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.
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]

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 explosive

The quote supports my statement that the noise level can be reduced.

 

[Christopher7]

All CD look and SOUND almost IDENTICAL.

Hogwash.
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg
[FONT=&quot]
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20879[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6aY_gzmWhU[/FONT]

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.
[FONT=&quot]"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."[/FONT]

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 "[FONT=&quot]there was structural resistance".[/FONT]

 

[Christopher7]

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 MacQueen

Put your "ignorant turd" back where it came from.

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 boy

Please put your "idiot boy" comment with the "ignorant turd".

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]

You are incapable of thought. [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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Senenmut]

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?

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

thats pretty cool. could you do the same footage as chandler did to see what your results turn out?

 

[alienentity]

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

 

[uke2se]

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.

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

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

Now, why'd you have to go and ruin a perfectly good delusion with your newfangled science? You spoil-sport, you!

 

[alienentity]

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!!

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]

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]

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 1-3.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 1-3C Damage and Failure Modes.pdf
NIST Q and A 8-21-08 (Updated 4-21-09)
[FONT=&quot]Why didn't the investigators look at actual steel samples from WTC 7?[/FONT]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#