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

[Christopher7]

You do know that NIST interviewed a lot of the survivors who mentioned explosions again don't you?

They hand waved the reports of explosions and the NFPA standards that clearly state that if pulverized concrete is found, explosives are indicated. A real investigation would have considered the possibility of explosions.

 

[Miragememories]

"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."

Still up to your old disinfo tricks I see alienentity.

Your audio analysis is pure bs.

You don't have a decent, clean (not over modulated) audio recording of the WTC 7 collapse itself, let alone a recording that would reveal the existence of pre-collapse core failures.

The reporter is directing her microphone every which way as it is pointed out to her that WTC 7 is in full collapse.

But can we hear the actual collapse of that 47-story highrise on her microphone?

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

I don't know about you but I would have thought that sound would have been louder than any internal
demolitions that triggered it.

Hers, and near by voices can be heard clearly during this silent collapse.

Too funny.

MM

 

[uke2se]

Still up to your old disinfo tricks I see alienentity.

Your audio analysis is pure bs.

You don't have a decent, clean (not over modulated) audio recording of the WTC 7 collapse itself, let alone a recording that would reveal the existence of pre-collapse core failures.

The reporter is directing her microphone every which way as it is pointed out to her that WTC 7 is in full collapse.

But can we hear the actual collapse of that 47-story highrise on her microphone?

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

I don't know about you but I would have thought that sound would have been louder than any internal
demolitions that triggered it.

Hers, and near by voices can be heard clearly during this silent collapse.

Too funny.

MM

Wow, way to miss the point...

Also, it's amazing that whenever a twoofer has his lies thwarted by science, he reverts to the old "disinfo" crap. It really shows how deeply dishonest the twoof-movement is, both externally and internally.

 

[funk de fino]

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#

They mention one of the samples in the NIST report into the WTC towers. NCSTAR 1-3C. Did you just debunk yourself?

All the steel was examined by forensic investigators, demo team members and public officials. There were a few pieces like this. There should be tons of it.

ETA - This piece was deemed to have been atacked in the pile.

 

[Christopher7]

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

Typical JREF misquote and babble. You are the one doing the lying.

I said: 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.

 

[alienentity]

Still up to your old disinfo tricks I see alienentity.

Your audio analysis is pure bs.

You don't have a decent, clean (not over modulated) audio recording of the WTC 7 collapse itself, let alone a recording that would reveal the existence of pre-collapse core failures.

The reporter is directing her microphone every which way as it is pointed out to her that WTC 7 is in full collapse.

But can we hear the actual collapse of that 47-story highrise on her microphone?

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

I don't know about you but I would have thought that sound would have been louder than any internal
demolitions that triggered it.

Hers, and near by voices can be heard clearly during this silent collapse.

Too funny.

MM

Yes, in your world, objective reality is disinfo! LMAO!!.

Funny how your truther minds allow that a mic could pick up voices but not explosives. That's just laughable. Which is the only reason I bothered posting it, just to see you create more pathetic denials.

 

[alienentity]

Typical JREF misquote and babble. You are the one doing the lying.

I said: 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.

Funny how the mic can pick up traffic noise, the rumble of the collapse and peoples screams and yelling, but strangely...

NO EXPLOSIVES!!

The evidence (not the speculation and unsubstantiated theories) proves your lies to be untrue. Period.

Give it a rest and please stop lying.

 

[funk de fino]

They hand waved the reports of explosions

That is a lie. They went and actually interviewed them again. What have you done? Who have you contacted? Remember my signature.

and the NFPA standards that clearly state that if pulverized concrete is found, explosives are indicated. A real investigation would have considered the possibility of explosions.

The NFPA are guidelines for investigations into possible arson attacks. Everyone knew what started the fire. There is no need to follow those guidelines they are not mandatory. You have no idea what you are talking about. Collapsing buildings cause pulverised concrete, but you knew that.

 

[alienentity]

Truthers can run from the truth, they can misdirect and misrepresent, but in the end, the facts speak loudly for themselves.

The main truther theories are not supported by the actual evidence, and truthers are openly hostile to actual evidence. This is why they become either deluded or just dishonest, stretching cognitive dissonance to such levels that sanity is not possible.

Thus a simple sound-pressure-sensitive device like a microphone magically fails to pick up an alleged enormously loud sound, and yet picks up background noise quite efficiently. Only in trutherland, that is.
But in the real world (verifiable by empirical methods) the microphone simply fails to pick up a sound which wasn't there. Really not a big deal.

I guess these blowhards get some ego gratification from the attention here....but their arguments are failures.

I'm outta here. It's been fun spanking C7 for a couple days, but I'm busy and have better things to do.

cheerio

 

[Christopher7]

They mention one of the samples in the NIST report into the WTC towers. NCSTAR 1-3C. Did you just debunk yourself?

They did not mention the samples in the final report on WTC 7.
Note that the list of conflicting statements it titled "WTC 7 melted beam conundrum"

NIST debunks themselves with the conflicting statements.

"No steel from WTC 7 has been identified from the pieces of recovered WTC steel in NIST's possession."

"No steel elements have been positively identified from WTC 7."

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7."

"the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified."

""Pieces have been identified that are from WTC 1, 2, 5 and 7"

"Unlike the analysis of the steel from WTC 7 (Sample #1 from Appendix C, BPAT/FEMA study)"

"An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7"

"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."

All the steel was examined by forensic investigators, demo team members and public officials. There were a few pieces like this. There should be tons of it.

You have no idea how much of the steel was inspected before it was destroyed.

 

[Miragememories]

"Thus a simple sound-pressure-sensitive device like a microphone magically fails to pick up an alleged enormously loud sound, and yet picks up background noise quite efficiently.

But in the real world (verifiable by empirical methods) the microphone simply fails to pick up a sound which wasn't there. Really not a big deal.

I guess these blowhards get some ego gratification from the attention here....but their arguments are failures."

So I guess in your world, the sound of the 47-story WTC7 building totally collapsing to the ground could never have occurred.

The reporter's microphone should have picked it up loud and clear but strangely, did not!

Too funny.

MM

 

[funk de fino]

They did not mention the samples in the final report on WTC 7.
Note that the list of conflicting statements it titled "WTC 7 melted beam conundrum"

NIST debunks themselves with the conflicting statements.

"No steel from WTC 7 has been identified from the pieces of recovered WTC steel in NIST's possession."

"No steel elements have been positively identified from WTC 7."

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7."

"the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified."

""Pieces have been identified that are from WTC 1, 2, 5 and 7"

"Unlike the analysis of the steel from WTC 7 (Sample #1 from Appendix C, BPAT/FEMA study)"

"An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7"

"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."

I never specified the WTC7 report did I? One of the pieces was tested by NIST in the report and was deemed to have been attacked in the pile. Yes or No?

You have no idea how much of the steel was inspected before it was destroyed.

Brent Blanchard does, and he states that all the steel was examined. Are you saying he is lying? How about you contact him or the demo team?

 

[funk de fino]

So I guess in your world, the sound of the 47-story WTC7 building totally collapsing to the ground could never have occurred.

The reporter's microphone should have picked it up loud and clear but strangely, did not!

Too funny.

MM

Can you show us a controlled demolition using explosives where you can hear the collapse but not the explosions?

 

[alienentity]

So I guess in your world, the sound of the 47-story WTC7 building totally collapsing to the ground could never have occurred.

The reporter's microphone should have picked it up loud and clear but strangely, did not!

Too funny.

MM

Since you misrepresent (surprise, surprise) what I've written, let me direct you to what I actually wrote:

'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' post 843

The low level rumble is in fact the sound of WTC7 collapsing. You can hear it, and the mic did pick it up. Just not the explosions that truthers fantasize about.

Your attempts to obfuscate do nothing for you except dig you deeper into your lies.

 

[alienentity]

Can you show us a controlled demolition using explosives where you can hear the collapse but not the explosions?

If you watch the Landmark demolition and wait until the explosives are finished, the collapse is also heard, albeit as a rumble. Not at all dissimilar to the rumble of WTC7, which was heard WITHOUT explosions immediately preceding.

 

[funk de fino]

They did not mention the samples in the final report on WTC 7.
Note that the list of conflicting statements it titled "WTC 7 melted beam conundrum"

NIST debunks themselves with the conflicting statements.

See below

"No steel from WTC 7 has been identified from the pieces of recovered WTC steel in NIST's possession."

"No steel elements have been positively identified from WTC 7."

"No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC 7."

"the steel from WTC 7 could not be clearly identified."

Identified where it came from in the building.

""Pieces have been identified that are from WTC 1, 2, 5 and 7"

"Unlike the analysis of the steel from WTC 7 (Sample #1 from Appendix C, BPAT/FEMA study)"

"An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7"

"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."

Identified what building it came from. Your cherry picking is legendary.

 

[Miragememories]

"Since you misrepresent (surprise, surprise) what I've written, let me direct you to what I actually wrote:

'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'

The low level rumble is in fact the sound of WTC7 collapsing. You can hear it, and the mic did pick it up. Just not the explosions that truthers fantasize about.

Your attempts to obfuscate do nothing for you except dig you deeper into your lies"

No misrepresentation other than removing all your infantile ramblings intended to offend the 9/11 Truth Movement.

So we are in agreement.

All you've got is a barely detectable "low-level rumble" sound.

You cannot hear a true recording of what must have been a huge cacophony of sound from the total collapse of the 47-story WTC7.

So why do you blather on about how the microphone would have picked up the pre-collapse inside sounds?

Your logic needs peer reviewing desperately.

MM

 

[carlitos]

Mirage Memories, maybe you could rephrase what you just wrote there, because it doesn't appear to refute what you quoted.

Pathmark Demolition = HUGE explosion sounds plus low-level rumble.
WTC7 = NO explosion sounds plus low-level rumble.

Your explanation?

 

[Christopher7]

Explosive charges capable of cutting or otherwise significantly compromising structural members produce very loud sounds.

Such sounds, if produced, would have been recorded on all audio recording devices in the area that were in use at the time.
No such sounds were recorded.

Therefore, no explosive charges cut or significantly compromised structural members.

You are not an explosives expert nor do you understand how microphones work. As Miragememories just pointed out, Ashley's mic didn't pick up the sound of the collapse. By your reasoning, WTC 7 did not collapse.

 

[carlitos]

While MM is formulating his answer, he/she can also please explain why the explosives didn't blow out the windows of the facing buildings...