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

[Miragememories]

MM tries to lead the argument into proving a negative. Of course there are zero recordings of things which NEVER happened.
That's childishly simple.

What you can NEVER do is to provide actual proof, using audio, that there were demolitions explosives used. You will always fail in this effort. Mark my words - it's hopeless for you.

So now you are saying the collapse of the WTC 7 East Penthouse NEVER happened because "there are zero recordings"?

Too funny.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

.
Which of the words is confusing you? No one else seems to be having any problems...

Here, let me type it slowly for you:

Y o u . h a v e . s a i d . t h e r e . s h o u l d . h a v e . b e e n . s o u n d s . b u t . t h e y . w e r e . n o t . r e c o r d e d .

W h a t . i s . y o u r . g u e s s . a s . t o . w h y . t h e y .w e r e . n o t ?

And I'd drop the personal attacks -- they aren't doing what little credibility you have any good.
.

My guess?

Poor mic placement.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Tell me, what exactly did they use to minimize the sound? Some of the best silencers that I have ever seen can only take the sound of a gunshot down around 35 dB (from ~140 to around ~110) which is still very loud. What type of material can you use to silence an explosive so that it goes from "fatal injuries at close range and hearing damage for a significant distance from close ranges" to "indistinguishable from background noise"?

You are confusing the sound source (silenced gun) with the sound recording device (microphone).

Go out on a busy Manhattan street and fire off a few of your 'silenced' rounds while shooting with a camcorder.

Compare what you heard with what the microphone heard.

MM

 

[TSR]

My guess?

Poor mic placement.

.
Which then proves ... what?

I mean, given that no eye witness reports sequential explosions consistent with CD, either...
.

 

[TheRedWorm]

You are confusing the sound source (silenced gun) with the sound recording device (microphone).

Go out on a busy Manhattan street and fire off a few of your 'silenced' rounds while shooting with a camcorder.

Compare what you heard with what the microphone heard.

MM

First, address this post...

First of all, define sealed.

Second of all, any blast powerful enough to sever any steel structural members would have blown out windows of the WTC towers, and likely any nearby buildings, which didn't happen.

Plus, how the hell could anything disprove a fantasy that has no evidence to support it in the first place?

 

[Miragememories]

.
Which then proves ... what?

I mean, given that no eye witness reports sequential explosions consistent with CD, either...
.

Tell that to Barry Jennings widow.

MM

 

[TSR]

Tell that to Barry Jennings widow.

.
Why? He didn't hear explosions consistent with CD, either.

Remember -- he was in the building when he heard the explosions? If those explosions were consistent with CD, the build would have been demolished around him.

It wasn't.

Not to mention that he did not report *sequential* explosions even then.

So, let's try again, and try not to dodge this time: What does this lack of recorded CD explosions mean, given that none of the eyewitnesses report explosions consistent with CD? How do you place a mic such that it can record sequential explosions that never happened?
.

 

[Miragememories]

First of all, define sealed.

Second of all, any blast powerful enough to sever any steel structural members would have blown out windows of the WTC towers, and likely any nearby buildings, which didn't happen.

Plus, how the hell could anything disprove a fantasy that has no evidence to support it in the first place?

Sorry your question got buried under a collapse of other posts.

Apparently only you noticed.

Sealed?

Enclosed well enough that internal sounds are too dampened to be picked up by a normal set up of an audio recording device.

Your second point assumes blasting would have had to occur.

I don't agree.

I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could not be used to create a core failure.

What fantasy?

MM

 

[TSR]

I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could not be used to create a core failure.

.
And you've also yet to demonstrate that it could.

Core failure -- this means core columns, right?
.

 

[alienentity]

I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could not be used to create a core failure.


MM

Asking to prove a negative again. You have it exactly backwards:

There is NO proof that thermite or any derivative COULD be used or WAS used to create a core failure.

Again, you act as if having NO proof is the equivalent of HAVING proof. That is nonsense. Unfortunately, that's the way truther logic operates most of the time.

 

[alienentity]

Here is some advise on these matters from a wise man. One of the main lessons is 'you can't prove a negative'

 

[TheRedWorm]

...<snip>...I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could not be used to create a core failure.

What fantasy?

MM

Why do you keep asking us to try to prove a negative? This is very dishonest.

 

[Miragememories]

.
Why? He didn't hear explosions consistent with CD, either.

Remember -- he was in the building when he heard the explosions? If those explosions were consistent with CD, the build would have been demolished around him.

It wasn't.

Not to mention that he did not report *sequential* explosions even then.

So, let's try again, and try not to dodge this time: What does this lack of recorded CD explosions mean, given that none of the eyewitnesses report explosions consistent with CD? How do you place a mic such that it can record sequential explosions that never happened?
.

Well I beg to differ with your conclusion.

Barry not only heard, but he witnessed first hand an explosion inside WTC 7.

It has been argued that the explosion he witnessed was part of a failed preliminary attempt at collapsing WTC 7.

I'm not "dodging" anything.

It's not true that there are no eyewitnesses to explosions.

Whether an eyewitness hearing an explosion would know that it was, or was not, part of a CD attempt is impossible to tell. You are asking for speculation.

How would I place a mic to record sequential explosions that you claim never happened?

Well you are answering your own question aren't you?

Now, if I wanted to record sequential explosions, that would happen, depending on how many audio tracks, mixing board etc., I had available, I'd probably plant multiple RF mics reasonably close to the elevator lobbies. I have never recorded live explosions inside a building so my methodology might not be the best.

RF mics do have range issues so an alternative might be required.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Why do you keep asking us to try to prove a negative? This is very dishonest.

What negative?

It is only dishonest if I know it to be dishonest.

MM

 

[Reactor drone]

Sealed?

Enclosed well enough that internal sounds are too dampened to be picked up by a normal set up of an audio recording device.

Your second point assumes blasting would have had to occur.

I don't agree.

I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could not be used to create a core failure.

What fantasy?

MM

I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could be used to create a core failure.

The only demonstrated ways are explosive severing and verinage. Since an explosive shockwave travelling at 20,000 fps would rapidly "unseal" a building we can rule that out and since no-one reported finding huge hydraulic rams in the debris verinage isn't looking too good either.

So, building failure due to damage caused by unfought fires is looking pretty good. It matches the observed state of the buildings, the sound levels, the recovered debris and the known properties of the bulding materials.

 

[TSR]

It has been argued that the explosion he witnessed was part of a failed preliminary attempt at collapsing WTC 7.

.
By whom, and what proof is offered of this?
.

 

[Miragememories]

.
And you've also yet to demonstrate that it could.

Core failure -- this means core columns, right?
.

Since I don't perform controlled demolitions, I am unable
to demonstrate what professionals have stated is quite doable.

Core failure does indeed refer to the failure of a sufficient number of
core columns as to cause a building implosion.

MM

 

[TheRedWorm]

Well I beg to differ with your conclusion.

Barry not only heard, but he witnessed first hand an explosion inside WTC 7.

Then why are you arguing thermite? Which was it, explosives or thermite?

It has been argued that the explosion he witnessed was part of a failed preliminary attempt at collapsing WTC 7.

So what? "It has been argued" that man never went to the moon, and that smoking has no ill health benefits. Arguing something offers nothing as to that things veracity.

It's not true that there are no eyewitnesses to explosions.

Explosions != explosives

Whether an eyewitness hearing an explosion would know that it was, or was not, part of a CD attempt is impossible to tell. You are asking for speculation.

If you have a problem with speculation, why did you even mention thermite?

How would I place a mic to record sequential explosions that you claim never happened?

Well you are answering your own question aren't you?

Now, if I wanted to record sequential explosions, that would happen, depending on how many audio tracks, mixing board etc., I had available, I'd probably plant multiple RF mics reasonably close to the elevator lobbies. I have never recorded live explosions inside a building so my methodology might not be the best.

RF mics do have range issues so an alternative might be required.

MM

Explosions still != explosives. Explosions being heard does not mean anything except that explosions were heard.

 

[Miragememories]

I've yet to see proof that thermite or a derivative could be used to create a core failure.

The only demonstrated ways are explosive severing and verinage. Since an explosive shockwave travelling at 20,000 fps would rapidly "unseal" a building we can rule that out and since no-one reported finding huge hydraulic rams in the debris verinage isn't looking too good either.

So, building failure due to damage caused by unfought fires is looking pretty good. It matches the observed state of the buildings, the sound levels, the recovered debris and the known properties of the bulding materials.

Well as I stated in an earlier post to this thread, Dr. Greening disagrees with you. Or to state it another way, he disagrees with the basis for the NIST conclusion as to why WTC 7 collapsed.

MM

 

[TSR]

Since I don't perform controlled demolitions, I am unable
to demonstrate what professionals have stated is quite doable.

.
Which CD professionals have stated that a CD can be accomplished by therm*te?

Or are you going to go with hush-a-boom cutting charges -- which CD professionals state that these even exist?

And how, exactly, was the building prepared for CD without anyone noticing?
.

Core failure does indeed refer to the failure of a sufficient number of
core columns as to cause a building implosion.

.
Great! Now all you have to find some way to make therm*te cut horizontally, or for hush-a-boom cutting charges to have been deployed.
.