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

Miragememories said:
There were witnesses that claimed they did.

MM
Click to expand...

Cite?

After several years of my asking, nobody has been able to come up with a citation for a loud noise consistent in timing, loudness and brisance with man-made demolition.

Prove me wrong.

Hints: "like" is a simile.
"explosion" is just another word
for "loud noise"
 
Miragememories said:
Talk about a lot of hot air.

There is nothing mysterious about "pre-collapse destruction".

Or does your technical mimicry reflect an inability to grasp that a controlled demolition starts with "pre-collapse destruction"?

I don't think so.

You've made great issue about the fact that we have some audio recordings of the WTC7 collapse but supposedly no "pre-collapse destruction" sounds.

I provided you with a likely explanation and you totally ignore it.

What proof do you have that to compromise the core, a type of demolition was required that would have blown out the windows?

Again, I point out that the WTC 7 East Penthouse, a large structure, on the roof, in a position to radiate the sound of its collapse over a large area, totally collapsed unheard.

Internally, over several seconds, the NIST claimed column 79 and its interconnections were failing and bringing down the entire 47-story building.

Not a peep was recorded.

Finally the whole building collapses, and for several seconds at freefall speed.

And we end up with a low-level audio recording.

And you wonder at skepticism regarding the lack of recordings for any internal collapse sound?

MM
Click to expand...

Protec had multiple recordings of broadcasts of the pre collapse , the collapse and post collapse of the buildings that day. Why dont you ask them about them?

None of them think there was a CD.
 
TheRedWorm said:
But since you've shown no evidence that the sounds and pressures of traditional explosive can be masked; and since you have no plausible way of using thermite to bring down a building, we can safely rule out CD. Process of elimination.
Click to expand...
Key word is "traditional". The "no boom" is just another denial tactic. "It can't be because . . . ."

There are over a thousand different types of explosives. [at 18:00]
We control noise levels [at 18:20]
http://www.weloo.com/videos/66410/dc---911-mysteries-part-1-demolitions-2of3wmv.html

You have no idea what is available or what can be done to DAMPEN the sound. You deny the few witnesses who heard explosions by saying "It could have been something else" but you will not admit that what they heard was explosives. You are just a lot of double talk, diversion and denial.

The "no boom" is just another denial tactic. "It can't be because . . . ."

You ignore FFA or try to double talk around it.
 
Christopher7 said:
Key word is "traditional". The "no boom" is just another denial tactic. "It can't be because . . . ."

There are over a thousand different types of explosives. [at 18:00]
We control noise levels [at 18:20]
http://www.weloo.com/videos/66410/dc---911-mysteries-part-1-demolitions-2of3wmv.html

You have no idea what is available or what can be done to DAMPEN the sound. You deny the few witnesses who heard explosions by saying "It could have been something else" but you will not admit that what they heard was explosives. You are just a lot of double talk, diversion and denial.

The "no boom" is just another denial tactic. "It can't be because . . . ."

You ignore FFA or try to double talk around it.
Click to expand...


I never brought up acceleration...so:

Ok, enlighten us. What kind of explosives(and how much) were used on 9/11 and what was used to dampen the sound and pressure?
 
Christopher7 said:
Key word is "traditional". The "no boom" is just another denial tactic. "It can't be because . . . ."

There are over a thousand different types of explosives.
Click to expand...

None of which are silent.
[at 18:00]
We control noise levels [at 18:20]
Click to expand...


Only to a small degree and it does nothing to suppress the seismic wave.
http://www.weloo.com/videos/66410/dc---911-mysteries-part-1-demolitions-2of3wmv.html
Click to expand...

That video is 9/11 Mysteries which faked the sound of explosions on video that showed no such thing. See
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/
 
Christopher7 said:
NIST confirmed that FFA lasted ~2.25 seconds, ~100 feet.

No two CDs are the same because each building provides unique situations to deal with and you have no idea why WTC 7 was brought down precisely the way it was. Your strawman rant ignores the point. Dan Rather and Brian Williams thought WTC 7 looked like a CD.

Wrong. FFA is proof of CD. You can deny it all you want and the fanatically faithful here will support you but in the real world outside this forum the obvious physical reality that FFA can only occur if all the supporting structure is removed will be recognized.
Click to expand...

If No two CDs are the same then how can you just look at WTC 7 and say that it's a CD?
 
Christopher7 said:
You keep ignoring the fact that no two CDs are the same. WTC 7 was a unique situation requiring a unique solution.

.
Click to expand...

Then why do you keep saying it looks like CD? You're claiming it looked like a CD but it was also unique.
 
alienentity said:
Microphones pick up anything that is present. They don't have political agendas.

None of the mics picked up very loud collapse sounds from WTC7. Eyewitnesses described the sound of the collapse as a 'whoosh' and 'like a jet engine'.

This is 100% consistent with a non-explosive collapse.
It is 0% consistent with explosive demolition, under any known circumstances. The technical reasons for this have been examined and published by experts in the relevant fields.

So now it appears the truther excuse is that the windows masked the sound of explosions? Oy Vey. that idea was D.O.A. years ago. There's no technical backing for the claim.

Again, lack of evidence should NEVER be presented as evidence. that's just dishonest.
Click to expand...

The windows were made of audio-opaque glass. You get from the same place you get hush-a-boom explosives.
 
Miragememories said:
Since you can't show any proof that it was a fire-induced collapse, I don't have to provide evidence that it must have been a CD.

Process of elimination.

MM
Click to expand...

You are ignoring DEW, mini-nukes and random quantum fluctuations.
 
Miragememories said:
Dr. Greening presented a very lengthy paper challenging the NIST final conclusions, of which I quoted just a small portion.



Note the language "alternative collapse initiation and propagation hypothesis".

If you read it, you'd see that Dr. Greening's paper focuses on the NIST's inability to make a reasonable argument for a fire-induced collapse.

MM
Click to expand...

I am sure this has already been addressed by someone much more qualified than myself (maybe one of the engineers that post here) but Dr. Greening does not say he tinks there was another cause, other than fire. From what I have read, and if I understand it correctly, he is saying that the collapse initiation could have been caused by something other than Column 79.
He believes that the collapse started elsewhere in the building, and progressed differently.

He does not mention Hush-A-Boom at all.
 
Christopher7 said:
The fact that WTC 7 fell straight down [and then a little to one side], landing mostly in it's own footprint is enough for most people. A fire cannot possibly do that to a building.

FFA is real evidence but you deny it. You all systematically deny all evidence and then claim there is none. :rolleyes:

This is a false claim made by deniers. You have no idea what the world's engineering and scientific community thinks.
Click to expand...

How does it fall mostly into it's own footprint, when in fact, it hits the top of Fitterman Hall across the street to one side, and hits the front of te Verizon Building to another? It also blocked two roads that lead into and out of GZ.
Now, I know this is going to be hard to understand, but fire causes buildings to collapse. Happens all the time. Why do YOU believe that fire DOESN'T cause buildings to collapse?

Nobody is denying FFA. You are making a mountain out of a molehill. We understand that a short period of FFA is not suprising. HOWEVER, you claim this can NLY occur in a CD. Fine. Show me ANOTHER CD where FFA occurs.

I'll wait.....

Lastly, for the most part, the worlds engineers do agree with NIST's conclusion. How can we say that? Engineers are very inquisitive people. They will look at, and read, just about anything they can get their hands on. I am certain that about 75% of the worlds engineers have read the NIST report. Hell, I am not an engineer, and I have read it.
If more people didn't agree with the conclusions, why don't we have hundreds, if not thousands of papers pointing out NIST's flaws and SHOWING why they think it was something else?

How about ONE?? Just ONE Chris. ANY language is fine.

Why don't we have even ONE?!?!?!
 
Christopher7 said:
You keep ignoring the fact that no two CDs are the same. WTC 7 was a unique situation requiring a unique solution.

The conformation of Mr. Chandler's finding of FFA in the NIST report is effectively a peer review. It is an established scientific fact that you cannot dispute so you just deny it.
Click to expand...

LOL!! Posts on an internet message board =/= peer-review!! LOL!!

Can a brother get a laughing dog!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom