How WTC 7 was pulled down

[WildCat]

I keep pointing out how significant sounds were buried in the cacophony of background sound.

How does that work? Got any examples of this happening?

 

[Edx]

The original recording had very low audio recorded, and only on the left channel; but a good question.

When you have various videos all recording the same event and only one contains this sound, that should tell you something.

 

[excaza]

When you have various videos all recording the same event and only one contains this sound, that should tell you something.

That the other ones were doctored

obviously...

 

[DGM]

Nothing on the right track.

All the links have been posted.

Look for yourself.

MM

I see MM has been suspended but, does anyone have a link to the original video (not YouTube)?

 

[Telltale Tom]

Prior to 9/11 the industry slogan was "Steel: because it never fell down before"

Actually that is why its surprising that the Steel industry does not support the ae911truth version of the truth. These guys at AISC must hate all those engineers who say the towers fell down to fire and impact

 

[Miragememories]

When you have various videos all recording the same event and only one contains this sound, that should tell you something.

Missing audio tracks does not equate to the absence of audio.

If you have the same video recording with audio in conflict with the recording I linked to, then you have something that can be argued.

MM

 

[W.D.Clinger]

If you have the same video recording with audio in conflict with the recording I linked to, then you have something that can be argued.

'Cause everyone knows that the only way to argue against a forgery is to construct your own forgery.

/trutherlogic

 

[Miragememories]

"Missing audio tracks does not equate to the absence of audio.

If you have the same video recording with audio in conflict with the recording I linked to, then you have something that can be argued."

'Cause everyone knows that the only way to argue against a forgery is to construct your own forgery.

/trutherlogic

Truther logic?

No, just logic.

If it is a forgery, only the 'untouched' original, or a valid comparable recording can provide proof.

MM

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Truther logic?

No, just logic.

If it is a forgery, only the 'untouched' original, or a valid comparable recording can provide proof.

MM

But a valid recording can disprove the forged recording.

Case in point: Truthers say that people heard explosions, but couldn't really tell if they were from explosives. Then Truthers edit in realistic explosive sounds to the original recording to forge their arguements about a possible CD of the WTCs'.

A researcher presents an unaltered recording with the real audio from the event & the audio doesn't pick up explosive sounds coming from the buildings. Then Truthers go on the rampage claiming that it's a "fake", when in realiy it's not.

Witness testimony combined with video evidence proves that explosives weren't used on 9/11.

MM, sorry but it's an open & shut case for you, buddy!

 

[dafydd]

One that couldn't be analysed as a fake by the thousands of sound engineers aroud the world...

But claimed to be a fake by some ignorant armchair 911 troof warriors.Now who should I believe?

 

[A W Smith]

Truther logic?

No, just logic.

If it is a forgery, only the 'untouched' original, or a valid comparable recording can provide proof.

MM

says Shapiro

“While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was,”

 

[dafydd]

The idiocy of the responses is truly amazing.


MM

Does anyone have an irony meter that goes to infinity?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Does anyone have an irony meter that goes to infinity?

I had one, but it broke.

 

[GlennB]

TV interviewer talking to woman holding small child. Some way N of WTC7 (half a mile?).

They only turn to see the carnage as a cloud of dust is already heading their way. i.e when substantial debris has already hit the ground. Not the explosions that provoked that collapse.

There was no lengthy synchronised series of high-explosive detonations.

We can even say 'never mind the audio', because everybody there (and there were many thousands, some on camera with their reactions being recorded) quite clearly did not hear any such bloody great series of explosions.

 

[dafydd]

TV interviewer talking to woman holding small child. Some way N of WTC7 (half a mile?).

They only turn to see the carnage as a cloud of dust is already heading their way. i.e when substantial debris has already hit the ground. Not the explosions that provoked that collapse.

There was no lengthy synchronised series of high-explosive detonations.

We can even say 'never mind the audio', because everybody there (and there were many thousands, some on camera with their reactions being recorded) quite clearly did not hear any such bloody great series of explosions.

You are wasting your time.Have you ever known a CT delusionaut to change their mind because of these threads? I haven't.

 

[thecritta]

Let me get this straight just before wtc 7 came down all the floors
basically gave way caved in kind of and fell straight down all the floors
connections buckled gave way failed knocking down critical columns
causing the whole building to descent straight down, and the floors
collapsed straight down almost leaving wtc 7 basically as an empty shell
kind of like an empty box is that right? If that is right and there where no
intact floors left in the building actually i think there where still some floors
left intact on the right side of the building as it started to descent looking
at NIST's collapse model, so when did all the gravitational resistance come
from if the building was just an empty shell when it collapsed? If the where no intact floors and the vast majority of them where gone already lying collpased on the ground inside the building at the bottom where did all the resistance come from if there where no floors if they had already fallen?
So wtc 7 was basically just an empty outer shell as it fell is that right?

I dont understand because the was a freefall period of about 2.25 seconds right so the rest of the time the collapse was encountering resistance so this means that there must have been intact floors in order for their to be resistance as it fell because as i understand it if the building does not descend at a complete rate of free fall without any resistance which i didnt most of the time anyway, so how could the building have been encountering and resistance as it feel if the floors are not there can someone explain where this resistance has come from if there are no intact floors to crush to create some resitance?

I picture it kind of this way if i take a square 24 can slab of pepsi take all the cans out empty them all out and place them all back in the box right where they came from and then take another square 24 can slab of pepsi exactly the same as the first slab of pepse but this time i do not empty the cans and put them back in i leave just the empty box like the empty wtc 7 moments before it decided to suddenly collapse staright down and now for example i take a heavy object just like a dell poweredge 2650 server just like the one i have in my room which is quiet heavy and i would say would way maybe 1/3 quarters the weigh of and average person doesnt matter anyhow it is off a sufficient size relative to the box and you should be able to drop it squarely and quiet accuratly over the top of the box.

My question is which box of pepsi will collapse to the ground be flattened first which one will be crushed the quickest
the one with nothing in it or the one with empty cans? Of course the answer should be quiet obvious.

For example my reasoning which wtc 7 would collapse to the ground in the quickest time just like the square box of pepsi cans.

Box of pepsi cans (A) is wtc 7 with all of the floors intact

Box of pepse cans (B) is wtc 7 with all the floors gone just prior to collapsing

I could also do a box of pepsi cans (C) which would be a box of pepse cans with all 24 cans removed and most of them put back but not all of them so there wouldnt be quiet as much resistance as box of pepsi cans (A) which represents wtc 7 with most if not all the floors still intact.

There i hope you can understand what i am trying to say i can put it any better.

And can we please lay off the comments like "Why dont you just use a stack of pizza boxes instead" Really if i could find a better analogue a better example for an experiment to try to explain to you what
i am saying i would trust me but i cant think of one nor do i have even further time to waste to sit around trying to think up a better experiment like half an hour or an hour i ahve already wasted too much time just
typing this stupid damn post anyways tell me what you think, but please keep it civil and if you do i will too i hate coming around here and getting mad when i get responses i dont like whether it is my fault or not ok.

Cheers

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So wtc 7 was basically just an empty outer shell as it fell is that right?

The exterior most likely collapsed long before your petty exaggerated (and blatantly misleading) case could be realized.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I've found that serious editing is necessary to reply to thecritta. I've tried not to alter the intended meaning of the original.

Let me get this straight: just before WTC7 came down, all the floors basically gave way, caved in kind of, and fell straight down. All the floor connections buckled, gave way and failed, knocking down critical columns, causing the whole building to descend straight down, and the floors collapsed straight down, almost leaving WTC7 basically as an empty shell, kind of like an empty box. Is that right?

Not exactly, no. NIST's modelling indicates that one of the floors gave way at the connections to column 79, and fell on the next floor down, breaking the connections on that floor too. This happened over several floors, leaving a long section of column 79 unsupported. Column 79 was designed to be braced by the floor support beams; without that lateral bracing it wasn't stiff enough, so it buckled and collapsed. The rest of the core followed, resulting in the inside of the building collapsing before the outside. We know something like this must have happened, because videos show a clear view to sky through several upper storey windows between the penthouse and facade collapses, so the interior must have already collapsed at that point.

If that is right and there were no
intact floors left in the building (actually I think there were still some floors
left intact on the right side of the building as it started to descend, looking at NIST's collapse model), where did all the gravitational resistance come from if the building was just an empty shell when it collapsed?

The shell itself had some strength, though not enough to hold itself up. But one of the points some truthers like to make is that they don't think there was enough resistance to the collapse, because part of it was at an acceleration close to freefall.

If there were no intact floors and the vast majority of them were gone already, lying collapsed on the ground inside the building at the bottom, where did all the resistance come from?

From the vertical columns of the facade, and from the lateral connections between them. But they weren't designed to stand on their own once the floors were gone, so they didn't.

So WTC7 was basically just an empty outer shell as it fell. Is that right?

Not exactly right, because of the timing involved. The first penthouse collapse started about 4-6 seconds before the facade collapse, and it would have taken about 7 seconds for the interior to collapse to ground level even if there wasn't any resistance to that part of the collapse. So the interior was still falling as the facade began to collapse, but there probably wasn't any structural connection left between the core and the facade by then.

Dave

 

[A W Smith]

Let me get this straight just before wtc 7 came down all the floors
basically gave way caved in kind of and fell straight down all the floors
connections buckled gave way failed knocking down critical columns
causing the whole building to descent straight down, and the floors
collapsed straight down almost leaving wtc 7 basically as an empty shell
kind of like an empty box is that right? If that is right and there where no
intact floors left in the building actually i think there where still some floors
left intact on the right side of the building as it started to descent looking
at NIST's collapse model, so when did all the gravitational resistance come from if the building was just an empty shell when it collapsed? If the where
no intact floors and the vast majority of them where gone already lying
collpased on the ground inside the building at the bottom where did all
the resistance come from if there where no floors if they had already fallen?

So wtc 7 was basically just an empty outer shell as it fell is that right?

false choice fallacy along with strawman, And excluded middle.

 

[dafydd]

I dont understand

Cheers

There is a good reason why you don't understand.