How were demolition blasts concealed from the public?

[Confuseling]

Does anyone have an even approximate estimate of how many people would be within audio range of WT7 at the point when these explosives were set off?

Got to be in the thousands, I'd have thought.

 

[Dave Rogers]

on the other hand, they also did not remove the drywalls or weakened the bunker, those things the same expert in the same interview told us would act as stifeners.

That's not "on the other hand", it's more examples of things that weren't done that are always done in CD's, and for good reasons. Therefore, without pre-weakening of the structure, the demolition blasts would need to be even stronger - hence, louder - than in a conventional CD. Yet they were so quiet that nobody can agree whether they even happened or not. Doesn't that look a bit strange to you?

Dave

 

[LastChild]

Before collapse



Before collapse



Before collapse


Before collapse



Before collapse



before collapse

Do they usually set off the explosives AFTER the collapse?

That's some debunking there.

 

[DC]

That's not "on the other hand", it's more examples of things that weren't done that are always done in CD's, and for good reasons. Therefore, without pre-weakening of the structure, the demolition blasts would need to be even stronger - hence, louder - than in a conventional CD. Yet they were so quiet that nobody can agree whether they even happened or not. Doesn't that look a bit strange to you?

Dave

oc nobody heard it, becuase JREFers know much better what those ppl heard that was there. its so easy, nobody heard explosions and when someone did he must be simply misstaken.....

 

[WildCat]

Really?

Are you claiming there was a bomb in the radio?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

The thing is that the sound of controlled demolition explosions are nowhere near the level of what you hear on 9/11. Other things can sound like explosions, but demolition explosives have a volume that those other things didn't reach.

I have personally witnessed two separate building demolitions. the first one involved a complex of five apartment buildings. I was a quarter mile from two of the buildings and a half mile from the other three. They were blasted in sequence starting with the ones nearest me. All of the blasts were quite loud and clear and the sound of the blasts were distinctly louder and different from the sound of the buildings collapsing.

In the second demolition I witnessed, I was again a quarter mile from the buildings when the charges went off.

In both cases, from a quarter mile off, (and to a lesser degree from a half mile away) not only were the charges loud and distinct, but you could actually feel the shockwaves from the blasts hitting your chest cavity (like someone thumping your chest with their fist).

There are no reports of this sort of a blast effect in any of the witness statements.

 

[Disbelief]

So are the witnesses who heard the explosions lying? Is Craig Bartmer and the guy who described the thunderclap lying? yes or no?

Also, it is no good to just have the witness testimony of the inferno in wtc7, we need a photo. There were lots of cameras that day, can you show us a photo of this fully involved inferno?

So, you need a photo of the wtc7 inferno, because the eyewitness testimony of many firefighters is not enough, but you will take the testimony of Bartmer without audio evidence of CD blasts? Why the inconsistency?

 

[CHF]

More importantly....how did the NWO get Craig Bartmer and the guy interviewed on the radio to lie about massive noises that werent there?

At no point did I say the noises were not there.

The question is whether or not the noises heard match up with what would be heard during a CD. The answer to that is NO.

I suppose we just found another of those "first time ever" events that the twoofers think happened on 9/11.

First ever top-down demolition of a skyscraper...first ever use of thermite in a demolition...first ever demolition with a plane flown into the set-up...and now the first ever demolition where the noise of the charges was too quiet to be captured on tape.

 

[LastChild]

At no point did I say the noises were not there.

The question is whether or not the noises heard match up with what would be heard during a CD. The answer to that is NO.

I suppose we just found another of those "first time ever" events that the twoofers think happened on 9/11.

First ever top-down demolition of a skyscraper...first ever use of thermite in a demolition...first ever demolition with a plane flown into the set-up...and now the first ever demolition where the noise of the charges was too quiet to be captured on tape.

Were all the explosive noises witnessed caught on tape?

 

[CHF]

Were all the explosive noises witnessed caught on tape?

No, because the noises apparently weren't loud enough to be caught on tape.

Do you think that would the case in the event of CD charges?

 

[LastChild]

No, because the noises apparently weren't loud enough to be caught on tape.

Apparently? All these witnesses heard explosions and you can't point to any audio of them?

Do you think that would the case in the event of CD charges?

I didn't know that's exactly what was claimed. I thought one of the main conspiracy theories was thermate coupled with explosive devises. (at least in the towers). Now if it's your claim a fire and structural damage to a few floors near the top can take down an entire building then just how many cd charges in addition to that would be needed that would also have to be caught on tape from deep inside the tower and maybe a few floors under ground?

How many CD charges did it take in Oklahoma City?

 

[WildCat]

Apparently? All these witnesses heard explosions and you can't point to any audio of them?

Exactly! Because they weren't nearly as loud as demolition charges. You have debunked yourself!

How many CD charges did it take in Oklahoma City?

One, and it was so loud it was heard 15 miles away and felt 30 miles away.

You are expert at debunking yourself LC!

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Apparently? All these witnesses heard explosions and you can't point to any audio of them?

YOU can't point to any audio.

In addition, as I pointed out, they heard sounds, not explosions.

Explosions are accompanied by shock waves which can be felt for some distance out.

 

[DC]

oh and nobody describes how he heard and FELT explosions? you better go read those 503 NYFD testimonys, very interesting....

 

[WildCat]

oh and nobody describes how he heard and FELT explosions? you better go read those 503 NYFD testimonys, very interesting....

Were they heard and felt from miles away, like actual demo charges? Or did you have to be practically on top of them to hear and feel them?

 

[DGM]

Exactly! Because they weren't nearly as loud as demolition charges. You have debunked yourself!


One, and it was so loud it was heard 15 miles away and felt 30 miles away.

You are expert at debunking yourself LC!

Actually there was 420 charges.

CDI crews worked on a fast-track basis to prepare the structure for subsequent explosives placement. Less than 150 pounds of explosives placed in 420 locations was used to fell the structure.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqMode=1&reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030317124730

 

[CHF]

Apparently? All these witnesses heard explosions and you can't point to any audio of them?

Yeah, it's pretty inconsistent with a CD, I know.

I didn't know that's exactly what was claimed.

I thought one of the main conspiracy theories was thermate coupled with explosive devises. (at least in the towers). Now if it's your claim a fire and structural damage to a few floors near the top can take down an entire building then just how many cd charges in addition to that would be needed that would also have to be caught on tape from deep inside the tower and maybe a few floors under ground?

In addition to that? I don't claim any CD charges were necessary or that any were used.

It seems like you're providing us with yet another example of a twoofer asking debunkers to do their homework for them.

You are the one who thinks the WTC was a CD, LC.

You are the one who thinks the buildings could not have collapsed from structural damage and fire.

So maybe it's time you figured out how much exploives would be needed to do what you claim was done. Be sure to factor in the "removal of all resistance," the concrete that was "blasted into dust" or the steel beams that were "ejected horizontally by the force of the explosives," or whatever other idiotic CD talking-points you believe.

Once you've figured out the answer then you can start to figure out why the explosives didn't make more of a noise.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Let me get this straight:

Any reports of any kind of noise support the controlled demolition theory.

However, firefighters eyewitness reports and numerous pictures of the huge volume of smoke pouring out of WTC7 do NOT support the idea that WTC7 was heavily involved in fire. The truthers require SOLID EVIDENCE! Pictures of ACTUAL FLAMES!!

Would you guys be willing to explain why the standard of evidence seems to be different for you than for anyone else?

 

[DC]

Let me get this straight:

Any reports of any kind of noise support the controlled demolition theory.

However, firefighters eyewitness reports and numerous pictures of the huge volume of smoke pouring out of WTC7 do NOT support the idea that WTC7 was heavily involved in fire. The truthers require SOLID EVIDENCE! Pictures of ACTUAL FLAMES!!

Would you guys be willing to explain why the standard of evidence seems to be different for you than for anyone else?

like JREFers use the same standard for them self and for others.....

 

[aggle-rithm]

like JREFers use the same standard for them self and for others.....

I'll give you a pass, DC, because I can never figure out what the devil you're talking about.