'What about building 7'?

[turingtest]

MM is adjusting his contentions to whatever objections are raised to them. First, it was "the explosions were too loud to be recorded, due to over-saturation of the cameras' (all of them?) sound recording capacities!" (or whatever his technical terminology was). When it's pointed out that other recorded CDs don't exhibit this characteristic, the argument becomes "well, the sound at the WTC was muffled by the furnishings and windows!"- IOW, now the explosions at the WTC aren't loud enough.

I don't see how he can have it both ways. If the other CDs were of buildings that had furnishings and windows removed, then they would have been louder than the "explosions" at the WTC, which means his saturation effect would have made them inaudible. They're plainly not, so the saturation effect argument is out, by his own reasoning. All that's left is to retreat to "the furniture muffled the sound!" Uh-huh- of explosives powerful enough to have simultaneously removed all the building's supports. Yeah, that's believable- polite explosives.

Which is it, MM? Too loud or not loud enough?

 

[pgimeno]

The saturation issue is easily settled by noticing that in several of the videos, the intensity of the rumble of the collapse increases as the collapse progresses. Were it saturated, that wouldn't be the case.

Therefore, it was not saturated. If it was not saturated, and there were no booms, which there weren't, then there were no high explosives, nanothermitic or otherwise.

 

[jaydeehess]

The saturation issue is easily settled by noticing that in several of the videos, the intensity of the rumble of the collapse increases as the collapse progresses. Were it saturated, that wouldn't be the case.

Therefore, it was not saturated. If it was not saturated, and there were no booms, which there weren't, then there were no high explosives, nanothermitic or otherwise.

YES, in the same way that louder voices screaming are also audible clearly which demonstrates that the dynamic range limit is much higher than the sounds from the collapse. Though your comparison references the same source location and similar frequency range between the reference,( collapse rumble) , and expected explosive sounds.

 

[LSSBB]

The saturation issue is easily settled by noticing that in several of the videos, the intensity of the rumble of the collapse increases as the collapse progresses. Were it saturated, that wouldn't be the case.

Therefore, it was not saturated. If it was not saturated, and there were no booms, which there weren't, then there were no high explosives, nanothermitic or otherwise.

And we are back to why NIST threw out CD as a cause. And why the Truthers should have too. And they can't give it up because of either the sunk cost fallacy or the fear of losing the attention, income, or self-righteousness, so on and on go the lame excuses and handwaving.

 

[DGM]

And we are back to why NIST threw out CD as a cause.

NIST never considered it in the first place. That was their answer to the "concern" that was brought up at the time (remember the "for public comment" version of the WTC 7 report). Personally I thought they should have ignored it and all the "free-fall" stupidity. It was a waste of time and they really didn't put much effort into it anyway.

 

[LSSBB]

NIST never considered it in the first place. That was their answer to the "concern" that was brought up at the time (remember the "for public comment" version of the WTC 7 report). Personally I thought they should have ignored it and all the "free-fall" stupidity. It was a waste of time and they really didn't put much effort into it anyway.

Sure they considered it. And discarded the idea:

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.
For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I like how we're the ones mentally incapable of handling reality when pointing out the video and audio recordings don't show what is being claimed to be there...

 

[TJM]

I actually did witness a terrorist bomb exploding many years ago when I was having dinner on Chambers Street and a bomb went off at the Federal Building in 1983. It was very very loud and it didn't even do much damage if I recall...

"The Commissioner gave the following details of the bombings:

- The first detonated at 9:27 P.M. on the north side of 26 Federal Plaza, which houses the offices of the F.B.I. and other Federal agencies. The device, made of several sticks of dynamite and a timer, knocked out windows on three floors but caused no injuries. "

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/02/n...errorists-suspected-in-new-year-bombings.html

You are not going to blow up a building and it makes no sound. PERIOD.

There was a thread around here (darned if I can find it at the moment) where some of us who've been around explosions (accidentally or otherwise) shared our memories. I've been around two biggies -

In 1973 I was about three miles from a munitions train when a brake fire on one of the boxcars started cooking off 250 lb bombs - after my mom drove us 20 miles away from the area we could still hear bombs going off for much of the day.

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/27/5375695/40-years-later-witnesses-recall.html

In 2008 I was about 100 feet from a PG&E underground vault explosion - seriously scary. Very loud and I felt this one; It nearly knocked me off my feet and it shook nearby buildings.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-scary-S-F-blast-under-streets-3208108.php#photo-2349909

What concerns me now about these two incidents is new information brought to light in this thread. Theoretically, if Southern Pacific and PG&E fitted their boxcars and underground infrastructure with office furniture, I should have been spared from the effects of several very nasty explosions and I believe I have grounds for a class action lawsuit.

Any lawyers reading this, hit my PM.

 

[ProBonoShill]

MM is adjusting his contentions to whatever objections are raised to them. First, it was "the explosions were too loud to be recorded, due to over-saturation of the cameras' (all of them?) sound recording capacities!" (or whatever his technical terminology was). When it's pointed out that other recorded CDs don't exhibit this characteristic, the argument becomes "well, the sound at the WTC was muffled by the furnishings and windows!"- IOW, now the explosions at the WTC aren't loud enough.

I don't see how he can have it both ways. If the other CDs were of buildings that had furnishings and windows removed, then they would have been louder than the "explosions" at the WTC, which means his saturation effect would have made them inaudible. They're plainly not, so the saturation effect argument is out, by his own reasoning. All that's left is to retreat to "the furniture muffled the sound!" Uh-huh- of explosives powerful enough to have simultaneously removed all the building's supports. Yeah, that's believable- polite explosives.

Which is it, MM? Too loud or not loud enough?

Bingo!

 

[ProBonoShill]

What concerns me now about these two incidents is new information brought to light in this thread. Theoretically, if Southern Pacific and PG&E fitted their boxcars and underground infrastructure with office furniture, I should have been spared from the effects of several very nasty explosions and I believe I have grounds for a class action lawsuit.

Any lawyers reading this, hit my PM.

 

[Miragememories]

You've cited people who use the word "explosion" but you beg the question of what they actually heard. You simply trust their interpretation of the observation.

I respect eye witness testimony from first responders over what amounts to flatulence.

"You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down."

"I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down."

There is no misunderstanding on this side of the debate.

While you keep harping on the least reliable form of documentary evidence, witness testimony, we have been asking for docuementary evidence that does not depend on personal interpretation of an event that took place while the witnesses were in fear of their lives or for the lives of persons in the area, an event that took less than 20 seconds, at a location that was well known to have been the target of a bombing several years earlier...

Who is guilty of misunderstanding?

Well jay, a microphone attached to a brain (human ear) does a much better job of discerning the nature of a sound source than a directional microphone attached to a brainless recorder.

"I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing.

I was there in '93."

Basically, if you can hear both the sounds of debris falling, and a louder, closer voice, then there is no reason at all that you would not hear the sound of explosions that are louder than the debris fall yet not as loud as the close voices yelling , unless the explosive sound coincides with the loud voice...

If you can hear. Such a little word. Such a big meaning.

You have tossed together a number of sound generators.

Debris falling (where, when, what), a voice recorded at a louder level (because the reporter is using a directional close proximity microphone), and distant explosion(s) mixed with the sound of structural failure.

The hearing range and flexibility of a human ear/brain combination is far superior at accurately processing audio scenarios like that experienced by people at the World Trade Center on 9/11, than a directional close proximity microphone.

Prior to the explosions and subsequent collapse of the first tower, WTC2, these first responders thought they were dealing with an emergency they understood. At that time they had no precedent to place them "in fear of their lives".

"... I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes."

"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode."

"And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out."

"Then we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down. Crazy."

"... there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

 

[pgimeno]

Talk about quote mining! I just went to this one for verification.

"And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out."

A more complete quote, with an important part of missing context (from graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110142.PDF p.14):

The next thing I heard was Pete say what the **** is this? And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go.​

(emphasis added).

So, what he saw when he looked up was the dust ejection, and assumed it was an explosion, just like that Fox5 News reporter near the WTC did.

Which leaves me wondering about the rest.

 

[JayUtah]

I respect eye witness testimony from first responders over what amounts to flatulence.

Playground rhetoric is not an argument. If you believe my arguments are equivalent to verbal farts then you should be able to make a cogent, dispassionate argument to refute them. I'm assuming you've resorted to name-calling because you lack that argument.

To the point, your decision to trust eyewitness testimony -- even as selectively as you have -- does not make the problems inherent to eyewitness testimony go away.

[A] microphone attached to a brain (human ear) does a much better job of discerning the nature of a sound source than a directional microphone attached to a brainless recorder.

Only for certain interpretations of "better." None of your handwaving has yet impeached the vast mountain of empirical evidence that disputes your speculation.

The hearing range and flexibility of a human ear/brain combination is far superior at accurately processing audio scenarios like that experienced by people at the World Trade Center on 9/11, than a directional close proximity microphone.

Perhaps with your newfound expertise in otology and neurology you can provide something other than vague handwaving. I'd be especially interested in your in-depth neurological analysis of sound localization in acoustic loading transmitted primarily through solids. Also please discuss localization in urban environments.

(Hint: you've probably guessed that bluffing on this point won't work.)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packag...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Wow, you've picked enough cherries to make a bake sale worth of pies.

 

[NoahFence]

MM-
I'm curious about your specific thought process that forces you to remove the rest of the paragraph:

The next thing I heard was Pete say what the **** is this? And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go.

You're using his quote as evidence of explosives but ignoring the remaining part of the quote that clears up any confusion.

Why?

 

[JayUtah]

MM-
I'm curious about your specific thought process that forces you to remove the rest of the paragraph:



You're using his quote as evidence of explosives but ignoring the remaining part of the quote that clears up any confusion.

Why?

I too am going to press for an answer. Before we deal with the other quotes in turn, I want to know why this particular paragraph was edited. The unedited paragraph clearly shows that the witness arrived at a particular interpretation for his observations and that this interpretation was expressly not controlled demolition.

Please explain the reason for the edit, Miragememories. And please explain why, given the restored quote, you believe this witness favors your theory.

 

[beachnut]

Campagna, Frank– In north tower, didn't know plane had hit their building. From 30th floor, thought south tower collapse was explosion.

Wait, MM uses him as an explosive evidence. He did not say explosives were used on 911. MM is spreading misinformation, BS, lies - mocking those murdered on 911, trying to blame who? Does MM know who did 911? Is mm ignoring 19 murderers?

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard

It is easy for mm to quote mine 911 witnesses and for mm, it is support for mm's fantasy world of 911; mm is in the 13th years of making up BS.

It might be best to leave mm with his fantasy safe in his head. With peers like the Boston bombers, there is hope maturity and knowledge will step in and cure 911 truth followers - mm is not trying to learn.

Quote mining is standard procedure for 911 truth. The followers ignore evidence, and makeup their own evidence with quote mined witnesses.

Good examples...

Ippolito, James– Thought south tower collapse was another plane. Second plane hit sound like train derailing.

Wow, a train did it!!! Those evil train barons, ruined the world...

mm - a train did it. You missed this quote mine chance to get the bad guys.

13 years and mm is unable to join reality - time to let him alone - albeit, a source of typing practice, he has no rational evidence.

 

[fitzgibbon]

And also, MM is inclined to behave as if he's the only broadcast professional on the board. As is plainly evident, jaydee is (tech in Kenora, IIRC) & I'm in the same city with a comparable depth and length of background as an editor. So BS isn't going to baffle these brains either

Fitz

 

[DGM]

Please explain the reason for the edit, Miragememories. And please explain why, given the restored quote, you believe this witness favors your theory.

The question that really makes a "truther" squirm is, why have none of these witnesses come forward in support of "controlled demolition"? The answer you get explains very well why the "truth movement" is not well excepted in NYC.

 

[jaydeehess]

Well jay, a microphone attached to a brain (human ear) does a much better job of discerning the nature of a sound source than a directional microphone attached to a brainless recorder.

So you completely missed the point of the paragraph that you quoted from my post.

If you can hear. Such a little word. Such a big meaning.

You have tossed together a number of sound generators.

Debris falling (where, when, what), a voice recorded at a louder level (because the reporter is using a directional close proximity microphone), and distant explosion(s) mixed with the sound of structural failure.

The point was that in this particular clip we hear a loud voice, one from someone not in the scene and therefore not in the main cartoiud mic pattern. Yet that voice is louder than the sound of the collapse which is within the much cardoid pattern and therefore we know for certain that the mic cannot be saturated, we know the audio circuitry and the recording medium are not saturated because the loudest portion of the audio is clear. Therefore the audio recording of lesser amplitude sounds must be of at least the fidelity of the louder sounds. Yet no BANG! ( I bolded a few other small words of significance for you MM)

The hearing range and flexibility of a human ear/brain combination is far superior at accurately processing audio scenarios like that experienced by people at the World Trade Center on 9/11, than a directional close proximity microphone.

All of which might just be remotely relevant were it not for the multitude of recordings of known true demolitions and the complete lack of similar sounds on any recording of the collapses( all three)

Prior to the explosions and subsequent collapse of the first tower, WTC2, these first responders thought they were dealing with an emergency they understood. At that time they had no precedent to place them "in fear of their lives"

.
But we are not talking about prior to the collapses. We are talking about the time of collapses. At that time, you know the moment which you provided several videos of, they had every reason to be in fear for their lives.

The reports of explosions prior to collapse have been addressed many times in the past but the big question they beg is : " Are we to expect that explosives were set off at intervals over the approx hour before collapse? Do you subscribe to Tony Szamboti's delayed effect gravity?"

 

[jaydeehess]

http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html
"Some examples of video footage [from the WTC on 9/11] which includes audio can be found and this audio does include evidence of explosions, though it is not generally obvious for a number of reasons. Sounds of intense volume recorded at close distances will tend to overload and be distorted by the time they make it onto tape. If a very loud sound such as an explosion overloads the camera's sound circuitry and is followed very quickly by subsequent loud sounds, the individual sounds will be more difficult to identify because the shape of each sound, the attack and decay, will be masked as the audio circuits are completely saturated with signal. Results will vary depending on camera type, microphone type, specific settings, and proximity to the event. Some angles of the collapses are cut very short so they start playing only after the initiation of collapse sounds, perhaps because some videographers did not capture the first moments on tape or as a result of the news tending to only focus on the "juicy" bits in their presentations. Another problem with internet videos is that when there is sound, it is usually missing a lot of information and/or is distorted from various forms of data compression and/or sloppy transfers. Another problem with internet video in terms of close scrutiny can be audio which is encoded or played back slightly out of synch with the picture."

So I decided to check "medium records" out. I can find extremely little about this group. In fact it looks to be a group of one person, B McKenna. I can find little info on this person much less any reference to this person's qualifications, training, education, or experience.

It reads so much like what MM has been saying that if I were a conspiratorial person I might suspect this is MM quoted himself as expert backing of his own claims.
But I am not lot a conspiratorial bent.