'What about building 7'?

[JayUtah]

He now says there would be a huge noise from the collapse of these buildings. Yes because that is a lot of mass, therefore a lot of energy. In fact that energy is responsible for creating that sound. But explosives are supposed less energetic.

It's not the same kind of sound. And I use "sound" here guardedly. Ocean waves create a great sound because they are large masses hitting other large masses. Building collapses create a great sound because they comprise a large amount of potential energy that expends itself in the collapse, some of which turns to sound.

However, under no conceivable circumstances would there be a supersonic shock wave occurring from the simple collapse of a structure. Not so with explosives. High-brisance explosives like the RDX shaped charges used to cut structural steel for demolition must create a supersonic shock wave, and that can be both heard and felt from a great distance and over most other continuous sounds. Because it originates from a necessarily supersonic event, it is a different character of sound.

So trying to balance energy values is not really the right answer. There is a qualitative difference between explosive shock waves and mere noise from collapsing rubble. The latter may contain more energy overall, but that's not an indicator of sound.

Miragememories wants to claim there was a detonation without a particularly audible shock wave characteristic of explosives. That simply can't physically happen. Creating shock waves is what explosives do. That's like saying you lit a fire without burning anything. It really is that monumentally stupid, what the Truthers here are claiming.

 

[DGM]

MM:

Any luck finding that "nano-thermite" formulation that matches the data in the Harret et al papers?


I'm stumped at why they would want to use so much Silicon (or any at all) in "nano-thermite".

 

[fitzgibbon]

The only fakery that I have determined comes from attempts by members at misrepresentation going back as far as Gumboot's and fitzgibbon's posts from 2007.

Gumboot claimed the audio has a stereo insert which it is not.

Is not. Was not. The original was stereo and identified as such. It was off-lined and re-upped in mono although as I recall, without the requisite distortion as one hears in the voices.

Fitzgibbon tried to pretend, and he still does, that the firefighters shown on camera were not reacting as they would be expected to be.

Not to the overwhelming, multiple building-destroying explosions that're claimed. A car's gas tank may have cooked-off but the group response is inconsistent with what's claimed.

This is not a reaction to a ambient street noise.

Nobody other than you'd claiming that.

I tried to track down the source of this video but that only lead to more apparent misinformation.

Welcome to the debunker side of life

Fitz

 

[Redwood]

Wow. I revived this thread 13 pages, and two months ago, because I wanted a truther response to one simple question:

The visual evidence shows the collapse beginning with the fall of the East Penthouse. From that, it's a reasonable assumption that, one way or another, the columns supporting the East Penthouse were no longer functional. If the columns supporting the East Penthouse were surreptitiously destroyed by demolition charges placed prior to 9/11, how were they concealed, given that the columns were in open work space, not inside the core part of the structure?

Never got an answer....

(Is there a "still waiting" smilie with something like a skeleton with cobwebs forming around it? )

 

[Miragememories]

MM:

Any luck finding that "nano-thermite" formulation that matches the data in the Harret et al papers?


I'm stumped at why they would want to use so much Silicon (or any at all) in "nano-thermite".

This is totally off topic for this thread and it would be a total waste of my time responding at length only to have my post sent to AAH along with your troll.

 

[DGM]

This is totally off topic for this thread and it would be a total waste of my time responding at length only to have my post sent to AAH along with your troll.

Why did you bring it up then?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10168260#post10168260

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10170680#post10170680

 

[Miragememories]

Wow. I revived this thread 13 pages, and two months ago, because I wanted a truther response to one simple question:

The visual evidence shows the collapse beginning with the fall of the East Penthouse. From that, it's a reasonable assumption that, one way or another, the columns supporting the East Penthouse were no longer functional. If the columns supporting the East Penthouse were surreptitiously destroyed by demolition charges placed prior to 9/11, how were they concealed, given that the columns were in open work space, not inside the core part of the structure?

Never got an answer....

Are you suggesting that the columns in WTC7 were exposed rather that enclosed?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Accessing perimeter columns places a perpetrator in the open floor space where the offices were laid out. I.E. public spaces. Which is where redwood's question comes into play.

I'm personally not concerned with your "confusion" whether it's an intentional troll or a legitimate misunderstanding, and neither about hypotheticals dealing with hiding devices. If you have to rely on your weak video record, and your witness testimony of explosions resting on one assuming a literal view of every phrase while ignoring the physical evidence, I could frankly care less about a method to rig the building. We're not at that stage

 

[JayUtah]

This is totally off topic for this thread and it would be a total waste of my time responding at length only to have my post sent to AAH along with your troll.

Then report it as off-topic and let the moderators decide that. Don't attempt to use it rhetorically to evade responsibility.

You are the one claiming as recently as yesterday that "nanothermite" was used to demolish WTC 7. Therefore you must agree it's relevant. In fact, the existence of this magical substance, which somehow has all the properties you need to make your controlled-demolition theory workable, is very much the key premise of your argument and remains unproven. If you cannot prove such a substance existed and was used, you have absolutely no case.

So please answer the question.

 

[000063]

I like the bit where MM completely stops talking about the misquote. Plus the part where he's bouncing from argument to argument like a ping pong ball. In fact, he's doing the same thing he's been doing since page 33 or so, even though folks keep making the same counterpoints.

...
Miragememories wants to claim there was a detonation without a particularly audible shock wave characteristic of explosives. That simply can't physically happen. Creating shock waves is what explosives do. That's like saying you lit a fire without burning anything. It really is that monumentally stupid, what the Truthers here are claiming.

No, he wants to claim it was audible to the human ear, but not cameras. Well, most cameras. Plus the obvious denial of the shock wave.

 

[JayUtah]

I like the bit where MM completely stops talking about the misquote.

He didn't completely stop talking about it. He simply declared it not to be a problem, and therefore by virtue of that unilateral declaration, it must not be. (Translation: "I don't want to talk about it.") So after berating us for not taking hist witnesses at absolute face value, he wants us to ignore the witness's own identification of what he heard -- after looking up to verify it -- and accept instead some editor's wishful thinking.

Of course he really just wants us to overlook that all he did to "research" his position was quote uncritically (i.e., copypaste) from a bunch of conspiracist web sites and didn't check to see whether they were quoted fairly. He reads the sites, he believes them without further thought, and on that basis he can declare that rail-split quotes and blatantly cramming words into that witness's mouth doesn't "significantly alter" its meaning.

No, he wants to claim it was audible to the human ear, but not cameras. Well, most cameras. Plus the obvious denial of the shock wave.

And only some human ears. Shock waves happen because explosives have to make them in order to cut steel. There is no other way. Shock waves have other effects than upon human hearing or audio microphones. None of those effects were observed.

 

[jaydeehess]

The question was asked if it is reasonable to dismiss witness testimony.

Yes, yes it is if there is a distinct lack of corroborating physical or documentary evidence.

 

[JSanderO]

There is so much wrong about the CD of 7WTC which according to truthers required instantaneous destruction of of all 81 columns over a contiguous 8 stories. Despite the fact that the oither buildings came down 7 hrs earlier... the insiders planned 7 to come down long after the dust had cleared from the previous 2 collapses.

No one claims to have seen the 8 stories *disappear* including the 57 columns just inside and attached to the curtain wall. Large parts of the lower curtain wall can be seen on top of the debris pile and that would be completely inconsistent with the columns they were attached to be destroyed by CD.

The claim is so preposterous that it does not merit serious consideration. YES there were explosions inside... electrical transformers... and they will explode, and release inflammable and even explosive gases. And the lower 8 stories had many large transformers and as someone mentioned... likely was the explosion Jennings and Hess reported... which was 7 hrs before the tower came down and in the lower 8 stories.

The observed movements strongly suggest that the insides of the building collapsed before the facade dropped down.. and this took place over an period of more than 7 seconds!

 

[Miragememories]

The only fakery that I have determined comes from attempts by members at misrepresentation going back as far as Gumboot's and fitzgibbon's posts from 2007.

Gumboot claimed the audio has a stereo insert which it is not.

Is not. Was not. The original was stereo and identified as such. It was off-lined and re-upped in mono although as I recall, without the requisite distortion as one hears in the voices.

All the existing evidence is in mono and your vague recollection is meaningless without some kind of proof.

Back in 2010 I checked the audio of the contentious video and it was 2-track mono.

Regardless, as well as the the reflexive reactions of the firefighters to the explosion, you totally ignore the other major point I made in that post.

"The complete video with the explosion was also used in another commercial broadcast documentary.
911 Stories From The City.mp4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfIDbItt2PA#t=11

The explosion exists in that production (though muted under Hungarian narration), from Reality TV.

Reality TV, which was launched in 2002 broadcasts in the UK and is now owned by CBS.

The significance of this is that a commercial production would have to license and pay for any footage they use.

They would purchase their footage from an agent for the source and thus obtain the best copy possible.

I know this from my own experience in TV where we regularly sold our field recordings to other TV networks.

It would make no sense for the seller to have added a bogus explosion to licensed footage."

 

[DGM]

It would make no sense for the seller to have added a bogus explosion to licensed footage.

Who cares? Do you think ordinary things don't explode in large fires? Is it your belief that only explosives explode?

 

[turingtest]

All the existing evidence is in mono and your vague recollection is meaningless without some kind of proof.

Back in 2010 I checked the audio of the contentious video and it was 2-track mono.

Regardless, as well as the the reflexive reactions of the firefighters to the explosion, you totally ignore the other major point I made in that post.

"The complete video with the explosion was also used in another commercial broadcast documentary.
911 Stories From The City.mp4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfIDbItt2PA#t=11

The explosion exists in that production (though muted under Hungarian narration), from Reality TV.

Reality TV, which was launched in 2002 broadcasts in the UK and is now owned by CBS.

The significance of this is that a commercial production would have to license and pay for any footage they use.

They would purchase their footage from an agent for the source and thus obtain the best copy possible.

I know this from my own experience in TV where we regularly sold our field recordings to other TV networks.

It would make no sense for the seller to have added a bogus explosion to licensed footage."

This is beautiful, MM. After avoiding a question about a central point (nano-thermite formulation) of your scenario by declaring it "off-topic" (after you introduced it- it's apparently only off-topic because you can't defend it), you think it's important to discuss whether a certain recording is in stereo or 2-track mono. I mean, really- congrats on such a great illustration of the Truther technique of "strain at gnats and swallow camels."

 

[Miragememories]

Accessing perimeter columns places a perpetrator in the open floor space where the offices were laid out. I.E. public spaces. Which is where redwood's question comes into play."

The visual evidence shows the collapse beginning with the fall of the East Penthouse.

From that, it's a reasonable assumption that, one way or another, the columns supporting the East Penthouse were no longer functional.

If the columns supporting the East Penthouse were surreptitiously destroyed by demolition charges placed prior to 9/11, how were they concealed, given that the columns were in open work space, not inside the core part of the structure?

The NIST position on the WTC7 east penthouse collapse is that it was the extreme consequence from the total failure of column 79.

If you look at the nice floor plan you provided, column 79 is clearly not a perimeter column. The raw exterior of such a major column would have been enclosed and not visible.

Additionally, if the perimeter columns were involved in the collapse of the east penthouse, why do they remain so remarkably intact during the penthouse's plummet through the roof of WTC7?

 

[GlennB]

nm

 

[DGM]

The NIST position on the WTC7 east penthouse collapse is that it was the extreme consequence from the total failure of column 79.

If you look at the nice floor plan you provided, column 79 is clearly not a perimeter column. The raw exterior of such a major column would have been enclosed and not visible.

Additionally, if the perimeter columns were involved in the collapse of the east penthouse, why do they remain so remarkably intact during the penthouse's plummet through the roof of WTC7?

Have you given up on having to remove all the exterior columns to produce the "free-fall" you claim proves CD?

 

[Miragememories]

MM:

Any luck finding that "nano-thermite" formulation that matches the data in the Harret et al papers?


I'm stumped at why they would want to use so much Silicon (or any at all) in "nano-thermite".

It may seem implausible that conventional paint could appear superficially similar to an incendiary or explosive material, but it is nevertheless a fact.

A common paint formulation is essentially a carbon-based resin with embedded particles giving it the desired color and characteristics.

A commonly used red pigment is made of iron-oxide particles while kaolin platelets (an aluminum-silicon compound), are commonly used as a filler and pigment.

Traditionally, thermite is a blend of iron-oxide and elemental aluminum, but in the 1990's, US National Laboratories started developing an advanced form, nano-thermite composite materials, using sol-gel technology.

Sol-gel can be engineered into a hybrid carbon-silica matrix material that is itself energetic, resulting in a composite material that can be turned into a powerful explosive.

This "super-thermite" essentially appears as a resin with nano-thermite embedded within.

Dr. Harrit et al note that this sort of a material "can be sprayed or even “painted” onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint."

Thus, this high-tech energetic material can appear like red paint.

As explained in the 2009 Bentham paper, Dr. Harrit et al were able to establish that the nano-scale platelets found in the red chip material were composed of elemental aluminum and not an aluminum-silicon compound (kaolin).