The phone call that disproves controlled demo theory?

The premise of the OP is fundamentally flawed. I don't understand how this phone conversation--which sounds like it was recorded from two tin cans and a string--and which has no timings to it, is supposed to disprove anything.

The 105th floor is just under the roof.

Various posters have already cited compression effects on the source, and the sound dampening of lower level explosions reaching through 20-30 floors.

And anyway at the end we hear a massive rumble as the building starts to explode. Since the tower falls at freefall speed, obviously the explosives are set off nearly simultaneously to achieve that result. This recording proves or disproves nothing.

Big picture: such a massive structure with an equally massive central core just doesn't "collapse" in 11 seconds, spewing itself about in a huge chrysanthemum bloom of dust and showering debris. Period.

And this phone call does nothing to disprove physics.

Originally posted by GwionX
If support for the building was severed in the basement-- then the building's collapse points wouldn't be EXACTLY on the floors damaged by the 767 impacts, and steel weakening fires.

Can I ask. What is your specialty that makes you certain that it wouldn't fail from the impact floors? If the core is severed, where do you think the facade is going to fail? In the undamaged portion or the damaged portion? What link breaks first in a chain? Hint: It used to be a game show.

Controlled Demolition? Only a brainwashed fool would still buy that line.

Only a brainwashed fool would call someone a brainwashed fool for questioning.

Originally posted by bsbray11

You can't see the blasts themselves from the exterior, until the collapses actually started, because they were contained WITHIN the building.

www.youtube.com...

BTW here the previous discussion on this topic, worth a read; www.abovetopsecret.com...

The rumble you hear is not explosions but the floors themselves failing. There are reports from firefighters who lived that state you could hear the building coming down when they were still inside and none of them reported explosions prior to the collapse. They said it was a dull roaring sound from above.

Originally posted by esdad71
The rumble you hear is not explosions but the floors themselves failing.

Wow, thanks. I'm glad that's cleared up, Esdad. The long-debunked pancake theory is to blame!

There are reports from firefighters who lived that state you could hear the building coming down when they were still inside and none of them reported explosions prior to the collapse.

You want me to post videos of firefighters talking about explosions prior to the collapses?

You probably already have in mind the ones the Naudet Brothers interviewed, that said it was like they had "detonators" in the building, floors coming out "boom boom boom boom boom boom boom"... etc.

Critical thinking may not be your strong point, but what gives pancaking floors automatic priority off of explosives floor-by-floor, besides the fact that you're biased in that direction and you tend to give us your opinion without ever trying to back it up?

Do you know how to back up an assertion? Do you think it's everybody's responsibility except yours?

[edit on 11-5-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by GwionX
If support for the building was severed in the basement-- then the building's collapse points wouldn't be EXACTLY on the floors damaged by the 767 impacts, and steel weakening fires.

Can I ask. What is your specialty that makes you certain that it wouldn't fail from the impact floors? If the core is severed, where do you think the facade is going to fail? In the undamaged portion or the damaged portion? What link breaks first in a chain? Hint: It used to be a game show.

Show me a "top down demolition" with all non-load bearing structure still in place. You cannot.

How could anyone know beforehand where the "Potenital" damage might be? How could one be certain Atta & company wouldn't make a wrong turn and miss the towers completely. Don't you think the risk ridiculously outweighed the reward-- a reward BTW of NOTHING but strife.

Who could be so stupid as to stage an event where there were so many uncertainties? Would it be people with everything to lose?

Do you think the Neo-Cons or Illuminati or whatever nameless, mystery group du jour ...Do you think "they" would literally put their lives in the hands of Islamic radicals (terrorists with 767's) to make their grand scheme plausible?

Did the Neo-con republicans use this to seize power ala Reichtstag? NO, they already HAD power!

Did a few influential men stage 9/11 to line their pockets with money? No, because 10 times as many men lost their asses on 9/11 who were equally (if not more) influential! Do you think those powerful people would let this stand had it been carried out by their peers and competitors? Does the "conspiracy theory" require all of these powerful business moguls to be sheeple-- just buying the whole terroist story hook, line, and sinker? All the while a swarthy band of googleoligists, and YouTubeineers sitting in mommy's basement are able to just cut through the bull#e with lazer-like, ex post-facto observation skillz.

Controlled Demolition? Only a brainwashed fool would still buy that line.

Only a brainwashed fool would call someone a brainwashed fool for questioning.

WTF? "I Know You Are But What Am I?" What are you? Pee-Wee Herman?

Questioning? More like Accusing if you ask me. Baseless accusations diverting culpability away from very real religious radials that, quite frankly, have little to lose but much to gain. You couple that with the belief that they will be honored by their god if they die in a valiant fight for their cause and you have-- people literally trying to kill you because of what they percieve you stand for, and willing to die in the process. Exactly what happened on 9/11.

.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by GwionX]

Gwion. I'm not going to argue your very strong points (not). Only because I'm sick of saying the same thing over and over again. But one point I'd like to make. You say show you a top down demolition etc. I say show me a global collapse from fire in a steel highrise building that is fireproofed....damaged or not (WTC 7). Also, show me a building that has collapsed (any building) where the collapse DIDN'T initiate in the damaged area. I'm sorry, but show me ANY engineer who will argue what I'm saying.

It didn't matter where they hit the towers. Once the core is gone, the facade will fail at the damaged area NO MATTER WHERE THE PLANES HIT. I challenge you to find an engineer that will refute my claim. BTW, just to clue you in, I am a civil engineer.

Furthermore, I am not the one accussing the government. You are the one who puts words in other people's mouths. I question the government and it's methods of investigating this debackle. If that is accussing them of incompetence, then yes, I am guilty. But, I guess the incompetence that runs rampant through our government is A-OK with you? Well, it's NOT with me.

All I have to say is... More inconvincing, inconclusive and murky evidence. Mr. Cosgrave is on the 105th floor - several witnesses discussed hearing explosions from the sub basement - clearly you wouldn't hear that from 105 stories up.

The rumbling in the background could certainly have been CD discharges from lower floors but there is no way to tell.

A deeply disturbing audio tape of Mr. Cosgrove's final moments but it certainly doesn't bring us any closer to any kind of "truth" regarding the cause of that building's collapse.

My prayers go out to Mr. Cosgrove, those with him at their terrible moment and their families. God Bless!