This is the sound of an implosion

Please watch this video of the Stardust in Vegas. It is a building of comparable size to the WTC 7. Listen to the explosions


video

Now, in none of the 9/11 videos are there explosions like that. This is what would need to happen during an implosion of a building that large. From what I have read it took months to prepare. Does this video change the thoughts of anyone who feels that WTC 7 came down with explosives?

Originally posted by esdad71
Now, in none of the 9/11 videos are there explosions like that.

I said the exact thing, but no one wants to accept it.

There is a HUGE difference between the sound of a demolition explosive and something like a propane tank or transformer exploding. People can mistake those for bombs, but if there had been a real explosive, EVERYONE would've been saying there had been bombs. And it would be much more evident in the videos as well.

Demolition explosives have more force than things blowing up in a fire. That's why they use them to demolish buildings. And more force means they're louder when they go off--A LOT louder. Even if they had spaced out the detonations, even one going off would've been like night and day compared to the stuff that was exploding due to the fire.

But... You point this out, and the CT'ers just say, "Well it was thermite then." Which is sad, because the thermite theory is actually about a hundred times more implausible than this one.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Originally posted by whiterabbit
But... You point this out, and the CT'ers just say, "Well it was thermite then." Which is sad, because the thermite theory is actually about a hundred times more implausible than this one.

Want to know what's even sadder.. you guys seriously trying to explain the collapse of WTC7 as structural failure. Why is the thermite theory "sad" when it's the perfect explanation as to why there were no conventional demolition sounds when the towers fell? Did any of you even look at some of those pictures with rust-looking residue at the ends of steel beams where it looks like they were cut? You think the guys who put the time into setting this thing up considered audible evidence as something to negate? Whatever, keep fighting the good fight guys, it's an uphill battle now but at least you have the 9/11 Commission to fall back on.

Already covered....Stardust Implosion

You're right boys.....doesnt sound the same.....

Originally posted by BrokenVisage
Want to know what's even sadder.. you guys seriously trying to explain the collapse of WTC7 as structural failure.

I'm not doing that here, not now at least. I'm telling you why thermite couldn't have happened.

I'm open to another theory that explains it, but thermite does not. I've gone through it before, but I'll do it again.

Melted slag everywhere. Fires everywhere. Unburned thermite everywhere. The ridiculous amount of thermite and ignition device that you would've had to sneak in there and attach to the columns with no one noticing. Then you would've had to pay off the dozens and dozens of people who would've seen the melted slag and thermite everywhere.

Why is the thermite theory "sad" when it's the perfect explanation as to why there were no conventional demolition sounds when the towers fell?

But it's not. It's not even close. See the above reasons.

Explosives has holes in it, too, but not NEARLY as many as thermite.

With explosives, the only hurdles you would have to overcome is the extremely loud explosion, and covering up the evidence of undetonated explosives afterwards--which would be a thousand times easier than covering up the evidence of thermite.

Hell, you couldn't cover up the evidence of thermite, it'd be everywhere.

With explosives, you'd just have to make sure that no one who could identify undetonated explosives saw any undetonated ones. There would be no melted slag, no fires from them, and any explosive damage could be easily mistaken as having happened in the collapse.

With thermite, you'd have to cover up all the melted slag, the fires that would've broken out EVERYWHERE because of it, and all the unburned thermite.

The thermite theory is ridiculous. Stick with explosives, fellas, if you're going the controlled demolition route.

Right, it does not sound like a demolition. So the next question is, where is 'any' physical evidence of a controlled demolition? True, physical proof? Residue. A blasting cap. anything.

NIST has yet to release a final report on wtc 7, and should be due this spring. When this is released, hopefully it will end this debate. It was a structure built upon a structure, not a freestanding building anchored to the ground, IT was built on top of a Con ed substation. Damage from the collapses started fire and casued structural damage to WTC 7. Hours later, it collapsed. You can see the initial collapse and the breaking of the roofline seconds before the collapse. Windows breaking under the stress.

My last question is, why wait so long to "pull' WTC7?

double post..sorry

[edit on 14-3-2007 by esdad71]

Originally posted by esdad71
Now, in none of the 9/11 videos are there explosions like that.

Wrong. There are several videos that have explosions like those in the video. None of them have so many in such a short period of time. That's the difference. It's the difference between setting them off all at once, or doing what may equate to pre-cutting one............... by one................ by one...................

The number of such recorded/reported explosions from the WTC leads me to believe, though, that there still wasn't terribly much actual cutting done by anything conventional. There were explosions but not as many as there should have been if it was all C4, for sure.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by bsbray11]

If thermite were used, it actually does generate the temperatures required to 'significantly weaken' steel.

Its funny, fire is a plausible explanation because of its heat, but heat generated by thermite is not? WTF?

And what do you think started the fires in WTC7? Concrete somehow manifest multiple fires in WTC7 and none of the other buildings surrounding it?

If they used thermite to soften the steel it would require much much less explosive to punch out the key areas.

So the next question is, where is 'any' physical evidence of a controlled demolition? True, physical proof? Residue. A blasting cap. anything.

Where was the forensic examination? Where is the steel? Why would there be blasting caps left over after they explode?

Any military demo guy (Damocles?) should be able to tell you that it is common practice to bury the timers / detanotors / circuitry inside of the explosive charge so that it is destroyed. Black ops use this type of tactic so as not to leave tell tale evidence of who it was that committed what may be considered a crime by the world court.

And there is actually evidence of residue. Just look at NIST's appendix C showing high sulfidation corrosion of key support members, found in ALL THREE bulidings. Debunkers like to claim its from the drywall, at the same time they claim there was no molten metal because they cant explain it with jet fuel... So how does this drywall end up in eutectic solution of re-solidified slag metal, very highly austenitic iron btw, in the foundation? Did osama plant it?



[edit on 3/14/2007 by sp00n1]

Originally posted by sp00n1
And there is actually evidence of residue. Just look at NIST's appendix C showing high sulfidation corrosion of key support members, found in ALL THREE bulidings.

Ah, that's right, and not only sulfidation of steel but what's been referred to as an "alphabet" of rare heavy metals. Tritium levels were elevated, and there was apparently a significant amount of steel that was not removed from Ground Zero (much more than just a few misplaced columns), and it's still unclear where that went even as there is evidence of aluminum and steel being broken down into the same microscopic particles as the concrete was in great enough quantities to have been a health risk to the clean-up workers, causing them to cough up blood.

Then again, they also developed ulcers, respiratory cancers, and their hair began falling out. And what's the number of people dying today that worked at Ground Zero immediately after 9/11? Some thousands of people are thought to have the illness, which is still unexplained. Can't all be chalked up to the illegal asbestos that was also being breathed in by New Yorkers as the well-aware EPA was telling everyone it was 100% safe.

Another thing to take into account regarding the sounds is the fact that most videos of all three buildings were taken from vast distances away. Looking at the WTC with absolutely no scale makes people think the camera is right there, its not. Most cameras were miles away.

Originally posted by sp00n1
Another thing to take into account regarding the sounds is the fact that most videos of all three buildings were taken from vast distances away. Looking at the WTC with absolutely no scale makes people think the camera is right there, its not. Most cameras were miles away.

There was a video that comes to mind of a reporter at the base of WTC2, he hears explosions and looks up and the building is coming down. There weren't any distinct explosions heard, just the rumble noise of the building falling. It's in LooseChange.

Another video is that loud explosion heard when the firefighters are near the pay phone. It is an explosion that could be weakening key supports. Then when the thermite is introduced, it brings the remaining supports down quitely, But then we need to explain the squibs? Are they caused by smaller charges? DO these charges not make loud enough sound when set off to be heard over the rumble of the building?

Of course i'm still looking for more evidence that supports this. All conjecture for me currently.

This is also an implosion; it sounds like a bang, but not in succession

www.youtube.com...

Notice the second clip


NEAR BLDG 7


Then there is this Implosion of a Nuke Plant
www.youtube.com...

Its almost silent, until the end when the sound of the structure hitting the ground echo's.






[edit on 15-3-2007 by talisman]

excellent post Talisman, thanks for doing the research.

I think it is worth saying again that most people would like to think there was no riff-raff involved w/ the collapse of WT7.

It would also be great to think all people in the U.S. government were noble and pious. Unfortunately, that is not the case. The deeper you dig, the more damning evidence emerges.

I used to have a very rosy, glossed-over perspective of our U.S. government w/ my mainsteam media - fed paradigm. However, I started really digging and sifting through the evidence. I am no longer in denial as to how power can breed evil (or vice versa).

Our American system is set up to churn out winners and losers perpetually.

[edit on 3/15/2007 by lagos]

Originally posted by talismanIts almost silent, until the end when the sound of the structure hitting the ground echo's.

I think that 'sound' you hear at the end is the delayed sound of the explosives and not the material hitting the ground. Here is another video shot from a different angle and, presumably, distance, which places the 'sound' mid-way through the collapse.

Trojan implosion