PBS broadcast of “Solving the Mystery of WTC7″ reaches 2.7 Million Americans

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Haven't we been through this?

If you can secure people and equipment from the heat of re-entry from outer space you can secure secure an explosive device from an office fire...

So you propose to isolate the thermite from heat. And then want this isolated thermite to heat the supports after igniting them. Right . Now show the world that this is possible. Show what the apparatus would look like, how it is installed, and that it works.

At least I haven't see you claim that it is easy to do.

Explosive cd uses explosives to remove key support structures to effect a demolition.
Verinage uses cables and pulleys to remove key support structures to effect a demolition.
X uses Y to remove key support structures to effect a demolition.
Thermite demolition uses thermite to remove key support structures to effect a demolition.

And in case of the WTC, fire and plane impacts removed key support structures to effect a demolition. Never heard of thermite demolition by the way (outside truther fantasy world). Any examples of it? (and I mean buildings)

The only question is whether thermite can be used to remove key support structures, Cole proved it can. Therefore thermite can be used to do a cd.

"cd" means Controlled Demolition, just fyi. Controlled demolition is as opposed to fire induced spontaneous collapse, not as opposed Verinage (which is just another type of controlled demolition). There is a company called "Controlled Demolition inc." that specializes in using explosives, but there is no reason to suppose that this technique was the one used on this occasion.

In fact the whole ruse that you employ is to use that fact (that that company uses explosives in THAT manner) to hoodwink the unwary into thinking that that is the only way to use explosives to effect a demolition, or that high explosives (that make a big noise) are the only types of explosives that can be used. The thermate Cole demonstrated would be classed as LOW explosives and would not make the loud bang associated with the work of the company: "Controlled Demolition inc." but would still be what most people describe as a controlled demolition.

But even if you ignore that, I have demonstrated, and you have failed to acknowledge, that the use of high explosives does not equate to there necessarily being a detectable BOOM from any appreciable distance. It is simply a question of how much money you are prepared to spend to dampen the noise. So even the basic underlying premise of your position is wholly without merit.

No you have not demonstrated that. You have linked a patent. You wouldn't know evidence when it hit you in the face.

And excellent job avoiding my question whether your theory is falsifiable (and how). I take it isn't, so its worthless.

reply to post by Darkwing01


The only difference? Really?

Still no evidence of your hush-a-booms

reply to post by GenRadek

on Page

www.abovetopsecret.com...
the very bottom



Wow those were loud explosions, you know what else was loud on your video? The sound of the building collapsing.



The sound of the building collapsing, of the debrie, is barely audible and multiple magintudes inferior in therms of dezible than the voices commenting what is going on.



This is the sound of a thousand LBS bomb not that far away with sound able to cross open ground. In therms of dezible the audio of the explosion on the recording is not that much louder than the voice of the guys talking.

Now what do you expect an explosion from a charge muliple magnitudes smaller going off in a closed windowed building to sound like at a great distance, recorded with a professional mic that has been probably equipped to block out some noise, such as wind and was set to record primarily what was going on in the immediate vicinity of the camera with some buildings in the way, that further block out some noise? If this is the audio the equipment recorded of a building collapsing



What do you expect an explosions to sound like, that is not an 1000 lbs bombs? Something like this?



Look at a making of video where they shoot action sequences using blanks in the firearms. The unedited result is pretty sad compared to what Hollywood soundengineers deliver in post processing. But you are not the only one to whom the Hollywood explosion is the frame for reference, after all most of us dont experience them irl.


If on the recording the sound of a whole building collapsing is muzzled to something rather faint, then it is reasonable to expect the same is true for the charges that went off and it is true, it is on the audio track. Remember next time you see an interview in NYC and can not or only barely hear the sound of cars, honks and the people in the immediate vicinity, it isnt because the city is equipped with a silencer, but because of the way the equipment to record is used.

reply to post by Cassius666


So what you are actually arguing is that there were loud explosives, but by some extreme luck for the conspirators nobody manage to get them on audio? You seriously think that the conspirators sat around a table, then someone said "Lets blow the building up and pray nobody catches the explosions on video" and every one was cheering like "Wooo great idea"? Ok. Good story.

So what you are saying, there is no sound, so it must be a hologram XD .

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

The majority of the mass fell straight down and stayed within the footprint.

What sort of majority? 95 per cent?

The fact is that you've annotated the picture to show something that it does not. Why is there so much damage above the top line of the building? What caused that if your red arrows are correct?

How can a picture show something it does not?

I have no idea what you are on about. You're saying what I circled in red is not outside walls lying on top of the debris?

Then what are those red coloured sections, that for some reason look exactly like the outside walls?...



Again, if you fail to see what I'm seeing that is YOU not understanding what you are seeing. Unless of course you can actually prove that it is not outside wall in that pic, and all the other pics that show the outside wall folded in on top of the debris.

What is this if it is not the outside walls folded in on top of the debris? Are you even looking at theses pics? They speak for themselves mate, to keep denying what can be seen is ridiculous.







In those pics you can see outside walls at the bottom of the pile still standing straight up, on top of the pile they folded over. That is what you see in the vid that you claim is the building leaning to the south. That is classic implosion demolition. No other method of demolition can do that. A natural collapse can not do that.

If you think I'm wrong then you need to explain how that can happen, and stop denying the obvious evidence we can all see. If you think the evidence says something else fine, then explain it. To keep denying what can be seen is being intellectually dishonest, or you have no idea what you are looking at and your confidence comes from faith in others claims not your own observations and experience.

reply to post by -PLB-


No I say the "conspirators" did not care. The audio was captured on video in many instances primarily at WTC 1 and 2 though. The conspirators are obviously in a position where they dont need to fear a prosecution. Can you even call them conspirators in that case? Why do you think the Nazis kept meaticulous recordings of the holocaust? Because they expected to win the war. Only when the tide turned did they start to destroy some (or much) of their records on the masskillings.

It isnt the explosions that were silent, the sound capured on video is faint, just like the sound of the collapse. I am sure neither would have been faint, if you would have standed across the street. The sound of the collapsing building is there, albeight faint, so is the sound of the explosions, albeight faint. If the video would have been closer, both, the sound of the explosions and the sound of the building coming down would have been louder on the video, within the limitations of the gear used to capture it.

Also it wasnt "by some extreme luck" that we do not have a better recording of the building coming down. An area around the building was cleared, because it "was expected to collapse", so what you see is what we got. Explosions are very loud, a building coming down is very loud, both is true at the right distance from the soundsource.

In conclusion, the sound of the building collapsing is there, albeight faint, the sound of the charges going off has been captured as well, albeight faint. We have no closer video because an area around the building has been evacuated before the demolition.

I use these to listen to music and watch movies on the computer and the HT.

cdn.-fi.org...

Not only will you experience music like you never did before, unless you have high quality headphones already, but you will effortlessly hear the audio of the charges going off and even the sound of the building collapsing.

reply to post by Cassius666


This is video taken in the North Tower lobby as the South Tower collapses :-

www.youtube.com...

You will notice that the rumble of the collapse becomes pretty loud. Where were your explosions ?

reply to post by Alfie1


An attempt to change the subject, why would one do that?

Before I answer the question, do we agree that albeight faint, the sound of building 7 coming down has been caputed on video and the sound of the charges bringing down building 7, albeight faint, have been captured on video as well?

Or in other words, if ANY of you thinks there were no charges in building 7 that went off before the collapse defend why you think this is the case, or, if everybody refuses to do so, we will just all settle on the fact that the collapse was induced by charges and that the distinctive sound of explosives going off has been captured on video.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Alfie1

 

An attempt to change the subject, why would one do that?

Before I answer the question, do we agree that albeight faint, the sound of building 7 coming down has been caputed on video and the sound of the charges bringing down building 7, albeight faint, have been captured on video as well?

edit on 22-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

How am I changing the subject ? You started the post I replied to by referring to WTC 1 & 2.

But to answer your question ; I haven't seen any video/audio to persuade me of explosions at the collapse of WTC 7. I think that requires considerable imagination.

reply to post by Alfie1


Depending on the volume level, yes it does, but then it requiers imagination to hear the sound of the building collapsing too and the white noise does not help either.

Which brings us to the age old question, if a tree drops in the forest and Alfie does not hear it, does it make a sound?

Of course today we know that the sondwaves we register as sound are triggered, wether Alfie is there to register them or not.

I just relistned to the audioclip. Is your defense on the stance that there were no charges audible before building 7 came down still, that alfie can not hear them?

Originally posted by ANOK
How can a picture show something it does not?

I have no idea what you are on about. You're saying what I circled in red is not outside walls lying on top of the debris?

Yes! It clearly is not. At least not in the case of the two top corner squares. You've just outlined them and stuck in an arrow, but there is no wall there and clear damage above it.

You keep avoiding the question. How much debris is outside the footprint in the top part of that photo? Roughly.

What is this if it is not the outside walls folded in on top of the debris? Are you even looking at theses pics? They speak for themselves mate, to keep denying what can be seen is ridiculous.

No one is saying that there are no walls on top of the pile. Just that your assumption that they are all there and that all the debris in the footprint is nonsense.

If you think I'm wrong then you need to explain how that can happen

Why? My view remains the generally accepted one. Why do I need to prove a few people on the internet wrong? History agrees with me. You can prattle on, convinced that you're right, but ultimately it won't matter unless you try to prove it. And just saying "that can't happen" isn't going to cut it.

your confidence comes from faith in others claims not your own observations and experience.

edit on 1/22/2012 by ANOK because: typo

To a certain extent that's true of everyone. Unless they're a massive egocentric.

I see now why you struggle with the physics so much. You're on a one man mission to learn it all - despite how preposterous that is - and you keep going wrong.

If you do not think it was cd how do you explain the explosion prior to the collapse?

reply to post by Cassius666


If there was one, or at least of there was a loud noise, I'd imagine it's because collapsing buildings sometimes emit loud noises. There was an explosion heard at the school of architecture at Delft before it collapsed but I doubt the NWO knocked that down.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Cassius666

 

If there was one, or at least of there was a loud noise, I'd imagine it's because collapsing buildings sometimes emit loud noises. There was an explosion heard at the school of architecture at Delft before it collapsed but I doubt the NWO knocked that down.

Can you enlarge on the second sentence a little?

Actually there wasnt and the audio was good enuff that you heard the fire burning on many recordings, so there should have been a nice boom. On the wtc 7 recording are rather faint explosions. So is the collapse of the building though for obvious reasons.

But seen as we have abused each other enuff with our pseudo knowledge about structural engineering here is a debate to listen into of people who have some education on the subject.

reply to post by -PLB-

So you propose to isolate the thermite from heat. And then want this isolated thermite to heat the supports after igniting them. Right . Now show the world that this is possible. Show what the apparatus would look like, how it is installed, and that it works.

Wow, have you ever heard of box PLB?

It is a thing that separates inside from outside.

Inside the box you have thermite (for argument's sake) attached to the segment of column you want destroyed, outside the box you have raging inferno.

The walls of the box protects the thermite which is now NOT in contact with inferno but IS in contact with the section of wall you want destroyed. If the box is destroyed by the plane impact then that section of column is also destroyed, so you obviously don't need THAT box anymore, but you may need others.

Here is a picture of such a device:


And here is a similar device this time with thermal insulation features:


Obviously in this particular application the open side of the box would be towards the column in question, the column itself providing the lid.

Read more on boxes and their amazing properties here:
en.wikipedia.org...

If you would like to have a box of your own visit this site:
www.worldofboxes.com...

Thermite is not going to be ignited by the fire anyway, it takes far more heat than a fire can provide. As Darkwing said all it needs is to be covered.

Thermite is typically very difficult to ignite, requiring a temperature of over 3,000 degrees F just to get
the reaction started. It will not ignite using ordinary safety fuse, or from contact with open flame.

www.unitednuclear.com...

You OS guys have a lot of holes in your research that you keep falling though, hard.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Ahaa so in your silly theory those columns do not conduct heat, and are good isolators. Right . Now what is left is to put you ridiculous theory to the test.

reply to post by ANOK


Well, at least you agree, just like Darkwing, that the stuff tested by Jones isn't thermite.