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

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Because you can tell from the source that it is clipping. I didn't say that there wasn't clipping in your examples, only that you would have to be as thick as a brick to think that clipping in those examples means anything in this context.

Clipping means there is a sound that is too loud for the mic too record. It cannot tell you WHAT that sound was, so the mere fact of clipping TELLS YOU NOTHING aside from the fact that the was too loud, irregardless of the source.

Something that is closer sounds louder, so the distant rumble of a building collapsing needs to be orders of magnitude OF ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater AT THE SOURCE to cause the same clipping cause by a raindrop striking the mic directly. In fact the raindrop may make no sound at all. The fact that it clips just also means that you can BY DEFINITION not tell just how loud the sound was.

So you can't tell JUST BY THE CLIPPING ALONE whether there was additional loud noises that contributed to the clipping. The data ISN'T THERE, it is not an absence of evidence for any position, it is an absence of evidence for EVERY POSITION.

Just as I thought, you completely missed the point of why I posted those videos. Cassius, a fellow truther of yours, thought that the clipping sound in the lobby video actually were explosives going off. I provided Cassius with other videos where clipping happens, to demonstrate that without explosives going off, a similar sound characteristic is heard.

The fact you are trying to find any other reason behind why I posted those video is because your are, in general, pretty much clueless.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Cassius666

 

This is the Tower in which Willie Rodriguez worked as a janitor. What do we see ? Well the firefighters casually look up when they hear the sound of the plane but there is no reaction until it hits the Tower. Where is Willie's preceding explosion ?

www.youtube.com...

He said it was in the basement.



I assume the explosions are unrelated to the buildings collapse, because they took place before the collapse?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Cassius666

 

But random explosions some time before collapse is absolutely unlike a genuine cd where you have a pattern of loud explosions and flashes at the initiation of collapse.

Yes the explosions were there, spread out over a longer period of time, some of which captured on video and many reported by whitnesses, mostly the firefighters.

reply to post by -PLB-



No you made the point that clipping sound like explosions. Thats not what I or he said. The explosions that go along with the lobby video sound like explosions, not clipping. Also his reply isnt entierly correct. Clipping does not necessarily mean, that the data isnt there, just that it can not be recorded at the correct volume level relative to the other input, resulting in a distortion of the sound. If you reproduce music however you could have clipping, but never realize it, if you dont know what you are looking for. It would have to be relatively mild clipping though.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-

 

You will have to explain to me please how in the lobby video the growing rumble of the South Tower collapse can be clearly heard but any "BIG explosions" which preceded it are undetectable.

The shielding of the building and the limitations of the equipment. You can see the firefighter change to an expression of horror, when no sound of the building or explosions is captured on video. Lets try another perspective.



Now compare that to an collapse or an explosives free demolition.

reply to post by Cassius666


What has Willie saying the explosion was in the basement got to do with it ? Was it soundless so the firefighters down the street in the Naudet video couldn't hear it ? You might like to check the seismic records where the plane impact was recorded but nothing shortly before it.

I don't know why you posted the Midland Savings Bank clip as it just supports what I have been saying. The detonations are loud and patterned; start a few seconds before and continue to collapse. Where is that reproduced in the North Tower lobby video ?

Originally posted by Cassius666

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Cassius666

 

You will have to explain to me please how in the lobby video the growing rumble of the South Tower collapse can be clearly heard but any "BIG explosions" which preceded it are undetectable.

The shielding of the building and the limitations of the equipment. You can see the firefighter change to an expression of horror, when no sound of the building or explosions is captured on video.

That is not true, perhaps you need to get your hearing checked. The fire chief's expression changes at the exact same time you can hear the rumble start as recorded on the video. Have another look and listen :-

.www.youtube.com...

What do you expect an explosion in a deep basement to sound like several blocks away?

I didnt say it was not there, just not that loud. I am sure it was more clearly audible to the firefighter. Also I provided an exterior clip, where the thunder of the building going off is audible along its entire height at a relatively constant volume, because there is no shielding, only a difference in distance. An Explosion in a building several floors above you and next to you has a lot of shielding to penetrate, a direct line of sight goes through a good portion of the building you are in, untill it is about level with you, then there are just the lateral walls that shield the sound.

Look up a CD filmed through a closed window, to see how much dB get knocked off by a glass window alone.

Like those "hushabooms"



Just by the building being somewhat larger and the detonations having been a bit deeper within the building, a lot of sound got knocked off. Now Imagine the building wasnt rendered windowless and gutted for CD.

reply to post by -PLB-

The fact you are trying to find any other reason behind why I posted those video is because your are, in general, pretty much clueless.

No, it was the inference you were making that because there was clipping in the videos that the clipping in the lobby video could not have come from explosions.

reply to post by Alfie1

I don't know why you posted the Midland Savings Bank clip as it just supports what I have been saying. The detonations are loud and patterned; start a few seconds before and continue to collapse. Where is that reproduced in the North Tower lobby video ?

Can you provide me with a source for your implied claim that all demolitions must follow this exact pattern?

reply to post by Darkwing01


You mean the inference you were making. I never did such a thing and as usual you are making things up. To remove some of your confusion, I will hereby state the you can't make up if you hear explosives or just a collapsing buildings from that video. The reason being of course (something I actually did say) is that the mic if overloaded (resulting in clipping).

So good job at creating a straw man argument in an attempt to save face for your blunder of having no idea of what I was talking about. If only truthers weren't that transparent.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I don't know why you posted the Midland Savings Bank clip as it just supports what I have been saying. The detonations are loud and patterned; start a few seconds before and continue to collapse. Where is that reproduced in the North Tower lobby video ?

Can you provide me with a source for your implied claim that all demolitions must follow this exact pattern?

That's always a good ploy to ask for a source which you are pretty sure doesn't exist isn't it.? Of course the "exact pattern" will vary but I maintain that whatever pattern it will be in close proximity to the collapse. I would suggest this is typical and of a high rise :-

www.youtube.com...

If you support Cassius' apparent contention that any explosion, even up to 7 hours before collapse in the case of WTC 7, is indicative of cd can you please show me any single cd which has had this long drawn out death.

Btw, since you are back, I don't agree that the North Tower lobby video is neutral. Even if you want to argue about what sound was recorded exactly you are forgetting the visual evidence. It is quite obvious that the firefighter chief only reacts when the rumble starts. He has not been alarmed by anything prior, nor have the others heard conversing in the background.

I don't know about this one, I mean the collapse looks very suspicious but why don't they show the footage of the back of wtc7 before collapse, it was partially gone due to debris from the twintowers. Seems significant enough to me cause it looked plausable that it could collapse sooner or later.

Originally posted by RealJap
I don't know about this one, I mean the collapse looks very suspicious but why don't they show the footage of the back of wtc7 before collapse, it was partially gone due to debris from the twintowers. Seems significant enough to me cause it looked plausable that it could collapse sooner or later.

There is footage of the south side but it is difficult to see any detail because it is belching dense smoke from top to bottom :-

www.youtube.com...

Do you all realize that if WTC 7 were to have succumbed to structural damage sustained by a collapsing WTC 1, and not by buckling of column 79 due to a girder unseating due to thermal expansion, it would completely and totally invalidate the NIST report on WTC 7?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, just a reminder.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Do you all realize that if WTC 7 were to have succumbed to structural damage sustained by a collapsing WTC 1, and not by buckling of column 79 due to a girder unseating due to thermal expansion, it would completely and totally invalidate the NIST report on WTC 7?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, just a reminder.

I don't know whether NIST got WTC 7 right or wrong but I certainly don't have relevant expertise to argue with them.

However, call it intellectual laziness if you like, but I don't find I need to get as far as NIST because I am as certain as I can be that WTC 7 was not a cd by virtue of other factors.

To provide a cause for war or justification for repressive legislation then the destruction of WTC 7 added nothing to the destruction of the Towers (same goes for UA 93 and the Pentagon in my view). No-one was going to say "well the destruction of the towers was terrible but what would have really got me behind the war on terror was if they had got WTC 7 as well."

The only reasons I have seen put forward to justify the destruction of WTC 7 seem to me to be lame and contrived. (a) That there was evidence and secret stuff in WTC 7 that needed to be lost for ever and/or (b) to make Larry Silverstein richer by way of an insurance scam. In the case of (a) it seems to me absurd to suggest that the optimum way of destroying secret stuff was to blow the building up with the risk of dispersing it all over Manhattan. As for (b), obviously Larry Silverstein didn't have the resources to carry out 9/11 on his own so the perps must have risked extending the plot quite unnecessarily just to help Larry make some money. (if indeed he did make any money) .

But the total clincher for me is this. Anyone believing WTC 7 was a cd must accept that the original plan was just to blow it up, as it stood, in broad daylight. The alleged cd's of the towers were disguised by having planes flown into them but no disguise was apparently planned for WTC 7 and that I suggest is simply not credible. The fact that WTC 7 was hit by falling debris, fires were started and the water supply cut off was pure chance and couldn't have been planned.

So I don't get too hung up about NIST, which I am not competent to deal with, because I am as certain as I can be that WTC 7 was simply collateral damage along with WTCs 3,4,5 & 6..