Split Thread 7WTC - controlled demolition or fire and damage induced collapse?

[Christopher7]

Thread split from "experiment to test for eutectic reaction" thread here.

Posted By: LashL

15 years of firefighting experience, and a masters in Fire Science. I have written 4 PROPER peer reviewed papers in my field of study.

So, if WTC7 was a CD, show me another CD that looks like it, and also sounds like it. I'll wait.

No two CD's are exactly the same. WTC 7 looks like a CD to anyone not in denial. It fell straight down at free fall acceleration for 100 feet and then a little to one side. All the video recordings were made several blocks away using directional mikes that are set to filter out low frequencies. This video examines one video clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=player_embedded

The phone call explosion and video clip saying "And then we heard another explosion" were not at the time of the WTC 7 collapse. They are included to demonstrate that there were explosions going on.

 

[uke2se]

No two CD's are exactly the same.

He didn't ask for a CD looking exactly the same. He asked for a CD that looks like the collapse of WTC7. You should be able to provide one as your next sentence is:

WTC 7 looks like a CD to anyone not in denial.

I would alter your baseless assertion here to be a bit more accurate:

WTC 7 looks like a CD to people who wants it to be a CD, and who have no training in controlled demolitions.

It fell straight down at free fall acceleration for 100 feet and then a little to one side.

So, it didn't fall straight down then?

Also, it didn't all at free fall acceleration. That's simply a lie made up by desperate truthers.

The phone call explosion and video clip saying "And then we heard another explosion" were not at the time of the WTC 7 collapse. They are included to demonstrate that there were explosions going on.

Or that people heard loud bangs and mistook them for explosions, you know, like a big load of debris falling on city streets, or a building collapsing.

 

[alienentity]

No two CD's are exactly the same. WTC 7 looks like a CD to anyone not in denial. It fell straight down at free fall acceleration for 100 feet and then a little to one side. All the video recordings were made several blocks away using directional mikes that are set to filter out low frequencies. This video examines one video clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=player_embedded

The phone call explosion and video clip saying "And then we heard another explosion" were not at the time of the WTC 7 collapse. They are included to demonstrate that there were explosions going on.

Just curious to see what kind of claptrap C7 was peddling today. Good grief!

Firstly, Chandler has messed with the EQ to accentuate certain frequencies, and C7 tries to claim that the microphone was too directional to pick up high explosive shockwaves that would have resonated at extremely high SPL's.

Nevermind that his claim isn't backed up by any evidence whatsoever (what's new with truther claims? They can just make stuff up and believe it to be true!)

If you listen to the unfiltered video of Ashley Bamfield, you will hear:

Traffic noise
What appears to be a police whistle

ie: fairly low-level ambient noise.

The sound of WTC7 falling is there, but not loud. It is basically a steady-state rumble.

Now, supposing C7 were correct, and there were a series of extremely loud high explosive pressure waves. Look to Ms. Bamfield, her subject, or anyone else in the video and see if they appear to even flinch from them.

Answer: NO

Strangely, even though the huge explosions are not heard, what we do hear is the sound of the crowd screaming and moaning at the spectacle.

Now - contrast with any (and I mean any) video of an explosive controlled demolition on youtube which has sound and video, and you will quickly see that WTC7 was NOT an explosive controlled demolition.

You will quickly see that C7 and David Chandler are yet again manufacturing something that just didn't happen, and for which there is no evidence. They are both charlatans, for the same reasons.
Luckily for us, these are among the best arguments coming from 9/11 Truth - meaning that 9/11 Truth is a dead dog. Really. Dead.



ETA couldn't resist this whopper 'WTC 7 looks like a CD to anyone not in denial'. Uhuh. Where are the CD explosions at the time of collapse then? M.I.A.; the high-velocity flashes and squibs on the perimeters? M.I.A.; The evidence of cutter charges on the steel? M.I.A.

Yup, there's a lot of denial going on all right. We deny your right to just make stuff up with no evidence, and to lie and misrepresent the truth. Yes, you are denied that privilege.

 

[Christopher7]

WTC 7 looks like a CD to anyone not in denial.

WTC 7 looks like a CD to people who wants it to be a CD, and who have no training in controlled demolitions.

You are in denial.

Also, it didn't all at free fall acceleration. That's simply a lie made up by desperate truthers.

This only proves that you will deny anything that proves CD.

Or that people heard loud bangs and mistook them for explosions, you know, like a big load of debris falling on city streets, or a building collapsing.

Of course dear. Explosions are NEVER caused by explosives.

 

[uke2se]

You are in denial.

No, but it's obvious that's you're pretty gullible.

This only proves that you will deny anything that proves CD.

No, it proves that I am able to think for myself and do my own research, as opposed to you who just parrot anything said on nutty truther sites.

Of course dear. Explosions are NEVER caused by explosives.

Are you deliberately lying about what I said or do you really have this poor a reading comprehension?

I notice that you've stopped attempting to come up with arguments and instead resorted to retarded trolling. Good for you. It's a step up.

 

[Christopher7]

Firstly, Chandler has messed with the EQ to accentuate certain frequencies, and C7 tries to claim that the microphone was too directional to pick up high explosive shockwaves that would have resonated at extremely high SPL's.

You have no idea what kind of explosives were used or how loud they would be so stop pretending that you do. There are sounds of explosions on the recording. The give away is the way Ashley turned around suddenly. You will deny this as you deny anything that counters the denier mantra "where is the boom". The booms are there, however faintly. You know that reporters mics are directional and set to pick up only what is a few inches away but you pretend that you don't.

 

[uke2se]

You have no idea what kind of explosives were used or how loud they would be so stop pretending that you do. There are sounds of explosions on the recording. The give away is the way Ashley turned around suddenly. You will deny this as you deny anything that counters the denier mantra "where is the boom". The booms are there, however faintly. You know that reporters mics are directional and set to pick up only what is a few inches away but you pretend that you don't.

You hear that guys? There ARE sounds of explosions! There are TOO! I am super serial! Why won't you trust my word and absolute lack of evidence?

YOU'RE ALL IN DENIAL!!!

 

[alienentity]

'Explosions are NEVER caused by explosives. '

You cannot and never will 'prove' that the random explosions were in fact high explosives, and not from other sources. Not going to happen.
You can waste everyone's time by repeating such claims, as I'm sure you'll do.

But you will never be able to provide positive and concrete evidence, since there isn't any. Dance around the facts all you like, you're not fooling us.

You see, (back to the relevant facts) what you lack is ANY evidence of loud, identical-to-controlled-demolition-style explosions PRECISELY at the time the whole building begins fall.

You just can't produce any evidence. Neither can the foolish David Chandler, despite all his amateurish efforts to skew the data.

If we are to believe C7 and Chandler, then one can hear background noise and crowd reactions, but not exceedingly loud explosions.

Riiiiiiiight. How stupid do you think people are? Come to think of it, are you that stupid that you don't understand the impossible arguments you're making? I'm beginning to think you are.

 

[alienentity]

'You know that reporters mics are directional and set to pick up only what is a few inches away but you pretend that you don't. '

Complete bull shiite. HER MICROPHONE PICKED UP THE SOUNDS OF TRAFFIC AND THE CROWD REACTION.

Stop lying.


ETA this guy is as bad as Jammonius, who can't tell the difference between a jet engine, a bus, and a subway. IF C7 is serious, this is a really bad joke.

 

[Christopher7]

'You know that reporters mics are directional and set to pick up only what is a few inches away but you pretend that you don't. '

Complete bull shiite. HER MICROPHONE PICKED UP THE SOUNDS OF TRAFFIC AND THE CROWD REACTION.

Stop lying.

Put your accusation of lying where the sun don't shine!!!

 

[uke2se]

Put your accusation of lying where the sun don't shine!!!

If you don't like being called a liar, maybe you should stop lying. Just a thought.

 

[alienentity]

C7, let me just clarify how incredibly stupid your argument really is.

The area of lower Manhattan is a dense collection of hirise buildings, which have hard, reflective surfaces. Any loud explosive sounds would reflect very quickly and efficiently between them, ricocheting in various directions, but not losing much energy.

ie: the sounds of explosions would rapidly reach the immediate vicinity of WTC center, at a variety of angles, and it is inconceivable that such a sound would not be picked up by ANY live microphone in the area, regardless which direction it was pointed.

Your argument that such sound wouldn't be picked up is really pathetically flimsy. You don't appear to understand the effect of signal-to-noise ratios, and that a cardioid microphone is only at best somewhat directional, and will ALWAYS pick up noise from almost everywhere, just at sufficiently lower levels than directly in front so as to provide some focus.

I've spent years in recording studios, where we have to deal with ambient noise interruptions. For example, if you point a microphone at a performer, and someone makes a noise from BEHIND the microphone, you will still pick up the noise. That's just a fact. ETA and it doesn't have to be an especially loud noise either. Pick whatever microphone you like, set it up, and try it. Make a sound (like a cough or phone ring) from behind a cartioid mic and see what you get.

Now, high explosives in a Manhattan block will definitely be heard at very high SPL's for many blocks. They will easily overcome the ambient noise levels of traffic and conversation, and will easily be picked up by any live mic in the area. Period.

there's no point arguing the opposite, unless you really are an idiot. Your call.


Further personal experience: CD recording, concert hall. Ambulance drives by with siren on, opposite direction from where microphones are facing. Result: retake required due to sound of siren.
C7's argument is a bad joke. He hasn't got a clue what he's talking about, period.

 

[alienentity]

Put your accusation of lying where the sun don't shine!!!

Stop lying about microphones. You are lying. That's dishonest and shameful.

You have no business making false claims, and you are a fraud for making them. So you stuff it, 'kay?

 

[alienentity]

There you have it folks. C7 is just making things up, writing outright lies about acoustics, all in support of the phony CD claim.

He hasn't got a shred of evidence to support his lies, so I'm calling them lies, since I can provide lots of technical support for the truth.

By definition C7's claims are lies, using this standard:
'something intended or serving to convey a false impression'

If you check microphone specs, you can read for yourself what the off-axis drop off in db is.

From Audio Technica:

'A word of caution: these polar patterns are run in an anechoic chamber, which simulates an ideal acoustic environment - one with no walls, ceiling or floor. In the real world, walls and other surfaces will reflect sound quite readily, so that off-axis sound can bounce off a nearby surface and right into the front of the microphone. As a result, you'll rarely enjoy all of the directional capability built into the microphone. Even if cardioid microphones were completely "dead" at the back (which they never are), sounds from the rear, also reflected from nearby surfaces, would still arrive partially from the sides or front. So cardioid microphones can help reduce unwanted sound, but rarely can they eliminate it entirely. Even so, a cardioid microphone can reduce noise from off-axis directions by about two-thirds.

The directional microphone illustrated in Fig. 5 is about 25 dB less sensitive at 180° off-axis, compared to on-axis. This means that by rotating the cardioid microphone 180°, so that it faces directly away from the sound source,'
http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/site/aa901ccabf1dfc6b/index.html/

Now, taking Ashley Bamfield's case, her microphone is about 90 degrees off-axis to WTC7, meaning several db reduction in sensitivity in that direction. If she were facing 180 degrees away, a typical cardioid would reduce a 115db explosive sound down to about 90db, in the worst-case scenario. Of course it's not going to reduce that amount, because of reflection from buildings.

But assuming a 10db reduction off-axis, and a 115db sound-pressure wave, you would pick up 105db, without any building reflection at all. This sound pressure level is similar to front row at a rock concert.

That's what Chandler and C7 are trying to lie about: they're trying to bullpucky these facts away as if they didn't exist. It is just not even remotely possible that CD explosions wouldn't have been picked up by Bamfield's microphone at that distance (2 or 3 blocks max). Not possible.

 

[Christopher7]

The area of lower Manhattan is a dense collection of hirise buildings, which have hard, reflective surfaces. Any loud explosive sounds would reflect very quickly and efficiently between them, ricocheting in various directions, but not losing much energy.
ie: the sounds of explosions would rapidly reach the immediate vicinity of WTC center, at a variety of angles, and it is inconceivable that such a sound would not be picked up by ANY live microphone in the area, regardless which direction it was pointed.

The sounds of the explosions were picked up by Ashley's mic. I also have extensive experience with recording and live performances. Reporters use directional mics that are designed to pick up what is directly in front of them and filter out low frequencies to minimize traffic noise. There will be some sound picked up from the sides but very little. Please note that Ashley holds the mic a few inches from herself and then points it directly at the lady with the baby, holding it just a few inches away.

Now, high explosives in a Manhattan block will definitely be heard at very high SPL's for many blocks.

You have NO idea what kind or how much explosives would be used, nor do you have a clue how loud the explosions would be so stop claiming you do.

 

[Christopher7]

There you have it folks. C7 is just making things up, writing outright lies about acoustics, all in support of the phony CD claim.

You guys call people liars so much that it becomes meaningless. Anything you don't want to believe is considered a lie. Give it up. You have "cried wolf" far too often.

 

[uke2se]

You have NO idea what kind or how much explosives would be used, nor do you have a clue how loud the explosions would be so stop claiming you do.

One would have to assume at least as much explosives as in this actual controlled demolition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

Note the many loud bangs, and how it does not resemble any of the collapses on 9/11.

 

[uke2se]

You guys call people liars so much that it becomes meaningless. Anything you don't want to believe is considered a lie. Give it up. You have "cried wolf" far too often.

Well, as you keep lying, we'll keep calling you a liar. Did you expect we would grow tired of doing it if you just lied enough? Does this explain your disproportionate amount of lying?

 

[Andy_Ross]

You have NO idea what kind or how much explosives would be used, nor do you have a clue how loud the explosions would be so stop claiming you do.

What kind of explosives werre they?
What happened to your Thermate claims?

Which was it explosives or thermate?

or do you hink it was both?

 

[twinstead]

You have NO idea what kind or how much explosives would be used, nor do you have a clue how loud the explosions would be so stop claiming you do.

Nor do you, so how can you be so sure explosives and/or thermite was used? If we are right, and the amount of explosives required is excessive, there being no evidence of it pretty much puts your theory to bed. You'd think you would be very interested in finding out how much explosives would be necessary.

It's called INVESTIGATION.