Miragememories

 

"It would appear that the last argument protecting the NIST theory is; "well it had to be the fire because we didn't hear the explosions on the videos".

R.Mackey

 

"It isn't the only argument, but it is sufficient. The noise, as already remarked, would be unmissable. Explosives are very loud and characteristic."

Miragememories

 

"This is another instance of a powerful explosion, powerful enough to blowout a concrete and steel stairwell, experienced firsthand by two people [Barry Jennings and Michael Hess], and yet unheard by firefighters and camera crews outside the building."

R.Mackey

 

"Pure speculation on all of the above."

Miragememories

 

"Sonic evidence?

How valid is that when it's known that much sonic evidence was there but never recorded."

R.Mackey

 

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are recordings, those recordings would have picked up the explosion, they did not. QED. There's no point talking about "unrecorded" evidence, because even if you are right, and even if it would contain what you speculate it would claim, it still does not explain away the data that we have in hand."

Miragememories

 

"The NIST is using the absence of recorded sound as proof that it did not exist. There are witnesses that claim otherwise."

R.Mackey

 

"Not really. And witnesses cannot trump recordings. All you're doing here is exercising confirmation bias."

Miragememories

 

"Now that is truly incredible.

You are in effect saying that we have a building inside a building.

That, even though the two are firmly connected to each other, it's supposedly credible that the inside structure underwent 7 seconds of collapse without visibly pulling in any of the the connected exterior walls.

And you are an engineer?"

R.Mackey

 

"Yes, to all three questions. NCSTAR1A describes the structure's design and its anticipated response, and their hypothesis is consistent with my expectations and my statement. Furthermore, you have yet to provide any evidence that the above is wrong. Yet, curiously, you still seem to disagree."