Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Quietly Destroyed Steel; WTC7 Silently Destroyed?
Topic Started: Oct 16 2008, 10:05 AM (1,617 Views)
Miragememories
Member Avatar

The NIST WTC7 Report gave this reason for not considering other scenarios besides explosives.

In a word; incredulity [being in a state of unwillingness to believe].
"[alternative methods]..were generally considered infeasible to carry out without detection."

So, based on criteria founded on incredulity, the NIST created this very important determination.

Stealth is part of a state-of-the-art profession (ask the C.I.A., the military, the private military etc. etc.).

The NIST, have revealed no attempted research about the feasibility of a professional, stealth-based operation.

In other words, they guessed it "wasn't feasible", specifically, because it was outside their area of expertise and they couldn't imagine how it could have been done covertly.

So the NIST concluded it would be too difficult to sabotage WTC 7 through stealth.

It also just happened to be a convenient way for the NIST to avoid going into a politically volatile "uncharted waters".


The NIST WTC7 Report said this about explosive sound;
".. the sound level from all building perimeter openings at 1 km would be approximately 130 to 140 dB.."

NIST: "The starting point of the final set of building vibrations at 6 seconds before the east penthouse began to fall indicated that an event had occurred within the building at that time."

Unfortunately, the NIST do not say anything of value about the sound that was actually recorded
for the 20+ seconds they examined.

Given the NIST belief that serious failures were occurring for 13 seconds prior to visible
global collapse, there is good reason to expect that high levels of noise would have been generated,
and would have been recorded.

But, what about all the explosions that were witnessed and not recorded in WTC 1?

What about the relatively low audio levels, for the live recordings of the open air impacts on WTC1 & WTC2.

The 'live' recordings are inconsistent and simply not that reliable as audio references.

When recording high audio levels, the camcorders are prone to suffer from over modulation distortion, which makes it near impossible to distinguish individual sounds.

The 'live' recordings are also missing many loud sounds which we know must have occurred.

Eye witness testimony frequently fills in these gaps, but the NIST gives no explanation why they chose to ignore the voluminous reports of explosions, heard and experienced by people who were there.

Given the media saturation available in NYC, it's amazing that there is so little recorded audio that is
of any value in supporting or not supporting loud explosive-like sounds from the building interiors.

There is much evidence of after impact explosions in WTC 1 but only a few recordings exist as verification.

There is eyewitness testimony about explosions inside WTC 7, but none were recorded.

Barry Jennings and Michael Hess, in particular, witnessed a major destructive explosion inside WTC 7, but it wasn't recorded by the Media, and potential witnesses on the street have not come forward in support of that claim.

Did Jennings and Hess lie, or did WTC 7 contain the sound better than the NIST judged possible, and firefighters on the street didn't hear it or mistook it for something else?

We also have the NIST claiming that from 6 seconds prior to WTC 7 east penthouse collapse until 7 seconds after, WTC 7 was virtually ripping itself apart inside as a prelude to it's global collapse initiation.

Do we have audio recordings of what must have been very loud interior sounds created by heavy
structural steel column buckling, floors collapsing and falling smashing debris?

I've heard only audio from the global collapse, 7 seconds after the East Penthouse collapse, and even then, the recorded audio doesn't convey the loudness that must have existed.

The NIST argues explosives would have been clearly heard and recorded, and since they weren't,
they could not have existed, and therefore they attempt to close the chapter on a controlled demolition.

Well I ask that if the NIST does not have audio recordings that support their collapse theory, loud sounds that we know must have existed for the NIST theory to be true, how can they dismiss the existence of loud explosive sounds that eye witnesses claim they heard, but the NIST doesn't have any audio recordings to substantiate?

MM
Edited by Miragememories, Oct 16 2008, 02:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Miragememories
Member Avatar


This is part of an exchange I had recently with JREF's top gun and chief NIST apologist,
Ryan Mackey.

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."


MM
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scott75

This morning, I delivered a post that may have delivered something of a knockout to the official story believers. I found a pdf on journal of 9/11 studies wherein a NIST director clearly debunks NIST's reasoning for not testing for thermite in the WTC buildings. This guy is -still- the program director for NIST's Advanced Measurement Laboratories. As far as I'm concerned, this is big news. The establishment is criticizing the establishment. Curiously, it seems that this information isn't known by that many. It's a rather technical explanation only examining the issue of whether or not NIST should test for thermite residues and I have certainly not seen this man (Robert F. Moore) going on a lecture circuit as Steven Jones has (who may at present be the most prominent scientist in the 9/11 truth movement). I also haven't found any other article by him. Perhaps he even regrets writing the one article I found. Whatever the case, I certainly believe that his article, and this person, deserve a lot more attention. This guy is -still- on the inside. That in itself is, in my view, surprising, considering the fates of people like Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan.

No one has responded to it as of yet:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2057222&postcount=1564
Edited by scott75, Oct 20 2008, 06:31 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Miragememories
Member Avatar

Scott75
 
"This morning, I delivered a post that may have delivered something of a knockout to the official story believers. I found a pdf on journal of 9/11 studies wherein a NIST director clearly debunks NIST's reasoning for not testing for thermite in the WTC buildings. This guy is -still- the program director for NIST's Advanced Measurement Laboratories. As far as I'm concerned, this is big news. The establishment is criticizing the establishment. Curiously, it seems that this information isn't known by that many. It's a rather technical explanation only examining the issue of whether or not NIST should test for thermite residues and I have certainly not seen this man (Robert F. Moore) going on a lecture circuit as Steven Jones has (who may at present be the most prominent scientist in the 9/11 truth movement). I also haven't found any other article by him. Perhaps he even regrets writing the one article I found. Whatever the case, I certainly believe that his article, and this person, deserve a lot more attention. This guy is -still- on the inside. That in itself is, in my view, surprising, considering the fates of people like Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan.

No one has responded to it as of yet:"

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2057222&postcount=1564


Nice post Scott.

I'm curious though as to how you determined that the Robert Moore, esq. who wrote that
report was the same Robert F. Moore employed by the NIST?

MM
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grit1645

Why would a lawyer be program director for the Advanced Measurements Laboratory? Where is the evidence for this?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scott75

Miragememories
Oct 21 2008, 09:19 AM
Scott75
 
"This morning, I delivered a post that may have delivered something of a knockout to the official story believers. I found a pdf on journal of 9/11 studies wherein a NIST director clearly debunks NIST's reasoning for not testing for thermite in the WTC buildings. This guy is -still- the program director for NIST's Advanced Measurement Laboratories. As far as I'm concerned, this is big news. The establishment is criticizing the establishment. Curiously, it seems that this information isn't known by that many. It's a rather technical explanation only examining the issue of whether or not NIST should test for thermite residues and I have certainly not seen this man (Robert F. Moore) going on a lecture circuit as Steven Jones has (who may at present be the most prominent scientist in the 9/11 truth movement). I also haven't found any other article by him. Perhaps he even regrets writing the one article I found. Whatever the case, I certainly believe that his article, and this person, deserve a lot more attention. This guy is -still- on the inside. That in itself is, in my view, surprising, considering the fates of people like Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan.

No one has responded to it as of yet:"

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2057222&postcount=1564


Nice post Scott.

I'm curious though as to how you determined that the Robert Moore, esq. who wrote that
report was the same Robert F. Moore employed by the NIST?

MM
Apparently it was due to a little late night googling. I feel a little sheepish now about that one :-p.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Miragememories
Member Avatar

This is a portion of an exchange at the JREF 9/11 Conspiracy subForum.

The discussion stems from a disbelief by Official Conspiracy Believers at JREF that an explosion
coming from the vicinity of WTC 7 was genuine.


Miragememories
 
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

The video recorded a loud explosion which clearly matches the sound characteristic of a controlled demolition blast.

The firefighters visually react to the demolition blast.

Immediately, following the explosion we can clearly hear their response;

firefighter off camera:"...we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

The video is not faked unless the firefighters are actors.

The time of day is not so important to your point as the fact that demolition type blasts were occurring in an area on 9/11 that had no plausible reason for demolition blasts unless they were deliberately planned."
triforcharity at JREF
 
"That video is garbage. An explosive capable of cutting core columns would have clipped that video. No clipping was observed. Also, that sound is in perfect stereo. A real blast would have been off to one side or another, do to the fact that the sound would have had to deflect off buildings.

Lastly, if a huge explosion went off, all of the people in the video would have reacted. They most likely would have ducked for cover, especially considering the circumstances.

The video is garbage."

So now you are not only a teacher of fire science, you are also an expert in video analysis?

It is ridiculous to assert that it is impossible to make an audio recording of a controlled demolition explosion. Cutting core columns is what those blasts do and there is no shortage of such recordings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw
The audio from the above video is in perfect 2-channel mono.

It is not in perfect stereo as you so arrogantly claim.

Posted Image
WTC-Explosion-2Ch-Mono

If you compare the waveforms for the two audio channels, it is quite obvious that the WTC blast is a 2-channel mono recording (single-microphone, identical audio recorded on each track).

Posted Image
Stadium Explosion-2Ch-Stereo

If you compare the waveforms for the two audio channels, it is quite obvious that the stadium blast is a 2-channel stereo recording (two separate-microphone sources, unique audio recorded on each track).

And yes the people in the video did react! The firefighter on the phone reflexively turned at the sound of the explosion.

The cameraman immediately pans towards the sound and two other firefighters are clearly heard in the recorded audio;

firefighter off camera:"...we gotta get back from here..how the hell are ...we gotta get back!"

In short, your feeble rebuttal attempt is garbage.

MM
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · WTC 7 · Next Topic »
Add Reply