World Trade Center 7 Explosion and Controlled Collaspe Caught on Tape.

a reply to: Shadow Herder

Oh, I have read it carefully. You have not. According to NIST, the size of an explosion needed to trigger the collapse, would have been distinctly heard for blocks around the building.....right up to the cameras that broadcast the collapse of the building live that day. And, that was not present.

a reply to: hellobruce

Sorry Bruce there is no doubt you are having a hard time with all of this. I know you are worried that unsuspecting civilians might come across this thread and be even more convinced that
World Trade Center 7 was brought down in a controlled manner.

I understand too that YouTube videos confuse you and take away the power to copy and paste for you but the youtube videos are from the Freedom of Information and you can hear explosions which throws your silly pet hopes into the toilet where it belongs in which the World trade center 7 was everything but a controlled demolition.

So we have first responders, Firefighters, police, residents, on video and in writing describing the loud explosions before the collapse of WTC 7. Then you have NIST claiming that installing demolitions (less than 9lbs) could of been possible in 8 hours. Remember it was just the one column the initiated the progressive collapse.

Sources are stating that Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance carrier talking about a controlled demolition. Claims everyone knew in the area that they were going to bring down building 7 then we have the videos that have been presented here showing the Secretary of State and the owners of the WTC and not to mention the thousands of engineers and architects agree that World Trade Center 7 was brought down in a 'controlled fashion'.

Silverstein meant to demolish building 7 when he said he was going to pull building 7, so they pulled it, and they watched it come down. No fire fighters to pull out. You are dreaming that anyone is buying your stale song and dance as all of your points have been old news that was dealt with long ago.


:love

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Shadow Herder

Oh, I have read it carefully. You have not. According to NIST, the size of an explosion needed to trigger the collapse, would have been distinctly heard for blocks around the building.....right up to the cameras that broadcast the collapse of the building live that day. And, that was not present.

Yes it was, can you kids not see the videos on your dial up? Always ignoring evidence.

There are tapes with explosions heard so your whole dim view has been debunked by facts. Many of the FOIA videos released by NIST have been tampered with, edited, cut or muted or all of the above.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Many of the FOIA videos released by NIST have been tampered with, edited, cut or muted or all of the above.

Yes, done by truthers as they have these silly ideas about silent explosives and secret ninja's entering buildings that the FDNY cab see are going to fall down to plant these silent explosives!

a reply to: hellobruce

Wasn't kidding bruce, I hate BS too like you. Go and visit NIST or youtube for FOIA WTC 7 video and 99 % of them are too far, cut right before penthouse collapse, audio cut on the closet proximity videos. Most wtc 7 begin with the collapse occurring and not the moments leading up to and if they do like I said the videos are either too far, audio cut, or video cut or all of the above.

Odd to say the least. Just a fact.

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
I hate BS too like you.

Yet you make threads about it, like this one claiming explosives were used.... that makes no sense!

Odd to say the least. Just a fact.

Not odd at all, truthers love editing videos to try and support their silly conspiracy theories!

It's easy, folks.

Alien ray.

Just to conclude that no one has been able to debunk this massive boom in this video in this whole thread which was the crux of this thread

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Just to conclude that no one has been able to debunk this massive boom in this video in this whole thread which was the crux of this thread

I honestly can't hear a boom at any point in this video. What second mark are you saying there is a boom at?

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Sigh. You must be totally utterly deaf or you need a new sound card, new speakers or a better headphone.

The boom could be explosives, could be the floors hitting other floors (though it is a bit funny there is just one 'boom' then).

But of course it is caused by the alien ray: they switch on the ray and the bonds between molecules weaken, both in the air and in the steel and concrete. This results in a sudden expansion of air and that creates the sound you hear. It's not as loud as a conventional explosion, but still audible. Then the inner floors fall, but the perimeter still stands. Then the walls are pulled (that's what the aliens say when they pull something apart with their ray).

Alien ray. Told ya.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Sigh. You must be totally utterly deaf or you need a new sound card, new speakers or a better headphone.

The boom could be explosives, could be the floors hitting other floors (though it is a bit funny there is just one 'boom' then).

But of course it is caused by the alien ray: they switch on the ray and the bonds between molecules weaken, both in the air and in the steel and concrete. This results in a sudden expansion of air and that creates the sound you hear. It's not as loud as a conventional explosion, but still audible. Then the inner floors fall, but the perimeter still stands. Then the walls are pulled (that's what the aliens say when they pull something apart with their ray).

Alien ray. Told ya.

Or it could be a piece of steel failing. Or concrete cracking. I can't hear anything that actually sounds like a detonation. You've heard detonations before right? A crack. Like a whip. Not a rumble.

a reply to: Shadow Herder This "kid" stills has a copy that my wife recorded that day. You know, when it was happening live. There is no explosion that would indicate a demolition charge...... I dont care what your altered YouTube videos show.

a reply to: scottyirnbru

The sound of an explosion is nothing special sound-wise: like any sound it can be muffled or changed by the surroundings. So, it aren't necessarily whip-cracks you hear when an explosion occurs. When a building is rigged for demolition, you often DO hear whip-crack sounds, because often most of the outer walls are already demolished, windows and doors, walls etc. have been taken out (they represent significant value) and so the sound carries freely trough the air. But in this case the walls were still standing and this might have muffled the sound.

(And yes, the sound the alien ray produces is indeed more like a deep rumble)

A few cameras picked up an explosion that sounded very much like the characteristics of a shaped charge:



Of course the debunkers will like to claim this video is fake. But this explosion sound has actually been corroborated by the explosion captured in Steve Spak video confirming it's authenticity.

A few cameras picked up an explosion that sounded very much like the characteristics of a shaped charge:

a reply to: Insolubrious

So you are an explosives expert...???????

Location 214 Broadway is 2 blocks east of WTC 7 , been in that building, its a CHASE bank. Installed equipment for them

Now dont you think a 47 story build falling down might make some noise ???

What was the time ???? WTC 7 came down at 5:20 PM in afternoon

Notice there is no time reference

In addition were plenty of other sources of noise, burning vehicles, debris falling off building

Until eliminate other sources of noise and prove that so called "explosion" took place at 5:20 PM
Would have to declare it BS.......

originally posted by: Insolubrious
A few cameras picked up an explosion that sounded very much like the characteristics of a shaped charge:

Of course the debunkers will like to claim this video is fake. But this explosion sound has actually been corroborated by the explosion captured in Steve Spak video confirming it's authenticity.

Wow great videos, thanks for the contribution More HUGE explosions caught on tape. Now I an see why they cut many of the 911 videos, to remove these explosions.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Shadow Herder This "kid" stills has a copy that my wife recorded that day. You know, when it was happening live. There is no explosion that would indicate a demolition charge...... I dont care what your altered YouTube videos show.

there is no explosion that would indicate a demolition charge

Talk is cheap.
Let's see your proof, if you please.
#1. Your wife's 'version.'
#2. Show us just ONE "altered YouTube video.
Thank you for your time an consideration.
With great respect,
tfw
Peace Light Love

originally posted by: Insolubrious
A few cameras picked up an explosion that sounded very much like the characteristics of a shaped charge:

Of course the debunkers will like to claim this video is fake. But this explosion sound has actually been corroborated by the explosion captured in Steve Spak video confirming it's authenticity.

Maybe you'd like to try the who how and why questions? All other conspiracy chaps seem to want those questions to go away.

originally posted by: scottyirnbruMaybe you'd like to try the who how and why questions? All other conspiracy chaps seem to want those questions to go away.

Well, if I gave an explanation. It was not any weirder than your version, there was just about as much proof for my version than there is for yours - still you're saying that my version is ridiculous. Unless I say what you want to hear, I'm told it can't be. Well, I can play that game all day too.

Go ahead, repeat the boxcutters field day BS once more - it won't convince me. I will tell you it was an alien ray.

But heck, why not: I'll give you another plausible theory (only to see it being shot down with no arguments once more): in most buildings that contain classified data that is not allowed to fall in the hand of an enemy, charges are put in place so the building can be demolished if necessary. The authorities do not report this to the public for many reasons: firstly it would probably scare people whom would think the building might explode spontaneously, secondly as it would provide a good indication where the sensitive data was stored. This was also the case in WTC7, which housed a number of 3 letter agencies / secret services. When it became clear that the building was open to anybody that wanted to go in (actually, some guys with a camera entered WTC7 and recorded stuff) and it also became clear that the police, firemen and others were fully occupied with WTC1 and 2, they feared that sensitive data might fall in the hands of the public. Hence it was decided to order everybody out and engage the built-in charges.

I bet you call it BS yet agaijn. And again, as I told you: yes, right, BS - it was an alien ray.

But anyway, I now provided TWO theories that are more plausible than the official story. No building has ever and will ever implode like that due to fires and structural damage. Even if a building collapses it is a more gradual process; typically you'd see part of the building sag and then collapse, pulling other parts with it - but as it takes a lot of energy to do this, and the structure does not evenly resist, it takes some time and is an irregular process. But what we saw was a totally regular collapse, free fall speed. Your OSBS does not explain that, the model NIST made is not open for inspection AND does not match observation. You, my haggish loving friend, tell these most improbable stories, where I give a solid, scientific explanation: alien ray.

Ugh.

originally posted by: DrakeINFERNO
You don't need to melt steel to weaken it. Steel goes through various physical changes in heat. Steel gets real brittle or elastic depending on how long it is cooked. Still shady stuff went down that day.

i know this thread is super long so i cant read it all but i want to touch on this.

to be clear though, i dont know anything about what type of iron was used. im sure though that every single beam in the buildings did not have the same tensile strength.
and no, metal does not have to melt to become weak. just so thats out of the way.

now, all iron is not created equal.

gray iron has a pretty low tensile strength but if you start adding other materials you change things.
did the iron used have magnesium? if so it would be ductile iron. in that case it would have a little but of stretch to it unlike gray iron.
did the iron used have copper? while copper is not the hardest material out there, when added to ductile iron it makes the iron stronger. the tensile strength goes way up and it will still have the stretch.
it could have had chrome. it could have had nickel
all those elements change the physical properties/micro structure of the iron.

for what its worth