WTC7 phoneboot explosion sound pinned to corner Murray Str-W.Broadway, 2 blocks from WTC7.

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I'm going to start a thread and see how many people are hearing what you're hearing.

Btw you didn't answer my question as to if you're from the US/East coast or not.



www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2-4-2010 by bsbray11]




posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Midwest. Chicago to be exact. But i have been to NYC and heard the New Yorker accent as well.

If I may ask, which firefighter exactly is saying "Seven's exploding"? The younger one that came up to them (middle one) or the firefighter on the right side with the black cloth over his face? Because watching and listening to the middle one he sounds like he is saying "second's (Seven's) gonna fall down." At the moment he says the second's (seven's) gonna fall down, the black-cloth mask firefighter says "Hold it, I know" right when the first one is saying second's (seven's) gonna fall down. In fact you can hear "fall down" after the other says "hold it I know". I have yet to hear anything else.

[edit on 4/2/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Then I guess you're just projecting when you keep telling us we're only hearing what we want to hear.

I wish I could just clip that one section of audio and play it over and over and over here so everyone viewing this page would have to hear it. It starts at 12 seconds.

There aren't even enough syllables for what you claim he's saying and there's clearly an emphasized "P" from "ex-PLOD-ing." You seriously cannot hear that? I bet you sure as hell can hear it but you pretend it's something different anyway. In recent months I swear I'm getting a first-hand demonstration of what denial can do to the most basic human intelligence, between stuff like this, and people telling me that WTC7 didn't fall straight down.


The world takes all kinds, but at least I know my directions and how to speak the English language. This more than anything makes me want to just click the ignore button and wish the world hasn't really come to this. And you guys think you are competent enough to argue about statics, statistics and chemistry?






posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


bsbray, please do not turn this into an ego thing, or whatever and put me on ignore. That is beyond childish. I have yet to put anyone on ignore no matter how bad they got. But what you are doing is just sticking your head in the sand with your fingers in your ear, so you dont have to listen to anything that may contradict your core beliefs.

I hear a slurring between the two firefighters as they are both talking. That is what you are hearing as "exploding". If you want to hear "exploding", you will. But if you hear it with both versions, it throws it into question. I'm hearing both "gonna fall down" and "Hold it, I know" and slurring them together it sounds remotely like "sevens exploding" .

Again I asked you before, which firefighter says that exact phrase? Because watching both firefighters and their mannerisms, more and more, it looks like neither of them said it. Also would be nice if we had a CLEARER VIDEO that is not this blurry, because then we can see the mouth and face of the middle firefighter. That way we would be able to see his mouth and possibly what exactly he is saying. (what is it with "truthers" and grainy blurry videos trying to prove something?) And also, it would be nice if someone could get each firefighter's line extracted to hear what each says by himself. I dont have the means or ability to do it, but if someone does it wold be most helpful. Extract the voices of all the firefighters in that video and then one by one listen to them.

[edit on 4/2/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


I'm not sticking my head in the sand when I'm avoiding "discussions" with someone who hears things that aren't there, doesn't hear things that are there, and can't even tell which direction a giant building is falling.

I'd just be saving myself trouble that is totally unnecessary to my life.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'm not sticking my head in the sand when I'm avoiding "discussions" with someone who hears things that aren't there, doesn't hear things that are there, and can't even tell which direction a giant building is falling.

I'd just be saving myself trouble that is totally unnecessary to my life.



What I find most interesting is the total avoidance of Personal Choice's post, where he determines the time to be shortly after 2's fall, and before 1's.

And the fact that Labtop fails to pin the time down using the video and its shadows. He relates using the shadows to get the time, but instead relies on Jenning's statements.

I propose this is because he knows that as Personal Choice has alluded to, this time would destroy the whole "7's exploding" line.

Logic must prevail here. This video was taken between 2 and 1's fall. therefore it was BEFORE 7 was struck by anything. therefore the reference to 7 is nothing more than the TM hearing what it wants to hear.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
What I find most interesting is the total avoidance of Personal Choice's post, where he determines the time to be shortly after 2's fall, and before 1's.


I already knew the timing on this photo. Which is why I didn't respond to it. This video is still shot just down from WTC7 and I can hear the guy saying SEVEN is exploding, not like there aren't other witnesses testifying to explosions going off in that same building that day.



Logic must prevail here. This video was taken between 2 and 1's fall. therefore it was BEFORE 7 was struck by anything.


Your logic fails. A building doesn't have to be struck by something to have explosions going off within it.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Also would be nice if we had a CLEARER VIDEO that is not this blurry, because then we can see the mouth and face of the middle firefighter. That way we would be able to see his mouth and possibly what exactly he is saying.

Gen, you gotta be freakin kidding me. The middle firefighter is wearing a white breathing mask. No wonders you can't hear what they're saying. You can't even see them correctly.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I can hear the guy saying SEVEN is exploding,



So then the logical extension of this is what?

1- he had foreknowledge of explosives being planted
2- there were other explosions in 7 prior to 1's collapse (in which case I'd like to see some quotes with timelines, since Jennings belief about the time is in serious doubt)
3- other



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
2- there were other explosions in 7 prior to 1's collapse (in which case I'd like to see some quotes with timelines, since Jennings belief about the time is in


I'm sure you'd like to see all kinds of stuff, so would I. What do we do when we want information that isn't currently available? What's that again?... Oh yeah, investigate.

The only reason you doubt Jennings' testimony is because it gives you exactly what you're asking for and you don't like the way that smells.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The only reason you doubt Jennings' testimony is because it gives you exactly what you're asking for and you don't like the way that smells.


The only reason you believe Jennings' testimony is because it gives you exactly what you're asking for and you love the way that smells.

See how that works?

You have exactly ONE witness that you can point to as to whether or not these explosion happened between 2 and 1's collapse.

The best you can show is that there are vague descriptions of explosions. No times given. No location. Nothing.

So despite your reference to "multiple witnesses to explosions", it means ZERO unless you can give that info.

Nobody's gonna help you with that, so get cracking.


ETA: I reckon that this selection is your belief? You didn't directly answer the Q.

Yes or no.

Or provide "other".

[edit on 2-4-2010 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The only reason you believe Jennings' testimony is because it gives you exactly what you're asking for and you love the way that smells.


Actually I have no reason to believe the man was lying or that far off in his memory, and what he said also happens to "coincide" with the timing of this video which tends to corroborate it.



You have exactly ONE witness that you can point to as to whether or not these explosion happened between 2 and 1's collapse.


And also this video.

I never said any of this was proof of anything in itself. I'm just making sure you understand, that these things happened, and they line up the way they do whether you like them to or want to think about it that way or not.

And what evidence do you have to show how WTC7 collapsed again, even after an "investigation" was already done? None.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Actually I have no reason to believe the man was lying or that far off in his memory, and what he said also happens to "coincide" with the timing of this video which tends to corroborate it.


Wow, talk about circular. A confirms b and b confirms a.

Okey dokey.....


I'm just making sure you understand, that these things happened, and they line up the way they do whether you like them to or want to think about it that way or not.


And I'm telling you that they didn't happen like you'd like to believe.

-The explosion is added in. If you can't tell the difference in audio clarity between the guys talking and the explosion......
and
- If you truly believe that they're saying that 7 is exploding.....

... then you're not openminded to explanations that don't involve bombs, and Silverstein, and Bush, etc.



And what evidence do you have to show how WTC7 collapsed again, even after an "investigation" was already done? None.


Well let's see. NIST used video evidence of where the fires traveled throughout the building during the day. They then interviewed people that worked in there to get an idea of what kind of fuel loads were present. Then using a sophisticated computer program, they were able to make predictions about what kinds of fire temps were present at various stages and parts of the building.

They then used the structural documentation to determine how the building was constructed, how fire protection and what type was applied, etc . And using the temp data, they came to the conclusion that heat expansion would have, IIRC, resulted in a floor beam pushing off its mounting structure. This floor would have then fallen onto the floor below, which would have also failed on down to the 5th floor, leaving col 79 laterally unsupported for 8 stories. It would then have failed, leading to a horizontal progressive collapse across the interior, until such time as enough were collapsed as to be too heavy for the ext columns to support itself.

So to break it down, you asked for evidence:
1. videos of fires
2. occupant interviews
3. results of fire simulations
4. structural documentation
5. ANSYS/'___'YNA results
6. video evidence of the horizontal collapse progression

So there's plenty of evidence. There's more if you want me to think more deeply about it.



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Wow, talk about circular. A confirms b and b confirms a.


That's not "circular," it's called "corroboration":


cor·rob·o·rate

To strengthen or support with other evidence; make more certain.


www.thefreedictionary.com...

Two pieces of evidence (Jennings' testimony, and a video recording of an explosion) talking about the same event (explosion) in the same period of time. Yes, that is corroboration.



I'm just making sure you understand, that these things happened, and they line up the way they do whether you like them to or want to think about it that way or not.


And I'm telling you that they didn't happen like you'd like to believe.


I know you tell me this but you never have evidence to back it up, and instead to defend yourself you just tell me that I don't have any evidence even though I'm the one saying the investigation is still incomplete. Your whole shtick on these forums is circular reasoning and a diversion on top of that, always shifting the burden when asked what you base your confidence on.


-The explosion is added in. If you can't tell the difference in audio clarity between the guys talking and the explosion......


Are we not still waiting for the actual evidence/source to verify this?


- If you truly believe that they're saying that 7 is exploding.....

... then you're not openminded to explanations that don't involve bombs, and Silverstein, and Bush, etc.


Most people polled so far on the other thread agree the firefighter I am referring to is saying EXPLODING. Even other "debunkers." And someone even pointed out that BOTH things are being said in the video and you are just focusing on the other one.




And what evidence do you have to show how WTC7 collapsed again, even after an "investigation" was already done? None.


Well let's see. NIST used video evidence of where the fires traveled throughout the building during the day. They then interviewed people that worked in there to get an idea of what kind of fuel loads were present. Then using a sophisticated computer program, they were able to make predictions about what kinds of fire temps were present at various stages and parts of the building.

They then used the structural documentation to determine how the building was constructed, how fire protection and what type was applied, etc . And using the temp data, they came to the conclusion that heat expansion would have, IIRC, resulted in a floor beam pushing off its mounting structure. This floor would have then fallen onto the floor below, which would have also failed on down to the 5th floor, leaving col 79 laterally unsupported for 8 stories. It would then have failed, leading to a horizontal progressive collapse across the interior, until such time as enough were collapsed as to be too heavy for the ext columns to support itself.


Right, and this was actually a computer model that was not shown to match visual observations of the collapse, which if you remember was the sole criteria they used to judge the validity of their Twin Tower report.

Have you seen the images from the computer simulation you are referring to?



So to break it down, you asked for evidence:
1. videos of fires
2. occupant interviews
3. results of fire simulations
4. structural documentation
5. ANSYS/'___'YNA results
6. video evidence of the horizontal collapse progression


1. I'm not disputing that there were fires. So this is irrelevant to me.
2. Like Barry Jennings?
3. The computer simulations were hypothetical and did not match what the collapse actually looked like at all.
4. We aren't even privy to the structural documentation or the simulation parameters, so we have to take their word that their work was correct, which means no one can peer review their report or otherwise scrutinize them. In other words this is pure faith and not scientific, verifiable evidence.
5. Exact same as 3.
6. The videos did not match their simulations. So here your evidence is self-contradictory.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


I do see the mask, just barely, due to the quality of the video but you can still it moving as he talks. And it still does not sound like "exploding."



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Are we not still waiting for the actual evidence/source to verify this?


Question. Do you agree with the Trinity Church pdf that I presented, and Bone_z disagrees with?

If presented with a similar objective report - and not subjective evidence like " I hear this...."..... would you accept it?


Most people polled so far on the other thread agree the firefighter I am referring to is saying EXPLODING. Even other "debunkers." And someone even pointed out that BOTH things are being said in the video and you are just focusing on the other one.


This SHOULD tell you a couple of things:

1- on a website that is favored by CT believers, any poll will always be in favor of the CT
2- this is so subjective as to be unreliable as evidence of anything.



1. I'm not disputing that there were fires. So this is irrelevant to me.


It should be. The presence of fires was not the purpose of using the video evidence, as stated. It was used to track the rate of movement of fire throughout the building. This is important information. Curious that you're disinterested....


2. Like Barry Jennings?


Barry Jennings was not an occupant to 7. therefore he could give zero info on fuel loads. That was also outlined in my post. Why the flippancy, and avoidance that this provided evidence?


3. The computer simulations were hypothetical and did not match what the collapse actually looked like at all.


This is the belief of the TM, and yours. Professionals with 20,30, and 40 years experience in designing tall structures don't. refer to the CTBUH and editors of Structure magazine to see who I'm talking about.


4. We aren't even privy to the structural documentation or the simulation parameters, so we have to take their word that their work was correct, which means no one can peer review their report or otherwise scrutinize them. In other words this is pure faith and not scientific, verifiable evidence.


The docs are private property. I'm quite sure that if I would search your posts, I would find references to the violation of our civil liberties as a result of 9/11 mentioned, correct. But in this case, you'd be all for violating someone's civil rights, since you want this released, I presume. Didn't I see a post or 2 from you regarding hypocrisy?

Also, this is not a journal article, and not subject to peer review before publication. There is zero difference in access to information in a peer reviewed journal article and a report like this. If anything, a journal article would be more subject to shenanigans, since the method is under scrutiny, not the results. IIRC, in a peer reviewed article, the results, as published by the author, will be examined by his/her peers only after publication. No difference between THAT and in a report, so I've always failed tosee the objection.


5. Exact same as 3


Same answer as for 3.


6. The videos did not match their simulations.


It proves that there was indeed a horizontal progressive collapse.

Or do you NOT believe that there was a HPC?




[edit on 2-4-2010 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Apr, 2 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Question. Do you agree with the Trinity Church pdf that I presented, and Bone_z disagrees with?


I didn't read over it yet, but I found the link on page 1. I'll read it over it in more detail later but the suggestion that the explosion was inserted into the audio doesn't fit with either the firefighters' immediate reactions to it, including the whole camera angle changing to face back towards WTC7, and then another firefighter walking up immediately after that saying they had to get back because things were "exploding." I can see that the explosion may have been "enhanced" at some point for some versions, but something equivalent must have happened when it was recorded or else we would not have all of those reactions towards the area it came from, and the dialogue that followed.



Most people polled so far on the other thread agree the firefighter I am referring to is saying EXPLODING. Even other "debunkers." And someone even pointed out that BOTH things are being said in the video and you are just focusing on the other one.


This SHOULD tell you a couple of things:

1- on a website that is favored by CT believers, any poll will always be in favor of the CT
2- this is so subjective as to be unreliable as evidence of anything.


I notice you left off your list the possibility that you may be wrong. I also notice that's never an option for you.




2. Like Barry Jennings?


Barry Jennings was not an occupant to 7. therefore he could give zero info on fuel loads. That was also outlined in my post. Why the flippancy, and avoidance that this provided evidence?


Barry Jennings did occupy WTC7 on 9/11, and he witnessed explosions inside it and he testified to that. Being a WTC7 "occupant" doesn't just mean you know how much back-up fuel it had stored for generators. And btw most of that fuel was recovered after WTC7's collapse, as mentioned in the FEMA report. The point is Barry Jennings was a witness to what happened inside that building but because you don't like hearing what actually happened, you just dismiss him as a liar.



3. The computer simulations were hypothetical and did not match what the collapse actually looked like at all.


This is the belief of the TM, and yours. Professionals with 20,30, and 40 years experience in designing tall structures don't. refer to the CTBUH and editors of Structure magazine to see who I'm talking about.


It's not an opinion that the simulations did not match visual observations of the building falling. Again I ask you to post the actual images of that here if you want to defend how accurate of a model it was. I am not interested in magazine editors' (including "Structure") or anyone else's opinion on this when I have seen the simulations myself and know how realistic and they were.



4. We aren't even privy to the structural documentation or the simulation parameters, so we have to take their word that their work was correct, which means no one can peer review their report or otherwise scrutinize them. In other words this is pure faith and not scientific, verifiable evidence.


The docs are private property


This is not an excuse. Especially when dealing with a public disaster that affected the entire nation. Being able to withhold the structural documentation of a destroyed building under federal investigation is not a civil liberty.

And you also have no excuse for NIST's report not being peer-reviewed. The only special scrutiny they were under was for being commissioned by the federal government, and that's a conflict of interest. And the fact remains that no one can verify the actual calculations or models in that report for themselves, not as though they'd need to, to see that the model alone is total trash. All that takes it to look at what it produced.




6. The videos did not match their simulations.


It proves that there was indeed a horizontal progressive collapse.




Simulations not matching reality does not "prove" there was a "horizontal progressive collapse." It proves that it DIDN'T happen, or at least that NIST wasn't able to model it correctly anyway.



Here's NIST's simulation, a holy relic for internet trusters everywhere:




Now show me one single photo of WTC7 collapsing that looks anything like these.

This is the "proof" you are talking about.


You realize you can set any kind of parameters for these simulations that you want, right? And that NIST admits playing with them until they get a "desirable" result, and then don't release the parameters to the public for scrutiny of how realistic they actually are? If a "truther" released a "report" proving demolition but didn't show any of the actual work, you wouldn't take it seriously. That's why I don't take this simulation seriously, besides that it doesn't look right to begin with. Same thing.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Question. Do you agree with the Trinity Church pdf that I presented, and Bone_z disagrees with?


I didn't read over it yet, but I found the link on page 1.


The important point here is this:

The graphs provided show a stereo recordeed explosion, while everything else is mono.

That is objective evidence, and repeatable by anyone with an interest.

While it also contains subjective info - he "hears" this and that - the analysis doesn't rely on it.

And FYI, here is the faked one, which Bonez says is legit and represented as the original in his post:

www.mediumrecords.com...

vs the original, which Bonez didn't listen to, aparently:

video.google.com...

[edit on 3-4-2010 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Question. Do you agree with the Trinity Church pdf that I presented, and Bone_z disagrees with?

Not sure why you're invoking my name, but since you are, can you please link to my post where I disagree with the PDF?

Can't wait to see this.....



posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And FYI, here is the faked one, which Bonez says is legit and represented as the original in his post

the original, which Bonez didn't listen to, aparently

I don't appreciate being called a liar, nor being accused of misrepresenting something.

My post here clearly states that my post was based off of the original from the PDF that you posted. And you even acknowledged that in your following post.

Why you would now be purposely and blatantly dishonest and untruthful about those facts that anyone can see a couple pages back, is beyond me.

That's twice you've been purposely dishonest about what I've said. It makes one wonder why you have to purposely be untruthful.





[edit on 3-4-2010 by _BoneZ_]





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join