Originally posted by Darkwing01
Because you can tell from the source that it is clipping. I didn't say that there wasn't clipping in your examples, only that you would have to be as thick as a brick to think that clipping in those examples means anything in this context.

Clipping means there is a sound that is too loud for the mic too record. It cannot tell you WHAT that sound was, so the mere fact of clipping TELLS YOU NOTHING aside from the fact that the was too loud, irregardless of the source.

Something that is closer sounds louder, so the distant rumble of a building collapsing needs to be orders of magnitude OF ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater AT THE SOURCE to cause the same clipping cause by a raindrop striking the mic directly. In fact the raindrop may make no sound at all. The fact that it clips just also means that you can BY DEFINITION not tell just how loud the sound was.

So you can't tell JUST BY THE CLIPPING ALONE whether there was additional loud noises that contributed to the clipping. The data ISN'T THERE, it is not an absence of evidence for any position, it is an absence of evidence for EVERY POSITION.

Just as I thought, you completely missed the point of why I posted those videos. Cassius, a fellow truther of yours, thought that the clipping sound in the lobby video actually were explosives going off. I provided Cassius with other videos where clipping happens, to demonstrate that without explosives going off, a similar sound characteristic is heard.

The fact you are trying to find any other reason behind why I posted those video is because your are, in general, pretty much clueless.

I don't know about this one, I mean the collapse looks very suspicious but why don't they show the footage of the back of wtc7 before collapse, it was partially gone due to debris from the twintowers. Seems significant enough to me cause it looked plausable that it could collapse sooner or later.

Do you all realize that if WTC 7 were to have succumbed to structural damage sustained by a collapsing WTC 1, and not by buckling of column 79 due to a girder unseating due to thermal expansion, it would completely and totally invalidate the NIST report on WTC 7?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, just a reminder.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Do you all realize that if WTC 7 were to have succumbed to structural damage sustained by a collapsing WTC 1, and not by buckling of column 79 due to a girder unseating due to thermal expansion, it would completely and totally invalidate the NIST report on WTC 7?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, just a reminder.

I don't know whether NIST got WTC 7 right or wrong but I certainly don't have relevant expertise to argue with them.

However, call it intellectual laziness if you like, but I don't find I need to get as far as NIST because I am as certain as I can be that WTC 7 was not a cd by virtue of other factors.

To provide a cause for war or justification for repressive legislation then the destruction of WTC 7 added nothing to the destruction of the Towers (same goes for UA 93 and the Pentagon in my view). No-one was going to say "well the destruction of the towers was terrible but what would have really got me behind the war on terror was if they had got WTC 7 as well."

The only reasons I have seen put forward to justify the destruction of WTC 7 seem to me to be lame and contrived. (a) That there was evidence and secret stuff in WTC 7 that needed to be lost for ever and/or (b) to make Larry Silverstein richer by way of an insurance scam. In the case of (a) it seems to me absurd to suggest that the optimum way of destroying secret stuff was to blow the building up with the risk of dispersing it all over Manhattan. As for (b), obviously Larry Silverstein didn't have the resources to carry out 9/11 on his own so the perps must have risked extending the plot quite unnecessarily just to help Larry make some money. (if indeed he did make any money) .

But the total clincher for me is this. Anyone believing WTC 7 was a cd must accept that the original plan was just to blow it up, as it stood, in broad daylight. The alleged cd's of the towers were disguised by having planes flown into them but no disguise was apparently planned for WTC 7 and that I suggest is simply not credible. The fact that WTC 7 was hit by falling debris, fires were started and the water supply cut off was pure chance and couldn't have been planned.

So I don't get too hung up about NIST, which I am not competent to deal with, because I am as certain as I can be that WTC 7 was simply collateral damage along with WTCs 3,4,5 & 6..