WTC7, the smoking gun that just will not go away until the traitors are rounded up

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

 

I suppose the FBI doesn't count







Notice marking on this debris indicated where was found



Debris marked by crime scene tape

Do you actually think that is the proper way to conduct an investigation????

Originally posted by GiodanoBruno

That is your large amount of proof???? Wow ,,ok.

Let's get back to your proof. This something that you think destroyed the buildings. How big was it and how much did it weigh ?

Good video I've never seen before with several explosions post collpase of WTC1 & 2.





And another video, where you can clearly hear an explosion just before WTC7 comes down.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


Uh, I don't think so. Since the "plane" went right into the building with absolutely no resistance as if it was built out of cardboard, and the only thing that came out the other side was the "turbine of the engine", then that would mean that all the fuselage material was buried inside the tower. But SOMEHOW this piece of uncharred metal not only remained recognizable but miraculously found its way out of the building in order to land on the roof of WTC5.

Lots of aircraft parts made it through the building. The piece on top of WTC 5 is interesting because it's an 8 point match to N612UA and no other aircraft.

Here are some other parts that made it through the building














and a passport that made it through.



You should open up this picture and have a look around. You will see multiple aircraft parts seat cushions life vest and passenger / hijacker fragments. This is where the identifiable DNA was found.

publicintelligence.info...

Originally posted by kidtwist


And another video, where you can clearly hear an explosion just before WTC7 comes down.

I love this video. They say there is a loud explosion but nobody in the video seems to hear it or react to it. They only react when they look at WTC7 and notice it is falling. Wouldn't a loud explosion coming from WTC7 attract the camera mans attention before the collapse started ?

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


Should get eyes checked and have someone teach you to read .......




What does it say...?

A I R C R A F T P A R T S F B I

reply to post by GiodanoBruno


So how should one conduct an investigation on a crime scene 16 acres in size, with numerous buildings destroyed or badly damaged needing to be demolished pilled with debris mounds
dozens of feet high. With pieces of 2800 human bodies emtombed within......

Or add that much of it was on fire for months......

Explaim how one does an investigation in such a mess

This is not some cutesy TV show where the CSI wrap it up in an hour

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by kidtwist


And another video, where you can clearly hear an explosion just before WTC7 comes down.

I love this video. They say there is a loud explosion but nobody in the video seems to hear it or react to it. They only react when they look at WTC7 and notice it is falling. Wouldn't a loud explosion coming from WTC7 attract the camera mans attention before the collapse started ?

I'm glad you love the video!

Just because no one reacts to it doesn't take anything away fro mthe fact the explosion is there, did you not hear it?

There were explosions going off all day, I'm sure by that time people were not suprised to hear a distant explosion. We didnt see their facial expressions, so they may have looked at each other as if to say 'what was that' but said nothing. Who knows, but that isnt the topic of this video, it's about the EXPLOSION.

Did you hear the EXPLOSION? I can hear it clearly.

What about the other video I posted with it, lots of explosions in that, what are your views on that too?

Oh, on page 39 (previous page) I have queried some of your puzzling responses, and posed you some more questions. Would you care to reply to them and clarify your answers for me. Thx

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by MI5edtoDeath

 

Should get eyes checked and have someone teach you to read .......




What does it say...?

A I R C R A F T P A R T S F B I

I've seen this staged photo many times before, quite hilarious!

reply to post by kidtwist


So did they stage this too at Shanksville

At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts – seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal – from trees near the crash site. "It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in 10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United."

Originally posted by kidtwist

Did you hear the EXPLOSION? I can hear it clearly.

You should pause the video at 5 sec and read what it says at the bottom.
No. I do not hear a loud explosion.

What about the other video I posted with it, lots of explosions in that, what are your views on that too?

No. I didn't watch your second video, but I've seen it in the past. Have they done some audio enhancing.
Should I watch it again ?

Oh, on page 39 (previous page) I have queried some of your puzzling responses, and posed you some more questions. Would you care to reply to them and clarify your answers for me. Thx

You are mistaken, You have 1 post on page 39, no questions directed at me.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by kidtwist

 

So did they stage this too at Shanksville

At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts – seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal – from trees near the crash site. "It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in 10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United."

I wasn't referring to Shanksville, this is totally unrelated to what I commented on.

I have never seen the shanksville picture, and quite frankly it could be from anywhere.

However, very bizarre there were no human remains? Do you not think that is strange?

reply to post by MI5edtoDeath


Excuse me, but what was mysterious of the crashes? Investigations are only done when the crash or incident is done by causes unknown. Like Smolensk, or Air France. The planes just crashed without warning. On 9/11 there was no mystery. It was a deliberate crash that was done on purpose. No need to waste time doing a forensic analysis. If it was just ONE plane that crashed into the WTC, without any other crashes or attacks, then yes, an investigation is necessary.

Why rebuild the aircraft if you know for a fact the plane was intentionally crashed and no mechanical failures or pilot errors were responsible?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by kidtwist

Did you hear the EXPLOSION? I can hear it clearly.

You should pause the video at 5 sec and read what it says at the bottom.
No. I do not hear a loud explosion.

What about the other video I posted with it, lots of explosions in that, what are your views on that too?

No. I didn't watch your second video, but I've seen it in the past. Have they done some audio enhancing.
Should I watch it again ?

Yes, I did read that the person had removed the hi frequency hiss to clean up the background noise, this is a normal forensic technique when analysing video evidence.

By turning up the bass all you are doing is isolating a frequency that is already there, and turning it up in dB (decibels) so that you can hear it more clearly. There is nothing wrong with doing that, again another forensic technique.

You see, you do not know my profession but sound is an area I specialise in!

The explosion was a low frequency rumble, probably somewhere in the region of 1Hz to 40Hz, with 20Hz being the lowest a human can technically hear. So depending on the specification of your speakers, you may or may not be able to hear it. If you have studio monitors, which typically start at about 30+ Hz, then you will pick it up, and if you cannot hear it, then it's down to the spec of your speakers.

This could also be the reason why it was not as obvious a sound to the people talking, by the time the shockwave reached them, it was starting to collapse.

The video is enhanced for the very fact that most people might not hear that frequency on their speakers, and all they have done, as I say, is enhanced what is already there.

By boosting the bass on something you cannot boost something that is not already there becaue boosting silence will just be silent! It's like 0+0 = 0!

The microphone on the camera was set to a certain recording level, and by boosting the bass all is happeneing is the recording is being brough up based on the frequencies that are already there. You can remove frequencies that are there, but you cant boost frequencies that are not there!

If the second video has audio enhancing it is again the same technique, to make waht is already there more audible, as I say, you cannot boost what is not there. The explosions in the 2nd video are even clearer, and yes I would recommend watching it again if you dispute there are no explosion in the 2nd video, there are many, very easy to hear, unless you are going deaf?!


EDIT: I've just analysed the audio with a spectrum analyser, and put a low pass filter on it to remove the high end background noise even more, and although the fundamental frequency of the explosion sits around 65Hz, if I low pass it at 40Hz there is still audible sound, although it is very low, but can be heard on a standard set of cheap headphones.

I used cheap headphones, as well as monitor speakers that are better quality (audible on both), and there is activity well below 40Hz, the strongest frequency being around 65Hz, and it extends up to about 300Hz, but that is when all the ambient noise starts kicking in.

So that explosive rumble is well and truly there, no question!

You guys can debunk the irrelevant all day, whether there were explosion heard, or not, it makes no difference to physics.

When you can explain how sagging trusses can put a pulling force on the columns, and can explain how a 47 story building can collapse symmetrically into its footprint from fire, you might be getting somewhere.

But all we get is catenary action, and denial.

Watch this vid...Not exactly what happened to the trusses as there was no weight added, just sagging, but it is the same principle. Take very close note to where the beam breaks. It doesn't pull in anything. Trusses that were sagging from heat wouldn't break, and they would put far less force on the columns as the beam weighted down did. If anything did fail it would be weakest point in the system, which would be? The columns? The 1" and 5/8" bolts? The welds? The trusses themselves? I dare you to answer that correctly. The beam broke at the ends, where the connections would be on the WTC columns (the beam broke in the middle also because of the concentration of the weight). Also note how much extra weight that simple beam could hold before failure. A truss has a much higher weight to strength ratio than a beam does, and there were multiple trusses per floor.



Then there is this experiment...This is catenary action causing collapse because the columns were removed putting more force on the outer columns that were not designed to hold all the weight without the removed columns. This would not have happened at the WTC center because no load bearing columns were removed, thus no extra force was put on the columns.

reply to post by kidtwist


Also to add to this, the microphone on all but the most expensive professional cameras do not pick up low frequencies very well.

In fact when recording audio a microphone designed for low frequencies are used for bass instruments, as most mics roll off at 50-100hz or even higher. Those low frequencies will be there but not very audible, and will be distorted, taking out the high end would make them more audible.

See the green line that slopes down waypastvne? That is dB, volume rolling off. The frequency is the X axis.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by kidtwist

 

Also to add to this, the microphone on all but the most expensive professional cameras do not pick up low frequencies very well.

In fact when recording audio a microphone designed for low frequencies are used for bass instruments, as most mics roll off at 50-100hz or even higher. Those low frequencies will be there but not very audible, and will be distorted, taking out the high end would make them more audible.

See the green line that slopes down waypastvne? That is dB, volume rolling off. The frequency is the X axis.

edit on 5/29/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)

You are correct that not all cameras pick up low fequencies that well, but as with speakers, when they say from 'X' Hertz to 'X' Hertz as the spec, you can generally still hear above and below those ranges.

So for example, I isolated the sound down to 40Hz in one experiment, which cuts off everything above 40Hz, and my bog standard heaphones, that have a 60Hz lower limit could still audibly hear some of the frequencies below 40Hz that I isolated, although I did have to boost those frequencies in dB because removing the top frequencies lowers the overall peak level.

So unless someone is listening on the worlds worst built-in laptop speakers, they should be able to hear something, even if they have to turn it up!

Originally posted by kidtwist

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by kidtwist

 

So did they stage this too at Shanksville

At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts – seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal – from trees near the crash site. "It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in 10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United."

I wasn't referring to Shanksville, this is totally unrelated to what I commented on.

I have never seen the shanksville picture, and quite frankly it could be from anywhere.

However, very bizarre there were no human remains? Do you not think that is strange?

I think he accidentally posted a pic of the crap in the dump truck BEFORE they dumped it into the hole (that's been there since 1994)

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


I think he accidentally posted a pic of the crap in the dump truck BEFORE they dumped it into the hole (that's been there since 1994)

Sorry Truther but the 1994 hole does not match up with the hole UA93 made.

Originally posted by kidtwist
So for example, I isolated the sound down to 40Hz in one experiment, which cuts off everything above 40Hz, and my bog standard heaphones, that have a 60Hz lower limit could still audibly hear some of the frequencies below 40Hz that I isolated, although I did have to boost those frequencies in dB because removing the top frequencies lowers the overall peak level.

So unless someone is listening on the worlds worst built-in laptop speakers, they should be able to hear something, even if they have to turn it up!

Yeah exactly it doesn't cut out those frequencies completely it's a dB roll off, like a high pass filter with a gradual roll off as apposed to brick-wall (extreme cut off). Those frequencies are there, and can be heard, if you have speakers that can handle them. You did the right thing isolating them, the high frequencies would be much louder and mask the low frequencies.