WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: Informer1958

The sound of an explosion is not evidence that an explosive was responsible, as noted by firefighters who later attributed the explosions they heard to exploding gas lines, collapsing floors, impacts, but nothing to do with explosives.

To sum it up, based on those facts, you have zero evidence for demo explosives at ground zero.

a reply to: Informer1958

From you link.

Some examples of video footage which includes audio can be found and this audio does include evidence of explosions, though it is not generally obvious for a number of reasons. Sounds of intense volume recorded at close distances will tend to overload and be distorted by the time they make it onto tape.

Now, let's take a look how close these three detonations occurred and tell us if you can hear demo detonations in the first and third videos at close range..







I think that someone deliberately posted your references in an effort to discredit the Truth Movement. I wonder who that could have been!

a reply to: skyeagle409

To sum it up, based on those facts, you have zero evidence for demo explosives at ground zero.

Which facts? Made-up Niscience with fictional evidence? Try to prove at least one of your points next time. That cover-up of a report had a really bad effect on your scientific standarts.

Any answer from the Lee Group yet?

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

If you can't wait, then why am I waiting for you to post the time lines and seismic data?

Have you even read the OP?

a reply to: skyeagle409

On the one hand you refuse to believe there were explosions at wtc7 because you have not enough video evidence. You, as I explained before in some detail, compare the Landmark tower with some soundless, altered, modified or cropped videos. On the other hand if there is witness information about explosions then you refuse to conclude they might be the result of explosives. What was the English phrase, walks like a duck, looks like a duck ?

I'm sure that if this guy had his camera on 15 seconds before the global collapse, you would hear the same 8 demolition sounds like in the Ashleigh Banfield video. Proof ? No not directly, but it is a simple matter of connecting the dots.

www.youtube.com...

The guy should be traced back.

ps. here is the original video source that I uploaded 8 years ago, for who wants to check it, get it, I didn't modify anything

www81.zippyshare.com...

Also for the interested ones, get these

wtc7 naudet version 1

www96.zippyshare.com...

wtc7 naudet version 2

www50.zippyshare.com...

Did you notice that the cracking sound is already there before the global collapse.

originally posted by: drommelsboef
a reply to: skyeagle409

On the one hand you refuse to believe there were explosions at wtc7 because you have not enough video evidence. You, as I explained before in some detail, compare the Landmark tower with some soundless, altered, modified or cropped videos. On the other hand if there is witness information about explosions then you refuse to conclude they might be the result of explosives. What was the English phrase, walks like a duck, looks like a duck ?

I'm sure that if this guy had his camera on 15 seconds before the global collapse, you would hear the same 8 demolition sounds like in the Ashleigh Banfield video. Proof ? No not directly, but it is a simple matter of connecting the dots.

www.youtube.com...

The guy should be traced back.

ps. here is the original video source that I uploaded 8 years ago, for who wants to check it, get it, I didn't modify anything

www81.zippyshare.com...

Alright, loud noises were heard that could be explosions or could be the sounds of structural collapse. Did the collapse happen immediately after the sounds? If yes, the sounds could be demolition or could be collapse sounds. Do the people on the ground know the difference between a the sounds of high brisant demolition charges and other sounds? Did it sound like the many videos of building demolition with a series of sharp cracks? No. Maybe it was just one or two bigger charges. Because we can't determine what it was, we have to look for additional evidence of explosives. If we find it, then it shows demolition. If we don't find any, then we can say we have no evidence for demolition and cannot claim such. Of course, not finding evidence still allows all those who yearn for a complicated plot with secret NWO organizations involved to claim coverup or somesuch. There is no way to satisfy all who claim explosives because, even with another investigation, it can be claimed that the evidence was missed or the panel wasn't independent or, once again, there was a coverup.
What we have to say is that in the absence of evidence of explosives, we have to conclude that the building fell due to uncontrolled fires.

a reply to: pteridine

What we have to say is that in the absence of evidence of explosives, we have to conclude that the building fell due to uncontrolled fires.

And, that is what structural and civil engineers, architects, firefighters, and demolition experts have been saying as well.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Which facts?

I can list them here.

1. No secondary explosions heard during the impacts on WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7

2. No secondary explosions heard as WTC1, wTC2, and wTC7 collapsed.

3. No demo explosions heard as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed

4. No demo hardware found in the rubble at ground zero.

5. No evidence of demo detonations in the seismic data

6. The sound of explosions in the minutes and hours before, and after the collapse of the WTC buildings is not the way demo implosion operations work.

7. Firefighters later attributed the sound of explosions they heard to things that had nothing to do with explosives.

8. There was no way to pre-weaken the steel structures secretly in occupied buildings and not attract a lot of attention.

9. There was no way to attach explosives to the steel columns of the WTC buildings and not attract a lot of attention

Any answer from the Lee Group yet?

Not yet, but if they don't respond to my email inquiring by Monday, I will give them a call.

We have plenty of eyewitness who were in the WTC while there were explosions going off before the WTC came down.

So therefor, we can determining that demolition brought down the WTC. We may not have proof there were devices planted in the WTC, however many credible people saw, heard, and some survived many of the explosions before the WTC came down.

The OS supporters try their best to fool everyone that there was no explosion by saying all everyone heard was gas lines plowing up or manholes blowing up, yet the gas was turned off way before the WTC came down.

Plenty of eyewitness saw flashes going around the WTC as they were coming down and we all know, there is only one thing that can cause that. Demolition.

Many eyewitness heard loud rumbling explosions in the basement of the WTC before the Tower came down.

Why were there explosions in the basements of the WTC, no plane hit the lower levels Why did the lobbies explode in the WTC. The explosions were so powerful in the lobbies that people were blasted across the lobby.

Demolition is the only thing that can explain everything that was witness, not just some office fires high up in the upper floors.

Fore anyone claiming there were no explosions at the WTC is out right lying. Don't Liston to people who push the OS and deny all the eyewitness accounts.

a reply to: drommelsboef

On the one hand you refuse to believe there were explosions at wtc7 because you have not enough video evidence.

There is no sound of demo explosions and no demo explosions were detected on seismic monitors. Demo teams working on other projects in the area have stated that they heard no demo explosions.

You, as I explained before in some detail, compare the Landmark tower with some soundless, altered, modified or cropped videos.

I have heard far too many explosions to know there were no demo explosions in the videos of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

On the other hand if there is witness information about explosions then you refuse to conclude they might be the result of explosives. What was the English phrase, walks like a duck, looks like a duck ?

I have made it very clear that the sound of explosions does not mean that explosives were responsible, especially in New York City where explosions occur 2100 times per year and the fact that later, firefighters attributed the sound of explosions they heard to things that had nothing to do with explosives.

Review this video and tell us, how many people would have reported this sound as an explosion. Jump to time lines 0:40 and ):44.

a reply to: Informer1958

We have plenty of eyewitness who were in the WTC while there were explosions going off before the WTC came down.

The sound of explosions is not evidence that explosives were responsible, especially in New York City, which experiences 2100 explosions per year, explosions that had nothing to do with explosives.

In addition, explosions are not heard during the collapse of the WTC buildings and the fact that no demo explosions were detected on seismic monitors.

To sum it up, there is no evidence of demo explosives, which explains why no demo hardware was ever found in the rubble.

Explosions in New York city before or after 911 has nothing to do with the demolitions of the WTC.

a reply to: Informer1958

Why were there explosions in the basements of the WTC, no plane hit the lower levels Why did the lobbies explode in the WTC. The explosions were so powerful in the lobbies that people were blasted across the lobby.

I am glad you brought up the lobby, so let's take a look here to find out what caused the explosive-like noise.

The Elevator Man's Tale

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

In other words, the explosions they heard in the lobby were the result of crashing elevators, not explosives, which is why I have asserted that the sound of explosions is not evidence that explosives were responsible.

Ok, so the elevators cause the basement to blow up to, right? You cant have it both ways.

LOL Ok the elevators stop and blew up in the lobby then they went to the basement then blew up again, is that the nonsense you are trying to push.

a reply to: Informer1958

Explosions in New York city before or after 911 has nothing to do with the demolitions of the WTC.

It proves my case that the sound of explosions does not mean that explosives were responsible. I might add that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that explosives did not bring down WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 nor responsible for the internal collapse of WTC5, which investigators attributed to fire.

You ignoring all the eyewitness accounts proves my case.

a reply to: Informer1958

LOL Ok the elevators stop and blew up in the lobby then they went to the basement then blew up, is that the nonsense you are trying to push.

Let's do a recap as to the person who stated the elevators were responsible the explosions he heard.

The Elevator Man's Tale
Featuring the unabridged transcript and audio.

Robert Jones
Age: 52
Hometown: Montgomery

Occupation: Elevator mechanic for Ace Elevator in the World Trade Center
Was in the south tower when the first plane hit

Can I add firefighters as well?

a reply to: Informer1958

You ignoring all the eyewitness accounts proves my case.

I am not ignoring them, I am stating that the explosions they heard had nothing to do with explosives, as confirmed by demolition teams in the area who were working on other projects.