Audio of the explosives which brought down WTC 7

[ElFenix]

ah ha!


it's a guy saying second movie and then talking about the 3 stooges
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus
listened to it with the sound turned WAAAAAY up, with my ear next to it, and listened from the start of the sound all the way until the building started collapsing and the guy starts reacting to it. if you can hear the two guys talking about movies you're doing it right.




the interview of the lady with the baby almost certainly happend at W. Broadway and Worth:
link
Worth appears to be two-way. in the video, the other camera is on a one-way cross street.

a block up a W. Broadway and Leonard is the other camera:
link

 

[Greenman]

Thought I'd stop by and see what you fellows had figured out. Are you ready to go public with hard evidence that a plane didn't bring down the towers? Have you figured out who did it and why? CNN hasn't had a word about this discussion, are they involved as well?

 

[al981]

Thought I'd stop by and see what you fellows had figured out. Are you ready to go public with hard evidence that a plane didn't bring down the towers? Have you figured out who did it and why? CNN hasn't had a word about this discussion, are they involved as well?

are you ready to admit multiple cameras picked up pre collapse explosions, along with all the other evidence, including dust samples, that support the case for outside demolition? as kylbe linked a few posts ago, you can't even get NIST to release their most basic collapse simulation, citing public / national safety bullshit excuse

of course, even if hard evidence was found, as proven in the past , the us government would lie, continue lying , and continue to spit in your face by continuing to lie and edit all surveillance footage. caught red handed and busted :thumbsup: :awe:

of course, this is the same reason they won't acknowledge the multiple audio recordings of pre collapse explosions on audio for wtc7, nor will they dare release their simulation that doesn't even try to model the now admitted seconds of free fall

 

[JEDIYoda]

are you ready to admit multiple cameras picked up pre collapse explosions, along with all the other evidence, including dust samples, that support the case for outside demolition? as kylbe linked a few posts ago, you can't even get NIST to release their most basic collapse simulation, citing public / national safety bullshit excuse

of course, even if hard evidence was found, as proven in the past , the us government would lie, continue lying , and continue to spit in your face by continuing to lie and edit all surveillance footage. caught red handed and busted :thumbsup: :awe:

of course, this is the same reason they won't acknowledge the multiple audio recordings of pre collapse explosions on audio for wtc7, nor will they dare release their simulation that doesn't even try to model the now admitted seconds of free fall

Dude you need to be quarantined!!! You have it real bad...I mean real bad!!

You must be allergic to the tin in the hat your wearing!!!

 

[Greenman]

are you ready to admit multiple cameras picked up pre collapse explosions, along with all the other evidence, including dust samples, that support the case for outside demolition? as kylbe linked a few posts ago, you can't even get NIST to release their most basic collapse simulation, citing public / national safety bullshit excuse

of course, even if hard evidence was found, as proven in the past , the us government would lie, continue lying , and continue to spit in your face by continuing to lie and edit all surveillance footage. caught red handed and busted :thumbsup: :awe:

of course, this is the same reason they won't acknowledge the multiple audio recordings of pre collapse explosions on audio for wtc7, nor will they dare release their simulation that doesn't even try to model the now admitted seconds of free fall

So after 60 pages there is no new information. That's really too bad.

A big plane hit a building, it burned for a while then fell down. Kinda weird that some people can't wrap their heads around that.

 

[al981]

So after 60 pages there is no new information. That's really too bad.

A big plane hit a building, it burned for a while then fell down. Kinda weird that some people can't wrap their heads around that.

1) No plane touched WTC7.

2) You did not address the OP or my post.

Dude you need to be quarantined!!! You have it real bad...I mean real bad!!

You must be allergic to the tin in the hat your wearing!!!

oh i see what you did thar! nice dodge, taking notes from ChickenLittle?

 

[LunarRay]

It seems to me that Models of an event... of any kind of event seek to answer causation rather than be all that valuable in prediction of future events (just my opinion regarding models - theory vs applied). I know that in Economics one gathers the known data and holds that constant while manipulating the various mechanisms and see if something 'gels'.
At least that is how I make sense of what I see and/or think I see.

In our 9/11 scenario we've some bits that we can apply some logic to but what we're up to at the moment in this thread seems to be forcing a mechanism into the model (explosions) while not yet developing what constants may exist.
For instance: The buildings, WTC 1,2 and 7 fell completely and into what might be called their footprint... although lots of stuff found its way all over the place. They accomplished this feat in a time frame that is reasonably measured.
It seems to me that the first bit to address or model is the energy available... The MATH which when combined with the observation and the reasonably calculated Potential energy involved assuming Gravity provided all the potential and subsequent Kinetic energy might ought to lead to the mechanism or potential mechanisms of collapse.
IF there was NOT enough energy to arrange for the collapse of the buildings then they either didn't collapse or they had additional energy from some source to allow for that event.
The 'Cart' in this case is that energy! Was explosives needed to collapse the buildings? IF so, then the sounds folks hear, heard or whatever else might point to or be construed as evidence. Even the most hardened 'Anti-Truther' must accept that if the 'Horse' indicates "Not enough energy" You need looking for that elusive bit...

So... Do we have any experts or even current perts who have documented and published contrary views on the collapse energy to say... Bazant? I know some have argued (An engineer named Sambozi or like that) that what they can't see occur didn't?!... Plastic/Elastic deformation and the like...

Produce the need for explosives and then all the bits that support that become much more easily supportable... But, if you don't need any explosives to down the buildings explosives become part of a more subjective thing... (They had to insure the buildings would collapse which invokes the 'Why' bit)