• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Audio of the explosives which brought down WTC 7

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
kylebisme said:
You can't rightly blame me for doing that to your mind, as I rather doubt Bush was in on the scheme. Regardless, it's never too late to start electing people who will pull us out of the wars we are blowing trillions of our tax dollars on and reopen the investigation to figure out who actually was behind the attacks. We just need enough people to stand up for the truth and stop electing people who perpetuate the cover-up.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like Obama?
 
LunarRay said:
They fell through the path of greatest resistance. Amazing stuff that. How long would you opine the collapse ought to have taken given the structure increased in mass the further down you went... I think it had four stages of varying core steel thickness. A rather massive building totally collapsed in about 15 seconds... FF would suggest, what?, 9 or 10. The pile at the bottom suggests to me that there was not enought 'stuff' to do that.. it was 'blown' away and lived all over manhatten's lower end.. and the Hudson and stuck in buildings here and there.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that when the first building collapsed it did so from the point of impact of the plane. Wouldn't we have seen an explosion if there was one?
 
spacejamz said:
it wouldn't be too difficult to sift through various threads here to see that many lefties accuse dubya of being an incompetent moron who couldn't hit the broadside of a barn...

if u rn't a lefty, my apologies....
Click to expand...


Bush, just like every one of the other 'figure heads' is simply the tip of the ice berg. They are who we see... the one who has the Constitutional power to get stuff done. The president at the time didn't draw up Operation Northwoods that sought to 'black op' an agenda into being or any of the other means to the end scenarios.

I personally can't see why anyone would want blowing up WTC7 other than to destroy what might be advantageous to destroy. I can't see how tons of explosives could be secreted into WTC7 either. All I can say with confidence is that WTC7 did collapse. Other steel framed buildings sustained much longer fire damage over many more floors and remained standing. Was WTC7 so inferior in its construction that fires alone lead to its collapse? IF that is true how on earth did it collapse in the manner of controlled demo? Had it toppled over and not fell for some period at FF acceleration symmetrically through the path of greatest resistance I'd not be too interested in sounds of something.

Taken as an isolated issue (WTC7) there is much that can be said about loony tunes theorists... but it is part of something much bigger that occurred that day. Four planes that seemingly ceased to exist and hardly a trace of them can be found where they are said to be located. Not a bit that has been - to my knowledge - positively identified to be a bit of the aircraft involved. Holes that are smaller than the object said to have made the hole... I wish someone could show me how a 757 could hit a building and not damage the exterior consistent with the size of the 757. Titanium engine parts unfound. It takes 4500F to vaporize titanium and that temp was never reached anywhere but in the basement of the three towers. NO aircraft accident that I know of totally vaporized the aircraft upon impact... hell not even bombs are totally destroyed.. there is always bits and pieces found.

Taken in total 9/11 was a day filled with events that simply don't add up. When you take one anomalous issue and seek to explain it... you give deference to it in conjunction to the total... when you have so many anomalous issues you give deference to that condition and not isolate each issue as if nothing else is untoward.
 
Last edited:
nobodyknows said:
It seems to me that when the first building collapsed it did so from the point of impact of the plane. Wouldn't we have seen an explosion if there was one?
Click to expand...

It looked to me that both buildings (WTC1 and 2) started their demise from the point of impact.

I don't know about you but I saw volumes of 'stuff' going up and out from the top down to the impact zone as the collapse ensued. Now that might be a normal condition to observe but to me it suggests the loss of energy. Speaking to the 15 floor bit, it started with about 2gjoules of gravitational energy. Every bit of energy used to propel, crush, heat up, or destroy in some fashion uses up energy and all there is to crush down is what is left. Remember, if you will, that there does exist an equal and opposite force being applied to the upper bit as it met the lower bit and that had to destroy the upper bit in short order... I'd have actually expected to see the collapse stop at the point where the energy to continue down was less than the structure below. My simple thinking suggests to me that would occur rather quickly in the one building and somewhat longer in the other...

I have no doubt that the sounds that emanated from the buildings, in part, was caused by falling internal bits... especially in WTC7. I did a bit of math to determine when sound would reach a microphone at various distances and see if that could more than likely coincide with the actual movement of the buildings... in many cases it did.. but two did not... it preceded the collapse initiation by some five seconds... that sound had to be caused by something massive. BTW, the Nano-Termites uses heat to cut in one of their configurations... hardly a sound as the termites chomp through the steel at 4500 F... the pressure explosive type is also less loud than the 130-140 decibel threshold NIST used to determine no explosives were used in any building. EDIT: RDX is about the loudest of explosives usable for demo work, I'm told... and was what NIST used as the criteria.
 
Last edited:
nobodyknows said:
Good question, did anybody answer it?
Click to expand...

I'm told there was a bulge in WTC7 in the early afternoon of 9/11. Not a big one but enough to indicate a major structural problem, if true. My sister is a nosey type and when they evacuated WTC7 in the early part of the day she sought to find a place to view the goings on... Nutty she is! In any event, she couldn't tell if the smoke came from WTC7 in the late afternoon or the adjacent one. But she did see windows falling out of WTC7 and that indicated to her and me that fires were ongoing and the building was in structural trouble. Which makes me think they did demo it to keep it from hitting the buildings nearby... Only problem there is for that is how the heck could they manage that - get explosives into it in short order - with all of earth viewing the area.

So I'm left with.... Elephants don't know how to fly and if they did they'd not likely be able to given their ears are not strong enough to elevate them any distance at all...
 
Sinsear said:
Yep. Everyone here is in denial. You are the only one who is right.

You = idiot
Click to expand...

I don't think you are in denial... I think the evidence presented thus far is not enough to sway you to an alternative scenario assuming you are being fair with all the evidence thus far presented. I feel that is how I approach this issue, in any event. I look for what don't make sense to me. I don't care what the issue is. I ask myself as a phenomenologist what caused this or that. I'm not looking for the motive. That comes much later.
What happened to the plane that crashed in Pa., for instance... I become amazed at stuff like that and sorta adopt the position that although I don't fully understand the physical world around me I know folks who are expert and unbiased in various fields... they explain stuff to me... In the hope I'll explain stuff to them when they need to be edified in my field of expertise (the makin of grilled cheese sandwiches, for instance)
So therefore, to me you are just as right to opine contrary as others are to adopt positions in favor... we have bias and often can't see our forest for the trees...
 
LunarRay said:
I'm told there was a bulge in WTC7 in the early afternoon of 9/11. Not a big one but enough to indicate a major structural problem, if true. My sister is a nosey type and when they evacuated WTC7 in the early part of the day she sought to find a place to view the goings on... Nutty she is! In any event, she couldn't tell if the smoke came from WTC7 in the late afternoon or the adjacent one. But she did see windows falling out of WTC7 and that indicated to her and me that fires were ongoing and the building was in structural trouble. Which makes me think they did demo it to keep it from hitting the buildings nearby... Only problem there is for that is how the heck could they manage that - get explosives into it in short order - with all of earth viewing the area.
So I'm left with.... Elephants don't know how to fly and if they did they'd not likely be able to given their ears are not strong enough to elevate them any distance at all...
Click to expand...
And the bold sentence is the rub.

To have place explosives in the building before hand would require advance planning, cooperation and proper expertise.

A project of that size would require a massive amount of man hours to put something in place and have it unnoticeable by the general public. It took a couple of months to rig the stadium in Indianapolis that was dropped back in the late 90's. And that was with unfettered access to the building by the demo crew.

To place explosive; one has to run wiring and expose structures. Those exposures would then have to be repaired without anyone noticing. That would include tennant's, maintenance staff, visitors and any inspectors hanging around for other "legit" projects.

Sheet rock has to be replaced and painted. That generates dust, debris and fumes - it is very hard to vent fumes within a 48hr time frame (allowing for weekend work on this conspiracy).

Then the planners would have to generate excuses to drop the building at the right instant before anyone would notice anything that was out of place.

Maintenance projects are always happening in buildings that size; either for the building itself and/or tennant's having renovations done when moving in or just for the heck of it.

While the CTs may not like the official answer; they can not come up with any reasonable alternative that can not have more holes in it than it is plugged.

Especially when they talk about pre-planting explosives.

And after 10 years, not a single peep from anybody that may have been involved - unless they were all killed off to keep the secret:hmm:
 
Wrong direction Kylebisme. You should put your energy in a theory similar as the theory about Pearl Harbour. The one about prior knowledge...Much more interesting. Connect the dots that have been connected in a new way. Why don't you try to make post about who's who... and who knows who ?
Investers. Campaign supporters. Foreign rich families. Local rich families. Real estate ownership... Funding... Weapon contracts, slipped in friendly deals.
 
LunarRay said:
It looked to me that both buildings (WTC1 and 2) started their demise from the point of impact.

I don't know about you but I saw volumes of 'stuff' going up and out from the top down to the impact zone as the collapse ensued. Now that might be a normal condition to observe but to me it suggests the loss of energy. Speaking to the 15 floor bit, it started with about 2gjoules of gravitational energy. Every bit of energy used to propel, crush, heat up, or destroy in some fashion uses up energy and all there is to crush down is what is left. Remember, if you will, that there does exist an equal and opposite force being applied to the upper bit as it met the lower bit and that had to destroy the upper bit in short order... I'd have actually expected to see the collapse stop at the point where the energy to continue down was less than the structure below. My simple thinking suggests to me that would occur rather quickly in the one building and somewhat longer in the other...

I have no doubt that the sounds that emanated from the buildings, in part, was caused by falling internal bits... especially in WTC7. I did a bit of math to determine when sound would reach a microphone at various distances and see if that could more than likely coincide with the actual movement of the buildings... in many cases it did.. but two did not... it preceded the collapse initiation by some five seconds... that sound had to be caused by something massive. BTW, the Nano-Termites uses heat to cut in one of their configurations... hardly a sound as the termites chomp through the steel at 4500 F... the pressure explosive type is also less loud than the 130-140 decibel threshold NIST used to determine no explosives were used in any building. EDIT: RDX is about the loudest of explosives usable for demo work, I'm told... and was what NIST used as the criteria.
Click to expand...


Well, once it lost it's support/design structure there is no way IMO that the lower half of the building could support the weight above it and it just pancaked down, amassing a bigger and bigger load as it went.

Here's a fairly short video woth watching IMO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

Here's another video about WTC7:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&NR=1

I do find the WTC7 collapse rather coincidental and nobody seems to know what started the fired, but it seems the building was damaged bad enough it would have had to go even if it hadn't collapsed.
 
Last edited:
nobodyknows said:
Well, once it lost it's support/dwesign structure there is no way IMO that the lower half of the building could support the weight above it and it just pancaked down, amassing a bigger and bigger load as it went.

Here's a fairly short video woth watching IMO:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

Here's another video about WTC7:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&NR=1

I do find that collapse rather coincidental and nobody seems to know what started the fired, but it seems the building was damaged bad enough it would have had to go even if it hadn't collapsed.
Click to expand...

It seemed that the electrical powerstation for the entire WTC estate (all buildings) was housed under WTC 7. Now the buildings WTC1 and WTC 2 collapsed before WTC 7 yes ? And that a part of WTC 7 was filled with diesel aggregates and fuel tanks above that powerstation. It seemed WTC 7 was hit as well by debri. It could have been possible the transformers got shorted out. Now such an extraordinary event might have caused an explosion in the powerstation. Transformers can explode with a bang and then there is fuel possibly evaporating from damaged fuel tanks.

Here is a little tiny one :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy6U...0876BF64E&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=1
 
EagleKeeper said:
And the bold sentence is the rub.

To have place explosives in the building before hand would require advance planning, cooperation and proper expertise.

A project of that size would require a massive amount of man hours to put something in place and have it unnoticeable by the general public. It took a couple of months to rig the stadium in Indianapolis that was dropped back in the late 90's. And that was with unfettered access to the building by the demo crew.

To place explosive; one has to run wiring and expose structures. Those exposures would then have to be repaired without anyone noticing. That would include tennant's, maintenance staff, visitors and any inspectors hanging around for other "legit" projects.

Sheet rock has to be replaced and painted. That generates dust, debris and fumes - it is very hard to vent fumes within a 48hr time frame (allowing for weekend work on this conspiracy).

Then the planners would have to generate excuses to drop the building at the right instant before anyone would notice anything that was out of place.

Maintenance projects are always happening in buildings that size; either for the building itself and/or tennant's having renovations done when moving in or just for the heck of it.

While the CTs may not like the official answer; they can not come up with any reasonable alternative that can not have more holes in it than it is plugged.

Especially when they talk about pre-planting explosives.

And after 10 years, not a single peep from anybody that may have been involved - unless they were all killed off to keep the secret:hmm:
Click to expand...

Well... that seems to be the case!...
I asked myself after observing what occurred at WTC7... Why/How! I mean, there was no plane targeted on WTC7. The bad guys of that Conspiracy had no reasonable way of knowing that WTC7 would even have a bit of damage to it let alone fire here and there without planning over a long period of time. CIA, well... etc... etc.. occupied that building. SS alone would have not sat by and let Joe Smulse Elevator crew member plant stuff... they had doggies there too... this my sister advises me.. Sniffers! IT simply don't make sense. BUT...!!! That building did collapse and did so in a manner that is not consistent with normal collapse scenarios. Symmetrical collapse and for some portion at free fall acceleration perks one's interest... least ways mine.
 
kylebisme said:
A few questions for my detractors:

What do you believe the sequence of booms which caused people four blocks away to snap their heads in the direction of the building just prior to it coming down was?
Click to expand...

The sound of the shots from Lee Harvey Oswald and that mysterious 2nd gunman finally reached NYC on 9/11 just before the buildings fell. Sound travels extremely slowly in the vacuum of your mind.
 
I've been thinking about it and it really doesn't make any sense that wtc7 would fall. It did not get hit by a plane and didn't suffer much damage and yet it collapsed? It just doesn't add up.
 
Seems pretty obvious the building was taken down by demolition charges. After watching the video/audio and listening to eye-witness reports you don't really need any kind of in-depth analysis to come to this conclusion. How else do modern steel-frame buildings collapse in on their own footprint at free fall speeds, generating a pyroclastic debris cloud, and creating a nice neat debris pile maybe three stories high?

Let's see what the government has to say:

The official theory for the collapse, as published in Chapter 5 of the FEMA report goes as follows:

* At 9:59 AM (after the South Tower collapse), electrical power to the substations in WTC 7 was shut off.
* Due to a design flaw, generators in WTC 7 started up by themselves.
* Debris from the collapsing North Tower breached a fuel oil pipe in a room in the north side of the building. (This means the debris had to travel across WTC 6 and Vesey Street -- a distance of at least 355 feet -- penetrate the outer wall of WTC 6, and smash through about 50 feet of the building, including a concrete masonry wall.)
* This, and other debris (that also made the journey across Building 6 and Vesey Street), managed to start numerous fires in the building. (Unfortunately, this event did not prompt anyone to turn off the generators.)
* The backup mechanism (that should have shut off the fuel oil pumps when a breach occurred) failed to work, and the fuel oil (diesel) was pumped from the tanks on the ground floor to the fifth floor where it ignited. The pumps emptied the tanks of all 12,000 gallons of fuel.
* The extant fires raised the temperature of the spilled fuel oil to the 140 degrees F required for it to ignite.
* The sprinkler system malfunctioned and failed to extinguish the fire.
* The burning diesel fuel heated trusses to the point where they lost most of their strength, precipitating a total collapse of Building 7.

After laying out this scenario, the FEMA report authors conclude:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.
 
William Gaatjes said:
Found another one :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnNxwTePLQ&feature=related

If this was the case. you can imagine what would happen with the fuel poring around it.
Not forgetting coolants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNHdW3ZOEWA&feature=related
Click to expand...

That would certainly account for some sounds heard at various times. That hero guy of WTC 1,2 said he was certain that b2 or b3 had an explosion before the plane hit up above. Something caused that. Additionally, there are fire men who said they knew of secondary explosions in the buildings. In WTC 1,2 I can't think of a thing to cause that on the upper floors aside from what some claimed to be kitchen gas containers in a place with only electrical appliances. It don't answer what may have caused molten steel to be seen by many many credible witnesses (or Iron... depending) under the buildings.

What stikes me as odd are the telepone calls made by folks trapped above the impact zone during the events. It couldn't have been that hot in there at that time although I think some sounds are floors falling due to heat stress but not all of them. In the one building there are only 15 floors to deal with. I kind of like to focus on that building cuz it seems less complicated...

I think what is important is to tie the sounds to events occurring in or to the buildings. I don't find that to have been done to my satisfaction... yet..
 
LunarRay said:
I don't think you are in denial... I think the evidence presented thus far is not enough to sway you to an alternative scenario assuming you are being fair with all the evidence thus far presented.
Click to expand...
That's the problem, people keep wanting an alternative scenario for 9/11 as a whole, and refuse to give up stop clinging to the short of anything but. However, there's only enough evidence publicly available to prove major aspects of the official conspiracy theory wrong, but not enough to construct an alternative narrative. It's the same issue one faces when arguing with young earth creationists, they'll argue that science has yet to provide as complete and compressible narrative as the Bible does, and hence they continue to reject the former in favor of the latter. People like to believe they have all the answers, to the point that they will pretend to believe they do, even when their answers don't make sense.

I stumbled across a recent article addressing this matter in more general terms, How facts backfire. Comically, the author demonstrates his denial of reality near the end:

Getting a politician or pundit to argue straight-faced that George W. Bush ordered 9/11... — that’s easy.
Click to expand...
If only! Granted, I figure the orders came down from over and went around Bush's head, but the suggestion that he was behind it is at least closer to the truth than the nonsense our politicians and pundits spout.

zephyrprime said:
I've been thinking about it and it really doesn't make any sense that wtc7 would fall. It did not get hit by a plane and didn't suffer much damage and yet it collapsed? It just doesn't add up.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the official 9/11 conspiracy is full of holes, but WTC 7 is arguably the most gaping hole, which is why I like to focus on that. If you are interested in looking into the matter further, I recommend this website in particular, as it contains a wealth of information on the possibilities and absurdities in the official story, and some good debunking of alternative theories.

Docnasty said:
Let's see what the government has to say:
Click to expand...
Actually, the desel fuel story used to say about what happened, but that story from FEMA was too easy to pick apart, so NIST was tasked with a new "invesgation" in which they admited:

Diesel fuel fires did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. The worst-case scenarios associated with fires being fed by the ruptured fuel lines (a) could not have been sustained long enough, or could not have generated sufficient heat, to raise the temperature of a critical column (i.e., Column 79) to the point of significant loss of strength or stiffness, or (b) would have produced large amounts of visible smoke that would have emanated from the exhaust louvers. No such smoke discharge was observed.
Click to expand...
Granted, that notion that the building came down primarily by office fires alone rather than office fires fed by diesel fuel is even more absurd, as is the notion that a single column failure led to a sequence of failures which mimics a traditional controlled demolition to a tee. However, whoever brought the building down obviously knew they could play our government and media into covering it up, and that most of the population are conditioned to believe whatever the government and media all agree on. It's a curious psychological phenomena which this video sums up well.
 
kylebisme said:
Granted, that notion that the building came down primarily by office fires alone rather than office fires fed by diesel fuel is even more absurd, as is the notion that a single column failure led to a sequence of failures which mimics a traditional controlled demolition to a tee. However, whoever brought the building down obviously knew they could play our government and media into covering it up, and that most of the population are conditioned to believe whatever the government and media all agree on. It's a curious psychological phenomena which this video sums up well.
Click to expand...
More disingenuous truther crap. The builiding did not come down by "office fires" alone. There was major structural damage to WTC7 on it's south side caused by debris from the tower collapse. The NYFD people actually in WTC7 had already noted the structural deformation of WTC7 from that damage, and the fires, earlier in the day. Nor is it about single column failure alone. There were a number of events that preceeded the column failure. But the stupor-troofers ignore all that in their narrative because it citing those additional facts dilutes their misdirection and fails to draw the ignorant into their stupidity.
 
Edited in response to the inane nitpicking above:
kylebisme said:
Granted, that notion that the building came down primarily by office fires (office fires alone rather than office fires fed by diesel fuel) is even more absurd, as is the notion that a single column failure led to a sequence of failures which mimics a traditional controlled demolition to a tee. However, whoever brought the building down obviously knew they could play our government and media into covering it up, and that most of the population are conditioned to believe whatever the government and media all agree on. It's a curious psychological phenomena which this video sums up well.
Click to expand...

As for structural deformation earlier in the day, a City Housing Authority guy, Barry Jennings said there was a massive explosion in WTC 7 while the towers were still standing, and here is recording of a massive explosion from the direction of WTC 7 somewhat later that day. So, it's not surprising that WTC 7 had some structural deformation well before the final blasts.
 
I'm down with that, though we'll have to vote out the existing congresscritters and start electing real patriots to do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top