Audio of the explosives which brought down WTC 7

[TastesLikeChicken]

Back to expose more of your ignorance and willfull dishonesty?

OK, serve yourself.

“The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures of the steel beam approached 1,000 C, which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel”

And? It's a statement of fact? Steel doesn't melt at 1,000 C.

“Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 C results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.”

Liquefied != melting. It was a corrosive process that caused the steel to liquefy because, as was already noted, steel DOES NOT MELT at 1,000 C. Try to drill that into your thick head, moron.
“….

It is much more difficult to tell if MELTING (damn, there’s that pesky word that FEMA used again!) has occurred… as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC7.”

Ooh, I love this bastardized quote from you. It's yet another prime example of how truthers attempt to dupe people by ommitting relevant information, an ommission that makes you willfully dishonest.

Here is the entire quote:

"It's much more difficult to tell if melting has occured in the grain boundry regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7."

Why did you feel inclined to leave out the part about the grain boundry regions, liar?

This is what I've already been telling you. The melting occurred in the GRAIN BOUNDRY REGIONS due to a corrosive attack. Additonally, this "melting" was only observed in the near surface microstructure. But you don't actually know what that actually means so in your tiny little pea-brain it automatically translates to "OMG! The steel melted!!?*!!??"

It did not, but you're too ignorant to understand why because you keep coming back and repeating the same BS over and over again, bs that I've already shot down in flames.

Now go away jackass because the only thing you've proven that you know fuck-all about scientific principles, chemistry, and metallurgy; and you've shown that you're a dishonest putz to boot.

 

[alkemyst]

Either you are too stupid to understand what was said, or are just trolling, which is it? Come on choose one, either you lack the mental facilities to comprehend what they said, or are just being purposefully deceitful.



The "lulz are you thinking that a camera shaking in a building blocks away has anything to do with nonexistent explosives.

naw I am sure we all know someone was shaking the dude to just make it look like that.


lolz

 

[LunarRay]

If the bullet was lodged in his leg it wouldn't be spinning when it fell out onto the table, and would have been covered in blood.

Right! I couldn't find a context and felt you must have ment something else or were referring to something that escaped me.
Both Connolly and a nurse said a bullet (fragment?) fell on the ER floor 'it tinkled like a ring when it hit the floor' and she gave it to the 'authorities'...
I never could figure that bullet thing out. But can see the single bullet hitting both Kennedy and Connolly. Angles are perfect from DalTex building at the video depiction of the hits.
The 'pristine' bullet is an anomaly I'll never be able to factor into the equation... But, it is there and real and is just like some things in this WTC7 and Towers and Pentagon and Pennsylvania events...
And, it is why I bring it up... Some things we see or read can make sense if we can only put them in the context they really belong in... It is the finding of that context that this thread goes in circles with... each theory has a context that conflicts with each other when 'each other' assumes to be fact what supports a greater conclusion.

Like the pristine bullet the comment by that Ph.D. engineer in the video..."I've not heard or read of any molten metal" seems so wrong because that is what some of us accept to be factual but is it. I wonder if just like the word 'explosions' the word 'molten' used by many might mean ... something else?

 

[xj0hnx]

naw I am sure we all know someone was shaking the dude to just make it look like that.


lolz

The camera looks like it's on a tripod, dismissing the fact that someone may have touched it while walking by, and that it shaking is because of explosives is just mind-numbingly stupid. Here's a little hint for you morons, if the "explosions" had such force that they could shake a camera that was blocks away, inside another building, there wouldn't even be a question that there were explosives used, the pressure event alone, not to mention the report an explosion that size would have had, would have been seen, and felt by everyone, but yet there's no video of any explosions before the building collapses. The imaginary world you Truthers live in is amazing.

 

[LunarRay]

The camera looks like it's on a tripod, dismissing the fact that someone may have touched it while walking by, and that it shaking is because of explosives is just mind-numbingly stupid. Here's a little hint for you morons, if the "explosions" had such force that they could shake a camera that was blocks away, inside another building, there wouldn't even be a question that there were explosives used, the pressure event alone, not to mention the report an explosion that size would have had, would have been seen, and felt by everyone, but yet there's no video of any explosions before the building collapses. The imaginary world you Truthers live in is amazing.

🙂
Try this one... A camera shakes but reasonable minds look to see if ANYTHING else reflects that same event? I can see nothing else that appears to exhibit an explosive pressure event. IF I see that camera jiggle do I have some means to measure the time it might take for the wave to reach the camera... the video might depict the event near speed of light while the wave travels a lot slower... IS the timing there... can it be measured... if you can that corroborates or denies with equal veracity. IF you can't then we are left with an isolated anomaly that is best put into the box of 'interesting events in need of some supporting evidence'. Me thinks.

Not to mention that there are many camera and microphones and do they too jiggle at the same instant adjusted by their relative distance variable? I'm not aware of them... Can we tie all the devices together to form a decent argument that it had to be a giant explosion?

EDIT: It also seems to me that wave's energy diminish over distance... So.. to jiggle the camera what might the 'blast' had to have in the way of initial energy... surely that can be measured to approximate the amount of jiggle...

 

[al981]

Back to expose more of your ignorance and willfull dishonesty?

OK, serve yourself.

And? It's a statement of fact? Steel doesn't melt at 1,000 C.

No kidding it's a fact normal steel doesn't melt at 1,000C, yet FEMA mentioned it because the steel still melted, and classified it as such, stating "substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel." They also clearly stated "eutectic" over and over and over again because guess what? eutectic = lower melting point.

basic reading comprehension, kid. how does that crow taste? the steel melted, LyingChicken continues to lie.

Liquefied != melting. It was a corrosive process that caused the steel to liquefy because, as was already noted, steel DOES NOT MELT at 1,000 C. Try to drill that into your thick head, moron.

As was clearly stated above, eutectic = lower melting point, and FEMA has consistently classified the steel as melted. Something lowered the melting point of the steel and made it melt. Get THAT through your thick head, moron. That "something" has still not been addressed by NIST or you. Go ahead and figure out what exactly melted "swiss cheese" like holes through that steel, liar.

Ooh, I love this bastardized quote from you. It's yet another prime example of how truthers attempt to dupe people by ommitting relevant information, an ommission that makes you willfully dishonest.

Here is the entire quote:


"It's much more difficult to tell if melting has occured in the grain boundry regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel from WTC 7."

Why did you feel inclined to leave out the part about the grain boundry regions, liar?

This is what I've already been telling you. The melting occurred in the GRAIN BOUNDRY REGIONS due to a corrosive attack. Additonally, this "melting" was only observed in the near surface microstructure. But you don't actually know what that actually means so in your tiny little pea-brain it automatically translates to "OMG! The steel melted!!?*!!??"

It did not, but you're too ignorant to understand why because you keep coming back and repeating the same BS over and over again, bs that I've already shot down in flames.

Now go away jackass because the only thing you've proven that you know fuck-all about scientific principles, chemistry, and metallurgy; and you've shown that you're a dishonest putz to boot.

Ah, this coming from the moronic liar who couldn't figure out what "eutectic" meant (possibly playing dumb like beujingle?) or why FEMA stated "substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel." :awe:

the grain boundaries melted? gigantic holes right through the steel came about as a result? FEMA classified the steel as having been melted as a result of mysterious and unknown sources of corrosion, and sulfur lowering its melting point? woopty doo. it's a fact the steel melted, no matter how hard you try to spin it. if you don't like that simple fact, then again, go write your letters to FEMA and tell them to change their wording and classification of the steel being melted (or did FEMA use the wrong words? LoL!) , you dirty little liar.

also, ladies and gents, please note that once again, LyingChicken has still completely avoided Sunder's direct contradiction to his failed national geographic experiment (going on how many weeks?), and has also completely dodged romero's response in post# 1315 (because romero saying the "terrorists" planted bombs somehow works against the case for controlled demolition??? LoL at LyingChicken's pathetic failed logic. damn that's hilarious! no wonder he continues to dodge dodge dodge).

 

[al981]

AL981, I keep seeing your signature and keep wondering how fast the bullet was spinning when it was logged in the Governor's leg before it fell out onto the wrong table?

obviously, it was spinning "too fast" <-- cogman LOL

 

[al981]

If the bullet was lodged in his leg it wouldn't be spinning when it fell out onto the table, and would have been covered in blood.

ah, so you're saying cogman is full of shit... got it.

you're also saying the official story is full of shit, since nobody has ever stepped forward seeing the bullet removed or exiting the governor's leg... or any blood on the bullet for that matter :awe:

 

[Cogman]

ah, so you're saying cogman is full of shit... got it.

you're also saying the official story is full of shit, since nobody has ever stepped forward seeing the bullet removed or exiting the governor's leg... or any blood on the bullet for that matter :awe:

Yep, You are right, that was stupid of me to say. I didn't know all the facts in the JFK assassination (IE where the bullet was recovered from). How dare I don't do any research into JFK in a 9/11 thread... Yep, I can see how a 47 year old conspiracy is so closely connect to 9/11.

 

[al981]

🙂
Try this one... A camera shakes but reasonable minds look to see if ANYTHING else reflects that same event? I can see nothing else that appears to exhibit an explosive pressure event. IF I see that camera jiggle do I have some means to measure the time it might take for the wave to reach the camera... the video might depict the event near speed of light while the wave travels a lot slower... IS the timing there... can it be measured... if you can that corroborates or denies with equal veracity. IF you can't then we are left with an isolated anomaly that is best put into the box of 'interesting events in need of some supporting evidence'. Me thinks.

Not to mention that there are many camera and microphones and do they too jiggle at the same instant adjusted by their relative distance variable? I'm not aware of them... Can we tie all the devices together to form a decent argument that it had to be a giant explosion?

EDIT: It also seems to me that wave's energy diminish over distance... So.. to jiggle the camera what might the 'blast' had to have in the way of initial energy... surely that can be measured to approximate the amount of jiggle...

kyle linked several videos with audio in the original post that did pick up pre collapse explosions for wtc7... and that audio is corroborated by numerous eyewitnesses near wtc7.

as for corroboration for sauret, this user combined seagle's audio across the river (accounting for distance) with sauret's footage, and the booms / pressure waves on audio match up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E-tieJFVGY

of course, there are all the other eywitnesses on the ground who reported explosions and rumblings on the ground shortly before the towers came down, along with red and orange flashes of light on the lower levels 😉

 

[al981]

The camera looks like it's on a tripod, dismissing the fact that someone may have touched it while walking by, and that it shaking is because of explosives is just mind-numbingly stupid. Here's a little hint for you morons, if the "explosions" had such force that they could shake a camera that was blocks away, inside another building, there wouldn't even be a question that there were explosives used, the pressure event alone, not to mention the report an explosion that size would have had, would have been seen, and felt by everyone, but yet there's no video of any explosions before the building collapses. The imaginary world you Truthers live in is amazing.

you mean how there's no video of street level explosions in the 1993 wtc truck bombing, so it couldn't have happened? LuLz.

 

[xj0hnx]

you mean how there's no video of street level explosions in the 1993 wtc truck bombing, so it couldn't have happened? LuLz.

Dumbshit, there's HUNDREDS of videos of 9/11. Back in your hole troll.

 

[Cogman]

kyle linked several videos with audio in the original post that did pick up pre collapse explosions for wtc7... and that audio is corroborated by numerous eyewitnesses near wtc7.

as for corroboration for sauret, this user combined seagle's audio across the river (accounting for distance) with sauret's footage, and the booms / pressure waves on audio match up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E-tieJFVGY

of course, there are all the other eywitnesses on the ground who reported explosions and rumblings on the ground shortly before the towers came down, along with red and orange flashes of light on the lower levels 😉

*sigh*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ng5qwtR59A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF55_-OAX5A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkiwNxfB4GM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6449270076349123045#

Notice anything? Yours sounds like the wind in a mic.. This is what ACTUAL Demolitions look and sound like. in EVERY one it isn't this week "Humm, sounded almost like a rumble" crap, they were explosions.

You should notice as well that the sound of the building falling was MUCH quieter then the actual explosion. That should say something to you as in all your videos the sound of the building falling is as loud, if not louder then the sound you are attributing as an "explosion".

 

[al981]

Dumbshit, there's HUNDREDS of videos of 9/11. Back in your hole troll.

and if "a few well placed explosives" (romero quote) were placed near the core columns, obscured by the inner walls, no cameras would've picked them up. also, flashes of red and orange lights were seen by observors closer at the lower levels.

but grats for failing to think about any of that:

Originally Posted by xj0hnx
And? I'm close minded,

Originally Posted by xj0hnx
I never claimed to be open minded

Originally Posted by xj0hnx
The camera shakes because ...someone touches it. BWAHAHAHAHAHA the camera shaking BEFORE collapse?

 

[al981]

*sigh*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ng5qwtR59A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF55_-OAX5A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkiwNxfB4GM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6449270076349123045#

Notice anything? Yours sounds like the wind in a mic.. This is what ACTUAL Demolitions look and sound like. in EVERY one it isn't this week "Humm, sounded almost like a rumble" crap, they were explosions.

ah, must've been wind that caused those rumblings felt by eywitnesses at the ground levels, and wind that caused chandeliers to shake and buildings to shake before the towers fell, as reported by witnesses such as anne thompson, right?

or winds that knocked barry jennings "back into the 8th floor" while he was in wtc7 amiright?

cogman, your argument is terrible, much like your jfk quote in my sig. even xjohnx, the dumbest moron alive on the planet, called you out for being full of a shit a few posts above LOL.

 

[Cogman]

ah, must've been wind that caused those rumblings felt by eywitnesses at the ground levels, and wind that caused chandeliers to shake and buildings to shake, as reported by witnesses such as anne thompson, right?

or winds that knocked barry jennings "back into the 8th floor" while he was in wtc7 amiright?

cogman, your argument is terrible, much like your jfk quote in my sig. even xjohnx, the dumbest moron alive on the planet, called you out for being full of a shit a few posts above LOL.

Got any seismic reports to back up your dumbass claim? Heck, how come not a SINGLE video captures anything more then a low rumble at best?

Your argument is the one that is pathetic, Because I said something stupid about JFK in a 9/11 thread, that MUST mean that I'm absolutely wrong about 9/11.... Yeah, can't see a flaw in that one.

 

[LunarRay]

kyle linked several videos with audio in the original post that did pick up pre collapse explosions for wtc7... and that audio is corroborated by numerous eyewitnesses near wtc7.

as for corroboration for sauret, this user combined seagle's audio across the river (accounting for distance) with sauret's footage, and the booms / pressure waves on audio match up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E-tieJFVGY

of course, there are all the other eywitnesses on the ground who reported explosions and rumblings on the ground shortly before the towers came down, along with red and orange flashes of light on the lower levels 😉

Well, if that is accurate, that is, the measuring and triangulation and all that then something occurred which is depicted in more than one location and whose timing is in sync with each other to a reasonable degree of accuracy.
It seems the focus ought now to be on that situation... What can deny the various independent sources of a similar event? One might argue that the same event happened... the touching of the camera... in a few locations but at the exact same time?... Unlikely! and that could eliminate that random touching from the analysis, it seems to me.
IF there are more than a few scientifically verifiable reports of a Pink Elephant dancing in the Battery Park at the instant a mouse gets crushed there and it has Pink footprints upon it I'm sorta prone to accept that there is a nexus between the two....

 

[Cogman]

ah, must've been wind that caused those rumblings felt by eywitnesses at the ground levels, and wind that caused chandeliers to shake and buildings to shake before the towers fell, as reported by witnesses such as anne thompson, right?

or winds that knocked barry jennings "back into the 8th floor" while he was in wtc7 amiright?

cogman, your argument is terrible, much like your jfk quote in my sig. even xjohnx, the dumbest moron alive on the planet, called you out for being full of a shit a few posts above LOL.

http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf

Here you go, I'll save you the trouble. Only 1 spike per WTC building falling.

For a tremor to be felt, that implies at LEAST a 2 on the Richter scale

 

[al981]

Got any seismic reports to back up your dumbass claim? Heck, how come not a SINGLE video captures anything more then a low rumble at best?

trust me, you really don't want to go the seismic argument route. read back a few pages and see how beajingles got destroyed with his seismic argument.

BJ admitting he was wrong weeks ago:

Okay, I was mistaken. You are correct. Onward!

here's a sum up of his latest contradiction, and he hasn't been back since:

Those people saw and heard things that sounded like explosions, they aren't lying about that.
They also are not correct in saying that they were explosions.
Why? Because there's no freaking evidence of it and there is a lot
of evidence for other things that may have sounded and felt like explosives going off, but were, in fact other events or other explosions.

response by al981 on 8/21/10, post #1312:
LOL! you continually deny the basic fact that explosions and rumblings occurred, claiming "no freaking evidence of it", yet somehow contradict yourself in the exact same sentence by saying the explosions were....wait for.... "in fact other explosions". ROFL! grats on self ownage, kid.

 

[Cogman]

trust me, you really don't want to go the seismic argument route. read back a few pages and see how beajingles got destroyed with his seismic argument.

BJ admitting he was wrong weeks ago:


here's a sum up of his latest contradiction, and he hasn't been back since:




response by al981 on 8/21/10, post #1312:
LOL! you continually deny the basic fact that explosions and rumblings occurred, claiming "no freaking evidence of it", yet somehow contradict yourself in the exact same sentence by saying the explosions were....wait for.... "in fact other explosions". ROFL! grats on self ownage, kid.

You're a dumbass. He conceded on ONE point (something you are apparently incapable of doing) dealing with the 1993 bombings and THE REST of his post was dedicated to talking about how dumb your claim was. Yet the only thing you are capable of doing is pulling out tiny snip its and making wild claims, from the very same post.

...Aha! I get it! Because nothing was read in the 1993 attacks, that means that anything could have happened at the base of the WTC and it would have never been detected. I got it. This conspiracy is getting more dastardly as we go on!

But wait! We're not talking about 1993, we're talking about 2001 and there just so happens to be a record of what happened on 9/11 and that record just so happens to have two spikes in it that occur exactly when plane #1 and plane #2 hit towers 1 and 2.

Now we have a mystery. Somehow these sensors detected two planes hitting a tower hundreds of feet in the air, but missed a whole lot of explosives (and I do mean a lot) going off at the base of the WTC. Now, I doubt either of us possess a degree in physics, but I'm going to guess that if someone who did (like Dr Pizza) came in, he'd support my assumption that the seismic reading for an explosion occurring at the base of the WTC would register just slightly higher on the energy-into-the-ground scale than two planes hitting the towers hundreds of feet in the air....

Hardly qualifies as you "owning" him.

 

[al981]

You're a dumbass. He conceded on ONE point (something you are apparently incapable of doing) dealing with the 1993 bombings and THE REST of his post was dedicated to talking about how dumb your claim was. Yet the only thing you are capable of doing is pulling out tiny snip its and making wild claims, from the very same post.

dumbass refers to you and your jfk quote in my sig, which xjohnx called you out on an hour ago. kek. the rest of BJ's post was dismantled by me, subsequently leading him to claim all eyewitnesses on the ground were either lying or mistaken. of course, there's also this gem of a quote: do admit BJ contradicts himself... this was his last argument trying to refute the corroborating testimonies that explosions occurred:

Those people saw and heard things that sounded like explosions, they aren't lying about that.
They also are not correct in saying that they were explosions.
Why? Because there's no freaking evidence of it and there is a lot
of evidence for other things that may have sounded and felt like explosives going off, but were, in fact other events or other explosions.

response by al981 on 8/21/10, post #1312:
LOL! you continually deny the basic fact that explosions and rumblings occurred, claiming "no freaking evidence of it", yet somehow contradict yourself in the exact same sentence by saying the explosions were....wait for.... "in fact other explosions". ROFL! grats on self ownage, kid.

Hardly qualifies as you "owning" him.

oh, he gets owned, you just need to read a few more posts after that. i'm not going to spend another hour reposting everything for you because you refused to take notes and do the reading.

 

[al981]

Well, if that is accurate, that is, the measuring and triangulation and all that then something occurred which is depicted in more than one location and whose timing is in sync with each other to a reasonable degree of accuracy.
It seems the focus ought now to be on that situation... What can deny the various independent sources of a similar event? One might argue that the same event happened... the touching of the camera... in a few locations but at the exact same time?... Unlikely! and that could eliminate that random touching from the analysis, it seems to me.
IF there are more than a few scientifically verifiable reports of a Pink Elephant dancing in the Battery Park at the instant a mouse gets crushed there and it has Pink footprints upon it I'm sorta prone to accept that there is a nexus between the two....

we could take the easy way out and ..blame the wind! .. wind that caused buildings and chandeliers to shake! or something...

 

[alkemyst]

Both Connolly and a nurse said a bullet (fragment?) fell on the ER floor 'it tinkled like a ring when it hit the floor' and she gave it to the 'authorities'...

I'd be curious how a bullet, even a fragment sounded like a ring hitting the floor.

 

[al981]

I'd be curious how a bullet, even a fragment sounded like a ring hitting the floor.

i'm curious which part of the magic bullet that fragment came from...maybe someone could circle the areas on the magic bullet that is missing any sort of fragment large enough to make a ringing sound?

heh heh ....

 

[LunarRay]

we could take the easy way out and ..blame the wind! .. wind that caused buildings and chandeliers to shake! or something...

I looked at the wind factor... calm! in fact even up to 1500' it was quite calm... No gusty conditions which could have jostled the camera(s). Something applied pressure to the camera(s) and that is the question... What did that?