Audio of the explosives which brought down WTC 7

[First]

Time I don't have, as I've got a plane to catch, and I won't have regular internet access as I circle the globe over the next six weeks. Again, I recommend you look for some physical demonstration or even a physics simulation to support the notion of crush down before crush up, as failing to produce anything of the sort should clue you in on to how far from physically possible the official story is. I might drop in on occasion to see how that goes, but I won't be able to commit to detailed discussion again until I get back from my travels.

lmao. Wimp stays wimp.

 

[al981]

lmao. Wimp stays wimp.

of course, that's coming from an idiot that supports the official bungled investigation: 😀😀

oh, do dodge the explosions on audio linked in the OP as well 😀

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

And delusional-al continues to fail to respond to any and all claims about Elvis and 9/11, proof positive that he cannot refute them.

 

[First]

of course, that's coming from an idiot that supports the official bungled investigation: 😀😀

oh, do dodge the explosions on audio linked in the OP as well 😀

You laugh a lot for having absolutely nothing to say.

 

[kylebisme]

He's laughing at you 9/11 deniers being incapable of addressing the audio of the explosions, and the absurdity of the best attempt to demonstrate a building coming down anything like WTC 7 did absent explosives.

 

[hellotyler]

9/11 was the excuse people were waiting for to wage war in the middle east, nothing more, nothing less. I do not believe it was manufactured.

 

[kylebisme]

So, what do you believe the sequence of booms captured by the recordings just prior to the fall of WTC 7 were, and what do you believe prevented NIST from demonstrating such destruction of the structure absent explosives in their simulations?

 

[First]

^ You're still wimping out of the math and physics parts, though. Audio means nothing without concrete proof it could be considered demolition. No such evidence exists for that, of course. lol.

 

[alkemyst]

The main problem anyone is going to have is they didn't fully test for demolition nor a lot of things as it was considered 'not what lead to'.

If they discounted molten metal as just a 'whatever', there is tons of things that were simply stricken from their concerns.

 

[First]

^ That's because they're smart, educated, informed and mostly not inordinately slow, so naturally they concluded it couldn't have been demolition.

 

[kylebisme]

Rather, you 9/11 deniers can't come anywhere close to squaring NIST's fraudulent "conclusions" with the molten steel, audio recordings, and mounds of other evidence, and why NIST couldn't square the laws of physics with their simulations which they refuse to release anything more that short video clips of; it couldn't have been anything but demolition. Put simply; you falsers will never demonstration of physics or any other semblance of concrete evidence to even come close to proving your delusions of fire-induced collapses, so there is no point in discussing such matters with you.

 

[First]

^ The burden of proof is not on the shoulder's on those who aren't inordinately slow since it has been well explained by NIST and the vast, vast majority of non-nutter physicists and engineers. Meanwhile Truthers like yourself continue to fail to display any mathematical proof nor actual physical evidence of molten steel or audio recordings proving anything other than the existence of high temperatures on earth and loud noises in New York city. Congratulations, you can observe reality, unfortunately you just don't know how to interpret it!

Oh, and I particularly like this part of a post of yours in this thread before wimping out for "vacation":

Time I don't have, as I've got a plane to catch

Got any time left since your well over a dozen posts after that date? rofl.

 

[kylebisme]

I've got time now, but you've still going nothing more than handwaving to dismiss all the evidence, physical evidence of molten steel and otherwise, and your lack of any semblance of proof to support your belief that the buildings could have come down as they did absent the assistance of explosives.

 

[xj0hnx]

2) xjohnx repeatedly getting owned, including post #1432 where it is proven explosive detonations can indeed sound like deep thunder booms.

You are easily one of the stupidest internet loonies I have ever seen.

Rather, you 9/11 deniers can't come anywhere close to squaring NIST's fraudulent "conclusions" with the molten steel, audio recordings, and mounds of other evidence, and why NIST couldn't square the laws of physics with their simulations which they refuse to release anything more that short video clips of;

The NIST report squares with reality by an order of magnitude compared to the Truthers lunacy, and has been shown repeatedly, over, and over, and over, in this thread ad nauseum.

it couldn't have been anything but demolition. Put simply; you falsers will never demonstration of physics or any other semblance of concrete evidence to even come close to proving your delusions of fire-induced collapses, so there is no point in discussing such matters with you.

It could not have been demolitions, and you loonies have yet to produce a single piece of physical evidence that demolitions were used. Nothing but BS like "if you listen to this terrible muffled video that has to be processed, and disregard numerous factors, and the multitude of other things these processed sounds might be, than it's totally explosives dude!!!!".

 

[kylebisme]

The NIST report squares with reality by an order of magnitude compared to the Truthers lunacy, and has been shown repeatedly, over, and over, and over, in this thread ad nauseum.

Please quote whatever post you feel best supports your claim here, as I'd like to adress it directly.

 

[xj0hnx]

Rather, you 9/11 deniers can't come anywhere close to squaring NIST's fraudulent "conclusions" with the molten steel, audio recordings, and mounds of other evidence, and why NIST couldn't square the laws of physics with their simulations which they refuse to release anything more that short video clips of; it couldn't have been anything but demolition. Put simply; you falsers will never demonstration of physics or any other semblance of concrete evidence to even come close to proving your delusions of fire-induced collapses, so there is no point in discussing such matters with you.

Here's the type of brain power "Deniers" are up against ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys&feature=related

I like it because the absolute disregard for reality shown by this guy sums up the Truther brigade with perfection.

 

[xj0hnx]

Please quote whatever post you feel best supports your claim here, as I'd like to adress it directly.

Sorry ace, I'm not going to dig through 30 pages to rehash the same points that have already been point/counter-pointed a thousand times already, it's pointless. Truthers are not looking for the truth, they are desperately flailing trying to twist, and if it can't be twisted ignore, any, and all explanations in an effort to fit their preconceived ideas about what happened.

 

[kylebisme]

Sorry ace, I'm not going to dig through 30 pages...

Rather, you can't find anything in these 30 pages or anywhere else which comes anywhere close to supporting your claim that the NIST report squares with reality, which is why you have to resort to strawmanning with some random YouTube video instead.

 

[xj0hnx]

Rather, you can't find anything in these 30 pages or anywhere else which comes anywhere close to supporting your claim that the NIST report squares with reality, which is why you have to resort to strawmanning with some random YouTube video instead.

Thank you for personifying exactly what I am talking about. The fact is that there are MANY, MANY, MANY post in this thread that support the claims, but instead of going to look for them, you ignore then, and claim they aren't here. Sorry ace, everyone that has read this thread knows they are there.

Do you even know what "strawman" means? Or are you just throwing it out there because it might make you sound like you have a point? It doesn't, and that's not a strawman.

Why don't you start on page one, and start reading, when you get confused post a question.

 

[dmcowen674]

Here's the type of brain power "Deniers" are up against ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBuH8NNIBys&feature=related

I like it because the absolute disregard for reality shown by this guy sums up the Truther brigade with perfection.

There are so many things wrong with this genius I don't know what to start with.

Those tray are not even a fraction of any where near the design of those buildings.

I really feel sorry for this guy and all those that believe in the demolition conspiracy.

 

[kylebisme]

The fact is that there are MANY, MANY, MANY post in this thread that support the claims, but instead of going to look for them, you ignore then, and claim they aren't here.

I've looked and you've got squat, which again is why you can't quote what you claim is there.

Do you even know what "strawman" means?

Yes, the term refers to an argument presented for the sake of tearing it down, which is exactly what you did when posting that video to delfect from the impossibility of squaring the NIST report with reality.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

"9/11 deniers"

More knee-jerk truther idiocy.

We can't be called deniers because you don't have anything to deny. If you could manage to come up with a complete, cohesive, coherent hypothesis or theory concerning what you believe happened on 9/11 then maybe you could apply that tag. However, you can't even begin to do that - though you've been asked many times in here and run away from the question or make pathetic excuses as to why you can't - because you obviously don't have the first idea what that theory would comprise.

That's why truthers are so full of shit in the first place and until you can manage to come up with such a hypothesis or theory truthers will remain full of shit, and all your ramblings about 'sounds like' and 'looks like' will continue to amount to nothing more than vapid, delusional speculation.

Edit: Now that you're back, we're still waiting for you to provide that math that you ran away from like a scared little girl.

 

[First]

I've got time now, but you've still going nothing more than handwaving to dismiss all the evidence, physical evidence of molten steel and otherwise, and your lack of any semblance of proof to support your belief that the buildings could have come down as they did absent the assistance of explosives.

Plenty of demonstrations have been cited and linked here, your refusal to take them seriously is entirely irrelevant to reality. The unlikeness of absolutely zero evidence of demolition debris being found by either public nor private organizations/persons, the coming forward of absolutely no one, the easily provable mathematics behind a building falling at near free fall, etc. all quite easily outweigh laymen posturing by someone with no understanding of either physics or mathematics. Let alone architectural engineering.

Meanwhile, the best evidence you link to is molten metal from a NIST report with absolutely no explanation of what your assertion is other than you can cut and paste links? lol.

 

[xj0hnx]

I've looked and you've got squat, which again is why you can't quote what you claim is there.


Yes, the term refers to an argument presented for the sake of tearing it down, which is exactly what you did when posting that video to delfect from the impossibility of squaring the NIST report with reality.

This is why everyone here is laughing at you, and why you continue to be a joke. I know you don't want to look and find it yourself, they destroy your fabricated Truther delusions.

And no, that's not why I posted the link, so much fail in such a small package.

 

[nick1985]

Gotta hand it to the OP. Almost 1500 posts in this thread and he is still trucking full steam ahead. Doesn't get tired, he's like the Energizer bunny.