Audio of the explosives which brought down WTC 7

[Sclamoz]

Edited in response to the inane nitpicking above:


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.

If you're really interested in the truth why are you wasting time posting these threads in this forum? Why not write a letter to representatives and email all these questions about thermite and explosions to the scientists and professors who actually did the investigations?

 

[kylebisme]

Because they don't want to listen to it any more than most people here do, as evidenced by the fact that people with far better credentials continue to be blown off by them. See the quote in my signature for the simple explanation, and this interview with him for more detail, with the caution that unlike Roberts, the interviewer plays loose with the facts.

 

[First]

^ lmao @ wimpouts.

 

[Sclamoz]

Because they don't want to listen to it any more than most people here do, as evidenced by the fact that people with far better credentials continue to be blown off by them. See the quote in my signature for the simple explanation, and this interview with him for more detail, with the caution that unlike Roberts, the interviewer plays loose with the facts.

Here's a correspondence between one of the 5 main contributors to the NIST report and a kook.

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=2038

The professor's email is jonathan.barnett@gmail.com

Have a nice day.

 

[kylebisme]

Heh, Barnett's explanation that "crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization" is sheer kookery, which someone recently took the time to demonstrate.

 

[Sclamoz]

Heh, Barnett's explanation that "crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization" is sheer kookery, which someone recently took the time to demonstrate.

Instead of posting it here why not fucking ask him about it? Or another one? LoL. Anything to keep your delusions secure.

After watching that video LOL.

 

[kylebisme]

The notion that "crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization" is LOL, which is why neither Barnett nor anyone else can provide any semblence of experemental conformation to support it.

Well, we did talk to eye witnesses. In our opinion the "explosions" were local events, not demolitions but rather the sound of structural failures.

Sure, while explosives are generally what is used to cause the structural failures needed to bring a building down, these "structural failures" weren't caused by explosives, they just sounded like explosives when they were popping apart by... magic?

Seriously man, he's just as much in denial as anyone, if not more so. Besides, if he weren't, he'd listen to the many architects and engineers saying what I do but in more detail before he'd listen to me.

 

[Sclamoz]

The notion that "crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization" is LOL, which is why neither Barnett nor anyone else can provide any semblence of experemental conformation to support it.


Sure, while explosives are generally what is used to cause the structural failures needed to bring a building down, these "structural failures" weren't caused by explosives, they just sounded like explosives when they were popping apart by... magic?

Seriously man, he's just as much in denial as anyone, if not more so. Besides, if he weren't, he'd listen to the many architects and engineers saying what I do but in more detail before he'd listen to me.

So ask another professor who investigated it I don't give a shit. Don't you get it? You're digging up all these crazy ideas and then you bring them here, like the people on ATPN are going to be able to prove/disprove them and you refuse to actually speak with an expert. You're a wackjob.

 

[coreyb]

You may want to seek therapy for your paranoia.

 

[coreyb]

are you a current/former drug user?

 

[kylebisme]

You're digging up all these crazy ideas and then you bring them here...

You're the one who dug up the crackpot "crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulfurization" and nonsense about structural failures which sound like explosions and have the effect of what explosives are generally used for yet supposedly aren't the result of explosives.

....and you refuse to actually speak with an expert.

I'm happy to speak to anyone who wants to talk with me about it, experts or otherwise.

are you a current/former drug user?

I'd done my share of partying in my younger days, but surely less than Bush.

 

[Sclamoz]

You are the one who dug up the crackpot "crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulfurization" and nonsense about structural failures which sound like explosions and have the effect of explosives but supposably aren't.

No, I didn't. See you can't even remember what you said a few posts ago and you're trying to disprove a the official 9/11 theory? I didn't post the conversation with Dr. Jonathan Barnett to explain anything about sulfurization, you claimed the scientists would just blow you off, hence I found 1 of many discussions they've had with crazies just like you and gave you his email address. But you can't even follow that because your brain is all over the place.

 

[kylebisme]

...you claimed the scientists would just blow you off...

And Barnett was blowing the guy off with crazy talk of "crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulfurization", nonsense about structural failures which sound like explosions and have the effect of explosives but supposedly aren't, and all sorts of other crackpottery. Again, he's just as much in denial as anyone, if not more so.

 

[Sclamoz]

And Barnett was blowing the guy off with crazy talk of "crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulfurization", nonsense about structural failures which sound like explosions and have the effect of explosives but supposedly aren't, and all sorts of other crackpottery. Again, he's just as much in denial as anyone, if not more so.

Well how about you contact an expert like Dr. Barnett with your proof instead of wasting time here?

And in regards to http://www.ae911truth.org/ would you care to find out how many of those architects and engineers have written papers in peer reviewed journals?

 

[ModestGamer]

fighter in domestic air space may not operate at super sonic speed at that low of a altitude without prior engagement authorization. Plus with the loiter times you simply would not want to burn that much fuel.

Its a nonsense argument and easily debunked by anyone who works flight line in the airforce or navy.

It was a sonic boom from one of the fighter jets that was patrolling the sky that day.

That's what it was. Prove me wrong.

 

[coreyb]

You're the one who dug up the crackpot "crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulfurization" and nonsense about structural failures which sound like explosions and have the effect of what explosives are generally used for yet supposedly aren't the result of explosives.


I'm happy to speak to anyone who wants to talk with me about it, experts or otherwise.


I'd done my share of partying in my younger days, but surely less than Bush.

cocaine and/or speed? I've noticed that a lot of former users seem to have a long lasting paranoia problem.

 

[kylebisme]

Well how about you contact an expert like Dr. Barnett with your proof instead of wasting time here?

I figure this is less of a waste of time than contacting Barnett. Upton Sinclair summed up my reasoning well when he said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." Did you listen to the Paul Craig Roberts interview I linked above? He goes into more detail.

And in regards to http://www.ae911truth.org/ would you care to find out how many of those architects and engineers have written papers in peer reviewed journals?

Are you asking about papers on the subject of 9/11? That relates back to the above quote, as the woman who ran the peer-reviewed journal which published the nano-thermite paper was ran out of her job for doing so, and of course many others have met simlar fates for exposing the cover-up. On the other hand, this crap gets published and defended as if it were gospel, even though the first diargram is enough to expose it as nonsense to anyone who paid attention in middle school physical science class:

Sure Bazant breaks out a bunch of integrals and such to make his argument look impressive, but all it takes is a remedial understanding of Newtonian physics and a clear head to know nobody could ever rightly hope to produce any semblance of experimental confirmation to support such crackpottery. Unfortunately, it seems most of our population lacks at least one of the two, and ingore if not lash out at the rest of us who do have both.

cocaine and/or speed? I've noticed that a lot of former users seem to have a long lasting paranoia problem.

Dude, if I were paranoid I wouldn't be willing to discuss the cover-up on a public forum. That said, Bush apparently did a lot of cocaine back in the day, which I suppose goes far in explaining why he was so paranoid about non-existent WMDs and everything else.

 

[LunarRay]

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 bit first. WTC7 did sustain damage to (mainly) a corner. That no doubt weakened that corner and if it was substantial enough would cause the building to collapse in that direction. NIST indicated and I'd agree that that damage did not materially affect the building structurally nor the manner in which it collapsed. NIST informs us that fires alone caused the collapse of the building by causing the beam from column 44 (I think) to column 79 to 'walk' off etc. At one time NIST said the connections were bolted and at another time that they were not... I'm not sure today the reality of the connections nor have I seen the actual working drawings of that building... the drawings where changes are made to the original drawings to reflect the actual construction. It is normal to design a building and create drawings of that design only to have the actual construction change but with approval... the working drawing changes are then updated on the 'master' and that is then stamped etc... and archived.

RE: WTC 1,2.

For quite some time the structure held up the floors above even when a rather large bomb exploded in the garage of one of them. Pretty sturdy buildings they were..
Now then. Confining my comments to the WTC building that had the 15 floors above the impact zone I'll give you my take on how the physics of this issue played out.
Working from recall I think the gravitational energy available of the 15 floors was 2gjoules. I think my grandson worked that out pretty close to actual expected. The 15 floors are not a solid bit of titanium but, rather reinforced (#5 bar) and mesh cement flooring, steel beams and columns, office stuff and etc. The distance between the floor above and the structure below is the maximum distance the 15 floor 'block' could fall before impact. We can see all the stuff expelled from the structure as it begins its decent. That stuff flying out takes energy to accomplish and deducts from the total available. So it goes smash into the floor below and and equal and opposite force is exerted on the upper bit... so that what was destroyed below rendered the same destruction to the floor above. Key, however, to this meeting of the floors are two factors... one is that acceleration ought to have been slowed quite some bit. The other is that the core did exist and consider that it did hold the bit above for quite a time and should not have simply disappeared into 32' bits. The structure as one would expect was more massive the further down one went until the lower 1/3 was comprised of columns capable of holding up the entire structure above which now is not there. Only bits and pieces of stuff continued down through that path of greatest resistance as indicated in the footprint stuff pile. Of 110 stories of building only a pile of about 3 stories found themselves at the base and with in the foot print. All the rest of that building found themselves all over Manhattan or embedded in other structures.. so what energy source enabled the complete collapse? Worst possible case scenario indicates to me that the event had to stop above the 78th floor... there simply did not exist enough energy to crush anything into micro sized particulates and nice neat 32' sections of structural steel.
IF as you say they pancaked down... where are the pancakes? They are not in the footprint at the base. AND if they pancaked down why did they not leave the central core columns simply standing as they had since the building was finished? What crushed them down... not fire cuz there was none below and not the core columns above because if they did weaken due to what ever feature may have weakened them and if they were connected all the way down they'd opt to bend over rather than try to proceed through their once mated core below.
Even if all this did happen due to gravitational energy alone each meeting of each floor would dis enable acceleration to occur as a constant. The event should not have only taken 15 seconds (if it did take that long) It should have taken at least 70 seconds...
Look at that video... all that stuff falling to the side of the structure does not provide energy to the stuff falling through the path of greatest resistance... it diminishes energy by virtue of being tossed out. It is a sink... and energy sink.

Anyhow, the above in condensed form is the basic issue I have with the collapse of the towers... that and the molten stuff in the basements and the fire fighter's comments about 'explosions'... maybe there were and maybe there were not... but if not then I can't see that building collapsing as it did.

 

[kylebisme]

Even if all this did happen due to gravitational energy alone each meeting of each floor would dis enable acceleration to occur as a constant.

The thing is, weakening by fire doesn't allow the top section to build any acceleration with anyway, you can only rightly get slow sagging from that, at least not without a massive inferno. This gets back to another absurdity in that email exchange with Barnett, as he argues:

Remember, its not the weight, but the momentum. The dynamic load is much greater than the static load which is why the building collapsed the way it did.

Yet the momentum accumulated by sagging is minuscule, and the towers were designed to to support multiple times their typical load. Besides, even if the small top part had been picked up way above and dropped on the much larger bottom section, the top would've shredded itself into the bottom well before getting anywhere close to the ground. That's a simple matter of Newton's third law.

By the way, since I know you have doubts about the damage to the Pentagon, I recommend this video I recently stumbled across, as it does well to exemplify why I consider the damage consistent with a 757 impact.

 

[LunarRay]

By the way, since I know you have doubts about the damage to the Pentagon, I recommend this video I recently stumbled across, as it does well to exemplify why I consider the damage consistent with a 757 impact.

There are quite a few issues that remain unresolved for me regarding the Pentagon. Some of them are as follows and not in any specific order:

A FoIA provided Flight Data recording that when decoded it indicated a variety of issues that placed the Aircraft to the left and higher than that of the Official Story trajectory. This position agreed with many eye witness reports that placed the aircraft as depicted in the FDR. Some, like the officers, could not have seen the aircraft had it been flying where it is said to be flying. Other radar also indicated the aircraft to be higher than the light poles.

There are over 1000 photos of the place subsequent to the 'attack'. None show a seat or the titanium engines. They do show some stuff but none that can be inclusive to the 757 positively.

I don't think the entry hole before the roof collapse is large enough nor do I see damage to where the wings ought to have hit the building (and the engines).

There is a strange exit hole three rings in with nothing shown in various photos to indicate what might have made that hole. And there are photos of the columns bent outward instead of inward as one would expect to see... Plus photos of the adjacent area within the rings that show no fire damage at all but yet a fire is said to have incinerated the bits and pieces.

Given there were people on board that 757 surely some bit of body part can be found. The fire was not all that hot so as to incinerate bodies... that takes a lot hotter fire... 3500f as I recall. Or as Dr. Baden suggested. I am not sure today if they ever did find passenger body parts or not.. but at last look they did not say they did.

To fly an aircraft at 20' for a kilometer at 540 mph is beyond the structural capability of that aircraft if one is to accept Pilot comments who fly that aircraft (as my neighbor does). I don't know about the turn it made but have been told it is not an easy thing to do... an expert maybe could do it ok.. but not a cave man.

Phone calls the FBI in the 20th high jacker case said were not made.. or that B. Olsen made one call for 0 seconds and Teddy said she called twice and the craft did not have seat back phones...

I can't accept that of the myriad of camera all around all we can see is the bits we can't see anything on that is clear... as in the video you linked to me.

Why did the Commission not inquire from the person Sec. Meneta said was advising the VP about how far the aircraft was etc... What were the orders...

There are other things that bug me about that event... can't recall them now but they are part of the totality of the 9/11 tragedy. I'd like to hope that 19 cave men did as reported by the Officials... I can't imagine missing passenger folks not showing up by now... so, yes, that probably was as they say... but it don't make sense yet... not to me.. IF there is evidence secreted away I'd really like them to release it so I can be among the many who accept without question the government's position. Otherwise I'm left with lingering doubts... not enough to convict.. but enough to investigate...

 

[PeshakJang]

fighter in domestic air space may not operate at super sonic speed at that low of a altitude without prior engagement authorization. Plus with the loiter times you simply would not want to burn that much fuel.

Its a nonsense argument and easily debunked by anyone who works flight line in the airforce or navy.

That was a day of firsts. They were patrolling the sky when they heard about another possible threat aircraft, so they took off.

I want mathematical proof that I couldn't possibly be right, otherwise I am.

Kyle, I am waiting for your answer, otherwise your argument is defeated.

 

[kylebisme]

This position agreed with many eye witness reports that placed the aircraft as depicted in the FDR. Some, like the officers, could not have seen the aircraft had it been flying where it is said to be flying.

I'm guessing you're talking about the 13 witnesses gathered by the two guys that call themselves Citizens Investigation Team, eh? They behave extremely shadily in making their argument, rather reminiscent of the Warren Commission in picking a small fraction of the witnesses to support their conclusion and claiming it as gospel. Considering such behavior, they're either attention whores or disinformation agents, but not to be taken at their words either way. Also, they put the flight path even a bit more North than the FDR.

I don't think the entry hole before the roof collapse is large enough nor do I see damage to where the wings ought to have hit the building (and the engines).

The video didn't doesn't do the photo comparison as well as they should have, so I whipped this up for you:

Also, another video of a different sim which goes into more detail on the building damage.

I am not sure today if they ever did find passenger body parts or not.. but at last look they did not say they did.

It seems they were able to identify almost everyone. You can find some gruesome pics here if you care to look. Also, an interview with an Army Ranger who was a part of the search for human remains, which he assures there were plenty of, but mentions some oddities at the scene as well.

To fly an aircraft at 20' for a kilometer at 540 mph is beyond the structural capability of that aircraft...

It's certainly pushing it based on Boeing's saftey specs, but I've seen no proof that it's impossible.

Anyway, I skipped over some stuff which is addressed here, and other stuff which I agree with you on. There's plenty fishy about the Pentagon attack, just the fact that they were picking up plane parts off the lawn right away rather than treating it like the crime scene it was is a huge red flag. That said, I still figure it most likely that AA 77 slammed into the building.

 

[PeshakJang]

Also, I finally got around to viewing the second "evidence" video... what a load of shit. There is literally *nothing* in that video to even suggest anything related to your claim. There are a few loops of nonsense, and then some idiot like you off the street, and some ridiculous graphics offered as proof.

You know what it proves? That you're bat shit insane.

 

[PeshakJang]

Answer me Kyle. the booms were caused by jet aircraft in the sky that day.

Mathematical proof that I am wrong, now.

 

[Oceanas]

AND if they pancaked down why did they not leave the central core columns simply standing as they had since the building was finished? What crushed them down

You mean standing like this?

Even if all this did happen due to gravitational energy alone each meeting of each floor would dis enable acceleration to occur as a constant. The event should not have only taken 15 seconds (if it did take that long) It should have taken at least 70 seconds...
Look at that video... all that stuff falling to the side of the structure does not provide energy to the stuff falling through the path of greatest resistance... it diminishes energy by virtue of being tossed out. It is a sink... and energy sink.

Total collapse, including the remaining core "spire" was over 30 seconds. The resistive force of the first floor to come into contact with the accelerating "upper block" will be negligible as it's many many times overloaded once this occurs. It does cause a momentary, barely noticeable slowing in the acceleration of the "upper block." Note that this does not mean at all that the upper block is slowing down, it is simply accelerating slightly slower for a moment, but accelerating it still is. The remaining mass of the first impacted floor is added to the mass of the upper block, which then impacts the floor below, rinse repeat. As the momentum of the upper block increases, each floor is able to provide an even smaller amount of the already negligible resistance the first impacted floor was able to, and is simply overwhelmed by the momentum of the upper block. The energy sinks due to ejection and the like are negligible.