• 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 60 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
nick1985 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's not hard to do when you ignore everything people post that refutes your fairy tales.
 
It's impossible for you to quote what you are accusing me of ignoring, because it doesn't exist outside your imagination.
 
From reading this thread I have come to the conclusion that really only the 'truthers' are providing anything of merit or substance. Instead of providing counter arguments the 'non-truthers'? are saying look it up or just regurgitating NIST dogma.

Doing more and more reading there are indeed a pretty large group of scientists willing to put their credibility (and sometimes jobs) on the line against what a uttery craptastic job NIST/et al did on investigating this mess. Just the items they wrote off as inconsequential is ludricrous.

In the end it's pretty much impossible to prove anything now. All the data is a clusterfuck of improper gathering.
 
alkemyst said:
From reading this thread I have come to the conclusion that really only the 'truthers' are providing anything of merit or substance. Instead of providing counter arguments the 'non-truthers'? are saying look it up or just regurgitating NIST dogma.

Doing more and more reading there are indeed a pretty large group of scientists willing to put their credibility (and sometimes jobs) on the line against what a uttery craptastic job NIST/et al did on investigating this mess. Just the items they wrote off as inconsequential is ludricrous.

In the end it's pretty much impossible to prove anything now. All the data is a clusterfuck of improper gathering.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. What "substance" has any truther brought to this thread that hasn't been thoroughly beaten down as a lack of physics knowledge on their part, a lack of scientific comprehension on their part, a lack of math knowledge on their part, or just pure crap claims that consist of nothing more than looks like or sounds like? Please name one bit of "substance" that the truthers have brought forth in this thread?

Also, please point out this "large group" of scientists who are putting their credibility on the line. Who are they?
 
Regardless of which side of this issue you find yourself on there IS evidence that goes against the "Official Theory". One cannot dismiss that evidence out of hand or by some logic since it is not that cut and dried.
My point is, however, to do with how to view the evidence in general... the whole lot of it.
Explosives in the buildings to bring them down seems nice but what would be the motive? Would it be enough to simply say that Government knew the attacks were to occur and did nothing... Is that not enough of an indictment to jail the lot of them if true?
I think if we look to the simple bits we can argue that there is lots of evidence to support a pre-knowledge of the events.. or at least enough evidence to support a theory that to allow the attacks is easier than bits of evidence that needs to support a government or alternative conspiracy to blow up buildings.

IF you can agree that someone in government knew then you have a dual conspiracy potential....
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by 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.


xj0hnx said:
It's not hard to do when you ignore everything people post that refutes your fairy tales.
Click to expand...

It's the same as Republicans, when the elevator doesn't go to the top floor they just jump from where they are even if it's the ground floor.
 
TastesLikeChicken said:
Bullshit. What "substance" has any truther brought to this thread that hasn't been thoroughly beaten down as a lack of physics knowledge on their part, a lack of scientific comprehension on their part, a lack of math knowledge on their part, or just pure crap claims that consist of nothing more than looks like or sounds like? Please name one bit of "substance" that the truthers have brought forth in this thread?

Also, please point out this "large group" of scientists who are putting their credibility on the line. Who are they?
Click to expand...

I can reply like you and xJ0hnX: "go back and read the thread, it's been posted already".

Jesse Ventura was mentioned and it's only a few posts back.

http://rt.com/Politics/2010-03-10/jesse-ventura-911-truth.html

Still no one here is addressing Building 7 at all.
 
alkemyst said:
In the end it's pretty much impossible to prove anything now. All the data is a clusterfuck of improper gathering.
Click to expand...
The videos of the buildings being destroyed an the laws of physics alone prove that explosives were used, though unfortunately not to those who vest their faith in the official story despite the utter lack of any semblance of experimental confirmation to support their misguided beliefs.

LunarRay said:
Explosives in the buildings to bring them down seems nice but what would be the motive?
Click to expand...
It wasn't nice by any stretch, and we need a criminal investigation with access to warrants and subpoena powers so the evidence can be followed to the culprits before we can rightly hope to figure out why they did it.

LunarRay said:
Would it be enough to simply say that Government knew the attacks were to occur and did nothing... Is that not enough of an indictment to jail the lot of them if true?
Click to expand...
Who knew? There were people in our government who suspected some sort of attack was going to occur to varying degrees of accuracy and dutifully tried to stop it and others who were negligent in supporting such efforts, likely at least a few intentionally negligent to varying extents, but I doubt few if anyone in our government actually knew what the attacks would be. So, who are you expecting to jail here?
 
It was "proven" over and over in your imagination, but such fantasies can't be proven in reality, which again is why you can't quote anything from this thread or present anything else to substantiate your claim.
 
alkemyst said:
I can reply like you and xJ0hnX: "go back and read the thread, it's been posted already".

Jesse Ventura was mentioned and it's only a few posts back.

http://rt.com/Politics/2010-03-10/jesse-ventura-911-truth.html

Still no one here is addressing Building 7 at all.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? What information does that article contain that hasn't already been beaten down in here?

In fact, that article makes claims that are so blatantly wrong even most truthers today wouldn't repeat them. But, no doubt, you didn't bother to actually check the veracity of the claims, did you? Of course not. Post a link and that's all the "proof" truthers need. And yes, I'm calling you a truther, even though you want to hide in the closet and pretend as if you aren't one when it's clear that you are.
 
I'm still wondering if the OP changed anyone's mind. I've watched loose change and few other vids like it.

But I personally don't know what to believe other then the buildings sure looked like they were demolished professionally. I have a hard time believing the airplanes could have caused them to collapse esp the surrounding buildings. I don't trust the government to begin with and with idiot bush in charge anything is possible.

So..... back to the thread. I highly doubt the OP has energized anyone to take action and get to the truth. I think this thread is a waste of time sadly. Even if this was a huge cover up, I think if Obama told everyone that we spend zillions of dollars on a bush lie. Could you imagine the awe and shock to the world? The biggest lie in the world. Could you imagine the impact of our creditability if the truth was exposed? The greenback would be worthless over night.
 
ericlp said:
I'm still wondering if the OP changed anyone's mind. I've watched loose change and few other vids like it.

But I personally don't know what to believe other then the buildings sure looked like they were demolished professionally. I have a hard time believing the airplanes could have caused them to collapse esp the surrounding buildings. I don't trust the government to begin with and with idiot bush in charge anything is possible.

So..... back to the thread. I highly doubt the OP has energized anyone to take action and get to the truth. I think this thread is a waste of time sadly. Even if this was a huge cover up, I think if Obama told everyone that we spend zillions of dollars on a bush lie. Could you imagine the awe and shock to the world? The biggest lie in the world. Could you imagine the impact of our creditability if the truth was exposed? The greenback would be worthless over night.
Click to expand...

Would it really? I don't think it would be as big an issue as most are thinking. Even this late in the game, if they came out and said "LoL, yeah we did 9/11" Honestly, the worst that would happen is some talkshow hosts would go nuts and in a couple of years it would be forgotten (See, every scandal in history).
 
ericlp said:
I'm still wondering if the OP changed anyone's mind. I've watched loose change and few other vids like it.
Click to expand...

It, and this thread have definitely strengthened my view that is NOT demolitions.

But I personally don't know what to believe other then the buildings sure looked like they were demolished professionally.
Click to expand...
How should buildings that collapsed because they were hit by jet liners, and burned look?

I have a hard time believing the airplanes could have caused them to collapse esp the surrounding buildings. I don't trust the government to begin with and with idiot bush in charge anything is possible.
Click to expand...
Not trusting someone, something, or even the government doesn't mean they committed a crime. This is kind of what I mean by Truthers drawing "evidence" from their conclusions verse the real world where we draw a conclusion from evidence.

So..... back to the thread. I highly doubt the OP has energized anyone to take action and get to the truth. I think this thread is a waste of time sadly. Even if this was a huge cover up, I think if Obama told everyone that we spend zillions of dollars on a bush lie. Could you imagine the awe and shock to the world? The biggest lie in the world. Could you imagine the impact of our creditability if the truth was exposed? The greenback would be worthless over night.
Click to expand...
If they prosecuted whoever did it ...no.
 
Last edited:
ericlp said:
I have a hard time believing the airplanes could have caused them to collapse esp the surrounding buildings.
Click to expand...
It takes quite an overactive imagination to believe such lunacy, but as can be seen here, people even imagine it having been proven to have happened despite not being able to present anything to substantiate their beliefs.
 
kylebisme said:
It takes quite an overactive imagination to believe such lunacy, but as can be seen here, people even imagine it having been proven to have happened despite not being able to present anything to substantiate their beliefs.
Click to expand...

You're right, the Truthers are ridiculous in their leaps of logic, and the gaping holes in their "evidence".
 
As usual, you're wrong; I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. Rather, I was simply pointing out how you falsers are void of logic, and utterly lack any semblance of evidence to support your beliefs, and hence the reason you have to resort to vacant dismissals instead. You can't post anything to substantiate your claims, so attempting to disparage those who point out the fact that your emperor wears no cloths is all you've got.
 
kylebisme said:
As usual, you're wrong; I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. Rather, I was simply pointing out how you falsers are void of logic, and utterly lack any semblance of evidence to support your beliefs, and hence the reason you have to resort to vacant dismissals instead. You can't post anything to substantiate your claims, so attempting to disparage those who point out the fact that your emperor wears no cloths is all you've got.
Click to expand...
Every bit of crap you've posted in here has received beatdown after beatdown. Tightly shutting your eyes and pretending that nobody has shown your "evidence" to be false merely serves to make you look more foolish every time you reply.

btw, we're STILL waiting for you to provide the math you ran away from in this thread and we're STILL waiting for you to provide any sort of consistent, coherent, scientifically-based theory of what you believe happened on 9/11. No doubt we'll be waiting forever for those because, first of all, you have shown you don't have any grasp on the math or the science involved and, two, you don't have any viable alternate theory and you damn well know it.
 
kylebisme said:
As usual, you're wrong; I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort. Rather, I was simply pointing out how you falsers are void of logic, and utterly lack any semblance of evidence to support your beliefs, and hence the reason you have to resort to vacant dismissals instead. You can't post anything to substantiate your claims, so attempting to disparage those who point out the fact that your emperor wears no cloths is all you've got.
Click to expand...

It must be amazing to live in a world where you can make a claim, have it totally destroyed, and then magically make it go away be simply saying it. Seriously dude, you've got to just be playing the part, you can't actually believe the BS that you've been posting? Can you?

You, or anyone else has yet to bring one single piece of physical evidence that demolitions were used.

This whole thread is about some video that that's sound is so bad it has to be filtered, and then the viewer lead to the conclusion that is must have been explosions.

Here's my question for you, if this video, shot blocks away caught the sound of a succession of explosions, how come none of the other videos that were closer did? Why isn't there one of the other videos that clearly show the collapse, and several minutes prior to, that doesn't have a clear audio of these fantasy demolition explosions? Why in none of the videos are there any demolition explosions at the point where the buildings collapse?

This video ...

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

... is from practically the base of the building, looks like half a block, no obstructions, and yet the firemen are standing there talking, and their attention is drawn to the building after it has started collapsing. This would have been going on the same time as you fantasy "proof of demolitions" video. Notice there's no explosions going on, the firefighters aren't even looking at the building until it is already collapsing.

Here's another one of the same building from another spot, just as close ...

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

Nope, no demolition explosions going on there, everyone just staring up at it until it starts collapsing. I almost didn't want to use this one because the reporter says "huge explosion now raining debris on all of us", and unless you are going to continue the dishonesty, you'll admit that he was talking about the collapse.

Where are the "explosions" in these two videos that are much closer, and don't need to be run through filters? Why is everyone just standing there looking at these buildings that are supposed to at the seconds before collapse have demolitions going off?

Here's yet another one, this is the best one because guess what you can here? The same rumbling in intervals as your video, but without the filters, you know what it is? The building collapsing, the intervals between floors collapsing into one another. You can even see it, the sounds correspond with the first couple bellows of dust, smoke, and debris pushing out as the collapse progresses ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJbGm7GE1tA&feature=related

And guess what is missing? that's right ...explosions before the building collapses.
 
The two videos I posted are of WTC 7, while the ones you posted are of WTC 2. Are you not capable of comprehending the difference?
 
kylebisme said:
It takes quite an overactive imagination to believe such lunacy, but as can be seen here, people even imagine it having been proven to have happened despite not being able to present anything to substantiate their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Quoted for posterity and as a supreme example of your lunacy. It doesn't surprise me coming from a guy who has seen proofs 911 was an inside job in the Koran's teaching.
 
xj0hnx said:
It must be amazing to live in a world where you can make a claim, have it totally destroyed, and then magically make it go away be simply saying it. Seriously dude, you've got to just be playing the part, you can't actually believe the BS that you've been posting? Can you?

You, or anyone else has yet to bring one single piece of physical evidence that demolitions were used.

This whole thread is about some video that that's sound is so bad it has to be filtered, and then the viewer lead to the conclusion that is must have been explosions.

Here's my question for you, if this video, shot blocks away caught the sound of a succession of explosions, how come none of the other videos that were closer did? Why isn't there one of the other videos that clearly show the collapse, and several minutes prior to, that doesn't have a clear audio of these fantasy demolition explosions? Why in none of the videos are there any demolition explosions at the point where the buildings collapse?

This video ...

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

... is from practically the base of the building, looks like half a block, no obstructions, and yet the firemen are standing there talking, and their attention is drawn to the building after it has started collapsing. This would have been going on the same time as you fantasy "proof of demolitions" video. Notice there's no explosions going on, the firefighters aren't even looking at the building until it is already collapsing.

Here's another one of the same building from another spot, just as close ...

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

Nope, no demolition explosions going on there, everyone just staring up at it until it starts collapsing. I almost didn't want to use this one because the reporter says "huge explosion now raining debris on all of us", and unless you are going to continue the dishonesty, you'll admit that he was talking about the collapse.

Where are the "explosions" in these two videos that are much closer, and don't need to be run through filters? Why is everyone just standing there looking at these buildings that are supposed to at the seconds before collapse have demolitions going off?

Here's yet another one, this is the best one because guess what you can here? The same rumbling in intervals as your video, but without the filters, you know what it is? The building collapsing, the intervals between floors collapsing into one another. You can even see it, the sounds correspond with the first couple bellows of dust, smoke, and debris pushing out as the collapse progresses ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJbGm7GE1tA&feature=related

And guess what is missing? that's right ...explosions before the building collapses.
Click to expand...

Nice work xj0hnx. It's going to get dismissed but at least you tried. I don't think there is anything anybody can say to change their minds.
 
No, I'm pointing out the fact that one can't rightly expect to hear the sequence of explosions which brought WTC 7 down in videos of WTC 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top