Fox News: much more open-minded about explosive devices bringing down 7 World Trade

[Ns1]

i'm not ignoring anything. i've already addressed that issue. again, read above. at least you've admitted that you don't have the balls to acknowledge the audio 😀😀😀

Just searched the entire thread and the only "proof" you offer is this bullshit audio clip.

Feel free to point to the post I should be referencing that involves the logistics behind this operation and the proof (or lack of it)

//edit

lol at you comparing this audio to FBI/police wiretaps.

I love it when you guys compare WTC7 to a controlled demolition and then ignore the fact that a controlled demolition requires tons of OBVIOUS structural work and would leave behind a million bits of evidence.

 

[al981]

Just searched the entire thread and the only "proof" you offer is this bullshit audio clip.

Feel free to point to the post I should be referencing that involves the logistics behind this operation and the proof (or lack of it)

posts are less than 24 hours old. not my fault you're too lazy to look.

//edit

lol at you comparing this audio to FBI/police wiretaps.

well, you're the moron claiming audio isn't evidence. 😀😀😀😀

 

[al981]

I love it when you guys compare WTC7 to a controlled demolition and then ignore the fact that a controlled demolition requires tons of OBVIOUS structural work and would leave behind a million bits of evidence.

I love it when morons like you claim wtc7 is a natural collapse.

In that case, demolition crews have it all wrong. why even bother rigging a tower when they can just set a few fires, knock out a few windows with a crane, and sit back and watch the tower collapse a few hours later 😀😀😀😀😀😀 quick ns1, hurry and start up your own natural collapse company! you can put every single demolition company in the world out of business! you'll be rich!!!

oh, let's ignore the now admitted free fall collapse too.... 😀


edit: afk a few hours. continue dodging the audio, which you've stated is not evidence. alert the police and fbi they can't use audio as evidence ever again! lmfao you mental midget.

 

[kylebisme]

I don't think the advocates for either Aluminum, Iron or Steel have been able to more than speculate other than to indicate something is dripping...

Some of us pointed out the fact that the temperature of the molten material can be estimated by the color of the light which it emits, and that proves it is around the temperature of molten steel, far hotter than what it takes to melt aluminum. Unfortunately, most people don't think such facts through to their logical conclusions, and rather just babble past them.

 

[Ns1]

posts are less than 24 hours old. not my fault you're too lazy to look.



well, you're the moron claiming audio isn't evidence. 😀😀😀😀

I actually work on a studio lot and they have a great folley department that can create a multitude of sounds.

I can only conclude that this youtube video you have provided is part of a vast conspiracy by the studios to make it appear that wtc7 was brought down by explosives.


See? I work with dozens of people that can recreate any number of sounds. So, until you can provide SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that a demolition occurred, I'll just go ahead and say the sounds are doctored.

Any attempt you may provide to dissuade me from this opinion will only generate the following response:

"it's part of the vast conspiracy by hollywood to destroy WTC7"

//edit
oh shit, nice, now we're at the PHYSICS argument. This thread is going just like planned.

 

[Ns1]

yep, we're right on track

The point is after this thread reaches critical mass (100 replies) were going to start saying the same shit from the other 500+ reply threads.

Here, since I'm at the perfect place for this (taking a shit)

ZOMG physics!
The upward puff!
Thermite!! Red chips!!
No detonators!
You don't know shut about physics!
Lol youtube proof
Newton!!!
how'd they do it it's UNPOSSIBLE
LOOK AT THESE LOW QUALITY SOUND BITS
no wai, fire can't do that!
YES IT CAN



That should cover the first 20 pages or so. Bbl, wiping my ass need both hands.

 

[LunarRay]

Would the most prudent means to topple the towers after a plane crashes into them be the introduction of oh... 10 tons of Thermate into the core foundation area of each tower? Niels Harrit said based on the amount of iron spheres in the samples the amount of dust and etc.. that maybe 100 tons of Thermate would be needed to produce that. I'm pretty sure that if you substantially weaken the core at the foundation the impact of the aircraft would have moved the towers alot more than the 20' or so they did move... They'd have fell over, me thinks. And if they wanted WTC 7 too they could have auto piloted the jets to hit the towers in the direction of WTC 7 and like felling a tree weaken or cut the core so that would be achieved.... No?

 

[al981]

I actually work on a studio lot and they have a great folley department that can create a multitude of sounds.

I can only conclude that this youtube video you have provided is part of a vast conspiracy by the studios to make it appear that wtc7 was brought down by explosives.


See? I work with dozens of people that can recreate any number of sounds. So, until you can provide SUPPORTING EVIDENCE that a demolition occurred, I'll just go ahead and say the sounds are doctored.

Any attempt you may provide to dissuade me from this opinion will only generate the following response:

"it's part of the vast conspiracy by hollywood to destroy WTC7"

//edit
oh shit, nice, now we're at the PHYSICS argument. This thread is going just like planned.

k, so you're now claiming the audio was forged! great! 😀

also, feel free to provide a model of any sort explaining and visualizing in detail the now admitted free fall collapse. nist has yet to model it LOL! they can't..and have no idea how to. good stuff.

let's all ignore the fact wtc7 looks like a controlled demo too... silly fox news!

edit: afk a few hours, maybe until tomorrow. i'll continue nailing you to the wall once i return. LOL at your "audio isn't evidence" bullshit. hahaha.

 

[LunarRay]

Some of us pointed out the fact that the temperature of the molten material can be estimated by the color of the light which it emits, and that proves it is around the temperature of molten steel, far hotter than what it takes to melt aluminum. Unfortunately, most people don't think such facts through to their logical conclusions, and rather just babble past them.

I rather preferred your previous comment to me where in you indicated you'd not waste your time responding to me... I suppose you've experienced a paroxysm of compulsion and did so in order to restate my comment but in another context.
I'll not comment on your latest comment but will simply reflect on the brilliance of my own.

 

[Ns1]

k, so you're now claiming the audio was forged! great! 😀

also, feel free to provide a model of any sort explaining and visualizing in detail the now admitted free fall collapse. nist has yet to model it LOL! they can't..and have no idea how to. good stuff.

let's all ignore the fact wtc7 looks like a controlled demo too... silly fox news!

edit: afk a few hours, maybe until tomorrow. i'll continue nailing you to the wall once i return. LOL at your "audio isn't evidence" bullshit. hahaha.

Fox News actually leads the Hollywood conspiracy.

Hell I'll AGREE that they are explosives if you can find me solid proof of explosives (in the quantity necessary to carry out a controlled demolition)

 

[MikeMike]

Fox News actually leads the Hollywood conspiracy.

Hell I'll AGREE that they are explosives if you can find me solid proof of explosives (in the quantity necessary to carry out a controlled demolition)

I'll follow NS1 down this path, with the additional clause that you provide solid proof of how and when 10 tons of thermate/mite were introduced into and around the structure in strategic locations.

 

[xj0hnx]

yeah, just as i thought. you are ignoring all evidence in your face. you are not interested in investigation or truth, wherever it may lead. mental midget 😀 keep dodging the evidence! i've already addressed the logistics issue. read up, son.

Dummy, your stupid noise from highly filtered video doesn't mean anything, zip, zelch, nada, no one cares about the sounds because they could be anything. Only a complete and utter fool would leap to the illogical conclusion that they are "explosions" much less "explosions" caused by demolitions, demolition for which there isn't another single solitary piece of proof. You idiots come up with a conclusion, and then look for something ...anything to try to make it work in your feeble little head, instead of how real people in reality do, which is look at evidence, and THEN draw a conclusion.

But please, keep rambling on, claiming you "own", it's quite entertaining.

 

[Ns1]

controlled demolition sample:

Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.

CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.

So, where's all the evidence?

 

[LunarRay]

Fox News actually leads the Hollywood conspiracy.

Hell I'll AGREE that they are explosives if you can find me solid proof of explosives (in the quantity necessary to carry out a controlled demolition)

Do you think it reasonable to conclude that bad guys knowing a plane would not hit WTC 7 had to construct a demo that DID NOT mirror a controlled demolition? They had no way to know that even one bit of stuff would hit 7 from the tower collapse scenario we see... (Sans a topple event in the direction of 7) Proponents argue that 7 was intended to be collapsed when the building was obscured by the dust cloud from the tower collapses... one of them anyhow.. I don't know how they could account for the wind and other environmental aspects to the point of being satisfied they could... Nor can I see the event didn't occur cuz of some fault in their detonation efforts... or that the stuff placed didn't ignite in the fires that did occur but unplanned apparently..

Some folks point to the Commission Report's failure to even mention WTC 7... Not sure there was anything to report at that point in time... NIST was still working on it.

I really think folks need to kick back and adopt the mind set of bad guys thinking before the events... what did they have to do to insure the objectives were met.... assuming that 7 was an objective and if they argue it was then one must include that thinking process as well...

 

[xj0hnx]

edit: audio isn't real evidence? you better alert the police and fbi. no longer can they ever use wiretaps or any voices/audio ever recorded 😀😀😀😀

No, highly filtered audio of a sound that might be an explosion, but also might be someone dropping something, or someone hitting a mic, or ...anything is not "real evidence", it would not be permissible in any court. Once you say, "We ran it through filters" than it is no longer worth anything because now it has been tampered with, as well as the fact that it has no corroborating evidence to back it up, or prove that it is what you say it is.

 

[Ns1]

Do you think it reasonable to conclude that bad guys knowing a plane would not hit WTC 7 had to construct a demo that DID NOT mirror a controlled demolition?

I would think if WTC7 was brought down by some type of explosives that there would be overwhelming evidence, as is the case with every other terrorist attack involving explosives.

 

[Ns1]

No, highly filtered audio of a sound that might be an explosion, but also might be someone dropping something, or someone hitting a mic, or ...anything is not "real evidence", it would not be permissible in any court. Once you say, "We ran it through filters" than it is no longer worth anything because now it has been tampered with, as well as the fact that it has no corroborating evidence to back it up, or prove that it is what you say it is.

shit, even judge judy would laugh at you in the face if you brought that into court.

 

[xj0hnx]

controlled demolition sample:



So, where's all the evidence?

Didn't you know? The 50-100 year's advanced secret demolitions are invisible. They use microscopic optic cell reflectors to transmit surrounding images onto their surfaces so they can't be seen ...everyone knows this.

 

[kylebisme]

I rather preferred your previous comment to me where in you indicated you'd not waste your time responding to me...

I said I won't waste my time trying to have a conversation on the matter with you, but I'll continue refuting misrepresentations of fact regardless of who spews them.

 

[ElFenix]

if there is talking in the background at the exact same instant the deep thunders are heard, then the talking is very faint. i hear nothing but deep thuds. but for the sake of argument, let's say there is talking at that exact moment, right before the penthouse collapse initiated. why were the deep thunders only heard then? voices continue on throughout the video. why deep thunders only at that exact moment? 😀😀 was it the voice of god(s)? a sonic boom emitted from His mouth, caught on microphones, then knocking down wtc7? 😀

again, you're watching a video that has been through the wringer of a studio editing machine. the 'deep thunders' in the CBS video on the 12th are the adulterated noises from the original, as the producer was moving from the pre-recorded field reporter spot, to showing the prerecorded west street video with live studio anchor commentary. that's done with dials and sliders. those 'deep thunders' are the product of words 'second movie' being run through that machine as the producer was switching from one to another. that's the reason they're only picked up on the CBS news video the next day. not some magical second microphone that picks up booms but not conversation, which weren't heard by the people standing right next to the camera.

or hell, the guy posting the videos on youtube could be editing the videos himself to make 'second movie' into the noises you hear.

 

[Ns1]

Didn't you know? The 50-100 year's advanced secret demolitions are invisible. They use microscopic optic cell reflectors to transmit surrounding images onto their surfaces so they can't be seen ...everyone knows this.

NO SHIT?

they must use the same technology for the super stealth ninjas.

 

[LunarRay]

No, highly filtered audio of a sound that might be an explosion, but also might be someone dropping something, or someone hitting a mic, or ...anything is not "real evidence", it would not be permissible in any court. Once you say, "We ran it through filters" than it is no longer worth anything because now it has been tampered with, as well as the fact that it has no corroborating evidence to back it up, or prove that it is what you say it is.

In a court setting one of the advocates could bring an expert who the court agrees is such who'd testify that the sounds heard in the various tapes COULD be the sound one can term "Explosive" in nature... But, that expert would be hard pressed to testify as to what the explosive nature was attributed to to the exclusion of any other causation... nor could they testify, imo, to from where they emanated. They'd be torn apart under cross and there are a plethora of other experts who'd counter that testimony overwhelmingly.

Low frequency sound like what Subwoffers produce ideally is omni directional... unlike high frequency... I think explosive events are heard over a broad spectrum of sound and to that extent filtering processes tend to weaken rather than strengthen arguments.

 

[xj0hnx]

I rather preferred your previous comment to me where in you indicated you'd not waste your time responding to me... I suppose you've experienced a paroxysm of compulsion and did so in order to restate my comment but in another context.
I'll not comment on your latest comment but will simply reflect on the brilliance of my own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhHzMttUKO0

 

[LunarRay]

I would think if WTC7 was brought down by some type of explosives that there would be overwhelming evidence, as is the case with every other terrorist attack involving explosives.

In terrorist events there is little concern with what evidence is remaining... it is not suppose to be a clandestine event... that the event occurred is proof that it did. Ergo, your argument is sound! But in this case bad US guys had to consider that... and there ought to be lots of evidence of Terrorist ONLY activity... They could have arrested somebody and waterboarded them to confession as an example.... far reaching albeit...

 

[xj0hnx]

In a court setting one of the advocates could bring an expert who the court agrees is such who'd testify that the sounds heard in the various tapes COULD be the sound one can term "Explosive" in nature... But, that expert would be hard pressed to testify as to what the explosive nature was attributed to to the exclusion of any other causation... nor could they testify, imo, to from where they emanated. They'd be torn apart under cross and there are a plethora of other experts who'd counter that testimony overwhelmingly.

Low frequency sound like what Subwoffers produce ideally is omni directional... unlike high frequency... I think explosive events are heard over a broad spectrum of sound and to that extent filtering processes tend to weaken rather than strengthen arguments.

Exactly, except I don't even think they would make it into the court room, no competent lawyer would use anything like that as "evidence".