Saturday, January 19, 2013

Were There Sounds of Explosions at WTC7?

A common objection to the theory that controlled demolitions were used to bring down WTC7 is that there were no sounds of explosions.  David Chandler produced what I think is a rather informative video in answer to this objection:

HT: Debunking the Debunkers

UPDATE:  This video is probably even better:


Frank said...

So on the 2nd video which you said was the better one we have maybe 30/60 seconds of 9/11 video clips with the sound of an explosion (However, not the kind of multiple explosions assocated with controlled demolitions) and some people talking about hearing explosions on 9/11. None of this 9/11 video is of the WTC 7 building, can be or is associated with its collapse. Then we have a 5 minute lecture from a Firefighters 9/11 Truth organization and then "So, there ya have it!"

If that does it for you, then it does. I think it falls a mile or two short but maybe that's just me.

Bilbo said...

What I thought especially good about the second video is that it pointed out that one should test for explosives regardless of whether there had been sounds for explosions. NIST refuses to conduct such tests, e.g., look for residue of explosives in the dust.

Frank said...

The logical starting point is this. Rigging a building for controlled demolition while it was occupied by thousands of workers more than boarders on the absurd. NISTs failures to check for that are not evidence of WCT 7 being a controlled demolition. The videos of the actual collapse that show no controlled demolition (no sight or sound of explosions consistant with controlled demolition) are more than pretty convincing. JMHO.

Bilbo said...

The logical starting point is video of a symmetrical, global collapse of a 47 story steel framed building, for which there was overwhelming evidence of foreknowledge that it would be coming down, and for which there were earwitness accounts of explosions coming from it at the time of collapse, and which a controlled demolition expert, Danny Jowenko, stoutly maintained was a controlled demolition.

NIST's admitted their explanation of WTC7's collapse was completely unique in the history of building collapses, yet they refuse to release the data for their computer simulation.

We can add that in all other controlled demolitions of buildings, all windows, ceiling tiles, plaster, drywall, and insulation are first removed, making the remaining structures echo chambers for whatever explosions occur inside them. We can also add that there has been a peer-reviewed paper that claims there was nano-thermite in the dust of the WTC buildings, and that this material is known to be able to deliver the same explosive power as high explosives, but with much quieter explosions.

Would installers of the putative explosives have been able to do so after hours or during weekends, when few people would have been around to witness what was going on? Would they have been able to hide what they did above drop ceilings or inside drywall? Who knows? But the starting point is to test the remaining physical evidence for explosive residues, which NIST refuses to do.

Bilbo said...

And let me add that the video evidence shows a drop of free fall acceleration that lasted for almost 2.5 seconds, which means that all supports had to be removed simultaneously for a length of about 100 feet. This could easily be explained by controlled demolitions. It's difficult to know how fires alone could have done this.

Frank said...

"Would installers of the putative explosives have been able to do so after hours or during weekends, when few people would have been around to witness what was going on?"

Just to answer this question. No, because WTC 7 was never unoccupied. Not only did the tenants use the building 7 days a week (it was 90% financiers w/ Smith Barney) but also security, cleaning, maintenance and management. Rigging a building is major construction. And again, no explosions consistant with controlled demolition have ever been seen, heard or recorded.

Bilbo said...


I published your second comment, then accidentally deleted it somehow. Sorry about that. If I recall, you said something like,

"And stop with the peer-reviewed paper stuff, unless you're going to acknowledge the peer-reviewed papers of abiogenesis."

Close enough?

Bilbo said...

I found it:

"And please stop with the peer-reviewed paper stuff. That is, unless you are going to start touting the peer-reviewed papers that promote the validity of abiogenesis. "

Bilbo said...

Hi Frank,

Personal note received. Thanks.

Bilbo said...

Frank: ""..., no explosions consistant with controlled demolition have ever been seen, heard or recorded."

Hmmm...I just provided two video clips that provide recordings of explosions and interviews of witnesses who claim to have heard explosions. I guess I'm not sure what else I can do on this question.

As to the question of whether people would have noticed the planting of explosives, I think that requires a new post.

Bilbo said...

Oh, I forgot about your point about peer-review. The point of peer-review is to show that the authors have attempted to follow the scientific method. It is then up to others to try to replicate their results. NIST has dust samples of their own. Shouldn't they be trying to replicate the results?