Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    Listening very hard for sounds you personally believe ought to be present on old videotapes isn't an even vaguely scientific way to eliminate any kind of hypothesis.

    Consider this video of the event.



    The TV crew's camera uses a directional mic that is focused on the woman being interviewed. It can't possibly pick up sound from many blocks away. But notice how the woman suddenly exclaims "holy shit!" and ducks slightly when building 7 starts to collapse behind her, completely out of her sight (@ 2 minutes in the video). She has clearly heard something very loud and sudden at that point.

    The cameraman also involuntarily reacts by ducking down as if he heard an explosion, and (less significantly to my point) there is an audible reaction from the nearby crowd as the building starts to fall.

    Instead of attempting to count audio events you personally imagine really ought to be present on some old tapes, you should be asking exactly what kind of forensic science was carried out in terms of analysing the physical evidence from the building to eliminate the possibility of explosives or accelerants. This is no more than is demanded by forensic fire investigation codes, and is no more than anyone with a genuine respect for the scientific method would ask for.
     
  2. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    This is not a "personal belief". I provided objective reasons that you can objectively scrutinized. You failed to address the reasons, let alone scrutinize them.
    I provided both theoretical and experimental reasons for my expectations.
    Theoretical: There must be a loud sound, because it is the very sound that breaks the steel.
    Experimental: Every single video of actual CDs has the explosion sounds most clearly. Most often, the explosions totally dominate the sound track.
    Address those reasons!

    Please provide evidence for that claim!
    I am 95% certain it is an omni-directional mic. I have to run in a minute, but hopefully I can identify the make and type of the mic tomorrow and provide you with technical data on it.

    You are mistaken.
    Distance isn't the issue. Loudness and direction are. It is a matter of observation that many types of sound recording devices routinely pick up most clearly the explosion sounds of explosive CDs, even when far away.

    You say "clearly" when it's actually merely conjecture on your part.

    The camera man identifies the buildiung as number 7, which he can only by sight.

    See above - and address the objective reasons I provided!

    You reverse the burden of proof here for those who claim CD. Rejected.
    Also, you move the goal post. Rejected.
     
  3. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    I'm not reversing the burden of proof. The question of what kind of forensic science (if any) was carried out on the physical evidence from the building is infinitely more important than listening to old YouTube videos for bangs you personally think should be there.

    You don't actually know, do you?

    But dismiss whatever you can't answer: it doesn't bother me in the slightest, and only reflects on you.

    I look forward to your conclusions as to what microphone the TV crew was using.

    I wonder what on earth do you think this lady was reacting to if it wasn't a loud noise. But I don't expect you to answer, and it doesn't bother me if you do or you don't.
     
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Why would there be a loud explosion noise AFTER the building had started to collapse? The penthouse started to fall at 1:52
    20170113-093823-qas0a.

    At 2:01 (9 seconds later, she's still talking at the building falls). At this point people are starting to shout (and presumably point)
    20170113-093953-rvmbt.

    The cameraman moves to get a better shot, she's still talking, the crowd noise builds
    20170113-094225-sg1ni.

    And THEN she reacts 2:02 to 2:03
    20170113-094248-6nb0o.

    If this were a demolition it would be long after any sounds from explosions. It seems more likely she's simply reacting to the actions of the crowd and the cameraman.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Nada Truther

    Nada Truther Active Member

    Do you think steel buckling and snapping isn't going to make a loud noise? Did the "explosion" go off and then the rest of the building fell with no more sound than dumping out a pillowcase full of feathers?

    If the mic is one directional and can't detect sound from far away, and the woman is standing right in front of the mic and she hears a "clearly" loud explosion..... Wouldn't the mic that is designed to pick up sound coming out of her head, that her ears are attached to, pick up something?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

    Somewhere there's a thread where one of our members identifies the mic by model and it is omnidirectional. I'll look around for that.
     
  7. Spectrar Ghost

    Spectrar Ghost Senior Member

     
  8. Hierophant

    Hierophant Member

    I'd say she's clearly reacting to the cameraman and the simultaneous gasping/exclamations from the people that you CAN hear (how can the mic pick that up, but not the load noise you assume she heard). A sound of a loud bang would also be reflected by buildings, so it wouldn't be that mono-directional either.

    The cameraman is jerking the camera upwards towards wtc7, he's not ducking down. That can also be clearly seen by comparing the height of the top of the bus to the structure (windowS?) behind it.

    If you permit the comment, I think it's remarkable how you perceive it as if the cameraman ducked, and how you mention the woman saying "holy shit" AFTER you mention that the cameraman moved, when it was really the other way around. I'm not saying you're intentionally misrepresenting (it should be clear to you that anyone who watches the video can see that it's different than what you say). There is a thing called "confabulation" which means we arrange our memories or perception of what we saw to match our existing interpretation of reality, which creates a lot of false and conflicting witness reports. (I've noticed it happen to me too on occasions)

    If there WAS a loud boom at her distance from WTC7, it must have been heard by at least half a million people. And not one recording of it, and only maybe 10 witnesses who said there was a boom? How would "they" (who ever they are) suppress the testimonies of half a million people except maybe 10, the seismic data, the audio recordings?
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    yes this is a repeat thread.
    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-w...losions-by-chandler-ae911t.t6071/#post-192521
     
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    and the guy behind her, walking toward the camera, hasnt turned around yet either.
     
  12. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    It seemed to me that she was reacting because of the look on the cameraman's face. He was reacting to what he saw, and she was reacting to his expression. She may have heard something, but she was reacting to the cameraman. And I don't really think she heard anything because the mike didn't pick anything up.

    And I see I"m not the only person who came to this conclusion.
     
  13. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    So we can all agree that a collapsing building makes loud noises as it collapses, then, can we?

    Is the thread now going to descend into pontifications about how loud the sound of lots of steel "bucking and snapping" ought to be?

    Are you all going to start explaining why it is wholly reasonable to assume that these "natural" snapping sounds would definitely not be loud enough to be picked up by an omnidirectional mic placed several blocks away -- and why it is simultaneously wholly reasonable to assume that the "unnatural" sound of steel being snapped by explosives definitely would be loud enough to be picked up by the same mic?

    Does that kind of pontification strike anyone here as a reasonable and scientific basis for conclusively eliminating the possibility of explosives or accelerants being involved in the sudden, rapid and total collapse of this enormous building?

    No?

    Well, that was my point in (what is now) the OP -- a point I reiterated with my second post.

    However, this thread was given a title that didn't reflect my point at all. Because of this, all subsequent posts missed the point -- but they still demonstrate it perfectly.

    You're all doing what you do: Mick is the apparent voice of reason, analysing frames from the video; Nada Truther is experiencing confusion about how microphones work; dierdre and Spectrar Ghost are teaming up to muddy the waters further by pretending that the video clip I presented in the OP is the same as a video clip of Ashleigh Banfield that was analysed by David Chandler, and are attempting to dismiss it on that basis; Hierophant is injecting doubt through cod psychology and appeal to incredulity; JRBids is adding speculation, and so on.

    And all of that serves to make my point, which was quite different to the question asked in the title that this thread was given.

    I don't mind this mis-titling because, as I say, my point is perfectly illustrated by your reactions to the video I posted.

     
  14. Hierophant

    Hierophant Member

    Hierophant did not inject doubt through cod psychology and appeal to incredulity, he used cod psychology to theorize about how two people can come to so radically different conclusions when they saw the exact same video. He did it inject doubt in your interpretation by describing his observations in the video in this manner:

    "I'd say she's clearly reacting to the cameraman and the simultaneous gasping/exclamations from the people that you CAN hear (how can the mic pick that up, but not the load noise you assume she heard). A sound of a loud bang would also be reflected by buildings, so it wouldn't be that mono-directional either.

    The cameraman is jerking the camera upwards towards wtc7, he's not ducking down. That can also be clearly seen by comparing the height of the top of the bus to the structure (windows?) behind it."

    Now he would be interested to know if you would agree that this is a more accurate description of what is seen in the video than the following when looking at the video again:

    "But notice how the woman suddenly exclaims "holy shit!" and ducks slightly when building 7 starts to collapse behind her, completely out of her sight (@ 2 minutes in the video). She has clearly heard something very loud and sudden at that point.

    The cameraman also involuntarily reacts by ducking down as if he heard an explosion, and (less significantly to my point) there is an audible reaction from the nearby crowd as the building starts to fall."

    Maybe this was not the main point you wanted to focus on in your post, but its the main point the forum moderator apparently wanted to discuss in a new thread, because he wanted to debunk a claim which, is the purpose of this forum. I've also been annoyed at the way my posts were moderated at times, but I accept that moderators are the ones who decide what they want this forum to focus on and what they want to avoid.

    I guess you're free to make a thread about the point you really wanted to raise, but I'd be nonetheless interested in an answer to whether you agree with me when looking at the video again.
     
  15. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    First of all... a 250,000 ton structure will make some manner of loud and unusual sounds. Why wouldn't it?

    Second... sound travels a 1,100 feet per second... that means it take a sound between 4 and 5 seconds to travel 5 blocks. So one would SEE a collapse 5 blocks away before one HEARS why it may sound like. Because the the "delay" the mind cannot properly process the two and it's confused.

    Even the crash of the plane into the tower 1100 feet above the street would "seem" silent and then a second later the sound would reach the observer directly below... from a few blocks away the delay between the visual and the audible would be even greater.

    ++++

    if she heard something which she thought was synced to the collapse... what she heard occurred a few seconds BEFORE the visual collapse
     
  16. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    Hierophant, I made my point at the outset and if the forum moderators want to make a straw man out of this thread's title then I see no reason to participate in it further: address my point if you wish, but don't expect me to respond if you don't.

    Jeffrey, like the others here your contribution serves to underscore my point in the OP.
     
  17. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    This thread is split from another thread, and the OP above was written in response to the last part of a lengthy post of mine:
    How Buckling Led to "Free Fall" acceleration for part of WTC7's Collapse. - Post #29

    Allow me to quote the pertinent part that Cube Radio responded too, for context in this thread:
    I think we can all agree that Cube Radio stated clearly that indeed, as predicted by me, he cannot hear any CD explosions in that video he posted. I think by selecting that one video, he implies that he, Cube Radio, knows of of not a single other WTC collapse video that has clear and unmistakeable sounds of CD explosions.

    Not. A. Single. One.

    I think we need to all - including Cube Radio! - be perfectly aware at this time that neither the video in the OP, nor any other video of the WCT7 collapse, nor indeed any video or other other sound recording of any of the three WTC collapse, contains any explosion sounds consistent in loudness, timing, number and brisance with explosive CD.

    Cube Radio, please agree or disagree with this statement!

    The second fact that I claimed in the post Cube Radio's OP responds to is the observation that the explosion sounds are clear and unmistakeable in every single video of actual explosive CDs.

    Cube Radio, do you know a single exception to this? Or do you agree that we can find arbitrariry many videos of explosive CDs, all having the explosions loud and clear just before the collapse start, most often totally dominating all other sounds, without encountering a single exception to that rule?


    If Cube Radio then has agreed to the claims I made in the post he responded to, we need to find an explanation for this total, 100% factual, discrepancy between known explosive CDs and the WTC collapses.
    The most straightforward explanation of course is: There were no explosive CD charges at the WTC.

    Cube Radio presented another explanation:
    "The TV crew's camera uses a directional mic that is focused on the woman being interviewed. It can't possibly pick up sound from many blocks away."
    He provided no evidence that this is even true: "camera uses a directional mic".
    He provided no evidence that, even if it was a "directional mic", "It can't possibly pick up sound from many blocks away"
    These are bare assertions.

    Cube Radio claims that the woman and the camera man are reacting to the sounds of explosions, but that is mere conjecture.

    We need not prove that the mic is omni, nor need we explain what the people reacted to.
    Cube Radio made claims about this one video - and it's his burden of proof.


    Lastly, remember that the section of my post that Cube Radio's OP responded to started off with this observation:
    "there is zero evidence for explosives going off"
    Cube Radio has not provided any evidence for explosives going off. At best, he has conjectured that people were reacting to a noise coming from WTC7 rather than the sight of WTC7 coming down, or indirectly to the reactions of other people reacting to the sight or noises. There is zero evidence that, if they reacted to noises, these noises were the sounds of explosives going off.

    Cube Radio needs to be perfectly aware at this time that he has zero evidence for explosives going off.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    Oystein, if you can't address the point I was making, clearly stated in the OP and then in my second post (which was in direct response to you), why not just admit it?

    Everything you say in this extended gish gallop is completely off topic as far as I'm concerned, although like all the other posts here it illustrates my point very well.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  19. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Your OP was actually a response to a post of mine, so it is a bit rich to say I am off-topic. The original topic of what I responded to was: There is zero evidence for explosions going off as WTC7 collapses.
    In particular, I gave you reasons - both theoretical and empirical - why there SHOULD be explosions sounds recorded on video IF the WTC buildings had been demolished with explosive devices.

    That is, in fact, the TOPIC.

    You did, in fact, address that topic - by stating an opinion, and by denigrating my objective reasons (both theoretical and empirical reasons, which I made explicit) as "personal belief".

    You did not address those reasons.

    You simply DENY / HANDWAVE the expectation that explosion sounds ought to have been recorded on video. You try to support this denial by showing a video that - surprise - does NOT contain any explosion sounds (a fact I predicted and which you confirm) and trying to find an EXCUSE for why there are no explosion sounds:

    "The TV crew's camera uses a directional mic that is focused on the woman being interviewed. It can't possibly pick up sound from many blocks away. "

    You already know that your "reason" is FALSE, and the exact OPPOSITE is true: The microphone is omnidirectional. You KNOW of course that there are numerous videos of explosive CDs where all sorts of microphones most clearly picked up the explosion sounds.

    So you are now on record as having been taught that your EXCUSE is soundly debunked.


    There is no point left in your OP, and trying to move the goal posts and pretending that you have a different point is a ploy I won't fall for.

    You wish that the following is exclusively your point:
    "you should be asking exactly what kind of forensic science was carried out in terms of analysing the physical evidence from the building to eliminate the possibility of explosives or accelerants."

    The following has been done:
    * Experts on the scene have looked at all the steel being removed from the WTC desaster site looking for any sort of evidence that might support a criminal investigation. None was found that speaks for CD.
    * NIST evaluated what a realistig explosive CD charge to sever one WTC7 column would sound like half a mile away - a distance where there were several cameras. They found that the BANG would be INSANELY; AWESOMELY LOUD.
    No such bang was, in fact, heard.

    Is that correct, Cube Radio? No sound of explosions consistent in timing, loudness, number and brisance can be heard on any WTC collapse video, right?

    It's ok if you don't answer. We all know that you know that this is simply and obviously true.
     
  20. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    @Cube Radio which is of topic for both threads. The original thread you posted in and this one. So any more posts referring to that will be removed. You can start a new thread, or find the appropriate old thread to post in.
     
  21. Bruno D.

    Bruno D. Senior Member

    It's probably not possible to answer what she was reacting to as we can't read minds or ask her directly, but it's easy to answer what she wasn't reacting to: demolition explosions in WTC7.

    As Mick explained in details, the loud noises from the explosive would cause her "holy shit" comment, the crowd and the cameraman reactions seconds before they actually did.

    Was she reacting to building collapse loud noises, or to crowd reaction loud noises, or to the cameraman scared face? Irrelevant to the whole discussion, as we can easily guarantee that she is not reacting to a sound she heard 5 seconds before that!

    Funniest thing in this thread is that you compliment Mick for his analysis (or kind of) and you don't address any of his points and how they share some light in your OP doubts, preferring to attack every other one of the members that answer in this thread (with or without reason).

    It's ok though, as I don't expect you to answer, and it doesn't bother me if you do or you don't.

    .
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    No it doesn't
     
  23. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    The demand by forensic fire investigation codes? That is from 9/11 truth, and does not make sense since no evidence for explosives was found, thus the investigation code was satisfied.

    The speed of sound is 1100 feet per second, the speed of light is 186,000 miles per hour. She heard WTC 7 steel failing and sounds of tons of building hitting tons of building, steel failing, and the feeling of that mass hitting stuff also travels through the earth. She is evidence for a gravity collapse, there was no sound of explosives. Sight and sound, are not synchronized in the real world due to distance from an observer. This is a Great example to teach this sight and sound concept for investigators of accidents; something we learned in aircraft accident investigation school taught at USC extension.

    There were no sounds of explosives, but there were sounds from before the roofline fell of the internal failures, which are loud, but not indicative of a supersonic waves which explosives produce. How did explosives in the CD conspiracy theory survive a building fire, explosives cook off in fire, low order. The FBI found no evidence for explosives; The FBI does crime, NIST does not do crime.

    Why are there no supersonic blast waves and ejections in the video? She heard a large building fail, loud sounds of failure, and when it reached her, she reacts. This is evidence for NIST internal failure, which started many seconds before the collapse of the roofline. More evidence for a gravity collapse.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    "Directional" is a relative term when it comes to microphones. Yes, they usually are designed to pick up more from the "front", but they do still pick up sounds from other directions.

    This is simply false. Any sound will be of a certain decibel level at a certain location. Distance has nothing to do with whether it can be detected or not.

    PS: Just watched the vid. I don't think the woman hears anything at all. She seems to be reacting to other people who are SEEING the building start to collapse.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2017
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    I answered the question "what is this woman hearing.

    Discussing the possibility that there was some type of bomb planted or accellerant is nothing more than speculation.

    SPECULATION!
     
  26. tadaaa

    tadaaa Active Member

    she seems to react to a crowd going "woooo" and maybe as people have pointed out the facial expressions of people in front of her

    obviously her senses would (as with everyone in NY that day) have been severely heightened, no wonder she was a bit "jumpy"

    so the reflex ducking and "holy shit" seems entirely consistent with a reaction to the crowd reacting to seeing the building collapse
     
  27. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    And even that is not correct: This particular microphone, an Electro-Voice RE50B, is designed to pick up sounds from ALL directions equally! Omnidirectional mics don't achieve this goal perfectly - they are in their own way and pick up less from the rear, but they do pick up very nicely sounds coming from a ca. 90° angle - as is the case in the video above. This is what makes it such a good and-held mic for street reporting - you don't have to worry about pointing perfectly all the time.


    This is also not quite spot-on: Many mics respond differently to same dB evels at different frequencies. But the RE50B has a nice flat(i.e. equal) response through a fairly large frequency range - ca. 100 to 13,000 Hz. Here is a technical data sheet:
    http://www.electrovoice.com/downloadfile.php?i=970113
    Oh look at this key characteristic:
    This would suggest that the low frequencies of any alleged explosions (high frequencies are dampened more as there are buildings in the direct line of sight/sound; low frequencies "go around corners" much better) would be picked up nicely and crisp even while recording level is set for speech close by.

    For your reference on audible frequencies:
    An ordinary 4-string electric bass guitar's lowest note is an E1 at 41 Hz.
    The largest (lowest) kettle drum (timpani) in an orchestra plays a C2, which is 65 Hz.
    The lowest note on a standard guitar (electric or acoustic) is one octave higher: E2 = 82 Hz.

    The shockwave of a high explosive does not have a frequency as such - I believe it falls apart as white noise with distance and upon reflection and diffraction. It appears very sharp and high pitched when you are near, with high frequencies getting lost as distance increases (and with distance the number and potential size of obstacles that affect sound propagation). From far away, in a city, explosions are heard as less distinct, low booms. Much like thunder.
     
  28. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    This is plausible - but also speculation.
    None of us can know what she is responding to.

    Perhaps there is some low noise coming from the building that the microphone doesn't pick up because it is too soft. But then we do not know what that noise was - that would be another speculation.

    But the (twofold) point is, and has always been since the OP responded to a post of mine:
    • All cameras and mics at all distances always pick up the sounds of explosions in actual explosive CDs most clearly, as these sounds are often far and away the loudest sound of all, drowning out nearby speech, helicopters, sirens and what not
    • No camera/mic at all has picked up anything at all that could be remotely likened to CD explosives when any of the WTC buildings collapsed.
    This discrepency is so obvious, so universal, so striking, it begs for an explanition from those who claim there was explosive demolition at the WTC.

    Cube Radio has totally failed to provide such an explanation. The only excuse he came up with was that one mic in one video was directional - and that was simly a FALSE assertion. However, even if it was true, he'd have several dozend videos more to go! Some had their mics directed at the WTC.

    Cube radio probably realizes by now that I was right - there is no explosion recorded on any WTC collapse video whatsoever, and he certainly understands that all sorts of mics routinely pick up such explosion sounds when any occurr. The only honest thing for him to write in his next post would therefor be:

    There exists no evidence whatsoever for explosives going off when any of the WTC towers collapses.
     
  29. Hierophant

    Hierophant Member

    They didn't look for explosives which should make explosive noises because there were no explosive noises, and because the cause of the collapse was already explained (and even predicted) by fire and collision damage by the NYFD before NIST even started. They didn't look for slowly steel-melting thermite because it's not plausible to have been used given the way it collapsed and given that no steel beams affected by thermite (or explosives) were found in the cleanup operations. They didn't look for termites because those were just as implausible, so NIST didn't do any simulations to test for a termite-infestation-induced collapse either. They could have called 99% of people near ground zero liars and every textbook about controlled demolition and termites liars of course, and spent a million dollars doing those simulations anyway because some people who didn't know more about physics than the two things Richard Gage told them about it wanted them to because they were convinced Dick Cheyney told the airforce to stand down so he could let holograms hit the north tower so George Bush's cousin could blow it up and make it look like it collapsed and damage WTC7 so the CIA could covertly blow up its own office to hide its plans to blow up its own office and blame it on Saudis so the US would invade Iraq and Dick's ex-company would charge 10 dollars instead of 50 cents for washing a bag of soldiers' laundry and also they wanted the NSA to check out people's porn collection and make airport security uselessly annoy the heck out of everyone. But ask yourself... would it really have been plausible to do so?

    Now that I addressed your point, could you tell me if you acknowledge that she most probably reacted to other people's reaction to seeing the building collapse, and that her reacting to explosive noises is extremely unlikely because of timing and lack of 500 000 ear-witnesses and absence of said noises on multiple audio recordings?

    Because it really looks as if you're just looking for excuses to avoid admitting you were wrong about something.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
  30. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    This has to do more with what is called "proximity effect" where low frequencies are boosted when a singer is close to the mic.
     
  31. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    I refer you to the OP.
     
  32. Hierophant

    Hierophant Member

     
  33. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    Why would one want to do that when none of the found evidence is pointing in the direction of explosives?
     
  34. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    What evidence was found?
     
  35. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    None which would indicate the use explosives apparently. I guess one could say the absence of evidence is the evidence.
     
  36. Hierophant

    Hierophant Member

    -Testimonies and videos of fires.
    -Testimonies and videos of damage.
    -Testimonies of more damage and imminent natural collapse from fire and damage. (creaking noises and bulging of walls)
    -Lack of (credible) testimonies, videos, or audio tracks that indicate the use of explosives, when the use of explosives must have created these.
    -Reconstruction of possible and plausible collapse scenario(s) from fire using physical experiments and computer models.
    -Lack of plausible scenario how explosive could have been applied without being noticed.
    -Implausible of allegations of going through great lengths to do a covert demolition, only to make it look like an (allegedly) obvious controlled demolition
    -Impossibility of preconceiving that the north tower would have collapsed in a way to damage wtc7 with certainty, exposing a demolition which was meant to be covert if it hadn't hit building 7.
    -Probability of explosives going off in the fires prior to intentional detonations.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2017
  37. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    What physical evidence was found?
     
  38. Miss VocalCord

    Miss VocalCord Active Member

    For what? Explosives?
    Could you tell me how physical evidence for the non-use of explosives should look like?
     
  39. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    Any kind of physical evidence from the building. What was found? You said evidence was found.
     
  40. Hierophant

    Hierophant Member

    A collapsed building without signs of cut columns or explosive damage? Also, audio and video recordings are physical evidence.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.