[On the left side (above) is a video of WTC 7 collapsing. On the right side is a video of a controlled demolition.]
Reply:
Flashes can obviously be prevented in a controlled demolition, based on how the explosives are set up or what type of explosives are used. More info...
Flashes can obviously be prevented in a controlled demolition, based on how the explosives are set up or what type of explosives are used. More info...
Watch a top demolition expert debunk the duh-bunkturd.
Another conspiracy nut...
Katelynne Wilcox 4 days ago (edited)
I completely agree with everything in this video, but to be even more convincing, the early falling of the east mechanical penthouse should have been included in the video clip of 7's collapse. Truthers always leave it out of their videos (and their analysis) because it is inexplicable under their CD theories and also because it backs up the NIST theory of fire-induced collapse. You should also have included the soundtrack of the collapse video which confirms that there were no demolition charges detonated before or during the collapse.
Reply:
Debunking the Only Bad Review of 'The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7'
Excerpt:
Now to the argument that Griffin ignores "the full collapse to represent the collapse of the out facade as the entirety of the collapse." For starters, on May 13, 2008 there was partial fire induced collapse of the 13 story faculty of Architecture building at Delft University in the Netherlands, it took 10 seconds. So even if 9/11 "debunkers" are correct in their argument that the collapse of WTC 7 took 13 seconds, due to the penthouse collapsing first, as opposed to the approximately 7 seconds often cited by demolition advocates who only count the collapse of the main structure, it doesn't matter. To put it simply, if 13 stories takes 10 seconds, then 47 stories should not collapse in 13 seconds, and the 110 story Twin Towers definitely should not have collapsed in 15 seconds.
Secondly, as physicist David Chandler recently pointed out, NIST did not include the fall of the penthouse in their timing calculations either. When lead NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder was fielded a question by Chandler regarding the issue at a NIST press conference subsequent to the release of the draft report on WTC 7, Sunder stated that "freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." In essence, Sunder admitted that this is impossible absent some external force, i.e., explosives. And yet now NIST is telling us in their final report, due to Chandler's question, that buckled columns did in fact lead to freefall for 2.25 seconds. However, buckled supports is a long way from "no supports."
As former NASA engineering executive Dwain Deets put it, this is "NIST's Half-Admission of Yet Another 9/11 Smoking Gun." He also notes that NIST tried to "bury these two seconds and their clear meaning" by failing to mention their admission of freefall in their list of changes made in the final report.
And finally, the collapse of the penthouse also took place too fast.
Charlie Veitch Parroting Outdated Official Claims Regarding WTC7
Excerpt:
Charlie has been repeating the old debunker chestnut that the total time WTC7 took to collapse, including the east penthouse collapse, was 18 seconds, not 6.5. This is true. The problem is, the TIME is irrelevant. It's the ACCELERATION at each instant that matters. To give you an idea of how the time doesn't really matter, consider the following... (Warning: Math ahead!)
When accelerating constantly from rest, the distance-acceleration-time formula is distance = ½ × acceleration × time² (S = ½ a t²). WTC7 was 180 metres tall. So for WTC7 falling at constant freefall acceleration (9.8ms-2), the values would be:
180 = ½ × 9.8 × t²
Which gives you a value for t of about 6 seconds. Now let's imagine WTC7 fell at only half the rate of gravity (4.9 ms-2). The values in this case would be:
180 = ½ × 4.9 × t²
Which would give you a value for t of about 8.5 seconds. The rate of fall has been halved, but the time has only increased by a couple of seconds. This is because everytime you halve a, you double t². Which means you multiply t by √2 (1.4). So halving the acceleration will yield only a 40% increase in time.
Now if WTC7 had taken 8.5 seconds to collapse, a truther might say "this is only a couple of seconds longer than freefall, this is proof of demolition", and a debunker might respond by saying "8.5 seconds corresponds to an acceleration of half that of freefall, no demolition needed", and the debunker would be correct. But this is assuming the acceleration is constant throughout. In reality the acceleration was not constant.
This was the mistake NIST made in their draft report. They correctly pointed out that the time between the moment the main structure (excluding the east penthouse) began to collapse and the moment the building disappeared from view in the most well known video of its collapse, was 5.4 seconds. Freefall time would have been 3.9 seconds. But the time is irrelevant, what matters is the acceleration. When physicist David Chandler called them out on this, they did a revised analysis for their final report. Below is NIST's velocity-time graph of WTC7's collapse...
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration ... This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s." ~ NIST NCSTAR 1-A
So NIST admitted that for 2.25 seconds, the building fell at an acceleration of 9.8ms-2 - gravitational acceleration - as if eight stories worth of building were just teleported away.
This is what we've been saying all along is impossible. Because when an object is falling at freefall acceleration, all of its gravitational potential energy is being converted into energy of motion, which means there is no energy left over to actually collapse the building! It's that simple. It doesn't matter if the period of freefall is only a small fraction of the overall collapse time, freefall acceleration at any moment is impossible.
NIST have not explained the 2.25 seconds of freefall, they've simply asserted that it is consistent with their computer model. Their computer model has not been independently reviewed and they haven't even released an animation of the entire collapse. All we have from them therefore is their word. Even if several floors of the outer structure were buckled as depicted above, there would still be plenty of structure to prevent the building from accelerating at free fall. Because in order to crush that buckled structure, it would have to use some of its gravitational potential energy, this would mean that not all the gravitational energy is being converted to kinetic enegy, and therefore freefall would not occur. The only known way to get a building to accelerate downwards at a free fall rate is controlled demolition.
Clarifying the Collapse Time of WTC 7
Government apologists have argued that WTC 7 took 13 or more seconds to collapse, thus disproving the "virtual free fall" argument. However, this argument entirely misses the point.
Why?
Because the videos show that the penthouse collapsed long before the main building. In fact, everyone admits that there was a delay of several seconds between the collapse of the penthouse and the collapse of the rest of the building.
"An object at rest tends to stay at rest". So once the movement stopped, it should have stayed stopped.
Therefore, the collapse of the main portion of building 7 - several seconds after the collapse of the penthouse stopped - should be treated as a discrete and new event (see discussion below).
Since the main building collapsed in approximately 7 seconds - the same time as a controlled demolition takes - that is strong evidence that WTC 7 was in fact demolished.
The important comparison is the collapse time for the main portion of a building. In videos of controlled demolitions, demolition charges are often visible long before the building starts to collapse, but these should not be included in the collapse time. If there are things going on inside the building after the charges go off but before the main building visibly starts collapsing, then that should not be included in the timing calculations.
In other words, government apologists will argue that alot was going on inside WTC 7 between the end of the collapse of the penthouse and the beginning of the collapse of the main building. They have provided no evidence for that argument. Indeed, if there had been significant movement inside the building after the collapse of the penthouse, this should have resulted in some movement or deformation of the building visible from outside.
More importantly, alot might also be going on inside other buildings between the start of demolition charges and the start of the visible collapse of the main building. There is simply no way to know (there are usually not cameras inside buildings being demolished, and there were no cameras inside WTC7 to capture what was happening; so this cannot objectively be measured).
The comparison should be in the time that the main buildings take to collapse. This is an objective measurement (unlike guessing about what is going on inside of a building when no movement is observable from outside), and readily observable from video.
Note: For any previous instances of controlled demolition when a penthouse, antenna or other roof structure was demolished before the main building, then - for the sake of consistency - that must be excluded from the collapse time when comparisons are made to WTC 7.
Update: Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti agrees with this analysis, and adds:
"The WTC 7 East penthouse had columns on its perimeter and none in its interior. On three sides these columns mounted near the edge of the roof of WTC 7. It is unlikely that a collapse of any core columns of the main building could have pulled them completely down without the roof beams breaking completely loose from the exterior columns and moving down completely also."
In other words, had the initial collapse of the penthouse been caused by a collapse of the core of the main building, then the rest of the roof would have collapsed at the same time as the penthouse. Because it didn't, this is strong evidence that the collapse of the penthouse and the collapse of the main building were wholly separate events.
Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition
Excerpt:
This is extremely problematic in the case of Building 7.
47 story building. 610 feet tall. Free fall time would be 6.1 seconds.
See: Clarifying the Collapse Time of WTC 7
A free fall drop in 6.6 seconds would be from a height of about 701 feet.
701/610 = 1.1
A free fall drop of 6.6 seconds would be from a height less than 100 feet shorter than the height of Building 7. In other words, NIST would have us believe that fire accomplished something that even explosives don't always accomplish.
"You should also have included the soundtrack of the collapse video which confirms that there were no demolition charges detonated before or during the collapse." Reply: WTC7 Explosion Video A Fake? Posted by JM Talboo
Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition
Excerpt:
This is extremely problematic in the case of Building 7.
47 story building. 610 feet tall. Free fall time would be 6.1 seconds.
See: Clarifying the Collapse Time of WTC 7
A free fall drop in 6.6 seconds would be from a height of about 701 feet.
701/610 = 1.1
A free fall drop of 6.6 seconds would be from a height less than 100 feet shorter than the height of Building 7. In other words, NIST would have us believe that fire accomplished something that even explosives don't always accomplish.
"You should also have included the soundtrack of the collapse video which confirms that there were no demolition charges detonated before or during the collapse." Reply: WTC7 Explosion Video A Fake? Posted by JM Talboo
First off, here is the video in question.
Joseph Nobles of ae911truth.info points out in his post "Explosion on 'Seven’s Exploding' Video is Not Original," that the firefighter in the clip does not say "seven's exploding," but rather "the city’s explodin." After taking this into consideration and listening closely I agree, but as is admitted by 911myths.com on the page "A WTC7 explosion video," "The firefighter's location isn't too far from WTC7. If a bomb were to go off in the building then it's reasonable to believe they would hear it..." Also, after the explosion is heard the firefighter points in the direction of WTC 7.
At first "debunkers" tried to attribute the sound to an exploding fuel tank, but comparisons of the two do not equate, however, a linear shaped charge fits the bill quite well. Here is a great video from Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Adam Taylor highlighting these and other points.
Now "debunkers" have moved on to questioning the authenticity of the sound. 911 Myths reveals that the clip first appeared in a documentary called "9/11 Stories From The City" and states that, "...Being a Hungarian version with their own voiceover: the original volume is dropped considerably, which makes it hard to tell if the explosion sound is the same."
Well, here is the clip. There is this thing called a volume control, turn it up real high, hell, go all the way up and play it a few times. Also listen to see if there is "no echo on the explosion" as a JREF forum member on Nobles' page states.
It sounds like the same audio to me and I hear an echo. So their audio analysis isn't ringing true. Until "debunkers" unearth a version of this video with different audio there is no reason to believe it has been doctored in any way.
The clip also appeared in another documentary that aired on HBO, which just so happened to cut it off right before the explosion. This is circumstantial evidence that there is a loud explosion that they didn't want to show.
9/11 Myths points out that based on the position of the sun we can tell when the explosion took place, concluding that, "If the sound did occur around 7 hours before WTC7 collapsed, as the evidence suggests, then there's no obvious reason why we should make a connection between those two events."
However, there is evidence that the demolition of WTC 7 was botched and supposed to have been timed with, or shortly after, the fall of the towers to make it less obvious.
On the 9/11 Myths page another JREF forum member is quoted saying that the explosion video "...was probably shot between the times that WTC2 and WTC1 collapsed, or it may have been somewhat after WTC1 collapsed -- perhaps even during the collapse."
Joseph Nobles of ae911truth.info points out in his post "Explosion on 'Seven’s Exploding' Video is Not Original," that the firefighter in the clip does not say "seven's exploding," but rather "the city’s explodin." After taking this into consideration and listening closely I agree, but as is admitted by 911myths.com on the page "A WTC7 explosion video," "The firefighter's location isn't too far from WTC7. If a bomb were to go off in the building then it's reasonable to believe they would hear it..." Also, after the explosion is heard the firefighter points in the direction of WTC 7.
At first "debunkers" tried to attribute the sound to an exploding fuel tank, but comparisons of the two do not equate, however, a linear shaped charge fits the bill quite well. Here is a great video from Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Adam Taylor highlighting these and other points.
Now "debunkers" have moved on to questioning the authenticity of the sound. 911 Myths reveals that the clip first appeared in a documentary called "9/11 Stories From The City" and states that, "...Being a Hungarian version with their own voiceover: the original volume is dropped considerably, which makes it hard to tell if the explosion sound is the same."
Well, here is the clip. There is this thing called a volume control, turn it up real high, hell, go all the way up and play it a few times. Also listen to see if there is "no echo on the explosion" as a JREF forum member on Nobles' page states.
It sounds like the same audio to me and I hear an echo. So their audio analysis isn't ringing true. Until "debunkers" unearth a version of this video with different audio there is no reason to believe it has been doctored in any way.
The clip also appeared in another documentary that aired on HBO, which just so happened to cut it off right before the explosion. This is circumstantial evidence that there is a loud explosion that they didn't want to show.
9/11 Myths points out that based on the position of the sun we can tell when the explosion took place, concluding that, "If the sound did occur around 7 hours before WTC7 collapsed, as the evidence suggests, then there's no obvious reason why we should make a connection between those two events."
However, there is evidence that the demolition of WTC 7 was botched and supposed to have been timed with, or shortly after, the fall of the towers to make it less obvious.
On the 9/11 Myths page another JREF forum member is quoted saying that the explosion video "...was probably shot between the times that WTC2 and WTC1 collapsed, or it may have been somewhat after WTC1 collapsed -- perhaps even during the collapse."
WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions
This blog has debunked the talking point that the sound levels on 9/11 were not consistent with the use of explosives here, here, here, and here. Physicist David Chandler recently weighed in on the issue with the following video. I hope it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for this tired argument, but I doubt it. If evidence could decrease the sound level of the "debunkers" I wouldn't know what a broken record feels like.
FAQ #7 – Sounds of Explosions?
 |
| Click Pic to Enlarge |
Written by John-Michael Talboo
http://ae911truth.org
http://ae911truth.org
Friday, 04 November 2011 13:02
Question:
Why weren't the sounds that were heard during the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers on 9/11 as loud as the blasts heard in videos of acknowledged controlled demolitions?
Answer:
As 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman points out at 911research.com, the continuous and rapid explosions of the Twin Towers would make distinct explosions nearly impossible to hear, except perhaps by those who were right next to the Towers. A news clip from Fox shows witnesses in midtown NYC stating that the explosive roar of the Towers’ demise sounded like “another large aircraft flying overhead.” These roaring sound waves were heard miles away.
Furthermore, sounds strongly suggesting explosions can indeed be heard in numerous videos of the towers' destruction, including these videos of WTC 1 and WTC 2 obtained via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against NIST by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. Similar sounds can be heard in videos of the destruction of WTC 7, such as this one, which has been analyzed by physics instructor David Chandler. These new videos of the Towers corroborate the many eyewitness reports describing loud pops and other explosive noises at the onset of the destruction. These reports were also obtained through an FOIA lawsuit, their release having been denied by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey when first requested by the New York Times.
Those who would still contend the sounds heard on 9/11 were not on par with acknowledged controlled demolitions should note a peer-reviewed paper by Danish chemist Niels Harrit, Ph.D., and other scientists, which documented that active thermitic materials were present in the WTC dust. The partially ignited and unignited residue of this energetic material indicates that thermite and nanothermite played a significant role in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers. The literature on these materials states that their shockwave characteristics can be "tuned" for various purposes, which might include reducing the overall volume or sharpness of the blast sounds. Such a capability would make these materials ideal for use in “deceptive” controlled demolitions, in which the muted blast sounds would instinctively be blamed by at least some observers on the buildings' floors hitting each other as part of a "natural" collapse.
Related:
Peer-Reviewed 9/11 Truth:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/10/peer-reviewed-911-truth.html
Question:
Why weren't the sounds that were heard during the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers on 9/11 as loud as the blasts heard in videos of acknowledged controlled demolitions?
Answer:
As 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman points out at 911research.com, the continuous and rapid explosions of the Twin Towers would make distinct explosions nearly impossible to hear, except perhaps by those who were right next to the Towers. A news clip from Fox shows witnesses in midtown NYC stating that the explosive roar of the Towers’ demise sounded like “another large aircraft flying overhead.” These roaring sound waves were heard miles away.
Furthermore, sounds strongly suggesting explosions can indeed be heard in numerous videos of the towers' destruction, including these videos of WTC 1 and WTC 2 obtained via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against NIST by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. Similar sounds can be heard in videos of the destruction of WTC 7, such as this one, which has been analyzed by physics instructor David Chandler. These new videos of the Towers corroborate the many eyewitness reports describing loud pops and other explosive noises at the onset of the destruction. These reports were also obtained through an FOIA lawsuit, their release having been denied by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey when first requested by the New York Times.
Those who would still contend the sounds heard on 9/11 were not on par with acknowledged controlled demolitions should note a peer-reviewed paper by Danish chemist Niels Harrit, Ph.D., and other scientists, which documented that active thermitic materials were present in the WTC dust. The partially ignited and unignited residue of this energetic material indicates that thermite and nanothermite played a significant role in the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers. The literature on these materials states that their shockwave characteristics can be "tuned" for various purposes, which might include reducing the overall volume or sharpness of the blast sounds. Such a capability would make these materials ideal for use in “deceptive” controlled demolitions, in which the muted blast sounds would instinctively be blamed by at least some observers on the buildings' floors hitting each other as part of a "natural" collapse.
Related:
Peer-Reviewed 9/11 Truth:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/10/peer-reviewed-911-truth.html
