WTC7 - new video?

[k-robjoe]

Haven´t seen this one before. And it seems to show just what it says :

"Windows in a vertical line are simultaneously blown out"

http://www.truthed.com/videos/602_new_video_wtc_building_7_demolition_explosions.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

1. No, we have had that one for a while

That starts well into the collapse (the east penthouse has already fallen into the building), and it also shows that the building doesn't fall straight down, but to the south as it collapses.

I think it's a new site hosting it, though.

[whatchamacallit]

2. Only the truly delusional

can watch that and think "absolutely no way it could be a demo". :crazy:

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Luckily we don't have to rely on just watching a video or two to know the truth about the collapse.

http://ae911truth.info

[whatchamacallit]

4. Yeah, what good are eyes

when you have black box models and simulations? :/

[SDuderstadt]

5. Yeah, like your eyes are trained to...

detect a controlled demolition.

No one is saying it doesn't "look" like a controlled demolition, but it certainly doesn't "sound" like a controlled demolition. Find any honestly recorded video of a controlled demolition and note the deafening explosions that accompany it.

Then answer a simple question, dude. How come no video of WTC7 includes the deafening explosions? Hint:: you can't because it wasn't a controlled demolition.

[whatchamacallit]

6. Could you be so kind to point me to a good video with accompanying (original and untampered) audio

so I might determine if what you claim is missing is indeed missing?

[SDuderstadt]

7. Video of what?

WTC7 or an actual controlled demolition?

[whatchamacallit]

8. Whatever wtc7 video/audio that led you to conclude there were no explosions or sonic anomalies (nt)

[SDuderstadt]

9. You're kidding, right?

What is a "sonic anomaly"?

[whatchamacallit]

10. I'm not kidding

You admit it looks like a duck, but then go on to disregard what your eyes are telling you because it doesn't quack like one. Obviously your analysis of the audio tracks of multiple videos of wtc7, have enabled you to assert with confidence that there were no explosions of any kind. Would you please point me to some of your reference so I might validate your claim?

[SDuderstadt]

11. Like I said, "looks" like doesn't mean "is"

where are the deafening explosions, dude? I'm no the one claiming WTC7 was a "controlled demolition", you are, so don''t demand I do your work for you. Has someone discovered closed caption explosives or something? Is someone "signing" the explosions using ASL? And, again, wtf are "sonic anomalies"?

[whatchamacallit]

12. You are always shouting at everyone to back up their claims with evidence

I simply asked you to share whatever video(s) you used to determine that there were no explosions or other uncommon sonic events (anomalies) associated with the collapse. You failed. Therefore, I can only assume it's bullshit. Simply issuing a claim from your piehole is not enough.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Dude...this is just your version of...

"trying to shift the burden of proof". I'm not trying to prove a negative, dude. I'm asking you for proof of your claim. Where is it?

[whatchamacallit]

14. Bullshit. The claim I made is that the collapse looks like a demo

You agreed, so no need to prove what you already agree with. You then claimed that despite looking like a demo, it couldn't be one because of the lack of expected audio events. That claim is not agreed to, and has not been proved. And since you refuse to back up your goofy claim, you are owned.

[SDuderstadt]

15. You don't agree that controlled demolitions are...

accompanied by deafening explosions? My evidence is the portfolios of EVERY CD firm in which the videos of the CD's are accompanied by deafening explosions. Your claim would require you to produce videos of actual controlled demolitions that AREN'T accompanied by deafening explosions of which you have exactly none.

Your denial of a critical component of CD's is a testament to how little you know about CD's and how you know even less about critical thinking. Hopefully, you at least know where your local community college is located so, at the very least, you can correct one of your deficiencies.

Here's a thought...why don't you call several CD experts and reveal your theory to them, then let us know how long they laughed at you, dude.

[whatchamacallit]

16. Such one dimensional thinking...

Yes I've seen many videos of demolitions, but the accompanying audio varies depending on factors that seem to be off your tiny radar. I've seen/heard some with large explosions, some with small, rapid, firecracker-like charge bursts, and some that had no audio at all. The problem Mr. Community College, is that what you hear is not always going to be the same, or what you'd expect. Beyond issues of legitimate chain of custody and tampering (is the audio track the original synced audio, contemporaneous with the actual event?), there are other important factors:

What is the actual distance from the source to the camera's microphone? Is the image generated by a very distant camera with max zoom? Are there any obstructions that could block the direct path of the sound? How responsive is the mic/recorder to low frequencies (below 60 Hz)? Are there other ambient sounds that might mask or cancel the expected sounds? That's just a beginning...

Interestingly, I may not have disagreed with your assessment had you been willing to allow your source to be scrutinized, but alas... Now I know that in SDude's world, if the various net videos don't sound exactly like a demolition company's corporate video, it couldn't have been CD.:think:

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whatchamacallit]

18. Thanks, I'll check your link and get back to you

I've been looking at youtube vids... Unfortunately, most are distant and the audio quality is deplorable. Instead of hammering on you though, I will screw around with a FFT spectrum analyzer and some other toys to see if I can detect anything not immediately apparent. Ultimately, you may be right. If that's the case, while it won't constitute definitive proof, I will file it as a troubling aspect of the CD theory.

[whatchamacallit]

19. The video he used was Dan Rather's video which was sans audio

the *only* audio was newsroom mummer. Totally worthless to ae911, but also totally worthless for your purposes as well.:shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

21. A forensic scientist looks at ALL available evidence.

Not just the cherry-picked and the bias-confirming.

[defendandprotect]

20. Wow . . . now let's see . . . what does that suggest . . . ?????? hmmmm....

[wildbilln864]

22. thanks! nt