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."
Yes. The excuse is that organics combusting in the chip are what sends the readings above and beyond just pure thermite. And admittedly, if that were true and there was both a thermite redox and a regular burning of the organics present, there would be no way to separate the energy release of one from another. But that does beg the question of why the calorimeter argument was even made, and it does reveal the basic dishonesty of the paper; I find it hard to believe that this was an honest mistake, given that the energy density of a thermite reduction is well known. The energy density was presented as proof that this was an "energetic substance" (which it was), but then conflated with thermite (which was merely alleged).
First off, as the paper notes:
"The presence of an organic substance in the red material is expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive."
"Once dry the (hybrid inorganic/organic energetic composite) material burns very vigorously and rapidly with the evolution of significant amounts of gaseous species."
The researchers did not eliminate the possibility that all the heat release was due to organics burning - and on top of that, breezily ignored the fact that the variations in their runs indicated a problem with such a thesis (why so much variation in a substance allegedly designed to be an incendiary?).
So I've just taken a look over at ae911truth.info to see if Mr. Joseph Nobles has been up to anything recently. His latest addition to his site concerns a post by someone on the JREF forum on a thread titled "Why do you still believe that a collapse due to fire wouldn't be possible?". I was ready to write a quick response to this, but looking through the thread I quickly saw that someone had already responded to it. Poster "Sivan Kurzberg" posted this excellent response, which I've reposted here with some of my own comments in red, some links:
1 - Steel does lose strength at high temperatures. Where was it ever claimed otherwise? You need to prove those temperatures though. Absolutely. And NIST hasnot done this.
2 - The fire protection were removed from the truss on the floors where the impact occurred. This is speculation that's never proven. Exactly how much was removed and exactly how? Exactly how much was needed to remain to keep the building up longer than an hour or until it was completely evacuated? What's more, fireproofing is only good for up to 2-3 hours.Other skyscrapershave burned over 5 hours and have not collapsed.
3 - It is not necessary to remove all fire protection to make the structure susceptible to fire. See number 2
4 - The failure of a structural element can cause the failure of others. Sure, but will it bring on sudden rapid global collapse of the entire structure? It may, but we haveno examplesof this outside of controlled demolition.
5 - Progressive collapse does exist. Sure. But not sudden rapid global collapse complete in a matter of seconds like what was witnessed three times on 9/11. The only real progressive collapse caused by firewas everything one would expect: localized, asymmetric, and nowhere near free fall rate.
This thread is not about evidence of controlled demolition nor NIST findings. It's about arguments that support the claim the towers (WTC 1 and 2) couldn't have collapsed due to fire. It's still unprecedented and unproven. This is the problem. I couldn't agree more.
Sivan Kurzberg also mentioned something that debunkers have yet to do:
"What the debunkers will never be able to show is the sudden global collapse of an entire high-rise complete in a matter of seconds. Especially of a building only on fire for about an hour."
Looking through the thread more, I was surprised to see that poster "Patriots4Truth" posted several of my videos from my "9/11 Un-debunked" series in response to debunker claims. Poster "Grizzly Bear" had some thoughts on my videos. Once again, I've reposted that here with my comments in red with some links:
A quick comment while I'm on break...
Fires Insufficient To Cause Collapse Mister citizen assumes the only fuel available for the fires was the jet fuel. It's a repeat of the "no steel over 600oF" claim which itself is based on a bastardization of the NIST report's conclusion. Given his premise is incorrect, his video is of little to no relevance. I do not assume that jet fuel was the only source of fuel, and I never will. The point of my video was to show that the amount of fuel in each of the Towers was smaller than debunkers had portrayed in the past. This is supposed to be a crucial difference between the fires in the Towers and other skyscraper fires. Clearly jet fuel would have created higher temperatures than office material.
Buildings Built To Withstand Airplane Strikes Quote: When the WTC towers were built there was extensive controversy over their safety in emergencies. The NYC Fire Department protested, as did a host of other agencies and professional associations. The buildings were constructed in bulk and height far in excess of what municipal construction and zoning codes allowed. However, the Port Authority, a quasi-governmental agency with exceptional powers inherited from the regime of Robert Moses, was specifically exempt from compliance with municipal codes. The real estate, construction and finance industries were powerful supporters of the project.
Aside, I add that in 30 some years of examining buildings in New York, I have found none, zero, which are fully compliant with municipal building codes. It is a terrible, little reported scandal of the city in which it is considered to be bad business to fully comply with codes.
Speed Of The Collapse Was Too Fast Why the speed issue is always brought up is beyond me... Once the collapse initiated it was collapsing regardless of whether it took 10 or 30 seconds... Mr citizen obviously cites the commission report, which for whatever reason truthers to this day still hold the absurd belief it was intended to be a engineering report as opposed to a bipartisan investigation concerning what lead to the attacks happening, not determining how or why the towers failed. This is pointless rambling. I only cited the Commission Report to make clear that the official investigators were the first to make claims of "10 seconds."The speed issue is very important, and it has been shown the the fall rates of the Towers were at the very leastconsistent with controlled demolition.
The First Steel Framed High-Rise Fire Collapses "First time in history" is a bowl of laughs... To claim this requires an absolute bastardization and ignorance of steel material properties and general design case studies. His opinions being based on such faulty premises renders his video irrelevant. Exactly how is my video irrelevant? Debunkers find itunacceptableto compare other high-rise skyscraper fires to the Towers and Building 7, but comparing them tobadly built toy factories and elementary schoolsis just fine. The only steel structures debunkers apparently do think are comparable are structures that have collapsed from fire, with none of them being steel skyscrapers.
Throughout the thread some JREFers brought up Building 5's partial collapse from fire, which they seem to think supports the "fire can cause collapse" theory. Here's the reality.
WTC Collapse This was a regurgitation of all the videos in your list preceding it. None of which had any reasonable argument made against them.
WTC 7's Collapse Is Still A Mystery This comment was pretty stupid, considering only "on-tenth" or so of WTC 1 & 2 each were burning. Makes me genuinely curious if he's ever seen a building up close while it was on fire. However, as I've already shown, Building 5 was almost fully engulfed and performed much better.
He also believes the smoke emanating from WTC 7 was not from WTC 7... similar to the DRG/Jones claim that the smoke instead came from WTC 5... Which is what I do claim. He completely ignores the photoswhich show the exact same thing happened to WTC1.
Apparently his "mystery" is part of his faulty premise... and this video is also not relevant to any degree. It is relevant because debunkers still cry claims of"25% scooped out!"or"there were fuel tanks in the building!"As long as debunkers keep making these claims, I see it as very relevant.
patriots4truth, these videos are little more than psuedoscience and regurgitation. I would be interested if you can offer your own argument instead of offering a regurgitation of 2006 from unqualified individuals. Thank you. These arguments clearly are groundless, andJREFers themselveshave been shown to be nothing but psuedoskeptics.
Hopefully, this will put what the Truth Movement believes in better perspective for the debunkers.
Here is the excellent post on the JREF forum (Feb 6th) that actually exposes all of their 9/11 Debunking tactics in one convenient tidy package - from their own master. It can be seen as the bible of the true skeptic - by the ultimate skeptic, Proff Truzi. Use this to expose the debunkers with their own "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic". (I have added the numbers for your future use). Use it liberally!
(Thanks go to Dan Noel)
RG
Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.
Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic.
Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,
Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic:
1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt. 2. Double standards in the application of criticism. 3. The making of judgments without full inquiry. 4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate. 5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments. 6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science. 7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof. 8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof. 9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims. 10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence. 11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it. 12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims. 13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance). 14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'. 15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths. 16. No references to reputable journal material. 17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.
True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics
A. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic. B. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things C. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides D. Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions E. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own F. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim G. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides H. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence I. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason J. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence
Just a nice guide to fall back on, the skeptics bible in a way. Its not amazingly consistent (ie, skeptics should not give people a stereotype and dismiss them due to that, so immediately labelling the pseudoskeptic, so has an early issue)
I was gonna make a video out of this but I couldn't be bothered. Also my camera battery charger is busted and I can't do any narration until I get another one.
There's been a number of posts the last few months on the JREF forum about a european method of demolition known as "Verinage". Basically this method involves weakening a few floors and displacing the weakened floors to cause the entire top section to slam into the lower section. The thermite deniers claim videos of this method of demolition prove that the upper floors of the north tower could have destroyed the rest of the building at a rate comparible to freefall, since the time it takes for these buildings to fall is comparible to a freefall time.
I never actually measured the rate of fall of these buildings though. Well I have now. One evening when I was making my pop culture video, I had a bit of a mad moment and decided to use Adobe After Effects to depict the Queen stealing Miley Cyrus' soul! My crude 70s Sci-Fi FX aside, in order to make that I had to learn how to use motion tracking.
When I found out that After Effects even makes a speed-time graph of the motion, I decided to motion track some points on these Verinage videos to see how the speed changed over time.
ABC Tower, Balzac, Vitry-sur-Seine February 14, 2007
Three points were tracked and the three tracks were averaged. The graph below is the speed-time graph of the average.
Glacis, Belfort February 21, 2008
Five points were tracked and the five tracks were averaged. The footage was stabilized first. The graph below is the speed-time graph of the average.
Broca Tower, Argenteuil August 22, 2007
Five points were tracked and the five tracks were averaged. The footage was stabilized first. The graph below is the speed-time graph of the average.
Now I don't claim this to be in any way scientific. All three videos are at an angle and the graphs are speed-time graphs, not velocity-time graphs, so obviously there's gonna be some accuracy issues, but still I think this gives you a fairly good idea of what a section of building falling on another section of building should look like. Notice how in all three cases there's an initial acceleration and then upon impact the acceleration abruptly ceases and a deceleration trend begins. This is exactly what we would expect using basic physics and common sense. The tracks go a bit wild towards the end because of the dust clouds getting in the way, that's why I did several and averaged. Now let's look at the north tower ...
Three points were tracked. This was a bit more difficult because of the smoke. The graph below is of all three tracks together.
I think that's pretty clear! Just like Chandlers' analysis and MacQueen & Szamboti's analysis, my tracks have produced a reasonably straight line. For at least two seconds the north tower accelerated constantly, further proof of the lack of jolt.
The three Verinage demolitions are perhaps the closest real-world examples we have for comparison to the North Tower, and they clearly behave differently. The fact remains that what happened to the north tower was unprecedented, regardless of how much you wanna exaggerate the tilt!
The BBC cannot resist attacking anyone who questions the establishment line and counters mainstream accounts of events, especially if they make up part of the new and exciting alternative media that is contributing to the corporation’s ongoing fossilization.
That is why in a feature article today, the corporation is promoting a group of “scientists and skeptics” whose declared mission is to vigorously debunk those who are questioning the “accepted versions” of events.
“While many people find them harmless fun, others believe there is a darker truth – that conspiracy theories are rewriting history, warping the present and altering the future. Enough is enough they say – it’s time to fight back.” the report reads.
The article centres around the “non profit” James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), which charges £175 a ticket to its conferences, events that equate to little more than rabid debunking fests on everything from 9/11 truth to research claiming mercury containing vaccinations are harmful.
In a deliberate Orwellian warping of language, JREF attendees are described as “skeptics” who are promoting critical thinking”:
JREF was officially established in 1996 to “help debunk paranormal and pseudoscientific claims”. How ironic it is then that the foundation seemingly supports the pseudoscientific claim that jet fuel, and office fires in the case of of World Trade Center 7, can burn at temperatures hot enough to cause multi-story steel framed structures to collapse and disintegrate at free fall rate.
JREF has comedians and a man who pretended to have a picture of fairies at its conferences, the 9/11 truth movement has heard from hundreds of architects, engineers and physics professors. How telling it is that the BBC paints up JREF as the credible organisation, while the 9/11 truth movement is reduced to the level of racist internet-dwelling freaks.
There might also be a few brainwashed fellas in there too, ones that really believe the tripe they push. The genuinely smart people, after uncovering one or two JREF deceptions would naturally bail on them.
Looks to me that the JREF is some sort of disinformation operation. If you want to see debunking material completely destroyed, the sort of stuff these JREF people promote, I recommend making a visit to the Debunking the Debunkers blog.
Gordon Ross is pretty sure he exists. From: http://gordonssite.com/id4.html
Apparently, I do not exist. According to a thread on the JREF forum, no one by the name of Gordon Ross has been born in Dundee since the latter part of the 19th Century. This came as quite a shock to me and no doubt will also surprise my father, who it seems has laboured for all his life under the delusion that he is also called Gordon Ross and was born in Dundee. My Great Uncle Gordon passed away several years ago and has thus been spared the trauma of discovering that he also did not exist.
In this article I will deal with some of the responses to my work as presented on this web site and elsewhere. At the end I will, in time, list some of the favourable comments, but firstly I will deal with the criticisms. Please forgive me for dealing with the easy ones first, but when such inviting targets present themselves, it is difficult not to take advantage, and they do provide some very welcome light relief. The JREF forum, a scary Twilight Zone kind of place where some strange fictions pass for facts, takes the prize for the most ludicrous assertions available. The "fact" presented there regarding the absence of any Gordon Ross in Dundee's register of births, would make me at least 120 years old, and I must admit that as I read through the site, I did begin to feel every day of that extended life span. So what was their explanation for my existence, or more correctly, my non-existence? According to the evidence presented there, I am actually Professor Jones masquerading as someone else.
And we are the conspiracy theorists? Click HERE to read the entire article...
It's gone 1:30 AM here in England and I've spent the last four hours taking a break from studying, video editing, half-assed job hunting and expressing my anger at the fact that we may once again soon be under the rule of the mass murdering war criminal Tony B. Liar by chilling out and watching the most awesome cartoon ever... Dangermouse! I've never noticed it before but the villain reminds me so much of David Rockefeller.
"I don't spend any time on this stuff in the past few years, and I recommend that you move on as well. In my opinion, giving attention to a tiny smattering of "truthers" remaining, only encourages their idiocy."
Speaking of Harrit, I found this video (from the CIT forum of all places) of him giving a lecture about the chemistry behind the red chips. Interesting stuff. Don't be scared by the German beginning. The lecture is in English.
Last night I finally got round to watching the History Channel's "102 Minutes That Changed America" (I thought the whole point of the war on terror was for America not to change!). There's lots of footage in it I hadn't seen before (Including a random shot of a pigeon in the dusty aftermath of the twin tower's collapse, what's the betting that bird died of a horrible lung condition!).
This blog continues below the image...
One thing I noticed was that in many of the videos you can see these weird streamer things falling from the still standing towers. I've noticed them before but I've never really thought anything of them. Now after watching David Chandler's recent videos I'm looking at them in a completely different way. Could these be more video evidence of thermite ignition? The white smoke would suggest yes. In fact in one shot (which I'm including in my next video) you can see an object fall and then in mid air it starts to release white smoke.
What is my next video? ... It's a music video to an original song I wrote! A song called "9/11 was an Inside Job" ... now there are a lot of songs people have made on Youtube with that name. But how many of them make a lyrical reference to exploding paint?! Unfortunately none of my friends who can sing wanted to sing it ... and I can't sing for s--t! But due to the magic of computers that's not a problem! (How else do you think a certain three piece Disney band became successful!?) The audio recording and note by note auto tuning (which took two whole days!) has been done - My audio editing isn't as good as my video editing so it's not perfect but its listenable... just! Now I'm just waiting for my props to arrive to make the music video. It should be finished by the end of the week.
The final stop was the White House where Gage, with David Slesinger, laid an AE911Truth banner on the sidewalk and addressed the tourists gathered there. Gage got into a heated but cordial debate with a man who identified himself as Kevin, a "reformed truther" and the former "debunking director" on the JREF Forum.
"I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it." - FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro (fire department commander) on 9/11
