WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions
(Written and narrated by David Chandler / Edited by Debora Blake)
There is ample evidence, from both witnesses and recordings, of explosions associated with the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7). NIST sidestepped investigating explosions and explosives by setting up an artificially high threshold of interest. They swept aside any testimony or recordings of explosions that would not register 130-140 dB one kilometer away. They established this criterion using RDX (one of the loudest explosives) in a scenario that produced a far higher sound level than other possible uses of explosives to bring down the building. Then they turned around and used sound level as the sole criterion for deciding whether the use of explosives was a credible hypothesis. By this maneuver, they sidestepped investigating the testimony of explosives or possible evidence of explosive residues. This is just one more instance of fraudulent behavior on the part of the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center disaster.
- davidschandler's blog
- Login to post comments
Excellent piece of research! Well done!
Sometimes I get the sense that NIST was obtaining their rebuttals from people who frequent the JREF forum, like Mark Roberts
Well done!
The same principal (use of sound dampening high-tech thermitic cutting charges) may be applied to the final occurance of destruction of the twin towers, which sounds like the rumble of a train, although it was preceded by a number of massive explosions throughout the buildings in preparation.
Scary how OBVIOUS the evidence is, and how deadly the policy which eminated from it.
Thank you David Chandler (& Debora Blake), for your work. It lays the groundwork for future historians looking back, so that something of value can be learned from what really took place.
possibly
But aren't you then suggesting that NIST's decibel measurement process as a way to decide whether or not to test for explosives is relevant? I say it's not because for all we know there WAS dynamite or conventional explosives attached to those columns and / or through the entire building. It's amusing because what NIST is doing is running extensive tests and comparing data just to determine if they should...test!
You make a good point
about the absurdity of their position.
Given what took place, it would only make sense to just TEST for explosives, and not begin by assuming they were not present and that fire was the sole cause.
But they will run a fairly extensive test to show why they did not test, but only in hindsight. Ridiculous!
47 Story Steel Structure Building goes down in 7 seconds, but, there's no reason on earth to test for explosives because tests show that the booms from RDX were not loud enough? Meanwhile NIST has whole sections specializing in exotic explosives like thermite and nano thermite, so they know damn well there are explosives other than RDX, which don't make such loud booms.
Craziness, is what it is. And fraud and conspiracy after the fact, evidentally.
Interesting
Funny how NIST will go through the trouble of creating a hypothetical decibel level that suggests explosives were used, then takes the time to run that data against all the video footage and eye witness evidence....before they would just run the tests for explosives residue, probably something that is cheaper and takes far less time.
THREE skyscrapers fall in a mere 20, 30 or even 40 seconds....on what planet don't you test for explosives?
Thermate may have been used but look at the collapse of the WTC 1 and 2. Thermite or thermate doesn't pulverize concrete like that. Seems to me there would be less thermate residue because it most likely was used to sever column connections, not to pulverize concrete.
Has 9/11 Truth run tests for more traditional demolition explosives?
According to Scott Creighton, who claims to have had e-mail communication with Dr. Steven Jones and Greg Roberts about this issue, Jones does not seem interested in testing for conventional explosives for various reasons. Scott over at http://willyloman.wordpress.org claims Jones is actually avoiding testing for explosives just like NIST is doing. The link below might be of interest as Scott makes a case for testing for conventional explosives. There's also some other interesting information about BYU, the peer review process that the paper went through, and Scott Claims Jones put him in contact with Greg Roberts who suggested negative results would be bad PR for the 911 Truth Movement.
See this link for Steven Jones category: Dr. Steven Jones, BYU, Peer Review, Conventional Explosives
I guess it doesn't matter much if Scott is wrong about Dr. Jones. If you go into a legal debate with samples that test positive for something like RDX, for example, it would have huge weight. No one's going to believe that RDX is used in sheet rock.
Why haven't we tested for these types of explosives yet? Dr. Jones, if you're there, please comment.
They have already found nanothermite in the dust.
SInce this is a fact, and since there are fewer who have access to nanothermite than conventional explosives, it seems that this is the best evidence. It points to only a few military contractors as manufacturers.
Besides, I don't think they were looking for nanothermite. They were examining the dust to see what was there. What they found was nanothermite and its byproducts.
Doh...broken links
Sorry...the links I posted to WillyLoman's site were wrong...here they are...
American Everyman
willyloman.wordpress.com
Dr. Steven Jones, BYU, Peer Review, Conventional Explosives
fantastic job Dave & company !
Once again - you nailed it !
Only a friggin moron would believe the govts WTC stories. And that is sad as alot of people still do. :(
Good Question
"THREE skyscrapers fall in a mere 20, 30 or even 40 seconds....on what planet don't you test for explosives? "
On one not overrun by Zionist, Luciferian, Freemasons.
The biggest NIST fraud
NIST ran a computer program designed to model reality, and ended up with a condition that doesn't exist in reality; total collapse due to thermal expansion. Before declaring a new phenomenon has been discovered, the obvious next step would have been to look for flaws in the computer software. At least that's what I do when I write a program that has the laws of nature behaving in new and strange ways. Since NIST will not release the complete models that is not possible to check.
Timing of explosions corresponds to collapse of the penthouse
Hi David, I hope you will read this because I think an important point is that the timing of the explosion audio in your video corresponds to the collapse of the Building 7 penthouse. I had a hunch that this might be the case, so I first found a video of the Building 7 collapse that included the penthouse collapse ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjrAJVp4ds ). Watching that video, I noted that the noticeable collapse of the roofline followed the collapse of the penthouse by almost exactly 8 seconds. Next I found a video of the Ashleigh Banfield interview with Building 7's collapse ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0pKUz8UpSs ). Watching that one, I noted that from the point of the explosion audio (where the lady begins to say, "They... they... advised us to leave... ") and the cries of the crowd (upon seeing Building 7's roofline visibly drop), the time in between is almost exactly 8 seconds, and this seems to tie the beginning of the explosion audio to the collapse of the penthouse. Hope this helps. Kind regards,
pb