Behind the audio of every real time broadcast is the controlled demolition sounds during the "collapse" sequence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqOxLWXR-uY
Matthew Barancho Ron is at it again, clinging to trivialities while the most pressing concerns are ignored.
He considered it a personal attack when I mentioned his need to schedule a visit to the optometrist. I am not sure why he would consider it so; I am genuinely concerned with his vision because it seems he is not able to read properly. I think Ron needs to schedule that appointment, right away.
Ron expects it is my duty to prove that some or all of the many explosions heard at WTC7 were caused by explosives. But consider this:
- This is the first time in history a high-rise is alleged to have fully collapsed without the use of explosives or other controlled demolition techniques.
- Many explosions were heard throughout the day, at least several of them sounding virtually identical to shaped charges used in classic controlled demolitions.
- NIST's alternative collapse model that does not include the use of explosives has been refuted; key structural elements were excluded and the failure sequence is demonstrably incorrect.
In summary, explosions like the ones heard at WTC7 should be expected for the collapse of a high-rise structure and the NIST model fails to provide a plausible scenario by which explosives wouldn't have been necessary.
We might suspect NIST of deliberately falsifying their narrative. In addition to their outright omission of key structural features from their model of the collapse initiation sequence, all but one piece of previously-leaked video footage showing the initiation from an audible distance has been edited from NIST FOIA releases (Ron admits he cannot explain this). NIST also failed to initially acknowledge the free-fall speed of WTC7 and did not include a legitimate inquiry and investigation for the use of explosives in their report.
Ron has focused a major portion of his last response on the issue of "nanothermite" while dodging some of my most relevant points yet again. It is not disputed by anyone that nanothermite, even with increased pressure-volume ("explosive") capacity, will retain incendiary properties which include the ability to melt through steel with considerable ease. As far as I am aware, there is no indication that nanothermite loses its exothermic ability to cut through steel as the desired combustion wave increases. As stated before, there are many other possibilites to consider for the low-frequency "boom" such as whether explosives were detonated at the building's foundation immediately prior to collapse; this could also explain why the "boom" was referred to as a "rumble in the ground" by some eyewitnesses.
The observed features of intergranular melting at WTC7 were concentrated only at the joints and ends of recovered steel. NIST did not investigate this. Jonathan Cole's experiment is the only one ever attempted to recreate the conditions at WTC7, concluding that no similar observations of intergranular melting could be accounted for.
Ron says:
"I'd like to see Matthew point to a single controlled demolition in history where explosives were set off throughout the day to slowly weaken the building, particularly when there were fires going on throughout the building."
Ron cannot provide any example of a high-rise collapse without the use of explosives or other demolition techniques. Yet, he thinks I am required to show another example of a controlled demolition with identical features to what occurred in WTC7. He is not able to fathom why or how the perpetrators would have been able to limit the observable similarities to a classic controlled demolition, despite my explaining this process to him repeatedly.
I don't know why Ron has a problem with my link. It works fine. Here it is again:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/.../linear_shaped...
Ron goes on claiming:
"...you can clearly hear explosions from controlled demolitions even miles away and yet no video of any building that collapsed on 9/11, no matter how close the video was made (including within a block of the collapse of the towers) records any such remotely similar explosion sounds."
I don't know how to justify Ron's incredulity. Anyone can plainly hear the striking similarities to a shaped charge. Again, beginning at 1m10s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLGe7TY14Pc
Ron's laughable logic could be no better illustrated than with this:
"NIST came out with its report. If truthers think it's false, then they have a burden to demonstrate such."
NIST is the institution that was appointed with the task of proving beyond any reasonable doubt what happened on 9/11. Hence, they have the burden of proof. The fact that they "came out with [their] report" means absolutely nothing. Their collapse initiation model at WTC7 lacks critical features and, hence, credibility. Their progression model is *clearly* incorrect as it does not account for perimeter flexure in response to collective core failure. They did not investigate the use of explosives. The fact that Ron thinks the burden of proof now somehow falls upon "truthers" (whatever that means) to demonstrate that the taxpayer-funded NIST report is false at each and every point is obviously unreasonable. Logic is never called upon to prove a negative -- it'd be the same as religious fundamentalists claiming I must disprove every single claim in their religious text before the premise can be considered false. NIST has made a positive assertion that it cannot sustain which only adds to the considerable body of evidence supporting the use of explosives.
He considered it a personal attack when I mentioned his need to schedule a visit to the optometrist. I am not sure why he would consider it so; I am genuinely concerned with his vision because it seems he is not able to read properly. I think Ron needs to schedule that appointment, right away.
Ron expects it is my duty to prove that some or all of the many explosions heard at WTC7 were caused by explosives. But consider this:
- This is the first time in history a high-rise is alleged to have fully collapsed without the use of explosives or other controlled demolition techniques.
- Many explosions were heard throughout the day, at least several of them sounding virtually identical to shaped charges used in classic controlled demolitions.
- NIST's alternative collapse model that does not include the use of explosives has been refuted; key structural elements were excluded and the failure sequence is demonstrably incorrect.
In summary, explosions like the ones heard at WTC7 should be expected for the collapse of a high-rise structure and the NIST model fails to provide a plausible scenario by which explosives wouldn't have been necessary.
We might suspect NIST of deliberately falsifying their narrative. In addition to their outright omission of key structural features from their model of the collapse initiation sequence, all but one piece of previously-leaked video footage showing the initiation from an audible distance has been edited from NIST FOIA releases (Ron admits he cannot explain this). NIST also failed to initially acknowledge the free-fall speed of WTC7 and did not include a legitimate inquiry and investigation for the use of explosives in their report.
Ron has focused a major portion of his last response on the issue of "nanothermite" while dodging some of my most relevant points yet again. It is not disputed by anyone that nanothermite, even with increased pressure-volume ("explosive") capacity, will retain incendiary properties which include the ability to melt through steel with considerable ease. As far as I am aware, there is no indication that nanothermite loses its exothermic ability to cut through steel as the desired combustion wave increases. As stated before, there are many other possibilites to consider for the low-frequency "boom" such as whether explosives were detonated at the building's foundation immediately prior to collapse; this could also explain why the "boom" was referred to as a "rumble in the ground" by some eyewitnesses.
The observed features of intergranular melting at WTC7 were concentrated only at the joints and ends of recovered steel. NIST did not investigate this. Jonathan Cole's experiment is the only one ever attempted to recreate the conditions at WTC7, concluding that no similar observations of intergranular melting could be accounted for.
Ron says:
"I'd like to see Matthew point to a single controlled demolition in history where explosives were set off throughout the day to slowly weaken the building, particularly when there were fires going on throughout the building."
Ron cannot provide any example of a high-rise collapse without the use of explosives or other demolition techniques. Yet, he thinks I am required to show another example of a controlled demolition with identical features to what occurred in WTC7. He is not able to fathom why or how the perpetrators would have been able to limit the observable similarities to a classic controlled demolition, despite my explaining this process to him repeatedly.
I don't know why Ron has a problem with my link. It works fine. Here it is again:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/.../linear_shaped...
Ron goes on claiming:
"...you can clearly hear explosions from controlled demolitions even miles away and yet no video of any building that collapsed on 9/11, no matter how close the video was made (including within a block of the collapse of the towers) records any such remotely similar explosion sounds."
I don't know how to justify Ron's incredulity. Anyone can plainly hear the striking similarities to a shaped charge. Again, beginning at 1m10s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLGe7TY14Pc
Ron's laughable logic could be no better illustrated than with this:
"NIST came out with its report. If truthers think it's false, then they have a burden to demonstrate such."
NIST is the institution that was appointed with the task of proving beyond any reasonable doubt what happened on 9/11. Hence, they have the burden of proof. The fact that they "came out with [their] report" means absolutely nothing. Their collapse initiation model at WTC7 lacks critical features and, hence, credibility. Their progression model is *clearly* incorrect as it does not account for perimeter flexure in response to collective core failure. They did not investigate the use of explosives. The fact that Ron thinks the burden of proof now somehow falls upon "truthers" (whatever that means) to demonstrate that the taxpayer-funded NIST report is false at each and every point is obviously unreasonable. Logic is never called upon to prove a negative -- it'd be the same as religious fundamentalists claiming I must disprove every single claim in their religious text before the premise can be considered false. NIST has made a positive assertion that it cannot sustain which only adds to the considerable body of evidence supporting the use of explosives.
No comments:
Post a Comment