WTC 7 Sound Evidence for Explosions

WTC 7 - Sound evidence of explosions.
By David Chandler. In its final report on the destruction
of WTC Building 7 NIST, the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, went out of its way to avoid
investigating the use of explosives. Their sole rationale for not
investigating explosive use was the supposed lack
of sufficiently loud sounds. NIST computed what they claimed would be
the minimum loudness of an explosion that could sever column 79
with a single blast.

Then they claimed no observers detected
explosions as loud as their predictions. This size blast would have produced
an incredibly loud sound that was not recorded on videos
of the collapse, nor reported by witnesses. On the basis of this
artificial threshold of interest they swept aside all evidence
of actual explosions and concluded that no explosives contributed
to the destruction of the building. We did not find any evidence that explosives
were used in the collapse of Building 7.

Yet there was voluminous evidence of explosions. Heres one of the guys
who can tell you Im okay, alright? You want to call your mother or something? You heard explosions, like BABOOM! We just heard one more explosion.
Thats about the fourth one weve heard. Craig Bartmer was a policeman who was
near Building 7 as it started to come down. It was nothing I would
ever imagine seeing in my life.

The thing started peeling in on itself. I mean, there was an umbrella of crap 7 feet over my head that I just stared at. Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running and the shit's hitting the ground behind me. And the whole time youre hearing
thoom, thoom, thoom, thoom, thoom.

I think I know an explosion when I hear it. A few blocks up West Broadway
looking toward the WTC in the distance Ashleigh Banfield was conducting
an interview for MSNBC. You were just told by the police
that you should move out  The mike was set to pick up
speech a few inches away. From the involuntary startled response
Oh my God! We know that explosions
are being heard.

However listening closely
we discover that the microphone did indeed pick up the sounds
of explosions, but very faintly. Turn up the volume, listen for
a low rumble in the background. You were just told by police that you should
move out of your apartment Fabiana? You got Carolina here? They advised us
to leave because... Oh my God This time the sound has been filtered
to emphasize low frequencies Listen for booms like
a bass drum in the distance.

Heres a different version filtered
to emphasize the mid-range sounds. The bass drum is gone. I would describe the blast sound
like a train on a bumpy track. Heres the original sound again.

You were just told by police that you should
move out of your apartment Fabiana? You got Carolina here? They advised us to leave because Oh my God Look behind us. Please Pam,
in this way please. Be careful with your baby. This is it! Oh my God! Oh my God!
Oh my God! No! No! If you didnt hear the blasts,
back up, use ear phones, turn up the volume and listen again.

There were two blasts followed by 7 more,
regularly spaced all in 2.5 Seconds. Craig Bartmers testimony may come to mind. The whole time youre hearing
thoom, thoom, thoom, thoom, thoom I think I know an explosion when I hear it. When we hear the sharp regular series
of sounds in the background the building has not yet started to fall.

When we hear the reporter say This is it! The building has not yet started to fall. The fall of the building corresponds to
the crescendo in the crowd response. Heres another street scene
with the building in full view. The crowd responds almost immediately
as the building starts to fall.

This occurs just after the reporter says
This is it!. Therefore the blasts we heard occurred
seconds before the building started to fall. When Ashleigh Banfield says This is it it is because she has been previously told
to expect Building 7 to come down. The brown building, the tall one,
is number 7 World Trade Center.

I've heard several reports
from several different officers now, that that is the building
that is going to go down next. Back in the studio the anchor Brian Williams
not only had foreknowledge of the collapse. He had a ready explanation. What weve been fearing all afternoon
has apparently happened.

We were watching Number 7 World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two  Just as Ashleigh Banfield was told,
Brian Williams was told. There is indeed evidence that
even the top fire officials were told. We are on the phone with New York Fire
Department Lieutenant David Rastuccio. Lieutenant, where are you right now? Im at the corner of North Moore Street
and Greenwich Street.

Can you confirm that it was just
Number 7 that went in? Yes Sir! And you guys knew
this was coming all day? We had heard reports
that the building was unstable and that eventually it would come down
on its own, or it would be taken down. Those in control of the story were planting
the official narrative in our psyches. In real time as events unfolded, using the press and even the fire and police
departments as their unwitting agents. We are getting information now
that one of the other buildings, Building 7 in the World Trade Center complex,
is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing and clearly those fires continue to burn
at about 4:15 Eastern Daylight Time.

Building Number 7 was going to collapse. That appears to be what has happened now. We saw one of those smaller buildings
fall to the ground. Wed heard earlier
that it was structurally unsafe.

Were getting word from New York right now that another building has collapsed. I understand that this is a 47 story building. 34 Seconds later  Take a look at that,
right hand side of the screen ... Its going down right now.
There it is.

Going down right there. This is not from an explosion or an aircraft. At this point from our knowledge,
the information that we have is that this is a building that was probably
incredibly structurally damaged. NIST is being dishonest.

That would have been
an incredibly loud sound and that sound was not picked up
by any of the videos or witnesses that we have talked to. NIST was lying about
no testimony of explosions. There was both testimony
and recorded evidence of explosions. However NIST discounted
any evidence of explosions that did not exceed its artificially
contrived threshold of interest.

The minimum sound level of interest,
as determined by NIST, was based on a blast of RDX, one of the loudest explosives available, large enough to break a major column
outright with a single blast. They assumed no efforts
at noise abatement, complete transmission of the sound
to the outside area, no absorption or blockage
of the sound along the path. And who knows if they assumed
the use of an efficient cutter charge or if they simply figured the effect
of a bomb planted beside the column. They dont say.

Their sole reason for doing this calculation was to create a pretext to sidestep
any actual investigation of explosives. Why would NIST or anyone else choose
to exclude from its investigation any evidence of any explosions related
to the destruction of the building? A reasonable investigator might suspect that explosions could have been used
in many different ways. They could break connections
rather than cut directly through the largest columns or use
silent incendiaries to weaken the columns. Ruling out RDX does not rule out
the one explosive that was most likely used: nano-thermite.

Nano-thermite can be tailored
to control the sound level by adjusting the particle size
and including additives. Nano-thermite might be new
to the public at large but many of the scientists at NIST
had expert knowledge of and experience with nano-thermite. Most importantly, independent scientists
have found actual remnants of nano-thermite in all of the WTC dust samples
they have examined. Despite NISTs intimate knowledge
of alternate explosives with radically different acoustic properties they rigged their calculations
to predict extremely loud sounds and then singled out sound level
as the sole criterion for what constituted
a credible hypothesis.

On this basis they rejected
eye-witness testimony  thoom, thoom, thoom, thoom , inconvenient recordings  and cleverly side-stepped
even looking for explosive residues, evidence that explosives were
in fact used to bring down WTC7. No honest scientific inquiry would
ever be conducted in this way. But then, as weve seen repeatedly, the NIST Report was not
an honest scientific inquiry. Written, produced, directed
and narrated by David Chandler.

Edited by Debora Blake Special thanks to Jonathan Cole and Robert Auld.