RARE 911 WTC VIDEO - Multiple Explosions Heard Before and During Collapse.

a reply to: lovebeck

So, you are claiming that NYC Firemen "don't know WTF was going on" because "they were in the Marriott" and they "mistook the collapse of WTC 2" as an explosion??

Where do you people come up with this stuff? Are you serious??

We can start here and read it in their own words.

Craig Carlsen

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower (WTC 2). . . . There were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

Now, you know from the words of that firefighter, he is confirming the explosions they heard were actually the sound of pancaking floors as WTC 2 collapsed.

a reply to: peacenotgreed

As someone who has been in war and heard many, many explosions, I can safely say that the sounds in your video are not demolition explosions.

Good videos very convincing. When you put aside all the israeli involvement in the execution of the 911 attacks these videos are quite convincing good find

a reply to: AsherLewin11

Good videos very convincing. When you put aside all the israeli involvement in the execution of the 911 attacks these videos are quite convincing good find

I think I found the martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers that you are speaking of.







About those explosions.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse
of the World Trade Center Buildings
Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

www.representativepress.org...

originally posted by: admirethedistance
I hear a (relatively) faint noise, that would be consistent with the internal support structure of a building buckling. I hear nothing that remotely sounds like an explosion. Is that the best 'truthers' can come up with?

How would you know how to differentiate between the 2 just genuinely curious. The camera is a good distance away. Explosions are not caught on audio equipment as good as people think especially since they are set up to record nearby noises most of the time. Thats why recorded conversation in NYC is not drowned out by the city noises like traffic.

For that sound to travel such a distance past a building to be recorded so clearly on consumer 2001 electronics it must have been a big boom.

Here is equipment set up for the reporter to record what she is saying. She says she hears 4 explosions. I hear faint noises maybe. Is she lying to us? Or has it to do with the setup of the equipment?

edition.cnn.com...

Here is an explosion recorded on Audio equipment set up to focus on ambient noise, like fan chorus for comparison.

www.youtube.com...

The camera is a good distance away. Explosions are not caught on audio equipment as good as people think especially since they are set up to record nearby noises most of the time

Right, some people don't understand that...

Also, if you note the wingtip mark on the bldg. does not extend to the later image shown to mainstream America ....
Later the damage extends 6 feet further to the corner of the exterior steel. cgi me.....

a reply to: GBP/JPY

I remember seeing a video about that, the story stinks..

a reply to: Merinda

The camera is a good distance away. Explosions are not caught on audio equipment as good as people think especially since they are set up to record nearby noises most of the time. Thats why recorded conversation in NYC is not drowned out by the city noises like traffic.

Let's take a look at this video to see if you are right.



The video proves that you are wrong.

How does it prove me wrong? The explosions are hardly surprising the cameras have been set up to record them. Therefore the video I posted with the camerawoman set up to record her reporting proves me right. Also the camera is a lot closer to the buildings which again have been prepped for demolition and are hollowed out which again amplifies the noise.

You have equipment set up to record a demo much closer to a building that has been hollowed out which again amplifies the sound of the explosions, or at least dampens them less. So no it does not prove me wrong.

a reply to: Merinda

How does it prove me wrong?

Simple! Explosions make a lot of noise that can be heard for miles.

The explosions are hardly surprising the cameras have been set up to record them.

You don't need to set up special cameras to hear demolition explosions. The explosions that shook my living quarters were detonated more than 20 miles away.

a reply to: skyeagle409

I posted a video with very faint noises the reporter describes as explosions, so yes you have to set it up in a way that it records ambient noise to capture them properly. She heared them clearly it just did not transfer on tape (well on SD card I assume) because of the way her equipment was set up. Also they have been recorded just not as loud as you would like, because a consumer camera by default is set up to record anything happening withing striking distance and the vast majority have no way to set up the audio recording either.

www.youtube.com...

You really only hear the people around the cellphone, and you hear the music somewhat in the background. In person your audible reception of the crowd would extend further and the music would be more audible to you too than to the cellphone.

Also there is clipping. Depending on the equipment its only able to hear so loud therefore the actual volume does not get captured on the equipment the way it should be. Same for reproduction, you will get the dzb if you crank it up high enough but it wont sound right and everything else recorded will sound too loud in relation to the explosion because if you reproduce it and set the explosion as the threshold everything else gets amplified too much as well because you are attempting to reproduce a clipped sound recording.

a reply to: Merinda

I posted a video with very faint noises the reporter describes as explosions, so yes you have to set it up in a way that it records ambient noise to capture them properly.

They were no demolition explosions because explosives make a lot of noise that can be heard from many miles away and reports of explosive-like sounds is not evidence that explosives were involve especially in New York City that experiences over 2000 explosions each year that have nothing to do with explosives. Recently, an eyewitness to a bus incident in San Francisco, CA., reported the incident as sounding like explosions, and then he described the sound of the bus collisions with vehicles as: "boom, boom, boom, boom." In other words, explosion-like sounds that had nothing to do with explosives.

Add to the fact that seismic machines did not detect demolition explosions. To sum it up, there is no case for demolition explosives at ground zero.

To sum it up, there is no case for demolition explosives at ground zero.

There is plenty, but you have to look at it, the joke called the investigation never looked for it, that is a fact. FEMA was not aloud to look at evidence, they were not aloud to interview people or look at any photos or video the public took. ect.

They had there hands tied, thats not an investigation.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Simple! Explosions make a lot of noise that can be heard for miles.

Not when the glass is still in the lite openings Einstien!



Your vid proves squawt because the glass has been removed obviously.

a reply to: randyvs

Your vid proves squawt because the glass has been removed obviously.

It is all very simple because the demolition video debunks the claim that demolition explosives were used at ground zero.

a reply to: wildb

There is plenty, but you have to look at it, the joke called the investigation never looked for it, that is a fact.

You don't have to look for evidence of demolition explosives because there was no sound of demolition explosions on the WTC videos nor were demolition explosions detected by seismic monitors. In fact, no evidence of demolition explosives was ever recovered from the rubble of the WTC buildings.

To sum it up, there is no case for demolition explosives at ground zero.

a reply to: skyeagle409

It is all very simple because the demolition video debunks the claim that demolition explosives were used at ground zero.

All I'm gonna say at this point is someone may need a nap!

You don't have to look for evidence of demolition explosives because there was no sound of demolition explosions on the WTC videos nor were demolition explosions detected by seismic monitors. In fact, no evidence of demolition explosives was ever recovered from the rubble of the WTC buildings. To sum it up, there is no case for demolition explosives at ground zero.

Videos are not an investigation, three building fell out of the sky at ALMOST free fall speed except for #7 which did for the first 100 feet. The most logical explanation would be the use of explosives, therefor it should have been the first to rule out, and not ignored unless they had to cover something up..

No evidence of demolition explosives was found because it was not looked for, if a tree fell on my house and destroyed it then it was the tree, but there are chain saw cuts at the base, oh well it still was the tree the chainsaw cuts are not the cause so lets ignore them...

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: skyeagle409

It is all very simple because the demolition video debunks the claim that demolition explosives were used at ground zero.

All I'm gonna say at this point is someone may need a nap!

i don't think it sleeps.