It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Physics Prof Says Explosives, Not Fires Brought Down WTC Towers

page: 16
4
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Wasn't that obvious, I mean I was a sophmore in high school at the time and I and my classmates could tell that. Duh-doy.

But for more usless happy news, I'm making a second BSB-lawlthinking website thing, here's the addresses:www.geocities.com/ajbsb2005/

www.geocities.com/ajbsb2006/




posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
WCIP, how are you sure that sound isn't faked?


I didn't say I was sure. I'm usually pretty careful with my statements.



Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
It appears the video is a NOT a fake...

It seems that the pulses ARE genuine.


Why does it seem to be genuine?

1. Those videos have been around for ages. I found the original in my files (I've got gigs and gigs of 9-11 stuff) and then looked around for it on the Net. The original in my files and the one at that URL both have the unenhanced pulses in them, however it seems no one (including me) has picked up on the sounds before. If those pulses were added in on the original, then those who did so would have made a fuss and made it known when the video first made it onto the Net a couple of years back.

2. The sound in the enhanced version just didn't sound right, which is why I chased up the original. The sound in the original sounds right, and the sound quality and texture matches with the other video from the same camera of the WTC2 collapse.

3. If they were going to fake the sounds in the WTC1 video, then why not fake the WTC2 one to complete the ruse?

The only way to be absolutely 110% sure would be to get a hold of the original footage or memory cartridge from the camera.


[edit on 2005-11-25 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   
That was conviscated by the FBI !
All servers of TVOnline were taken away by the FBI shortly after this guy was airing these tapes. And they refuse to give them back to this very day.
Man, this stinks to high heaven.

letsroll911.org...

This is page 2 of the forum where the supposed authors of that DVD, you can buy btw, were discussing how to quickly spread that DVD to all US video stores, so the agencies couldn't get their dirty hands on them.
There are now 3 pages.

Edit : I have posted a slideshow of pictures of sample pages from that 9/11eyewitness site, 2 pages ago, where you can see a samplepage picture of explosions in WTC 2. They show about 9 pre-collapse explosion sound peaks.

In the original WTC 2 collapse video from terrorize.dk I personally can't distinct any explosion sounds.

BUT, don't forget, we talk about sound here, from a digital camera, not a professional R.G.B tv-network camera.
And guess what? WTC 1 is at that time nearly totally blocking the sound path of events coming from WTC 2, the south tower, in that footage.
But those sounds should have echoed off from the other surrounding buildings, like they probably also did with the explosion-sounds from WTC 1.

Thus, who owns the DVD already and can explain to me, how they obtained those 8 or 9 explosion peak sounds from WTC 2 ? ? ?

[edit on 25/11/05 by LaBTop]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
It would be worth spreading the news about this latest release having been enhanced, before any mistaken belief that it's been totally faked spreads and all impact from this tape is lost.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I JUST WATCHED '9/11 EYEWITNESS' & I HEARD THE BOMBS!!!


I HEARD THE BOMBS.

There are 9 detonations between 9:55 and 9:58 heard FROM ACROSS THE RIVER on his video before the South Tower collapse.

There is a series of explosions about 10 second before the North Tower collapse.

He catches the actual smoke plume that rises from the base of the towers. Not the one mistakenly shown in plane site, which is actually from the collapse of the South Tower. There is no doubt about it.


That smoke plume, there can be found more of it here, with more videos :
terrorize.dk...
and here:
terrorize.dk...


look at the white smoke emitting from the basement louvres.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I think in their excitement they are mistaken. I can't hear any pulses before the collapse of WTC2.

For the WTC1 collapse, however, they are quite clear.

I've found another version of the WTC1 video at that forum you linked to, LT. The best quality yet, video and audio both:
www.plaguepuppy.net...



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Also notice the smoke is very white. White smoke is typical of explosives, and also aluminothermic reactions (i.e. thermite).

Building fires produce dark grey smoke like we saw at the top of the towers.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
The pier is 1.8 miles away which would give an 8.5 second delay before the sound from the WTC complex reached it. The explosion peaks are short and high-energy. Watch the sound wave recording, listen, compare the lower-energy constant sound of the collapse, count the time from when you hear the first massive explosion to when the collapse starts (hint: it's more than 8.5 - 9 seconds), and work out what is and isn't from the collapse.

Oh, and don't miss the plume of white smoke which starts up at the base of the tower AFTER the explosion and BEFORE the collapse.

[edit on 2005-11-25 by wecomeinpeace]


That's the first time I heard that explosion, in the other videos where the cameras are close i don't remember hearing that.

But then again you are jumping to conclusion too early.

The sound does seem to come from the tower. But, why is it that it takes so long from the moment of the explosion to the collapse of the tower?

If it is a controlled demolition charge, it would mean that you would get the same result, or very similar results, when watching the video of the second tower and wtc7 collapsing, do you see the same results?

The speed of sound is 340.29 m / s at sea level. 1 mile = 1 609.344 meters

You say the distance between the pier where the camera is and the tower is 1.8 miles.

1609.344X1.8= 2896.8192 if we divide this by 340.29= 8.5 seconds.

So, like you said, I had to make sure since I think you like to jump to conclusion too fast, the moment that explosion occurred is exactly 8.5 seconds before it is heard in that video.

Watching that video it takes approximately 17 seconds from the time we hear the explosion on the video to the collapse of the tower, adding 8.5 seconds to that it puts the explosion at 26.5 seconds before the collapse of the tower.

The first question then still remains. Why does it take so long from the time of the explosion to the collapse of the tower? If the explosion is even real.... This does not hapen in controlled demolition explosions. Do we see the same results when the other tower collapses or when wtc7 collapses?



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I didn't say I was sure. I'm usually pretty careful with my statements.

..........


....you like to jump to conclusion too fast wcip that's not the empirical approach to any research.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
BTW, the person who "supposedly" found this explosion proclaims in that site and I quote, again,

ARMY PSY-OPS OFFICERS HAD BEEN WORKING IN THE CNN NEWSROOMS SINCE JULY OF 2000.


He claims this yet he gives no proof of it....

This could very well be a fake.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
It would be worth spreading the news about this latest release having been enhanced, before any mistaken belief that it's been totally faked spreads and all impact from this tape is lost.



I see..... So you are saying... "Let's spread this rumor around so that if it is proven to be false it would already have an impact on people that don't know any better and we can continue with our own agenda on trying to blame the government"......


[edit on 25-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Basic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse

EDIT : this remark is meant for Wcip, regarding what he said above :


I've found another version of the WTC1 video at that forum you linked to, LT.


You'd better first start at page 54 and read on to now page 70.
There are a few clever remarks made now and then, f.ex. about tritium bombs, dustvolume calculations a la Hoffman, etc.
There are physics researchers there, chemists and structural engineers debating the issue.
There's also a lot of mudslinging around, not much moderating, but that works refreshing some times, clears the throats of those young lions, I suppose.
Page 54


[edit on 25/11/05 by LaBTop]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas
WCIP, how are you sure that sound isn't faked?


or from another direction entirely?

How come this was only heard 1.5 miles away, and not by the tens of thousands of people closer?



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
First of all, LaBTop, you probably don't know, and maybe i am the one wrong and the rules have changed, but we are not supposed to give links to other forums.

Second, I belong to a couple of physics/scientific websites also, and I have seen the "demolition theory" being shredded to pieces by several engineers, without me getting into the debate, several times.

Third, the person proposing the demolition theory, just like some people we know around here.... is trying to use "basic physics and chemistry" trying to demonstrate something which requires more knowledge than just "simple physics and chemistry", and even then, the "basic physics and chemistry" that Andrew Johnson (the proponent of the demolition theory in that site) is using is flawed, as he doesn't really show a true understanding of such basic principles of physics. A mistake I have also seen repeated by many proponents of the "demolition theory" in this forum.


[edit on 25-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Muadibb, the topic of this thread is not me, or any other member. Please stop with the ad hominem. It is bordering on harassment.


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
The distance from the WTC site to the camera is cited as 1.8 miles. That makes for an 8.5 second delay before the sound would reach the camera. The first, loud pulse occurs at the 28 second mark in the video, which means the event which created the pulse at the WTC site occurred at the 19.5 second mark. The collapse begins at the 36 second mark, 16.5 seconds after the first large pulse.



Originally posted by Muadibb
You say the distance between the pier where the camera is and the tower is 1.8 miles.

1609.344X1.8= 2896.8192 if we divide this by 340.29= 8.5 seconds.


I'd already done the calculations to arrive at 8.5 seconds, as you can see above. I didn't want to bore everybody with laying out such a simple calculation in all it's parts.


Watching that video it takes approximately 17 seconds from the time we hear the explosion on the video to the collapse of the tower, adding 8.5 seconds to that it puts the explosion at 26.5 seconds before the collapse of the tower.

terrorize.dk...
The first pulse is heard at 28 seconds camera time, which means the event occurred at 19.5 seconds WTC time. The collapse of the tower begins at 36 seconds camera time which is the same as WTC time, therefore the event which caused the sound occurred 16.5 seconds before the collapse began. Not 26.5 seconds.

[edit on 2005-11-25 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Muadibb, the topic of this thread is not me, or any other member. Please stop with the ad hominem. It is bordering on harassment.



So saying you are jumping to conclusions too fast is "bordering on harrasment"?.....


Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I'd already done the calculations to arrive at 8.5 seconds, as you can see above. I didn't want to bore everybody with laying out such a simple calculation in all it's parts.


Well, if you don't mind i prefer making the calculations myself, and i like for people to see why i reached that conclusion......



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   
did you read all those 70 long, complicated pages in about 20 minutes?

Then I salute you.
Otherwise, you are the one jumping too early to conclusions.
The person starting that thread there, is not at all the most interesting debater there. Tell me who you think are the ones really interesting, and why.

Wcip has first expressed his doubt about the honesty of that audio link to me privately, and hinted me to that second audio file of the WTC 2 collapse, where he and me alike, could not distinct any explosion sounds.

Then I asked him, to post that info in this specific thread, since we both not advocate to withhold unwelcome facts to our beliefs.

You however jumps hastely on the subject, without taking the time to read carefully, and follow further links given.
That's not showing off basic carefull research.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Am i? i read several of the responses by the engineers and all i can see is the "demolition charge theory" being shredded to pieces, again.... Just because one of the proponents of the "demolition theory" starts yelling, writting all in capital letters and in bold, doesn't mean he is right......

[edit on 25-11-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
and then come back and address interesting pieces of the debate there to introduce in OUR discussion, so we can evaluate the merits and value of the viewpoints of others on the Net.

That's what we do in any forum, collect old and new input, and add our thoughts, to refresh and enhance our own debates.
Nothing wrong with that.

Btw, why don't you admit to have made a basic mistake in your own calculation.
Believe me, that kind of gentleman-like behavior works refreshing on the soul, yours, and your opponents.
And always lights up a detoriating debate.



posted on Nov, 25 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
.......................
Btw, why don't you admit to have made a basic mistake in your own calculation.
Believe me, that kind of gentleman-like behavior works refreshing on the soul, yours, and your opponents.
And always lights up a detoriating debate.


If i made any errors I would admit them.

Could you tell me what error i made in the calculation?

[edit on 25-11-2005 by Muaddib]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join