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.

 

What a controlled demolition really looks like.

page: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
You are making the claim that there were no explosions heard and that there was no noise which is just BS, regardless of your background or expertise.


What about the people that survived in WTC 1, stairwell B? They didn't hear any explosions before the builidng collapsed and they were right in the middle of the building. What about them?



[edit on 13-5-2006 by HowardRoark]




posted on May, 13 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
HEADS UP!

Everybody check out this page!:

Explosion Sounds and the World Trade Center - Twin Tower Collapses


Many witnesses to the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City describe at least one "explosion" at the time of the collapses. A few eye-witness accounts specifically describe 3 explosions at the initiation of the collapse, whilst others some describe a "crackling" sound. Many people describe hearing a "pop-pop-pop-pop..." or "bang-bang-bang..." as the towers came down1.

[...]

Some examples of video footage which includes audio can be found and this audio does include evidence of explosions, though it is not generally obvious for a number of reasons. Sounds of intense volume recorded at close distances will tend to overload and be distorted by the time they make it onto tape. If a very loud sound such as an explosion overloads the camera's sound circuitry and is followed very quickly by subsequent loud sounds, the individual sounds will be more difficult to identify because the shape of each sound, the attack and decay, will be masked as the audio circuits are completely saturated with signal.


The footnote (1) links to eyewitness reports.

And then the page offers video and audio with explosions.

Here is one such video (avi format). There are two distinct explosions in that video. Listen to it and tell me what you think, Damocles.

Those explosions are then compared to known demolitions (more sound files).

And then the page takes a different look at the WTC collapse audio:



The page goes into a lot of detail, and gives a lot of examples, and then comes up with this: a square-wave reduction of a tower collapse, giving insight into the pancaking-speed; the floor-by-floor detonation.

We've already established by the collapse speeds that there would've been something like 0.1 seconds per 12.5 floor before it would have to be totally destroyed for the buildings to fall as fast as they did. That audio lets you hear how fast this is, and again it's compared with the audio of floor-by-floor events.

The page, again is here.

[edit on 13-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but, and this is important, in order for a demo charge to cut or blast anything, there simply MUST be a release of energy. this is going to make noise. this isnt like a movie where a single 1lb block of c4 is going to take out a whole building. matter of fact, it actually takes quite a bit of demo to cut through steel or to blow out concrete.

that makes a lot of noise.


So what was your point?

Sounds exactly like you're saying there should have been noise, as if there wasn't....




posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Having personally witnessed a number of building implosions, I can attest to one thing, the sound of the explosives going off is quite distinctive.

Even a quarter mile away, the explosives are quite distinct. You will feel them as much as hear them as the shock wave hits your chest cavity.

If there were explosives in the WTC, we would not even be having this discussion, because it would have been obvious to everyone in Manhattan that day.

The fact that people like those trapped in stairwell "B" didn't hear explosives go off, is enough for me to discount that theory.

Most of those who report hearing "explosions" have now way of knowing if the collapse had started or not, so there is no way to prove that they were hearing anything other than the sounds of the collapse itself, which had nothing to do with explosives.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
What about the people that survived in WTC 1, stairwell B? They didn't hear any explosions before the builidng collapsed and they were right in the middle of the building. What about them?


Just because they didn't hear explosions it doesn't mean there weren't any.

Did they specifically say they heard no explosives? Or just didn't mention it at all?

Are the people who did hear explosions hearing things, lying? Why would the NYFD lie?

Why would NYFD personnel describe in detail explosions going off one after another?
Shouldn't they know what it was? Did they say it was gas lines or whatever exploding?
No, they said it sounded just like demo charges going off.

I would prefer to believe professional firefighters than a bunch of hysterical, confused, panicked civilians.
As you Howward are the one always dismissing anything that isn't from a professional,
I'm sure you'll agree.

Also with the sound, you are all going by conventional CD, WTC was far from conventional. And actualy you can't always hear them, depends on the building and where their placed. Most building when demoed are empty, not full of furniture, carpets, people, all sound absorbers.

[edit on 14/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Screw stairwell B. We got that story through corporate media.

Listen to this and tell me you don't hear two large, distinctive explosions!

And look at the audio analysis above, and look at the sqaure wave reduction. What do you think caused all those steady audio events in fraction-of-a-second intervals?

[edit on 14-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Most of those who report hearing "explosions" have now way of knowing if the collapse had started or not, so there is no way to prove that they were hearing anything other than the sounds of the collapse itself, which had nothing to do with explosives.


Wrong the fire personal were describing them as going off just before and as the building collapsed. We have video evidence with the sound of booms before the collapse.
C'mon Howward you know that's not true.

Also wouldn't you think fire personal could distinguish the sound of explosives, which according to you is quite distinct, than the sound of a building collapsing?



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
anok, i swear you are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.


What, because I don't agree with Howward?

Sry but if pointing out where the oposition has it wrong is arguing for aguings sake then so be it.

You are both saying there was no sounds of explosives, I'm reminding you there was and there are witnesses who says there was. But Howward is happy to believe the few who said they heard nothing.

I would supply all the links and charts and whatever like bsbray, but what's the point?
I know for a fact that Howward has heard and seen everything I have and knows exactly what I'm refering to, and most everyone who has been involved in these 9-11 threads should know also.

Sry if my style of posting is frustrating you, but if you expect me keep my mouth shut think again...



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
were they able to conclusivly prove that HE explosions produced a very unique waveform on the sonograph?


I don't know that they were trying to isolate the sounds and prove they were HE's. I think they were just trying to point out that there were distinctive blasts as the buildings came down, even if audio equipment picked it up poorly.

Did you hear that square reduction of the steady "beats" or whatever you want to call them in the audio? That gives you an idea by audio of how fast those floors were coming down. Whether or not you think explosives did it, those floors would have had to have come down as fast as those square waves just by looking at the number of floors and collapse speed.

And notice that they don't slow down! That's the thing! The audio even proves it. The collapse kept trucking along with absolutely no change in collapse speed, maintaining a constant speed at just below the terminal velocity of free-falling material. How does that happen when there is steel and concrete in the way, let alone air? No resistance from hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete? That's what really gets me, man.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
the point ive tried to make, i have many hours of hands on experience with demo including improvised and unconventional. yet, my opinion counts jack since i dont see a conspiracy sooooooo w/e.


Oh another poster with the 'I'm a pro so you should believe me routine'




oh do tell, what was used then? if it was unconventional demo, id absolutly LOVE to know what was used. be a whole new area of education for me.


Have you not heard of the thermite theory?



tell me, have you ever set off an explosive that wasnt a firework?


Well I was in the military for 6 years, so yes.
You act like you're the only person here with any experience of explosives, like Howward acts like he's the only person who has building experience. It doesn't matter. Anyone with a brain, regardless of what other jobs they have done can see the problems with the physics involved in the WTC collapses.
On top of that you have the politics, war in Iraq, Northwoods, Homeland defence, Patriot act....it doesn't stop...



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
Just because they didn't hear explosions it doesn't mean there weren't any.

Did they specifically say they heard no explosives? Or just didn't mention it at all?



A Port Authority captain yelled at Lim to get moving, but he said, “You go ahead,” and he, too, put an arm around Harris, helping to carry her to the fourth floor.

That was when the wind started, even before the noise. “No one realizes about the wind,” says Komorowski.

The building was pancaking down from the top and, in the process, blasting air down the stairwell. The wind lifted Komorowski off his feet. “I was taking a staircase at a time,” he says, “It was a combination of me running and getting blown down.” Lim says Komorowski flew over him. Eight seconds later—that’s how long it took the building to come down—Komorowski landed three floors lower, in standing position, buried to his knees in pulverized Sheetrock and cement.




Originally posted by ANOK
Are the people who did hear explosions hearing things, lying? Why would the NYFD lie?

YOU are claiming that what they heard were explosions.

YOU have not provided any proof that the sounds were not the sounds of a 110 story building breaking up.




Why would NYFD personnel describe in detail explosions going off one after another?
Shouldn't they know what it was? Did they say it was gas lines or whatever exploding?
No, they said it sounded just like demo charges going off.

(emphasis added)

It also sounded just like a progressive collapse.





I would prefer to believe professional firefighters than a bunch of hysterical, confused, panicked civilians.

who was in stairwell B?





And actualy you can't always hear them, depends on the building and where their placed.


Not by my experience.



Most building when demoed are empty, not full of furniture, carpets, people, all sound absorbers.

[edit on 14/5/2006 by ANOK]


And how did those sound absorbers work for for the exterior columns?



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:10 AM
link   
What is this? Sounds like explosions to me.

And what caused the steady blipping in that square wave reduction? Those blips last about as long as it would've taken each floor to collapse by the collapse times, coincidentally. And also coincidentally, they get louder at the end, just as the collapse was coming down closer to the ground. You seem to be skipping over this stuff.

Are there any audio engineers on here that can take a look at this stuff and confirm it?



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
yes, ive heard the thermite theory and have posted about it. in summary, thermite usually burns in excess of 2500 degrees, yet many would contend not a single girder ever got over 650 degrees. so what is the theory exactly?


The thermite theory is that somehow, that hot metal from a thermite reaction was used to cut a column by moving horizontally, and that the columns didn't re-weld the cut, and that no one saw the flash of the burning thermite, in the exterior columns and that this reaction was somehow timed so that it all occurred within split seconds of each other and that it also produced huge jets of expanding dust (the squibs).



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What is this? Sounds like explosions to me.

And what caused the steady blipping in that square wave reduction? Those blips last about as long as it would've taken each floor to collapse by the collapse times, coincidentally. And also coincidentally, they get louder at the end, just as the collapse was coming down closer to the ground. You seem to be skipping over this stuff.

Are there any audio engineers on here that can take a look at this stuff and confirm it?


That QT format is not working properly for me, no sound. From the looks of it, however, the collapse had already started before the first frame of the video.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The thermite theory is that somehow...


Woah, woah, stop. No. Everybody here should know you're the last person that would give a fair version of an aspect of CD theory. And thermite would just be one aspect -- collapse initiations.


That QT format is not working properly for me, no sound. From the looks of it, however, the collapse had already started before the first frame of the video.


So are you saying that after the collapse starts, loud explosions can go off and it's nothing to concern ourselves with? What exactly were they?


Originally posted by
then duck the question of how, if it WAS a demo charge, sounds not withstanding, two seemingly random charges could have any impact on bringing down a building.


We're not saying they did. We're not saying those were the only explosives, but only that those expulsions were caused by the detonations of certain single explosives.

In demolitions, charges sometimes go off at the wrong times and stick out. Personally, that's what I think we had with the squibs. There are videos out there showing the collapses from the ground, and you can see under the falling debris, and squib-like puffs are coming out floor-by-floor in rows, symmetrically. That's a little too much of a coincidence for me.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
as to the second half of the quote, im going to ask you to answer this question with a VERY open mind. lets pretend for one second taht there were NO explosive charges in the building. so you have tons of debris falling down displacing air or simply displacing things that were already there. what would you have expected to see?


I'm not sure I get where you're going. Are you saying you think material fell through the building and caused those expulsions?

Remember that there were 4" thick concrete slabs under the floors supported by the trusses.



So how would material fall all the way down the building to cause this?:




Also, look at this one again:



There's an easy way to prove that this wasn't the result of anything falling. We can agree that nothing can fall by gravity faster than free-fall, right? And we can also agree that air is much less resistant to a falling object than tons of steel and concrete, right?

Well look at the above squib, and you'll notice that the expulsion is coming out of a part of the building that the free-falling material has yet to reach.


what would be "normal" to see for this type of building?


I'm not comparing buildings so much as I'm just looking at basic physics concepts and things like that. There's nothing you can really compare these two collapses with, but laws of physics apply to everything.

[edit on 14-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 02:25 AM
link   
What would be normal to see for this type of building? What kind of question is that since that was a unique building built up to that time and maybe ever since? Furthermore, how many have been on fire or came tumbling down? All pure spec and that is why the official story can be whatever regime connected people in the field say it was.

But lets get down to business here really...

If a plane loaded with fuel causes a primarily steel building to start collapsing from the top third because city hall would not allow spec fireproofing of the structural steel in the first place during construction... then how likely is it that said building would fall down so nice and clean?

Most important is this: If all the debunkers here are so confident that the planes brought down the twin towers and number 7 by themselves then why was not the steel thoroughly investigated after the collapse? NO-ONE has had a satisfactory answer for that question... no-one!

If a plane crashes and metal fatigue is believed to be a cause then there is an investigation to find out why. One crash led to an investigation so intense that it was determined that insufficient or weak rivets in the nose cone led to the plane crash (forget the crash right now).

The same thing happened at the Pentagon with the crash video's... not one good answer why the trump card was not thrown by the government to end all the conspiracies and let everyone confidently go back to their meagre lives... why not?

Because they are liars!



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
never mind the fact that a charge strong enough to cut through the outter structural steel would have to be fairly large, and therefore would make a VERY large report.

but thats just me.


This where you guys always trip yourselves up. If the explosives had to be fairly large to cut through the outer structural steel then how did a plane impacting only 3 floors and fires on not that many more cause the whole building to fail?

BTW Howward what is your presidence for the sounds heard to be like a progressive collapse? When in history has a building like the WTC buildings EVER fallen like they did? How can you claim something when there's no historical comparison?

And again I trust the words of people who were there over your opinion.
Firefighters heard explosives, not my theory, not my opinion, fact.

This is what the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Dept had to say...


"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.

Two WTC impacts. Three explosions reported.

One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device - he thinks, he speculates - was probably planted in the building. ... But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."


More reports of explosions...

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

More...

Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me.''

Kim White, WTC 1 survivor...

We got down as far as the 74th floor [...] Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell.


From official 9-11 dispatch tapes...

* Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.
* Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.
* Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.
* [...]
* Dispatcher: Battalion 5, be advised we're trying to contact Battalion 3 at this moment to report north tower just collapsed.

Neil deGrasse eye witness acount...

"As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion.


Steve Evans, was in WTC 2 when it was hit...

“I was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit,” Evans said. “There was an explosion—I didn’t think it was an explosion—but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake . . . then when we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions. . . .


(all emphasis'ss's mine)

Need any more?...

[edit on 14/5/2006 by ANOK]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
why are the charges on those floors ONLY kicking out debris in ONE area?


They were coming out in rows of multiples where vision was more obscured. Watch the animation below carefully and you'll see a set of them come out simultaneously at one point (a little bit before the lone squib):




how were the demo charges hidden on those two floors as they are obviously NOT the 'mechanical' floors that some of the theories say were the locations of the larger charges?


I couldn't tell you. I would imagine they were in the trusses between floors, and there are theories on how this was achieved, but I wouldn't know.


were those stray blasts picked up anywhere on the sonograph readings?


If they were, I don't know how you'd be able to pick them out from everything else. But I wouldn't know this either.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
which guys would that be?


Did I label you? No. 'You guys' means you and Howard and any body else in this thread arguing against CD. Make sense?



MY point is taht this isnt hollywood and yer not going to bring down a building of that size with 10lbs of explosives. you'd also need somethign robust enough to survive the fires on the floors that were impacted and i dont know what it would be.


But who said it was only 10lbs of explosives? I'm personally not making any claims as to how it was done, only how it wasn't done. Physically it is near impossible for a building to fall in it's own footprint without help, but it happened to 3 buildings on the same day, all coincidentally owned by the same guy, larry silverstein. You don't find that suspicious?
Why would the explosives have to survive on the few floors that were on fire?
If a plane taking out 3 floors can bring them down, why wouldn't explosives on say 80 floors do the same? The fires were not as big as 'you guys' claim.
The building were designed to take the impact of a 707, which weighs more than a 757 and is only about a meter shorter in length. 707 has 4 engines, 757 has 2.

707 max take off weight 336,000lbs
757 max take off weight 220,000lbs

So the WTC towers should have handled a 757 with no problem.



"I DESIGNED IT FOR A 707 HIT"

BUILDING COLLAPSE SHOCKS TOWERS ENGINEER, ARCHITECT



Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resiliance of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001. "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting".


www.freepressinternational.com...



but its a double edged sword. we have NO historical comparison so for anyone to say "oh they shouldnt have fallen the way they did so it MUST be controlled demo" is talking out of their 5th piont of contact.


But we have plenty of historical evidence of how buildings fall period, we also have the physics involved. Can't change the physics whatever you do. If it's physically impossible for the WTC towers to fall from plane impacts and fire then what did bring them down?


i read your external sources with a lot of interest. the most interesting part was where you added the bold, but left out a key word.

received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off.

oh and i liked this one too

The second device - he thinks, he speculates - was probably planted in the building

all context and we can throw things like that at each other all day.


True but taken in context with all the other evidence that abounds, you know add it all together? What about the other quotes? I like your selective de-bunking. Just like Howward pick on stuff thats pointless and leave the stuff they can't answer alone.


i was at a CT training excersise in june of 04.


Well I only have your word on this but anyway it makes no difference, the physics of the event are wrong for a natural collapse. As I've said many times being a professional doesn't make you immune from denial. Some ppl just don't want to see the truth even though they know it deep down. The implications for some is just too much.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join