Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
When they brought down the Canberra Hospital the implosion went wrong and debris was thrown into and all the way accross Lake Burley Griffin, killing a little girl.

Let me guess -- explosives were used?

The point of a CONTROLLED demolition is that all the debris lands in a neat little pile because the building implodes, it falls in on itself.

If that's why you want to control the collapse, then sure. If killing people isn't something you're very concerned about, but making the demos look natural is, then there you go. And you can control it to do that.

I hope you guys understand what blowing those towers up did.

For someone to be so confused as to not understand why the towers would not've been conventional demos, they've obviously missed the point and have some serious reflecting on current global events to catch up on. Or history.

It's called a psych-op.

The military does them to achieve military goals.

Sometimes, they involve civilians. It happens.

It's certainly happened before, many times...And really, the casualties on 9/11 aren't anything compared to how many people die all over the world on a regular basis because of power abuses that are largely because of Western influences. It just doesn't happen to us spoiled Westerners that often, because

Originally posted by Damocles
you are also 100% correct that im not immune from denial, i dont think im in denial just because i dont think the way you do.
im always willing to admit im wrong, but for all our sakes i hope im right. the implications of you beign right are pretty nasty for all of us.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Originally posted by bsbray11
I hope you guys understand what blowing those towers up did.

First you've got to make us believe that they were blown up, hasn't happened yet.

I'm still waiting to hear how so much explosive was planted throughout the buildings without anyone noticing. Explosive that had to be linked in sequence, carefully, throughout the entire building and hidden so that no dumb sparky would find it by accident.

It's called a psych-op.

Actually, they're called Psy-Ops.

The military does them to achieve military goals.

And with a general histlory of utter failure one wonders why they are still in use.

We ensure the rightfully angry people remain trapped in their third-world sinkholes while we rape them of natural resources.

Originally posted by longhaircowboy
Why have I not seen any mention of the 1945 B-25 crash into the Empire State Building?

high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

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.

Results will vary depending on camera type, microphone type, specific settings, and proximity to the event.

Some angles of the collapses are cut very short so they start playing only after the initiation of collapse sounds, perhaps because some videographers did not capture the first moments on tape or as a result of the news tending to only focus on the "juicy" bits in their presentations.

Another problem with internet videos is that when there is sound, it is usually missing a lot of information and/or is distorted from various forms of data compression and/or sloppy transfers. Another problem with internet video in terms of close scrutiny can be audio which is encoded or played back slightly out of synch with the picture.

From listening to audio with evidence of explosions, it seem that the intense "roar" associated with the towers coming down actually begins before any signs of typical explosions occur. This would raise many more questions about the nature of the building collapses and what actually caused them to come down. The initial "roar"/"rumble" might have masked the initial sounds of explosions in audio recordings and even to the ears of witnesses to varying degrees

The power of suggestion can have a very strong influence on what we think we are hearing and on what we remember hearing. Interpreting what we hear through audio playback equipment (and even in reality) will rely heavily on what our eyes see at the time and how the audio has been contextualized, pre-interpreted, and packaged for us. A dramatic example of this is how we can be made to hear hidden messages in songs which are played backwards; we will generally just hear nonsense in a backwards passage until someone points out to us what they want us to listen for, at which point we will hear what we are supposed to, clear as day, even though it may a vague, chance similarity. With this in mind, it is important to approach the evidence of audio recordings with very careful listening and analysis to try and be clear about what is actually there.

With all the available eyewitness testimonies and the fact that clear signs of explosions can be observed on the limited amount of available material, it should be apparent that some type of explosions did occur. Whether caused by bombs or not, these explosions would certainly seem to have something to do with the collapses of the towers

What follows is a basic analysis of some audio clips of the collapses, taken from video clips which are available on the internet and video release. Reasonable full-range speakers or full-range headphones should be preferred for listening as computer speakers tend to have quite a limited frequency range

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
This is invalid and not within keeping with how audio and visual recorders work. Cameras, whether they be SIT ( Sicilian Intensive) Zoom , colour, CCTV,Low Light or LCD cameras work on the same principle they do not “overload” nor do they record different things. They record whatever they are pointing at. The same applies to audio recording devices.
Very loud noises do not over load camera circuits, this is incorrect and invalid.
Complete saturation of circuits is incorrect, circuits do not overload due too input signals, they overload due to Power. Input signals to any recording device are buffered and will not allow a circuit to be overloaded.
Saturation of input signals is not possible and is not in keeping with how these devices work

“Juicy bits” are not an engineering term and is not recognised as such.

The author offers up no presentations as to illustrate what he is writing about.
“Perhaps because” is not a valid argument and is not in keeping with engineering practices

This is correct but again is misleading. The author is implying that the data was lost due to transfer.

Here the author uses the words “might have”. This is speculation and not proven fact.

Here he states that these explosions were masked by the collapse. Total
Contradiction.

Originally posted by longhaircowboy

So I guess my question is why didn't the Empire State Building fall.
Or 'were the buildings built then built to higher standards.'
Sorry for the interuption. This was somthing bothering me.

Originally posted by Stateofgrace
In this statement the author states clearly that the roar of the buildings collapsing was designed to mask the explosives. This is not in keeping with a controlled demolition.

This statement by its very nature implies the collapse started before any explosive devices went of. This is outside what a controlled demolition does. Explosions start demolitions.

The sound of a building collapsing, to mask the explosions is wild speculation and not in keeping with logic, common sense and scientific facts.

The power of suggestion is used extensively in the introduction to this paper. The author is using false comparisons, by comparing subliminal messages in songs to audio recording of the Towers
“With this in mind” is misleading and guiding the reader towards seeing what is not there. It is a play on insecurity, rather than scientific and engineering analysis of the event.

With all the available eyewitness testimonies and the fact that clear signs of explosions can be observed on the limited amount of available material, it should be apparent that some type of explosions did occur. Whether caused by bombs or not, these explosions would certainly seem to have something to do with the collapses of the towers

“Clear signs of explosions” were not heard and again this is misleading.

The author as already drawn his conclusions by stating the sounds of explosions had something to do with the cause of the collapse.

He does not explore the possibility that the collapse caused the sound of explosions.

What follows is a basic analysis of some audio clips of the collapses, taken from video clips which are available on the internet and video release. Reasonable full-range speakers or full-range headphones should be preferred for listening as computer speakers tend to have quite a limited frequency range

I will continue my analyses of this author’ claims but at the moment it is looking pretty grim.

Nice to be back.

Originally posted by Damocles
but this brings us back to those 'fuzzy physics' parts of the discussion on either side.
can we all agree that the speed of sound is constant under static conditions?

if we can agree can anyone tell me how a how a sound, once propegated, is then drowned out by follow-on sounds?

so which is it, it got really hot in there or it didnt?

Originally posted by Damocles
actually, it has all to do with physics. the sounds of the actual blast SHOULD be the first sound we hear, but i personally dont.

and the problem i have with the sonograms is that first they say that audio equipment can be 'overloaded' and then use a computer program to process the sounds that come from the same recordings they say are overloaded.

plus, whats the credibility of that particular software. using digitized audio through the filters they talk about can produce bout anything, my buddy last night used his sound card to see what he'd sound like as a girl.

no, im talking the overall temp exerted anywehre in the impact/fire damaged areas. many contend that NOTHING in there got over around 650 degrees yet thermite burns around 3000 degrees. wheres the evidence that ANYTHING got over 3000 degrees.

Originally posted by Damocles
i could take any of the audio streams and make it sound like almost anything whether its accurate or not. you and i could each take the same sound clip, "filter" it anyway we wanted and we could both use the SAME sound clip to prove our individual points.