911 Eyewitness - A Complete Sham

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:30 PM

Originally posted by billybob
nor will i change my stance that there are positive trajectories, or alternaticely, that the DEGREE of lateral ejection could not be caused by any 'plunger'.

It could if the perimeter connections were severed first leaving the perimeter columns with no resistance to lateral forces, and the base of the falling segments was acting as a fulcrum. To the casual eye relatively small pieces of debris are being flung out enormous distances, but when you watch any of the videos carefully, beyond all the concrete dust you can see that huge, long sections of perimeter columns are falling over rather than down. But this effect was well preceded by the demolition waves we've seen racing down the sides of the buildings ahead of the collapse zones and even ahead of free falling debris.

Consider this model where the perimeter to floor connections are all intact as the plunger descended. As each "piece" was destroyed and ripped apart from its connections to the floors and other columns by the falling mass, it would fall downwards and along a slight lateral trajectory:

Now consider that the demolition waves have severed the perimeter-to-floor connections ahead of the collapse zone, such that when the falling mass strikes the perimeter, it creates a rotating fulcrum at the unsevered connection many floors below. This creates massive, trebuchet-like pieces that would experience a rotational trajectory rather than a standard falling one:

Although the above models are simplified (and badly drawn
), I think they purvey well enough the principle. This is what creates the huge, arcing trajectories, and the unnaturally high arc created enhances the positive trajectory illusion when the downward motion of the collapsing mass sucks down the dust at the origin of the arc.

remember, everyone, that the speed of sound is not the same through the earth as it is through the ground. when things don't sync between recordings of vibrating air, and vibrating earth, it is not obvious what has transpired.

Seismic activity isn't sound, it's ground motion propagated in waves, but yes, these waves travel much faster than sound waves in air. But it's all relative, and what matters in this case is the time space in between the events. It doesn't matter how fast a wave travels through the Earth, the events that create the waves are still spaced apart by the same amount of time. So two miles away you might feel the ground motion almost instantaneously, one event at 0s and the next at 6s. Then ten or so seconds later, you will hear the resulting sound waves, again spaced apart by 6 seconds.

i know that the seismic traces for the big collapses were 8 and 10 seconds in duration, respectively. and for tower seven, it's like 20 seconds.

I agree, and I think the larger signal associated with the penthouse collapse is a giant smoking gun.

it is my contention that ONLY BOMBS are making the earth shake, signifigantly, and the tons of material hitting the earth are relatively insignifigant as seimic-creating events.

I can't agree with that. I think that the towers collapsing, or at the very least the debris striking the ground, would create much larger signals than any explosives, in fact they would have a masking effect on any signals that were generated by explosives. JM$0.02

do i know that this blitz is ongoing, and a LEARNING MACHINE? oh, yeah.

Well said.

[edit on 2006-6-22 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 02:47 PM

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I think you are reaching well beyond the standards of reliable scientific method, if you are trying to assign a 1 to 1 relationship between a specific portion of the collapse event and a specific portion of the seismic signal.

Then what's your explanation for the first spike? The spikes clearly and neatly coincide time-wise with observed events: the penthouse collapse and the global collapse. If the first spike wasn't associated with the penthouse collapse, then what was it associated with?

But if you have to go that route, consider that the penthouse collapse was the topmost indication of a failure that started on the 6th or 7th floors or so, and probably involved the weight of a significant portion of the building plunging through the substation vaults.

So your contention is that a relatively small portion of the building collapsing will naturally create a larger signal than the entire structure collapsing, but without providing anything to back it up.

You're saying that the collapse of this area:

...would of course create a larger seismic signal than this:

I'm calling Chewbacca Defense on that one, Howard.

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 01:50 AM
okay, i checked it out.
you can hear what's going on. it's pretty clear, considering it's a compressed divx from a consumer quality original. wow. technology. is there anything it CAN'T DO?
no. within physical law, no.

seismic is earth quaking or earth vibration. vibration is sound to me. it is just very low frequencies of extreme magnitude that are 'siesmic' sounds. that is the way i 'picture it', whether my terminology is correct, or not.

okay, so, i listened to the wind(the wind on rick's tape, not some other wind, from some other mic, on some other recorder, with completely different eq...etc.)

what i hear:
people on the peer talking. the radio playing 1010wins live reporting. the wind. helicopters(from the same-ish distance as the towers, sometimes farther, sometimes closer, sometimes immediately on toip of, flashing lights through the copius smoke), sirens,distant traffic, and electrical hum and/or motor noise from inside the camera. i can't remember. hi-8? dvd? anyway, not the quietest setup, whatever it is. presumably, the camera is mounted directly on the video camera, and that is why you can hear the noise.

in my opinion, this recording was 'enhanced' by boosting the signal when the explosions are heard, in order to EMPHASIZE the sound of explosions, making them more obvious to the viewer, much like say, circling something like hockey puck during a replay.
the recording shows it, but it is not obvious.

now, the way that the LOW FREQUENCIES can be emphasized, without making the [size=11]MIDS AND HIGHS [size=14]HARSH AND OVERBEARING, is by splitting the audio into multiple narrow bandwidths, exactly the same as a crossover network in a speaker column. once the frequency bands are seperated, they can be processed individually, bass, mids, and highs.

to jump ahead, the final audio track, has presumably been compressed as well, depending on rick's budget and resources, so that whatever changes are made to the raw audio, may have be further changed(maximized for overall volume, nothing too quiet, nothing too loud).

and back. even WITHOUT splitting the frequency band, every compressor circuit has it's own spectral character, and so frequency bands will be affected differently even within the one circuit of processing.

and so, if:

a. it was split into multiple bands, and each band compressed seperately, then, you would hear a JUMP in ALL the LOW frequencies when the explosions are heard. this doesn't happen. the character of the sound does change. the low frequencies of the wind, helicopters, even the radio do not become ENHANCED with the sound of the wind.

the voices that can be hear on the radio, and peer(the thing humans hear best, as per psycho-acoustics), become thinner. they LOSE low end. this indicates that the explosions were probably very loud, in the low frequency range.

b. it was one compressor circuit....lower frequencies are related to higher ones by a sliding scale, where every octave lower has twice the energy of the original. when a loud sound goes is translated into an electrical wave, by a microphone diaphram, each part of the chain has a 'character', and changing any part in the circuit, be it a transistor or a reverb and eq, changes the overall character of the sound that eventually is translated back into physical movement by the speakers. (wordy. sorry.) so, because backround sounds LOSE LOW END, the bandwidth is being SATURATED by BIGGER LOW END. IF the wind noide was being boosted(the wind is the closest thing to the microphone), the ambient noise like helicopters and male voices on the radio, would be drowned out.

there is no question in my mind that
a. the sounds are genuine recordings of explosions (i strongly feel this is the case, based on the audio alone, disregarding everything else i know that points to demolition)
b. they were dubbed in using multi-track recording to mix multiple audio streams into a fake 'live' audio track. this is harder to disprove with a simple analysis, and perhaps impossible, depending on the skill of the fakir.

i've just edited this for one thing. i think it's an unusually long post for me, and i'm sure there are errors.

oh, well. i hope to look at it again, but i'm already pretty sure that the 'enhancement' realy was an enhancement, and not a doctoring.

recorded sound has suffered a massive attack of entropy. you cannot easily unmix sounds once they are mixed together, no matter how much cowbell you need. or how much bass.

[edit on 24-6-2006 by billybob]

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 02:19 AM
as far as the trajectory thingy goes, your pictures(which i think are excellent renditions), do show a possible way to trace a similiar arc, however, when i watch the videos, i see a fountain of debris, with mutiple 'comets' streaking away from the towers, relatively equally in all directions. also, a falling wall should be travelling ahead of falling dust, and so should be clearly visible as the leading edge of any given dust trail, if that is the explanation for those arcs.

your excellent pictures also depict exactly what actually happened to at least on wall, because i can clearly remember the whole thing laid out on the ground, several stories high(long) from at least) one pic. this wall was the lower floors, laid down like a peeled banana. once the floors, and more importantly, the CORNERS were cut, it pivoted and leaned out as a whole onto the ground like a giant domino/banana peel.

sleep deprivation is making me type disjunct sentences with poor spelling.
durn it.

[edit on 24-6-2006 by billybob]

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 05:08 AM
In an attempt to refute the original claim that there were no explosions....in the video "In Plane Site" there is footage from CNN that was broadcast only once on sept.11 and never after, this shows a plume of smoke rise appx. 50 stories in the air, before either building collapsed. The plume starts at the base of the twin towers which would be the blast that the seismic records show before the collapse.
that is all...

P.S. the shot i'm referring to is approximately 31 and a half minutes into the documentary.

This would also explain the damage shown in the firefighter documentary of the lobby in which the marble walls are damaged.

If anyone could counter argue, i would be very interested in an opinion. It makes no sense to me.

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 06:30 AM
This as of now unseen clip from the Beeb provides wonderful cross reference to the characteristic thuds heard in "Eyewitness", this time from another, closer position. So either the Beeb doctored those in for kicks or "Eyewitness" is not the sham you're making it out to be. I know where I'll put my money...

(For the hearing impaired: pay attention some seconds after the bike has crossed the scene)

[edit on 24-6-2006 by Lumos]

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 07:02 AM
Which bike are you talking about? The bicycle or the motorcycle? The only noise I hear is from the motorcycle engine. There is a noise a few seconds after it passes which sounds like the rider revving the throttle. Compare the timing with the Eyewitness sound events. They don't match up.

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 07:17 AM
I mean the motorbike. Approximately 2 seconds after its noise fades, you can clearly hear two subsequent concussions, which don't sound like revving at all. Then, about 12 seconds later, the tower falls, which entirely matches the chronology from "Eyewitness".

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 08:37 AM
It sounds much like a motorcycle revving from further away to me. From this much closer location the noises should also be much louder than on the Eyewitness video. And again, the times don't match up. or have I missed something somewhere?

[edit on 2006-6-24 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 08:49 AM
The times match up perfectly - what's incoherent in your opinion? Plus, you can hear two rather distinct, low frequency thuds - how's the motorbike supposed to generate those?

I believe the sounds just paled in comparison to the considerably higher ambient noise as compared to Hoboken. Also, there should be much more diffusion in the city.

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 08:50 AM
accidental double post.

[edit on 24-6-2006 by Lumos]

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 09:31 AM

I believe the sounds just paled in comparison to the considerably higher ambient noise as compared to Hoboken. Also, there should be much more diffusion in the city.

A valid point.

Originally posted by Lumos
Plus, you can hear two rather distinct, low frequency thuds - how's the motorbike supposed to generate those?

It was a Harley. Blip the throttle of a Harley and it will sound just like that.

These are the times I get for the events in each video:

Sound event: 00:37:50
WTC1 collapse: 00:37:58

Sound event: 00:47
WTC1 collapse: 00:58

So taking the collapse as time = 0, the 911EW sound event was recorded at -8s, and the BBC one was recorded at -11s. There was a 9.2 second delay across the river at Hobokken. The BBC video looks to be a little over a kilometre away, which would make for a sound delay of 3 seconds.

With the time delay taken into account, the events that created those two sounds are 3 seconds apart.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[edit on 2006-6-24 by wecomeinpeace]

posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 06:46 PM
I have a treasure chest for you guys, lol.


Real or faked? Because if they're authentic, it's a pretty amazing find.

The embedding HTML isn't working for me, so here's the URL:

(Btw, I have a video clip of WTC2's collapse with the same audio, if anyone's wondering if there's accompanying video. I think I got it from the same site a while back, so check for it there, and if it isn't there I'll look again.)

Also, the page has this, which is definitely accurate:

This is meant as an audio illustration of how quick each floor collapsed. If you have floors being blown out in about 0.1 seconds each, which fits the math, then the above clip lets you hear how fast this actually is.

The page also displays sonograms where it tries to show that there are audio events that occur in roughly those intervals if I'm not mistaken, but I've just skimmed the page.

[edit on 24-6-2006 by bsbray11]

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 02:06 AM

Originally posted by bsbray11
Also, the page has this, which is definitely accurate:

All of those audio recordings are in .mp4 format, not usable by most PC-based audio players. Is there any site you know of with those same audio bits in .mp3, or .wav formats?

.mp4 is a format pretty much specific to podcast (the ipod specifically), and thus not usable by the average PC

[edit on 6/25/2006 by obsidian468]

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 02:38 PM
Winamp ran them both for me, but here are some alternates:

The Trinity Video/Audio in question:
AVI Format (Video) - ttp://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/southtower.trinity.avi
AIF Format (Audio) - www.mediumrecords.com...
MP3 version can be found here: media.putfile.com...

The audio illustration of 110 floors collapsing in 14 seconds:

Quicktime - www.mediumrecords.com...

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:05 PM
You realise that a 7hz signal can have extremely negative effects on people, including (at a loud enough volume) killing them.


Found some links:

Demonstrated infrasonic weapon
The U.S. DOD has demonstrated phased arrays of infrasonic emitters. The weapon, about the size of a truck, usually consists of a device that generates sound at about 7 Hz. The output from the device is routed (by pipes) to an array of open emitters, which are usually one wavelength apart. At this frequency, armor and concrete walls and other common building materials vibrate, and therefore provide no defense. The frequency is chosen to be near the resonant frequency of internal organs, causing illness, deafness, and internal injuries. The resulting weapon is the size of a truck, fragile, and has a shorter range than missiles or artillery shells.

[edit on 25-6-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 05:09 PM
Didn't know that, but there's about a hertz difference and the file didn't bother me. I guess there's a disclaimer, though.

posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:26 PM
that is an ook, fing great site, bsbray.

this page is much more eloquent than i , as i dowse myself with malted beverages in the fab summer weather....hoboken

the compressed version(enhanced, lol) of the south tower collapse, as recorded from the street below, has a distinct, PERFECTLY REGULAR series of four 'claps' before the more massive crashing is heard.



a good point about frequencies, is that lower octaves require exponentially more power than higher ones. and, once you make these powerful subsonic waves of 7 hz, or whatever your target resonance is, they CARRY that energy with them, until it is dissolved by entropy.
if a source of frequency is in perfect resonance with an object, the object will shatter if enough power is applied.

that didn't happen.
corrosives and explosives were used, for simplicity and proven reliability.

natural collapses of anything do not start at a regular velocity.

clap, clap, clap, clap, HURRRAAAAAAHHHHHHH.

[edit on 25-6-2006 by billybob]

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 06:30 AM

In an attempt to refute the original claim that there were no explosions....in the video "In Plane Site" there is footage from CNN that was broadcast only once on sept.11 and never after, this shows a plume of smoke rise appx. 50 stories in the air, before either building collapsed.

That was actually the South Tower collapsing. vonKleist took that out of the directors cut version of the documentary.

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:44 AM

Originally posted by billybob
okay, i checked it out.

now, the way that the LOW FREQUENCIES can be emphasized, without making the MIDS AND HIGHS HARSH AND OVERBEARING, is by splitting the audio into multiple narrow bandwidths, exactly the same as a crossover network in a speaker column. once the frequency bands are seperated, they can be processed individually, bass, mids, and highs.


You lost me with much of your sound engineering techno-speak, but what I'm basically hearing from you is that it is possible to fake it.

I hate to repeat myself, but listen to the un-enhanced version.


You can clearly hear that the wind noise is constant. Then when the sound events occur, it's just like a sudden ramping up of that wind noise and then back to the constant noise. Then go back to 911EW and listen to the same section, and you can hear that the constant wind noise is GONE. Then later, when they show the WTC7 collapse, the constant wind noise is back again. The audio has been messed with BIG time, and not just simply enhancing the LF sound events. In the words of the great cartoon gangster Bugsy, "I don't know how you's dunnit, but I KNOW YOU'S DUNNIT!"

And the most damning thing of all, at 1:02:32, and 1:03:20 to 1:03:40 on 911EW, you can hear more rumbling, low frequency sound events that sound exactly, and I mean EXACTLY like the earlier ones, and this is LONG AFTER WTC7 has collapsed. Rick has been asked about this multiple times and he avoids the question every time.

You have to ask yourself, why doesn't Professor Jones include this 911EW evidence in his paper, while he includes ear/eye witness accounts of explosions? Is it conceivable that he hasn't analyzed it, even when the video is linked on the st911 website? It might be interesting for someone who is in contact with him to email and ask. I think Jack Tripper is. Next time I see him I'll U2U.

As an aside, for anyone who's interested in alleged numerology and Masonic/Illuminati symbology, what does the symbol that Rick uses represent, that is, the all-seeing eye and lightning striking the tower?

new topics
top topics
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in