Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

911 Eyewitness - A Complete Sham

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

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


I don't see anything conclusive in there at all. It looks great with the spectral analysis software captures, but the author's logic to support the contention that these are explosion sounds is spurious at best. He basically states that:

A: Explosion sounds "would tend" to produce low frequency response

B: The sound events were largely isolated to the low frequency region.

therefore...

C: The sound events are explosions.

As bsbray11 will tell you, this is what's known as a non sequitur argument. It does not follow.

What the author needs to do is get his hands on the unaltered version and analyze that. Then he needs to compare the sound event frequency signatures to wind blowing across a microphone, and to explosions recorded from a distance. Then his paper might be worth something.

Furthermore, he explains away the fact that explosions were not recorded in other footage by referencing the explosion of Mt St Helens (!) That was a massive shockwave event. Shockwaves are supersonic wave phenomena and do not behave according to ordinary acoustics.


www.mediumrecords.com...
The meaning of the pre-collapse explosion sounds in the Hoboken (South Tower) video is far from being understood. Though it would be fairly safe to assume that these sounds are coming from the towers, and probably from the South Tower as relating directly to its subsequent collapse, it is unknown if they would be coming from the crash-zone, the basement, or some other part of the tower.


There is simply no basis for the above statement, and none is even attempted to be provided. Reading that analysis provided me with nothing but frustration.

Billybob, why don't you step up to the plate and do a decent analysis? You seem to know a lot more about sound engineering than this guy.



[edit on 2006-6-26 by wecomeinpeace]




posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
i will make a few comments.
the bomb sounds on the 911eyewitness video have a distinct 'note', and similiar decay characteristics, ie. a fundamental frequency. wind noise does not. wind gusts are a bunch of notes all at once.

so, once again, they are either real, or dubbed in. (i will add more audio analysis as we go, within my capabilities.) in light of the 'new' video(new to me) of the bbc inteview on the street while the tower collapses, shows quite clearly that there was a SHARP and LOUD sound at the INITIATION of collapse, as you see the bbc correspondent instinctively duck and clasp his ears. that records an aspect of the MICROPHONE that is not evident to a listener. ie. the pick up pattern, and sensitivity of the mic. obviously there was a very loud sound, to the human ear, and yet the microphone does not reflect the magnitude of the audio event.
some microphones are designed to pick up only what is close to them, and some are only for things very small, or far away.

here's a couple interesting frames from the same video...



here, we can see that the lateral ejection at this point in the collapse, is not a function of pivots. we can also see a huge dust cloud rising up from BELOW(visible over the white 'staricase' building) to meet the downrush of raining debris. that is very early in the collapse.






in this one, we can see a wall falling in one piece, on a pivot, just like in your pic, and we can see that WE CAN SEE THIS WALL, and so, any wall or heavy object, would be expected to lead debris. what we DO see, is rapidly expanding dust clouds, out pacing the heavier debris.
this, of course, indicates that gravity is not the driving force, but rather there is *something* pushing sideways, harder than gravity is pushing down.

at first, i thought the 'white spire', that 'points' to the HUUUGE falling wall panel, was a spray of white debris, but now i think it is just the last piece of visible sky through the debris field.

and, yes, i find rick's illuminati eye to be 'scary'. you'd think he would know better. maybe it's sarcasm?

gotta go, for now.


[edit on 26-6-2006 by billybob]

[edit on 26-6-2006 by billybob]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

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.


milli vanilli could have done it.



Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
I hate to repeat myself, but listen to the un-enhanced version.

www.terrorize.dk...

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.


well, it is possible that explosions were still going off after the tower fell. the 'squibs' and the 'molten stream' are evidence that these things can make up their own minds about when to go off.

anyway, i listened, and to my ear there is a distinct difference between the thunderous lows of the explosions, and the low frequency rumble of the wind.
if rick had let the low frequency wind 'blow' throughout the movie, you would not be able to turn it up and listen to it. i suspect he used a low end cut, because i do hear wind throughout the movie, just not a constant rumble. so, with the low end REDUCED, the explosions would also get filtered out, and so, he takes the low end cut off for the explosions.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
interesting picture from ground zero.
notice the complete absence of a person. this is NOT part of the cleanup.
there is another picture taken at night that shows the same shower of sparks STILL spewing from the same spot. i will ad it later, hopefully.



compare to this:



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i



Where'd you get this? That's an awsome pic. Also notice the white smoke comming from it. Looks exactly like a thermite reaction to me. Please post the nightime one also. Thanks for posting that.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   


thumbnail? click it for larger version?

i'm new to image hosting services.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Not being funny bud but assuming it is genuine and not a photoshop (which I imagine there will be a lot of floating around), then it may be part of the clean up due to the guy in the foreground cleaning up and it being night. But even so, what the hell would still be burning ito the night? No thermite, WMD or explosives would - no matter how secret or special.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
What's the context of that photo? i.e. What's the person up there doing? Trying to put it out?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
But even so, what the hell would still be burning ito the night? No thermite, WMD or explosives would - no matter how secret or special.


What the hell made the temperatures so high for days and weeks later in the subbasements? Maybe it was something else other than thermite, WMD or explosives that were used.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
What like an artificial sun? I can actually comprehend the idea of low yield nuclear devices, thermite definately but magic? No thanks. Nothing would burn like that, it's another red herring, trust me.. Or not.. But use your common sense please, I mean this is ridiculous.



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
But even so, what the hell would still be burning ito the night? No thermite, WMD or explosives would - no matter how secret or special.


And yet there were hot spots remaining for weeks after the collapses, and molten steel pulled up out of Ground Zero. I wouldn't quite rule anything out yet.

In relation to 9/11 Eyewitness itself, I just read from someone who went to the LA conference that Rick Siegel was endorsing the no-planes theory. Him and Jimmy Walters.

If that's true, then honestly, wtf is the man doing?



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Not being funny bud but assuming it is genuine and not a photoshop (which I imagine there will be a lot of floating around), then it may be part of the clean up due to the guy in the foreground cleaning up and it being night. But even so, what the hell would still be burning ito the night? No thermite, WMD or explosives would - no matter how secret or special.


geez, how many times do you need to be whacked over the head with a soggy noodle until you cry uncle?

that is a photograph, and it is not from a conspiracy site. and neither is the night shot. (i will let the sources remain a mystery for now. these things have a way of disappearing once recognised by your all seeing eye.

you claim that it could not burn, and that that is ludicrous. well, once again, the proof is in the picture. there is white smoke. a metal fire. there are no workers near it. no crane, no cable, no lift, no ladder, no scaffold, no people. it is a metal fire.

even NIST documents a metal fire, near the infamous molten cascade.
firemen had to stop spraying water on the debris pile, because it only exacerbated the fire. they finally switched to pyrocool, and the underground fires were finally extinguished.

whatever it was, burned for HOURS(and underground for WEEKS), -no matter how much you don't want that to be true.
i understand that thermite or thermate reactions can be prepared to burn at different rates.


any unknown science will be indistinguishable from magic. -some guy


[edit on 27-6-2006 by billybob]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
What's the context of that photo? i.e. What's the person up there doing? Trying to put it out?


the night shot?

a clean up crew guy with some kind of long welding rod in the foreground, probably cutting that large beam on the ground.
the bizarre metal fire is in the background, and only incidentally in the picture, i'm guessing.

these pictures came from a slideshow of the cleanup. it's on a website that has nothing to do with conspiracy theory.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Ok...I wasn't looking at the background. Now I see it.



posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
"Positive trajectory ejections of debris prove explosives rather than gravity took the towers down":



AgentSmith showed that in still pictures the trajectories appear to be vertical, but when watching the actual footage it can be seen that this is an illusion created by the collapse sucking the dust trails downward somewhat, so that the origin of the debris dust trails appear to be lower than the pinnacle.



1) "The collapse sucking the dust trails downward" suggests the collapse is moving faster than gravity
otherwise
you are suggesting the dust is not as affected by gravity as is the building.

The 1st point is impossible, therefore you mean the 2nd.

Thank you, you have agreed that an upward force was present.


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


You are disproving the 'pancake collapse theory'.

The perimeter wall, you suggest, "it creates a rotating fulcrum at the unsevered connection many floors below".

*** outer perimeter walls were composed of thousands of sections

1st) You are suggesting that the energy applied to the top perimeter sections was strong enough to break the truss connection but not enough to break the interconnecting perimeter section joins (IPSJ)
and
that the strength of the IPSJ was more than the non-heated trusses 'many floors below'.

The perimeter wall accounted for 40% of the building load, the 'rotating fulcrum' effect would have resulted in the pancake collapse of all the floors from that point upto the point at which the 'top down pancake collapse' had progressed to.

otherwise

2nd) If you are suggesting that the sections of the perimeter wall retained their IPSJ during the pancake collapse;
this requires all the debris being ejected horizontally (by your argument), as the pancake collapse progresses, to magically pass through the perimeter wall in order to provide us with the 'fulcrum effect'.

As the 1st suggestion rubbishes the pancake collapse theory, you must mean the 2nd which defies the laws of physics, common-sense and logic.


Although the above models are simplified, I think they purvey well enough the principle.


by attempting to rubbish claims of parabolic trajectory you must provide

Magical Physics

The picture and analysis shows that debris was ejected in an upwards direction and any argument to disprove is based upon "magic physics".



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   
9/11 Eye Witness is possibly the BEST documentary on the towers collapse.

Why the OP thinks its all bull is beyond me...he's obviously either a moron, or a paid troll.



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 10:00 PM
link   
Billybob,

I'd appreciate sources for the photographs you posted.

Thanks



posted on May, 15 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Billybob,

I'd appreciate sources for the photographs you posted.

Thanks


you know, i honestly forget. info overload. i copied them to my desktop, and then pasted them to imageshack.
one was from a (non conspiracy) site which had many 911 photos, arranged in a slideshow type format, next/previous arrangement. there were tons of pictures, someone else on the web linked to the pic url, and i thought it best to let it sit 'anonymously' where it was. that's the night shot, i'm talking about. i honestly have no idea which site it was, or the original server's url. sorry.

the other pic(day) is a more common one, although i don't remember where i found it, either. too busy fighting black wizards and their gregori, eh.



posted on May, 19 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
These pictures were also posted in the huge 911 thread at Physics.org and it is in fact an iron-worker cutting a column with a blowtorch, using oxygen and acetylene gas. In the first photo he is standing inside a basket hanging from a crane, in the back of the column, that's why it looks as if the column is spouting fluid iron or such.
It is not.

Well, also time to plug in my usual challenge in this thread :

Proof me wrong if you can :
www.abovetopsecret.com... and page 2,
and :
www.studyof911.com...

[edit on 19/5/07 by LaBTop]



posted on May, 20 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaBTop
These pictures were also posted in the huge 911 thread at Physics.org and it is in fact an iron-worker cutting a column with a blowtorch, using oxygen and acetylene gas. In the first photo he is standing inside a basket hanging from a crane, in the back of the column, that's why it looks as if the column is spouting fluid iron or such.
It is not.


you know, i do notice a crane in the might shot, now.
and i have seen pics of guys in a basket cutting on these columns from another angle.

however, in the day shot, there is molten metal on the top of the debris pile, as well as spouting from the column. it is this bright molten pool on the ground that i find anomalous, now, more than the shower of sparks and whatnot.
welding sparks cool quickly as they fly through the air, so it doesn't add up that the pool is from the welding, and the 'invisible worker' card can't be played, because there are no sparks shooting up from the ground.






top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join