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.

 

The phone call that disproves controlled demo theory?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Griff, no offense, but you're confusing the original intent of this post. The only part of the phone call that matters to the discussion is the last 3-5 seconds, when the building collapses.


No, you are confused. I agree that the last part is important, but I also think the beginning of the conversation is also important. If we could hear explosions at the beggining of the conversation and then not at the end, I would say you have a point. But, for some reason, the beginning of the conversation is edited out.

I see what you're saying now. You are referring to reports of "explosions" at the time of the airplane strike. The problem is probably by the time Kevin called the NYPD, they would have been well into the crisis and beyond the point where the phone would have picked up the sounds of the plane's impact and any possible explosions following.


Squibs would make a bang. I couldn't hear any on the call, even though it cut off within a second or two after the rumbling starts.


Floors falling in on themselves would also cause a bang. Do you hear any bangs from floors collapsing?

Go back to Youtube and watch other building implosions. The sound, consistently, is a thunderous rubble. The only sharp bangs are the explosions of the squibs that are used to start the collapse.




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by DeMitsuko

Originally posted by Griff
Possibly because you can hear explosions? I call dis-info here...sorry.


but the squibs (or so called explosions) are starting as the building collapse and not 5 minutes before...


Why are you trying to argue things that I'm not even getting at? Squibs? Where in hell have I stated ANYTHING about squibs? I'm talking of the explosions that were heard by EVERYONE in the area during the fires and before the collapse. Look it up, there WERE explosions going off. Doesn't mean bombs though.

[edit on 1/30/2007 by Griff]


Griff,

Again it seems like we have a discontect in understanding. No one is saying that eyewitnesses are wrong and that there weren't explosions occuring when the plane hit. YOu even admit they may not be bomb explosions, but secondary explosions as a result of the impact and fires.

But because the phone call starts after the call is made, does that negate the fact that there are no squib sounds? No....



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Again it seems like we have a discontect in understanding. No one is saying that eyewitnesses are wrong and that there weren't explosions occuring when the plane hit. YOu even admit they may not be bomb explosions, but secondary explosions as a result of the impact and fires.

But because the phone call starts after the call is made, does that negate the fact that there are no squib sounds? No....


First, I am talking about the explosions that were heard after the plane impact up and into the beginning of collapse. After the plane hit and during the subsequent fire (which would be during the time of the phone conversation). Not ALL those explosions that were heard were just right after the plane crashes.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
I mean we know that they were beyond negligent to not intercept some of those planes which were in the air over an hour - it's ludicrous.


Get real. Intercept with what? Contrary to what some people think there were not armed fighter aircraft patrolling the skies on 9-11. It would take at a minimum 90 minutes to arm fighters and brief their crews for an intercept. Then what if they had shot down one or both of these aircraft? Look at all of the pepole who think that the plane that crashed in Shanksville was shot down, listen to their whining.


90 minutes? You're joking right? If it takes a hour & a half to get jets in the air then we should just abandon the effort. That's ludicrous.

So we have to "guess" where the aircraft are gonna be in @ an hour so that we can have proper lead time to intercept them?


In any case F-15's were scrambled out of Otis AFB on Cape Cod before AA 11 even struck the north tower.


washingtontimes.com...



F-15 fighter jets were ordered scrambled from Otis Air Force Base at 8:46 a.m. Forty seconds later, Flight 11 hit the north tower of the World Trade Center.



Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Other unexplained phenomenna - such as the fact that more energy was put into the collapsing system then could have been created by the plane collision - has yet to be adequately explained by any official agency.


There was more energy added to the collapse. It was added by a phenomena called GRAVITY.


As Griff has already stated, the collapse energy & kinetic energy were constants because the mass of the building was a constant. They could be computed before any collapse was initiated.

The thing I find puzzling is the fact that the towers were virtually identical in every detail. Yet they produced earthquakes of magnitude 2.1 & 2.3 respectively. At first glance these metrics may not appear to be significant, but in reality there is a huge difference in the energy needed to produce this. This suggests that the north tower had much more potential that the south tower? How can this be?

2PacSade-



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade

The thing I find puzzling is the fact that the towers were virtually identical in every detail. Yet they produced earthquakes of magnitude 2.1 & 2.3 respectively. At first glance these metrics may not appear to be significant, but in reality there is a huge difference in the energy needed to produce this. This suggests that the north tower had much more potential that the south tower? How can this be?


I'm sure people will say "the WTC 1 was taller...therefore had more potential energy". Depending how far off 2.3 is from 2.1, they might be right. I don't know anything about Riechter scales so I can't say.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
Now on the program check if you can hear noises of 100 hz or lower...I dont think so, in fact most Phones have limited bandwith so a phone call is a really bad way to look for low frequency noises and or high decibel noises, since they overload easily since the bandwith and dynamic range is quite limited...


The typical range for telephone lines is 300hz to 3400hz. So frequencies above or below this will not be passed. Also, I'm sure the transmitter would have a saturation point with respect to decibels, therefore acoustic waves, even though they may be within the frequency range, will also not be passed. I'm trying to find some specific information on this. If I do I will post it here.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by 2PacSade

The thing I find puzzling is the fact that the towers were virtually identical in every detail. Yet they produced earthquakes of magnitude 2.1 & 2.3 respectively. At first glance these metrics may not appear to be significant, but in reality there is a huge difference in the energy needed to produce this. This suggests that the north tower had much more potential that the south tower? How can this be?


I'm sure people will say "the WTC 1 was taller...therefore had more potential energy". Depending how far off 2.3 is from 2.1, they might be right. I don't know anything about Riechter scales so I can't say.


WTC 1=1368 vs WTC 1=1362. Six feet does not equate to the change in magnitude. I read a piece somewhere that showed all the math & the calculations. The difference in potential that was calculated to produce the varying magnitudes was quite substantial. I'll keep looking for it after I get home tonight.

2PacSade-



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
didn't he say tower#2, meaning south tower?

if so, the video shcows the north tower collapsing, which means that it's cut to convey a false situational awareness. on top of that, the visible squibs on various videos have yet to be explained AND they took place when the collapse was well underway, ie. when this audio clip has already ended.

if you can find a mechanism capable of pulverizing a scyscraper within 10 seconds that does not require a CD effort, i'll be more than willing to listen, but one audio clip is, imho, not enough. the squib videos are better evidence and more numerous to boot.

sorry, gotta see things in perspective.


You are absolutely right about the video. But the thing is the audio was dubbed to the video scene by someone else, possibly the youtube poster?
You can even notice the video is constantly looping (notice the skip in frames).
This audio was never officially release with a video synced to it. It was just that, audio and a transcript. Some amateuer chap decided to dub it to give the audio even more feeling by showing a collapse from that day.

What bugs me is how do planes strike into the buildings (each tower in a different spot) and yet the collapse starts from the impact area?! Two different areas of impact. If demo charges were used how do you ensure that they don't prematurely setoff during the plane crash? Or prevent the charged from firing? That's what makes me wonder.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
I read a piece somewhere that showed all the math & the calculations. The difference in potential that was calculated to produce the varying magnitudes was quite substantial. I'll keep looking for it after I get home tonight.


Please do. It would be nice to learn more about the Riechter scale and what all that means. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomX
What bugs me is how do planes strike into the buildings (each tower in a different spot) and yet the collapse starts from the impact area?! Two different areas of impact. If demo charges were used how do you ensure that they don't prematurely setoff during the plane crash? Or prevent the charged from firing? That's what makes me wonder.


How do you know they didn't? How would a smaller explosion stand out in the middle of a larger explosion? Even if the towers had charges to the hilt, do you really think that a floor or two worth is going to be visible or audible during those huge fuel blasts? I know I probably couldn't tell the difference.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I'll be the first one to say that eyewitnesses can be wrong. Otherwise we would have proof that Nessie and Jackalopes are real.

Any judge, psychologist, psychiatrist will say that eyewitness testimony is some of the most unreliable testimony there is. This is doubly the case when the witnesses are under an immense amount of stress (such as when two planes crash into two skyscrapers). When people are presented with any situation, their brain creates models to understand the information of which they are processing. They often try to make it follow a preexisting model or image their brain has (think of seeing faces in clouds) a reasonable response to a panic situation in which people are screaming, running, buildings falling, etc. would be to think that bombs explode. It isn't that they are "liars" as you say but misinterpreted what they saw or subsequent trama (namely watching 3000 people die) clouded their memory of the event.

I would suggest reading E.F. Loftus _Eyewitness Testimony_ (Harvard University Press: 1979). It is still a classic in the field of memory and the reliablity of eyewitness testimony



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Would that include reporters there that day? Or how about firefighters who are trained for this stress? Were they making it up also?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Not to mention a lot of them must have hallucinated some pretty realistic stuff about blown out walls, white smoke (that was photographed), destroyed doors and machine shops, etc., and more than a couple had to be medically treated, apparently for these hallucinations from trauma, that caused them physical injury.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Believe it or not taking journalism school for four years does not make you form memory differently neither does being a firefighter. Hey, I cite a book published by Harvard by a psychologist and you respond with, "hey does that include journalists/firefighters who are trained in handling stress?" Winning point I am sure.


I think we would both agree though that neither the firefighters nor reporters had ever experienced the death of three thousand people and the collapse of two buildings nearly 2000 feet within a matter of minutes. Maybe I am wrong, but I imagine it would be a bit stressful, even for someone "trained" in "handling" stress.

To the second post, Griff himself said that these were not eyewitness reports, rather earwitness reports. So I am not quite sure how photographs proove a thing. Do the photos tell us if someone was playing Mozart?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
For the second time you say "were they making it up?" as though I am accusing them of purposefully being deceitful. I am not.

I am saying though that people remember things differently from objective reality. Of course it isn't just me saying this. I mean this has been accepted cognative knowledge at the very least since Hobbes

EDIT FOR SPELLING

[edit on 30-1-2007 by XBadger]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
OK, let me get this right. Someone is hospitalized for trauma, and then you are going to go back and say that their memories from (presumably) split seconds before sustaining critical injuries should be accepted as gospel truth. That is what you call wonky.

EDIT TO REMOVE DUPLICATE WORD


[edit on 30-1-2007 by XBadger]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Interesting theory...

However, I don't feel that it makes sense to definitively conclude that no explosions on the Cosgrove call means that there could not have been explosions in the building.

Cosgrove was on the 105th floor, and the plane hit between floors 78-83. That means there were 20+ floors of concrete between Cosgrove and the area where the building began to collapse. If there was a CD initiated on floor 75, for example, that would put Cosgrove approximately 300 feet above the theoretical explosions, with about 25 stories of concrete and steel between him and the sound source. It's impossible to conclude that explosions would have been heard over the phone in Cosgrove's office under these circumstances.

In my opinion, what is more important than the "missing" explosions in the Cosgrove call are the hundreds of "missing" recordings of all the other 911 calls the day of the attacks. Certainly, it's possible that somebody in the towers besides Cosgrove was on the phone with 911. And if there were explosions, it's possible that there are 911 calls that actually did pick up the sounds of the explosions. And yet the only call that I know of that was released that documents the actual start of the implosion is Cosgrove's call from the 105th floor.

Like so much of the evidence that the government has refused to make public, the selective holding back of the 911 recordings only adds to speculation that the government is hiding something, imo.

In any case, lack of explosions on the Cosgrove call is not proof that there were no explosions.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Nano WHAT? Any proof that this nano-whatsit exists? There was a thread on ATS about the composition of dust samples taken from the WTC after the collapse. The listed components of this dust had no Nitrates mentioned. Since the majority of explosives are Nitrate based, I think this kind of puts a dent in the explosives theories.


Hm. I didn't know that this info was out. I got in trouble posting some stuff about it over on Fark in 2005.

No, a nanoenergetic explosive, at least the ones I've worked with, have no nitrates and are a composite of nanoparticulate aluminum and a halogen, either chlorine, fluorine or iodine, typically in some sort of organic carrier that keeps them separate until detonation. They have spectacularly high brisance and some variants are just outrageously powerful for the volume used. Way more than any nitrate by several orders of magnitude, volume for volume. There are also zirconium ne's and boron ne's, and I think they're working on nanocarbon ne's. Boron is the biggy.

The explosives don't have sulfur, though, which was one of Jones' points. And one of the upthread posters was wrong, it's definitely not 'hush-a-boom', it makes plenty of noise, that's what an explosive does - cause overpressure.

Didn't notice what service you were in, are you familiar with SMAW-NE? It uses one of the earlier nano-aluminum suspensions.

Edit: I don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy, just hadn't noticed that someone had been talking up NE materials, sort of surprising.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Tom Bedlam]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
It is impossible to comment intelligently on the lack of explosions in other phones without simply talking out of your ---. What of phone model did Cosgrove have? How were his family recording the call? What provider did he have? How well was his office insulated vis-a-vis others?

All that we know from this call -- definitively -- is that multiple explosions were heard, which would seem to contradict the version of events in which a single burst of detonations destroyed the building.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by XBadger
It is impossible to comment intelligently on the lack of explosions in other phones without simply talking out of your ---. What of phone model did Cosgrove have? How were his family recording the call? What provider did he have? How well was his office insulated vis-a-vis others?

All that we know from this call -- definitively -- is that multiple explosions were heard, which would seem to contradict the version of events in which a single burst of detonations destroyed the building.


"Multiple explosions?" I don't recall hearing a multiplicity of explosions. Are you referring to the rumbling?




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join