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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

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?




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:56 PM
link   

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


Where you there? People who where there though have reported multiple secondary explosions.

As to people not remembering things ect. At the time it happened, reporters reported secondary explosions. Or where they just hearing things? Plus, these reports of secondary explosions came from BEFORE the towers collapsed, so the theory of them being so distraught because 3000 just died is moot.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Excuse me. You are right, I meant to say rumblings. Mea Culpa.

To Griff:
Again, the point about how people cognatively function is correct. If a reporter says on air he heard multiple explosions, then yes, he is relaying information based on memory. Lets not forget that during 9/11 reporters were saying that they heard carbombs near the State Department, when in reality it was (presumably) cars backfiring. So were there explosions there or not? Multiple explosions were reported by reporters live on the scene?

In either case though, it is not that the person is deliberatively lying, rather their experiences become clouded by stress/expections/emotion/etc. It is very possible that if a reporter said on air "I heard multiple explosions" s/he was confused about what he was hearing. This would of course be logical since s/he is not an expert in demolitions, and moreover is chattering on in an exceptionally stressful environment.

OK, so some reporters said there were "multiple explosions", how many didn't say there were multiple explosions. Are you prepared to call those eyewitnesses liars? The problem with eyewitness testimony is well documented. Do you honestly believe that the sun left its place in teh sky and touched the earth at Fatima? Do you believe that angels appeared above battles to urge Nazi soldiers on? These are areas of stress or expectation and guess what wierd things are experienced. So either (a.) God wanted the Nazis to win/The sun touched the earth in Spain or (b.) eyewitness testimony is not "indisputable" as you claim. THere are of course numerous other examples of (ahem) dubious eyewitness points, but I won't belabor you with them all.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
okay i haven't read all of the other posts but i have a couple things to say.

that phone call is absolutely devistating, the first time i heard it i must've cried for an hour. With the people hearing explosions...there are things BESIDES bombs that make explosions. Also, the tallest building ever demolished with CD was only 33 stories tall, and took FOUR months to prepare, and that's without bomb sniffing dogs and all the empolyees running around. Finally. Squibs happen BEFORE the building collapses not during.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
this call was from the 105th floor, so its possible the explosions started 30 stories below them. this was the first building to fall, so when he is saying "o my god, o my god" the top 30 stories are tilting... before the structure vaporizes.

its possible he says that because of the explosions, or because of the tilting. or many other things. its also possible the tape is edited, these tapes were analyzed for years before they were released, we must not forget the source of the audio and the chain of evidence.

this is hardly proof there were no explosions at any rate. it does not refute the seismic data or video and audio from other sources at all.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I have not read all the posts on this, prob not even half. But at no point have I seen varification of this call, apart from the audio with the looped video. Please no one take this the wrong way, but with all that now goes with 9/11 how can I know what i'm listening to?

The towers were 110 stories high, this call was from the 105th floor.
While typing this I have re-listened to the final seconds, the first rumble of the actual collapse AUDIBLE ON THE RECORDING is just after 4:34 secs, the first Oh my god, is apx 4:34.5 and the recording ends just after 4:36 - presumably when phone destroyed. 1.5 seconds, 5 floors collapseing.

After starting this reply i am unsure what I think. Is there varification of this call? are there more recording of simular calls available - not for macarbe reasons, but these collapses were TOO perfect.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I don't think this is enough evidence, for 2 reasons.

1: Its to short.

2: Cell phones and land line phones work a bit like hearing aids. The amplifier on the microphone only amplifies certain frequencies. That is why whenever you hear a "caller" on a radio station, or whatever, they always sound the same, and you can immediately identify that they are on a phone. If I were to play a recording from a computer microphone, and play a recording from a phone call, you can instantly hear and identify which recording is from a phone, just because of the frequencies that are dropped, and not recorded.

Also what happens when these frequencies are dropped, and only certain frequencies recorded and amplified, is it will blend some sounds together. So the low and high frequencies of an explosive device would not be recorded, but the mid frequencies would. Same with the rumbling of a collapsing building. So both middle frequencies of the explosions and the collapsing building will get mixed together, and you wouldn't hear any differences.

The only way that you could identify an explosion in this situation is if the thud of the explosion first happens, and then a slight pause, and then the rumbling of the collapse starts. Of course though, if this is a controlled demolition, the thud and rumbling would start both at the same time, like it does on the 911 call.

IMO, on the phone call, the rumbling starts to instantly, like a triggered event. You would think the rumbling would start out softly and then work its way more loudly, but it doesn't. You would even think the guy would say something like, "Oh my the building is shaking", "Oh no I think its collapsing". Instead, he only has enough time to say "Oh God", which indicates some type of "snap" or instant failure.

Heck, I think the entire collapse starts to instantly. You would think the building would slowly start to collapse, but instead, it just near instantly drops. Steel doesn't just snap, it bends. I think the collapse of the WTC buildings shouldn't have been initiated like that, especially WTC 7. They should have initiated more slowly.

If anything this phone call helps the CD theory, because it proves that the collapse was not progressive, but it was instant, which would indicate that the steel wasn't slowly losing its strenght due to fire, but it was just instantly relieved of its strength.

----

After typing this I searched for info to back up my claims about telephones. Here it is... a must read.

electronics.howstuffworks.com...

also

www.tech-faq.com...




[edit on 31-1-2007 by SWAT Life]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I was reading the thread which prompted me to search and read. I found a site which I'm sure many of you have already visited, but for those that have not you might find it interesting.


Thermite and the World Trade Center Collapses

This is how it's been since day one...and this is six weeks later. As we get closer to the center of this it gets hotter and hotter - it's probably 1500 degrees.
In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520° F (825° C). When the World Trade Center collapsed the deeply buried fires would have been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have significantly decreased.

Why was the temperature at the core of "the pile" nearly 500° F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full seven days after the collapses? There were no infernos in either of the twin towers before they collapsed, so what caused the hot spots deep in their wreckage?

If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure
Mark Loizeaux, president,
Controlled Demolition Inc.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I beleive this was posted in bad taste.

You should rethink this carefully before using it as ammunition for your 'arguments'.




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I do not think a controlled demolition can be ruled out, this is an old image. Somewhat speaks for its self.

BTW if you fly aircraft into any building on purpose would that not be a 'controlled demolition'

I cannot see how aircraft did this. I cannot see how or why the crews on the ground would make those cuts.



Also respectful discussion is not posted in bad taste.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Now_Then]

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Now_Then]


kix

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Love Disingo agent, and simple minded guys who are "married with the offcial data and explanations an WILL not question anything and when cornered THEY PUT words in your mouth too bad there is no Way below button some guys deserve it..

now back on topic and to answer to some guys who will never question anything..here is my answer:

First lets start with this:




In order to allow more long-distance calls to be transmitted, the frequencies transmitted are limited to a bandwidth of about 3,000 hertz. All of the frequencies in your voice below 400 hertz and above 3,400 hertz are eliminated. That's why someone's voice on a phone has a distinctive sound. Compare these two voices:




So As I stated in my post some guys need to put this call on an analyzer but th e previous quote simplifies my point and proves tha "rumble" is not something you can hear faithfully over a phone line

Nice try Strike one!




it was not at freefall speed. and he could see that the building is about to come down and he had just about enough clues to figure it out to have that 1 second to say god oh god. (quoted by Demitsuko)


How could he have seen the building was colapsing if he was inside? if it pancaked it would have crushed him instantly and my point on the location of the call is that HE WAS ON THE 105 floor so he experienced freefall that is ONLY attainable in a CD, thats is why we can hear him screaming for exactly .77secs multiply that for 9.81 m/s and you get arond 5 to 6 floors worth of falling ....

Nice try Second strike...




BS. if there were explosions we should have hear them. take a look here and tell me if i put my phone could you not hear that explosions?!


The telephone cant process frequencies below 300 hz, below 300 and to be exact below 100 hz the curve is 27 Db down and distortion is over 50%, dinamic range is around 33 db... google the info dont babble and call this BS, just because you wan tto believe the "official version", when you hear a low frequency or low presure sound on the phone its very distorted and sounds like wind that is all, in fact when someone breathes onto a phone it sounds distorted, youu hears a distorted WOOSSHSHHHHHH....so dont try to use smoke ond mirrors over info a 15 year old knows, the point is that a telephone cannot stablish the sounds of explosions, and the fact that we can hear this poor soul screaming for .77 on a freefall NOT PANCAKE (cause it would have crushed him instantly) is enough proof of CD....

so the call is more proof of CD than not...

Strike 3...your out..and nice try (yes I am lovely)



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by XBadger
To Griff:
Again, the point about how people cognatively function is correct. If a reporter says on air he heard multiple explosions, then yes, he is relaying information based on memory. Lets not forget that during 9/11 reporters were saying that they heard carbombs near the State Department, when in reality it was (presumably) cars backfiring.


My boyfriend works for the SD. There was a report of a possible bomb I believe. Not car bombs....not sure about this.


So were there explosions there or not? Multiple explosions were reported by reporters live on the scene?


Here's one for starters.

www.youtube.com...


As for eyewitness testimony. I understand what you are saying. But if someone robs a place and 80% of the eyewitnesses say he was wearing jeans, then he probably WAS wearing jeans.

BTW, I keep saying this but people want to argue that I'm saying explosions equals bombs. I AM NOT SAYING THIS!!!!!!

Reports of explosions were reported, plain and simple. Why do people want to start saying it didn't happen? Even if these "explosions" where just floors collapsing, it still SOUNDED like explosions.

That is the point of me saying this stuff. We are talking about the phone conversation where there are no explosive sounds heard. There were plenty of explosive sounds heard by eyewitnesses and reporters. If the phone conversation didn't pick up these sounds (that sounded like explosions) then it is possible that the phone conversation wouldn't pick up other explosive sounds. Understand now?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by lizziex3
okay i haven't read all of the other posts but i have a couple things to say.

that phone call is absolutely devistating, the first time i heard it i must've cried for an hour. With the people hearing explosions...there are things BESIDES bombs that make explosions. Also, the tallest building ever demolished with CD was only 33 stories tall, and took FOUR months to prepare, and that's without bomb sniffing dogs and all the empolyees running around. Finally. Squibs happen BEFORE the building collapses not during.


Same old arguement. Why do you people keep trying to put words in my mouth that I'm saying explosions equals bombs? I'm talking about the sound of explosion (whether bomb, electrical, car backfires, etc.). It is the sound that I'm trying to make the point, not the explosions themselves.

If the conversation didn't pick up these explosive sounds (that nearly everyone heard and reported), then it is fair to assume that the conversation might not have picked up other explosive sounds. Why is this so hard to understand? Or do you people NOT want to understand?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starbuck
this call was from the 105th floor, so its possible the explosions started 30 stories below them. this was the first building to fall, so when he is saying "o my god, o my god" the top 30 stories are tilting... before the structure vaporizes.


You make an excellent point. I believe in the CD theory they say that WTC 2 was blown first because of the tilt. I believe during the tilt, he would have time to say more than "God, o Go". Maybe the last few seconds were edited out? Just like the begining of the conversation.

They have done it before. Remember the missing last 3 minutes of the flight recorder from flight 93?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then
I do not think a controlled demolition can be ruled out, this is an old image. Somewhat speaks for its self.

BTW if you fly aircraft into any building on purpose would that not be a 'controlled demolition'

I cannot see how aircraft did this. I cannot see how or why the crews on the ground would make those cuts.



Also respectful discussion is not posted in bad taste.


The beams you drew the arrows to were apparently cut with an oxy-acetylene torch. The ripple marks and the way the slag runs is absolutely typical of that. It does NOT look like a shaped charge was used. I used to blow stuff up in the Army, I couldn't get you a cut like that on that shape of steel if I tried. Nor does it look like thermate, which is absolutely great stuff for certain tasks but it isn't all that good for making sharp edged cuts, especially on vertical members.

But what it does 100% look like is that a cutting torch was used.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   
At the time starting 4:22 you will hear they had some kind of interference where they both say "Hello - Hello" within a second or two you see in the video at the lower portion of the tower between two buildings you see a white puff of smoke. Then the tower collapsed. There is another video out there that shows this zoomed in and I believe it is on the thermite site site I posted earlier.

Is is possible for an explosion to cause brief interference to that phone call?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
No armed fighters on the eatern seaboard of the United States? You really believe that? I am positive we had planes with "hot guns" maybe not missles but we had armed aircraft. Been that way since the cold war started and has never ended. You think we leave D.C. open for attack without aircraft ready?


I don't think it, I know it. In the Continental United States unless an aircraft is on an alert status or participating in an exercise they are not normally armed, not even the cannon. As a matter of fact most missiles are not even stored fully assembled. This was even true in the 1980's when the Cold War was still going on, let alone after Clinton's so called Peace Dividend took effect.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by 2PacSade
In any case F-15's were scrambled out of Otis AFB on Cape Cod before AA 11 even struck the north tower.

Any info on what they were armed with? It was previously posted that proceedure is to intercept and verify. That's what those planes were for. At that time information about a hijacking was sketchy at best, all that was known was that the planes were not showing up on ATC radar.


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?


Look at where the planes hit on each tower. One hit substantially higher on the tower than the other. It is the mass of each tower above the impact point that is the difference.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I don't think it, I know it. In the Continental United States unless an aircraft is on an alert status or participating in an exercise they are not normally armed, not even the cannon. As a matter of fact most missiles are not even stored fully assembled. This was even true in the 1980's when the Cold War was still going on, let alone after Clinton's so called Peace Dividend took effect.


Just some food for thought.


That remains true today. Despite the fact that the sole successful mass terror attack against the U.S. was carried out by air, no effort has made to upgrade or bolster national air defenses. Airliners are viewed — very much mistakenly — as being the sole threat, countered only by the TSA's absurd and ill—designed airport gauntlets. That, for all practical purposes, is the sum total of U.S. air defense. Apart from Air National Guard units placed on alert around major metropolitan centers, the U.S. remains as undefended as it was before 9/11.


Source: www.americanthinker.com...


Our Mission
To provide a ready, fully capable fighter force prepared to employ wherever needed. The wing is equipped with the F-15 Eagle, America’s premier air sovereignty fighter aircraft. Our aircraft and their crews are on continuous 24-hour, 365-day alert to guard our skies. Specifically, our mission is to protect the Northeast United States from:

Armed attack from another sovereign nation,

Terrorist activities,

Illegal activities, smuggling, illicit drug activity and illegal immigration

The wing is also an integral part of an Expeditionary Aerospace Force and immediately deployable to support U.S. Air Force requirements anywhere in the world.


Source: www.maotis.ang.af.mil...


On September 11, 2001, the wing sprang into action just minutes after the terrorists attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. More than 600 wing members were mobilized for Operation Noble Eagle. The wing began flying around-the-clock combat air patrols missions immediately thereafter, and continued doing so until February 2002. Overall during 2001, wing aircraft flew 2,388 sorties compiling more than 3750 flying hours.


Source: en.wikipedia.org...

What were you saying about knowing again?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   
At some point, You have to choose what you believe.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join