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: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
...one would clearly hear explosives if indeed that's what brought down the tower.


This ASSUMPTION and unfounded assertion discredits your whole post.




posted on May, 10 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by behindthescenes
...one would clearly hear explosives if indeed that's what brought down the tower.


This ASSUMPTION and unfounded assertion discredits your whole post.


And why is that? Just because you say so?

I'm not even sure how it's unfounded: I've located TWO videos, both intimate recordings of being INSIDE the WTC at the time of the collapse, and neither, in my trained ears, has indicated that there were multiple explosions occurring at the time of the collapse that would add credence to the CD theory.

[edit on 5/10/2007 by behindthescenes]



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
heard the recording... shocking stuff...

Being involved with audio production I will say this.

Audio is easy to mess with, very easy. What we hear on this recording, passed through many hands. Even to an amatuer in the field, the ability to change (cut, paste) is so easy to do. If someone wanted to cut out a part with squibs going off, its a simple highlight and delete. Nothing more. This recording was officially released, it had to be, its a 9/11 recording.

Not saying that was done, but its possible. Honestly though, and I support more investigation into 9/11, however I came away from listening to the clip thinking it seemed very real, in that the collapse was heard and so was his final words...

There is a slight pause before the first Oh God, and it is possible that there was a cut in the audio. Something to think about.

In my work, the ability to remove unwanted sound, or create new sounds from nothing, is as easy as editing a word document.

Think about the movie industry, usually the only thing recorded is dialog, every other sound you hear is created in a studio (for the most part, folly).



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I guess this kinda disprovies the 4th generation nuke theory....



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
And why is that? Just because you say so?

I'm not even sure how it's unfounded: I've located TWO videos, both intimate recordings of being INSIDE the WTC at the time of the collapse, and neither, in my trained ears, has indicated that there were multiple explosions occurring at the time of the collapse that would add credence to the CD theory.

[edit on 5/10/2007 by behindthescenes]


No, it is nothing more than an assumption that charges, regardless of type, timing or location would be audible on that call.

AN ASSUMPTION and honestly, I believe a very poor one at that.

It does not PROVE or DISPROVE anything.

Sorry, just the facts.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Pootie]



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
That call is so disturbing, Knowing that’s the second when someone knew they where going to die.


Mikey



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by behindthescenes
And why is that? Just because you say so?

I'm not even sure how it's unfounded: I've located TWO videos, both intimate recordings of being INSIDE the WTC at the time of the collapse, and neither, in my trained ears, has indicated that there were multiple explosions occurring at the time of the collapse that would add credence to the CD theory.

[edit on 5/10/2007 by behindthescenes]


No, it is nothing more than an assumption that charges, regardless of type, timing or location would be audible on that call.

AN ASSUMPTION and honestly, I believe a very poor one at that.

It does not PROVE or DISPROVE anything.

Sorry, just the facts.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by Pootie]


Okay, you're correct in that it doesn't hit bullseye in disproving the wide-ranging conspiracy theories surroudning the WTC and C-Demo, but if we were playing darts in a pub right now, I'd be winning.

I have now provided two videos with expansive timeframes before the collapse and one with audio all through the first collapse and in neither case do we hear the tell-tale sounds of squibs that are heard in a controlled demo. You all can come back at me and claim that audio is easily manipulated, or that thermite doesn't explode, or that I'm a CIA disinfo agent out to shephard sheeple to the Administration's point-of-view, but frankly none of you have provided a shred of evidence to the contrary. Show me in the coding of these videos where the audio has been fixed. Prove to me that you would not hear explosive sounds during a collapse even if thermite was used to weaken the structure first. Show me a CIA paycheck with my name on it.

So, am I making assumptions? Sure. But we all are. And I have some compelling evidence.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Very well said behindthescenes.



Mikey



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 04:54 PM
link   
The audio on your PC has a lot to do with what you can and can't hear on it. Do you have a sub-woofer or any good bass? The TV was on while I was at a friend's house the other day, and a show featuring the WTC collapses was on History or Discovery or something along those lines, blaming a faulty design (they intentionally down-played the core as nothing more than dissociated columns holding up the elevators, even avoiding construction photos showing it, calling the towers "tube designs"), but anyway, I could definitely hear deep booms from someone running away on ground level.

This was interesting to me because I've seen a lot of videos online, and none of them had explosions that easily heard, but my PC's audio is also heavy on the treble and weak on the bass.

Rest assured that if anyone ever deeply investigated the sounds of the WTC Towers collapsing, it wouldn't all sound like steel snapping and bending. We've had good threads on it in the past and the general debunker response is the generic "there were tons of things that could explode in those buildings".

There are also analyses online that show a series of deep and repetitive spikes for each tower, but I'm no expert. They also happened so rapidly, that audio can be overwhelmed by "noise", especially from delay effects considering how big the floors were and that everything wouldn't reach the camera at the same instant. We're talking a very fine time scale here, with something like six floors collapsing each second. When you can almost describe the failures of 12.5-foot floors over time in Hertz, something is wrong to begin with.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
There were people in the towers when the planes hit and reported feeling the building shake but didn't report hearing anything. I've seen a few examples in 9/11 TV documentaries.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The audio on your PC has a lot to do with what you can and can't hear on it. Do you have a sub-woofer or any good bass? The TV was on while I was at a friend's house the other day, and a show featuring the WTC collapses was on History or Discovery or something along those lines, blaming a faulty design (they intentionally down-played the core as nothing more than dissociated columns holding up the elevators, even avoiding construction photos showing it, calling the towers "tube designs"), but anyway, I could definitely hear deep booms from someone running away on ground level.

]


Currently I'm using Pro-Studio Level Monitors (krk nearfields, 5 inch woofers)...

To be honest the sound seems like its been so compressed throughout the stages.. Ie original recording, then compressed for storage, then compressed again for sending out to media, then compressed again for mp3, then compressed again for video on youtube...

You look at all that happening to the audio, its not a viable representation of the actual sound that occured on the phone lines (phone lines having there own hickups in terms of analog technology vs. digital)... If it was a video, or a phote, basically its gone through tons of filters already... Since its audio, and not the original source, the same thing has happened.

At anytime during these changing of the guards (so to speak) editing is done, not only in the compression (bit rates and so forth) but also in the actual editing...

So whose to say what freqs can not be heard, freqs are lost during each copy. Whose to say the actual audio was not changed. there is no official timestamp from 911 emergency, nothing...

I do think its real though, but may have encountered editing, and loss of freqs (ie sound quality) everytime it was converted.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by squidboy]

[edit on 10-5-2007 by squidboy]



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by squidboy
To be honest the sound seems like its been so compressed throughout the stages.. Ie original recording, then compressed for storage, then compressed again for sending out to media, then compressed again for mp3, then compressed again for video on youtube...


Try different videos. There's a clip from NBC or some such network, they had a guy right at the base of WTC2 when it started collapsing, you can hear a deep boom, and the guy even says something like "massive explosion, debris now raining down".

I can understand how videos degrade from conversion to conversion, but find a good video host out there and browse and listen for these deep booms. What I heard on TV the other day was damned incriminating, and I'm sure that channel had good quality material.


If it was a video, or a phote, basically its gone through tons of filters already... Since its audio, and not the original source, the same thing has happened.


Exactly. A lot of videos sound noisey enough already. That's what happens when you "overload" a mic with too much noise, it can only go so far before things become distorted and you might as well hear nothing in particular.


At anytime during these changing of the guards (so to speak) editing is done, not only in the compression (bit rates and so forth) but also in the actual editing...


And there is very obvious evidence that some videos HAVE been edited, either to insert fake explosions in some cases, or in others to insert noise that wasn't originally there, and drown everything else out.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
All my comments were in regards to the audio, and just the audio.. I will check out the other videos and audio clips if I find them...

My expertise lies with audio (Over a decade so far involved).

The video in this clip is not useful, its looped until the end with the collapse. IMO someone just added the video portion later on, after listening to the mp3 to put it on youtube. The video loops over and over until the payoff shot at the end.

(I've done the opposite for a youtube video, adding a soundtrack to a silent burglar video, for comedic effect.)

The thing thats odd the video, someone took the time to loop it on point up until the Oh God, and then have the building collapse on cue, instead of say just the dude's picture the whole time (which would have had a different impact). The lay person walks away knowing that happened with the collapse, but some of the facts don't add up, why would anyone just assume that its with the collapse, because the video shows it that way.

Where's the operator (who seemed super calm and sorta rude) saying hello sir? Reaction to the noise on the phone? Nothing... Seems off. Almost to a dramatic effect. (sorta like a movie preview)

Propaganda in terms of a semi-viral youtube video? maybe

Was this 911 tape released to the public (i remember hearing about alot of 911 recordings being released some time ago, just wondering) ? Or was this one secretly released, and if thats the case why and by whom?

Its a sick world we live in. Just hearing the pain going through the guys voice in his last minutes is so intense. Add that to the shot of the building falling down, and well yeah thats propaganda if I've ever seen.

How much smoke would be involved in this scenerio? How hot is the floor he's on (20 floors above the crash site)....

Again I want to reiterate, I've heard people say they heard explosions going off on other videos... IF they wanted to edit them out for this official release 911 tape, they could have in less time then it takes to make coffee..


[edit on 10-5-2007 by squidboy]



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   
If he was near the top of the building and the main explosions and charges were set off in the basement it would be quite difficult to hear the blasts...

By adding extra weight (the planes) and then destroying the supports in the basement and a few floors up should be enough to bring the building down.

I'm not sure if that recorded call is really proof that it wasn't a controlled demo, especially considering the main charges were rumored to be in the basement, and you claimed that this individual was near the top, in all reality you wouldn't need explosives that high up, the floors below are more important.

[edit on 5/10/2007 by PuRe EnErGy]



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 10:29 PM
link   
If support for the building was severed in the basement-- then the building's collapse points wouldn't be EXACTLY on the floors damaged by the 767 impacts, and steel weakening fires.

Controlled Demolition? Only a brainwashed fool would still buy that line.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by kix
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)


Wow, you are lovely...and great logic.
thanks.
I am loving people who use their grey matter for thinking logic...cheers


kix

posted on May, 11 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I loved more your counter argument...ufff soo compelling...wow, so much data....

Seems to me you have never used a telephone or are deaf , because YOU imagine a phone liune can process over 33 db or dynamic range and tones below 300hz...

how come I am not surprised?



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Controlled Demolition? Only a brainwashed fool would still buy that line.


There is a small chance that you change your mind about 911, if you take the time to watch the video I'm about to post here.

(All a person needs to do is watch this 1 hour video I'm about to post on here. )

If a person still think the world trade center fell from structural failure after watching this video.

I suggest you don't bother looking at any other evidence on the subject.

Because it is clear that, you will never change your mind about 911 falling from structural failure regardless of any undeniable evidence demonstrating controlled demolition you encounter in your life.



Google Video Link



Seriously, i must admit that i can't understand how it's possible for a person to watch this video and still believe the official story.

Consisting of undeniable evidence and proof that the world trade center did not simply magically fall from structural failure...

This is one of the best video I have seen about proving 911 was an inside job, i strongly suggest for anyone to watch it.





[edit on 11-5-2007 by selfless]



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 05:11 AM
link   
the title to the topic i find some what ridiculous. I will explain my reasons for thinking so briefly:

Firstly low frequencies don't register on phone lines so unless the bomb was in the same room the majority of the blast sound would not be containing much mid to high range frequencies, only the bass has enough power to penetrate floors and long distances, especially if the floors were concrete much of the mid to high freq. sounds would be inaudible.

Second who is to say the blast effects got to the phone line or power before the audible blast wave was able to reach the mic?

3rd he screams so loud the signal distorted / clips which would override any background noise or details.

4th I hear 'something' that sounds like crashing or an explosion a split second before the line dies anyway.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Okay, you're correct in that it doesn't hit bullseye in disproving the wide-ranging conspiracy theories surroudning the WTC and C-Demo, but if we were playing darts in a pub right now, I'd be winning.


You tried to present your OPINION as FACT... bad move. You lost your "dart game" right there... whatever the hell you are talking about with that strange analogy. What is this "winning" crap anyway?


Originally posted by behindthescenesbut frankly none of you have provided a shred of evidence to the contrary.


If the charges were properly sized there is NO WAY he hears them 20-30 floors away... had you ever been in those buildings or ANY building of comparable size? How thick was the cement in the floor pans? Multiply that by the number of floors and add the total thickness of the steel floor pans... so, we have, what 4' of concrete and a few inches of steel between him and the collapse zone PLUS carpet on all floors and other sound deadening materials...

Your fundamental argument that they should have bee audible is TOTALLY BASELESS.

You assume all demolition charges would be SUPER LOUD.
You assume the resultant sound waves will penetrate 20-30 floors
You assume the phone would pick this up
You assume with audio compression it would still be there.
You assume way too much.

Sorry, your evidence is not compelling.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Pootie]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join