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.

 

Audio Clip Evidence of Suspicious Sept. 11 Explosions / Blasts

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 03:10 AM
link   
I thought it would be a good idea to consolidate evidence in a thread of audio clips of "suspicious" explosions / blasts around the time of building collapses on 9/11.

Such as:












Thank you in advance for your serious and mature contributions to this thread.




[edit on 3/6/2007 by lagos]




posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 08:35 PM
link   
I would like to submitt some video clips further exploring what Contolled Demolitions with explosives Sound like from other sources; for comparison purposes.

I might add, all of the buildings demolished in these clips are much smaller than WTC 1, 2 or 7.

So the amount of sychronized explosions would be less than what would be necessary to bring down ANY of the WTC buildings. Thus even MORE sychronized explosions were needed on 9/11 if it were to be a Controlled Demolition.

Compare for yourselves.

















[edit on 6-3-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Here is a good audio of the South Tower falling.

Notice how in all of the comparison videos (in the post above) show that explosives are set off before any of the buildings collapse. Sychonized explosions BEFORE the collapse.

In the comparison video below, the sounds are being heard as the South Tower is pancaking. In the falling process already.

You can even hear the sounds of one floor landing on the next as it collapses to the ground.



[edit on 6-3-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
If the Towers and Building 7 were demolitions, the perps were trying to hide it from the public. Thus there would have been an effort to design them so as to conceal obvious signs as much as possible.

For all commercial demolitions, this is not the case. Thus it's out in the open, obvious, and meant to be.



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Interesting point bsbray.

A couple of things I might add to that train of thought are:

The supports for a building don't change just because someone is trying to have explosions concealed..or, on the other hand put it on public display.

I feel that the explosive charges whether public or clandestine would have to be in roughly the same location if a controlled demolition would have a chance at success.

Secondly, one must remember in the "public" controlled demolitions the buildings are extensively preped--prepped in demolition terms means all non load bearing structure such as interior walls, and decorative columns, obviously any desks or other solid heavy objects are removed.

With all of that material out of the way the resistance is much less, adding to the probablity of a successful controlled demolition.

Even then-- there are no guarantees. As is evidenced in this video below:









[edit on 7-3-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
I feel that the explosive charges whether public or clandestine would have to be in the same location if a controlled demolition would have a chance at success.

Secondly, one must remember in the "public" controlled demolitions the buildings are extensively preped--prepped in demolition terms means all non load bearing structure such as interior walls, and decorative columns, obviously any desks or other solid heavy objects are removed.


I don't even think two commercial companies would rig the same building the exact same way, charge for charge, even if they were working with the same devices. It's not even remotely a science that's become that fine-tuned. It just doesn't happen that often for there to be any textbook guidelines.

You can space the charges out if you don't want attention drawn to a quick sequence of them all in a row. This way you have probable deniability, because you can just say, oh they were transformers blowing up, or they were this or that, a fire extinguisher exploding or chemicals in the janitors closet or whatever, when really a part of the structure has just been severed.

You can use incendiaries like thermite to prevent obvious explosive sounds, and you can even use the same incendiaries to do what would equate to pre-cutting. The only difference would be that the pre-cutting is done much closer to the actual global collapse, and is "automated", rather than being done manually. These are the kinds of things that engineers would think of in this situation.

If you have the resources, you may even be able to design or bring in ready-made devices that produce light and sound outside of observable frequencies. Or what happens when steel is bombarded with high-energy neutrons and begins breaking up and sublimating on a molecular level, bit by bit into a fine dust? What sound does that make? What does it look like, watching steel being bombarded by neutrons? I doubt you'd see or hear much, if anything. At least nothing that you'd recognize as such, certainly.


Bottom line is there's a huge range of possibilities if you're only open-minded enough. If you're not open-minded, it doesn't matter, because you can sit around talking about how impossible it is to bring in x pounds of C4 while the whole building's work force is lined up all at once staring over your shoulder or whatever ridiculous situation you assume for yourself, when in reality there may have not been an ounce of C4 in any of those buildings, and whatever was used, was planted when no one was around. Or maybe it was planted in broad daylight in front of random people, but it never crossed their minds what was going on. Then what? Then you were outsmarted, and you think something is impossible when really you're just going about it the wrong way.

As a metaphor, if I told you to construct a remote control from scratch and you couldn't, could I therefore say that remote controls are impossible to build, to complicated, too much precision needed, etc., etc.?

No, but I could conclude that you wouldn't know how to do it. Similarly, I can imagine that you wouldn't know how to rig a building in a way that satisfies certain priorities that the perps had on 9/11.

All it takes to know someone did something extra in that building is the total output energy versus how much would have been available from the impacts, fires, and potential energy of the uppermost floors being converted into kinetic. A lot is not accounted for, and there aren't many places it could have come from.

[edit on 6-3-2007 by bsbray11]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   
I was looking for demo clips that had audio and a relatively short length of playing time. I do not know if they were all done from the same Demo Company. One was in Canada and the others were from Pittsburg, Ft Worth, and San Deigo. So perhaps they were done by different companies; I don't know.

I would think by spacing the charges out, whomever would be attempting such a thing would be leaving themselves very open for a partial collapse, and complete exposure of their plan.

Especially toward the end of an: explosion here..then wait..and an explosion there. At some point the risk of a partial collapse would be huge.

And we all know what happens if there were only a partial collapse....The unexploded ordinance would be found in the remaining, undemolished part of the building...or thermate...or whatever. Heads would have Rolled.

OR.. a partial collapse would be initiated; THEN in an awkward attempt at covering tracks and destroying evidence the remaining devices would be detonated .. Thus painting a clumsy picture of people trying to control the uncontrolable.. and a controlled demolition wouldn't be a topic of discussion 6 years later because we would have all known on THAT DAY 9/11/2001. This argument holds espcially true in the case of WTC 7.

I cannot claim to know everything about the dynamics, logistics, and type of damage done within these buildings. I really don't think anyone can.

But to say the collapse of the buildings in the WTC were so similar to a Controlled Demolition that it is the only explaination(which is the WHOLE INITIAL PREMISE of all this) ... If you stop looking and start listening. It isn't similar at all.

Oh BTW: in the last clip that Lagos posted originally-- it has some really good footage of WTC 7 really getting hammered by the second debris plume of the North Tower.. Focus on WTC 7 in that video and you can see where the 20 story hole in WTC 7 came from.

[edit on 6-3-2007 by GwionX]



posted on Mar, 6 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
The link below has a number of different audio based analysis of the collapse worth checking out:

www.mediumrecords.com...



Audio from Trinity Church Clip:
www.mediumrecords.com...



The first video is screen-marked "10:28am" and is a very brief clip of the south tower collapse, recorded close by from the south east next to Trinity Church2. Though less than 5 seconds long, this clip offers fairly high quality audio, the most pronounced sound being that of 2 gigantic explosions. They are unmistakable and sound like 2 violent thunder claps.


9/11 Eyewitness probably contains the best audio capture of the explosions at least from all the videos I have seen so far.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
Especially toward the end of an: explosion here..then wait..and an explosion there. At some point the risk of a partial collapse would be huge.


How do you figure this? What if only the lateral floor beams between the core columns were cut? Then the building would only have a risk of collapse if a hurricane broke out and the trusses transferred too much lateral load to the core. That being just an example, I'm sure many cuts could have been made without actually running much risk of pre-mature collapse. Look how little structural damage the actual plane impacts actually caused.


But to say the collapse of the buildings in the WTC were so similar to a Controlled Demolition that it is the only explaination(which is the WHOLE INITIAL PREMISE of all this) ... If you stop looking and start listening. It isn't similar at all.


But ah! I never said that! You're generalizing here.

I don't think the buildings were demolished because they look like other demolitions. I agree with you totally -- the Twin Tower collapses looked nothing like anything anyone has ever seen. They had about as much in common with a conventional demolition visually as they did a volcano eruption. Kind of somewhere in between, you know?


I think they were demolished because of the impossibility of achieving the same collapse characteristics otherwise. Like, why didn't they slow down even though they were spitting out tons of mass? That mass wasn't going to a floor-by-floor collapse, it was being spit out in four directions so that 80-90% of the total mass ended up outside of the towers' footprints, but the building was getting stronger and stronger all the way down. The lower floors had to be stronger to support all the weight above them, while the uppermost floors had relatively weaker columns (core columns phased into I-beams, etc.).

That being one problem among many. The buildings should not have began collapsing at all from all available information. Even NIST showed that the trusses could withstand intense 2-hour fires without failure, and the studies at Cardington over the course of almost 20 years indicated that run-away collapses "[don't] actually happen in a real structure." (more

NIST never bothered to show that a slightly increased load for gravity from sagging trusses could overcome the spandrel plates and bolts between the outer columns to cause inward buckling, either. Their photo evidence of it was weak, and they didn't even bother to try to reproduce the effect.

Anyway, I just can't see the towers falling the way they did from planes and fire alone. WTC2's collapse was symmetrical all the way down after its initial tilt was somehow lost, while WTC1 collapsed symmetrically from the start. What are the odds of all 4 corners of the perimeter (big box columns), and all the core columns failing within fractions of a second of each other from fires that aren't even two hours old? Because that's what you have to have for a building to collapse symmetrically.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 12:51 AM
link   
It all goes back to the RISK of such an operation for me.

If the collapse of WTC1 & 2 were a completely untried and untested new form of demolition..Who could have the confidence that it would execute perfectly? Who would literally put their heads on the chopping block for that one?

I didn't see any of this "Shock and Awe" in the Bagdad Assault...although we were supposed to be Shocked and Awed (according to the media)

I remember thinking.."Man don't we have sumpin' that will bring that palace down faster"...Didn't you?

* I am not trying to deviate to an Iraq discussion* just comparing a munitions gap.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GwionX
If the collapse of WTC1 & 2 were a completely untried and untested new form of demolition..Who could have the confidence that it would execute perfectly? Who would literally put their heads on the chopping block for that one?


If you know that you will be able to cover up any evidence that is found, what would be the difference if it wasn't flawless? BTW, I believe they only needed to sever the core columns and maybe corner columns to achieve what they achieved. Take the core out and you take out 60% (or more depending on the source) of the gravity load support. That would cause the tower to collapse, at least begin to collapse, IMO.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:42 AM
link   
the guy at medium records took the explosive audio captured at Trinity church and worked out the correct time delay and put it on top of the of a video from a different angle. You can clearly pick out the two huge explosions synced with what is happening visually. I haven't seen this done before:

www.mediumrecords.com...


I initially had my doubts about the authenticity of the Trinity clip’s audio but decided that the timing looked genuine. One reason for this was an experiment I did to listen to the audio whilst watching other angles of the collapse. One angle which had no audio (other than the usual news-anchor’s “voice-of-god” analysis of events) was a clear shot of the South Tower from the East. I matched the picture to the Trinity clip and then slid the sound forward 1.3 seconds to account for the estimated distance and speed of sound. This was the result:


www.mediumrecords.com...



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   
some very interesting audio at the beginning - does anyone have any insight - is this just the pancaking sound?




new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join