Sound: The Reason Explosives Could NOT have been used.

Well it's been awhile since i been on ATS or this particular section of the forum (mostly due to the fact that i officially belive anyone who buys the conspirocy theory is of cult mentality) but someone bumped a thread of mine, and it got me thinking on something i don't think is spesifically debated enough. Hmm i don't know how to do this without making an exedingly long quote so i'm going to make a revised version of a post i made as a reply to a thread a long time ago.

everything in life makes a sound..now for someone to explode a building with no sound, they would have to plant the charges on the interior of the building, and then soundproof the outer exterior of the building. i'm not even sure that would work, because explosions are force. you can't drop a pin without it making a sound, how are you going to get hundreds of bombs to not make sounds when they go off? a simple firecracker makes a loud sound, and bombs or charges capable of leveling a building would make sounds at least 10 times louder (probably more).

can you immagine that?? you'd have to have people working for months on the interior of the building, carfully placeing explosives (without any workers, tourists or bomb sniffing dogs finding them of course) and then you'd have to have then somehow sound proof the exterior (all 110 stories) of the building so that when the bombs went off, there would be no sound.. either that, or you'd have to make a silent bomb. what bomb, or charge, do you know that is silent?? i dont think one exists, i've never heard of a silent bomb...even audio bombs resonate sound at some level, and those arent your typical bomb. in fact, anything that releases force and pressure (the main components of sound), appears as a wave form. this wave would have been picked up by seizmographs, and it probably would have resembled a small earth quake.

so then if you cant get a silent bomb, and lets say u DID manage to rig the explosions from the interior of the building, how are you gonna stop the sound from escaping out and not causing any audio or vibration to escape the building? you'd have to sound proof the entire building so that no sound heard from inside would be able to escape it. i don't belive the WTC never had any recoating once it was completley finished. even if they couold soundproof the outside of the building, this would not be something they could do in a week or probably even a month. nevermind that soundproofing the outside of the building is probably impossible, because with the force that is required to blow out windows and such, it would cause a degredation of the soundproofing materials that would eventually lead to some form of sound being released.

that means coating the entire building, exterior and probly some interior, with sound proof material. yes all 110 stories with sound proof matieral, and again...without anybody even seeing this. Even if you somehow did this unimaginable feat, it still wouldnt work because the damage zones would have had the sound proofing blown off and thus some sound would have inevitably escaped anyway. also keep in mind that soundproofing is really only done in studios, and i dont think you can really sound proof the force of a bomb. we are talking about pure energy here. the explosions alone would have destroied the soundproofing materials.

please watch this vid: Real demos

*waits* Now that you've seen real CD's, tell me..how are you going to stop all that sound? I want you to show me real proof of silent bombs or some device that makes literally NO SOUND or vibrations when it explodes. I've seen videos from literally beneth the towers as they started crumbling. i've seen no video to date that has shown definitive audio proof that charges could possibly have been used.

You can't separate audio from life. don't even post that lame video that supposedly shows one "boom" before the towers fell. first off that "boom" is not heard on any video i've seen, and it's taken from seizmec data if i remeber correctly. like i said, sound is energy and explosions are bursts of force. so sezimic data should have shown many booms. in all actuality, if a building that big was demolished, you would have heard something that sounded like cannons going of for at least a few seconds before the buildings came down.

A big fault in the whole demolition theory, is that people watch the WTC collapse in these videos, that many times don't have audio, or poor quality audio. However in the good quality videos i've seen, there is virtually no audio or sounds of charges being set off before the building collapses. the only sounds that start are initiated AFTER the buildings start to collapse. like i've stated before, you would have massive amounts of explosions going off before that building came down. just look at those videos from the thread i posted. those were relativley small buldings too. they probably weren't even half the size of those buildings. and yet, those demolition charges produced immense sounds before those buildings collapsed.

so what weapons, or methods would the government use to muffle the sounds? don't just say "well they have super secret technology". find specs of weapons in development, or find uses of "silent bombs". The only way there would have been silent bombs, is if they were below 20 hz, or above 10 thousand hz, and incapable of being detected by the human ear. but guess what, something that low (or high) would have produced massive sound waves that at would have been picked up on every earthquake and seizmograph in the area. It probably would have shattered windows of all the surrounding buildings. the amount of force needed to cause an explosion would have caused audible noise. this is one of those things that is really hard to ignore, and casts logical doubt on the CT thing.

choose your words wisley, i'm a trained audio engineer. i don't claim to be a scientist, or a weapons expert, or a demolitions expert..but i know how sound works. Knowing that i can't even type or breathe without making a sound, it's really hard for me to belive that two 110 story buildings got blown up with charges, without there being any vibrations/noise

try + come up with some good theories, because most of the other info here is getting stale. so time for you CTers to get a new horse to beat to death!

[edited to add a working CD link]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Spawwwn]

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Spawwwn]

I'm fairly certain the sound of a jet slamming into the side of the tower would have muffled any sound of an explosion.

A bit of a weedy response to your behemoth of a post, but it's a start.

Originally posted by Zanzibar
I'm fairly certain the sound of a jet slamming into the side of the tower would have muffled any sound of an explosion.

A bit of a weedy response to your behemoth of a post, but it's a start.

it's all good. but there's a huge problem with what you just said..

#1. the jets happend about 45 minutes before the towers collapsed. you would have heard sound a few seconds before the towers collapsed, not 45 minutes before.

#2: if they set the charges off while the plane hit..the buildings would have collapsed a few minutes after impact. they simply could not have stood once the charges went off, so the idea that the plane "muffled the sounds" is illogical.

sorry to say but i feel your theory is incorrect. i also am about to edit the OP with a better vid so u can go directly to the link.

There is one video, recorded from across the river, in which you can clearly hear explosions going off. There is another where a group of firefighters are by the base of the tower, and explosions can be heard..

The towers were demolished, period.

IF it was a controlled demo, they didnt use high explosives.

ok, theres ONE video that records a noise...out of all of them you focus on ONE?

and ive said before ill say again, people say "sounded like an explosion" to describe any number of loud noises

also have said that something exploding during a fire does NOT mean there was a bomb.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

thats the debate thread between whatukno and i and in it i do a lot of calculations as to how much explosive it would take to do the job on the towers. please feel free to read the thread. WUK raises a lot of good points but in the end, as someone who's worked with HE, i still dont see any evidence whatsoever of a CD using HE.

and ill consider the thermite theory when someone can successully demonstrate the severing of a 30" box column with 2" walls in an upright position.

Here is a link to a thread I posted a little while ago.It has a video of the firefighters Shrunkensimon speaks of.edit: oops video no longer available.I'll see if I can find it.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by crowpruitt]

www.youtube.com...

this one?

yeah, i addressed that one in the debate also. if u notice theres no reference to what exactly they are talking about and its cut up to get you to assume they are retelling "what they heard that day" but the next shot is the tower coming down.

the pressure wave of an he det is over 25000fps. so yeah, you'd expect to hear at LEAST the first one...u dont.

but, if you realy wanna believe that the sound of the building falling would cover all the blasts, watch this and note the LAST blast in there is after the building is falling.

sorry, no go

okay found it.

Thats the one, good job

The big explosion is the micronuke in the basement, which also produces the white smoke a couple seconds before collapse.

Dear Spawwwn:

Aha. I think you’re ‘on to something here’ with your new thread. Good thinking.

So, you’re an audio engineer by training. That means you might appreciate what I have to say.

At the collapse of the WTC’s there was at minimum an energy deficit (=unaccounted energy) of 14.4 million kWh per tower — energy which had to come from somewhere other than from gravity. This is the equivalent of 12,348 tons of trinitrotoluene (TNT), again PER tower.

Had the towers been brought down with conventional TNT the noise would have been DEAFENING. Which is another strong indicator favoring the use of mini-nukes to carry out the demolition. Small pure hydrogen fusion nuclear bombs deliver the most bang with the least ruckus. They have the highest possible degree of destruction to noise ratio. Their yield is very little blast (=noise) relative to loads and loads of high energy neutrons (=wrecking power).

Again, a well conceived thread. It ought to generate some interesting discussions.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

brief reply but has spawn even seen the 9/11 eyewitness video? The audio captures multiple explosions just before the onset of the collapse.

Google Video Link

video.google.co.uk...


Also watch 911 revisited, at the start there are a dozen eyewitness reports of hearing explosions.

Google Video Link

video.google.co.uk...

inso, look at the first vid you posted and right at 5:50 ask yourself this

wheres the kaboom? there should be an earth shattering kaboom.

and there isnt.

i dunno i just find that video terribly biased...."mission accomplished"?

they cant possibly be trying to insinuate taht those were attack helos firing hellfires or some such were they?

find a good video minus the little commentary and it should give one a better idea of whats going on im thinking.

just my opinion of course

Originally posted by Spawwwn

Originally posted by Zanzibar
I'm fairly certain the sound of a jet slamming into the side of the tower would have muffled any sound of an explosion.

A bit of a weedy response to your behemoth of a post, but it's a start.

it's all good. but there's a huge problem with what you just said..

#1. the jets happend about 45 minutes before the towers collapsed. you would have heard sound a few seconds before the towers collapsed, not 45 minutes before.

#2: if they set the charges off while the plane hit..the buildings would have collapsed a few minutes after impact. they simply could not have stood once the charges went off, so the idea that the plane "muffled the sounds" is illogical.

sorry to say but i feel your theory is incorrect. i also am about to edit the OP with a better vid so u can go directly to the link.

Didn't think of that. To be honest, I don't like getting involved in 9/11 discussions. There's way too many conflicting views flying around it's easy to get overwhelmed.

Originally posted by Damocles
IF it was a controlled demo, they didnt use high explosives.

Exactly. Or else, they were used only on a small-scale basis, for whatever reason. But they weren't the primary collapse mechanism, I agree with you guys.

The STJ911 group is investigating low-velocity thermite "explosives" that cut beams without the overpressures associated with high-explosives (which is why they're so loud).



The device sitting there isn't necessary if the thermite is applied as a paste to the column, which is what would happen if sol-gels were also used. Sol-gels are another branch of nanotechnology.

Those devices would only account for columns that were actually just sliced, though, and not all the mass that was chucked out laterally from some enormous energy release(s) within each building.

Originally posted by Spawwwn
Well it's been awhile since i been on ATS or this particular section of the forum (mostly due to the fact that i officially belive anyone who buys the conspirocy theory is of cult mentality)

LOL What?

What about the people that 'buy' the official account of the events without questioning any of the so called 'evidence' presented?

You are a funny man Spawwwn, I will give you that

If someone gets informed about the official story, finds inconsistancies, has doubts about it, is someone with a "cult mentality"?

Don't make the assumption that everyone that questions the official story believes in the far out conspiracy theories.
The same way that you don't want people calling you a disinformation agent (as you've been frequently) for believing the official account of the events of 911.

Originally posted by Damocles
inso, look at the first vid you posted and right at 5:50 ask yourself this

wheres the kaboom? there should be an earth shattering kaboom.

and there isnt.

i dunno i just find that video terribly biased...."mission accomplished"?

they cant possibly be trying to insinuate taht those were attack helos firing hellfires or some such were they?

find a good video minus the little commentary and it should give one a better idea of whats going on im thinking.

just my opinion of course

Remember there is approx 9 second delay between what you see and what you hear in that video, if the delay is removed there are explosions just before the onset of the collapse. You just don't hear it until 9 seconds later due to the distance.

I agree with you about the 'mission accomplished' thing but thats just dissing the whole video for such a minor point. Ignore it.

[edit on 14-4-2007 by Insolubrious]

the only 'cult mentality' is BLIND NATIONALISM.

first off, every single media broadcast reported 'secondary explosions'. so, people DID hear explosions.
and, there are actual recordings of explosions.
the collapses did register like earthquakes.

however, BLIND NATIONALISTS need to ignore/spin evidence so they can feel safe in the womb of the fatherland.

it is also pertinent to note that CDI says on their website, that they can control the sound, and do quiet demolitions.

Shrunkensimon = is that video a couple posts down the one you were talking about? The best thing i saw was 1 loud boom (basically the one i had already spoke about). How are we to know that's a true sound of a bomb going off though? This is going to sound morbid and i apologize, but could it have been a body hitting a van? Keep in mind people were still jumping out of the towers up till the time they fell. So that 1 loud isolated sound, could have been debris falling or a person landing on a truck, or through a glass surface even. The problem is that when you watch the vid i posted of a real CD, it's not just one boom. It's a bunch, like the sound of firecrackers. One boom, especially from that distance, and so close to the ground is a problem (which i'll address later).

Wizard in the woods = Yes i do belive this is going to be a "new" area of debate, hopefully. Like i said i haven't seen this subject covered from this particular angle so we'll see. The hydro bombs, how big are they? Do you have any videos that i could see? I'd like to see a video of a hydro bomb going off, to determine how much audio it would produce. You have some good points, but i mean how much of "less" noise to hydro bombs create as opposed to TNT? They still would produce some sound i assume, because anything that is bomb has to produce sound. Also, have hydrogen bombs been used to bring down a building before? Can hydro bombs be rigged together in series to create a collapse, similar the way people use TNT? I'll have to investigate those bombs audio level, but thanks for bringing them up.

Insolurious = Where exactly are those explosions again? that audio extremely poor in quality and what i hear sounds more like static then explosions. there are like a couple of clicks and pops, but nothing that sounds like bombs going off. I urge you to watch the original video i posted, the demolition of the WTC would have sounded something like that. Sorry but a few clicks and pops (which keep in mind could have been artifacts created on the medium which the sound was recorded) aren't really enough evidence yet to prove that massive amounts of explosives were used. to be honest i don't know what that guy writing the text is hearing, cause i turned the volume all the way up and i didn't hear anything. Listen to what DAMOCLES had to say. he's absoloutley 100% right. We should have heard a massive "earth shattering kaboom"

BSbray11 = Theres a couple problems with that video. #1. That little tiny bomb in fact did make a sound. Assuming for a minute that the wtc could have been brought down by those little things. Basically the amount that would have been required, would have sounded like hundreds of firecrackers going off. Yes the audio wouldn't have been noticeable from 1 or 2, but the sheer hundreds of pounds of those packets needed to level a building that big, would have sounded like either machine gun fire, or firecrackers going off. no way to hide those sounds. Ok now #2. That bomb would not have done any damage to the support columns of the WTC. That little piece of metal that was used was what, 2..maybe 3 inches think? The columns that supported the wtc were thick girders that weighed tons, in pounds. sorry to say but you need to find a better video, that one is rather weak for those reasons.

danx = well first off..what makes you think i didn't question 9-11? I've been browsing ATS for years, probably since 99 or 00. I just never registered because i didn't have a good connection to the internet till about 04/05, so trying to do anything on dial up pretty much limited me to using the ie for browsing websites with text, and AIMing my friends. However when i got my cable modem, i eventually saw the first vid that made me question 9-11. It was about the pentagon. Boy i was shocked when i seen that. So after these threads started popping up around ATS (which i had forgotten about till i seen it in my favs =[ ) I started researching the topic more. After spending a couple years looking at these theories, i have determined that the CTers are grasping at straws, and using poor (and also very carefully edited) videos to back up their arguement. I also looked at the NIST report, and while there was a few minor flaws, i felt as a whole..it presented the information better then all the conspirocy theories combined. The problem i find is that for one there are to many theories, and second..they aren't presented in 1 clear and cohesive manner. Basically you have to belive little conicedences and what are known as video artifacts to belive a lot of the theories. No plane theory? explaining that is simple, the plane was going so fast that the videos 30FPS could not capture the image in all the frames, therefore frames are missing. A lot of the other videos are peoples words that are twisted around, or videos that have been trick edited to make a person misquoted. Remeber, a lot of 9-11 firefighters are mad that their words have been distorted to make them seem like they said something they haven't.

billy bob = quiet demos? define quiet? also, link where you got this info.

Hmm, not much meaty responses yet i'm afraid folks. Nothing i've seen that made me go "wow, where did those big explosions come from?!". The best i seen was that one video with the loud bang, which strikes me as odd as well. Ok so that boom apparently happend closer to the ground then rather further in the air. Ok now after that boom, the wtc starts falling from top to bottom, but then wouldn't the building then have collapsed from the bottom? (like it did in my original video).

Now if that boom had come from closer to the impact zone (and where the wtc started crumbling) that would have made more sense. I have a problem with the sound of the explosion, being so far away from the place that the tower actually started to fall. I interpret that as being some kind of glass breaking, or debris falling..or even some kind of mishap in the building (like a boiler exploding) unrelated to the collapse. And also, why only 1 boom? to bring it down in a fasion some call "to neat"...wouldn't we need more than one explosion??

Well this thread is still in it's early stages, lets get some more videos...especially vids of some supposed "silent" demos, or less loud bombs. I really hope you skeptics truthers take this serious, because the sounds (or in this case absence of sounds) are a big part of real CD's

Originally posted by Spawwwn


Insolurious = Where exactly are those explosions again? that audio extremely poor in quality and what i hear sounds more like static then explosions. there are like a couple of clicks and pops, but nothing that sounds like bombs going off. I urge you to watch the original video i posted, the demolition of the WTC would have sounded something like that. Sorry but a few clicks and pops (which keep in mind could have been artifacts created on the medium which the sound was recorded) aren't really enough evidence yet to prove that massive amounts of explosives were used. to be honest i don't know what that guy writing the text is hearing, cause i turned the volume all the way up and i didn't hear anything. Listen to what DAMOCLES had to say. he's absoloutley 100% right. We should have heard a massive "earth shattering kaboom"

Get some decent monitors or a sub woofer, your speakers probably aren't picking them up if you can't hear the 4 massive booms pre-collapse. At that range the high frequencies are barely audible. I thought you were an audio engineer? Let me guess, you produce audio on your laptop speakers?

If your producing audio and can't hear the sub frequency booms on your system you seriously need to upgrade your studio asap!


p.s I have already seen that video a number of times. Sure HE and typical CDs would sound different! Never said it wouldn't. But I also don't say this was a typical CD with conventional explosives.

I often forget i have high quality studio monitoring whilst the rest of you don't. Perhaps this is also why Damocles can't hear them correctly either. Listening on laptop or cheap speakers your not gonna hear anything except the mid range to high frequencies unfortunately!


[edit on 14-4-2007 by Insolubrious]

Everyone is entitled to their theories of what happened, doesn't mean just because I don't believe the official story I'm gonna believe all of the alternative theories.

Originally posted by Spawwwn
After spending a couple years looking at these theories, i have determined that the CTers are grasping at straws, and using poor (and also very carefully edited) videos to back up their arguement.

Honestly, what makes me doubt the official story is not even the videos. The little 'coincidences', the drills and exercices, the PNAC connections, WTC 7, the names of the hijackers not being on the manifests, and so on and so on, that's what really makes me doubt the official story.

I also looked at the NIST report, and while there was a few minor flaws, i felt as a whole..it presented the information better then all the conspirocy theories combined.

I don't think you're supposed to rely on a 'theory' to explain you the facts of what happened. In fact, many of the alternative theories and 'theorists' clearly state that there are alot of unknowns.

They're just theories, but those theories exist because the official story also doesn't explain correctly or at all, some of the events.

Basically you have to belive little conicedences and what are known as video artifacts to belive a lot of the theories.

Wait.. what? You have to believe?
No sir, you don't have to believe anything. You believe whatever you want, or whatever makes sense to you. Hopefully most people will go with the later.

No plane theory? explaining that is simple, the plane was going so fast that the videos 30FPS could not capture the image in all the frames, therefore frames are missing.

Are you speaking of the Pentagon attack?

Well, there were other cameras you know.. from gas stations, from hotels, etc that would have captured the plane on tape and they were all confiscated and never shown to the public.

For people to stop believing in the "no plane theory" regarding the Pentagon attack, all the Government has to do is release one of those tapes that actually shows a plane.
In part, most of the blame for those theories to emerge is the Government's.


The Government and some people here, paint a picture that if you doubt the official story you believe in some more extreme theories, like beam weapons from space and/or micro/mini nukes.

I don't know if they used beam weapons, or micro nukes or not, I personally don't think they did, but that's not the point here really.

The point here is the official story and the official reports don't explain correctly some of the events and in some cases (like the 911 commission report regarding WTC 7) they don't even cover some of the events at all!

How can the people accept that as a proper explanation and investigation of the events?

Is it really too much to ask for a proper investigation? For all of the details to be accounted for? If they weren't investigated or were overlooked, how can we be sure it won't happen again?