It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Secondary Explosions

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 01:01 PM
The secondary explosions some people reported hearing, could they not be explained by people jumping from the building?
What is the terminal velocity of your average human?
In all the confusion on that dreadul day, would it not be possible for someone to confuse the sound of a body hitting the ground from the WTC, for a "secondary explosion"?

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 02:52 PM
I would say the sounds wouldn't really be comparable at all unless maybe the person fell through glass, then you'd hear glass shattering energetically, which may sound something like an explosion, depending on how many explosions you've been around. Really, even that should be easy to distinguish from an explosion caused by explosives.

An explosion in general is going to be orders of magnitude louder. The "sound" (air pressure) from an explosive will cut through steel. It also has a sharp "crack" to it, if it's a typical cutter charge anyway (don't know why I would suggest there were many of those there in any case, though), whereas I've heard people hitting the ground in videos and it's a really ugly kind of "thud" sound. If you've heard it then you know what I'm talking about.

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 03:30 PM
Good point, but you also have to take in all that was happening that day. Your average New Yorker probably doesn't know the science behind an explosion, no offense if you're from New York, and in the confusion of 9/11 would you not be prone to confuse the two?
Or what if it was other thing that may have been falling out? I haven't seen any videos of things other than paper and what-not falling out, but it's not beyond impossible for say, a TV to fall out of the impact zone.

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 05:07 PM
Even though people could hear secondary explosions, I wonder how much of that was echo's of what was occuring.

The terminal velocity for the average skydiver is 120 mph.

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 05:24 PM
there was a thread here a while ago that was 'proof of secondary explosions' that was really bodies hitting around the lobby of wtc1. that noise was indeed falling bodies.

however, explosions have been confirmed over and over again.
thats the news from fox, abc, nbc, cbs, and bbc. start there or do a you tube search.

posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:14 PM
Thanks for your guys' input.
Will do Jprophet.
But what about objects falling out? Computers and such, what sort of sound would those make?

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 06:46 AM
If a human jumped wouldnt it make more of a Splat, rather than a Bang.

Take Care, Vix

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 06:48 AM
reply to post by Vixion

I actually think the sound would be similar to throwing a pumpkin on the ground at a really high speed, sort of a pop i guess

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 09:46 AM
in the case i am refering too, it was some sort of metal awning they were hittng, and the noise +resonance sounded like a 'bang'. the clip is in this forum, i havent been able to find it on you tube since yesterday.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 10:06 AM
It is beyond ludicrous to imagine that a falling body could duplicate the sound of an explosion. Thats nuts. A body hitting pavement would make a sickening sound no doubt, but it would never sound like an explosion.

Think of a thwack sound, or a splatt sound, or anything except a BOOM!! only explosives can make a BOOM and the BOOMS were caused by explosives, the thwacks and splatts and such were from the bodies falling. The closest to a BOOM from a body would be a loud WHOOMPH depending on the angle of fall and which body parts hit first. But no way can an explosion be passed off as bodies hitting, no way.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:28 AM
like i said it was hitting a metal awning. i found the thread burried 10 pages deep but the video is no longer available. however if you read the thread you will see that it really was bdies in this particular case...

there are plenty of other videos confirming the explosions, this is a good one...

then if you watch this vid you can see the awning and put 2 and 2 together, the guy in this vid even directly addresses it...

[edit on 3-9-2007 by jprophet420]

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:35 AM
I, nor anyone else to my knoweldge, even suggested that a human body can replicate the sound of an explosion. I did say, however, that in light of the circumstances one confused New Yorker may somehow confuse the two. I now see that the idea is a tad bit absurd, but what about objects falling out of the floors? Once again, "Computers and such".

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 11:54 AM
others directly made that mistake in the thread i posted.
the videos that i posted, if you watch both, cover this. there is both noise from falling objects AND explosions. Both our intel officials and the local police report explosions in the clip i posted.

it seems as if you replied w/o reviewing the information i posted first? im pretty sure if you read the thread and watch the videos it illustrates that both things went on, and that there is a difference.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 12:58 PM
Some of you need to see 9/11 eyewitness, but then you will probably assume the massive explosions in Ricks audio is actually wind blowing down the mic.

Google Video Link

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:08 PM
oooohhh i remember now - most of you can't even hear the bass because your speaker systems don't support the low frequencies (I.E laptop speakers or cheap hifi speakers)!

Doh! 9/11 truth will never come out at this rate due to poor audio monitoring!

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:13 PM

Originally posted by jprophet420
in the case i am refering too, it was some sort of metal awning they were hittng, and the noise +resonance sounded like a 'bang'. the clip is in this forum

Were you there or is this in a digital recording? Recordings lose a lot of sound information, especially with something really loud.

posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Doh! 9/11 truth will never come out at this rate due to poor audio monitoring!

If I were designing the whole event, I'd definitely want to bring in devices that put out sound in frequencies either too high or too low for easy human observation, if much of any extra sound at all. I've heard the low booms and rumbles, as frequent as rain drops hitting a roof, on footage on the History Channel through a fairly good audio system on a TV. If that stuff hit online people would be putting it all over forums and Youtube. But you're right, in that most people don't have the equipment for it (I don't, on this computer), and even if they do, the digital compression and all of that is something else to worry about.

top topics


log in