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.

 

9/11 Eyewitness Audio Reveals Hundreds of Explosive Pops! (Must See)

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   


This is quite fascinating in my opinion. Its a time lapse of Siegels footage with enhanced audio to emphasis the explosions.

Firstly, the recording has been sped up to approx 600%, this allows us to make new visual observations in terms of the progress of collapse. What is more revealing though is the audio. When you speed up the audio the very low bass frequencies that are often not picked up by laptop or low quality hifi speakers becomes audible, since your shifting the lower harmonics into a higher frequency range, although the sounds become shorter in length the audio details are still there.

Secondly, I filtered the audio dampening all frequencies above 200-300hz allowing for the bass (just the explosions) to pass through. You may notice people talking like chipmunks in the background which is the wins 10-10 news broadcast on fast forward. Its much quieter after the low pass filter and muffled some what. I am using Adobe Premier and I am not sure how the chain of effects go, whether its filtering before pitching or pitching then filtering i am unsure but I set the cutoff value to approx. the correct frequency to allow the audio to pass that we want to hear.

Thirdly, I compressed the audio signal using multi band compression - this balances the overall amplitude of the signal, making quiet sounds more audible. Using multi band I can apply the compression to just the bass area since this is the area of interest. After compressing the signal it suddenly became apparent there was much more details in the audio track than I once thought. Dozens of small scale charges can be heard going off in between the larger blasts. Listen very closely and you will heard countless small scale explosions.

Hope some of you find this interesting I certainly did! I recommend having your volume turned right up to hear the small charges or try listening on .phones. If you listen carefully to the very first explosion right at the end you can hear what sounds like a change in tension of the steel, its like that ping sounds that rises in pitch at the beginning. I would guess that particular sound was produced by the steel buckling. Also at this speed it sounds more like demolition charges. When the WTC7 goes down it almost sounds like someone just got a strike on the bowling alley.


[edit on 12-1-2008 by Insolubrious]




posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


If anyone is going to hear anything, it is going to be rather loud short repetitive snaps, and puffs of white smoke may be viewed, as the cutter charges are being set off at each level of any building. There will be a delay. And the entire building can be imploded into its own footprint very rapidly, or be pancaked in topple very rapidly.

It depends on how and where the expert sets the cutter charges and how many at each location, plus, how and where the expert decided the building is going to rapidly drop - pancake or into the building's own footprints. The speed of drop is entirely dependent on how much of the main supports are removed from the top to the bottom of the building. That determines how much explosive is going to be used for any job to do that.

In the case of twin towers, that means summetrically cutting the supports, at the center core, on all supporting core beams, on every floor cutter charges were set, all the way into the sub-levels of both towers. Sub-levesl will give the capability of the low frequency echoing of any cutter charges, if they can be picked up by any audio sound wave motion.

They will not be explosive kaboom sounds, because snapping is a higher frequency sound echoing but can be lower in frequency in an echo chamber. The explosive kaboom sounds will be the top part of the support exploding the floors after they slide off the top supports.

It is both exploding the top and bottom concrete floors by dropping. Along with, throwing out large chunks of concrete explosively hitting the side walls. Floors are exploding outwards in what is basically an echo chamber at the sub-levels.

Cutter charge sounds are the higher frequency sounds of an overly loud child's cap pistol when the steel snaps free. That is provided buildings are not sound proofed or stripped. Cutter charges will not be seen or heard on the outside of non-stripped buildings, if not going off in echo chamber type sub-levels.

WTC 7 was cut differently but achieved the same purpose of pulling the building into its own footprint.



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
The frequency boost is awesome. All those low rumbles you usually can't hear that great, are suddenly pretty obvious, and they're not wind in the mic or people jumping.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Well done Insolubrious; transposing those lower freqs up 600% gives us a "god's ear" view of the events, so to speak.

Perhaps what we're hearing is what witnesses closer to the site describe as the ground rumbling, felt in their bones...

from pg. 10 ofKarin Deshore


...a sound came from somewhere that I never heard before...It was the worst sound of a rolling sound, not a thunder. I can't explain it, what it was. All I know is -- and a force started to come hit me in my back. I can't explain it...


Other accounts from the The Sept. 11 Records

page 7 & 14 of Louis Cook

page 11 of Paul Curran

page 5/6 of Bradley Mann

just to name a few.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Insolubrious
 


Great work Insolubrious. Could you post a version with the tower's collapse at normal speed with these filters? I have a suspicion that that too would be something worthwhile listening to...



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 08:37 AM
link   
bsbray - absolutely, i was quite surprised by the results. Did you notice any of the small scale explosions in between the larger events?

0ivae - certainly does and your likely correct. Anyone next to the site is going to be hearing much different things to anyone at Hoboken. Remember bass travels much further than treble or mid range frequencies. Also a standing low frequency wave takes a large distance to form correctly. Anyone at the site would be overwhelmed with mid to high range frequencies along with significant earth shaking and noise but may not notice the lower frequency things happening so much. At least to the untrained ear. Where as over at Hoboken the higher frequencies don't have enough energy to travel the distance but the bass certainly does, in fact it is an ideal location since there is a large open area of water to carry the sound and to allow the bass to form. Additionally sound travels further and faster through water because it is denser than air.

Gottago - yes I could do a version at normal speed however it would be 600% longer. Not only that but it would take 600% longer to render, and this video took about an hour and a half to render on 1 pass. So you can imagine rendering at normal speed will take much time. The original idea behind the video was to make some time lapse footage so I could analyse how the fires were spreading and how the smoke was moving/ changing density.

I had always been aware of the huge booms but the details in between them were never very noticeable, this is incredible though you can hear dozens of small blasts occurring. It also sounds like the tower is being unzipped or something, like all the bolts are popping out.

Like I said previously, its sped up to move the frequencies into an more audible range. if this was at normal speed the audio would shift back down into a low frequency range where by the majority of viewers will not hear anything unless they have a good monitoring system with bass response.

Of course anyone can watch the original version unfiltered and at normal speed just google '9/11 eyewitness'.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Although I haven't been able to view the video yet, I starred and flagged this thread just for the effort put into it. Nice job Insolubrious.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
wow!! to live in these times. incredible.. why has god put us
here to be a witness?



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:39 PM
link   
awesome thinking, insolubrious.

and, thanks again to rick siegel, for being there, first of all, and secondly, for taking the time and effort afterwards.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 10:51 PM
link   
If you speed up wind gusts picked up by the camera 600% they would sound much shorter than the ones we all have come to know for the last 6 years from the same video...

It is sad-- if the original video doesn't show the evidence you so desparately desire-- then AFTER 6YEARS-- just speed that suckah up really fast and Voila.. Exa-ma-sploshunz!

I didn't buy the claims made from this video before--and certainly don't buy any onclusions from the hyperspeed redux version.




posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxi-Driver
If you speed up wind gusts picked up by the camera 600% they would sound much shorter than the ones we all have come to know for the last 6 years from the same video...


The wind gusts have nothing to do with it.

Wind = noise = wide spectrum of frequencies. Wind would not be especially heavy on low frequencies, or any other particular range of frequencies on a well-designed microphone.

The explosions = specific to lower spectrum of frequencies. These frequencies were given a boost into a more audible range. They are obviously not wind-induced noise. This is because -- they were limited to a very low-frequency range only.

Not to mention they even sound exactly like explosions, both in this version and in the original (if you have subwoofers, of course).

[edit on 17-1-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
If legit, it is damning to the point of testimony.

Also note at 57 seconds chopper 4... what are the flashes appearing directly under it?

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:12 PM
link   
** bump **

I am interested in what others have to say about this??

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 04:13 PM
link   
not much apparently! The debunkers will most likely attack the points like Siegels editing of chopper 4 mission complete and wind blowing on the mic as an excuse for the explosions and as a straw man type argument.

We're hearing more than just explosions though it seems, lots of popping almost like the framework is crackling or heating up and breaking down, either that or thousands of very small charges are going off all over the towers. You can hear the steel under tension bending and buckling along with crescendos of pops at one point going crazy just before leading to the final collapse. North tower collapse is very interesting too, you can hear it coming, growing in amplitude long before the final big boom kicks in, almost like a reverse echo effect. There are two big swells then the big boom, then the collapse with a massive series of explosions. Very scary stuff. Sounds almost identical to WTC7 coming down.


[edit on 16-2-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Nice job by the OP.

My own dream would be for someone to come up with a night vision video of the collapses, where you could see all the thermal hot spots appearing. What ya wanna bet someone somewhere has one? Come on whistleblowers, leak that video.

[edit on 17-2-2008 by ipsedixit]



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
One should also observe that the explosion(s) noise recorded here in this clip would have been deafening across the river in Manhattan. There is no MSM footage which corresponds to the sound events recorded in sync with this clip. That is suspicious as evidence of a cover-up by itself. The MSM clips of the WTC1 and 2 collapses are muted at best and do not contain loud events just prior. These events must have been extremely loud for people near Ground Zero. Witness testimony does agree with the audio track as far as the general number (many) of explosions and the fact that they were loud. During the WTC1 and 2 fall sequencing the explosions up high may well have been less audible at street level. In addition, the demolition "wave" roughly progressed (accelerated) at 9.8m/S^2, thus very quickly the rate was on the order of milliseconds between detonations. This turns into a roar in released MSM clips. The smaller detonations are further joined in the clip discussed here by dispersion of the traveling sound pressure wave(s). This was a useful technique to improve the human senses ability to perceive the low frequency sounds associated with detonations. It may also be useful to find clips of actual explosions and try the same technique. Also there are powerful analytical techniques using FFT, Wavelet, etc which may be able to further compare the spectral similarities of one explosion to another. I have seen no such work to date. My guess would be that the "acoustic" fingerprint of a collapsing steel or concrete structure would be quite different from one another. As and example, a math package called Matlab has sufficient tools available to make these types of analysis.

Another idea I had similar to the thoughts used here in looking at the audio in another way, was to assume that there is additional information in the video clips than simply what is available in the visible spectrum. This is especially true for many modern video cameras which are sensitive to infrared as well. The infrared response is filtered prior to light hitting the CCD device. If videos could be selectively enhanced at the red end of the visible spectrum or better, frequency shifted to bring the deep red and near infrared to the visible spectrum for our eyes, we may then "see" through the smoke. We may also see flashes better and have a clearer view of cutter charges as they proceed. I am no video expert, but maybe someone else is? I have seen no such work on the WWW. Again, a package like Matlab may be useful for video analysis. Comments and suggestions welcome.



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
If legit, it is damning to the point of testimony.

Also note at 57 seconds chopper 4... what are the flashes appearing directly under it?

watchZEITGEISTnow


I believe it is legit and yes very damning indeed.

About chopper 4: Probably not much to this at all, I expect the chopper turned its lights on briefly since it was flying through dark smoke. I watched a military helicopter fly over just the other night emitting bright white flashes and could clearly see it at great distance and very piercing. Although I think the pattern of lights and the speed of the pulse is often used as a secondary visual signal to represent some type of maneuver to ground and other aerial units.

If it's anything suspicious it could of been a signal of some type to the operators of the demolition to pull it, but why bother? What need is there for that? More likely the pilot just decided to turn his lights on for a bit because he considered it a hazardous situation.



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
More likely the pilot just decided to turn his lights on for a bit because he considered it a hazardous situation.


but, what could the motivation be for flying into the smoke? i heard smoke isn't good for helicopter engines. not only did he fly into the smoke over the building, but he also flew there in the huge plume, as if he were trying to hide in it.
and what mission was accomplished? (and where did that snippet of audio saying "mission accomplished" come from? where did rick siegel get it?)



posted on Feb, 17 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

but, what could the motivation be for flying into the smoke? i heard smoke isn't good for helicopter engines. not only did he fly into the smoke over the building, but he also flew there in the huge plume, as if he were trying to hide in it.
and what mission was accomplished? (and where did that snippet of audio saying "mission accomplished" come from? where did rick siegel get it?)



that's a good point and i was going to address that in my last post but left it out, but yes i do find it a little odd that they actually chose to fly through that thick plume of smoke in the first place and rather slowly too. One might expect them to be coughing their guts up and endangering their ability to fly! Rick said he looked through his binoculars and could see a guy dropping a line out, perhaps as if they were trying and pick someone up? (which is all Rick seemed to say and didn't really mention the flashes).

Rick added the 'mission accomplished' thing which he has taken a lot of flak for (bad idea it seems), one can gather that Rick thought the chopper was up to no good and probably had something to do with the collapse initiation.

Whether chopper 4 in question has been identified as a news chopper, FEMA or military I am unsure, it would be good to identify the chopper and its crew though. Incidentally I did hear some people from a chopper that filmed the second impact were killed or even murdered. Whether its the same chopper crew in question i am unsure.



posted on Feb, 18 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Guesswhotoo6
 

Excellent thoughts there


Any heat source capable of melting/vaporising steel instantly would stand out like a beacon in the IR end of the spectrum.




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join