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: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
More WTC enhanced audio thuds/explosions, this time from a different camera.

a 9/11 researcher brought this audio to my attention, and quite rightly so. It's a good quality audio capture containing lots of explosive details in the bass. I have processed it to bring out the explosives with shocking results.

How this was done:

First i normalized the audio volume level then sent it through a low pass filter approx 100hz (removes high frequencies like sirens, people talking and other noise since were only interested in the bass), EQ - found the approx. resonant frequency of the explosives and emphasised it (around 86hz it seems), then added a expander to change the dynamics of the amplitude (this makes loud sounds louder and quiet sounds quieter).

p.s the resonant frequency of the explosives may actually be a signature of the type explosive devices used and could contribute to identifying them. They are very low frequency and produce ground shaking which suggests extremely powerful type of explosives.



[edit on 22-2-2008 by Insolubrious]




posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Anyone thinking of trying this themselves should realise this should only be attempted by an audio expert who intimately understands the concepts of filtering, harmonics, frequency ranges and their relationships, the workings of compression ratios and threshold along with experience with working on dynamic expansion adjustments, EQ and general sound engineering otherwise it will most likely be done blindly and incorrectly.


Honestly one could make the argument that you're biasing this particular audio clip since you filtered out higher frequencies while simultaneously making the argument that the lower frequencies were where most of the amplitude was because of the explosions. If this was noise one would expect all frequencies. So the heavy bass suggests explosives to me, too (big ones that create large wavelengths in the air). But you know how debunkers are. Filtering out higher frequencies is a conflict of interest to them that automatically means you're wrong.

What about comparing the amplitudes of a range of frequencies to see where in the spectrum the most activity was? Like a chart showing amplitudes from 1000 Hz down to ~20 Hz on the spikes or whatever is appropriate.

Then we can ask, what created such powerful and large pressure waves through the air? I wonder if we could even approximate the size of a blast radius based on the frequencies of the low booms we're hearing.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
6 years and no evidence; yep, time to make up evidence. So why are bigfoot followers not planting bigfoot scat like 9/11 truth followers are starting to plant false evidence with the same smell? Interesting, how long it takes before the false information becomes more fantastic?

If this is certified evidence you better go now and publish it before the New Times gets the big prize! Publish or perish. Maybe someone can get a big time forensic sound guy to certify this new breakthrough and sell some DVDs to gullible people who fall for this tripe. I see some money in a DVD! People love to be lazy, suspend rational thought to live in a fantasy world of conspiracy theories.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
suspend rational thought to live in a fantasy world of conspiracy theories.


Sounds like all the debunkers around here.


BTW, physical evidence is impossible to get when it is covered up, carried away and smelted under the guise of "national security".



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
If this is certified evidence you better go now and publish it before the New Times gets the big prize! Publish or perish.


While beachnut's tone may be a little skeptical, I think the point is valid.

Please keep us posted as to who you're publishing this information to, and their reaction to it.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


It's the Amaaaaaazing Randi "poof" and his "educational institute"...the MIT of adhom, the Stanford of strawman, the Yale of yelling...




Mod Note: Off Topic or One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 22-2-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
dbl post. sorry

[edit on 22-2-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by beachnut
6 years and no evidence; yep, time to make up evidence.


I am sorry perhaps i misunderstood but are you implying i faked the audio in that last video post?




posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana
Anyone who denies the facts that demolitions were used on 9/11 not only has a warped agenda but a dark and dismal future.


Dammit. Talk about a buzzkill on a Friday.

And here I thought I was just denying demolitions use because it would be logistically impossible and logically undefendable.



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Screwed up the posting.. damn ie explorer.
Last quotes still stand.




Moments after the attack, many small explosions shook the downtown area





BOOM! Keep an eye on that building, she'll be comming down soon!



[edit on 22-2-2008 by IvanZana]

[edit on 22-2-2008 by IvanZana]



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Honestly one could make the argument that you're biasing this particular audio clip since you filtered out higher frequencies while simultaneously making the argument that the lower frequencies were where most of the amplitude was because of the explosions. If this was noise one would expect all frequencies. So the heavy bass suggests explosives to me, too (big ones that create large wavelengths in the air). But you know how debunkers are. Filtering out higher frequencies is a conflict of interest to them that automatically means you're wrong.


Yes I tend to agree it could be considered some what bias but its no different than analyzing, zooming and/or cropping a photo and enhancing its colours for better inspection. Which is something CTs and debunkers alike do all the time.



What about comparing the amplitudes of a range of frequencies to see where in the spectrum the most activity was? Like a chart showing amplitudes from 1000 Hz down to ~20 Hz on the spikes or whatever is appropriate.


As i mentioned I identified a particularly strong resonant frequency at around 86hz but a visual graph could also be generated to represent the audio. The majority of the blasts amplitude was sub 120hz. Some of which is expressed in ground shaking which is a very low frequency oscillation that pushes air pressure itself. but isn't necessarily audible, you just feel it and may even become disorientated by it.




Then we can ask, what created such powerful and large pressure waves through the air? I wonder if we could even approximate the size of a blast radius based on the frequencies of the low booms we're hearing.



I expect so, I think if one were to do a serious analysis of explosions and their frequency response some pretty accurate predictions could be made as I would expect different devices to have different audio signatures. One may also have to consider the structure in which the device is contained and how much dampening and diffusion it offers along with the distance of the blast relative to the microphone pickup.




[edit on 22-2-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 


Please read the rules in this forum, you are breaking right now. Do not use personal attack for your argument. This forum is for mature speaking and thinking adults.

watchZEITGEISTnow



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
One may also have to consider the structure in which the device is contained and how much dampening and diffusion it offers along with the distance of the blast relative to the microphone pickup.


Given this, turns out the acoustic wavelength of 86 Hz is about 4 meters.

Depending on the source of the sound, and all the dampening and diffusion and etc. as mentioned, something roughly 4 meters in size could possibly have been producing mechanical vibration. May or may not be useful information but info is info and every little bit helps. Also the time period is about 11 milliseconds.

[edit on 23-2-2008 by bsbray11]



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essedarius

Originally posted by beachnut
If this is certified evidence you better go now and publish it before the New Times gets the big prize! Publish or perish.


While beachnut's tone may be a little skeptical, I think the point is valid.

Please keep us posted as to who you're publishing this information to, and their reaction to it.
It should be published, the news agencies can help get a broader coverage. I will be looking forward to seeing it on the news. I do not understand, after so many people understand and support this evidence, it is not forwarded to the news. They can help get out the word and we can get the truth out. I am much too shy to be on the news, but any big story may have to start small and grow.

The thing to do is get the guy who did the study and help him get it moving. The people who believe in this need to get behind it and make it happen. I am skeptical it has merit after talking to those at GZ on 9/11. But you never know what was missed. I have only studied 9/11 for 6 years, no one can know everything.

[edit on 23-2-2008 by beachnut]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Insolubrious, this is the remark I get, when trying to play or download your above video, or click the YouTube link to that video :
""This is a private video. If you have been sent this video, please make sure you accept the sender's friend request.""

Could you upload both your audio-enhanced videos to a non-biased video service ?

There are a few sources for Very Low Frequency events during 9/11.

1. Thermobaric devices.

2. VLF infrasound, around 7 Hertz wavelength. Used by the military :
Military Acoustic Weapons.
www.globalsecurity.org...


A low-frequency sound transducer produces sounds below the audible frequency range [ below 20 Hz ]. The sound transducer is driven by its own amplifier that uses the output of a low pass filter as its input. Known as Infrasound, these vibrations are felt but not heard. The observer needs to be placed on a wooden platform so that the vibrations are transmitted to a suitable area.

Infrasound would be a powerful ultralow frequency (ULF) weapon that could be directional and tunable, penetrating buildings and vehicles.


I am still contemplating the use of ULF weaponry on 9/11, to be able to explain the almost 100% disappearance of all the bolds and nuts used to hold the towers facade's Vierendeel column-triplets together to each other.
In literally every picture of all these triple column packets laying around in the 9/11 pictures and videos, all bolds and screws placed inside the column ends are absent (mostly 4 were used per end).

You should expect a few thousand broken bended parts of them "welded" to the inside of the column ends, when sheared off in milliseconds during a gravitational driven, natural collapse.


Difference Tones are more sophisticated arrays that project a sound to a specific location. The resulting sound can only be heard at that particular location as the result of interference patterns created by the interaction of sounds transmitted from multiple remote speakers.


That is also an explanation for the sounds to be heard in the 9/11 Eyewitness videos, and not in closer-by recorded videos and audios.
Explosions underwater, in inundated basement parts and elevator shaft ends filled with water, will also have a VLF sound pattern.

Thermobaric devices vertically exploding high up inside the elevator shafts of a high-rise building will also have a VLF to ULF sound pattern.


A more potent weapon under development in Russia since the early 1990s is a high powered very low frequency (VLF) modulator. Operating at frequencies below 20 KHz, the device requires a 1-2 meter dish to project a so-called "acoustic bullet." The device was attractive because the power level is adjustable. At low power, the system would cause physical discomfort, while increasing the power could induce nausea, vomiting and abdominal pains. The highest levels can cause a person's bones to resonate, which can be quite painful.


Now imagine a much stronger device used by the military, to inflict damage to infrastructure. This exists.
The resonance factor is a very devastating one.
It will be able to break bolded connections easily, when the right amplitude is used for that building.
The reports by WTC workers of white dust found every morning on the window seats can be explained by this phenomenon.
Perhaps they were testing their Infrasound weaponry at night, to find the right amplitudes and power for the WTC towers.

Remember the Tacoma Bridge disaster, caused by increasing resonance from wind loads.
And you really thought that the military did not directly alert their scientists after looking at the footage of that natural demolition?

Do look at the witness reports in the NIST report.
One official was reported to come running out of the basement, shouting that everybody had to leave the building at once.
If he felt the ULF resonance in his bones, he would have felt very confused, and unsure what caused it, but he knew by instinct that something very foul was going on.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by beachnut
 



Nope the only thing you'll see in the MSM (I'm assuming thats what you mean by published, lol), in the "NEW" 9-11 evidence department, after 6 years IS 1, yes thats correct 1 as in a single FRAME of blurry security pentagon camera that not only is a joke that that's all they've come out with, it also supports the NO PLANE theory.

But that frame is official because the Main Stream Media says so?

Your listening to the wrong people.

Ohhh, and if you wee extremely lucky you'll have caught the one of two times they aired the hotel camera footage, and citgo camera footage,before they stopped showing it,becuase they ALSO show no plane.

oops!

To the OP great thread, starred and flagged, good idea, and it does put every thing into context. I really like that the clouds coming from ground level pre collapse were shown more than once, and clearly. That fact alot of people seem to miss and have ZERO explanation for. Debunkers don't touch that, or the Thermate pouring out of the side of the building video with a 10 foot pole.

Hey I wouldn't either, that stuff was so hot, there was pools of Molten metal under ground Zero 6 weeks later, still flowing!



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Hey LaBTop thanks for posting! Some very interesting info there. Personally though I doubt it was any type of VLF weapon (mainly due to the overall percussive nature of the event rather than a growing, feedback type event) but a series of thermobaric devices seems more likely and i wouldn't rule it out, in fact (without going into any details for now) I believe there maybe some good consistencies with that idea especially in light of some of these new vaccum bombs.

I am also wondering if it's possible some type of chemical weapon was used, or some kind of very nasty chemical by-product was produced by the bomb or device.

bright orange rust on front of car


Steel section that has 'failed' and looks rusted, corroded


more bright orange rusting

Perhaps its more consistant with chemical burns from the exposure to an acidic atmosphere (in the dust cloud that rolled downtown)?

Two of the main points is the massive amount of corrosion to metallic materials and internal framework along with these huge white plumes of vapor produced during and just after the collapse, which sounded very much like a hissing sound rather than exploding or burning, much like the buildings and their materials were dissolving or breaking down by some type of acid or solvent in places (the term WMD springs to mind). The hissing reminded me of dropping some alka seltzer into a glass of water, only 100x times louder. Not an explosive effect, not burning but hissing? I will try and find the clip i am describing and post it up.

Similar things can be observed at the Pentagon collapse. Have you guys looked at the Pentagon collapse much? I found the footage of what is happening there (particularly to the concrete and windows changing colour) to be rather odd.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
after posting I found this video on youtube and would like you guys to check it out, i feel its relevant to the whole 'were explosives in the towers'

Response to Terrorism Explosive & Incendiary Weapons clip



This is quite blatant really, its an official training video for first responders who would respond to a terrorism incident involving IEDs or other explosives. The very first shot is the WTC and makes multiple references to it. There is a bunch of related training videos all to do with WMD and dealing with them. Very interesting and highly revealing imo.

Its just like I keep saying and is even quoted in this video, when doesn't a terrorist attack involve explosives. Over 90% of terrorist attacks involve explosives! 9/11 the biggest terrorist attack in the world is the only exception? I think not.

[edit on 26-2-2008 by Insolubrious]



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Perhaps its more consistant with chemical burns from the exposure to an acidic atmosphere (in the dust cloud that rolled downtown)?

Two of the main points is the massive amount of corrosion to metallic materials and internal framework along with these huge white plumes of vapor produced during and just after the collapse, which sounded very much like a hissing sound rather than exploding or burning, much like the buildings and their materials were dissolving or breaking down by some type of acid or solvent in places (the term WMD springs to mind). The hissing reminded me of dropping some alka seltzer into a glass of water, only 100x times louder. Not an explosive effect, not burning but hissing? I will try and find the clip i am describing and post it up.


But the remaining dust was highly alkaline, often compared to Drano, as noted in this thread

WitW added in response:

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Portland cement (calcium silicates) is strongly alkaline (ph 12-15). Lots of it was used in the WTCs’ floors’ lightweight concrete.

...if that helps.

And in response to LaBTop, this sort of destruction by resonant frequency technology has been around for over a century: consider Tesla's "Earthquake Machine"



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join