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.

 

If Demolished/imploded, where is the sound?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:15 PM
link   
In a CD, there isnt one large bang, or two large bangs....its hundreds of bangs running together as the hundreds of charges go off. You can listen to the audio on those videos from now till the end of time and you will never hear the noises of demolition charges going off.

Next, someone will post about the Top Secret Hush-a-Bomb that Rocky and Bullwinkle had.




posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


This has been my point the whole time Fox. That is exactly why I am trying to find video that would back up the theory. It was my attempt at being subtle and non argumentative
. As far as I can tell audio evidence does not exist.

But that is what still confuses me. Because at least if there was audio evidence, it would answer questions. Now we are still stuck with questions and no way to answer them. I will concede not everyone has questions, but I still do.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
My personal "wild theory" on why there is no sound of explosions on the broadcast video yet can be heard on truly independant videos is this: The people who were tampering with the video and pasting in images of airplanes also had a new advanced device I like to call a "volume control". When the damning explosions occurrred on cue, the video manipulators slid this "volume control " down, magically making the sound disappear from the broadcast video.

I know the "debunkers" will be all over me saying that such advanced technology does not exist, but I am sticking to this "wild theory" of mine.


I think my theory must be pretty solid. No vicious attacks from the deniers yet.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
 


What I have seen many CT's do is to go a step beyond and declare that there was not explosive charges used at all.

Now you hear things like DEW, small nuclear or hydrogen bombs or such things.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by eyewitness86We see the Hutchinson Effect all over the Towers.There is no other answer, other than DEW.
No other scenario answers all the events seen. No other way accounts for the dustificvation of the Towers. It is a fact that DEW was used.


eyewitness86 if you are still following the thread I was hoping you would elaborate on this some.


Originally posted by ItsHumanNatureI think my theory must be pretty solid. No vicious attacks from the deniers yet.


Attacking you would not prove anything either. We cannot disprove what you said, but there is not much need to make things so difficult all the time.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Attacking you would not prove anything either. We cannot disprove what you said, but there is not much need to make things so difficult all the time.


Good reply, real zinger. Those darn honest questions and hard to disprove theories must really make things difficult for you. Would you like me to make an attempt to do exactly as you desire in the future, and simply parrot what I am heard and endlessly repeat the same "arguments". ?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
There are bogus videos circulating based on the Rick Siegel one. Truthers
inserted faked sounds of explosions into the video - one problem is
that sounds of explosion are simultaneous with building crumbling. Siegel
was filming from Hoboken NJ, about 2 miles from WTC. Sound would
have taken 10 seconds to reach him.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


Nah, we dont belittle it, we actually go to find the FULL quote or the FULL interview with the firemen to see exactly what they did say, rather than rely on selective editing done by a conspiracy theorist.


Don't keep us in suspense, Foxy, what did you find out in relation to the quotes I made?



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


Hey now, why do you have to come at me like that? I was not trying to give you a "zinger". I have not said anything negative to you at all. Even when you posted it originally, I said people have said more outlandish things. I never tried to tell you your wrong. If you are looking for an argument your not going to get one from me. I believe this to be the case as you are asking people to "viciously attack you" so you can fight with them. If this is not the case then forgive me. But no need to attack me. Especially when your own "Wild Theory" uses the word Magically in it. Lol Im sorry Im done, I just thought that was really inappropriate of you.

Actually, are you even reading my posts? I think you should go back and try that. You are waaaay off. Try going 2 posts up for me, as you can see I have not denied or believed anything yet. I am trying to find answers.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by sputniksteve]

[edit on 2-2-2008 by sputniksteve]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
There are bogus videos circulating based on the Rick Siegel one. Truthers
inserted faked sounds of explosions into the video - one problem is
that sounds of explosion are simultaneous with building crumbling. Siegel
was filming from Hoboken NJ, about 2 miles from WTC. Sound would
have taken 10 seconds to reach him.


It sounds like you are actually referring to the part of ricks video where they indeed adjusted the timing of the sound for the distance to Hoboken where he filmed.This lines up the sound and sight. They go into great detail about exactly how and why they did this.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


Actually there is a genuine controversy about this. I think it was in the 911 Mysteries video where the makers took some of Siegel's footage and used another soundtrack. This has been fought over thoroughly as well in another thread.

My own view is that I didn't take it seriously because the segment in the 911 Mysteries was just an atmospheric sequence and they weren't, at that point, making any serious points about sound or anything. It was just a video segué.

Siegel took umbrage at it though. I could see his point because after all the whole point of his video is the soundtrack. He felt they were taking too many liberties with what is something of a sacred document.

Fair enough, but I think some of the Bushwhacking ghouls were happy to see dissension among the truthers.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


The clip used in Mysteries is indeed taken from Siegals video. I have them both.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 

Yeah, that is right. People who love a good poisonous argument can use the search function and read through the thread where this was all gone over.

One thing that we don't have out in the public arena, but which I bet exists somewhere is a 'night vision" video of the collapses. That's the sort of thing that could settle a lot of arguments. Presumably all the detonations would show up as a pattern of thermal bursts on the video.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 



Sure. Just go to Judy Wood's site, which is linked from many threads and posts here on ATS, and see the video that shows the Hitchinson effect. The effect seems to rip molecules apart at higher levels of energy, and causes anything to levitate: Water in a glass will jump out, metal objects and plastic as well flip around; buring appears exactly as it does on the Towers.

All the the effects seen on the Towers are explained by the effects of DEW. The toasted cars that are burned in some spots and perfect in others, some flipped over and some not, exactly like the Hutchinson effect. The level of power applied causes various enigmatic activity, most of it duplicating the Towers effects exactly. Look at the site and the evidence and see if ANY other method could account for all that is seen.

ONLY DEW could make the Towers jump up into the air and explode upwards as seen in the videos. The plumes of dust and debris are blowing upwards and outwards and turing to dust right in front of us. The only fact that makes the perps continue to get the average Joe to not consider it all is that ' airplanes hit the Towers ' , and the average Joe will accept the lie that because two ' planes ' supposedly hit the Towers, they of course would fall.

That myth is all that holds the flimsy lies together, people will believe the easiest and least challenging thing they can. For safety and comforts sake. No building collapse in all of historyhad the effects seen: Total pulverization of concrete and many other elements, violent expulsions upward and far outward, the massive core turning to dust just like the rest: ONLY DEW can do that. Only DEW.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


There is no sound on movie film, well 9/11 footage anyway, the
audio is put in later.

There is sound on as a reported is right by a collapse.
Then every one was told to go away.

Then the FDNY on the phone by WTC 7 bombs going off was the
only other bomb recordings.


We can't say who did this because they make the laws.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by eyewitness86
 


Hmm. Hutchison effect is so unique though, leaving the metals and other stuff broken with such strange patterns and forms or superimposed into each other. I wonder if there is evidence of these types of damage. These are my firsts thoughts at least. I will check out the web page for the person you mentioned.

[edit on 2-2-2008 by sputniksteve]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


There is no sound on movie film, well 9/11 footage anyway, the
audio is put in later.


Are you talking about all 9/11 video footage? That is certainly not true. The whole point of Siegel's 911 Eyewitness is the audio track.

I think the only footage where audio is not a factor are the chopper news shots and some of the extreme long shots. Granted, there are a lot of these, but there is a lot of audio on video as well.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


Funny, the founder of AE 4911 Truth posted a video of a controlled demolition and edited out the explosions. I started a thread about it a couple months ago.. Many saw this and since then had withdrawn that video.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 

Hello again steve, how are you? I wasnt attacking you, I was replying. I dont know how to make this any simpler.



posted on Feb, 4 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
My view is:

We all know buildings don't fall down symmetrically from asymmetrical damage/fires/failures. So, why does it matter if some say explosions were heard and some don't? We all know there had to be some other type of help.

If you don't, then I suggest a few classes in physics, statics, dynamics, structural analysis and structural design. Then come back here and tell me what you think. Period.

Edit: I forgot. Strength of materials might help also.

[edit on 2/5/2008 by Griff]




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join