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.

 

Wow, cant believe what in hearing

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff


It must be that I'm def because I can't hear it. Saying that you can hear it doesn't make it the truth. I can NOT hear any part of a 47 storey building falling in that video or any other video of WTC 7 falling. Like I said, I might be missing something, but you have not produced it.



you can't hear explosions because there are none. i can hear the rumble of the building, but i have a subwoofer, maybe that is your problem, it's in the lower frequencies.

and did you have anything with explosive sounds that you would like to share?




posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I agree with Griff - building 7 is rather "quiet".

I thought the documentary was well done, considering. There were a few points where it got a bit questionable as to what was coming next, but on the whole, not a bad effort!

I didn't think Dylan did too bad - until he started swearing. I thought the part where he produced the interview with the witness from WTC7 was very good - the guy clearly either was mistaken in what he remembered, or he'd since been asked to keep quiet. Either way, Dylan had the proof that he didn't twist the story, and it's irrefutable.


Some of the guys backing a WTC7 demolition had some serious credentials. They also raised some excellent points, including the point about the building codes etc.. - it's always the details!

Overall, some excellent points were raised, and definitely left room for some serious questions I think.



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I agree with Griff - building 7 is rather "quiet".



i agree too. but i can hear it, and they can hear it, that's how they knew it was falling. but NO explosions, which are MUCH louder than the building falling. unless you hear explosions, do you?

"what we have been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened"

bottom line is do you guys think this video was far enough away that we wouldn't hear explosions on it? that CD video is a few block away too and you can hear the explosions loud and clear and the building falling is barely audible.





[edit on 6-7-2008 by fastfingersfunk]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Call me "desperate" if you like, but the *way* the building was demolished is one of the points being looked at. 9/11 was no ordinary day, and the methods were world firsts (let's not lose sight of that).

No less then 5 world firsts occurred that day:

* Terrorists use aircraft as weapons against building
* Passengers attempt to take back an aircraft
* 50% of the aircraft involved never had their "black boxes" recovered despite the crash locations being known
* not 1, not 2, but 3 buildings collapsed, allegedly due to "fire"
* WTC 1 and 2 collapse in extremely similar ways (T) but with a catch

T = The second building to be hit, collapsed first (after just FIFTY SEVEN MINUTES).

If the WTC was NOT demolished, and the official story is correct, don't you feel just a little bit unnerved about all these high-rise buildings?

As the architect in the film highlighted - our building codes are so wrong, it's scary (if it's true), yet given this earth-shattering news, what exactly has been done to seriously investigate what is probably the greatest single flaw of the design of thousands of buildings world-wide in history? NOTHING.

Either they don't want to know, or things aren't as they're telling us they are (hence why no action is being taken, because there isn't a problem).

[edit on 6-7-2008 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
i agree too. but i can hear it, and they can hear it, that's how they knew it was falling. but NO explosions, which are MUCH louder than the building falling. unless you hear explosions, do you?


It must be because I have crappy speakers. No subwoofer or anything. I'll take your word for it that you can hear it.

Course, I haven't been a fan of the HE demolition theory in a while anyway thanks to Damocles.

My persistance was because I couldn't hear the building fall and really haven't on any video yet.


bottom line is do you guys think this video was far enough away that we wouldn't hear explosions on it? that CD video is a few block away too and you can hear the explosions loud and clear and the building falling is barely audible.


I agree that we would hear HE explosions if they were present. I'm more partial to thermobarics in the basements or something along those lines. And as I've discussed before, I don't think it was an "inside job". We got caught with our pants down big time and they don't want to tell us how bad it was. Or my other theory that Israel had something to do with it.

Although what WTC 7 housed, makes me suspicious also.

[edit on 7/6/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jul, 6 2008 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I remember reading something on this very website about some fireman or a policeman who was caught inside WTC7 and got caught up in several explosions that ripped out the stairwell, trapping him upstairs.

He also mentioned stepping over dead bodies BEFORE the explosions.

Cany anybody help me find that link please?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Of course it was the government who did it.

Question is... who's this "government" we're talking about? The puppets?
Where there's a puppet, there's a hidden hand.

Why don't you ask the Rockafellers or the Rothschilds, or the spawn thereof?

It's great that people trust the government so much, when they haven't even worked out a truce with their friends and neighbors yet.

Those who don't see are blind. Those who don't want to wake up are deep in slumber. Only a noise louder than the human voice can wake them.

Dare I say only the voice of God can wake a sleeper? Dare.

fastfingers is afraid. I can tell by his frantic postings that he is afraid of the truth, and desperately trying to save his paradigm from shifting.
fear not! Embrace change, dear Funk.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
... The Manhattan project consisted of an entire town of people where the conspiracy didn't leak.


Not to be a jerk or argumentative, but if the Manhattan project didn't leak out, why are we talking about it? Maybe because of survivors of it? Maybe other reasons, but any good secret is kept, REGARDLESS of what the outcome was. Where is Jimmy Hoffa. Those guys knew how to keep secrets. Anyhow, like I said, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just wanted to mention this as you were pointing out the other person's faulty logic. By the way, I agree the government is MORE than capable of pulling off a 9/11. Despite what the government shows as inadequacy or incompetence, those behind the scenes are freakin' geniuses! The government has some of the world's best minds working for them, too bad they are getting a little carried away these last few decades. After WWII, there was a chance to make America a great country for centuries, but as you can see, they couldn't, or didn't want to keep it solid for all that long. 60+ years later, here we are full of corruption at ALL levels of the government and all levels of corporations. Glad the BBC is covering this. Others will to save their butts and that's one nice thing about the US. When push comes to shove, we do what we can to save our own hides, and this is what will hopefully lead us to the truth...

JPT

[edit on 7-7-2008 by justpassingthrough]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Two major points in that documentary stand out that nobody here has mentioned.

1. The building was not only fire damaged. From what I saw in the docu, one side of the building was torn to shreds from the falling debris of the WTC tower. So when conspiracy theorists keep pulling "No steel framed building in history has ever collapsed from fire alone" out of their backsides, it's obvious that this does not apply to building 7 because it had sustained major structural damage before the fires started!

2. Did nobody else see what it takes to carry out a controlled demolition? For a building that size not only would there be OBVIOUS foreign objects (explosives of some sort) attached to most load bearing columns but also hundreds of meters of detonation cord connecting them all so they could fire in sequence (controlled demolition). I am trained in demolitions and explosives to a degree and this amount of preparation would have taken months I imagine. How could all this have gone unnoticed?

I admit the way the building comes down is strange and almost unnatural but then again I haven't seen a whole lot of other buildings that have been smashed apart from other falling buildings, then ravaged by fire to compare to.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by RE2505
Two major points in that documentary stand out that nobody here has mentioned.

1. The building was not only fire damaged. From what I saw in the docu, one side of the building was torn to shreds from the falling debris of the WTC tower. So when conspiracy theorists keep pulling "No steel framed building in history has ever collapsed from fire alone" out of their backsides, it's obvious that this does not apply to building 7 because it had sustained major structural damage before the fires started!

2. Did nobody else see what it takes to carry out a controlled demolition? For a building that size not only would there be OBVIOUS foreign objects (explosives of some sort) attached to most load bearing columns but also hundreds of meters of detonation cord connecting them all so they could fire in sequence (controlled demolition). I am trained in demolitions and explosives to a degree and this amount of preparation would have taken months I imagine. How could all this have gone unnoticed?

I admit the way the building comes down is strange and almost unnatural but then again I haven't seen a whole lot of other buildings that have been smashed apart from other falling buildings, then ravaged by fire to compare to.


You bring up great points, but as you said, WTC7 came down in a strange way. I have watched the video many times and though I personally don't see any explosions, that building, to me, does not look like in ANY way, shape or form came down on it's own. I'm not an engineer, nor anything related to this, but I know what my eyes see. Here's a point that I haven't seen the ones who believe the building came down on its own talk about....I have watched a few videos of failed, controlled building demolitions. This, to me is more or less what WTC7 should have looked like. They say, to bring a building down, things must be timed very well, explosives must be placed carefully, etc... If it takes this much to make a building fall correctly in it's own footprint, did we have a freak even occur with WTC7 in which EVERY SINGLE exact thing happened right to make it fall so nicely into it's own footprint. it also fell pretty evenly. It falls too perfect to be an accident in my opinion. The towers fell pretty right too, but I will give the jets and jet fuel benefit of the doubt of making them collapse and collapse evenly since MAYBE the center burned pretty evenly to make a halfway stable fall. WTC 1 & 2 is still very questionable, but you can almost dismiss it saying the jets caused this. WTC 7 just doesn't have enough happen to it. Yes, there was supposed extensive fire and structural damage, but I've never seen enough myself to convince me that this is the truth.

JPT

[edit on 7-7-2008 by justpassingthrough]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   
O... you must mnea explosions like this...



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 04:01 AM
link   
O... you must mnea explosions like this...



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


I have a good sound system hooked onto my pc and I can guarantee you that there is no sound of a falling building in that video, whatsoever. The only low noise I hear are some "cracks", well after the building collapses

The fact that the interviewer suddenly turns towards the collapsing building, indicates that the sound was well audible from where they were standing, and it should have registered on camera.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by fastfingersfunk
 


How do you explain the countdown heard on police CB's?

How do you explain the BBC reporting 7's collapse more than 20 min. prior?

How do you explain the molten metal foundary under 7, , which was explained away under 1 and 2 as the jet fuel burning so intensly, but oops, no jet fuel in 7, and the one medium sides diesel tank is not gonna produce those heat signatures.

How do you explain the 5-7 huge booms (caught on video, and audio, remember the video of the 3 fireman useing the payphone, then BOOM...that came from 7)and dozens of witnesses report hearing?

I don't understand you Official story guys, you believe every witness at the pentagon, but discount all the building 7 witnesses, who report hearing explosions in 7 before either of the two twin towers were even hit by a plane.

All of your footage showing 7's collapse is taken from over 5 blocks away, it's my understanding they moved everyone back 6 blocks and more, not to mention the videos only show the collapse of 7, not the unconventional way it was brought down.

There's more than one way to bring down a building. I'm sure if you cant gut it and rip it or fly planes into it. So stop with the "I don't SEE any explosions, while the building is falling". You don't see explosions inside a building that hasn't been gutted and prepped for demo , you hear them. Also the way they did 7, you wouldn't hear them as the building fell, you'd hear them before that, because after all these explosions are what caused the building to fall. Yes there is seismyc data, and sound data of more xplosions and earthquake like tremors, than the 2 crashes, and the falling towers call account for.

5-7 well places, LARGE explosive devices can and will do the same job. But it happened minutes before collapse, which your not gonna hear when watching the building collapse.

It confuses me that people thing there is only ONE single way to bring down a high rise in a controlled fashion. You HAVE to remember that 7 was not the office buildings the towers was, it was mainly government ONLY. So it was alot easier for them to place these charges, and bring down this building in a way most Demo companies wouldn't.

Remember you are not supposed to know how these building came down, it's why it's called a cover up. It's not gonna be done like, or look like every CD you've seen before in your life.

Don't you find it odd that 7 is the only modern day steel framed high rise that collapsed solely due to fire, on 9/11 no less? Coincidence....I think not. Alot of money to be made, and a pre text for war is what was the plan.

You need to do more reading, and research into this, cause one video from 6-8 blocks away only showing the building collapsing again is not gonna pick up the big explosions used many minutes before hand, that led to 7's collapse.

Since all cameras were looking at the two largest buildings in the US being hit by passenger jets, no cameras were pointed at a building MANY people never knew existed. But audio analysis clearly shows numerous explosions before and after jet impacts, and 1 and 2 collapsing, some on the scale of small earthquakes.

and no I'm not gonna dig up files that you as an american should have already studied in the past 7 years since this has happened.

Videos of older/newer, smaller/taller, skinny/wide steel frame high rises all shapes and sizes, you name it , all burning hotter and longer than 7 and NONE fell(well none also had a series of huge explosions go off inside them either). High rises burning like a towering inferno for 18,14,12 hours and on and on, and all these building did not fail to these fires which put the somewhat small scale fires in 7 to shame.

It's up to you, whether you want to know. Maybe you don't *shrugs*. I know I sometimes wish I hadn't spent so many hours finding out about all the lies we wee fed on 9/11, and I know I have lost many hours sleep, and sometimes wish I was just a pro government guy. I bet you sleep a hell of alot better than I.







[edit on 7-7-2008 by Nola213]



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   
In that case then, is the video tampered with?

As many of the architects and engineers on the program said: it looks too much like a demolition for it not to be.

Personallym I'd expect it to fall to one side (towards the damaged side). If you look at the way the corners fall so squarely and cleanly, ALL THE WAY DOWN, it didn't fail lop-sided and then fall over to one side.

Again, as the engineers and architects said - it would require every column (even on the undamaged sides) to fail simultaneously to do what WTC7 did, and that fire alone could not do this. I agree with that statement.

There are some things you just don't need to be an expert in to see what is really going on. The fundamental principle of science is observation, then figuring out how it works. To me, the observation more closely matches a CD than a natural collapse, based on the physics I know.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:37 AM
link   
Here's a link to the video. Not sure if it is restricted to UK viewers only or not. www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chriswok
Well that kids response to Richard Clarke was pretty mature...


Wasn't it just haha


The problem i'm starting to have with this conspiracy is that everyone who disagrees with the conspiracy theory just gets yelled at and told they're in on the whole thing too.

Tbh the BBC didn't agree it was demolition at all, they started off like that but the more and more the documentary went on they went towards 'the fired was enough to make it collapse angle'.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:38 AM
link   
heres a link to the documentary....not sure if you can view this outside the UK...

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   
whoops - sorry - didnt see the above post.....



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by RE2505
2. Did nobody else see what it takes to carry out a controlled demolition? For a building that size not only would there be OBVIOUS foreign objects (explosives of some sort) attached to most load bearing columns but also hundreds of meters of detonation cord connecting them all so they could fire in sequence (controlled demolition). I am trained in demolitions and explosives to a degree and this amount of preparation would have taken months I imagine. How could all this have gone unnoticed?

I admit the way the building comes down is strange and almost unnatural but then again I haven't seen a whole lot of other buildings that have been smashed apart from other falling buildings, then ravaged by fire to compare to.


Exactly! the more i watched it, i realised just how hard it would be to rig the building for explosives. Someone would of seen something somewhere.

I mean just how many peopl are apparently in on this conspiracy, it would have to be thousands!

Also like the fireman said on the documentary "you always get these conspiracy guys from Conneticut or California saying it was a conspiracy but everyone that was next to that building on Sept 11th, could see it was going to come down any minute."




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join