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.

 

National GeographiK wades in on 911...

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You are splitting hairs mighty thinly here. Any explosions that only could be heard by the people standing right next to them are by definition "quiet explosions". In the real world, any explosions that would constitute actual controlled demolitions would have been heard all the way across the river to New Jersey.


First, people did hear explosions blocks away from the towers, before either of them collapsed, but especially as they collapsed. The sound of either "collapse" was so incomprehensibly loud that people in Brooklyn said they could hear it. Minor earthquakes were caused by the collapses that could be felt much further away. Reporters thought that the ground underneath them was going to explode, that something was blowing up under them.

This wasn't some "select group," it was everybody within miles of the area that experienced these things.

You can look at any number of YouTube videos of the collapses from inside the buildings, or just outside them, and hear continuous "rumbles" (not "crashes" but low-frequency explosion-type sounds -- falling debris is NOT a low-frequency sound!! it is NOISE by definition -- across ALL frequencies!!) and deep "booom" sounds.




posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
First, people did hear explosions blocks away from the towers, before either of them collapsed, but especially as they collapsed. The sound of either "collapse" was so incomprehensibly loud that people in Brooklyn said they could hear it. Minor earthquakes were caused by the collapses that could be felt much further away. Reporters thought that the ground underneath them was going to explode, that something was blowing up under them.


(Sigh) okay, once again...yes, eyewitnesses in the area heard explosions. Firefighters heard explosions, reporters heard explosions, the people in the buidings heard explosions, even we sitting at home watching the news coverage heard the explosions, so yes, there were explosions. We know there were fires burning in the building and we know the buidings were full of flammable items that would blow up when exposed to fire, such as electrical transformers and fire extinguishers. The explosions we heard were almost certainly have been those things becuase they definitely would have blown up, the longer the fires burned.

Frankly, what I want to know is, who the heck is refuting that anyone heard explosions to begin with? Supposedly it was Popular Mechanics, so I asked which report they made this claim in, as I can't believe PM would say such a thing, but so far, the silence has been deafening. I'm starting to suspect *that* is just more rubbish being put out by those damned fool conspiracy web sites, too.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
First, people did hear explosions blocks away from the towers, before either of them collapsed, but especially as they collapsed. The sound of either "collapse" was so incomprehensibly loud that people in Brooklyn said they could hear it. Minor earthquakes were caused by the collapses that could be felt much further away. Reporters thought that the ground underneath them was going to explode, that something was blowing up under them.


Of course there would be noise and vibration. Millions of tons of building just fell.

Think that those "earthquakes" might have had an effect on Building 7?

Consider this. Sound and vibration travels faster through solids (the ground and water) than through air. Every major sound or vibration may have been felt or heard twice. Once through the ground and then the air. Depending on a person's location they could have been several seconds apart.



You can look at any number of YouTube videos of the collapses from inside the buildings, or just outside them, and hear continuous "rumbles" (not "crashes" but low-frequency explosion-type sounds -- falling debris is NOT a low-frequency sound!! it is NOISE by definition -- across ALL frequencies!!) and deep "booom" sounds.


You kind of contradict yourself there. If it is across all frequencies that would include low frequencies. The audible spectrum is considered low frequency.

High explosives make high frequency sounds. If all you are hearing is rumbles it isn't high explosives. If you ever get the chance go to a strip mine when thhey are blasting. You get a series of high frequency "cracks" with each blast. When you are watching a show on TV you don't hear the crack because the recording equipment is isolated from that noise to prev ent damage to the equipment.



[edit on 1-11-2009 by JIMC5499]

[edit on 1-11-2009 by JIMC5499]

[edit on 1-11-2009 by JIMC5499]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Think that those "earthquakes" might have had an effect on Building 7?


Let's get the opinion of Dr. Kim who studied the "earthquakes":

www.ldeo.columbia.edu... (I typed the pertinent quote so you really don't need to open the pdf)

"The North Tower collapse was the largest seismic source and had local magnitude ML 2.3. From this we infer that ground shaking of the WTC towers was not a major contributor to the collapse or damage to surrounding buildings, but unfortunately we also conclude that from the distance at which our own detections were made (the nearest station is 34 km away at Palisades, N.Y.) it is not possible to infer (with detail sufficient to meet the demands of civil engineers in an emergency situation) just what the near-in ground motions must have been."

Since WTC7 was a "surrounding building" I would guess the effects were "not ... major."




top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join