WTC 2 - South Tower Explosions Visible - Extreme Slow Motion

Look at this tape www.youtube.com.... At 0:25-26 seconds you can clearly see something being ejected out from the building much lower then the impact point.

I also see a lot of flashes in the aria around where this debris is being ejected out. But that might just be the quality of the tape.





[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by esdad71
The audio on the video should have reported explosions and the sound of the rumbling is not an explosion. When using a camera to record you usually have a cheap mic built into the camera or if you are a larger production company you may have a boom. That would mean you are using a condenser type mike that will pick up anything. Anything.

Your explanation is nothing but a bunch of vague guesses that seem to be based on absolute zero knowledge of the industry we are discussing. Evil Incarnate has addressed the points I have tried to discuss with you about this. Now, are you only going to offer this vague bit of nothing that seems to demonstrate no real knowledge or can you address the points the Evil brought up again?

I am just really interested to know. You are not the only one that makes this claim but the only one that seems to be willing to defend it by skirting it so often.

I am more than willing to hear from anyone that can explain to me why they should expect to hear the explosions they claim never happened because they did not hear them in the youtube video.

Anyone...

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by esdad71
The audio on the video should have reported explosions and the sound of the rumbling is not an explosion. When using a camera to record you usually have a cheap mic built into the camera or if you are a larger production company you may have a boom. That would mean you are using a condenser type mike that will pick up anything. Anything.

Your explanation is nothing but a bunch of vague guesses that seem to be based on absolute zero knowledge of the industry we are discussing. Evil Incarnate has addressed the points I have tried to discuss with you about this. Now, are you only going to offer this vague bit of nothing that seems to demonstrate no real knowledge or can you address the points the Evil brought up again?

I am just really interested to know. You are not the only one that makes this claim but the only one that seems to be willing to defend it by skirting it so often.

I am more than willing to hear from anyone that can explain to me why they should expect to hear the explosions they claim never happened because they did not hear them in the youtube video.

Anyone...

I think you just cannot wrap your head around it or maybe just simply comprehend it. I am not skirting anything. You cannot hear 'explosions' on the tape nor are there explosions in the video that was posted.

You are what is known as an answer shopper in the world of consulting. No matter what you are told, you know a better way. No matter what you are told you think it is not correct because of your own assumptions.

Also, please explain what 'industry' you are addressing because you are now deflecting and running. Are we talking demolition or audio/video editing.

If you take the audio from a video and analyzed with a spectrum to see specific wavelengths and db readings you can pull out of ANY audio Anything you want to find/edit/mix/mute/phase...it can be done.

Also, now you are changing you question. Why should we hear explosions...how about we look at some CD's...

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

This is why we should hear explosions.

reply to post by evil incarnate



This is not a class on introduction to recording 101. Go to Full Sail. I am trying to show that there is a difference between a hand held device with a mike and a separate device that records video and you record the audio with separate mics or in the case of live sound you use the board mix.

If the videos were taken with a hand held, an explosions would easily register on it. It would be a loud, distorted BANG or BOOM. This is because the small mic cannot handle the frequencies or the db thrown at it.

I gave a list of what I use for my laptop and/or mobile recording/mixdown.

Now, why does a person not let someone else use their mic? well, it is usually compressed for that individual.. just like a lead singer or newscaster. You know how far they hold the mic during specific notes as well as what to do when they mouth the mic. It is no magic, it is called a compressor or expander. This is why when someone takes a mike from someone else it may become 'hot', feedback or generally sound like crap.

C'mon, if you are asking these questions you do not understand recording at all.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by sickofitall2012
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Still don't see it. I see debris being forced out by the collapse.
There is an enormous amount of power created by the fall.

If you don't see it, its because you don't want to see it.

The big white flashes of explosives are clearly pointed out in OP video.

If that's not enough for you, then nothing will be enough.



[edit on 1-4-2010 by mnemeth1]

Actually, quite the opposite. You want to see it so it is there. Big white reflections. It will never be enough for you...

Originally posted by esdad71

If the videos were taken with a hand held, an explosions would easily register on it. It would be a loud, distorted BANG or BOOM. This is because the small mic cannot handle the frequencies or the db thrown at it.

I'd love to hear your thoughts about the video regarding the firemen at the phonebooth thread.

To me and others, the guys voices are severely clippid and "fuzzy", due to too much gain on the mic. But the so called explosions are clear as a bell. This can't happen, correct?

Also, there's been some discussion of frequency range recorded during the explosion being different than the other parts, etc.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


I have seen this video and I have 2 things to say.

First, there were explosions in the WTC 7 before it collapsed. There are eyewitnesses who can confirm this. However, why would you set off a charge hours before you were to demo the building?

The video itself, at least the audio track

www.youtube.com...

All I can tell you about the audio track is that at the 5 second mark it sounds like there is a track switch or new track introduced to the video. I am going to try to get a good recording of it and throw it in Audition to see if I can see any 'differences' in the track. To me it does sound way to clear however if you were blocks away in NY it could be a natural filter based on the buildings.

Originally posted by esdad71

I have seen this video and I have 2 things to say.

First, there were explosions in the WTC 7 before it collapsed. There are eyewitnesses who can confirm this.

I have no problem with this statement.

All I can tell you about the audio track is that at the 5 second mark it sounds like there is a track switch or new track introduced to the video. I am going to try to get a good recording of it and throw it in Audition to see if I can see any 'differences' in the track. To me it does sound way to clear however if you were blocks away in NY it could be a natural filter based on the buildings.

That would be great.

Also, it would be interesting to get your take on this analysis of another video.

www.911myths.com...

Originally posted by esdad71

If the videos were taken with a hand held, an explosions would easily register on it. It would be a loud, distorted BANG or BOOM. This is because the small mic cannot handle the frequencies or the db thrown at it.

OK. If that is what you believe. You obviously have no clue how sound is recorded on any video. You cannot even answer simple questions about it. I have given you many things to explain away and all you can say is that if it were a handheld it would register???? Based on what? Please explain why it would. I can explain why it would not.

Look, get over this hearing things in the videos. You have not a clue as to what you are saying. Besides, if you are relying on videos for evidence, then you have to include all the VIDEOS of people talking about EXPLOSIONS that they both saw and heard. You cannot cherry pick, especially when it is based on ignorance.

I am not looking for some personal bicker fest with you. I just know how it works and your empty explanations prove that you do not. That is all beside the point though. Do you really think all the witnesses on video talking about explosions are wrong but you watching a youtube video on your laptop can tell better?

P.S. It does not matter what you are listening to it on. It does not matter what your computer can and cannot do. If it did not record properly, it will not be there. That is yet another demonstration in ignorance. The very fact that you believe you have the technology to hear sounds that were not recorded kind of kills any hope of having a logical conversation with you.

I don't suppose that anyone has considered that the flashes could be electrical junctions shorting out as their support columns colapased? Electric arcs are very very bright and could be visible in broad daylight.

Also, the towers were made of prestessed concrete under a pressure of 3000 psi. When the cables inside the columns snapped, the columns blew themselves apart. The force released by the columns blowing themselves apart would look just like an explosion. No need for explosives under these circumstances.

Surely, anyone who would be involved in a conspiracy to bring the towers down would know about the prestressed columns. What I find funny is how so many conspiracy theorists fail to do their homework and fail to learn anything about the construction of the towers.

Originally posted by lunarminer
I don't suppose that anyone has considered that the flashes could be electrical junctions shorting out as their support columns colapased? Electric arcs are very very bright and could be visible in broad daylight.

Also, the towers were made of prestessed concrete under a pressure of 3000 psi. When the cables inside the columns snapped, the columns blew themselves apart. The force released by the columns blowing themselves apart would look just like an explosion. No need for explosives under these circumstances.

Surely, anyone who would be involved in a conspiracy to bring the towers down would know about the prestressed columns. What I find funny is how so many conspiracy theorists fail to do their homework and fail to learn anything about the construction of the towers.

Hi Lunar, quite a few posters actually think that is what the flashes are...or some kind of electrical stressing. I'm intrigued by these "concrete" columns however. Where were they in the building? There were box steel colums at the core, 54 by 22 inches up to around 60 stories and higher up I presume an I-beam of some, (varying) sizes.

If I was 911 Truther, I would take this Video then Crop it slightly
and remove the last seconds showing the "White Explosion" happening
in Mid-Air miles away from anything. The then Upload as yet another
unseen Video.

People accused me of not replying to their questions, but Nobody
has replied to me to explain how those White bits can be Explosions
so far away from the Tower.

If that white flash in Mid-Air is NOT an Explosion, then all the other
White Flashes are also NOT Explosions. And could assume that all those
other White Flashes at WT7 were also NOT Explosions.

Hi Sketic,
It is quite evident that you do not always reply to a post with a requisite reply. Now you want someone to tell you what the "explosion" you see actually is if, it is in fact an explosion, or if it is something you already know what it is, or are you genuinely mystified as to what it is. But, even then you cannot go on to say that one event equals another unequivocally, there is nowt so simple.

reply to post by smurfy


Not mystified at all, I am 99% sure it is glass windows or part thereof.
It could be some other reflective material but mainly the glass thing.

It just defies any logic that an Explosion would just happen in mid-air
so far away from the Tower.

If you Illiminate the Impossible all you are left with is the Plausible.

OMG, I made a serious misquote, it should be

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

reply to post by skeptic_al
What do you think this smoky image is then, a window?

www.youtube.com...

Now, get your head round this new video from David Chandler on WTC7, and more NIST omissions, (truth bending) at the end is a reminder of former "establishment man" Dan Rather's words,

www.youtube.com...

There is no compulsion on you to watch either video, but it is a good idea to do so.

reply to post by smurfy


I watched the Vids

The first one, is just the same old same old with different narration

For this conclusion, it is basically ignoring any Increasing Air Pressuse
inside the Building from the falling material above. And A Floor Falling
will not cause material to ejected due to Air Pressure faster than
free Fall. The Logic is bit perplexed that objects can be ejected by
explosives but not by Air Pressure due to the Falling Material.

The 2nd vid, once again wt7 may or may be explosives and is not the
Initial attack. And still doesn't explain the Towers. Nor how you wire
a building for Demolition in Stealth Mode. Not even Superman could
do that Lois.

And still haven't explained how the White Flashes happened in Mid-Air
so far awy from the Building

Originally posted by evil incarnate

Originally posted by esdad71

If the videos were taken with a hand held, an explosions would easily register on it. It would be a loud, distorted BANG or BOOM. This is because the small mic cannot handle the frequencies or the db thrown at it.

OK. If that is what you believe. You obviously have no clue how sound is recorded on any video. You cannot even answer simple questions about it. I have given you many things to explain away and all you can say is that if it were a handheld it would register???? Based on what? Please explain why it would. I can explain why it would not.

Look, get over this hearing things in the videos. You have not a clue as to what you are saying. Besides, if you are relying on videos for evidence, then you have to include all the VIDEOS of people talking about EXPLOSIONS that they both saw and heard. You cannot cherry pick, especially when it is based on ignorance.

I am not looking for some personal bicker fest with you. I just know how it works and your empty explanations prove that you do not. That is all beside the point though. Do you really think all the witnesses on video talking about explosions are wrong but you watching a youtube video on your laptop can tell better?

P.S. It does not matter what you are listening to it on. It does not matter what your computer can and cannot do. If it did not record properly, it will not be there. That is yet another demonstration in ignorance. The very fact that you believe you have the technology to hear sounds that were not recorded kind of kills any hope of having a logical conversation with you.

Hold on here.

1. When did I say that I have technology to hear things that are not there? I never said that. I think you may have perceived what I posted as that. However, as stated in the post your quoted, if there was an explosion it would register on a hand held camera of the type that would have been used that day. Did you own a camcorder in 2001? Do you know what the technology was like? It sucked. If something was to loud it would distort the sound. Even wind can cause distorting in a hand held camera.

I am also not going to get over sounds on video either. I am referring in this thread to ONE video right now and it is the now infamous firefighters at the phone booth.

Also, this is not a bickering contest as I know what I am talking about but So Please explain to me why an explosion would not appear as audio in a hand held video? If you are in this industry or know something about it post it as I would welcome what your thoughts are.

Originally posted by esdad71

I am also not going to get over sounds on video either. I am referring in this thread to ONE video right now and it is the now infamous firefighters at the phone booth.

Then please feel free to share with us what recording equipment was used in the video we are discussing in the OP. In order to capture what you want to hear, it would have been specialized so it would be easy to identify by name and model number.

Any time you are ready.

Also, this is not a bickering contest as I know what I am talking about but So Please explain to me why an explosion would not appear as audio in a hand held video? If you are in this industry or know something about it post it as I would welcome what your thoughts are.

I am not in the industry and I have already explained to you myself why this would be the case. What you did was ignore it and then offer a lot of guesses. Now two people have explained this to you. You are just ignoring it over and over again.

Unless you can tell us what equipment was used to pick up and record the sound in the OP video, no you do not know what you are talking about because you are just guessing.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by esdad71
Also, this is not a bickering contest as I know what I am talking about but So Please explain to me why an explosion would not appear as audio in a hand held video? If you are in this industry or know something about it post it as I would welcome what your thoughts are.

Let's make this simple. If you know what you are talking about, let's hear it. I am simply stating that there is no good reason for you to be able to discern any loud explosions in the video due to the characteristics of how sound is recorded. You are saying I am wrong. You have offered nothing in the way of explanation. There would indeed be specific equipment in use, do you know what it was?

Can you tell me something?

Successive bursts cause dropout, can you explain why?

Ambient sound distorts pickup, can you explain why?

Unidirectional microphones have a direct and limited line of pickup, omni directional microphones suffer from a lack of pickup altogether, can you explain why?

If you do not want to bicker about something, accept the fact that you do not know everything, can be wrong, and really have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to this. You could always answer my questions and prove me wrong though, but since I am right, I doubt it.

Just show us your knowledge or give up with some indignant and dismissive post about how you do not need to get into this anymore or something.