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.

 

What is that sound coming from the WTC?

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
i believe it was taken down with explosives. reason being, cost of replacing espestos (spellin..?).
and the reason for the attack, well, kill a few birds with one stone.
if you were going to legitimately take it down, you woulda needed to close wallstreet for days, weeks.
so many permits and legal costs. no, not going to happen.
take it down in a terrorist attack, and you saved a lot of money, plus you make money on insurance, plus your agenda has what it needs to go forward.

it is that obvious people.




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   



9/11 WTC nuclear demolition & the Soviet missile in the Pentagon. Dimitri Khalezov, a former officer of the Soviet nuclear intelligence, explains true mechanics of pulverisations of the Twin Towers & the WTC-7, as well as existence of a secret nuclear demolition scheme of the World Trade Center in New York & of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Practically no question is left of the 9/11 mystery. For more details visit www.nuclear-demolition.com



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Saytan75
 


I got ya covered my friend.


For future reference Just be sure to use the underlined part after the (/watch?v=) FOGI33HsiCc

so when you want to add a video, just use the [ yvid ] then the video's number and letters after the (v=) and then close it out with [ /yvid ]

[edit on 5/23/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
If the floors collapsed in a pancake fashion, why was there not a stack of concrete floors extending 40 or 50 stories high afterward?

Why didn't the 110-story steel support columns designed to support 10 times the weight of the buildings survive in some recognizable state?

If building 7 collapsed due to fire, why are we still allowed to use coffee pots, hot plates, microwave ovens, or even light a cigarette (in designated areas) inside a high-rise building? It seems to me there should be all sorts of restrictions to prevent fires that would most assuredly bring down the building.

How gullible are We the People? We'll accept anything they tell us. We're building a windmill for the pigs and we're happy as clams.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
"Sounds like explosion sounds have been added in the OP's clip."

Or maybe...explosion sounds were deleted from the older clip. Without proper sound analysis of the tape, it is impossible to tell. The sword cuts both ways.

But then again, why should anyone go through the trouble of analyzing key sound and video evidence when we all know the massive devastation that 19 box cutter wielding cavemen who could not fly a Cessna are capable of inflicting?



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Private video from YouTube. Sorry about that.



Dimitri Khalezov

www.disclose.tv...



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
"If the floors collapsed in a pancake fashion, why was there not a stack of concrete floors extending 40 or 50 stories high afterward?"

Because the concrete floors did not collapse in a pancake fashion and were pulverized to dust instead. You know...a lot easier to sweep up some dust than clean up and remove stacks of heavy concrete floors.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
It amazes me that there are still people who think that it was bin-laden and his 'friends' who did this thing on 911-2001.

The other day I asked a friend who is an architect and projectleader for more than 20 years what his thought are about the collaps of the WTC. He answered me that it was caused by floors dropping onto one another.

I am not an architect and with the evidence around you do not need to be an architect to know that something else is going on here.

After almost 10 years there is not much new evidence or indications to be found that points into the direction of a conspiracy other than the bin-laden theory.

It is time to think about who is behind it and I hope it will not take an other ten years to figure that one out.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
The image resolution quality of the first video (with the exploding sounds) is quite better than the second video (without the exploding sounds). Pause both videos at the same point (as soon as they begin) and have a look at the clarity of the 35 MPH sign located on the left top in the background.

What does this mean? If the audio was not tampered with on either video, the first video would have better and more accurate sound, since it obviously not compressed as much as the second video.

Question: where is the original non-compressed video? Oh yeah, l know, the same place where the Pentagon videos are located...nowhere to be found.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by linux2216
If the floors collapsed in a pancake fashion, why was there not a stack of concrete floors extending 40 or 50 stories high afterward?


Hmmm ...

110 floors x 4" thick concrete slab per floor = 440" total concrete thickness .

440"/12" = 36.66667' (feet) total concrete thickness .

36.66667 ' / 12 ' height between floors = 3.05556 .

The concrete , undamaged , would reach a heighth of 36.6 feet , if each floor were stacked on top of one another .

The height , from floor to ceiling was 12 foot , if I'm not mistaken .

36.6 feet divided by 12 feet = 3.05 .

So , if all 110 slabs of concrete were stacked on top of each other , the stack would amount to being THREE (3) stories tall .

If we can assume that each concrete slab sustained at least a 50% reduction in thickness , due to the collapse , then that brings the total height down to 18.3 feet tall , for a total height of 1.5 'stories' .

This does not take the thickness of the floor trusses into consideration , only the concrete . I will figure that into the equation , if you wish .

Either way , your 40-50 story pile of concrete is way off the mark .

Is it still so hard to imagine 36 feet of concrete could be crushed and pulverized by the weight of hundreds of thousands of pounds of steel crashing in on it ?



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by theability
 


It is clear , IF you watch the collapse WHILE hearing the 'explosions' , you can clearly see that the 'explosions' are the floors of the tower collapsing onto one another in rapid succession .

What type of sound do you think would be made when numerous 600 ton floors begin falling onto each other in rapid succession ?

Would they make no sound at all ?


Simple logic; 110 stories falling in 9.2 seconds = 11.9 stores per second. Image 12 drum beats in 1 second. At this speed you no longer hear distinct, separate sounds because they are happening too quickly for your ears to process. The sound of the falling floors would be one continuous roar, not a "boom" or "thud" or anything that might be taken for an explosive sound.

I definitely hear a quick series of explosions during the initial phase of the collapse there are 7 or 8 perhaps., getting quicker as they go.

I believe the towers fell too fast to not have had it's infrastucture compromised by forces other than fire and plane impact. Especially to have brought down 3 steel skyscrapers in one day. I mean, the odds people. JeeezzZ! We're still waiting for ONE other skyscraper to come down. It just doesn't happen.


[edit on 23-5-2010 by Asktheanimals]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Before the idea that the OP tampered with the video:

First off I did not post the video on youtube,

Second Then how then could I have done anything to it?


So now let lay to rest that the OP tampered with the video.

[edit spelling]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by theability]



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by theability
 


This question of 'explosions' has been addressed in numerous threads here on ATS already .

It is clear , IF you watch the collapse WHILE hearing the 'explosions' , you can clearly see that the 'explosions' are the floors of the tower collapsing onto one another in rapid succession .

What type of sound do you think would be made when numerous 600 ton floors begin falling onto each other in rapid succession ?

Would they make no sound at all ?

As for the reporter's use of the word 'explosion' , how does that prove it was indeed explosions ?



Are you serious? you are unaware that even the NIST does not try and shove that lie about ' pancaking floors' anymore. At normal gravity, it would take at least a half second for each floor to hit the next one...IF that were possible, but as seen the towers fall in less than 10 seconds, which means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for pancaking to be the excuse.

You also seem to ignore the fact that we see the Towers turn to DUST, not like any collapse ever in history. Concrete does NOt turn to dust from gravity, and people who thinks it does are either sadly uneducated or willfully ignorant.

Your statement is laughable...your facts erroneous, and your assumptions incorrect. You need to start all over and read all the FACTS about this issue and come to the only intelligent conclusion possible:

Controlled demolition is the only answer.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Thanks for the reply even though you disagree with my OP.

Now you say its tampered, which is easy to go over real quickly.


The first video, to a T describes what the fireman are talking about in the third video.

But I know in your argument is tampered so you can dismiss it outright.

Which goes again to the reason why I added the videos together, so when someone brought up exactly what you propose that its tampered with, I'd have WITNESS testimony that supports the sounds heard on the original video. The popping out of the floors is rapid sucession.

Again like the NIST reports easy to deny what you never look for!



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Alfie, seriously, comparing the titanic sinking to the WTC collapse is really not a good analogy.

Seriously.




posted on May, 23 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


Yes 3 stories would be right for your calculations: for only CONCRETE!


Now where is the added height to the pile from the 200,000 TONS of steel, pLus how many thousands of tons of curigated floor panels, aluminun cladding, elevators, office furniture.


ETC ETC ETC. So the pile of debris should be considerably higher than the results we had seen.



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


" The sound of the falling floors would be one continuous roar ..."

Which is exactly what you hear in the video posted by GenRadek .



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


"We're still waiting for ONE other skyscraper to come down. It just doesn't happen. "

Obviously , just a poor choice of words on your part but , you're right , it just doesn't happen .

It just doesn't happen that commercial passenger jets , loaded with fuel , crash into highrises on a regular basis , causing structural damage upon impact and further structural damage from the resultant fires .

I think everyone here can agree with you , on that point .



posted on May, 23 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 


" Your statement is laughable...your facts erroneous, and your assumptions incorrect. You need to start all over and read all the FACTS about this issue and come to the only intelligent conclusion possible: "

"At normal gravity , it would take at least a half second for each floor to hit the next one..."

If your calculations are correct , concerning the 'half second' then it would also take at least a half second for each floor to hit the next one if they were taken out by explosives . And again , if they were taken out by explosives , then the only way they travelled was DOWN . Therefore , they were indeed 'pancaking' in either scenario .

So , if the half-second rule is applied , then it would also hold that "it is IMPOSSIBLE for (explosives) to be the excuse ".

The towers DID NOT turn to DUST . There are thousands of links that have been posted here already that have put that myth to bed a long time ago . Anyone who has seen only a few of the photos of the cleanup operation , would not still be using this for their argument .

It amazes me , the number of posters who present an argument that actually is self-defeating , such as yours .

According to the laws of gravity , your half-second rule would apply with or without explosives , therefore , your half-second rule does not prove the existance of explosives .

Anyone who thinks otherwise is "either sadly uneducated or willfully ignorant "



[edit on 23-5-2010 by okbmd]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by okbmd]



posted on May, 24 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



The towers DID NOT turn to DUST . There are thousands of links that have been posted here already that have put that myth to bed a long time ago . Anyone who has seen only a few of the photos of the cleanup operation , would not still be using this for their argument .


Hmm I have a rebuttal for that one below 27 seconds of a segment:



It amazes me , the number of posters who present an argument that actually is self-defeating , such as yours.


The firemen that stated that cleaned the WTC site for months afterward, I guess your expertise on the state of the WTC tragedy is of more merit?


According to the laws of gravity , your half-second rule would apply with or without explosives , therefore , your half-second rule does not prove the existance of explosives.


Actually it would support the use of explosives, since free fall speeds means that NO RESISTANCE is below the floors above.

Physics toolkit is a wonderful utility to show the motion of objects on video. Which shows that less resistance than Pancake theory as you continue to suggest is false.
I suggest you download it. Oh I bet since your an astute engineer you should know all about it!


Anyone who thinks otherwise is "either sadly uneducated or willfully ignorant."


I leave that part alone... Since the pancake theory was out years ago!



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join