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.

 

An Analysis of the WTC on 9/11 . . .

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
The CORE COLUMNS were connected by HORIZONTAL BEAMS

Not just horizontally. The core columns were connected horizontally, vertically, and in some places diagonally. The cores were fortresses and nearly indestructible.



Any photos to show what you claim about core columns!




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Uhhh......BoneZ? If that's supposed to be an explosion, why is it only in one spot on the building?

There were dozens of ejections in both collapses. Some of those ejections even happened some 60-floors below the collapse wave.


Great. Dozens where hundreds would have been required to do what you claim. And 60 floors below, eh? That's some expert controlled demolition.



Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
How does the crash of a 20-odd ton plane make a recordable noise and the multiple 'explosions' necessary to bring a huge office building not?

There were explosives that were detonated with the timing of the plane impact.




Right. Always with the amazing precision and accuracy except for the proverbial Achilles Heel spotted by 'truthers'. Straight out of a 2-star action flick script


Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Consider yourself called. Prove your assertion or retract it.

I don't have to retract it because the witness testimony proves all we need to know.


Interesting that you love video technology except when it debunks a point you're wedded to. Then things are faked up.

And just to reiterate the point I made (which you ever so nicely snipped out)

"Hate to break it to you but the microphones on even the most basic camcorder have quite sufficient frequency response to pick up any such sounds if they were there to be recorded. And just so you don't try to move the goalposts, the recording formats are likewise up to the task.

You're pulling an unsupportable assertion out your back passage hoping nobody'll call you on it."


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Suffice it to say, a simple Google search will tell you all you need to know about microphones, video recording, and how certain microphones are better than others when it comes to frequency response.


Don't try to teach Granny how to suck eggs, son. I've been editing broadcast and film productions for 20 years and shooting them for 15 years before that. I don't need to Google to tell me that if there were explosions to be heard, even the cheapest consumer camcorder and format would've reproduced them well enough for even the most hearing-challenged person to recognise them for what they were. Absolute fidelity is moot in this case.

They weren't heard because they weren't there to BE heard.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Does it not occur to you that the noise is caused by the structural components FAILING or do you really think they would make no noise.

FFS even when bolts fail they they make noise never mind structural steel sections!!!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Does it not occur to you that the noise is caused by the structural components FAILING or do you really think they would make no noise.


I'm pretty sure that it does not. That's why these conversations go around and around and around for years on end.

That and an apparent sincere wish to believe in the unbelievable. I mean, how long have JFK and Moon CTs been around?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Does it not occur to you that the noise is caused by the structural components FAILING...


Perhaps it's time to dust off old "Big Blue" again, to illustrate??



It is a fact that few videos exist, being "right place and time" to capture such unexpected events, (AND their sounds) and thus provide examples. Different than planned CD....this is NO explosives, just the sound of the failing structure, at critical points....form overstress. In that sense, it is reflective of the WTC Towers...



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 




Suffice it to say, a simple Google search will tell you all you need to know about microphones, video recording, and how certain microphones are better than others when it comes to frequency response.


I do have a Bachelor of Information Technology specializing in Multimedia. There are some videos around with the sound of clear, distinct and isolated explosions before the towers fell. There are also other videos around during the collapse of one of the main towers with sound. It is sounds like a volcano with the ongoing rumbling as the building falls. The noise of any explosives would have been masked by the rumble as the building fell from the location the video was taken. Nano thermite is also a sub sonic oxidiser, so no loud band as it burns through. There is still some ongoing investigation as to the actual explosives used and implemented. The nano thermite may have just been one component or used only in selective parts. Its presence is proven. As for the presence of other explosive compounds it is still unknown.

The videos released by NIST have been heavily criticized for making alterations including removal of audio. From what I have seen so far these allegations are justified. I have not made a thorough analysis of all that was released. I have looked into this enough to know the OS is BS. You are presenting a strong argument here BoneZ and I know it ain't easy.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hi weed nice video I have tested smaller things to destruction mainly fixings and small steel components its fun if you dont tell people whats going to happen just to see their faces, its even better if they are standing on scaffold or a hoist and they think its going



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


Well....you may have a Bachelor's in IT.....but, that certainly is NOT a basis for the claims you make here!:


The noise of any explosives would have been masked by the rumble as the building fell from the location the video was taken.


WHAT "explosives"?? Down below, you use that tired old canard "nano thermite"....the one that is "silent", right? Oh, and show any example of CD when the pre-rigged charges are detonating AS the building is collapsing! One, please.



Nano thermite is also a sub sonic oxidiser, so no loud band as it burns through.


Sure. As noted, here is your "silent" enemy....except, a few things wrong there....well, many, actually.


There is still some ongoing investigation as to the actual explosives used and implemented.


Rubbish. Again....NO explosive detonations prior to collapse initiation. Some obvious structural components failing, and THEY made noise...all by the fact of their snapping/breaking, under extreme stress. Again, no explosives required...none seen, none heard. Forgot to mention, BTW....other sounds of "booms" also can easily be attributed to items and components inside the buildings themselves.



The nano thermite may have just been one component or used only in selective parts. Its presence is proven.


"proven"?? NO.....that is just ONE of the many problems alluded to, above. The biggest logical fallacy is the SHEER SIZE of the "job" that would have been needed, to pre-rig those buildings....just think of the man-hours!!!

(And, thermite...even "nano" types.....tend to use gravity assist as they "burn through"....try that on a vertical steel column. Describe the process).

And, all in "secret"??

Come on....use some reason and logic, and a smattering of common sense......



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Great. Dozens where hundreds would have been required to do what you claim.

You're only half correct. Years of research into controlled demolitions would have corrected your statement for you. Many building demolitions use at least 2 different types of explosives. Smaller explosives for connectors or smaller columns, larger explosives for the cores where there are massive columns. The WTC, like many other CD's, implemented smaller and larger explosives. The ejections are made by high-powered explosives, the loud roaring is the smaller explosives being detonated.



Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Don't try to teach Granny how to suck eggs, son. I've been editing broadcast and film productions for 20 years and shooting them for 15 years before that. I don't need to Google to tell me that if there were explosions to be heard, even the cheapest consumer camcorder and format would've reproduced them well enough for even the most hearing-challenged person to recognise them for what they were.

Then you went to the wrong school, son, because even the most inexperienced audio and video editor knows that you need the right microphone for the right job. Microphones can only tolerate so much noise before they get overwhelmed and red-line, thus distorting sound. Human ears are more tolerant and pick up more sounds.

That's why we have mixers in studios. I have a mixer sitting right next to me and anyone who knows how microphones and mixers work know you have to keep the sound out of the yellow and red or you start distorting. When the sound becomes red-lined and distorted, it won't pick up any other sounds. I don't know who you think you're trying to fool here, but it is not I.



Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
They weren't heard because they weren't there to BE heard.

And thus you call first responders, by-standers, and survivors all liars and discount their testimony because of your lack of understanding of how microphones work. I don't care if you say you've got 80 years of broadcast and film production experience, your lack of knowledge on how microphones work shines ever so brightly.

Your ignorance and denial also shines brightly as you would discount evidence due to the lack of sounds on an overwhelmed microphone. So very sad.



Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
That and an apparent sincere wish to believe in the unbelievable.

Sorry the witness testimony is so unbelievable for you to swallow. It's too bad you let your ignorance and denial control your comprehension. The witnesses have been very exact on what they heard and they all corroborate themselves. That is not unbelievable, that is evidence, regardless if you can hear it on video or not.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Any photos to show what you claim about core columns!

Yes!




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
FFS even when bolts fail they they make noise never mind structural steel sections!!!!!!!!

And FFS, you're not going to hear bolts fail or structural steel sections failing at 2 miles away. Laugh at that.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




Come on....use some reason and logic, and a smattering of common sense......


My comments where on the audio in relation to the collapse of the towers. You have failed to account for any of these sound, discounted the rumbling noise similar to a volcano and resorted to smear and ridicule for your arguments. My common sense tells me you are dedicated to the official story and I am wasting my time against a closed mind.




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by kwakakev
My common sense tells me you are dedicated to the official story and I am wasting my time against a closed mind.

You couldn't have said it any better. Cheerleaders for the official conspiracy theory don't care about the evidence, don't care about the first responder testimony, don't care about the by-stander or survivor testimony. All they care about is spreading the official conspiracy theory, no matter how much evidence there is against it.

It absolutely disgusts me that there are a couple in this thread that would either discount or just flat-out call our hero first responders and other witnesses liars to further their fantasy. This is how low the government or their trusters have to stoop to keep the official conspiracy theory alive. It's disgusting. It's appalling. It's inhuman.








edit on 14-2-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


Yeah... And news has just come through that the patriot act has just been extended. Do these people have any idea what they are fighting for? Lies, distrust, dictatorship, the dark side of the force. You only have one brain, use it or lose it.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Great. Dozens where hundreds would have been required to do what you claim.

You're only half correct. Years of research into controlled demolitions would have corrected your statement for you. Many building demolitions use at least 2 different types of explosives. Smaller explosives for connectors or smaller columns, larger explosives for the cores where there are massive columns. The WTC, like many other CD's, implemented smaller and larger explosives. The ejections are made by high-powered explosives, the loud roaring is the smaller explosives being detonated.




Oh! So the high-powered explosives don't make noise but they DO eject material. The smaller explosives OTOH make lots of noise but only only cut "connectors or smaller columns". Most interesting.



I'm sure that would give professionals in the demolitions field a giggle.

Since you clearly believe you know what you're talking about, please cite the floor and "massive columns" associated with each of your "larger explosives". Surely you must know as each must have a crystal clear purpose, especially the one that blew out 60 floors ahead of the "collapse wave".


Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Don't try to teach Granny how to suck eggs, son. I've been editing broadcast and film productions for 20 years and shooting them for 15 years before that. I don't need to Google to tell me that if there were explosions to be heard, even the cheapest consumer camcorder and format would've reproduced them well enough for even the most hearing-challenged person to recognise them for what they were.

Then you went to the wrong school, son, because even the most inexperienced audio and video editor knows that you need the right microphone for the right job. Microphones can only tolerate so much noise before they get overwhelmed and red-line, thus distorting sound. Human ears are more tolerant and pick up more sounds.


And even the most wet-behind-the-ears newb would know that if these explosions were there to be heard as you claim they were, they would've been recorded by even a Fisher Price kiddie camcorder let alone the various consumer, prosumer and broadcast-level cameras that were recording things.

Funny you don't even touch on the headroom each recording format has. Wonder why that might be?


Originally posted by _BoneZ_
That's why we have mixers in studios. I have a mixer sitting right next to me and anyone who knows how microphones and mixers work know you have to keep the sound out of the yellow and red or you start distorting. When the sound becomes red-lined and distorted, it won't pick up any other sounds. I don't know who you think you're trying to fool here, but it is not I.


What gear are you using? What format? Digital? Analogue? Where's your red-line? When're you actually going to get distortion? High end or low?

Anybody who knows anything about audio knows you're pulling prizes out your back passage.


Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
They weren't heard because they weren't there to BE heard.


And thus you call first responders, by-standers, and survivors all liars and discount their testimony because of your lack of understanding of how microphones work.


I'll put 35 years experience in cable and broadcast television against your Internet 'experience' in a heartbeat. You're trying to make things out to be black magic and voodoo when the reality is quite mundane. Like just about every 'truther' I've come across, you're tap-dancing and goalpost-shifting like there's no tomorrow and pretending you know what you're talking about when it's only too apparent you don't.

You're trying to pretend some special microphone would've proved your point when the sad truth is that a good old fashioned EV635 combination stick mic and hammer would've been more than sufficient to pick up your phantom 'explosion'.

You are a pretender and not an especially good one at that.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


And, you still aren't comprehending? How can this be, when you even wrote it??:


...discounted the rumbling noise similar to a volcano ...


Go back , read what I wrote. I didn't "discount" the rumbling! I expect to hear that sound, as part of the collapse, after it self-initiated....that is a LOT of material, and a lot of mass....of course it's going to make noise.

Funny, early in the montage (the ABC clip, with the camera looking to be all the way across the river, yet the rumbling sound was SO LOUD?? Wasn't "enhanced", do you think???)...funny that, but also the guy's comment....as the dust swirls, because the Tower had JUST FINISHED collapsing....that he hears "explosions". Well, of course things are going to explode. "Explode" is NOT = to "bomb", BTW!!

Know what is NOT heard? NOR seen?? Ever? This:




posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer
Both excellent and thoughtful posts.

Here are some additional resources:

On the conversion of steel into dust:

xenonpup.startlogic.com...

Some background on scalar devices:

www.cheniere.org...


Thanks for the above links Jim. Very interesting.

Relating to xenonpup.startlogic.com...

I clicked on 'earlier article about the spire' detailing the strange disintegration of the spire and some things seemed strange to me regarding these two photographs.





First off, it is obvious, by the degree of dust dispersal, that the photographs have been taken in very close succession (1 or 2 seconds apart maybe) and by the same photographer. Furthermore, the second shot seems to have been taken from the same spot as the first, just zoomed out a little.

Observe, in the 1st photo, the yellow 'trashcan' to the left of the lamp-post, on front of the man with the white shirt.
Draw an imaginary line from the photographer, through the man in the white shirt, throught the yellow trashcan towards the building almost engulfed in smoke. Let this be the principle line of sight for the shot.
Observe the distance between the yellow trashcan and the lamp-post on its right.
Observe the car between the photographer and the man in the white shirt.
Observe the black man with the white shirt adjacent to the car.
Observe the colour of the smoke about to encompass the building is a very dark grey..

Now lets move on to the second, slightly later photograph.
Our principle line of sight is again taken as an imaginary line from the photographer, through the yellow trashcan and onto the building now almost completely engulfed in smoke, pretty close (but not quite) to our principle line of sight for the 1st picture.
Observe now that the yellow trashcan is directly behind the lamp-post.
Observe that the blackman in the white shirt, adjacent to the car in the 1st picture, has vanished from the shot.
Observe that the car seen in the 1st photo has vanished also, and been mysteriously replaced by a police SUV.
Observe that the man in the white shirt, seen on front of the yellow trashcan in the 1st picture, has suddenly, improbably, jumped position but seems to be in the exact same stance.
Observe the colour of the smoke has changed from being a dark grey to a light grey in a very short space of time.

As it is clear that these shots cannot, judging by the dust dispersal difference between the two pictures, have been taken more than a few seconds apart. We have to conclude that there is something very suspicious going on. The photograph perspectives seem to be at odds with one another.

I contend that these photographs have been faked. At a higher zoom level, all the figures and buildings in the pictures are pixilated around the edges, indicating that these graphics have been photo-shopped. The man in the white shirt is identical in stance in both photographs and has been cut and pasted in. More-over, if you zoom in to about 500%, to this man in the white shirt in the 1st photo, you will clearly see that a large chunk of the left side of the back of his head is missing. You will also notice that his right hand is in an impossible position, by the back of his head, with his mutant thumb distorted above his fingers.

I conclude that it is therfore meaningless to investigate, via the photographic evidence available, the exact causes and mechanisms of collapse of the twin towers as it is reasonable to suggest that if one photograph has been faked, then so very well may the rest of them. The confusion in analysing the collapse of the twin towers over the past 10 years then simply amounts to confusion arising from the analysis of faked imagery, which does not of course have to act according to any accepted laws of physics, just within the programming parameters of the designed demolition software.

Similar anomalies and impossibilities can be observed in many other photographs and videos relating to the events of that day in September 2001.

I will start a thread with this post and see where it leads.


edit on 14-2-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-2-2011 by pshea38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimFetzer But since the top 30 floors of the South
Tower tilted over and started to fall as an intact segment (before it
turned into very fine dust in space)


Honestly, this thread lost all credence as soon as I read this line. There is not even a shred of anecdotal or visual evidence that the top of the tower turned into dust in space. There is evidence that it was obscured, and I have found a video that I feel proves the top did fall (being able to see the corner of the roof as well as the spire before they became fully immersed in dust/smoke), but there's no evidence proving that it did anything other than hit the ground and destroy itself with Newtonian physics.



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yep, I have seen it. How close would you say it is, half a city block, 200 meters away maybe? Maybe not close enough to have it's windows blown out or a steel girding go through the room but still would have felt like hand of god coming down with all the noise, dust and rumbling going on. The WTC building where the biggest building in the world at one stage. A camera man in a similar located building would have been looking up at it, not down at it. The audio captured in that video does sound fairly clean without much distortion so the sound level was not pushed much beyond its limits. When you start getting noise, static, crackling, cut outs and popping sounds in the recording, the dB level is going beyond the capabilities of the recoding equipment which means it is very loud. In the video I posted above you hear lots of different distortion effects depending how close and the quality of the recording equipment to the collapse.

There are still many unknowns with this case with the exact methods and techniques used. Still enough evidence to say the official story does not add up and more investigation is justified, agreed?



posted on Feb, 14 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


To be quite honest, the color content and vantage points are such that it seems obvious that those were two separate photographers. The guy would have had to have jogged to the left to get where the picture is taken on the later photo, and the quality difference is huge, so I can't see how you can claim both were by the same guy.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join