PBS broadcast of “Solving the Mystery of WTC7″ reaches 2.7 Million Americans

reply to post by -PLB-


Clipping still does not cause something to sound like an explosion. An overloaded mic records something at the same volume level when it isnt because it cant register an input thats any higher.

reply to post by smurfy


NO, the firefighter said NO such thing. What he does say is, "We gotta get back. We gotta get back! The second one's gonna come down," and that is overlapped by the second firefighter saying "Just hold it, I know." That explosion is faked and is obviously added in. Notice how clear it is in the video, while the initial audio is very muffled, or low. It is in mono, while the blast is in stereo.

What you say is what the person that created that tripe, I mean, video, typed into it so you can hear it. It is a way to subliminally make you hear exactly what they want you to hear, by putting it up on the screen. I must have listened to that damn video way too damn much, and I never hear "Seven is exploding". Never.

reply to post by Darkwing01


Oh, I see you failed to notice we were talking about a video recorded inside the WTC buildings as the other collapsed.

reply to post by Cassius666


And guess what, the sound in the WTC video doesn't sound like explosives. You just want it to sound like that, and just out of the blue dismiss any video I post that sounds just like it. Because you would have to admit that in those videos, there are no explosives.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by GenRadek

 

I think what you are constantly forgetting is that in a CD, you hear explosions first, THEN the building collapses. The building does not begin to collapse, and then the explosives go off. Maybe you can point out those blasts BEFORE the building begins collapsing.

That is not only not true, watch the first example in this one. This is LITERALLY the very first video that came up on a youtube search for demolition:

Demolitions often stagger explosion when you want things to fall in a certain way.

What you are forgetting is that you are talking about demolitions which you are aware of, not ALL demolitions. There is no reason why explosions HAVE to go of together at the start outside of your imagination, it may just be the most efficient way to get things done to match some criteria.

That's perfectly correct, no better an example of that was a recent demolition in UK, where there were just yards on either side, between a school and a busy railway line, it was the subject of a discovery documentary, worth watching. I don't think it would have made to youtube yet, but I'll look.

reply to post by smurfy


Except that it is perfectly wrong. The reason you hear the explosions after the building started falling is either the distance (speed of sound) and/or the video is out of sync.

I can't really believe there are people arguing that it is possible that the building fist stats collapsing, and then the explosives go off. If that was the case, you would not need any explosives, just wait until the building starts collapsing and then decided not to push the detonate button.

Just catch up from here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this is the video which we were talking about later on.



Specifically the 19 to 24 mark.

I am relatively new to the 9/11 conspiracy, but my background in physics may help people extract more information from available sources.

First, some of the best evidence that it took about 10 seconds for the towers to fall comes from seismic readings:

www.ldeo.columbia.edu...

and

911research.wtc7.net...

There is research in the field of acoustics that can identify the acoustic signatures of different explosives:

spiedigitallibrary.org...

Another good paper is:

spiedigitallibrary.org...

These are highly technical papers, but they present a way to determine if explosives were used in 9/11 using information strictly from audio and video recordings.

Yet another way to determine if indeed the tower's fall were precipitated by explosives is old-fashioned detective work. Find and interview people who worked in the towers and WTC7, everyone from building inspectors, security guards, elevator repairmen, architects, HVAC people, janitors, window washers, anyone and everyone who worked in and around those buildings and has knowledge of the people who enter and leave the building.

The detective would look for anomalous activity. If explosives were used then someone had to place them there, if so then you may be able to find evidence by looking at records or talking to people who worked in the building. Try to reconstruct all the activity of a regular workday then see if you can find anomalies before 9/11. Everything should be backed up by documentation.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by smurfy

 

Except that it is perfectly wrong. The reason you hear the explosions after the building started falling is either the distance (speed of sound) and/or the video is out of sync.

I can't really believe there are people arguing that it is possible that the building fist stats collapsing, and then the explosives go off. If that was the case, you would not need any explosives, just wait until the building starts collapsing and then decided not to push the detonate button.

I have no clue to what you are referring to, I was talking about complex multi staggered detonations.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Alien Abduct

 

Man the Fact that there are so many experts claiming that it was controlled is astounding, that alone should warrant EVERYONE'S attention and indeed that alone should warrant a new investigation.

Can you name one expert in CD that says it was CD?

I have provided the experts at implosionworld,com that say it wasn't CD. Plus the stuff they sell on their website has nothing to do with 911.

www.youtube.com...

911expertsspeakout.org...

www.youtube.com...

www.truthistreason.net...

www.prisonplanet.com...

911blogger.com...


-Alien

reply to post by -PLB-

Oh, I see you failed to notice we were talking about a video recorded inside the WTC buildings as the other collapsed.

For heaven's sake PLB, you posted a video of a train passing RIGHT over a mic. Somebody else posted a video of raindrops HITTING a mic. Of course those things will overload the mics, but something would need to be orders of magnitude more powerful to cause the same outcome if it is hundreds of yards away.

To say that is elementary acoustics is giving it too much credit.

Does the fact of clipping mean that there was or was not a loud sound? There are ways of knowing, demonstrate that you have half a brain by suggesting some ways of differentiating an artifact from an actual sound, if you can?

[For the record, the clipping that you can hear in that video from the lobby almost certainly does NOT indicate explosions going off. The difference between me and you is I know why it doesn't do so and you post stupid videos that only serve to demonstrate that you don't have even a rudimentary grasp of the physics involved. I also understand that in no way indicates that there WERE no explosives going off, just that this video did not capture it, and why that is perfectly normal and 100% expected even if there were BIG explosions going off in the other building]

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-

 

Oh, I see you failed to notice we were talking about a video recorded inside the WTC buildings as the other collapsed.

[For the record, the clipping that you can hear in that video from the lobby almost certainly does NOT indicate explosions going off. The difference between me and you is I know why it doesn't do so and you post stupid videos that only serve to demonstrate that you don't have even a rudimentary grasp of the physics involved. I also understand that in no way indicates that there WERE no explosives going off, just that this video did not capture it, and why that is perfectly normal and 100% expected even if there were BIG explosions going off in the other building]

edit on 27-1-2012 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)

You will have to explain to me please how in the lobby video the growing rumble of the South Tower collapse can be clearly heard but any "BIG explosions" which preceded it are undetectable.

reply to post by Darkwing01


So you agree that in the video of the lobby you hear clipping or overloading, but you reject other examples I posted where the sound is clipping, and thus shows similar characteristics. Whatever man. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You try to make a "clever" comeback in an attempt to avoid to acknowledge that you were completely missing the point. Too bad you miserably failed. Your debating tactics are disingenuous at best.

Just to point out how moronic your response is, the maximal sound level a microphone can record and the sounds it makes when overloading has nothing to do with physics. If you disagree, write it in an equation. It has to do with knowledge about microphones, and knowing a bit of engineering may also help. Anyone can understand that without knowing any of the physics.

You simply completely failed to understand the point of those videos, either because you are disingenuously trolling or just not very clever. Or a combination.

In the meanwhile, I noticed you completely ignored a previous reply of mine about falsifying your theory. Why would that be. Maybe because your theory is not falsifiable? What should we do with such theories Darkwing?

reply to post by Darkwing01


By the way Darkwing, why don't you explain to Anok how heated trusses that sag can exert a pull-in force? Why don't you help the poor fellow out of his misery? Or do you agree with Anok on that?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Darkwing01

 

By the way Darkwing, why don't you explain to Anok how heated trusses that sag can exert a pull-in force? Why don't you help the poor fellow out of his misery? Or do you agree with Anok on that?

LOL anyone who understand basic physics, and the concept of expansion, would agree with me.

Sorry that bothers you so much.

reply to post by ANOK

So you agree that in the video of the lobby you hear clipping or overloading, but you reject other examples I posted where the sound is clipping, and thus shows similar characteristics.

Because you can tell from the source that it is clipping. I didn't say that there wasn't clipping in your examples, only that you would have to be as thick as a brick to think that clipping in those examples means anything in this context.

Clipping means there is a sound that is too loud for the mic too record. It cannot tell you WHAT that sound was, so the mere fact of clipping TELLS YOU NOTHING aside from the fact that the was too loud, irregardless of the source.

Something that is closer sounds louder, so the distant rumble of a building collapsing needs to be orders of magnitude OF ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater AT THE SOURCE to cause the same clipping cause by a raindrop striking the mic directly. In fact the raindrop may make no sound at all. The fact that it clips just also means that you can BY DEFINITION not tell just how loud the sound was.

So you can't tell JUST BY THE CLIPPING ALONE whether there was additional loud noises that contributed to the clipping. The data ISN'T THERE, it is not an absence of evidence for any position, it is an absence of evidence for EVERY POSITION.

You will have to explain to me please how in the lobby video the growing rumble of the South Tower collapse can be clearly heard but any "BIG explosions" which preceded it are undetectable.

Ever had someone throw a party two blocks down? Do you hear the screeching lead singer or the bass? Block your ears with a pillow, which frequency range becomes more prominent?

The fact that there was no noise from explosions does not mean that there were no explosions, only that the recording equipment didn't pick it up. There are three possible ways that this can happen:
1) It is muffled at the source, using any one of number of ways to suppress the sound of an explosion patented or otherwise.
2) It is muffled by intervening material: A high frequency noise from an efficient high energy explosion will bounce off walls rather go through, leaving low frequency rumble to be heard in the lobby.
3) The recording equipment was uni-directional and happened to be pointing in the wrong direction at the time.

en.wikipedia.org...#

That aside, I don't necessarily think that there were high-explosives used, even though there is no evidence one way or another. All that I am saying is that there is no evidence ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

An absence of evidence is never evidence of absence, especially in the presence of ample evidence of collusion (at the very least) to ensure said absence.

reply to post by Darkwing01

By the way Darkwing, why don't you explain to Anok how heated trusses that sag can exert a pull-in force? Why don't you help the poor fellow out of his misery? Or do you agree with Anok on that?

I have only seen one believable f.e.a. on the matter, I believe this guy:




That should answer your question.

OK what is stronger the 5/8th bolts, or the columns?

What would break first the bolts, or the columns?

How many times have OSers tried to say the bolts were the weak point, and the reason the floors were unable to resist the collapses, but here you're saying the bolts were stronger than the columns. Another contradiction from the OS supporters.

So why didn't the sagging just break the bolts? Because it didn't happen. There was not enough heat to cause the trusses to sag in the first place, you all keep ignoring the facts...



It's obvious there was not enough heat to cause steel to sag.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

And guess what, the sound in the WTC video doesn't sound like explosives. You just want it to sound like that, and just out of the blue dismiss any video I post that sounds just like it. Because you would have to admit that in those videos, there are no explosives.

I want it to sound like explosions? I am the one in denial? What were the explosions the firefighters heard and fealt on floors with no fires on? Exploding whaterpipes? What blew up the basement moments before impact?

If I am the one in denial, you surely could find an explosionfree demolition/collapse that sounds like WTC 1 or 2 coming down.



Particularly interesting the whitness at the 5:20 Mark, who claims to have been a whitness to both, the basement explosion and the subsequent plane impact.



Here is another



I am sure they are part of the truther conspiracy already plotting on how to market 911 truth coffee mugs.

reply to post by Cassius666


It seems as though you are trying to divert from the North Tower lobby video because you cannot explain the relative quiet that preceded the South Tower collapse.

I don't think anyone is disputing with you that there were explosions. It would be very strange if there weren't in the death throes of huge skyscrapers. Some we will never know the cause but aviation fuel fireballs down the elevator shafts is well attested and some of the witnesses you just posted refer specifically to that.

But random explosions some time before collapse is absolutely unlike a genuine cd where you have a pattern of loud explosions and flashes at the initiation of collapse.

The witness you referred to at 5.20 in your first clip is Willie Rodriguez and while most of the witnesses in that clip appear to be speaking on 9/11 or soon after he is later. In case you are not aware he has made a living for years now on the truther circuit with his story of an explosion preceding the plane strike. Trouble is it isn't obvious how he knew that when he was down at the basement levels but, more importantly, it is not what he said at the time and has only developed later.

This is the famous Naudet clip of the first strike to the North Tower. This is the Tower in which Willie Rodriguez worked as a janitor. What do we see ? Well the firefighters casually look up when they hear the sound of the plane but there is no reaction until it hits the Tower. Where is Willie's preceding explosion ?

www.youtube.com...