WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 34, November 2012
12
Testimonies from Witnesses

Note: Testimonies 1, 2, 3 and 5 are taken from "Oral Histories from Sept. 11 Compiled
by the New York Fire Department," The New York Times (2005).
(graphics8.nytimes.com...
_WTC_histories_full_01.html)
(1) Interview of fireman Richard Banaciski, who was in the street facing WTC2
I just remember we were -- initially we were out by the street and they started having
jumpers, so they all kind of moved back towards the parking garage, towards the
building, so nothing would come down on us.
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was
just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed
like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions. Everybody just said
run and we all turned around and we ran into the parking garage because that's basically
where we were. Running forward would be running towards it. Not thinking that this
building is coming down. We just thought there was going to be a big explosion, stuff
was going to come down.
There was just a tremendous cloud that came into the parking garage.
(graphics8.nytimes.com...
253.PDF)
(2) Interview of Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory, who was in the street
facing WTC1
At that point in time we heard a rumble, we heard a noise, and then the building came
down. ...
[Lt. Evangelista and I] both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is
with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I
thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down,
before No. 2 came down, (...) I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant
Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw lowlevel
flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that
time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building
collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the
building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building,
how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And
Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 34, November 2012
13
I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I
just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see
anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you
see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. I
don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and
pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been
whatever. But it's just strange that two people sort of say the same thing and neither one
of us talked to each other about it. I mean, I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall. I
was just standing next to him. I never met the man before in my life. He knew who I was
I guess by my name on my coat and he called me up, you know, how are you doing?
How's everything? And, oh, by the way did you ... It was just a little strange.
Q. On the television pictures it appeared as well, before the first collapse, that there was
an explosion up on the upper floors.
A. I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like eye level. I didn't have
to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first
floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be
flashes. I don't know how far down this was already. I mean, we had heard the noise but,
you know, I don't know.

www.journalof911studies.com...

It will take you a couple of days to read everything, there is plenty more I can post just from this site alone. Knock yourself out.

a reply to: skyeagle409

CONCLUSION

Near the times of the planes' impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as
well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that
(1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and (2) low frequencies are
associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves
recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin. Even
if the planes' impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could
have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be
recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another.
As we have shown, they were not.
The types and magnitudes of the seismic signals show significant differences. The
greatest differences occur in their propagation speeds, even though their paths were
essentially identical under identical conditions. This difference is physically unexplained
in the interpretation of the events offered by the LDEO researchers, the 9/11 Commission
and NIST. Therefore, we must question their calculations of wave propagation speeds
based on their assumption that the wave origins are shown on the video images of
impacts and collapses. We can only conclude that the wave sources were independently
detonated explosives at other times, thus accounting for the variable discrepancies for
each wave origin in relation to the videos.
The composition of the waves is revealing both in terms of the location of the source and
the magnitude of the energy transmitted to the ground. The subterranean origin of the
waves emitted when WTC1 collapsed is attested by the presence of the P and S body
waves along with the Rayleigh surface waves. The placement of the source of the four
other explosions is subaerial, attested by the unique presence of only Rayleigh waves.
Journal of 9/11 Studies Volume 34, November 2012
11
The aerial explosions visible on the videos of the upper floors of the Twin Towers do not
produce seismic waves 34 km from the source.
There is a factor of ten between the power of the explosions at the time of the plane
impacts on the Twin Towers (as well as at the time of the collapse of WTC7) and the
strength of those more powerful explosions at the times of their collapses, the
subterranean explosion under WTC1 being the one that transmitted the most energy to
the ground.
Note that in accordance with the degree of dispersion of the surface waves (i.e., their
speeds depend upon their frequencies), the duration of the recorded signal is not
representative of the duration of the signal at the source.
Finally, controlled demolition of the three towers, suggested by the visual and audio
witness testimony as well as by observations of video recordings of their collapses, is
thus confirmed and demonstrated by analysis of the seismic waves emitted near the time
of the plane impacts and at the moments of the collapses.

www.journalof911studies.com...

Now prove that is all a lie?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

I read the mission statement. When demanding another investigation, it helps to have a reason for such backed by evidence. There isn't any.

There isn't any?

Perhaps for you there isn't any. I do not believe for one minuet that you have ever read any of A&E technical papers.

The fact is, there is only two things that are important about 911.

Religion, believe system.

And the science.

Science shatters a belief system and many people cannot handle it, as you have demonstrated that to me earlier.

So you and I have nothing to discuss concerning anything related to 911. I have dealt with you a few years ago, I and many ATS posters found you very dishonest in how you twisted Jones science.

I rest my case and please do not post to me again.

Your retreat from debate is expected. Jones' paper was easy to refute as it is internally inconsistent and his own data and methodology can be used to show its faults. I don't have to twist anything; the good Professor Jones did all of that. I merely pointed out the glaring faults of his "science." I understand that many hide when their belief systems are challenged and they are often ill equipped to argue the points of the challenge. Lack of technical knowledge amongst the A&E supporters and their knee-jerk, blind responses to any challenge of their heroes is what is expected.
The desire for a conspiracy and the fading hopes of a few who seriously believe that there is evidence of such will likely keep this alive by luring new blood into the fantasy world of A&E. JFK theories have been going on for 50+ years and I expect that this will too, although the sheer number of splinter theories may dissipate it sooner. This is why A&E only "$earch for truth" and have no fixed theory other than "it didn't look right." By not proposing a theory, they have none to defend and only have to let their supporters run through the litany of explosives, thermite, super thermite, holograms and such in a continuing cycle of distraction and deception. Maybe they have a theory now; I haven't bothered to look at their website for a few years.

I recommend that you start with a hypothesis and work through it before trying to deflect the argument or avoiding it by petulant retreat. If you are to stick with seismic evidence of explosions, try not to claim thermite in the same thread as it does not show the seismic signature of explosives. Start with the outliers and reject them first. The evidence for aircraft striking the towers and the Pentagon is overwhelming, so missiles and hologram theories can be immediately rejected. Likewise, energy beams from space are precluded as is a nuclear shaped charge demolition [no such device, top down collapse, and no radiation]. What this leaves is generally demolition starting at the top and the use of the falling mass of the upper floors to destroy the lower floors at less than 200 milliseconds per floor. No explosive is needed for this; just an initiator and gravity. In this case, it seems like uncontrolled fires were sufficient to initiate the collapse but many still want conspiracy and claim thermite, as it has no report and can be hidden by fire. The only problem with this is that the collapses began with failure of the impact area which says that either the planning for demolition was miraculously accurate or that fire weakened the structure at the impact points.
It is also a good idea to focus on one event at a time rather than trying to distract the reader by invoking Building 7, the Pentagon, and other events when the discussion is on the towers. For WTC 7, the building was damaged by Tower debris and was ablaze. The structure of 7 was not standard as it straddled a substation and had some cantilevered beams that were unusually long. I did some calculations using thermal coefficient of expansion in one of the threads and showed that during heating, the beams would increase in length such that they would shear the bolts holding that structure together. The claim of thermite is completely unfounded. Jones analyzed dust collected by people as they left the scene of the collapse and has no idea of the source other than the dust was collected some distance from the towers after the collapse. WTC7 likely provided little if any of the dust.

a reply to: pteridine

I was referring to actual evidence, indeed. You saw the top of that building tilt, didn't you? Why do you think it stopped it's movement to the side? Newtons first law is obviously easy to break, don't you think so?

Question for you: you think the WTC was composed of 20% mineral wool and iron or why is not one of your eyebrows raised due to such findings? Yes, I can see that from here. As I can see that a discussion between us would be fruitless if you don't see the elephant in the room yet.

Now back to my question: which residues were we supposed to find if explosives would've been used? And yes, chemicals in the air would be part of that story.




a reply to: skyeagle409

Nah, my point was that you didn't refute anything with that debunk-trial, as it took only a tiny fragment of the whole problem into account.
The evidence you are searching for is the data within said study. But I would suggest we wait with this discussion until your answer is in the in-box.

a reply to: Informer1958

That's not evidence of demo explosives at ground zero. There were no demo detonations heard in the WTC videos as the WTC buildings collapsed, which explains why seismic monitors did not detect demo detonations and the fact no demo hardware was ever found at ground zero. In other words, zero evidence for demo explosives.

Now, prove to us all, the explosions they heard had anything to do with explosives.

a reply to: pteridine

Your retreat from debate is expected. Jones' paper was easy to refute as it is internally inconsistent and his own data and methodology can be used to show its faults.I

Even the folks at BYU rejected the papers of Steven Jones, who is the same person who managed to convince some people that a flashlight reflection was molten steel. Simply amazing!

a reply to: Informer1958

That is not evidence that demo explosives were used. Demolition experts who were operating those seismic machines have stated their seismic machines did not detect demo explosions.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I was referring to actual evidence, indeed. You saw the top of that building tilt, didn't you?

Yes I did.

... Why do you think it stopped it's movement to the side? Newtons first law is obviously easy to break, don't you think so?

Well first of all, the pivot point was far too weak to support the upper block and the center-of-gravity on one side of the upper block would not have allowed the upper block to continue to rotate passed the vertical axis of the pivot point. In other words, it would have been impossible for the mass of the upper block to continue to rotate over and passed the pivot point especially when the weakness of the pivot point to support the upper block and the location of the center-of-gravity are taken into consideration. In other words, the only way the upper block could have gone was straight down.

We can take a look at this video as demolition crews pull down WTC6 with cables. You will notice that a section of WTC6 tilts to one side yet it collapses straight down. Jump to time line 1:45 in the following video.

Question for you: you think the WTC was composed of 20% mineral wool and iron or why is not one of your eyebrows raised due to such findings? Yes, I can see that from here. As I can see that a discussion between us would be fruitless if you don't see the elephant in the room yet.

If you are implying that it has something to do with explosives or thermite, I fail to see any connection.

Now back to my question: which residues were we supposed to find if explosives would've been used? And yes, chemicals in the air would be part of that story.

You would find residue in much the same way that firing a gun leaves tell-tale signs on the hands of the shooter because explosives will leave behind trace evidence, which was the case in the downing of Pan Am 103. An ion mobility spectrometer can be used to determine from the residue, the type of explosive that was used and in addition, fragments of exploded devices can be found, which includes switches, wiring, timers and circuit boards. I might add that there is no way that remains of thousands of feet of detonation wire could have been overlooked.

I can still remember the case of TWA 800 when residue was found and claimed to have been explosive residue, but it was determined the residue had nothing to do with the incident and was nothing more than seat adhesive and that is why hardware evidence is important in order to confirm the presence of an explosive because residues can come from other sources that have nothing to do with explosives.

Demo explosive can generate a noise levels of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of 1/2 miles and that is very loud, yet there is not a peep of demo detonations as the WTC buildings collapse. Case in point again.



To sum it up, without demo explosive hardware and audio evidence, there is no case for explosives because certain ingredients of residues can be used in other products as well.

PublicOpinion,

How does this violate Newton's first law?

Where did you get the 20% mineral wool and iron number? What fraction was mineral wool and what fraction was iron? By % weight or volume? A discussion may be fruitless because you have already come to a conclusion and seem closed minded about other possibilities.

Residues would depend on the types of explosives and detonation methods. What explosives are you suggesting? Detonated by electrical caps or primacord?

originally posted by: skyeagle409 the pivot point was far too weak to support the upper block and the center-of-gravity on one side of the upper block would not have allowed the upper block to continue to rotate passed the vertical axis of the pivot point..

huh? never read such crap in my life. what are you even trying to say here?

a reply to: Informer1958 Just curious. Why do you keep quoting firefighters who do not agree there were demolition charges in the buildings?

a reply to: RoScoLaz4 What he's saying is that gravity brought the buildings down and there was nothing magical about how they collapsed.

For real crap to read, get on the A&E website.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

a reply to: Informer1958 Just curious. Why do you keep quoting firefighters who do not agree there were demolition charges in the buildings?

Apparently you did not click on any of the links of the eyewitness testimonies.

9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and
Explosions in the WTC

[Firefighter Louie] Cacchioli was called to testify privately [before the 9/11 Commission], but walked out on several members of the committee before they finished, feeling like he was being interrogated and cross-examined rather than simply allowed to tell the truth about what occurred in the north tower on 9/11. "My story was never mentioned in the final report [PDF download] and I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out. They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11 Commission. The whole experience was terrible." [Arctic Beacon]

Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the
[WTC 2] aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me." [NY Times]
Tom Elliott, WTC 2 survivor: They saw only two firemen going up. They told them there had been an explosion near the 60th floor. [csmonitor]

Kim White, WTC 1 survivor: "We got down as far as the 74th floor ... Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell." [People]

9/11 NBC News broadcast
[wma download]
"Shortly after 9 o'clock ... [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit - the first crash that took place - he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.



Two WTC impacts. Three explosions reported.

One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device - he thinks, he speculates - was probably planted in the building. ... But the bottom line is that he, Albert Turi, said that he probably lost a great many men in those secondary explosions, and he said that there were literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people in those towers when the explosions took place."

Firefighter Schroeder recollects in great detail how he was one of the first firefighters to rush to the complex. ... As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. “The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal.”

Firefighter Schroeder made it all the way up to the 23rd floor before barely hearing on the failing radios that another plane was coming in. That plane would hit the South Tower though for some reason “We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building. People were making there way down the stairwells burnt like you couldn’t believe. We were all shocked because it seemed as if there was fire everywhere, on so many floors. It just didn’t make sense”.

Lou Cacchioli, Firefighter in WTC 1: At that point, Cacchioli found one of the only functioning elevators, one only going as high as the 24th floor ... "Tommy Hetzel was with me and everybody else also gets out of the elevator when it stops on the 24th floor," said Cacchioli, "There was a huge amount of smoke. Tommy and I had to go back down the elevator for tools and no sooner did the elevators close behind us, we heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator.

whatreallyhappened.com...

I think that should answer your question.

a reply to: RoScoLaz4

huh? never read such crap in my life. what are you even trying to say here?

What little support was left as the upper block began to tip, was unable to support the overhead mass of the upper block.

Upper Block Tilt

a reply to: Informer1958

Two WTC impacts. Three explosions reported.

I think you forgot to add the following accounts as well.

Craig Carlsen and Firefighters

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from the south tower...there were about ten explosions...At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

In other words, the 10 explosions the firefighters heard were the result of collapsing floors, not explosives.

Firefighter Schroeder made it all the way up to the 23rd floor before barely hearing on the failing radios that another plane was coming in. That plane would hit the South Tower though for some reason “We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building.

In their building and yet, the building remained standing. That is not indicative of the way demo implosions work.

Jay Jonas, Firefighter

While we were standing there, we saw a large black shadow on the ground outside and we heard a loud boom," says Jonas, now a deputy fire chief. "We could see flaming pieces of debris falling. And that was the second plane hitting the South Tower."

news.yahoo.com...

Once again, the explosion they heard had nothing to do with explosives.

Lou Cacchioli, Firefighter in WTC 1: At that point, Cacchioli found one of the only functioning elevators, one only going as high as the 24th floor ...

Let's take another look at Louie Cacchioli.

Louie Cacchioli

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem. Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

Needless to say, Louie Cacchioli became very upset at conspiracy theorist for twisting his words.

a reply to: pteridine

There you go:

911research.wtc7.net...

Once in motion the top should've continued it's drift and we would've seen a partly collapsing building. As you mentioned earlier, mass takes the way with lesser counterforce hence rather a slide sideways than straight through the still intact architecture (which acts as an effective counterforce).
What we saw has nothing to do with Newton.


a reply to: skyeagle409

So... 20% mineral-wool and iron. Fireproofing, or partly vaporized steel-cores, is nothing which comes to mind and millions of asbestos-particles on top fail to see a connection. Do we talk about pop-corn already?
Next youtube-clip for sound-analysis, please! I still remember all those witnesses, what else you've got? It's questionable how Nist is supposed to find residues from explosive devices if they were unable to find evidence for their pan-cake of theory either.

a reply to: skyeagle409



Are you going to call these firemen lairs to?

Video Evidence of an Explosion
at the Base of WTC 1

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained.
The Palisades seismic record shows that — as the collapses began — a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses. [AFP]

whatreallyhappened.com...

This 2.6 MB wmv video (stills below) shows the collapse of WTC 1 and it corroborates the above "seismic spikes". The camera was not hand held, it was directly connected to the ground via a tripod, and this allowed the camera to visually capture a ground shake which occurred ~13 seconds before the building collapsed. The video also shows an object fall from the right hand side of the building moments before the camera begins to shake. The close timing of these two events indicates they are linked.

[Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me. [Prison Planet]

whatreallyhappened.com...

There were explosions in all three WTC.

The more nonsense you post the more evidence I will post.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

So... 20% mineral-wool and iron. Fireproofing, or partly vaporized steel-cores, is nothing which comes to mind and millions of asbestos-particles on top fail to see a connection. Do we talk about pop-corn already?

There were no demolition detonations at ground zero. There were no secondary explosions during the impacts, and no secondary explosions as those buildings collapsed.

No demo hardware was ever recovered at ground zero and the seismic monitors in the area did not detect demo detonations. In other words, there is zero evidence for demo explosions at ground zero.

Next youtube-clip for sound-analysis, please!

Let's do a comparison.



If you can't point out the time lines of demo detonations in the WTC videos, you have no case.

I still remember all those witnesses, what else you've got?

I got evidence that no demo detonations occurred at ground zero. I remember the firefighters who later attributed the sound of explosions they heard to things that had nothing to do with explosives, including, in their own words as noted in an NBC News report, the playback which was televised last year, that the explosions were the result of exploding gas lines.

It's questionable how Nist is supposed to find residues from explosive devices if they were unable to find evidence for their pan-cake of theory either.

The squibs seen during the collapse of the WTC Towers is evidence the floors pancaked.

Squibs

During the pancake, the floors acted like a plunger in a Syringe. The towers skin and windows became the tube of the Syringe. The increased pressure blew the windows out as each massive acre of floor compressed air between them. It's said that the towers were about 95% air.

The air pushed though the core any way it could and the pressure built up. It forced its way out on lower floors wherever it could. According to the survivors of at least one tower, a hurricane wind blows through the staircase which is located in the core...

Matt Komorowski: “The first thing I really felt was the incredible rush of air at my back. And maybe I felt it befor everybody else, because I was the last guy.” Stone Phillips: “Like a gust of wind, behind you.”

Matt Komorowski: “Gust of wind. Wind tunnel. It was the most incredible push at your back, that you can feel.”

Which is evident in this photo.

Photo of Squibs

Which was confirmed by firefighters.

Craig Carlsen and Firefighters

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower

...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.


Dominick Derubbio

It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

a reply to: Informer1958

That is not evidence of demo explosions at ground zero.

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.


* Controlled Demolition Inc

* D.H. Griffin Companies

* Mazzocchi Wrecking

* Gateway Demolition

* Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal


Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

www.representativepress.org...

a reply to: skyeagle409

118 Witnesses:
The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers

One of the greatest mysteries of September 11, 2001 is the collapse of the Twin Towers.
Claims that explosions contributed to the collapses were made on 9/11 and have persisted, but
studies supportive of the U.S. government’s account of events have ignored or denied these
claims. A great deal is at stake in this debate. If explosions were critical to the collapses, the
official al Qaeda narrative may need to be radically altered or abandoned altogether.
In January, 2006 an article by David Ray Griffin appeared entitled, “Explosive
Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories.”[1] Drawing on a
collection of oral histories from the New York Fire Department (FDNY), Griffin argued the case
for controlled demolition of the towers. I found myself intrigued by the data he had used and
impressed by his method, but I decided there was room for further research. I wanted answers to
two questions.

The Body of Evidence

According to Jim Dwyer of the New York Times, the FDNY oral histories were
“originally gathered on the order of Thomas Von Essen, the city fire commissioner on Sept. 11,
who said he wanted to preserve those accounts before they became reshaped by a collective
memory.”[2] The oral histories constitute about 12,000 pages of testimony by 503 FDNY
firefighters, emergency medical technicians and paramedics collected from early October, 2001
to late January, 2002. Mr. Von Essen’s prophetic act has given us a remarkably rich body of
narrative material.

www.journalof911studies.com...


Explosion Sounds and the World Trade Center - Twin Tower Collapses

Many witnesses to the collapse of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City describe at least one "explosion" at the time of the collapses. A few eye-witness accounts specifically describe 3 explosions at the initiation of the collapse, whilst others some describe a "crackling" sound. Many people describe hearing a "pop-pop-pop-pop..." or "bang-bang-bang..." as the towers came down1.

The reality of there being some kind of explosive events coinciding with the demise of each building, as reported by eye witnesses is well documented. However, any word of explosions essentially disappeared from mass-media reports of the the attacks very quickly and to this day are not part of the official narrative. Mainstream scientific attempts to describe the collapses as unforeseen catastrophic engineering failures do not bother to take into account the widespread reports of explosions.

Though video clips of the collapses can be found all over the internet and on video releases, most people will not really hear evidence of explosions on the available footage. What most people would describe hearing from the available media is the "roar" of the buildings coming down. The main reason for this is probably because there is not much actual audio content available of the events. Most angles of the collapse are presented without any sound other than that of news anchors, reporters, interviewees, narrators, etc. speaking over-top. It is the preferred style of news-media to constantly have human voices "giving shape" to history as it unfolds. Creating meaning rather than reporting facts.

Some examples of video footage which includes audio can be found and this audio does include evidence of explosions, though it is not generally obvious for a number of reasons. Sounds of intense volume recorded at close distances will tend to overload and be distorted by the time they make it onto tape. If a very loud sound such as an explosion overloads the camera's sound circuitry and is followed very quickly by subsequent loud sounds, the individual sounds will be more difficult to identify because the shape of each sound, the attack and decay, will be masked as the audio circuits are completely saturated with signal. Results will vary depending on camera type, microphone type, specific settings, and proximity to the event. Some angles of the collapses are cut very short so they start playing only after the initiation of collapse sounds, perhaps because some videographers did not capture the first moments on tape or as a result of the news tending to only focus on the "juicy" bits in their presentations. Another problem with internet videos is that when there is sound, it is usually missing a lot of information and/or is distorted from various forms of data compression and/or sloppy transfers. Another problem with internet video in terms of close scrutiny can be audio which is encoded or played back slightly out of synch with the picture.

From listening to audio with evidence of explosions, it seem that the intense "roar" associated with the towers coming down actually begins before any signs of typical explosions occur. This would raise many more questions about the nature of the building collapses and what actually caused them to come down. The initial "roar"/"rumble" might have masked the initial sounds of explosions in audio recordings and even to the ears of witnesses to varying degrees.

The power of suggestion can have a very strong influence on what we think we are hearing and on what we remember hearing. Interpreting what we hear through audio playback equipment (and even in reality) will rely heavily on what our eyes see at the time and how the audio has been contextualized, pre-interpreted, and packaged for us. A dramatic example of this is how we can be made to hear hidden messages in songs which are played backwards; we will generally just hear nonsense in a backwards passage until someone points out to us what they want us to listen for, at which point we will hear what we are supposed to, clear as day, even though it may a vague, chance similarity. With this in mind, it is important to approach the evidence of audio recordings with very careful listening and analysis to try and be clear about what is actually there.

With all the available eyewitness testimonies and the fact that clear signs of explosions can be observed on the limited amount of available material, it should be apparent that some type of explosions did occur. Whether caused by bombs or not, these explosions would certainly seem to have something to do with the collapses of the towers.

What follows is a basic analysis of some audio clips of the collapses, taken from video clips which are available on the internet and video release. Reasonable full-range speakers or full-range headphones should be preferred for listening as computer speakers tend to have quite a limited frequency range.

www.mediumrecords.com...

This is my last post to you on this thread.

You can deny all the evidence if you want. But don't call all these credible eyewitness lairs.