What is that sound coming from the WTC?

I found this video without the normal added soundtracks and naratives and low and behold what a video! I'll let it speak for itself!


Do I hear a series of explosions? Why yes I think so!

Here is another video of a reporter and what he describes at the begining of the same event, located in the same area.



The reporters words:

This is as close as we can get to the base of the WTC. You can see the Firemen assembled here, the Police officers the FBI agents, and you can see the two towers...A HUGE EXPLOSION NOW RAINING DEBRIS DOWN ON ALL OF US...WE BETTER GET OUT OF THE WAY!

Now collapsing buildings don't explode now do they? Why would there be the overwhelming sounds of explosions coming from the south tower as it collapsed? There shouldn't be by the OS version of the story.

Now witness to those explosions are: Firemen, Police officers and FBI Agents.

Here we have Firemen describing exactly what was heard and seen in the first video:




Floors poping, like they had detonators....Yeah I'd sure say so!

What is that sound coming from the WTC? I think these videos answered that question already.

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 ?

Apparently there are two sides. One side: Generators exploding. Second side: Bombs going off.
I am of the second-persuasion side myself!

My overall thoughts and conclusions (so I can sleep better) are this:

These buildings, one, two and seven were designed and built purposefully with nuclear explosives in them SO.....to be taken down when the time came to have them demolished.
After all, those were awfully tall buildings to bring down in 30-50 years' time especially if Manhattan got more populated with buildings.
Sears Tower has this device in it as well (hence why the Sears Tower was on alert and stand-down that day)

Now....it was kept a secret because they feared no one would want to rent out space (nor get affordable insurance) should an accident occur in those buildings so, the pre-detonation installation were kept secret.

reply to post by One Moment


I ain't buying it .

If the towers needed to be brought down for safety concerns , then everyone could have been forced to vacate them months or years in advance .

No one needed to die .

Can you cite a source that substantiates your claim that the Sears Tower is equipped with a nuclear device ?

If this is public knowledge , why haven't all the tennants moved out of the Sears Tower ?

Would you feel comfortable sitting on top of a nuclear device ?

No one else would either . The Sears Tower would be vacant if that were the case .

reply to post by okbmd


The point is that all "offical sources" say no one witness explosions, nor was there any evidence of the sort. Now to disect the videos to the point of bing able to answer what your propose is hard to say the least. Since a video as supplied doesn't have the detial to prove what in fact is causing the explosions.

BUT they do start before the building collapses!

And that is all I needed to provide. The burden of proof that the collapse starts after the initiation of explosions!

As the reporter states, a HUGE explosion. Then the building flies apart.

Again a structural collapse would not have sounded like that, it would just have fallen, and mostly intact.

That is the sound of one floor falling to the next, slapping together as the support beams give. The ever increasing weight of the floors above adding weight and speed to the collapse. The first few smacks/bangs heard was the sound of the first few floors falling on to of one another, which started slow. No 'explosions' or 'detonations' took place for the building support to fail as these videos show. How very frightening is must have been to be that close right then.
At least that's my interpretation of it, AND I'M STICKIN TO IT!
Peace

reply to post by One Moment


Would you go into any building after finding out that build them with explosives to begin with? Likely not.

Now for the engineer community wouldn't allow this anyway and someone would have spoken up along time ago.

reply to post by Tempest333



I think the pancake theory has been proven to take longer than 10 seconds, estimated to take up to 90 seconds.

But hey if bliss is your haven, have fun!

reply to post by theability


The tower is collapsing from the inside out .

In other words , the floors inside the building are failing in advance of the external facade . Once the floors have failed , there is nothing to hold the external columns upright .

This explains the appearance of the 'explosions' taking place before you actually observe the external portion of the building collapsing .

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by okbmd

 

BUT they do start before the building collapses!

And that is all I needed to provide. The burden of proof that the collapse starts after the initiation of explosions!

As the reporter states, a HUGE explosion. Then the building flies apart.

Again a structural collapse would not have sounded like that, it would just have fallen, and mostly intact.

The levels first collapsing is above the smoke line, hence no view of the start of the collapse, where the partial floors (ones with broken/weakened support beams due to intense heat and stress) finally gave. the floors were slapping together and the part of the building above the initial collapse line came tumbling down in a raining cloud of debris.

reply to post by okbmd


First of take into consideration the following:

• distance from the top of the towers
  
• the speed of sound
  

If the collapse was in fact happening like you suggest, we shouldn't hear anything from the top of the tower, before the intiation of the building collapse. Because the external facade would damped the travel of the sound. You wouldn't hear much until the break up of the structure.

Now if you consider the explosion, then the building comes apart the reason why one can hear it is because of the pressure wave from the blast itself, which is enough to disrupt the external facade of the WTC and result in the subsequent destruction, resulting in the pressure wave traveling far enough for those people 2000 feet away can hear.

A structural collapse will make noise but NOT before it happens!

reply to post by Tempest333


Tempest, breaking welds, and collapsing structures wouldn't be decribed by the reporter as a HUGE explosion. The top of the tower from where they are located is about 1700 feet.

now sound travels about 1122 feet per second at sea level.

Now When the reporter describes the HUGE explosion, that was 1.51 seconds AFTER the explosion took place.

Explosion then collaspe, not collapse then sound.

When massive structures suffer catastrophe then violent sounds are likely to be heard.

Explosions were heard as Titanic sank. Bombs denoting " inside job " or boilers breaking loose and crashing through bulkheads ?

reply to post by Alfie1


First off the Titantic is small, 46,000 tons? Compared to the steel in one WTC tower at 200,000 tons.

Now I bet using a ship to building comparison is alittle of base, don't you think?

A ship isn't a building a building is not a ship.

reply to post by theability


This argument has been beat to death over and over again , right here on ATS .

I have grown weary of debating the same crap over and over again .

Some people will never compromise , simply for the sake of argument .

You are entitled to your opinion and interpretation of things .

Good luck with your thread .

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Alfie1

 

First off the Titantic is small, 46,000 tons? Compared to the steel in one WTC tower at 200,000 tons.

Now I bet using a ship to building comparison is alittle of base, don't you think?

A ship isn't a building a building is not a ship.

Yes, at 46,000 tons the Titanic was a smaller man-made structure than a WTC tower.

However, it was still a massive structure and doesn't affect the principle that huge structures will exhibit violent reactions in their demise.

Sounds like explosion sounds have been added in the OP's clip.

The OP's clip:

And another older one (original maybe)

Edit: Ok i think that works now.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Saytan75]

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Saytan75]

reply to post by theability


The sad thing is justice will never be served.

How do we stop this NWO?

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by One Moment

 

Would you go into any building after finding out that build them with explosives to begin with? Likely not.

Now for the engineer community wouldn't allow this anyway and someone would have spoken up along time ago.

That was the whole reason for the secrecy among the public arena! They knew no one would want to be tenants in a building with...built-in nuclear devices for 'honest and innocent' purposes (to be brought down....down the road when they got old and out-dated)

Now, 9-11 is a whole other story.
They (Bush? Cheney? Silverstein? PTB? perhaps all?) USED this 'secret' device for malevolent reasons. To incite WAR.

9-11 was planned way far in advance.
Probably stemming back to PaPa Bush's reign back in the PNAC days!

BZZZZZZZZ! Wrong! WRONG WRONG!

This video is a poorly edited video that adds in FAKE explosive sounds. Now why would someone FAKE the sounds of explosives to a video that doesnt have any before? I saw this video years ago and saw right through it. Especially after seeing the ORIGINAL.



THIS is the original video. Nothing like the edited faked explosions.

High quality video my @$$, that video is just a lame TM attempt to push more lies.

I reccomend you drop this faked video like a hot potato if you do not want to be seen as a purvayor of disinfo and lies. And I do mean this for your sake and credibility as it would cast a shadow on anything else you would bring forward as "evidence". My friend, its for your sake. Drop this video.

[edit on 5/23/2010 by GenRadek]