WTC Detonations Finally Revealed (Video)

Originally posted by JKersteJr
Listen carefully from 0:43 - 0:47, in those few seconds you can hear the faint sequence of explosions, after that point, the sound of the building collapsing drowns out everything and would mask any further detonations.

This sums it up beautifully. So many people can hear it, but there are also those that cannot. Makes one wonder why those people that can't hear it, can't.

Originally posted by okbmd
I , and the majority of posters in this thread can't hear them , but you can .

I don't know where you're getting "majority" from, but it's your fantasy. The flag count and attention it's getting elsewhere prove otherwise. Keep telling yourself these fairy tales.

Originally posted by okbmd
Doesn't add up bonez .

Nothing will ever add up for debunkers. There's an agenda at play.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Only someone with an extraordinary sense of reality could describe an enormous fuel-laden passenger jet flying into a skyscraper as a "small amount of damage".

Well, too bad you have never done any of the research to know otherwise.

By NIST's original calculations, 33 perimeter columns were damaged or severed in the towers and 6-10 core columns were damaged or severed in the towers from the plane impacts. So, out of 283 columns, 240 were intact in the impact zones. 240 divided by 283 gives us 85% of the structure was intact in the impact zones, or 15% of the columns in the impact zones were damaged.

15% of a structure being damaged is minimal damage.

Originally posted by okbmd
Again , this makes absolutely no sense at all . How did the witnesses hear "the rest of the detonations" , if the "rest were drowned out by the loud roaring " ?

Makes no sense to the unresearched. The rest of the noise was drowned out on camera. Microphones don't pick up all the sounds that the human ear can.

You sure are trying to catch somebody in a lie or a mistake, but it's just not going to happen.

Originally posted by okbmd
This is exactly what happened with the Twin Towers but , it will take someone who is not in denial to see this .

Actually, it's not what exactly happened considering the buildings in his videos are concrete. Concrete buildings will crumble easily. Steel-structured buildings will not. Nice try though.

Originally posted by space cadet
Hearing explosions is no proof at all.

Maybe not by itself, but when the flashes and ejections are added in, there is no other explanation but controlled demolition.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


I am not convinced. In fact I am rather un-impressed by your lack of supporting evidence.

I am not talking about circumstantial evidence of sound bites of witnesses describing something that they have heard with no other related similar frame of reference with which to compare it. Other than controlled demolitions. "Sounds like" doesn't make it so.

Certainly not the puffs of the compressed air that is blowing out parts of the structure as the enormous volume of air is compressed below the collapsing structure. Like a piston.

This is your thread, the burden of convincing me(and others) of the claim you are presenting is indeed, upon you.

Before you tell me (like you have several others here) to go do the research....re-read the above paragraph again.

If you are trying to compel me to consider this or any other proof in a reasonable way. Be reasonable ,not condescending.

Screaming every six sentences "there is no other explanation but controlled demolition" over and over gets me no closer to taking any of your research seriously. Nor will it convince as well as more definitive evidence can.

You may have something here, but your tone speaks more of your zeal for your wanting to see a conspiracy than of presenting facts that would corroborate the theory.

Bring something more tangible to your argument. Such as witnesses to the installation of the purported explosives and such.


BTW: The counting of flags and stars on a conspiracy website is not proof of anything other than conspiracy theorists are here.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Zeptepi]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
These puffs are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated and are seen in many controlled demolitions that use explosives. And these puffs are only seen in controlled demolitions.

Those that think they are debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, make up their own theories as to what those puffs/ejections are. But that's all they can do is opinionize and theorize. But what is factual is that those puffs/ejections have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and not a single person has ever been able to prove otherwise.

Or, conversely, these puffs are made by structural members under hugely excessive load snapping outwards, ejecting debris outwards as they fail, because this kind of thing has never been seen before, because up until 11th September 2001 no one had flown an airliner into the side of the WTC towers and they had not collapsed.

What is actually factual is that you do not know and are speculating based on what you think you know, fitting in a scenario that is most comfortable to what you beleive

Sorry to be a damp "squib" here - but the simple fact is that you are making bold proclamations on this, and you really, really don't know. None of us do.

9/11 is the rule. It is NOT the exception to the rule.

Originally posted by neformore
Or, conversely, these puffs are made by structural members under hugely excessive load snapping outwards, ejecting debris outwards as they fail, because this kind of thing has never been seen before, because up until 11th September 2001 no one had flown an airliner into the side of the WTC towers and they had not collapsed.

Nef, the plane impacts had zero relation to whether we see puffs or not. Your explanation might be entertained if we see the puffs only at the impact zones, but we do not. We see them on all sides of the buildings, happening all the way down the buildings, and sometimes 60 floors away from the collapse wave.

And yes, building collapses have happened numerous times throughout history. Some from earthquakes, fire (although not-steel structured highrises), and of course controlled demolitions. These puffs will only ever be seen in controlled demolitions as they happen due to high-powered explosives being detonated and ejecting material laterally.

I'm sorry, Nef, but I'm not going to ignore all the witnesses that saw the flashes or heard the BOOMs or what puffs have only ever been from in the past just because someone wants to speculate on what they might be. They might be from air escaping, or they might be from something snapping outwards. Well, they might be from King Kong being stuck inside the buildings and trying to punch his way out. It's ridiculous to speculate on what the puffs might be when if you add everything together, the BOOMs, the flashes, and the puffs, you have every sign of a controlled demolition. It's absolutely absurd to make things up to explain the obvious away because someone chooses to remain in denial and can't possibly come to terms that the buildings were, indeed, laden with explosives.

But it is absolute fact that these puffs have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and there isn't one single person out of the 6.5 Billion people on this planet that can prove otherwise.

In controlled demolitions, you have BOOMS, flashes, and many times puffs. Those were all seen and heard at the WTC. What more could you possibly need absent someone finding pieces of the actual detonators?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Only someone with an extraordinary sense of reality could describe an enormous fuel-laden passenger jet flying into a skyscraper as a "small amount of damage".

Well, too bad you have never done any of the research to know otherwise.

By NIST's original calculations, 33 perimeter columns were damaged or severed in the towers and 6-10 core columns were damaged or severed in the towers from the plane impacts. So, out of 283 columns, 240 were intact in the impact zones. 240 divided by 283 gives us 85% of the structure was intact in the impact zones, or 15% of the columns in the impact zones were damaged.

15% of a structure being damaged is minimal damage.

If I cut off 15 per cent of your body mass, would that be minimal? Just a leg below the knee, something like that.

Okay, that's an analogy. But you're wrong anyway. Structures rely on unity for their integrity. And an enormous plane hitting them is not minimal damage.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


You can better compare it to a bullet entering your head. That also does minimal damage to your body. And indeed for structures the same applies. Demolition charges also cause limited damage, the collapse that follow is responsible for most of the damage.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But you're wrong anyway.

In your opinion. You forgot to say that part.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
And an enormous plane hitting them is not minimal damage.

When only 15% of the structure in the impact zones (at most) was damaged, then yes that is minimal damage. 240 out of 283 columns were still intact and undamaged in the impact zones, or 85% of the structure was still intact. Minimal damage.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by v3_exceed
To a large degree I think people need to believe the official story, because to not believe it creates the possibility that the government could be involved in much more. For many, this is a level of complicity they cannot live with.

Well said. And is one of the main reasons why so many people are in denial or go so far out of their way to remain in denial, regardless of the facts or truth.

And, once you accept 9/11 for what it really is, you begin to understand the capability (nay... CULPAbility) of our governments, and other powerful organizations around the world. It's a deep rabbit hole, my friends.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
When only 15% of the structure in the impact zones (at most) was damaged, then yes that is minimal damage. 240 out of 283 columns were still intact and undamaged in the impact zones, or 85% of the structure was still intact. Minimal damage.

What percentage of a structure is damaged in a conventional CD? Far less than 15 per cent. And yet the buildings still come down.

Because they damage parts of them that are critical to it standing up. This is what happened with the planes.

And I still disagree with the use of the word minimal, but you're right, it's a matter of opinion. Most people would not, however, agree that a plane crashing into a building at 500 mph and exploding could be described as "minimal" damage.

If I drove a car through the front room of your house, you might not respond as though it had incurred minimal damage, even though only 15 per cent of your house was destroyed.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


Untrue. It's conspiracy theorists who are looking for comfort. Theirs is a world with a clean, easily understandable narrative in which there is at least the possibility of catching some bad guys, and good guys - like themselves - winning out.

The narrative provides closure and the reassurance that they haven't been gulled. They've probably got a rubbish job, but at least they're wise to the machinations of the world. And of course they're being held back. Essentially decent people always are, by a cabal of evildoers.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Nef, the plane impacts had zero relation to whether we see puffs or not. Your explanation might be entertained if we see the puffs only at the impact zones, but we do not. We see them on all sides of the buildings, happening all the way down the buildings, and sometimes 60 floors away from the collapse wave.

OK....bear with me here.

When a beam, or support, fails the loads are transferred to the surrounding structure.

Those loads are passed through the structure, and the structure will fail at any weak spots that are incapable of taking the transferred load.

I would suggest that what you see (the "squibs") may very well be building failing at its weakest points, with beams bending and breaking outwards. When one point fails the loads transfer to another part of the structure, and that pattern repeats becoming a cascade reaction as the weight of the building starts to shift to other points.

These puffs will only ever be seen in controlled demolitions as they happen due to high-powered explosives being detonated and ejecting material laterally.

As I keep saying 9/11 is the RULE, not the exception to it. No one had seen towers like these collapse. You simply can't make that statement You are fitting something to the event, instead of thinking about other possibilites.

I'm sorry, Nef, but I'm not going to ignore all the witnesses that saw the flashes or heard the BOOMs or what puffs have only ever been from in the past just because someone wants to speculate on what they might be.

And yet, your doing just that. You are speculating. You have no actual idea. You are simply stating what you think you know.

It's ridiculous to speculate on what the puffs might be when if you add everything together, the BOOMs, the flashes, and the puffs, you have every sign of a controlled demolition. It's absolutely absurd to make things up to explain the obvious away because someone chooses to remain in denial and can't possibly come to terms that the buildings were, indeed, laden with explosives.

You can't say that. You don't KNOW that. You are speculating. And yet you are saying I'm the one making things up.

But it is absolute fact that these puffs have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and there isn't one single person out of the 6.5 Billion people on this planet that can prove otherwise.

In controlled demolitions, you have BOOMS, flashes, and many times puffs. Those were all seen and heard at the WTC. What more could you possibly need absent someone finding pieces of the actual detonators?

Again I go back to the simple fact that until 11th September 2001, no person out of the 6.5 billion people on this planet had seen two 1,300ft+ buildings collapse after being hit by large passenger jet aircraft flying into them at speed, making the events of 9/11 the rule and not the exception to the rule.

You are trying to measure the event by applying other standards and, frankly - you can't. No one can.

It would be more convincing and helpful to show an audio analysis of the collapse to show the spikes(detonations) in a graph beside the video of collapse. They are kind of hard to hear and it may take a few viewings before you actually hear them, but as someone already mentioned if you pay close attention between 0:42 and 0:47 you'll hear them. You could even filter out the background noise to hear only the detonations also.

Really, an audio engineer or someone knowledgeable in audio software really needs to analyze this new video. I also noticed what appear to be squibs coming out from the left side during the collapse. It would be nice to see if these detonations match the timing of the squibs.

Here is a 3 part series where someone did just that with an other video. It shows the full spectrum of sound and indications of explosions. I've only watched the first part, but it shows what kind of analysis i'm talking about.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by curious_soul


That is exactly what the senate investigation into the Kennedy assassination did to filter out the background noise and only have the gunshots fired as able to be heard.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
If I cut off 15 per cent of your body mass, would that be minimal? Just a leg below the knee, something like that.

Okay, that's an analogy. But you're wrong anyway. Structures rely on unity for their integrity. And an enormous plane hitting them is not minimal damage.

I won't argue with you on this particular point but seriously, is the construction manager for the WTC wrong?



Please spare me the "707 is much bigger and the planes on 9/11 were fully loaded with jet fuel"

reply to post by JKersteJr


He is not wrong, the buildings did not collapse because of the impact damage. Else they should have collapsed right after impact.