South Tower Explosion before collapse. New released video.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by remymartin

 

Yes, I know it was obscured by the smoke, and the billowing of the dust from the collapse. BUT, most of the South Tower is also blocked from view by WTC 7. Still, there are no "flashes", nor any sort of "explosions", just the deep sort of rumbling sounds one would expect in the collapse sequence.

As to the "CD' comment....Um, from your OP:

You can clearly hear the explosion and see a flash just before the tower
starts to fall.

Pardon me for thinking that, in that sentence, you implied a "CD". Did you or did you not imply such?

"Drip, drip, drip..." That sorta cemented the idea and intent of your posting, no?

Come on weed turn your volume up there is an explosion before collapse. Yes the south tower has smoke in front and wtc7 is partially obscuring it, but the interesting piece of the tower can be seen ok.
As for CD if you think i was implying that then go ahead keep thinking that, Infact you can think what you want it wont change the thread.

reply to post by remymartin


It does "change the thread"....because, an example of the deep sound (or even as commented by others, "several"...but not the typical rapid-succession heard in known CD events) that YOU call an "explosion" is nothing more than an indication of internal structural collapse, and the sounds that accompany those events.

Watch, and listen, carefully. This was a tragic (because three people were killed) accident involving a crane that suffered a structural failure. Apparently, it was loaded BEYOND its bearing capacity, and failed globally. (OR, it was designed improperly, and loaded to "designed" tolerances...but, nevertheless, it failed spectacularly).

Pay attention that, despite the "sounds" of "explosions", there WERE NONE!!! Just, the SOUNDS of stuff breaking, and "sounding like" an "explosion"....



This is clear, as an example. Because it isn't covered up with the dust that is inherent in a huge office buildings' collapse, what with all the other furnishings and drywall and all that other stuff that's part of such buildings. This, a bare and nude crane, made out of STEEL, that broke and the SOUND of the breaking made NOISES thta resembled "explosions".

Which is EXACTLY what happened to the Twin Towers that fatfeul morning.

If you take into account simple physics – speed of light vs speed of sound, and the distance from which the video was taken (from the OP) , than it's clearly shown that you first hear the explosion and then see it. If this was the sounds of the building collapse, than it should have been the other way around. First see then hear.

The explosion was so significant that the guy filming thought that a third airplane had impacted.

2nd line.

Look at 1:42 of the video and watch the series of flashes on the North wall of WTC 7!

Clear PROOF of cutter charges!

Save this video to your hard drives and distribute.

reply to post by smurfy

I don't know why the NIST wanted this video since I don't see anything truly significant. The flash could have been from any number of things. I'm not familiar with the John Grosse incident so I'd prefer not to speculate much on it although it does seem odd. The only clear portion of the video is the beginning with the helicopter and close up of WTC 1. I'm also somewhat curious about the audio in the video as the acoustics change like a cut although the video doesn't. It appears to be shot as a hand held video as opposed to using a tripod so I wouldn't expect the narration to change unless the video matched to some degree.


reply to post by weedwhacker

That's a very good example and comparison. I swear people think that there's only one definition for an explosion. As a refresher course for some, here's the definition of explosion.


ex·plo·sion (k-splzhn)
n.
1.
a. A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often
violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of
gases
b. A violent bursting as a result of internal pressure.
c. The loud, sharp sound made as a result of either of these actions.


reply to post by gravitational

How can you honestly say that when so much of the building is obscured by smoke? Isn't it a bit speculative to say which happened first?


reply to post by susp3kt

You're taking the mention of a third plane out of context. The narrator never mentions an explosion as the cause for his suspicions. You can actually see the right side of the video where he speculated he saw something projecting and I don't see anything. The flash would have been the front from his and the camera's perspective so it appears what he thought he saw was incorrect.

Here's all the narration relating to the third plane:

"There's the third"
"The thrid plane hit it"
"I thought I saw stuff projecting out the right"

reply to post by turbofan


Good try but are you serious?

That's something you can clearly see as paper blowing in front of the building. You can even follow it past the building with the sky in the background.

reply to post by Three_moons




PAPER!? Does paper light up and show up at random places all over the wall?

I see no paper blowing around at that point

Sorry to say the wind is blowing in the opposite direction. Look at the smoke from the towers!

YOu have no leg to stand on.

Paper?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by remymartin

 

It does "change the thread"....because, an example of the deep sound (or even as commented by others, "several"...but not the typical rapid-succession heard in known CD events) that YOU call an "explosion" is nothing more than an indication of internal structural collapse, and the sounds that accompany those events.

Watch, and listen, carefully. This was a tragic (because three people were killed) accident involving a crane that suffered a structural failure. Apparently, it was loaded BEYOND its bearing capacity, and failed globally. (OR, it was designed improperly, and loaded to "designed" tolerances...but, nevertheless, it failed spectacularly).

Pay attention that, despite the "sounds" of "explosions", there WERE NONE!!! Just, the SOUNDS of stuff breaking, and "sounding like" an "explosion"....

This is clear, as an example. Because it isn't covered up with the dust that is inherent in a huge office buildings' collapse, what with all the other furnishings and drywall and all that other stuff that's part of such buildings. This, a bare and nude crane, made out of STEEL, that broke and the SOUND of the breaking made NOISES thta resembled "explosions".

Which is EXACTLY what happened to the Twin Towers that fatfeul morning.

Yes the big blue crane affair was bad i think three people died. What your hearing there is the cables snapping , the king pin failing then the crane collapse and the cameras mic is right up close.
The vid in the op is markedly different, the only cables in the wtc are lift cables you wont here them snap over a block away No kingpin, And the building does not start to collapse till after the explosion.

Originally posted by Three_moons
reply to post by smurfy

 

reply to post by gravitational

 

How can you honestly say that when so much of the building is obscured by smoke? Isn't it a bit speculative to say which happened first?

Since the collapse started from the top down, and immediately showed clouds of dust from that collapse, than that's the only part of the building that is important for analysis concerning speed of sound vs light. IMHO

reply to post by turbofan


I'm confused, turbofan....as to which video you are referring. Do you mean the one in the OP??:

Look at 1:42 of the video....

Because, I just re-watched the OP's video, and at the "1:42" (one minute, 42 seconds) point of THAT video, the collapse of the South Tower was already well underway. Any so-called "explosions" at that point, in the collapse sequence and scenario, would indicate only the expulsions of ejecta as a RESULT OF THE COLLAPSE!!!!

I fail to see anything else, in that video example (NOR, in any of the various others, so far...). EXCEPT a gravitational collapse, of a structure that had been fatally compromised, and the subsequent forces exerted, of masses accelerating, contributed to a total collapse.

reply to post by remymartin



I beg to differ, about the assertion of "directional mics"....

What your hearing there is the cables snapping , the king pin failing then the crane collapse and the cameras mic is right up close.

"cables snapping"???? Have proof of that??? Well, doesn't much matter, because if searched long enough, a full report of the sequence of events surrounding the failure of that (very public) "Big Blue Crane" in Minneapolis are likely freely available.


Referring back to the video in your OP....ummmmm....the sounds of the helicopter, in the opening seconds OF THAT VIDEO, indicate a certain "directionality" of the mic associated with the video. Does it not???

However, given that the chopper is in a relative position to the camera (and thus, the recording apparatus...the "mic") compared to the South Tower, and their relative distance FROM the recording device (this case, the camera/mic combination)....do you not yet comprehend how it is important, and also, somewhat deceptive???

I am not sure I have the proper terminology to explain what, to me, is plainly obvious....from life experience.

The video shown, in this thread's OP, does nothing to compel the "argument" of 'planned demolition' of the Twin Towers, in any way. Sorry. It IS a valuable testament to the physics of the collapse, but that is all.

reply to post by weedwhacker

Referring back to the video in your OP....ummmmm....the sounds of the helicopter, in the opening seconds OF THAT VIDEO, indicate a certain "directionality" of the mic associated with the video. Does it not??? However, given that the chopper is in a relative position to the camera (and thus, the recording apparatus...the "mic") compared to the South Tower, and their relative distance FROM the recording device (this case, the camera/mic combination)....do you not yet comprehend how it is important, and also, somewhat deceptive??? I am not sure I have the proper terminology to explain what, to me, is plainly obvious....from life experience.

Really, from my life experience i thought that the closer you were to a noise the louder you heard it.
And a really loud noise can be heard further away

reply to post by remymartin


Well, if discussing a person's NATURAL hearing, then....

Really, from my life experience i thought that the closer you were to a noise the louder you heard it.

Well, of course.....BUT, in the video, you have to understand the technology of the MICROPHONE that is recording the sound. What you "hear" is only the result of what the EQUIPMENT, at the time, recorded to the soundtrack/recording device in use.

Trying to "put yourself" into the 'scene' of a recording is irrelevant, and false. YOU WEREN'T THERE!!!

(Why do you think that, on "Oscar Night", they award gold statues for "SOUND editing", in the motion picture industry???)

I was mentioning the directionality of the particular mic that must have accompanied that video, as it (both visual and audio) were recorded simultaneously. MY experience with consumer-level camcorders has been, once you ZOOM in to a subject, most (even at the level of amateur video devices) also attenuate the sound pick up device (the "mic") to be more directional. Sorry, this takes more words to describe than are needed to just UNDERSTAND by doing and using a video camcorder, for yourself, and experimenting with it to see the results.

Perhaps it's harder for those who have NEVER OWNED such equipment to comprehend????

And a really loud noise can be heard further away.

Another vague misconception, absent specifics....sorry.

reply to post by weedwhacker


"Oscar night" what are you talking about? You do like to wander from the op. Oh and by the way the camera was pulling out not zooming in, you really should watch these videos more closely and not just dismiss them.

reply to post by remymartin

Oh and by the way the camera was pulling out not zooming in...

Makes my point even better.

The entirety of the soundtrack, as the camera zoomed IN, back out....you CANNOT judge the actual soundsof the event, based on the evidence form ONE camera/video soundtrack example.

JUST AS I mentioned, with Hollywood!! I do wish you'd pay attention, and realize that those mentions are not meant to distract, but to provide examples to compare to.......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by remymartin

 

Oh and by the way the camera was pulling out not zooming in...

Makes my point even better.

The entirety of the soundtrack, as the camera zoomed IN, back out....you CANNOT judge the actual soundsof the event, based on the evidence form ONE camera/video soundtrack example.

JUST AS I mentioned, with Hollywood!! I do wish you'd pay attention, and realize that those mentions are not meant to distract, but to provide examples to compare to.......

edit on 10 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: spell

So why show big blue your using the same analogy
sl

if you all watch the video posted by splint,you will see what we have is a pyro technics show,from 2.10 to 2.24,you can clearly see the flash's going crazy,in a controlled pattern,and carrys on just ahead of the collapse,which clearly shows the method of a controlled demolition.

here the you tube link for the video.
watch carefully from 2.10 to 2.24.

reply to post by turbofan

Yes. Paper. No, paper does not light up but it can reflect light. As paper moves throughout the air it can appear as showing up in random places all over the wall. Since when are CD explosives randomly placed? Think of confetti falling through the air, which is essentially what all the paper falling became.

Watch this video and notice how the confetti acts as it twists and turns and falls and reflects light, especially near the end where there's less confetti.



And now watch a clip from the OP's video which I zoomed and slowed the speed. You can see the paper move from the left to the right, passing in front ot the building and then past the building and in front of the sky. If this was clear proof of cutter charges why do we see the charges over 7 hours before its collapse? You probably don't see paper blowing around at that point because your mind is already made up that you see cutter charges. Also watch the OP video between :25 and :35 as you can see the exact same confetti effect with paper reflecting the light. If these are cutter charges too then someone planned to CD the sky I guess. Watch it full screen for best results.



The air currents can be different at varying places and levels. As an example, have you ever seen leaves falling? I've seen many leaves fall throughout my life and know that directly in front of me the wind is lightly blowing leaves in one direction while I can look to the distance in front of me and to the tops of trees above me and see three directionally distinct leaf movements. Same goes for the difference between the smoke direction and paper direction. Quite simply, the air currents are different at 1300'.

Thanks for your concern but I have 2 legs to stand on.

And examples and thoughts and videos and...what do you have?

Yes. Paper.


reply to post by gravitational

How can you even tell exactly where the collapse began to compare it with sound? We're not talking about seconds here but presumably milliseconds. A millisecond or few for sound, another couple for the collapsing debris to break through the smoke and whatever other variables are present and I just can't say or see anything concrete regarding this from the video. I tried to find the flash, frame by frame, and see how it related to the noise but my capturing program seems to miss the frame with the flash. It's doubtful that we're going to see eye to eye on this one.

Originally posted by Three_moons
reply to post by smurfy

 

I don't know why the NIST wanted this video since I don't see anything truly significant. The flash could have been from any number of things. I'm not familiar with the John Grosse incident so I'd prefer not to speculate much on it although it does seem odd. The only clear portion of the video is the beginning with the helicopter and close up of WTC 1. I'm also somewhat curious about the audio in the video as the acoustics change like a cut although the video doesn't. It appears to be shot as a hand held video as opposed to using a tripod so I wouldn't expect the narration to change unless the video matched to some degree.

This is John Grosse talking,

www.youtube.com...#!

BTW, the "paper" is a flash, check out the same anomaly from other videos at different angles, you'll find them yourself if you are really interested in getting at any truth....

This is a better link,

www.youtube.com...

Also why are you showing us bits of paper floating in front of WT7? it's the south tower that is the interest.

Originally posted by Three_moons
reply to post by turbofan

 

reply to post by gravitational

 

How can you even tell exactly where the collapse began to compare it with sound? We're not talking about seconds here but presumably milliseconds. A millisecond or few for sound, another couple for the collapsing debris to break through the smoke and whatever other variables are present and I just can't say or see anything concrete regarding this from the video. I tried to find the flash, frame by frame, and see how it related to the noise but my capturing program seems to miss the frame with the flash. It's doubtful that we're going to see eye to eye on this one.

There is no way this paper, aluminum sheet, glass or whatever. It is without a doubt a very bright flash.
You can see it from another angle here, despite the heavy smoke. (actually two flashes are clearly seen here)



I was able to isolate both the corner of the south tower and the flash. We know that the south tower's collapse differed from the north by its upper portion tipping to the side. In the screen capture image, you can see the top portion is still in strait position, AFTER the explosion is heard.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c127ae51dc5a.jpg[/atsimg]

Edit: trying to embed picture