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

between 19 and 24 thats not a string of explosions according to you then?



Look up french demolition technique (verinage) an demolition method that does not use explosives and see if you find anything like that.

Here is one



Look up more see if you find anything that sounds like the cracks between 19 and 24 in your clip. And I am listening to it over an SRH440 Headphone, a good headphone which is said to be lacking in bass though.


Multiple explosions are reported, and for the first time ever, 3 steel frame buildings collapse due to fire, but none of the many explosions which were reported, of which some are captured on video, are bombs.

Take a big step back and try to realize what you are trying to push. Those buildings did not use gas lines and there are only so many explosions that can be attribuited to xploding transformators. Dont you think its odd New York firefighters were surprised and puzzled at all those explosions? Some of the firefighters looked old enough to have been on the force since the 80s, a time when the NYFDP pretincts with a machine out on a daily basis, sometimes multiple times a day. Dont you think if burning buildings exploding all around them would have been a regular occurrence they would have been A equipped to deal with explosions, such as flack jackets and B not puzzled, surprised and wondering at what was happening around them?

Originally posted by Cassius666
between 19 and 24 thats not a string of explosions according to you then?

Its called clipping.

That does not make sense. In audio therms clipping means that the sound maxes out because the equipment can not record/reproduce the sound at a higher level. Therefore a range of sounds are recorded/reproduced at the same volume, the maximum of the equipment, although they are not.

reply to post by Cassius666


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.

But since you claim the audio of all the video equipment was crap and the explosives were too quiet to be picked up, then why didnt anyone hear anything before WTC7 collapsed? And please do not repost that dreadful faked audio of the phone booth "explosion" which was shown to have mono vocal and stereo explosion. The audio of the blast is far too loud and far too clear in relation to the sound of the firefighters.

But now I am hearin conflicting ideas. Most say its explosives because the explosives managed to launch hundreds of tons of steel hundreds of feet away. You are now saying the explosives were too quiet or not audible enough to be picked up by video cameras. You do realize that in order to have the power to "launch" heavy objects over long distances, the explosives must be very powerful. And if an explosive is powerful to do that, it is most certainly powerful enough to be heard on even the crappiest video recorder. So what is going on? Did the conspirators use different explosives for all of the buildings? Different explosives for WTC 1 and 2, and quieter ones for WTC7?

Also I would like to hear any accounts from fire fighters where they heard a string of explosions heard right before WTC7 went down.. Good luck because of all the accounts I read or heard, they all say the same thing: they are just standing around, and then all of a sudden, WTC7 just falls. Where are the reports of hearing series of blasts prior?

reply to post by Cassius666


So do you think that explosive charges are going off in this video?:
www.youtube.com...

Do you admit there are striking similarities? Or do you hear something entirely different?

reply to post by GenRadek


Is this some kind of joke? Multiple explosions were reported prior to the collapse in both buildings. I doubt they were "too silent" to be picked up.

The explosions were picked up on WTC 7, just really faint, just like the noise of the building collapsing was really faint. Where the noise of the building collapsing is better audible, so are the explosions which are even louder in a gutted windowless building. The explosions in wtc 1 and 2 are nowhere near as faint.

And a building does not come down right away, because depending on the building, first parts are blown out that might hamper the demolition process, so you see explosions but the building is still not on its way down, yet, because the charges of the main support structures are not set off yet, after those are set off there is a very short delay before they go off and the building is on its way down, not after several seconds.



You have an explosion at the basement (a big one) and several explosion throughout the building, that take out loadbearing parts withing the building I guess without the building collapsing yet, then you have a final string of explosions that take out the critical support of the building and the building collapses immediately after those go off.

These explosions took place in WTC 1 and 2 over a period of time. Then the last set of charges are set off, that blow up the building.

reply to post by -PLB-


What you hear is some of the heavy raindrops being slammed against the mic. So yes, there are explosions, miniscule ones and thats when they sound like when they go off right on the sweetsport of the mic of the camera, just like a nuclear blast is inaudible past a certain distance (or not, not sure if there are yields that went globals).

Here you have strong wind without the rain



Anyway I dont quite get what point you are trying to make. Are you saying the noise was heavy rain? I dont see how that clip helps your case at all.

Seriously guys I am at a loss with you people. Please tell me in your opinions how is a honest and constructive discourse possible, when neither of you even aknowledges what is in plain sight? I say whtinesses heard explosions their, testimony is on video, you all go like, oh no nobody said something like that. Explosions are caught on video, Oh those are all transformators exploding, nothing to see here, or, oh its just the building collapsing.

I am beginning to think you guys do not really believe what you say, but that you are just trolling. Now granted neither of you comes across like your typical internet troll (from what I saw) but at the very least there is some denial going on here. Now there might the same be going on with people who defend other theories, but you 2 (along with 2 or 4 other guys) are among the most active members on this particular forum, so I noticed this with you.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by GenRadek

 

.

These explosions took place in WTC 1 and 2 over a period of time. Then the last set of charges are set off, that blow up the building.

edit on 25-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

You blithely say that but have presented no evidence at all for "a last set of charges". You have seen the video taken in the North Tower before and during the collapse of the South Tower and there just aren't any last set of charges, however much you want there to be.

Here is video taken from the street of the collapse of the South Tower. The clip commences 1.5 minutes before collapse and there simply aren't any last charges going off :-

www.youtube.com...

It is obvious that the crowd reacts to the initiation of the collapse and not any final detonations. You are deluding yourself over last sets of charges.

reply to post by Cassius666


I didn't really expect you to understand it. I will just leave it at that, as you lack any education that makes your opinion have any relevance anyhow.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Is this some kind of joke? Multiple explosions were reported prior to the collapse in both buildings. I doubt they were "too silent" to be picked up.

The explosions were picked up on WTC 7, just really faint, just like the noise of the building collapsing was really faint. Where the noise of the building collapsing is better audible, so are the explosions which are even louder in a gutted windowless building. The explosions in wtc 1 and 2 are nowhere near as faint.

And a building does not come down right away, because depending on the building, first parts are blown out that might hamper the demolition process, so you see explosions but the building is still not on its way down, yet, because the charges of the main support structures are not set off yet, after those are set off there is a very short delay before they go off and the building is on its way down, not after several seconds.

You have an explosion at the basement (a big one) and several explosion throughout the building, that take out loadbearing parts withing the building I guess without the building collapsing yet, then you have a final string of explosions that take out the critical support of the building and the building collapses immediately after those go off.

These explosions took place in WTC 1 and 2 over a period of time. Then the last set of charges are set off, that blow up the building.

edit on 25-1-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

There is a difference between hearing something go boom during a fire, and controlled demolition charges going off in sequence. Controlled demolition sound a hell of a lot different than random booms and thuds. You make it sound as if hearing things go boom during a large fire is unheard of (pardon the pun). I heard explosions come from a garage fire I watched a couple of years ago. Does that mean secret bombs were going off in the garage?

I already know which accounts you will use to claim people heard explosions or saw explosions at the WTC, however, I already know what context they are being used in. I'm willing to bet you dont. Well, no kidding explosions happened at WTC. You have TWO airliners burning inside TWO 110 story buildings. You have about 20+ acres, ACRES of offices, machines, computers, pipes, mechanical rooms, etc etc etc all burning in an inferno including the airliners. And you think that "explosions" being heard is evidence of controlled demolition? Also, people describing the collapse as an explosion does not equal evidence of controlled demolitions. People describing the impact as an explosion does not equal evidence of controlled demolitions. People describing the floors landing on each other or the sound of the collapse as explosions does not equal evidence of controlled demolitions. Oh yes, and then hearing more "booms" after the collapses? Hmm does it really have to be spelled out? Hundreds of cars getting squashed, buried, caught fire, and exploding would definately make some noise. Also the firearms of the officers killed or buried in the rubble would explode. Gas mains, pressurized pipes. falling heavy debris, all make LOUD noises. And lay people describe them as "explosions". So no, Cassius, you got nothing.

It is funny you believe that the charges were going off all day, and yet, nothing happened during those moments. And when the collapses were underway, NOTHING was recorded until the collapse started.

Really? WTC7 has actual audio of demo charges going off? WOW! and yet, I cannot find anyone mentioning hearing any go off prior to collapse.

So now you aknowledge there were explosions but not from bombs.

The firefighters were certainly thinking all these explosions were bombs. Why would firefighters be confused at what is happening during a large fire. Dont you think they would wear flack jackets and body armor if explosions are a normal occourrence during a fire? And yes, there arent tons of explosions just because there is a fire. The WTC complex wasnt a gas station and the explosions took place on floors where there was no fire.

What in the WTC would explode because of a fire? Only thing I can think of that is throuhout the building are fireextinguishers (I assume they were throughout the building). If explosions during a large fire would be a normal occourrence, they would have been observed during other fires, such as the CCTV building in china that was ablaze from top to bottom. Now that was a fire.

Discussion with you people is tyering. I am getting the expression some of you see this as some kind of battel ("do you admit defeat" etc.) .

World trade center 7 was never struck by a airplane. It fell neatly in its own footprint. World trade center 7 housed the Enron papers. Anybody remember what was the biggest story before 9/11? Pull it.

Believe me, I know the sound of explosions, their reverberations and shockwaves. The firemen at the payphone video has classic explosives sound in a built-up area, not exploding tyres, petrol tanks, gas cylinders or falling debris, and the guy is saying WTC7 is exploding. Other video has firefighters saying that the same building is about to blow up. So, all pure Hollywood I presume.

So why do the experts at implosionworld.com totally dis agree with you?

Do you know more than they do?

Just what is your experience that qualifies you as an expert?

reply to post by smurfy


So I maybe you could explain to Cassius that what he is hearing are not explosive charges going off. Or do you agree with Cassius that in the video of the lobby you hear explosives?

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

I didn't really expect you to understand it. I will just leave it at that, as you lack any education that makes your opinion have any relevance anyhow.

Your videos did not make the point you were trying to make and now you are just resorting to insults. So you do have the necessarry education? You are an expert on recording and know the in and outs of the professional equipment related to it?

reply to post by Cassius666


What I wrote was not an insult, at least not meant that way. I am just summarizing the situation. You have no clue what it is you are hearing, you just make up whatever you want to hear. Another example of a microphone being overloaded, eh, I mean explosive charges going off: www.youtube.com...

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.

You don't know what (if any) the criteria were for a WTC demo if it was a demo, so you cannot claim that the conditions that applied to some videos you saw on YouTube apply here.

Incidentally the reason they have the big charges going off beforehand is to knock out the core supports which is why you can do it beforehand. The method of the WTC destruction is obviously not the same as these demo's you are looking at, so there is no reason for the pattern of explosions to be the same.

reply to post by -PLB-

What I wrote was not an insult, at least not meant that way. I am just summarizing the situation. You have no clue what it is you are hearing, you just make up whatever you want to hear. Another example of a microphone being overloaded, eh, I mean explosive charges going off: www.youtube.com...

Dude, this microphone is DIRECTLY under the train!

Sound is damped by distance according to an inverse proportion law!

www.sengpielaudio.com...

You are no doubt aware that some of the camera's at WTC featured a device called a zoom lens, that is not a conspiracy theory, these hi-tech gizmo's actually exist.