Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

[thesyntaxera]

As far as I can tell, thesyntaxera has taken a position that he doesn't necessarily believe that there is a conspiracy, but that there are too many holes in the popular version of the events that unfolded on 9/11. Although, to my understanding he will not commit to a particular conspiracy theory (such as remote-controlled planes), he seems to fall back on the theory that the attack was carried out by terrorists, but that the government had advanced knowledge of the attacks and wired the intended targets for demolition.

That is the gist...sort of... You would have a much harder time proving that the government did all it could to prevent the attack then you would proving that they heard about it but didn't do anything.

As far as Wtc7...you want me to inject a theory here I am guessing...The evidence is this...the FEMA and NIST reports both conclude that they are unsure why the building would have fallen down...the explanation is inconsistant with the explanations provided for the towers...there was no extensive building damage, and both reports also ruled out the possbility that it would only take fires of extreme heat to bring the buildings down.

So no fire could have brought it down, and there was no significant structural damage to the building.

In all three of the buildings the remains of a eutectic reaction were found...eutectic reactions require heat well over 1500F. The NIST and FEMA clearly state that this temperature was not possible given the type of fire, and the contents of the buildings.

Eutectic reactions are only found in extremely hot fires, or where explosives(particularly eutectic explosives) are used.

So.. the evidence suggests that at the very least there was some type of accelerant, and the FEMA and NIST reports both conclude that there is no logical reason for there to have been any accelerant present that could have created this reaction.

so any idea's other than explosives...because I would love to hear them.

I'll leave the why to you...

 

[bob_kark]

What purpose would it serve to destroy WTC 7? Other than to fuel speculation? It seems counterproductive to me.

 

[Euromutt]

...the american government practically created extremist islam to combat the Soviet Union.

Wrong; there were Islamist groups in Afghanistan well before the Soviets invaded in 1979. It should also be noted that the various Islamist groups were by no means the only ones fighting the Sovs; (moderately Islamic) nationalist groups, Iranian-backed Shi'ite groups, and Maoists, among others, also took part in the resistance.

Well, he's got one finger on a correct idea. Al Qaeda and the Taliban did get the power they did in Afghanistan partially thanks to support from the USA.

They were called "mujihadeen" in the western press and considered heroic freedom fighters at the time, if you recall. Later when they were the bad guys they were referred to as the Taliban and Al Qaeda and were oppressors or terrorists, but they were the same people.

Also incorrect. Many of the Taliban may have been members of Islamist groups during the Soviet period (those old enough to fight at the time, that is), but the Taliban did not exist as an organization during that period. The two most prominent Islamist groups during the Soviet period were Burhanuddin Rabbani's Jam'iyyat-e-Islami (Association of Islam) and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hizb-e-Islami (Party of Islam). If you look up the Taliban siege on Kabul in 1995-96, you'll notice that their opposition consisted of those two same groups, led by those same two men, who had put aside their factional infighting to deal with their common foe (i.e. the Taliban).

It should also be noted that Hizb, Jam'iyyat and their precursors were primarily inspired and influenced by the Egyptian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, whereas the Taliban, as we all know, had Saudi Wahhabism as its religious basis. If anything, much of the Taliban's motivation and initial popular support came from disaffection with the very groups that had composed the mujehadin, as these had continued to fight amongst each other after the Sov-backed communists had been defeated.

The notion that the Taliban were/are simply the Soviet-era mujehadin under a different name is a fiction.

 

[kookbreaker]

TAs far as Wtc7...you want me to inject a theory here I am guessing...The evidence is this...the FEMA and NIST reports both conclude that they are unsure why the building would have fallen down...the explanation is inconsistant with the explanations provided for the towers...there was no extensive building damage, and both reports also ruled out the possbility that it would only take fires of extreme heat to bring the buildings down.

Do you want to quote the sections that say that? The FEMA report admits its is dealing with probabilities of where the collapse initiated, but does not say that fires could not bring it down.

So no fire could have brought it down, and there was no significant structural damage to the building.

That statement is wrong. Collapse of buildings by fire, although not common, is a known effect. Ask Philadelphia firefighters why they abandoned firefighting in the Meridian building. Here I'll mention the report:

http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.html

All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors.

Now, do you realise what you are claiming? You are essentially saying that firefighters don't need to fight fires in buildings except to prevent them from spreading or to rescue people trapped inside. After all, skyscrapers are invincible, according to you. Yet, firefighters seem to risk their lives to stop fires in these invincible buildings. Why is that?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That is the gist...sort of... You would have a much harder time proving that the government did all it could to prevent the attack then you would proving that they heard about it but didn't do anything.

Especially if the person setting themself up as judge of whether the government did all it could to prevent the attack knows nothing about the issue.

When you find an actual expert on the USA's hijacking response systems at the time who thinks the hijackings were deliberately facilitated, as opposed to a self-appointed internet theory-collector, let us know.

As far as Wtc7...you want me to inject a theory here I am guessing...The evidence is this...the FEMA and NIST reports both conclude that they are unsure why the building would have fallen down...the explanation is inconsistant with the explanations provided for the towers...there was no extensive building damage, and both reports also ruled out the possbility that it would only take fires of extreme heat to bring the buildings down.

So no fire could have brought it down, and there was no significant structural damage to the building.

Didn't we go over this? There was indeed significant structural damage, and at least one other steel-framed building collapsed due to fire (and no structural damage) long before 9/11.

Mind you if there had really been no structural damage to WTC7, woowoos like you would be saying "How did such huge buildings collapse without damaging WTC7 which was right hext to them?! Obviously this is proof it was a controlled demolition!".

In all three of the buildings the remains of a eutectic reaction were found...eutectic reactions require heat well over 1500F. The NIST and FEMA clearly state that this temperature was not possible given the type of fire, and the contents of the buildings.

Where does it say that eutectic reactions require heat well over 1500F?

I think you just made that up.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Especially if the person setting themself up as judge of whether the government did all it could to prevent the attack knows nothing about the issue.

When you find an actual expert on the USA's hijacking response systems at the time who thinks the hijackings were deliberately facilitated, as opposed to a self-appointed internet theory-collector, let us know.



Didn't we go over this? There was indeed significant structural damage, and at least one other steel-framed building collapsed due to fire (and no structural damage) long before 9/11.

Mind you if there had really been no structural damage to WTC7, woowoos like you would be saying "How did such huge buildings collapse without damaging WTC7 which was right hext to them?! Obviously this is proof it was a controlled demolition!".



Where does it say that eutectic reactions require heat well over 1500F?

I think you just made that up.

In my limited understanding, isn't a eutectic reaction one where the liquid phase transforms into two different solid phases upon cooling, or a mixture of two or more elements whose combined melting point is lower than the melting point of either of the constituents of the mixture?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

In my limited understanding, isn't a eutectic reaction one where the liquid phase transforms into two different solid phases upon cooling, or a mixture of two or more elements whose combined melting point is lower than the melting point of either of the constituents of the mixture?

That's what I gathered from googling. I didn't see anything about 1500F being required for anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutectic

There are also things called "eutectic explosives". I haven't been able to find a good explanation of what about these explosives is eutectic though, so I can't evaluate thesyntaxera's attempt to link the eutectic reactions in the WTC rubble to "eutectic explosives".

 

[Hellbound]

Kevin:

Just guessing, but I'm thinking eutectic explosives may be those that are composed of two (or more) elements which are stable individually, but explosive when together.

From wiki:
A eutectic or eutectic mixture is a mixture of two or more elements which has a lower melting point than any of its constituents. The proper ratios of components to obtain a eutectic alloy is identified by the eutectic point on a phase diagram. The term comes from the Greek 'eutektos', meaning 'easily melted.'

Not sure how this applies to explosives, though.

Reading further, it seems that eutectic explosives are formed by two chemicals which are mixed and melted, then solidified. Found a paper from Los Alamos (pdf format) which can be seen at http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00312939.pdf. They don't specifically define "eutectic explosive", but seem to be using the term just as for normal use (i.e.-a mixture with a low melting point).

On the idea that eutectic mixtures found equate to explosives...I don't think so. All the references I've found to eutectic explosives, the eutectic mixture or phase is used in the production of the compound, not as an after-effect of the explosion. Most are Ammonia Nitrate mixtures, although one mentioned Benzine.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Kevin:

Just guessing, but I'm thinking eutectic explosives may be those that are composed of two (or more) elements which are stable individually, but explosive when together.

From wiki:
A eutectic or eutectic mixture is a mixture of two or more elements which has a lower melting point than any of its constituents. The proper ratios of components to obtain a eutectic alloy is identified by the eutectic point on a phase diagram. The term comes from the Greek 'eutektos', meaning 'easily melted.'

Not sure how this applies to explosives, though.

Reading further, it seems that eutectic explosives are formed by two chemicals which are mixed and melted, then solidified. Found a paper from Los Alamos (pdf format) which can be seen at http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00312939.pdf. They don't specifically define "eutectic explosive", but seem to be using the term just as for normal use (i.e.-a mixture with a low melting point).

On the idea that eutectic mixtures found equate to explosives...I don't think so. All the references I've found to eutectic explosives, the eutectic mixture or phase is used in the production of the compound, not as an after-effect of the explosion. Most are Ammonia Nitrate mixtures, although one mentioned Benzine.

I've heard Inside Job proponents mention Thermite a lot as the likely candidate for WTC 1 & 2.

edit: I found this interesting, from the wiki:

The thermite reaction can take place by accident in industrial locations where abrasive grinding and cutting wheels are used with ferrous metals. Using aluminium in this situation produces an admixture of oxides which is capable of violent explosive reaction.

 

[aggle-rithm]

As far as Wtc7...you want me to inject a theory here I am guessing...The evidence is this...the FEMA and NIST reports both conclude that they are unsure why the building would have fallen down...the explanation is inconsistant with the explanations provided for the towers...there was no extensive building damage, and both reports also ruled out the possbility that it would only take fires of extreme heat to bring the buildings down.

The collapse of WTC7 was ONLY a mystery if you believe that the two main buildings came down as the result of a controlled implosion. It may have looked that way from a distance, but there were in fact huge girders shooting out from the sides of these buildings as they collapsed. There was more than enough energy in these missiles to compromise the structural integrity of the surrounding buildings.

 

[Hellbound]

I've heard Inside Job proponents mention Thermite a lot as the likely candidate for WTC 1 & 2.:

You'd have some easily identifiable by-products of this, and, to my knowledge, sulfur would not be one. Aluminum powder and iron oxide is the most common mixture for thermite, with a Potassium Chlorate/Sugar mix for an igniter (well, the easiest mix, I should say). I'm not aware or any that rely on sulfur or sulfur compounds, although I could be wrong. To my undertsanding, sulfur is a major component of the eutectic mixtures found in the WTC wreckage.

 

[Belz...]

Mind you if there had really been no structural damage to WTC7, woowoos like you would be saying "How did such huge buildings collapse without damaging WTC7 which was right hext to them?! Obviously this is proof it was a controlled demolition!".

That's a good observation. If it was controlled demolition, why did it damage the WTC7 so much ?

Oh! I guess they demolished it, too, just to make it more realistic.

 

[thesyntaxera]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness&pl=true

Back again. Here is a video for you. In it is exremely clear visual and audio evidence supporting the demolition theory. VERY audible explosions can be heard in sequence, as well there is visible smoke rising from the base of the building...not to mention WTC7 and the loud explosion directly preceding the collapse.

The video purports to show the event in near realtime from two camera angles, and unlike others there is no theory attached...no missles, no conspiracy..just some crappy introduction about the guy who filmed it and his commentary, as well as some visual and audio analysis for reference...it clearly supports the demolition idea without ever saying it...

I know, most of you can't be bothered with watching it...but you should, if only to come up with more educated guesses as to how this happened...

You'd have some easily identifiable by-products of this, and, to my knowledge, sulfur would not be one. Aluminum powder and iron oxide is the most common mixture for thermite, with a Potassium Chlorate/Sugar mix for an igniter (well, the easiest mix, I should say). I'm not aware or any that rely on sulfur or sulfur compounds, although I could be wrong. To my undertsanding, sulfur is a major component of the eutectic mixtures found in the WTC wreckage.

As mentioned and cited earlier in this thread Sulphur is an accelerant to Thermite reactions.

I lifted this from a similar conversation...and am sure it will be taken witha grain of salt by you folks..nonetheless...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?postid=1290716

Thermite is made using 25.3% aluminium and 74.7% iron oxide. (This mixture is sold under the brand name Thermit as a heat source for welding.) The complete formula for the reaction using iron (III) oxide is as follows:

Fe2O3 + 2Al == Al2O3 + 2Fe

Which shows that Thermite does not contain sulfur but it does contain aluminum.
--------------

Bravo, yesitdid ! You have found the 'secret formula' for the 'Goldschmidt process' of using thermite for welding. Yep, you're right - iron & aluminum ... no sulphur.

But, the idea in the 'explosives' theory is not to use the thermite for welding steel together, but rather for burning / melting it apart. The regular 'Goldschmidt thermite' formula for welding contains no sulphur.

-------------
"The chemical analysis of those eroded columns shows a lot of sulfur. They do not mention aluminum.
-------------
So true, and here it gets 'interesting'.

When I say thermite, I'm not talking about the brand name stuff used in welding.

The 'missing' aluminum is not really that surprising to me. The aluminum reduces the iron oxide to molten iron and forms a slag of aluminum oxide on its surface. This slag could easily have been abraded away during the collapse, burial, removal, transportation, handling etc, etc, etc. We might very well find some if 'they' hadn't so quickly and illegally disposed of all the evidence.

Not finding any aluminum on a sample is not evidence that there never was none, perhaps with adequate samples for testing this slag might have been found. We can't arrive at a definitive answer regarding 'aluminum slag' to say that none existed. Perhaps none existed on the piece, or perhaps investigators dismissed any aluminum slag they found and just attributed it to remnants of the plane, or other aluminum in the towers.

The more important aspect is the unexplained sulphur...

"A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel." [pg 1]

"No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified." [pg 13]

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf


The aluminum / iron formula is the simple basic formula. Exotic 'thermites' can use other chemicals for varying effects - although most of these are for military uses (and as such are not widely publicized). I have heard of Flouride combinations - but that's not important here at the moment.

*********

One problem with thermites is the difference in weight between the aluminum and the iron oxide. This causes them to separate out rendering the thermite useless.One way to fix this is to use a binder to hold the chemicals to each other. Sulfur is good for this. Called Diasite, this formula uses sulfur to bind all the chemicals together.

The percentages are as follows...
Iron Oxide - 70%
Aluminum - 23%
Sulfur - 7%

Hmmm... starting to sound a little more like what was found with the WTC steel, wouldn't you think?

Ya gotta dig pretty deep for this info. I found it at a 'unorthodox' site (almost advocates violence ).

You might be very careful visiting this site if you are in the states (homeland security, and all)...it's probably flagged.

http://www.hackcanada.com/blackcraw...ve/thermite.txt

The people are a little 'militant' shall we say...

http://www.hackcanada.com/blackcrawl/patriot.html

------

Another tidbit of information is ...

"Iron oxide reacts with aluminum to produce molten iron. A: The reaction is initiated by the heat from a sparkler which is placed in the iron oxide/aluminum mixture B: The reaction is initiated by the heat from glycerin plus potassium permanganate" .

cool little animated gif - a little more action that the experiment you posted Tinfoil...
http://genchem.chem.wisc.edu/demons...te_reaction.htm

 

[Hellbound]

Of course, thesyn, the problem is that there is no evidence of molten steel. Only of some of these mixtures, and molten metal (which was, according to accounts, most likely aluminum).

Not to mention, the idea that you could use a thermite compund and have the sulfer leave a trace without leaving traces of aluminum or aluminum oxide is silly, especially when you consider the purpose of the sulfer is specifically to increase the mixing of the iron oxide and aluminum (which prevents more of the aluminum from rising to the top). Not to mention that the sulfer itself has a very low melting point and lower density than either Iron or Aluminum (or aluminum oxide), and would preferentially rise to the surface (thus being even less likely to be attached than the aluminum oxide residue).

Finally, there's no evidence of thermite, either. No bright lights in the windows (thermite reactions produce a LOT of light). No evidence of melted steel. Only evidence of weakened beams, consitent with what could be expected in traditional fires (house fires can regularly reach high temperatures...temperature is not heat, and the confusion of the two is causing problems. Wood may burn at 300 degrees (hypothetical),but in a confined area where the heat can't eaisly escape (such as inside a building) the temperature of the room/area can easily rise above this.

 

[Tirdun]

I'm agitated after watching this... so I'm just going to point out ONE thing... as patiently and objectively as I can.

At some point after the first tower falls, the camera zooms in and some text informs us that there's a NEW fire, some 6 whole floors above the crash site.

I am, to put it mildly, underwhelmed by this revelation. 6 floors you say? Above a commercial jet impact site? And this is shocking enough to warrant a text-overlay and zoom? Being as generous as possible, six floors above the crash site is 60 feet. If a fire has managed to travel all of 60 feet in 30(?) minutes, let me tell you, its not newsworthy. Its not text-overlay and zoom worthy. It doesn't call the whole of our understood reality into question.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Of course, thesyn, the problem is that there is no evidence of molten steel. Only of some of these mixtures, and molten metal (which was, according to accounts, most likely aluminum).

I agree, no where in the NIST or FEMA reports is there a mention of molten steel...there is eyewitness reports of liquid pools of molten metal that have been written off as unreliable just like other eyewitness testimony...you remember...the ones that said there were multiple explosions going off in sequence...in the video linked above you actually hear the explosions..not that the sounds mean anything perse. What I know is that there is no way to determine if there was liquid slag, but there were reports of it...just like the reports of secondary explosions...and those are evidenced clearly in the video.

Not to mention, the idea that you could use a thermite compund and have the sulfer leave a trace without leaving traces of aluminum or aluminum oxide is silly, especially when you consider the purpose of the sulfer is specifically to increase the mixing of the iron oxide and aluminum (which prevents more of the aluminum from rising to the top). Not to mention that the sulfer itself has a very low melting point and lower density than either Iron or Aluminum (or aluminum oxide), and would preferentially rise to the surface (thus being even less likely to be attached than the aluminum oxide residue).

Good points, although I would suggest you re-read the long explanation of thermite listed above. Some good points are made..namely..and maybe you can clarify this:

Not finding any aluminum on a sample is not evidence that there never was none, perhaps with adequate samples for testing this slag might have been found. We can't arrive at a definitive answer regarding 'aluminum slag' to say that none existed. Perhaps none existed on the piece, or perhaps investigators dismissed any aluminum slag they found and just attributed it to remnants of the plane, or other aluminum in the towers.

Finally, there's no evidence of thermite, either. No bright lights in the windows (thermite reactions produce a LOT of light). No evidence of melted steel. Only evidence of weakened beams, consitent with what could be expected in traditional fires (house fires can regularly reach high temperatures...temperature is not heat, and the confusion of the two is causing problems. Wood may burn at 300 degrees (hypothetical),but in a confined area where the heat can't eaisly escape (such as inside a building) the temperature of the room/area can easily rise above this.

Too true in the strictest sense, however...I say again, if you watch the video you will hear evidence of explosions(upwards of 8 or 9)...and as far as thermite producing lots of light, how do you expect to see the light of thermite in the buildings core from the outside? You bring up another good point, fire can maintain high temperature when in a sealed environment...the thing is there wasn't a fire hot enough to produce the reaction in the first place, and that is according to the official reports...they also make a mention of the fact that the majority of the combustible fuel exploded in the impact and was consumed in a massive fire ball...and then there is the notion that with all the debris and the massive free fall, the fire could have been mostly extinguished by smothering...this is speculative at best...but you know me.

Watch the video...then tell me what you think...essentially to completely disprove demoliton I think this video needs looked at...it is very intriguing.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I'm agitated after watching this... so I'm just going to point out ONE thing... as patiently and objectively as I can.

At some point after the first tower falls, the camera zooms in and some text informs us that there's a NEW fire, some 6 whole floors above the crash site.

I am, to put it mildly, underwhelmed by this revelation. 6 floors you say? Above a commercial jet impact site? And this is shocking enough to warrant a text-overlay and zoom? Being as generous as possible, six floors above the crash site is 60 feet. If a fire has managed to travel all of 60 feet in 30(?) minutes, let me tell you, its not newsworthy. Its not text-overlay and zoom worthy. It doesn't call the whole of our understood reality into question.

ok...opinion noted...I think part of the notion of the video is that they are detailing the events from a new vantage point...in that regard everything seen and heard in the video has not been seen or heard before, and is therefore subsequently pointed out to you...

did you get to the explosions yet?

 

[Hellbound]

You also seem to fail to understand that Thermite does not explode, nor would it sound like an explosion.

It burns, brightly and quickly. You might get a woosh, but not a boom.

And I touched on the whoel "slag" excuse. I've seen thermite go off (military, done work with explosives and incendiaries). It's a nice ad hoc explanation that may work in thermite weilding, where the product is designed to get rid of slag, but not for melting, where the thermite itself will drop through the metal being cut, leaving bits of this slag (regardless of where it is in relation to the thermite) on the pieces of metal.

 

[thesyntaxera]

You also seem to fail to understand that Thermite does not explode, nor would it sound like an explosion.

It burns, brightly and quickly. You might get a woosh, but not a boom.

And I touched on the whoel "slag" excuse. I've seen thermite go off (military, done work with explosives and incendiaries). It's a nice ad hoc explanation that may work in thermite weilding, where the product is designed to get rid of slag, but not for melting, where the thermite itself will drop through the metal being cut, leaving bits of this slag (regardless of where it is in relation to the thermite) on the pieces of metal.

No, I don't fail to understand that thermite can't explode. What I understand is that in the video I posted(which I assume you haven't viewed) there is numerous loud echoing explosions that precede the collapses and that there is what could be evidence for some type of thermite or similar explosives in ONLY the core steel columns of the Towers and in the structural steel of the WTC7...

I am wondering, is it possible for thermite to even create a eutectic reaction such as this, and is it possible that a person could mistake slag from a thermite reaction as simply molten metal? Is it possible that slag from elsewhere could be mistaken as thermite related slag? What reasons are there for this eutectic reaction to occur outside of eutectic explosives or thermite?...this is the tricky one because even the fema and nist people listed no known reason for there to be one reaction let alone three all located in the buildings in question, and admit that they are at a loss to explain it.

I am aware that thermite can be made from other compounds as well..is it possible that a different type of thermite could have been used, or a different demolitions explosive all together?

Thermite is obviously good for cutting through things, but I would assume that in a demolition that they use more than that to bring a building down...in the numerous demolition video's that normally accompany 911 theories almost all feature the sound of an explosion or series of explosions like the ones in this video.

 

[Ramooone]

No, I don't fail to understand that thermite can't explode. What I understand is that in the video I posted(which I assume you haven't viewed) there is numerous loud echoing explosions that precede the collapses and that there is what could be evidence for some type of thermite or similar explosives in ONLY the core steel columns of the Towers and in the structural steel of the WTC7...

I am wondering, is it possible for thermite to even create a eutectic reaction such as this, and is it possible that a person could mistake slag from a thermite reaction as simply molten metal? Is it possible that slag from elsewhere could be mistaken as thermite related slag? What reasons are there for this eutectic reaction to occur outside of eutectic explosives or thermite?...this is the tricky one because even the fema and nist people listed no known reason for there to be one reaction let alone three all located in the buildings in question, and admit that they are at a loss to explain it.

I am aware that thermite can be made from other compounds as well..is it possible that a different type of thermite could have been used, or a different demolitions explosive all together?

Thermite is obviously good for cutting through things, but I would assume that in a demolition that they use more than that to bring a building down...in the numerous demolition video's that normally accompany 911 theories almost all feature the sound of an explosion or series of explosions like the ones in this video.

you're not hearing explosions, you are hearing wind on the recording. i watched and listened to the video. watch the video again, after WTC7 is down for a couple of mins and they have the camera fixated upon it you still hear those "explosions" its wind noise. i work in editing for television and audio, i know these sounds.