44
http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums...-nosoundofjetjustfireball159.png?t=1278338974
Hey posters, early on in this thread, AJM linked us to a new version, posted to youtube only in 2008, that actually contains a previously unknown version of the second explosion. Accordingly, there are 44 versions now, rather than 43.
The explosion occurs at about the 1:55mark of the video. You can link to the video that AJM provided by going to post # 70 in this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5939593&postcount=70
This one has good sound and, predictably,
THERE IS NO JETLINER SOUND at all. Instead, and as we all know, based on the historically signficant words of
Our David Stollick(sp), a legitimate candidate for the title of FIRST NO PLANER:
"it was jist an explosion..."
That is what video version # 44 reveals.
Take a look, Lurkers, and let us know what you think.
Thanks for the link.
That video was shot from an outside location. We may assume (even though that is not certain) that the people we hear talking have at this time no access to media reports, certainly not TV. So it is possible they were not yet informed by any media about what happened. So let's listen to what the people say:
0:40-0:51: A lady says "and the
PLANE wasn't on fire, so..."
0:51-0:56: A man, responding to that lady, says: "It did not appear to be, to be on fire when it went in, I mean I only saw it..."
1:10-1:31: A man in a blue t-shirt with straw hat and beard explains: "Uhh, I was standing here, talking with a couple of people, and then
I heard the jet, it was very low, it came right over through here [points up, moving arm to indicate a path in the sky], and then it made a slight twist and
dove right into the building. It was a
medium size passenger airliner, and when it went in it did not appear to be on fire or anything like that"
1:31-1:33: A man in a green t-shirt chimes in: "In fact [?] a 737"
1:33-1:40: Man with straw had continues: "I couldn't identify the craft.
It was medium sized jetliner. I could not identidy the markings on it."
1:47: "Pieces of it flew out the other side"
So here you very clearly have a PLANE WITNESS - can we agree on that, jammomius? I mean, before you disect the
credibility of that witness, can you admit that the man with the straw hat very clearly describes that what he heard and saw was a medium sized passenger jet plane flying over and into the the buiding? Thanks.
Now let's go to the sights and sounds of the second explosion:
When the time counter changes from 1:55 to 1:56, the first frame showing the fireball on WTC2 appears.
When would we expect to hear the corresponding explosion? This would depend on the distance to the camera.
The scene was shot on the intersection of Greenwich St. and Duane St. - for proof of that, please compare Google Street View...
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=40.717321,-74.010872&spn=0,0.001742&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.717467,-74.010642&panoid=k2p5xiQIURrl39dMC84_zw&cbp=12,277.21,,0,-12.6
...with this screenshot from 1:14 in the above video:
That intersection is about 600 meters away from the South Tower. The explosion occurred at a height of about 300 meters, so distance from explosion to camera is about 670 meters.
Sound travels at a speed of about 343 m/s, so we should expect to hear the explosion about 2 seconds after we see it. That would be at the end of the 1:57 second.
jammonius, do you follow and agree?
Now what do we hear, and when?
People are talking, while there is a constant background noise, most likely the usual city hum of New York (car traffic, air conditioning, maybe some wind...).
When I start the video around 1:50, close my eyes, concentrate on the background hum, I do pick up an increase of that hum at some point. I stop the video then: The time counter shows 1:55, and no fireball yet to be seen.
I hear a slightly more marked sound in the middle of the 1:57 second, but it is hard to tell as the sudden screaming of people suppresses the microphone level. So it is slightly surprising, but explainable that we can't discern the explosion clearly. But since you, jammonius, agree (don't you?) that an explosion did in fact occur, you will not take this lack of a marked explosion sound as evidence that there was no explosion, right?
Ok so at 1:55, we hear a swelling hum, at 1:57 we here a maximum sound in the distance (explosion).
What was the swelling hum between 1:55 and 1:57?
Answer: Since we would, in the context of a PLANE theory, predict a swelling hum of jet enginges just before the explosion, and we do in fact hear a swelling hum, we take that as supporting evidence that
in fact we do hear jet engines before the explosion.
