• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

syntax, that video is an hour and 44 minutes. Do you have an index time that you're referring to? For some reason, I don't feel like watching that whole video just to reply to your question.
 
Ramooone said:
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.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it, definitely wind noise.
 
Ramooone said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even if they were explosions, it's foolish to jump to the conclusion that explosions=bombs. There are a hundred causes of explosions other than intentional detonation. Explosions are the norm in badly burning buildings.

The explosion heard in the basement, as well as the blown out windows and tiles could have been a number of things more plausible than planted bombs. It may have been an elevator that dropped down its shaft, blowing out a gust of pressurized air like a pop gun and then crashing to a stop in the basement, for instance.
 
Ramooone said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really, what kind of speakers are you using? When I listened to these sounds on the standard dell speaker system(two small speakers and a small sub) it sounds exactly like a series of explosions. I know what sound you speak of as well...I work in audio recording myself currently, I even had a job(on a volunteer basis)for a few years out of highschool as a boom operator for some local movie guys with big ambitions(the boom operator is the guy with the microphone on a stick for you non-industry types)

It's called pop... it's something you experience in vocal recording as well if a person is too close to the mic...thats why they invented the pop filter if I am not mistaken...wind causes the mics membrane to vibrate so fast that is makes a popping sound....

This is not a pop, it is a distant loud thud. They also demonstrate how long it takes for the sound to emmante from ground zero to the pier in hoboken where the video is filmed.

Did you miss that part?
 
CurtC said:
syntax, that video is an hour and 44 minutes. Do you have an index time that you're referring to? For some reason, I don't feel like watching that whole video just to reply to your question.
Click to expand...

I wonder why that is?

I think if you let it load up all the way, and then fast forward there will be a part visible on the screen where it counts the number of explosions heard, and then shortly after it goes into wtc7...

since it's google video it should allow you to see the images in fast forward as you move the locater.

look for something that looks like:

explosion#3
explosion#2
explosion#1

it counts from the bottom up

maybe one of your buddies here who just watched it could give you the number otherwise I will look it up later.
 
Even if they were explosions, it's foolish to jump to the conclusion that explosions=bombs. There are a hundred causes of explosions other than intentional detonation. Explosions are the norm in badly burning buildings.
Click to expand...

So what are these hundreds of alternatives? These buildings weren't badly burning. They were on fire. If you want to entertain that a fireman knows what a bad fire looks like, than you could assume that the firemen who were tasked with assessing the fire, and then reported that it was under control from the burning floors in question might have been at least been some what right.


The explosion heard in the basement, as well as the blown out windows and tiles could have been a number of things more plausible than planted bombs. It may have been an elevator that dropped down its shaft, blowing out a gust of pressurized air like a pop gun and then crashing to a stop in the basement, for instance.
Click to expand...

Guess's guess's guess's your starting to sound like a CT'er in reverse:D
 
thesyntaxera said:
I wonder why that is?

I think if you let it load up all the way, and then fast forward there will be a part visible on the screen where it counts the number of explosions heard, and then shortly after it goes into wtc7...

since it's google video it should allow you to see the images in fast forward as you move the locater.

look for something that looks like:

explosion#3
explosion#2
explosion#1

it counts from the bottom up

maybe one of your buddies here who just watched it could give you the number otherwise I will look it up later.
Click to expand...
Okay, let's take an investigative approach here. Maybe you can do a better job than geggy did on a different thread. Let's take the bombs hypothesis--after all, we shouldn't discount any plausible hypothesis, and you seem to think it's plausible.

Assuming it was bombs, and taking all the evidence we have on hand into account, can you construct a coherent theory that can explain how the job was pulled off?
 
If you're going to investigate the sounds on the video it needs to be done methodically.
What are all possible causes of the noise heard in the recording?
Of those possible causes what would be substantiating evidence, from the video or other sources that would support the possibility?
Of those possible causes what would be substantiating evidence, from the video or other sources that would oppose the possibility?
What evidence pro or con to each possibility can be obtained from outside the recording?
etc
 
thesyntaxera said:
Really, what kind of speakers are you using? When I listened to these sounds on the standard dell speaker system(two small speakers and a small sub) it sounds exactly like a series of explosions. I know what sound you speak of as well...I work in audio recording myself currently, I even had a job(on a volunteer basis)for a few years out of highschool as a boom operator for some local movie guys with big ambitions(the boom operator is the guy with the microphone on a stick for you non-industry types)

It's called pop... it's something you experience in vocal recording as well if a person is too close to the mic...thats why they invented the pop filter if I am not mistaken...wind causes the mics membrane to vibrate so fast that is makes a popping sound....

This is not a pop, it is a distant loud thud. They also demonstrate how long it takes for the sound to emmante from ground zero to the pier in hoboken where the video is filmed.

Did you miss that part?
Click to expand...
No, that is wind noise. Pops can happen w/ a slight wind, such as from a person's breath. Wind noise makes exactly the type of deep rumble heard in that video.

And if you're still not convinced, why did no one closer to the WTC hear these loud explosions that somehow got picked up by the mic on a camera at least a mile away across the river?
 
WildCat said:
No, that is wind noise. Pops can happen w/ a slight wind, such as from a person's breath. Wind noise makes exactly the type of deep rumble heard in that video.

And if you're still not convinced, why did no one closer to the WTC hear these loud explosions that somehow got picked up by the mic on a camera at least a mile away across the river?
Click to expand...

Good point - if those were explosions, then they should show up on other footage at the same moments relative to distance from the Towers.
 
thesyntaxera said:
I think part of the notion of the video is that they are detailing the events from a new vantage point
Click to expand...
They are detailing it from a conspiracy vantage point. The constant pointing out of news helicopters, which they continually increment in count for some reason, as if none were the same helicopter... and as if NYC doesn't have news helicopters. The suggestion that some "mission" was "accomplished" while pointing out one of the helicopters after the first building fell. The endless descriptions of smoke coming from street level, where there was already debris and wreckage after the impacts.

This isn't an investigation, this is a fishing expedition for anything that seems "out of place" in a situation which is almost utterly unique by people with no expertise, no experience and a dirty agenda. The explosions sound like bangs and thuds. Given that my expertise in what kind of sounds an 80+ story building makes when struck by an airliner and set afire are essentially equal to the film-maker's and yours, I'm going to go with "I don't know and neither do you". I have heard a number of structure fires however. They make noises. Loud, unexpected noises. Extrapolating upwards, bigger buildings in the midst of bigger fires might make louder noises. Just a theory, but I have as much support for that as anything presented on this tape.

The entire film was another tiresome reminder that lots of people died because some people will not rest until their disgusting goals are achieved. To suggest that there are things we do not understand is reasonable. To suggest that a piece of the official history is incorrect because of some clear bit of evidence is acceptable. But to claim that the entire thing is somehow cloaked in mystery and lies with only loud bangs and smoke, pixelated images and some distrust of the powers that be is neither reasonable or acceptable.

I have no interest in pouring over more archived footage of the WTC attacks. If you find something concrete, something real, something that goes beyond metal flakes in the rubble or smoke from a burning building, let me know.
 
The video also makes a big deal of flashes of light from the helicopter. Have you ever seen glints of light from distant airplanes, especially in the morning and evening? The plane will light up, then in a few seconds will be completely invisible because it's so far away. I've seen glints of light off many Iridium satellites that almost hurt your eyes to look at, but vanish in a few seconds because the satellites are the size of a car that's 800 miles away.

Obviously to everyone with at least half a functional brain, these flashes are reflections of the sun off the helicopter.
 
CurtC said:
I've seen glints of light off many Iridium satellites that almost hurt your eyes to look at, but vanish in a few seconds because the satellites are the size of a car that's 800 miles away.
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean the secret government program to inure us to UFOs and send us subliminal mind-control messages in a base code which only our primitive minds perceive? Yeah, I've seen those too.
 
WildCat said:
No, that is wind noise. Pops can happen w/ a slight wind, such as from a person's breath. Wind noise makes exactly the type of deep rumble heard in that video.

And if you're still not convinced, why did no one closer to the WTC hear these loud explosions that somehow got picked up by the mic on a camera at least a mile away across the river?
Click to expand...

this is where your comfortable skepticism takes a turn...

first off, you are identifying that you know exactly zero about this wind noise you speak of...wind doesn't make short burst thuds of high intensity that sound like explosions echoing across a river. Usually it's windy and you can identify wind by it's telltale static like hiss over the microphone, and if there is a pop it is accompanied by this hiss...air blows and trails audibly.

For it to be what you suggest there would literally have to have been a rapid succession of intense air bursts that only occured right before the collapse of the buildings, and that weren't accompanied by wind...because you would have heard it...that and the day was reported to have been one of the nicest windless days there could be...notice how long it took for the cloud of debris to dissipate...

in short...you are wrong and desperate to come up with an alternate explanation even if it isn't really that logical.

As far as why no one else reported explosions???

Here is a whole page of reported secondary explosions:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/eyewitness.html

*sigh*

THERMITE CHARGES WOULD NOT PRODUCE AUDIBLE EXPLOSIONS, NO MATTER HOW BIG THEY WERE.

Thermite is not an explosive.

So the sound of explosions you claim to hear is directly contradictory to the thermite idea.
Click to expand...

Huntsman, no one said they would...thermite was being explored as a possible explanation for the eutectic reaction...you didn't read my response to the first time you said this did you? I asked you a bunch of questions that steered away from this.

wtc_explosion.JPG



What I really like about this image is that it is taken from the reverse angle of the video that I asked you to watch...do you notice the WTC collapsing in the backround? Did you notice in the other video that right before this collapse there were explosions heard?

Did you notice that CNN was reporting that there were more explosions?

sheesh...

edit: correction not reverse angle...what I meant to say was exact same angle....almost...perhaps they heard the explosions as well...or maybe it was the same wind noise confusing so many different people at the same time...
 
Last edited:
thesyntaxera said:
Huntsman, no one said they would...thermite was being explored as a possible explanation for the eutectic reaction...you didn't read my response to the first time you said this did you? I asked you a bunch of questions that steered away from this.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Was it or was it not thermite?
 
senorpogo said:
I'm confused. Was it or was it not thermite?
Click to expand...

No, I think I get what they're trying to say.

[note] I DO NOT BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING, I AM JUST PARAPHRASING WHAT I THINK OTHERS MAY BE BELIEVING [/note]

Thermite was used to weaken the steel structure of the WTC buildings, and then explosives were used to bring them down.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
No, I think I get what they're trying to say.

[note] I DO NOT BELIEVE THE FOLLOWING, I AM JUST PARAPHRASING WHAT I THINK OTHERS MAY BE BELIEVING [/note]

Thermite was used to weaken the steel structure of the WTC buildings, and then explosives were used to bring them down.
Click to expand...

Thermite, explosives, and airplanes.
Got it.
 
senorpogo said:
Thermite, explosives, and airplanes.
Got it.
Click to expand...
Remote controlled military airplanes.

I've said it time and time again, inefficiency is the globalist way. I guess if you control the world, you get a little bored from time to time.
 
thesyntaxera said:
this is where your comfortable skepticism takes a turn...

first off, you are identifying that you know exactly zero about this wind noise you speak of...wind doesn't make short burst thuds of high intensity that sound like explosions echoing across a river. Usually it's windy and you can identify wind by it's telltale static like hiss over the microphone, and if there is a pop it is accompanied by this hiss...air blows and trails audibly.
Click to expand...
I know all about wind noise on microphones. I've done a lot of outdoor recording, and still do occasionally, recording taper-friendly bands is a hobby of mine! When I was first starting out in this hobby I had several recordings ruined by exactly that noise. I know it was windy when I made them, I was certainly not aware of explosions going off at the time. And it's funny how the "explosion noises" disappeared once I invested in high-quality wind screens...
 
MRC_Hans said:
Yes, but how did the demolition charges happen to be in the right places to finish the job? The collapse started in just the place where the planes hit.

Hans
Click to expand...

This is where I would assume the arguement would skip to WTC 7 and how did that collapse if planes did not hit it....after beating this drum, in CT land this implies they win and therefore everything they say is true.

edit: hahaha did not realise it has become another multi page post!
 
Last edited:
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
[explaining what syntax was intending to say...]
Thermite was used to weaken the steel structure of the WTC buildings, and then explosives were used to bring them down.
Click to expand...
syntax, is this what you meant? I guess I'm confused - simply weakening the steel structure is enough to let gravity bring them down, right? Why would it take both?
 
WildCat said:
I know all about wind noise on microphones. I've done a lot of outdoor recording, and still do occasionally, recording taper-friendly bands is a hobby of mine! When I was first starting out in this hobby I had several recordings ruined by exactly that noise. I know it was windy when I made them, I was certainly not aware of explosions going off at the time. And it's funny how the "explosion noises" disappeared once I invested in high-quality wind screens...
Click to expand...

Wildcat...listen...recording/editing audio is my business...your preaching to the choir...and your wrong...there is no way wind can just appear and make a loud thud in rhythmic sequences that sounds like an echoing explosion...there is a huge difference....

Why do you keep persuing this innane line of logic as if it makes any sense? Instead you are making unreasonable excuses based on your uneducated experiences with audio recording....


why can't you admit that it is possible that not only did terrorists crash planes, but also may have put improvised explosives in the building to aid it's destruction? Why can't you admit that the reason this wasn't explored was because it might make the response to the event seem worse than it appeared, and might also point out the sitting administrations ignorance of the events leading up to this tragedy...

Your stretching your logic pretty thin..
 
thesyntaxera said:
why can't you admit that it is possible that not only did terrorists crash planes, but also may have put improvised explosives in the building to aid it's destruction? Why can't you admit that the reason this wasn't explored was because it might make the response to the event seem worse than it appeared, and might also point out the sitting administrations ignorance of the events leading up to this tragedy...
Click to expand...

Maybe if you could explain how they would pull this off without attracting attention, it would be easier to admit. Or if you could explain how, since the structures failed exactly where the planes struck, how they knew where to put the charges. Or how they were able to wire the explosives and thermite in such a way that they are not only invisible, but could withstand the impact of an airliner at cruising speed and the subsequent fire without malfunctioning.

Loud noises != conspiracy.
 
thesyntaxera said:
Why can't you admit that it is possible that not only did terrorists crash planes, but also may have put improvised explosives in the building to aid it's destruction?
Click to expand...
Improvised explosives would not help a building collapse. I see no reason to believe someone could sneak explosives into such a large and secured building. No such explosives were found at Ground Zero. Why can't you admit that this theory has absolutely no evidence whatsoever except your imagination?
thesyntaxera said:
Why can't you admit that the reason this wasn't explored was because it might make the response to the event seem worse than it appeared, and might also point out the sitting administrations ignorance of the events leading up to this tragedy...
Click to expand...
Now that's just stupid. Make the event seem worse? I don't know about you, but whatever way 3000 people were murdered doesn't really matter. They're all awful.

Why couldn't you just admit when you got here that you believed these theories with all your heart and soul?
thesyntaxera said:
Your stretching your logic pretty thin...
Click to expand...
Logic is not like rhetoric. You can't stretch it to cover something that isn't there. It either works or it doesn't. Wildcat has an explaination for what you're describing that is simple. It requires only that we believe that a microphone on a boat was blown on by the wind. Your explanation requires that we believe that Saudis snuck into the World Trade Center to plant "improvised" explosives (and redundantly crash planes into the buildings), that those improvised explosives could knock down a building the size of the World Trade Center, and that the government (and every single demolitions expert and structural engineer for that matter) covered all of this up for no good reason. You have no evidence for any of this besides a video tape where you hear popping sounds, and those popping sounds sound exactly like wind on a microphone.
 
thesyntaxera said:
why can't you admit that it is possible that not only did terrorists crash planes, but also may have put improvised explosives in the building to aid it's destruction? Why can't you admit that the reason this wasn't explored was because it might make the response to the event seem worse than it appeared, and might also point out the sitting administrations ignorance of the events leading up to this tragedy...

Your stretching your logic pretty thin..
Click to expand...
Okay, let's take an investigative approach here. Maybe you can do a better job than geggy did on a different thread. Let's take the bombs hypothesis--after all, we shouldn't discount any plausible hypothesis, and you seem to think it's plausible.

Assuming it was bombs, and taking all the evidence we have on hand into account, can you construct a coherent theory that can explain how the job was pulled off?
 
I guess this is something of an aside, but after 15 pages I have the answer to the OP which was, for those who have forgotten, "Any Conspiracy-Busters here?" The answer is, "Yes. Yes there are." Details later.
 
thesyntaxera said:
Wildcat...listen...recording/editing audio is my business.....
Click to expand...

So now in addition to being smarter than every structural engineer on the planet you are also an expert in the audio field as well when it became convenient.

Ri-ight.
 
im sure audio recording is your business, which means that you probably do it in a controlled environment such as a studio and you probably use way better mics than a ◊◊◊◊◊◊ on camera mic that will pick up every freakin sound. you can make those same sounds by touching the tripod or the camera while its recording. i do video and audio editing and i do ALOT if not all of it in the field and if you dont have a good mic, wind sock or sound mixer with you recording the levels its hard to know what you're going to get. chances are this guy just ran down there and setup the camera on the tripod and shot.

It's def. wind noise, i can reproduce the same sounds if you'd like me to prove it to you, although i don't really feel like having to go this far to explain how things work, i will go through with it if you'll drop your stupid argument.
 
WildCat said:
I know all about wind noise on microphones. I've done a lot of outdoor recording, and still do occasionally, recording taper-friendly bands is a hobby of mine! When I was first starting out in this hobby I had several recordings ruined by exactly that noise. I know it was windy when I made them, I was certainly not aware of explosions going off at the time. And it's funny how the "explosion noises" disappeared once I invested in high-quality wind screens...
Click to expand...
I have also done outdoor recording, while working as a videographer for a local news station. I originally wanted to make a career in television journalism, and got a technical degree in Television Production. I agree, that depending on the equipment, especially the microphone, wind could make a popping noise on the audio track (without a hiss). It would also depend on where they were and how they moved with the camera. I've also been to New York City and been to the Battery, it's very windy.
 
Ramooone said:
im sure audio recording is your business, which means that you probably do it in a controlled environment such as a studio and you probably use way better mics than a ◊◊◊◊◊◊ on camera mic that will pick up every freakin sound. you can make those same sounds by touching the tripod or the camera while its recording. i do video and audio editing and i do ALOT if not all of it in the field and if you dont have a good mic, wind sock or sound mixer with you recording the levels its hard to know what you're going to get. chances are this guy just ran down there and setup the camera on the tripod and shot.

It's def. wind noise, i can reproduce the same sounds if you'd like me to prove it to you, although i don't really feel like having to go this far to explain how things work, i will go through with it if you'll drop your stupid argument.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is my business. I do record in a studio, as well as on location. I have ran audio for outdoor shows. I have recorded audio for several independant films. The first 2 years I was in school I worked as an engineer for a local live television broadcast. In short I am just as qualified as you are attempting to establish yourself as.

He did just run down there with a camera...I assume that it is the in camera microphone that does the recording, which should have picked up any wind hiss, not just several dull echoing thuds...

Wind is a high frequency sound. These thuds register in the bass frequency quite clearly, and disappear in the upper register. This is why I am assuming most of you are unable to hear it fully. Little pc speakers aren't going to reveal much.

As far as reproducing these sounds exactly...I openly challenge you to do so, and to prove that this is wind noise. Which you won't be able to do.

Maybe you should watch the video, and observe the audio and video analysis that it contains as well.
 
Last edited:
How much fricional heat is generated from 110 stories of building collapsing? Enough to add heat to components that were already heated by burning jet fuel?

There is a theory out there that the aluminum from the plane ignited, which would burn quite a bit hotter than the actual fire from the fuel.

Here's an interesting, old link I found:

/pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ (add http:/)

The 'Collapse' article and letter section make for some good reading!
 
Last edited:
cloudshipsrule said:
There is a theory out there that the aluminum from the plane ignited, which would burn quite a bit hotter than the actual fire from the fuel.
Click to expand...
Trouble is that Aluminium does not burn, except under very specific conditions that seem highly unlikely to have been found at the site. However it does melt at relatively low temperatures (660 degrees centigrade), which can mean that it appears to disappear.
 
These guys would argue with you on that point!

burnaluminum.com

:)


I was being facitious with this post, by the way!
 
Last edited:
thesyntaxera said:
Indeed it is my business. I do record in a studio, as well as on location. I have ran audio for outdoor shows. I have recorded audio for several independant films. The first 2 years I was in school I worked as an engineer for a local live television broadcast. In short I am just as qualified as you are attempting to establish yourself as.

He did just run down there with a camera...I assume that it is the in camera microphone that does the recording, which should have picked up any wind hiss, not just several dull echoing thuds...

Wind is a high frequency sound. These thuds register in the bass frequency quite clearly, and disappear in the upper register. This is why I am assuming most of you are unable to hear it fully. Little pc speakers aren't going to reveal much.

As far as reproducing these sounds exactly...I openly challenge you to do so, and to prove that this is wind noise. Which you won't be able to do.

Maybe you should watch the video, and observe the audio and video analysis that it contains as well.
Click to expand...

Here's a better idea: Why don't you find any other recording of the days events where the sounds you claim are explosives can be heard distinctly. Otherwise, I'd say stuff your challenges.
 
richardm said:
However it does melt at relatively low temperatures (660 degrees centigrade), which can mean that it appears to disappear.
Click to expand...
According to Dr Frank Greening says that the aircraft are typically made from 2000 series aluminum alloys with lower melting points, for example the common alloy 2024 melts at 548C.

On the other hand, the aircraft were only about 135,000 kg of aluminum, but the exterior of the towers were clad in aluminum sheets that were around 4,000,000 kg of aluminum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom