• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any Conspiracy-Busters here?

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