• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions (David Chandler video)

El Jefe

New Blood
E
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
6
Apologies if there's already a thread open for this, but my feeble attempts at using the search function came up dry.

Have David Chandler's assertions regarding WTC 7 audio (sounds of explosions are present but faint, require selective filtering of WTC 7 collapse audio in order to be heard) been discussed here at JREF?

I suspect that what he discovered was really just the sound of many thousands of tons of WTC 7 impacting terra firma, but I'd like to replace mere suspicion with something more solid, if I can.

Feel free to redirect/merge/generally point me in the right direction. Thanks.

EJ
 
El Jefe said:
Apologies if there's already a thread open for this, but my feeble attempts at using the search function came up dry.

Have David Chandler's assertions regarding WTC 7 audio (sounds of explosions are present but faint, require selective filtering of WTC 7 collapse audio in order to be heard) been discussed here at JREF?

I suspect that what he discovered was really just the sound of many thousands of tons of WTC 7 impacting terra firma, but I'd like to replace mere suspicion with something more solid, if I can.

Feel free to redirect/merge/generally point me in the right direction. Thanks.

EJ
Click to expand...

Have you got a link to said video? Preferrably with timestamps so that I don't have to listen to any of Chandler's insanity.
 
I would love to give you a URL, but I'm new here and don't have enough posts. You can find it by Googling "WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions".
2:00 to 4:00 would be the portion of interest.
 
Thanks, Marokkaan.

When I first came across the source video that Chandler used, I rather naively assumed that since the voices of the reporter (Ashleigh Banfield of NBC) and her subject were audible, and the sounds of an explosion wasn't, that pretty much ruled out the possibility that an explosion had occurred.

Chandler asserts that because the mike "was set up to exclude background noises", the sound of the explosion is present but only audible if you boost the bass and listen reeeal close.

It seems obvious to me that Banfield, her subject, and several of the other people in the shot are reacting to a stimuli, and it makes sense to me that is an audible stimuli (I've heard other suggestions, but they seem less plausible). But I am sceptical that this stimuli was indeed, an explosion. I believe Chandler detected the sound of WTC 7 making a hard landing.

Is there any way to get at this? Perhaps understand the characteristics of the mike and downstream audio processing to the point of being able to rule in or rule out what could be heard? I'm aware of othere videos that have audio of reporters at controlled demolitions where the sound of the explosions was very clearly audible. I suspect Chandler would say that the reason we can hear those but not WTC 7 would be because those mikes "were set up" to carry the sound of an explosion, and Banfield's mike wasn't.

Chandler also speculates about "tailoring the sound of the demolition so that it would be easily masked", but I think that's likely a wild goose chase, and at the very least, a different discussion.
 
The reporter is reacting to sound behind her, obviously. As is everyone else. Chandler even syncs up the footage with other footage of the collapse. I cannot actually speak to whether he synced properly, but let's assume he did.

As has often been shown, the TM got themselves into trouble with their timed free fall by ignoring the collapse of the penthouse. By the time he cues the video of the collapse, the penthouse is already gone. And, as everyone can very readily surmise, the penthouse collapsed due to internal structural failure.

All of that would've made noise, noise to which the people were reacting.

Chandler's a maroon. He spends more than half the video "proving" that there were sounds of explosions, then tops it all off by positing hush-a-boom nano-thermxte. Which was it? Explosions or deadly quiet thermxte?

(Veteran 911 CT forum posters will recall - didn't someone here once do a complete analysis of Chandler?)
 
You can get the sound of explosives by dropping one flat surface onto the top of another, such as the floor of one building onto the top of the one below. The sound is produced by the air escaping between the surfaces at supersonic speeds.
 
Where Banfield is standing, she would have had a view farther down the street toward WTC7 than had the camera. It appears to me that there is some perterbation of the smoke or dust visible around the corner a little before Banfield reacts. This would indicate to me that collapse was well under way at that time.

We do NOT hear a thing on the microphone at the penthouses dropped.

Explosive charges would have been much more clearly audible in that box canyon than were some of the street noises which Banfield captures on video. That bit of video supports the progressive collapse theory.
 
El Jefe said:
It seems obvious to me that Banfield, her subject, and several of the other people in the shot are reacting to a stimuli, and it makes sense to me that is an audible stimuli (I've heard other suggestions, but they seem less plausible).
Click to expand...



It looks more to me like Banfield is reacting to something she sees in her peripheral vision. Note two important things:

1) The woman she is interviewing, who's line of sight is further away from looking at WTC7, reacts after Banfield reacts. That's consistent with her reacting to Banfield's motion, not to a loud sound they would both hear simultaneously.

2) The baby doesn't react at all. Unless the baby is deaf, is there any way a loud explosion noise wouldn't make it cry its lungs out?


Now, as to their analysis - they're filtering to find "rumbling sounds" and the like, which they simply then declare are the sounds of explosions. Except there's no justification for that declaration. First off, we know there would have to be some kinds of sounds of the rubble collapsing - where are those sounds in their analysis?

Secondly, have they done any sort of a control experiment? It would not be difficult to find a camera and microphone set-up as used in this clip, adjust it for "picking up voices" as they say it was set, and then film various types of explosions and demolitions, and show how those known sounds look under this sort of analysis. That they haven't done this suggests that they have no interest in really figuring out what is depicted in that video and audio. Instead, they're merely looking for an excuse to ignore one of the main arguments against their hypothesis. That's not how you do good science.
 
Horatius said:
It looks more to me like Banfield is reacting to something she sees in her peripheral vision. Note two important things:

1) The woman she is interviewing, who's line of sight is further away from looking at WTC7, reacts after Banfield reacts. That's consistent with her reacting to Banfield's motion, not to a loud sound they would both hear simultaneously.

2) The baby doesn't react at all. Unless the baby is deaf, is there any way a loud explosion noise wouldn't make it cry its lungs out?
Click to expand...


Jebus. More bedunker video analysis.

What compelling logic. Yah, I'm convinced.

:eye-poppi
 
ergo said:
Jebus. More bedunker video analysis.

What compelling logic. Yah, I'm convinced.

:eye-poppi
Click to expand...



And of course, you ignore the parts of my post where I explain how you should really go about showing that the analysis presented in that video has any validity.

Odd how you would simply laugh off my analysis, even though it's based on simple things you can see in the video, like babies, while completely ignoring the fact that your truther buddies have utter failed in their burden of showing that their analysis is useful.

Why do you think you might be doing that?
 
Edx said:
Exactly they hardly notice, truthers have no idea what explosives sound like.
Click to expand...

That was my take on Chandler, confirmation bias run riot.

That location was about 3/8 mile, almost exactly 2000 feet from WTC 7. Do we know what a controlled demolition should sound like at that range? I can find lots of videos of reporters at controlled demolitions, but in most cases, the camera and mike is closer than this.
 
Horatius said:
First off, we know there would have to be some kinds of sounds of the rubble collapsing - where are those sounds in their analysis?
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% convinced that is the case. I know of several videos of controlled demolitions where there is a fair amount of building standing after the last charge goes off and the echo of that last charge dies away, but you can't hear the sound of the rubble collapsing. I suppose distance from the implosion, sensitivity of the audio equipment, and background noise all play into that.

But your point is well taken...I'd think the scientific thing to do would be to say, "I have found an unusual sound, and here is my analysis of that sound..."

As opposed to simply declaring that sound to be an explosion without any supporting rationale.
 
El Jefe said:
I'm not 100% convinced that is the case. I know of several videos of controlled demolitions where there is a fair amount of building standing after the last charge goes off and the echo of that last charge dies away, but you can't hear the sound of the rubble collapsing. I suppose distance from the implosion, sensitivity of the audio equipment, and background noise all play into that.

But your point is well taken...I'd think the scientific thing to do would be to say, "I have found an unusual sound, and here is my analysis of that sound..."

As opposed to simply declaring that sound to be an explosion without any supporting rationale.
Click to expand...


Sure, it's possible that the sounds of the building collapsing might not be recorded. But the point is, we know those sounds exist. They might even show up as low-level bass rumblings that you might have to manipulate the audio track to find :D

That they ignore the possibility that these might be sounds that have to exist, whether or not the collapse starts via explosives or fire, and refuse to do any attempt to validate their hypothesis by comparing it to known demolitions, shows exactly how much they don't want real answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom