Has anybody refuted this point based on possible video/audio evidence that the South Tower started rumbling a moment before the exterior began moving downward?
I'd have thought that the boom was generated at the moment the planes impacted the buildings, and was heard by observers at different locations at a few parts-of-seconds later depending on how far away they were and the speed of sound in those conditions that day. Is there any point saying anything else?
Has anybody refuted this point based on possible video/audio evidence that the South Tower started rumbling a moment before the exterior began moving downward?
Any such noise was the result of structural failure that had nothing to do with CD explosives. Case in point can be heard in the following video at time lines: 0:42 to 048.
Has anybody refuted this point based on possible video/audio evidence that the South Tower started rumbling a moment before the exterior began moving downward?
Are you saying the bad guys you can't name who did 9/11 in your fantasy found explosives which rumble instead of making the sound of explosives? How you end up using web sites filled with dumbed down claims debunked since 9/11.
lol, evidence for thermite, and explosives - where is the evidence.
Just a note on your special woo expert web site.
The idiotic web site calls the steel which was corroded in the pile, vaporized. My battery box in my 1970 Capri was vaporized, as was our 1973 Porsche, our donated 1966 Mustang, etc. A sad day when idiots call corroded steel, vaporized steel. Now, the WTC steel which is called vaporized did corrodes at high temperatures, at 800 to 1000C. To use corroded steel as evidence for melted steel, is insanity. Your web site source is insane, and anti-intellectual claptrap.
Do you have a special search engine to find insane 9/11 truth websites.
The sound is stereo - and it appears they have two microphones pointing in rather different directions: One is directed at the reporter (left channel), the other is geared to pick up surrounding sounds, perhaps directed at the towers.
On the left channel, you hear the growing rumble only in the background, the loudness of the voice remains at almost the same level it was before the rumble - all through the end, the loudness is dominated by the voice.
On the right hand channel, however, you first hear the voice above the background noises - a little dull perhaps, but louder than background. The syllable "of-" of "officers" at 1.15 seconds creates a level peak in both channels.
Still on the right channel, the collapse's rumble starts swelling at 1.6 or 1.7 seconds, loudness increases for about 0.5 seconds - and then the sound gets "denser", not louder, without being clipped. What happens there apparently is that the sound recorder auto-adjust recording level!
On the left channel however, where sound dominates, and background rumble is subdued due to mic being pointed at reporter, background noise keeps swelling!
At no time it there a solitary "boom", "bang" or "peng".
The page that MJ links to has the "first rumble" at Frame 156 = 5.2 seconds. Measured from where? The 6.9 seconds clip that they linked to? Then that's at least 3.5 seconds AFTER the first rumble ACTUALLY is heard.
We know from the videos that the first visible evidence of collapse initiation in the South Tower was the point at which inward bowing of the perimeter columns became so severe that the columns collapsed inwards. This was then followed by the upper part of the structure tipping, followed by its descent. It's hardly surprising, therefore, if the sound of the inward collapse of the perimeter columns preceded the drop of the upper block by a significant amount. The argument on the website that this noise cannot have been caused by pancaking floors is a strawman argument; we know from the NIST report that pancaking floors were not the cause of collapse initiation, though pancaking of floors no doubt took place during the collapse.
The very fact that the South Tower collapse initiated with the perimeter columns collapsing inward is a very strong indication that structural deformation, not explosives, were the cause of the collapse; we can literally see the structural deformations initiating the collapse before our eyes.
We know from the videos that the first visible evidence of collapse initiation in the South Tower was the point at which inward bowing of the perimeter columns became so severe that the columns collapsed inwards. This was then followed by the upper part of the structure tipping, followed by its descent. It's hardly surprising, therefore, if the sound of the inward collapse of the perimeter columns preceded the drop of the upper block by a significant amount. The argument on the website that this noise cannot have been caused by pancaking floors is a strawman argument; we know from the NIST report that pancaking floors were not the cause of collapse initiation, though pancaking of floors no doubt took place during the collapse.
The very fact that the South Tower collapse initiated with the perimeter columns collapsing inward is a very strong indication that structural deformation, not explosives, were the cause of the collapse; we can literally see the structural deformations initiating the collapse before our eyes.
So this only works in a scenario where the core starts collapsing first, dragging down the perimeter over half a second later? Half a second is quite a while here.
So this only works in a scenario where the core starts collapsing first, dragging down the perimeter over half a second later? Half a second is quite a while here.
Why does it have to be the core? The WTC towers are a system of core and shell connected with the floors. About half the weight is carried by the core, half by the shell. The core does not have to fail first to have the shell bow in slowly over time. How do you get the core to fail falling slowly? Trying to back in CD with BS slow moving core dragging in the shell, is not evidence for explosives which were not heard on 9/11. Better stick with the fantasy of thermite, it is not as loud as reality based explosives.
Where do you guys get the rumble explosives? Did thunder bring down the WTC. Who did your inside job fantasy?
So this only works in a scenario where the core starts collapsing first, dragging down the perimeter over half a second later? Half a second is quite a while here.
The bowing is caused by the lateral I-beams losing rigidity and sagging pulling the outer walls inward. This was one of the drawbacks to having a lot of office space. The sagging has nothing to do with the center other than the lateral beams are connected to the core structure also.
So this only works in a scenario where the core starts collapsing first, dragging down the perimeter over half a second later? Half a second is quite a while here.
If it is true that the audio/video evidence shows that the South Tower started making noise noise started over half a second before the exterior started coming down, then that would only leave a core-lead explanation like how the North Tower's antenna shows the same thing, falling downwards a moment before the exterior.
The sound is stereo - and it appears they have two microphones pointing in rather different directions: One is directed at the reporter (left channel), the other is geared to pick up surrounding sounds, perhaps directed at the towers.
On the left channel, you hear the growing rumble only in the background, the loudness of the voice remains at almost the same level it was before the rumble - all through the end, the loudness is dominated by the voice.
On the right hand channel, however, you first hear the voice above the background noises - a little dull perhaps, but louder than background. The syllable "of-" of "officers" at 1.15 seconds creates a level peak in both channels.
Still on the right channel, the collapse's rumble starts swelling at 1.6 or 1.7 seconds, loudness increases for about 0.5 seconds - and then the sound gets "denser", not louder, without being clipped. What happens there apparently is that the sound recorder auto-adjust recording level!
On the left channel however, where sound dominates, and background rumble is subdued due to mic being pointed at reporter, background noise keeps swelling!
At no time it there a solitary "boom", "bang" or "peng".
The page that MJ links to has the "first rumble" at Frame 156 = 5.2 seconds. Measured from where? The 6.9 seconds clip that they linked to? Then that's at least 3.5 seconds AFTER the first rumble ACTUALLY is heard.
Do you think the distinct roaring of the South Tower is actually just the microphone readjusting to the normal background noise? Or are you just getting hung up on the word "boom", which is a word the author used? The legitimacy of the author's point about the audio/video evidence is what should be discussed here.
Do you think the distinct roaring of the South Tower is actually just the microphone readjusting to the normal background noise? Or are you just getting hung up on the word "boom", which is a word the author used? The legitimacy of the author's point about the audio/video evidence is what should be discussed here.
But the whole point was the claim there was a "boom" when there is absolutely was no such thing whatsoever. You literally put it in the title of this thread. The claim that there was a distinct boom was utterly destroyed.
You also completely misunderstood oystein's analysis.
If it is true that the audio/video evidence shows that the South Tower started making noise noise started over half a second before the exterior started coming down, then that would only leave a core-lead explanation like how the North Tower's antenna shows the same thing, falling downwards a moment before the exterior.
No, it wouldn't. It would simply indicate that something noisy was happening in a building that was experiencing one of the largest building fires ever seen (specifically, one of the three largest) and was within a second of collapsing completely. To describe this as unsurprising would be a colossal understatement.
The underlying claim that the author is trying to make, as with all these arguments, is that the collapse was initiated by explosives. Since no sound indicative of the type of explosives required to cut steel was actually heard, the underlying claim is therefore rejected. There were no explosives, and the collapse was not initiated by demolition explosives. All that remains is discussing the precise sequence of fire-induced structural failures that led to the initiation of global collapse, and we all know that's not on your agenda.
Do you think the distinct roaring of the South Tower is actually just the microphone readjusting to the normal background noise? Or are you just getting hung up on the word "boom", which is a word the author used? The legitimacy of the author's point about the audio/video evidence is what should be discussed here.
If it is true that the audio/video evidence shows that the South Tower started making noise noise started over half a second before the exterior started coming down, then that would only leave a core-lead explanation like how the North Tower's antenna shows the same thing, falling downwards a moment before the exterior.
If it is true that the audio/video evidence shows that the South Tower started making noise noise started over half a second before the exterior started coming down, then that would only leave a core-lead explanation like how the North Tower's antenna shows the same thing, falling downwards a moment before the exterior.
No, I see at least one other possibility: That your uneducated expectation of how the collapse would be visible in a handheld, wildly panning video shot from that position is uneducated and mistaken.
Do you think the distinct roaring of the South Tower is actually just the microphone readjusting to the normal background noise? Or are you just getting hung up on the word "boom", which is a word the author used? The legitimacy of the author's point about the audio/video evidence is what should be discussed here.
I think the roaring is actually a roaring, with no distinguishable pressure maximum - no "boom". The author's point is something something relative in time to an imagined boom that never happened. There was a roar of increasing loudness. The waveform of it has indeed a local maximum at some point, but that is not indicative of when there was a "boom", but rather of when the increasing noise reached a threshold where the auto-adjust of the camera would kick in and tune recording level down go prevent maxing out.
Also my suggestion: What if pre-positioned heating elements could weaken the steel very quickly before relatively small kicker charges are then used? You would need less explosive that way.
Also my suggestion: What if pre-positioned heating elements could weaken the steel very quickly before relatively small kicker charges are then used? You would need less explosive that way.
While we're talking WTC 7, this is a simulation that was posted September 11, 2016. I don't know if it has already been posted. If so I apologize for wasting your time:
Also my suggestion: What if pre-positioned heating elements could weaken the steel very quickly before relatively small kicker charges are then used? You would need less explosive that way.
Reality doesn't work that way and I have experienced all kinds of explosions in war to know that guy hasn't a clue.
Secondly, explosives are ineffective if a steel structure is not pre-weakened. You add cutter charges and you still need explosives such as dynamite to finish the job. Have you ever seen videos of steel buildings withstanding the blast wave of a nuclear bomb? I have and I might add that the steel structures remained standing because they were not pre-weakened, which is why the structure of WTC 1 remained standing within a bomb crater after a vehicle bomb was donated beneath that building.
Thirdly, even if explosions were muffled, shockwaves would have been generated which would have traveled down the steel structures and into the ground where the signals would have been detected by seismographs and I have to say that there were no signals as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, not to mention that no evidence of such muffling was found at ground zero. In addition, there were no physical evidence of such muffling nor physical evidence that explosives were used. How do you muffle the structure a huge building to drown out explosions and not attract a lot of attention?
It would have been impossible to properly pre-weaken the structures of the WTC buildings unnoticed because such operations are extremely noisy, generate hazardous debris and dust into the air and takes many months of preparation even before explosives are placed. It took many months just to drop a steel bridge with explosives and that was nothing compared to what it would have taken to do the same with explosives in regard to the WTC buildings.
To sum it up, claims that CD explosives were used to drop the WTC buildings were nothing more than fabrications and such claims have been used to discredit the truth movement and it worked.
I might also add that CD explosives leave behind lots of physical evidence on-site and yet, not one single piece of detonation hardware was ever found at ground zero, which simply means there is zero evidence for explosives. Seems that you are unaware of hoaxes regarding explosives and the WTC buildings. and amazingly, I have had truthers smack me with their CD evidence in the form of videos..........................the same hoaxed videos that I had warned truthers about. Simply amazlng!!!
It soon became apparent that there were truthers who were unaware of my warnings about those hoaxed WTC CD videos because they didn't bother to do their homework.
Also my suggestion: What if pre-positioned heating elements could weaken the steel very quickly before relatively small kicker charges are then used? You would need less explosive that way.
Holy Crap! What do you think CD is? Did you try to study first, do research? NO, you are full of paranoid BS based on BS, which is based on BS. BS3
---- math for stupid to the nth power of woo
Hey JFK paranoid BS CTer, MJ, the CD is engineered by cutting columns almost through, and setting cutter charges, "very small" charges, which end up being "VERY LOUD" because supersonic explosives make "LOUD Sounds", even in small amounts.
The energy used to destroy building is E=mgh, the building and gravity do the work, the explosives start the collapse, Gravity finishes with the OVERWHELMING work as E=mgh is turned into KE. Learn physics and stop being a pawn, a lowly cult member in the dumbest movement since flat earth and Bigfoot.
WTC collapses don't look like CD, CD looks like a gravity collapse. Get thee to a physics class and this time stop staring out the window
I have also wondered if it would be theoretically possible to harvest electricity from the buildings and use it to run currents through the steel. But even if so that would require a redundant network of very thick cables wired to the columns.
I have also wondered if it would be theoretically possible to harvest electricity from the buildings and use it to run currents through the steel. But even if so that would require a redundant network of very thick cables wired to the columns.
Your knowledge of electricity matches your knowledge of explosives, physics, et al.
Wow, look up dead short, and stop being a paranoid gullible conspiracy theorist. What was your SAT score? Get thee to a comprehensive science course quickly before Hamlet dies
I have also wondered if it would be theoretically possible to harvest electricity from the buildings and use it to run currents through the steel. But even if so that would require a redundant network of very thick cables wired to the columns.
Nice try, but you need more HAARP and harvesting energy from hurricanes. With a bit of work, though, you're on your way to a theory that nobody can read without laughing out loud.
Well, the first obvious fatal error in this is the discussion of NFPA 921 stating that the sound of an explosion is "not an essential element in the definition of an explosion". There are many types of explosion, and only very high-velocity explosions are capable of cutting steel with the precision stipulated by 9/11 CD theories; these explosions have a very characteristic sound, and it's that sound that was conspicuous by its absence. The second is the discussion of continuous explosions as the towers collapse; these ignore the fundamental causal principle that the sound of these explosions would have to precede the initiation of collapse, when in fact they were coincident with it. It then descends into a mash-up of thermite and explosive theories to try and cloud the issue of whether explosives were used by suggesting two contradictory theories at once, as so many truthers try to do; thermite, of course, is a non-starter as a theory because nobody's been able to even suggest a means of cutting thick steel columns with thermite that wouldn't require enormous amounts of equipment that would be obvious to everyone in the towers.
Basically, no, you shouldn't read this; it's just more truther time-wasting that re-hashes all the usual nonsense. But go ahead if you feel like it, heaven forbid I be accused of trying to suppress evidence however worthless.
Also my suggestion: What if pre-positioned heating elements could weaken the steel very quickly before relatively small kicker charges are then used? You would need less explosive that way.
If the pre-positioned heating elements are powerful enough, you wouldn't need any explosives at all. For example, burning all the contents of the buildings has been shown to be capable of weakening the steel enough to produce that effect, both theoretically and in practice.
I have also wondered if it would be theoretically possible to harvest electricity from the buildings and use it to run currents through the steel. But even if so that would require a redundant network of very thick cables wired to the columns.
MJ occupies the fringe-theory wing of CT Land. You know, those folks who grasp at off the wall scenarios to make their hack CT's work since the weight of the ACTUAL SCIENCE is stacked against them.
These folks never look at what actual special operations demo experts would have actually done, or what their realistic capabilities were in 2001, nor are they familiar with demolition techniques or explosive charges of any stripe. That's how you get nanothermite - morons spinning theories based on zero knowledge of content or deployment of such a device.
And nobody has yet to explain why WTC7 would be targeted for total destruction in the first place...other than it was owned by a Jew.
MJ occupies the fringe-theory wing of CT Land. You know, those folks who grasp at off the wall scenarios to make their hack CT's work since the weight of the ACTUAL SCIENCE is stacked against them.
These folks never look at what actual special operations demo experts would have actually done, or what their realistic capabilities were in 2001, nor are they familiar with demolition techniques or explosive charges of any stripe. That's how you get nanothermite - morons spinning theories based on zero knowledge of content or deployment of such a device.
And nobody has yet to explain why WTC7 would be targeted for total destruction in the first place...other than it was owned by a Jew.
IIRC wasn't the secret service housed in that building? So the story line would be the building was destroyed to destroy the records of the secret service involvement in the taking down WTC 1 and 2.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
