1. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    David Chandler has created a video for AE911Truth that, he claims, contains evidence for the sound of explosions at the WTC7.

    Here is the video, hosted by ae911truth:


    Skip the first 2 minutes with some other truther claims (Sunder; McPadden; Bartmer...), and jump right ahead to the 2:04 mark where Chandler introduces us to the NBC clip here NBC's Ashleigh Banfield interviews a woman she calls "Fabiana" as WTC7 collapses in the background.

    They are on the intersection of West Broadway and Worth St, as you can confirm with Google Street View. This is roughly 570 meters (1870 ft) from the nort-east corner of the old WTC7.
    [​IMG]

    Back to Chandler: At 2:47, he lets the clip run, filtered to sound only basses. At 3:05 he marks where he thinks he hears a series of explosions: The first sounds as "Fabiana" says "they..they (advised us to leave)".
    [​IMG]

    These can't be explosions that caused the collapse of any part of WTC7! Here is why:

    Look at the NBC clip as NBC has it in their archive:
    http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nbc-news/14516622?hc_location=ufi#14516622

    Watch closely, and listen:
    From 0:00 to 0.05, you see a narrow strip of bright sky down West Broadway
    0:00: [​IMG]
    Crop of the region I mean: [​IMG]

    0:05 thumbnail: [​IMG]
    Crop: [​IMG]

    Then, at 0:06, a dust cloud develops and fills that bright area from below:
    Thumbnail: [​IMG]
    Crop: [​IMG]

    From 0:09 I can hear a rumble start to swell

    As the time changes from 0:10 to 0:11, Fabiana says "they they" - this is the moment that Chandler detected his first "explosion"

    At 0:12, Banfield turns her head in reaction to the rising noise level.
    [​IMG]

    So, at 0:06, there is already a dust cloud. This means that the WTC7 facade at that point in time already must have burst - this must be more than one second after the north perimeter started to descend, which therefore happened at or before 0:05 s in the video. This in turn means that the east mechanical penthouse had already dropped as the NBC clip starts. The distance, no more than 600 meters, means that sounds travels no longer than 2 seconds. An explosion sound that could have caused column 79 to buckle therefore would have been heard at or before 0:02, or it would have been before the clip starts. Any explosives that broke the exterior columns would have to have been heard at or before 0:08 seconds. Those would have been the last explosions - but Chandler heard his first at 0:10/11 - about 2.5 seconds too late!

    And that debunks his claim that the NBC-clip contains audio evidence of demolition explosions.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    I found another nice piece of evidence against Chandler's claims in an old JREF thread:
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7619027#post7619027

    Chandler claims early in his video, at 2:14: "The mike was set up to pick up speech a few inches away". But is this claim true?
    Poster "El Jefe" says the microphone used by Banfield is probably a "Electro-Voice RE50", which is omnidirectional, and "has a reasonably flat response from 80 Hz to 13,000 Hz. This would pick up the "BANG" of an explosion quite well". It is the same microphone used by a CBS reporter in an interview taken at the same time:



    I had not seen this video before! The mike obviously picks up lots of sounds from various directions, distances, and in different frequencies: The low bus engine, high sirens, speech of people several feet away - but again no explosions. The location is also about 2000 ft from WTC7, that's 2 seconds for sound propagation. The EPH goes down at 0:39, so any explosion should have beem picked up no later than 0:41. The exterior starts going down at 0:46, but no explosions at or before 0:48. The woman reacts at 0:49 - not clear to what exactly, possibly the reaction of other people.

    Anyway, the point is: Those mikes are NOT set up to pick up only speech a few inches away, they pick up a range of sounds from a larger distance.
     
    • Informative Informative x 4
  3. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    I noticed that Chandlers "explosions" nicely corroborate Craig Bartmer's account:
    She's hitting the ground - and you hear "boom boom boom". Of course you would hear loud bangs when a huge building is hitting the ground behind you. If there had been explosions first, he would have explained how the explosions exploded and made him look up - not the radios. Obviously, the building was seen collapsing before it was loud. This is perfectly in line with Chandler noticing the loudest bangs as the wall and all the building is already falling on the ground.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Oh dear - I think I have to retract, or correct, my analysis! :(

    I claimed, but without actually checking, that the dark cloud that rises in the backgrund must be the dust cloud created by the collapse. It has been pointed out to me that this however could as well be smoke from the burning building, only later joined by dust. So I decided to look for other video evidence of that cloud and whether I can synchronize it with the collapse sequence. And I found it.

    First, two videos: The first is another version of the NBC clip, starting about 11 seconds earlier.
    The second was shot by a Klaus Laubermayer from a position a little bit (no more than a block, probably less) north (farther way) than the Banfield / NBC position.



    Here are two screenshot, one from each video:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    You see in the background that there is only a wedge of bacckground light between the already rising cloud and a building to its left. This is the moment when Fabiana says "they they" and Chandler detects the first of his "explosions".

    Two seconds later, the wedge of light has closed in both videos. Another 3 seconds later, the screenwall disappears behind the screen wall in the Laubermayer video, followed by north wall collapse.

    I had seen the first sign of a cloud rising in the background about 4-5 seconds before Fabiana says "they they". This means that the cloud already started rising at least around 9-10 seconds before the north wall started collapse, and not, as I had believed, after that.

    According to NIST's timeline (NCSTAR 1A, Table 3-1 on page 43) "Descent of the east end of the screenwall below the roofline" is 8.5 seconds after "Start of descent of east penthouse".
    This puts the moment Chandler detects the first "explosions" at around t=4 s, and the actual creation pf that sound at around t=2 s - before the west core descends.
     
  5. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    In another, now closed, thread, @drommelsboef makes the following claim:
    I would like for drommelsboef to explain why he thinks I "failed miserably".
    First, I did not fail - I made a mistake and corrected it myself.
    Secondly - nothing miserable about that: The corrected timeline has the origin of the first of Chandler's alleged "explosion" sound still AFTER (about 2 s after) the visible collapse begins with the failure of the three fattest columns, 79-81, and the the descent of the east penthouse. Chandler's alleged "explosion" sounds all occur within about 2.5 seconds, so they end approx. 4.5 seconds after the EPH starts to descend, and 4 seconds before the screen wall drops, followed shortly by WPH and north wall.

    This means that, while the sounds originated during the time frame of the collapse, there is no temporal link to any visiually observed collapse event - they do not coincide closely with the initiation of the collapse of any part of WTC7, and thus my analysis still puts into serious doubts the allegations made by Chandler.
    The bit I failed was: I thought at first the sounds had originated even after the north wall had started to descend - at a time when "explosive CD charges" would have made no sense at all. After my correction, we are now at a time frame where they make no demonstrable sense.

    If these rumbling sound that Chandler believes to be standing out (I don't even agree with that, but let's grant him they stand out) do in fact originated from building 7, then the much more plausible explanation would be that they are the sound of the collapse itself - no doubt the crashing of some 40 floors of the large area supported by columns 79-81 into the lower part of the building would be accompanied by terrifying bangs - even though these are much softer than the sharp, awesomely loud, chest-thumping BANGs of explosive CD charges.
     
  6. drommelsboef

    drommelsboef Member

    @Kidda, I'm currently 15000km from home and I saw the thread was closed, but why?, you asked:

    Why should I as a European Engineer, bother with Amaricans blowing up one of their own empty buildings on a late afternoon? Gage gave me the wrong answer.

    European, irrelevant.
    Americans? who said that?
    Empty? It was not empty but evacuated.

    What is the purpose of this question? Isn't it simply pure curiosity ? It's a very controversial topic. If you simply cannot believe fire did this then there is no need for those questions.


    @Oystein,

    Maybe the words I used was due to the emotion of the moment because I know you as a skilled "debunker" under my other nick ;-) and respect you. And you indeed corrected your post.

    The questions left then are

    - does the sound originate from wtc7
    - if yes, do they stand out
    - if yes, what is the relation with video observation.

    The first cannot be proven with 100% certainty. But statistically it is as related as a boom and a flash of lightning.

    For the 2nd question, I would first say they are distinct from the more continuous noise during the collapse but more work needs to be done on this.

    The 3rd one is very hard to answer with the current material.
     
  7. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Drommelsboef,

    I think if we answer the first question tentatively with "yes", then that's not obviously wrong. It appears obvious that there is a swelling rumble that is associated with the collapse event - somewhat similar to the swelling of noise as the first two towers collapsed. That would prove that collapse noises are loud enough to be picked up.
    Plus, a "yes" starts a potentially interesting debate :D

    I would want to answer the third question before the second - assuming that Chandler's waveforms indeed represent distinct features of a rumbling noise and are not artifacts of something (or someone!), we can pinpoint them temporally in that video, and using other videos, can relate them temporally with the visible events of the collapse. A better job at that can certainly be done with better tools (video and sound analysis), more effort (and higher skills) than I was so far able to expend.

    In my first analysis, I had (incorrectly, it seems) assumed that the rising dark cloud was dust generated by the collapse and freed when the north wall disintegrated - and thus after the last chance for collapse-initiating "explosions" had passed. No need to be very accurate (say, 0.1 seconds accuracy) in that case.
    I then realized that my assumption was probably wrong. I think the raising black cloud is more likely smoke - and I believe it is relevant and connected to the collapse! If my timing (which in the end, with a few steps of clocking events rather coarsely, I guess had an accuracy no bettert than +/- 1 seconds, possibly worse) is roughly correct - that the first of Chandler's "explosions" was generated ~2 seconds after the EPH started to descend - then I think the smoke cloud started billowing before the EPH collapse. This may at least be consistent with, and might in the best case corroborate, NIST's timeline which had several floors falling in the seconds before the EPH descent. Floor slabs collapsing on fire floors would likely push large amounts of smoke through the broken windows.
     
  8. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I spent a little time on this today, as it was brought up by a correspondent after my interview on Radio New Zealand. I was able to synchronize the video with other videos of the collapse, and hence place it exactly in context. This does not change the conclusions above, but makes the timing much clearer. The supposed booms happen as the penthouse is collapsing, at around 6 seconds into my video.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvn2W-3Qon4


    Sync Frames:
    20160928-155820-y6umg.

    20160928-155932-g440z.
    20160928-160204-ufvwk.

    (The last sync could be done several ways, but the sudden line of smoke/dust from the windows was the most accurate, even if it does not show well here. Compare the rest of the video if you have doubts)
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Like Like x 2
  10. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    It looks like an awful lot of black smoke emerges at the bottom BEFORE as AS it begins to drop...ie when the EPH drops. No?
     
  11. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Awesome, Mick!

    Fabiana's "they...they", which coincides with Chandler's first "bang", now also coincides with the beginning of the EPH descent. This would mean that the sound originated about 2 seconds before the collapse of the EPH, and about 9 seconds before the north wall collapse.

    These bangs have thus nothing to do with either the west core collapse or the perimeter collapse, as Chandler implies.
    They have everything to do with the east core collapse.
    They could be consistent with explosive charges around column 79-81.
    But of course the collapsing building is under no obligation to have only smooth sounds - it emits bangs if its own with or without CD charges to start off the collapse.
    What we hear is the sound of the collapsing floors. What we see is smoke from the burning floors being pushed out as these floors collapse
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. Jeffrey Orling

    Jeffrey Orling Active Member

    The truth guys will say there was little to no fires down low in the building... but that huge out pouring of thick black smoke as the collapse begins tells a different story... there as copious fire and the smoke is very black (it seems) which may indicate what was burning... plastics or perhaps diesel or something in Con Ed or on those mech floors.

    NB there was black smoke pouring from the top mech floors of 1wtc almost immediately after the plane hits... My hunch is this was an electrical explosion related to shorts caused by the plane hitting/shorting/severing the hi voltage wires running up to the mech floors. Hard to determine what sort of damage such explosions... is they occurred would cause. Would the hat truss be weakened or damaged? Probably.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Sync frames seems very dishonest here. I think you must know that the NIST video thing does not continue in the same way that actual footage of the demolition of the building does. It seems criminal that you would present it this way.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    How can it be dishonest if they match exactly?

    The NIST video does not continue. This is the more accurate one with damage, not the one without damage that Gage mistakenly used for years.
     
  15. You must be lying to yourself I think. I have seen film of Building 7 coming down, and I have seen the two computer animations from NIST, and neither of them look like the actual film of Building 7 coming down.
     
  16. Tiresias

    Tiresias New Member

    A possibly-relevant datum from the collapse of Sampoong Department Store in Korea due to structural failure,

     
  17. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    So you are actually criticizing the accuracy of the WTC7 simulation after the penthouse has collapsed, and the noises occurred that caused the reactions here. That's a different topic.

    The point here is that the noises occurred after the start of the collapse. You can ignore the simulation video if you like, you can see the collapse of the penthouse in the lower right video.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Mick synch's the collapse of the EPH [East Penthouse].
    Do you agree that at least the EPH cave-in looks similar in the NIST simulation and in reality?
    Do you agree that Mick correctly synched the collapse of the EPH?
    Then he is not lying.
    It's ok to doubt the precision or veracity of the NIST sim. This doesn't change the simple observation that Mick correctky synched a particular collapse feature that happened in both the sim and in a certain real world collapse video. The purpose of the excercise is to compare the various videos. No claim is implied about the accuracy of the sim.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 29, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. This is utter nonsense. The type of mic used by interviewers are indeed designed to pick up sounds close by. If you want to get sound from far away, you use a totally different sort of microphone.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  20. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    Not true, whilst microphones used for location interviews ARE designed to primarily pick up the voice of the interviewee, they will pick up EVERYTHING else around. In my day job as a radio presenter / producer I have a large number of archived interviews where the ambient and other background noise is also recorded. Traffic noise is very common, even when the traffic is some way off beyond a closed window. I have others where I am interviewing one band and another can be clearly heard soundchecking in another part of the building (extreme example - interviewing Monster Truck with Vista Chino (Kyuss) soundchecking about 30 yards away through several very thick walls and closed doors - those guys were LOUD)

    Generally this is a good thing, an interview where no ambient noise is picked up sounds dead and lifeless, so the mics used are set up to record the voice clearly but allow some back ground sound as well - even in studio interviews the 'sound' of the studio is picked up to give the recording a little 'life'.

    Bottom line is, if you have the sound of a large building collapsing as back ground noise, you WILL pick it up.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  21. I think you should have used a better microphone. Furthermore, you should have watched the Chandler thing a little more closely, because his point is that the microphone does indeed pick up sounds of the buidling's destruction.
     
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The sounds occur when the east penthouse is collapsing, so are consistent with that. Hence they are not evidence of controlled demolition, just a collapsing building.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Whitebeard

    Whitebeard Senior Member

    It was done with a Shure SM58 Omni. A pretty good all round mic running into an Olympus DS50 recorder, all pretty much a standard set up, the example given was an extreme one, we tried a number of locations and that was the best we could get given the time frame available.

    And I was replying to your comment...

    "The type of mic used by interviewers are indeed designed to pick up sounds close by. If you want to get sound from far away, you use a totally different sort of microphone."

    ....and pointing out that any general purpose mic used in the media will capture both close by and distant sound, and the louder the distant sound the more you will pick it up. (obviously)

    In addition when it comes to TV and street location 'vox popping' the crew will more often than not only have a standard microphone, more often than not hand held by the interviewer, or mounted on the camera. A separate dedicated sound crew is something that these days is very rarely, if ever deployed.
     
  24. I think you are mixing thing up a bit here. A building being demolished is a collapsing building. And as the Chandler film points out - the interviewer says, 'this is it.' [is there any point to this site? Why did the rest of what I put get deleted?....]
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2016
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The topic here is the audio. Please stay on topic.
     
  26. What's your point? Since you know about microphones then you know that what I said is correct. If you wanted a directional microphone to pick up sound from far away you wouldn't be using the sort of microphone you use to interview people with - the sort of microphone designed to exclude as best as possible background sound.

    TV do not use 'any general purpose mic' (as one imagines you would know) - they use expensive ones that minimise background noise.

    The one you say you used, as you discovered, wasn't the best choice for interviewing people with a lot of background noise.
     
  27. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    The RE50 mentioned in the other post is an Industry standard mic for Broadcast news. It has an OMNIDIRECTIONAL pickup pattern which means it picks up sound evenly from ALL directions.

    Obviously it will pickup closer sounds louder than further sounds but a LOUD further sound would still be picked up.
    I have recorded with a cardioid pattern mic that is designed for close micing instruments but that didn't prevent it picking up the Ice cream van outside the house and ruining the take.

    If you watch the video in the post where Oystein's comment you replied to was made, you can also see the cameraman react to seeing the building fall and the interviewee reacts to the cameraman. Certainly nobody there in shot is reacting to the sounds of explosions BEFORE the collapse, whether the mic picked them up or not.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 30, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    perhaps you can provide some proof for us. Google is your friend.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  29. Again, what point are you making? I'm thinking the MSNBC people were using a cardiod mic, but as Chandler is saying, and indeed you are saying, one expects that even so this mic will pick up some background noise - like the destruction of the distant Building 7. And Chandler shows that it did. Not only do the reactions of the people there show that they heard something, but the mic too picked it up.
     
  30. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    did they hear something like this:

    cos I certainly don't hear it, and they seem to be reacting to the quieter sound of a falling building rather than the HUGE sound of an explosive demolition they weren't expecting. Watch the Demolition Video and hear the difference between the sound of an explosive going off compared to the sound of the building as it collapses ( not forgetting sound travels at 330 m/s and so there will be a delay between the flash and the sound)
     
  31. Hama Neggs

    Hama Neggs Senior Member

    A microphone can have directional attributes and features, but nothing relating to how far away a sound originates.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  32. Oystein

    Oystein Active Member

    Do you still stand by that post, after the rebuttals you got so far?

    In my post, I showed evidence that the microphone used likely had a rather omnidirectional characteristic. Efftup just gave you a source that supports this. This is what we call "evidence" around here.

    Directionality is the only way that mics can be "designed to pick up sounds close by" - that is, if you direct a mic with a narrow directionality at a nearby audio source and optimize the recording level to that source.

    You'd need to show evidence now that this news camera used a mix with narrow angle characteristic. You just claiming something doesn't cut it.


    I have more direct proof that the mic has an omni characteristic: Watch this longer version of her interview, starting at 20 seconds:

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2-R1L-FhFA&t=20

    Banfield says "...yot Carolina here, with the mic pointed to her mouth and very close to her mouth.
    At that moment, Fabiana responds: "yes ... uhm, they they advised us to leave..."
    While she sais "yes", softly, the mic is still pointing another direction, about 90° to the direction where Fabianas mouth is, an perhaps 10 inches away. Yet, this softly spoken "yes" can be very clearly heard without any need to vamp up anything.
    The mic is also pointed roughly 90° to the direction towards WTC7.

    It follows that a softly-spoken "yes" at 10 inches was MUCH MUCH louder than the rumble that ensues.

    A few seconds on, the mic picks up the cries and shouts of various people in the vicinity. These, too, much be MUCH MUCH louder than the rumble.

    Compare this to news or other recordings of actual CDs, where, typicall, the PENG PENG PENG PENG of the demo charges dominate all sounds while they last!


    Sure, the mic picked up a low, faint rumble. There was a big building collapsing.
    But the sound level was minimal compared to a soft-spoken word, and a far cry any and all demo charges known from actual explosive demolitions.

    Again, we found that this rumble coincides with the collapse of a dozend floors around column 79 in the NIST scenario, which tends to corroborate the hypothesis that the collapse started seconds before the EPH was seen to kink in.
    It seems significant to me that Chandler heard no more "explosions" that would coincide with the collapse of the west core and the perimeter. Certainly, the increased noise level (people screaming) would automatically lower the recording level, but again, the street noises are clearly louder than any of the collapse rumble. It seems that not even Chandler can hear any "explosions" that would coincide with the failure of the west core columns and perimeter columns, suggesting that none existed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4