9/11 Sounds of Explosions Not being Recorded

[Bruno D.]

... It's the explosive nature of WTC 1 & 2 with multi-yon framing sections being ejected laterally at speeds up to 70 mph that reveals them to be controlled demolitions ...

1 - Can you provide a single video from any controlled demolitions around the world showing multi-ton framing sections being ejected laterally at speeds up to 70mph?
2 - Can you provide a single video from 9/11 showing the same intensity of explosion sounds as any other videos from any other controlled demolitions?

 

[Christopher 7]

1 - Can you provide a single video from any controlled demolitions around the world showing multi-ton framing sections being ejected laterally at speeds up to 70mph?

Of course not. The Trade Towers were not normal demolitions. They were designed to look like a gravity collapse.

2 - Can you provide a single video from 9/11 showing the same intensity of explosion sounds as any other videos from any other controlled demolitions?

Reporters mics don't pick up explosions very well because they are eq'd to eliminate low rumble.

This reporter heard an explosion but his microphone didn't pick it up.
Start at 0:16

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY7E_QmJaMg

Content from External Source

This reporter heard a huge explosion but his mic barely picked it up.
Start a the beginning.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwjRaadx-QU

Content from External Source

 

[benthamitemetric]

Of course not. The Trade Towers were not normal demolitions. They were designed to look like a gravity collapse.
Reporters mics don't pick up explosions very well because they are eq'd to eliminate low rumble.

This reporter heard an explosion but his microphone didn't pick it up.
...

In other words, the “demolitions” of the twin towers didn’t look or sound like any other actual known demolition, and yet they are still somehow obviously demolitions. Right. That doesn’t strike you as just a bit too much of a special pleading?

And do you really believe reporters use special mics when they record actual demolitions? Your EQ argument makes no sense. Stop making up nonsense.

 

[Christopher 7]

In other words, the “demolitions” of the twin towers didn’t look or sound like any other actual known demolition, and yet they are still somehow obviously demolitions. Right. That doesn’t strike you as just a bit too much of a special pleading?

And do you really believe reporters use special mics when they record actual demolitions? Your EQ argument makes no sense. Stop making up nonsense.

I have done a lot of recording and live gigs. I am familiar with eq'ing mics. The FACT remains; the reporter's mic in the first clip did not pick the explosion that the reporter clearly heard. In the second clip, the reporter heard a huge explosion but his mic barely picked it up.

In addition, over 100 first responders, reporters and survivors said they heard explosions. You have been told that many times so I shouldn't have to post all that again. To contend that they were all wrong can only be described a denial.

 

[Christopher 7]

In other words, the “demolitions” of the twin towers didn’t look or sound like any other actual known demolition, and yet they are still somehow obviously demolitions. Right.

RIGHT! They were obviously (for the reasons we have been discussing here) blown up.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

There were things exploding as the buildings burned... but they were not bombs or placed demolition devices. Electrical transformers do explode for any number of reasons and when they do they let off quite the boom and perhaps sound like a bomb. This has happened in our neighborhood and it and the first thought is a bomb... but this is an extremely unlikely place for a bomb to be set off. However in the 911 event... there were reported hijacked planes flown into the towers. There was an instant huge explosion in WTC sub station and perhaps in some high voltage transformers in the basement of 1WTC... the one Rodriguez seems to have heard.
What very likely happened is that AA11 impact severed/shorted out the 13.8kv risers going from the sub basement to the upper section of the tower. Circuit protection was not "fast enough" to prevent voltage spikes which would cause transformers to explode. There were explosions in the ConEd wtc7 substation reported at the time of the AA11. But the cause of the explosion was not "known" or reported and so many wrongly assumed "terrorist bomb". And every transformer or gas explosion that day was "perceived" as a terrorist bomb. This is not unreasonable in the midst of the hysteria of the morning.
AE911T never discusses transformers exploding that day... because it obviously undercuts their argument of placed demo devices. Many can be seen and heard on YouTube:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhq-biENbOY&ab_channel=MykeeRamen

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLgExzj0S00&ab_channel=Redbeard

 

[Oystein]

RIGHT! They were obviously (for the reasons we have been discussing here) blown up.

Actual explosive demolitions - they look and sound different from the WTC collapses.
Do THEY obviously look and sound like explosive demolitions?

Can you give us an example of what a tall building collapse would look and sound like such that you would agree it does NOT "obviously" look and sound like it was "blown up"?

 

[Oystein]

2 - Can you provide a single video from 9/11 showing the same intensity of explosion sounds as any other videos from any other controlled demolitions?

Of course not. The Trade Towers were not normal demolitions. They were designed to look like a gravity collapse.
Reporters mics don't pick up explosions very well because they are eq'd to eliminate low rumble.

Then it should be easy-peasy to find videos of actual explosive demolitions where you do NOT hear the explosive charges going off immediately before collapse onset. Please do so!

By the way: the "PENG" of explosive demolition charges is NOT a "low rumble" at all - it is an extremely sharp sound - a shockwave. If someone reports a "rumble", it very certainly is not a demolition charge.

This reporter heard an explosion but his microphone didn't pick it up.
Start at 0:16

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY7E_QmJaMg

Content from External Source

At what time was this? Was there any collapse initiated at this time?
If not, I suggest the possibility that the "explosion" he refers to is nothing at all like an explosive demolition charge. With headphone on and volume up, I think I can hear a low rumble for a couple of seconds - i.e. not an explosion at all. Of course it is impossible to know exactly what sound the reporter references.

This reporter heard a huge explosion but his mic barely picked it up.
Start a the beginning.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwjRaadx-QU

Content from External Source

No. Just no. You entirely misrepresent what this reporter reports!
Here is a word-by-word transcript, with contemporaneous visible events in brackets:

0:12: [cam pans around and shows fire fighters] "You can see firemen assembled here, police officers, FBI agents
0:15 [cam pans up, dust cloud forms, a rising rumble is heard] and you can SEE the two towers, uh, huge explosion
0:18 [collapse progresses, voice gets louder] uh raining debris upon us, we gotta get out of the way!

Content from External Source

Please note that he does NOT say he HEARD an explosion, no, he describes what he SEES.
Please also note that the reporter's mic, which you claim is "eq'd to eliminate low rumble", picks up the low rumble of the noise of the collapse very clearly and easily. So it appears your claim is straight-out FALSE, at least for this reporter's mic.
And yet, despite THIS mic NOT being "eq'd to eliminate low rumble", it failed to pick up any big explosion BEFORE the collapse was visibly and audibly underway - i.e. no explosion consistent in timing and loudness with explosive demolition.

 

[Inti]

Then it should be easy-peasy to find videos of actual explosive demolitions where you do NOT hear the explosive charges going off immediately before collapse onset. Please do so!

By the way: the "PENG" of explosive demolition charges is NOT a "low rumble" at all - it is an extremely sharp sound - a shockwave. If someone reports a "rumble", it very certainly is not a demolition charge.

Quite right. None of the explosions in demolitions I have witnessed sounded like a low rumble. This one was of a tower block where I had previously lived, and I was present that day, though on the other side from this camera position.
Source: https://youtu.be/niBku7gwcFE

Starts at about 0:31 - time stamping link doesn’t work in this case.

The sound on this video actually sounds lower in pitch than it did in reality, so it was high frequency that was partially excluded. “PENG” well describes the hard, short almost metallic sound of the charges.

 

[Edward Current]

Longtime lurker and admirer of the Metabunk All-Stars. I could not stay out of this one, however.

Reporters mics don't pick up explosions very well because they are eq'd to eliminate low rumble.

This is bunk. I am an audio engineer. The frequencies on microphones for voice are rolled off no higher than 100Hz, the fundamental frequencies of male voices starting around 80Hz. An explosion — and we are talking specifically about high-brisance detonations here, not any generic explosion — is an extremely broadband source and is not significantly affected by highpass EQ at those settings. Consider the spectral frequency display of a few seconds from the YouTube video titled "Implosionworld Explosive Demolition Compilation 2003" from 0:16–0:18, below. The frequencies are on the right.



There's a simpler reason why reporters' mics did not pick up these explosion sounds: They were just much too quiet.

 

[AmberRobot]

So it was designed to look like it was a gravity collapse but it was obviously blown up? I guess the designers were incompetent.

 

[Mick West]

Here's an interesting collection of audio of the same demolition from various distances.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QI3VhFXYyw

Distances can be estimated by dividing time delay in seconds by five, or by geolocating.

The first one (0:40) is 2.25 miles away, and unfortunately greatly overlaid by crowd noises. But you can hear low load rumble. It's still audible about the same with a 100Hz high-pass. 200hz reduces it to a hishing wooshy noise.

Then at 2:01, there's a shot from around 1/3 of a mile away (1.7 second delay). Entirely audible even if you cut out <500Hz.

 

[Oystein]

Then at 2:01, there's a shot from around 1/3 of a mile away (1.7 second delay). Entirely audible even if you cut out <500Hz.

At 2:01 the video (and sound) are in slow-motion.
I believe at 2:26, the same follows in true speed.

 

[Bruno D.]

Of course not. The Trade Towers were not normal demolitions. They were designed to look like a gravity collapse.

In other words: no you can't provide a single video from any controlled demolitions around the world showing multi-ton framing sections being ejected laterally at speeds up to 70mph.

Or even better: no, you can't, because they were not normal demolitions, and were designed to look like a gravity collapse, but failed miserably, and instead they ended up creating explosions that ejected multi-ton framing sections laterally at speeds up to 70mph that could never happen in a regular gravity collapse.

Gotcha.

Reporters mics don't pick up explosions very well because they are eq'd to eliminate low rumble.

This reporter heard an explosion but his microphone didn't pick it up.
...
This reporter heard a huge explosion but his mic barely picked it up.
...

In other words: no you can't provide a single video from 9/11 showing the same intensity of explosion sounds as any other videos from any other controlled demolitions.

Or even better: no, you can't, because reporters' mics don't pick up explosions, or low rumble; and mics from filming crews don't pick up explosions, or low rumble; and amateur cameras don't pick up explosions, or low rumble; and the best possible explosion sounds evidence that can be found among everything that was filmed that day are the descriptions from explosions sounds from reporters, but never the actual sound.

And if you merge both ideas, the explosions capable of ejecting multi-ton framing sections laterally at speeds up to 70mph needs to be a little silent, or similar to a low-rumble, so that the reporters' mics, or any other mics, won't pick up.

Yep.

 

[Rory]

This reporter heard a huge explosion but his mic barely picked it up.
Start at the beginning.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwjRaadx-QU

Content from External Source

As Oystein pointed out, he's not hearing an explosion, he thinks he's seeing one.

The second reporter in this video is even more interesting to me: he's watching the tower collapse and yet he has no idea it's gone down; rather, he seems to think it's obscured by smoke and isn't sure what's going on.

Many of the eyewitness accounts of that day clearly = confused, sketchy, unreliable, not credible.

 

[Mendel]

Uncontrolled explosion, Beirut, August 4th, 2020
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKS0VDbltNU

The smartphone picks it up just fine.

As with a lightning or a thunder-clap, a close-by recording of an explosion has more higher frequencies in it; the further away you get, the more high frequencies are dissipated/attenuated by the air, so a lightning from far away is heard as a low rumbling thunder.

Article:

Frequency dependent attenuation of air (dB) in
30 m distance at different humidity (percent)

Source: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-air.htm

The reporter in the street should be recording a distinctive explosion sound across all frequencies, not a "low rumble".

I believe that the second reporter is at the CNN studio in the Time Warner Center, approximately 4 miles (6.4 km) from the WTC; the speed of sound being ~340 m/s, the sound of the collapse would take ~20 seconds to reach there. They're seeing the collapse before they can hear it. The volume of that sound would be attenuated -36 dB from the distance alone, compared to an observer 300 feet away.

 

[Goombah111]

Then it should be easy-peasy to find videos of actual explosive demolitions where you do NOT hear the explosive charges going off immediately before collapse onset. Please do so!

By the way: the "PENG" of explosive demolition charges is NOT a "low rumble" at all - it is an extremely sharp sound - a shockwave. If someone reports a "rumble", it very certainly is not a demolition charge.


At what time was this? Was there any collapse initiated at this time?
If not, I suggest the possibility that the "explosion" he refers to is nothing at all like an explosive demolition charge. With headphone on and volume up, I think I can hear a low rumble for a couple of seconds - i.e. not an explosion at all. Of course it is impossible to know exactly what sound the reporter references.


No. Just no. You entirely misrepresent what this reporter reports!
Here is a word-by-word transcript, with contemporaneous visible events in brackets:

0:12: [cam pans around and shows fire fighters] "You can see firemen assembled here, police officers, FBI agents
0:15 [cam pans up, dust cloud forms, a rising rumble is heard] and you can SEE the two towers, uh, huge explosion
0:18 [collapse progresses, voice gets louder] uh raining debris upon us, we gotta get out of the way!

Content from External Source

Please note that he does NOT say he HEARD an explosion, no, he describes what he SEES.
Please also note that the reporter's mic, which you claim is "eq'd to eliminate low rumble", picks up the low rumble of the noise of the collapse very clearly and easily. So it appears your claim is straight-out FALSE, at least for this reporter's mic.
And yet, despite THIS mic NOT being "eq'd to eliminate low rumble", it failed to pick up any big explosion BEFORE the collapse was visibly and audibly underway - i.e. no explosion consistent in timing and loudness with explosive demolition.

I might have to disagree with you on your interpretation of the reporter's dialogue. He says "see the towers" then notices the explosion, then reports on the explosion. Whether he meant saw or heard is debatable but him saying "see" the towers does not definitively mean he is referring to the explosion.

 

[Rory]

Watching that clip again I think I might have to disagree with my own sentence of two years ago:

As Oystein pointed out, he's not hearing an explosion, he thinks he's seeing one.

That he thinks he's seeing an explosion isn't clear either - all that's clear is that "explosion" is the word he used to describe seeing the tower coming down.

I imagine his brain was going a mile a minute, struggling to find the words. Whatever he said in that moment is kind of immaterial - it could have been "collapse", "crumble", "expulsion", "demolition", "destruction", or maybe even just some gibberish combination of a variety of words - and it still wouldn't mean much.

I'm sure we've all had the experience of fluffing our lines or at least not hitting on the right word in moments of time constraint and pressure.

 

[Goombah111]

Uncontrolled explosion, Beirut, August 4th, 2020
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKS0VDbltNU

The smartphone picks it up just fine.

As with a lightning or a thunder-clap, a close-by recording of an explosion has more higher frequencies in it; the further away you get, the more high frequencies are dissipated/attenuated by the air, so a lightning from far away is heard as a low rumbling thunder.

Article:

Frequency dependent attenuation of air (dB) in
30 m distance at different humidity (percent)

Source: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-air.htm

The reporter in the street should be recording a distinctive explosion sound across all frequencies, not a "low rumble".

I believe that the second reporter is at the CNN studio in the Time Warner Center, approximately 4 miles (6.4 km) from the WTC; the speed of sound being ~340 m/s, the sound of the collapse would take ~20 seconds to reach there. They're seeing the collapse before they can hear it. The volume of that sound would be attenuated -36 dB from the distance alone, compared to an observer 300 feet away.

That explosion is not comparable to a shaped charge and to be honest doesn't sound all that loud for it's size. This reporter claims to have heard an explosion that is indiscernible from background noise. (~0:15)

This shows that explosions can occur without necessarily being picked up on amateur camera or professional microphone. Distance and obstruction would also affect the sound level of an explosion.

 

[Rory]

This shows that explosions can occur without necessarily being picked up on amateur camera or professional microphone.

Do you mean that it shows that a loud noise can occur without being picked up by a microphone?

He wasn't hearing an explosion, was he?

 

[Goombah111]

Do you mean that it shows that a loud noise can occur without being picked up by a microphone?

He wasn't hearing an explosion, was he?

He seems to believe it was an explosion.
One of the definitions provided by Google for Explosion is as follows: "a sudden outburst of something such as noise, light, or violent emotion, especially anger."
So if you are not okay with his interpretation you may substitute this definition in for the standard definition of explosion commonly understood by the majority of people.
Every witness who reported explosions could very well be mistaken, it is entirely possible.

You can't hear *anything* that's indiscernable from background noise, because it's indiscernable from background noise.
Did he mean he witnessed an explosion whose sound he could not discerne? That's fine, audio attenuation can be many orders of magnitude higher than visual attenuation.

He supposedly heard it, we didn't. The microphone supposedly didn't capture the "explosion" as he describes it.

 

[FatPhil]

This reporter claims to have heard an explosion that is indiscernible from background noise.

You can't hear *anything* that's indiscernable from background noise, because it's indiscernable from background noise.
Did he mean he witnessed an explosion whose sound he could not discerne? That's fine, audio attenuation can be many orders of magnitude higher than visual attenuation.

 

[Oystein]

I might have to disagree with you on your interpretation of the reporter's dialogue. He says "see the towers" then notices the explosion, then reports on the explosion. Whether he meant saw or heard is debatable but him saying "see" the towers does not definitively mean he is referring to the explosion.

Banned former member misses the point of my post, which he replied to. I had refuted the claim made by banned ember Christopher 7, who claimed:"This reporter heard a huge explosion". My point was that nothing in the clip, or indeed abywhere elsem is there any evidence that this reporter heard an "explosion", let alone a huge one.

I note with satisfaction, that Goombah111 ignored and failed the challenge to provide any video of an actual explosive demolition where the mic failed to pick an explosion as a distinct, loud, sharp (as opposed to mere low rumble) audio signal. Especially with a reporter reporting an "explosion".

So belated thanks to Goombah11 for adding their (nick)name to the growing list of truthers who know full well that all sorts of microphones reliably record very clearly explosive demo charges.