You can hear a pop at 4:22....

[wildbilln864]

in this Japanese video.
I happens immediately before the building starts to collapse. It's hard to hear over the chopper's sound but it's there.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. You can hear several actual explosions in this video

364 pounds of explosives used in this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

There were no explosives used in the collapse of the WTC towers.

[wildbilln864]

2. We already know your opinion....

but thanks for repeating.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Like we don't know yours???

There is nothing remotely similar to the sounds in that Landmark demo video to any unaltered audio track of the towers falling.

Furthermore, Brent Blanchard and a team of demolition experts have examined the seismograph records for the signatures of explosive that would have been there, and there were none. Positive evidence that no explosives were used to cut any load-bearing column in the towers.

Facts is what I've got. Fantasies is what you've got.

[lovepg]

4. Have you seen the video shot from across the river of the north tower falling???

You can clearly hear muffled explosions on that video just before the tower falls. Splain please Lucy.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Wind noises on the mic.

Why in God's name do you think cameras a couple of blocks away from the collapses didn't record any explosives going off but somebody in Jersey did?

[lovepg]

6. I work with live sound you people do not know what wind in a mic sounds like!

You should educate youself before saying stuff like that. I also have watched a long version of that video and there is no "wind " anywhere else on the video.
Only just before the tower collapses. Your question however is a good question.
AS to why the explosions were not picked up in other videos.
However it is not accurate to say there is no evidence of explosions that day.
And there are many eyewitness accounts of them as well.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Wait, you're talking about 911 Mysteries, right?

The makers of that inserted explosive sounds into the audio track. I'd forgotten about that piece of chicanery. The guy who shot the video says that they did.

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

Educate yourself.

[lovepg]

8. Oh good grief...

Look I do not know why that person added sound to the video. but the original one is BETTER anyway.
I notice at no time did the debunkers start the video 10 seconds before the collapse where the muffled sound of explosions are heard across the river.
That would have been a problem to explain. Also on the original video sounds of the tower falling occur just as they are starting to fall.
Being as the sound delay from over amile away would be at least a second that means that sound predates the fall.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. What the hell are you talking about.

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/8.php

The sounds recorded by Rick Siegel that you're calling explosion are perfectly consistent with wind hitting a microphone. No high frequencies, and cameras closer capture none of these "explosions," not even the low frequency sounds Siegel gets.

[lovepg]

10. Except if you watch the long version there is no other "wind" on it. Have you seen the entire thing?

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Dude. Cameras closer picked up nothing like this.

A camera in Jersey? It's something else. It's not coming from the towers. How can you not see this?

[lovepg]

12. I guess the same way you missed the connecting spans on the core. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

13. So you concede the point then? There's no way a camera in Jersey picked up explosions that closer

cameras didn't, right?

[lovepg]

14. No I do not. I just do not have any way to explain this event. Just like NIST cannot..

explain how they arrived at how many core columns were taken out in the south tower.
Thats why I want a REAL investigation.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Well, then you don't have a point in bringing up what you think I missed in another thread.

Their methodology and methods were thoroughly explained in the NIST report.

You don't want a real investigation. You want one that will confirm only what you believe.

[lovepg]

16. No not at all. And explain to me what it is i believe. I would find that to be very interesting. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

17. I assume that you believe the things that you say here.

Do you not?

[lovepg]

18. What do i say here. from your prospective...

[Bolo Boffin]

19. ... n/t

[wildbilln864]

20. so does anyone hear it or no?

Come on guys. What do you think it is? :popcorn:

[Bolo Boffin]

21. I think Snap and Crackle have finally found their lost compatriot. n/t

[wildbilln864]

22. so you heard nothing?

[Bolo Boffin]

23. I didn't hear anything that sounded like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

[wildbilln864]

24. It doesn't have to sound like that and wouldn't!

Surely if they were going to demolish a building and make it look like a plane crash did it, you wouldn't want the explosives to be heard. That's why you'd set them off at the exact time the plane crashed and then use thermite which is quiet. All my speculation of course since there's been no crime scene investigation.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. No, it would have to be louder and more apparent because you're using more!

Your thermite speculation is just that. You don't have a single way to make thermite do what you need it to do. It's just the way you have your cake and eat it, too. And that's not the fault of "no crime scene investigation." Take responsibility for what and how you think.

[wildbilln864]

26. Thanks for your opinion again.

And attacking me won't help your feeble stance on the matter.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. You've got a little pop. You need lots of big booms. And thermite isn't practical.

But my stance is the feeble one. :eyes:

[anigbrowl]

28. That's not an explosion

It's just handling noise on the camera (not wind as some have suggested). Yes, I do know what I'm talking about - I have been a pro sound recordist for both studio and film/TV for nearly a decade, and have posted complete soundtracks for several feature films. I've recorded noises like this from my own gear thousands of times. An explosion would have been deeper and there would have been echoes.

[Bolo Boffin]

29. The wind on the mic is for the Siegal video, not the OP video n/t

[anigbrowl]

30. Ah I see, I didn't read the entire thing.

Frankly I'm so amazed at the OP's apparent belief in an explosion that I just skimmed the rest.