I found the missing Jolt.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The extent to which an explosive charge's noise can be covered up while still performing it's job is something unknown. Because of the information on extremely high temperatures during and long after the Tower's demise, this has lead to postulation that sophisticated devices were used which were capable of producing intense heat to soften the steel before the final blast is delivered. Commercial demolitions are done to be as economical as possible. Basically, at this point it seems like something that can not be known for certain.

Not so, fallacy, the welds broke cold, they were not heated in any manor when they broke, that can be seen in the fracture pattern on the steel.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Is there any information detailing scientific experiments on how "quiet" an explosive charge can possibly be?

Yes there is, an explosive has to produce a detonation wave, capable of 5000 meters per second disruption.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Only to you. Explosives are a science. Steven Jones invented "nano-thermite" because he knew he couldn't explain away the lack of noise.

Don't you wonder why people like Tony avoid the issue like the plague?

As MicahJava said, the tower collapses were not what one would call "quiet" in the real sense of the word and I understand you are arguing from a relative basis. However, there was a very definite loud roar as the towers started to come down and while they were collapsing. I am not sure I have ever heard anyone say just what the sound level was.

Do you know what the sound level of the tower collapses was in decibels?

 

[GlennB]

As MicahJava said, the tower collapses were not what one would call "quiet" in the real sense of the word and I understand you are arguing from a relative basis. However, there was a very definite loud roar as the towers started to come down and while they were collapsing. I am not sure I have ever heard anyone say just what the sound level was.

Do you know what the sound level of the tower collapses was in decibels?

And you avoid the issue again. In CD the explosions precede the collapse.

You're having to juggle irreconcilable ideas in your head - you want to believe in CD but can't explain the lack of evidence for CD, for which very loud explosions are a prerequisite. Your 192 bangs in the space of a second just didn't happen, did they?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

And you avoid the issue again. In CD the explosions precede the collapse.

You're having to juggle irreconcilable ideas in your head - you want to believe in CD but can't explain the lack of evidence for CD, for which very loud explosions are a prerequisite. Your 192 bangs in the space of a second just didn't happen, did they?

Actually, on videos which are close to the towers there was a large roar and then movement was observed and the roar continued during the collapse. There are also firefighters on tape saying there were big bangs right before it came down. I am sure you have seen the firefighter in the hospital bed saying this. There is also testimony that there was something that sounded like a clap of thunder right before the bottom caved out and WTC 7 came down.

It sounds like you can't answer the question as to what the sound level was of the twin tower collapses.

 

[GlennB]

Actually, on videos which are close to the towers there was a large roar and then movement was observed. There are also firefighters on tape saying there were loud bangs right before it came down. I am sure you have seen the firefighter in the hospital bed saying this.

It sounds like you can't answer the question as to what the sound level was of the twin tower collapses.

I was referring more specifically to WTC7 there. Your theory was that 24 columns over 8 floors were demolished with single charges. That's 192 blsts, each of which (NIST calculation) would register at 130-140db at a distance of 1km.

It didn't happen, and you know it. But you have to pull every cheap debating trick in the book, and relentlessly self-delude, to avoid admitting it.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I was referring more specifically to WTC7 there. Your theory was that 24 columns over 8 floors were demolished with single charges. That's 192 blsts, each of which (NIST calculation) would register at 130-140db at a distance of 1km.

It didn't happen, and you know it. But you have to pull every cheap debating trick in the book, and relentlessly self-delude, to avoid admitting it.

There is testimony that something quite loud happened right before WTC 7 came down.

First, I think the decibel level you are referring to is for C-4 in air with no obstacles to the sound pressure wave. That is not what would be experienced outside from something going off inside a building. See http://www3.nd.edu/~powers/paper.list/powers10.pdf to get an idea.

Second, it would not necessarily have to be C-4.

Third, there is also a practice called tamping which reduces noise level. See http://aquafoam.com/papers/Raspet2.pdf

Additionally, the microphones in use were low gain, which are only for close proximity and not for capturing sound at a distance.

 

[GlennB]

There is testimony that something quite loud happened right before WTC 7 came down.

First, I think the decibel level you are referring to is for C-4 in air with no obstacles to the sound pressure wave. That is not what would be experienced outside from something going off inside a building. Second, it would not necessarily have to be C-4. Third, there is also a practice called tamping which reduces noise level. Additionally, the microphones in use were low gain, which are not for capturing sound at a distance.

No, it was for RDX in the form of shaped charges within the building, at col79 specifically. NIST used well-established simulation software to calculate damage and noise levels.

And your "something quite loud" is truly pitiful.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

No, it was for RDX in the form of shaped charges within the building, at col79 specifically. NIST used well-established simulation software to calculate damage and noise levels.

And your "something quite loud" is truly pitiful.

Isn't C-4 and RDX one and the same? I think RDX is the primary ingredient for C-4.

How do you know the NIST analysis considered interior obstacles to the blast pressure wave and its effect on the decibel level that would be heard outside the building? Can we see their analysis?

 

[MicahJava]

And you avoid the issue again. In CD the explosions precede the collapse.

You're having to juggle irreconcilable ideas in your head - you want to believe in CD but can't explain the lack of evidence for CD, for which very loud explosions are a prerequisite. Your 192 bangs in the space of a second just didn't happen, did they?

I don't know if this has been discredited, it very well might have, but this old article on 911review.com has the "roar" coming slightly before the upper portion of the South Tower began moving, adjusting for the speed of sound on one of the clips I linked to.

http://911review.com/articles/reijden/911_my_own_review.htm#evidence

 

[GlennB]

Isn't C-4 and RDX one and the same? I think RDX is the primary ingredient for C-4.

How do you know the NIST analysis considered interior obstacles to the blast pressure wave and its effect on the decibel level that would result? Can we see their analysis?

You could start with NCSTAR_1A_WTC7, 3.3, physical page 22 which will direct you to a more detailed analysis if you want it. I'm surprised you don't know of it already.

Incidentally they allowed for pre-cutting of the web and the use of shaped charges, as already mentioned. Your scenario has a single charge adjacent to each column section, a much less efficient, and therefore louder, method.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You could start with NCSTAR_1A_WTC7, 3.3, physical page 22 which will direct you to a more detailed analysis if you want it. I'm surprised you don't know of it already.

Incidentally they allowed for pre-cutting of the web and the use of shaped charges, as already mentioned. Your scenario has a single charge adjacent to each column section, a much less efficient, and therefore louder, method.

I haven't actually said precisely how it would have been done, only that the dynamics of the collapse suggest (actually prove) that there had to be some form of demolition devices used to remove structural integrity from at least 8 stories of the core.

 

[GlennB]

I haven't actually said precisely how it would have been done, only that the dynamics of the collapse suggest (actually prove) that there had to be some form of demolition devices used to remove structural integrity.

Whatever specific method was used, if explosives were involved then there would have been brief, loud blasts. And when pushed about the multiple charges needed (for each cut) in the standard shaped-charge method, plus the need to pre-cut the web, you proposed individual charges at each location.

Or are you now pulling the therm?te card from up your sleeve, in desperation?

 

[ozeco41]

So you believe a high order explosive does not have to make a loud noise and present this as support the NFPA supports this? Unbelievable........

Remember there is no limit to the stupidity or dishonesty of trolling.

The objectives include:
1) The main ego drive - to get people responding - biting on the nonsense - when their chains are jerked,. The sillier the better for that objective; WHILST
2) Ensuring that discussion goes nowhere.

MicahJava is succeeding at both.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Actually, on videos which are close to the towers there was a large roar and then movement was observed and the roar continued during the collapse. There are also firefighters on tape saying there were big bangs right before it came down. I am sure you have seen the firefighter in the hospital bed saying this. There is also testimony that there was something that sounded like a clap of thunder right before the bottom caved out and WTC 7 came down.

It sounds like you can't answer the question as to what the sound level was of the twin tower collapses.

That sound is to be expected when steel fractures an engineering professional would expect it. However no hypersonic wave, or infra sound of an explosive was present.
You are only showing an argument from ignoract Tony, you don't know anything about explosives.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I haven't actually said precisely how it would have been done, only that the dynamics of the collapse suggest (actually prove) that there had to be some form of demolition devices used to remove structural integrity from at least 8 stories of the core.

Rediculous Ideas will remain ridiculous Tony, you have been beating a dead Horse so long now all you are doing is pulverizing the bones into dust.
You can't say how it was done, or how a device to do it could have been constructed, or used, that makes your Ideas nothing more than an elaborate fallacies.
Maybe Scotty transported the steel away, using the enterprise transporters.
Maybe it was elves with magic hammers, or since there was a sound of lighting, maybe Thor the God of thunder did it.
There is nothing worse than someone claiming to be an expert on something where clearly he is not even knowledgeable.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I don't know if this has been discredited, it very well might have, but this old article on 911review.com has the "roar" coming slightly before the upper portion of the South Tower began moving, adjusting for the speed of sound on one of the clips I linked to.

http://911review.com/articles/reijden/911_my_own_review.htm#evidence

That whole page has been discredited and debunked several times, love the photo of the guy sticking his hand into exstream heat.

 

[NoahFence]

As MicahJava said, the tower collapses were not what one would call "quiet" in the real sense of the word and I understand you are arguing from a relative basis. However, there was a very definite loud roar as the towers started to come down and while they were collapsing. I am not sure I have ever heard anyone say just what the sound level was.

Do you know what the sound level of the tower collapses was in decibels?

A loud roar isn't indicative of explosives. Best and brightest people know this.

 

[NoahFence]

I haven't actually said precisely how it would have been done, only that the dynamics of the collapse suggest (actually prove) that there had to be some form of demolition devices used to remove structural integrity from at least 8 stories of the core.

How did these devices get into the building?
How large were they?
Did anyone leave any tools behind?
Is there any physical evidence for any demolition devices anywhere in lower Manhattan?

Beuller?

Beuller?

 

[GlennB]

Isn't C-4 and RDX one and the same? I think RDX is the primary ingredient for C-4.

How do you know the NIST analysis considered interior obstacles to the blast pressure wave and its effect on the decibel level that would be heard outside the building? Can we see their analysis?

I've just read chapter 3.3 again and found:

"Figure 3.1 shows the results for two shaped charges applied to column 79 on a tenant floor that was highly partitioned, such as floor 12. Nearly all the windows in the NE section would have been broken, even by the smaller charge"

My bolding. The "smaller charge" was a test they ran to see the effect of charges deemed too small to sever the column.

In your "192 blasts in a second" scenario some of those floors would have had less partitioning and all the windows on every floor subject to multiple blasts. On top of which, in reality, there's no way for conspirators to torch the webs of those columns let alone install shaped charges. The NIST calculations are ultra conservative yet yield results that leave your ridiculous theorising dead in the water. But still you remain devoted to it.