I found the missing Jolt.

[MicahJava]

Since there was no sound of explosions on video and the fact that no shock signals were received by seismic monitors, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the collapse of the WTC buildings had nothing to do with CD explosives.

What about that hotel in Las Vegas which barely registered on the seismographs because the explosives were placed well above the ground?

 

[GlennB]

What about that hotel in Las Vegas which barely registered on the seismographs because the explosives were placed well above the ground?

Looks like it registered

Did bystanders notice the explosions? Do you have a link to a video so's we can hear it ourselves? Just the name of the hotel would probably be enough.

Top 10 Las Vegas casino demolitions

I'm only 4 in so far, and they're all LOUD. Will get back to you when I find a silent one.

 

[MicahJava]

There is no "the missing jolt" to be found. Once the top mass was disengaged from the structure... it was breaking apart and there were no axial collisions to register in a perceptible jolt. But ever collision would produce a deceleration or the moving part hitting a stationary one. And there were tens of thousands of these "collisions" spread out over a bit of time.

This missing jolt theory is a waste of time.

When is the last time a debunker forum member ever published something in a scientific journal?

 

[MicahJava]

Looks like it registered

Did bystanders notice the explosions? Do you have a link to a video so's we can hear it ourselves? Just the name of the hotel would probably be enough.

https://youtu.be/cRaNwPGcQcM

"But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust ... the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide."

www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1999/Apr-11-Sun-1999/news/10963838.html

 

[skyeagle409]

What about that hotel in Las Vegas which barely registered on the seismographs because the explosives were placed well above the ground?

If the explosives were firmly attached to steel columns and detonated, shock signals will travel down through the columns and into the ground where seismographs will detect them. Much like slamming a hammer against a steel column on one end of steel column and listening for the sound at the opposite end.

Sound travels through steel faster than it does through air.

 

[MicahJava]

If the explosives were firmly attached to steel columns and detonated, shock signals will travel down through the columns and into the ground where seismographs will detect them. Much like slamming a hammer against a steel column on one end of steel column and listening for the sound at the opposite end.

Sound travels through steel faster than it does through air.

Explain the Alladin demo?

 

[skyeagle409]

Explain the Alladin demo?

It's simple! The Aladdin Hotel was not a steel frame building, but a Reinforced Concrete Masonry Unit (RCMU) hotel structure and the collapse vibrations were well within limits.

 

[MicahJava]

It's simple! The Aladdin Hotel was not a steel frame building, but a Reinforced Concrete Masonry Unit (RCMU) hotel structure and the collapse vibrations were well within limits.

Again you're just making an unambigious statement about something that can not be known for sure.

 

[GlennB]

https://youtu.be/cRaNwPGcQcM

"But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust ... the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide."

www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1999/Apr-11-Sun-1999/news/10963838.html

Uh ... but there's a whole series of massive explosions, clearly audible. Why then are you fixated on the seismograhpic record? No such series of explosions was noted on 9/11.

It's almost as if you're permanently looking for one factoid that you can dispute in order to bolster your grand delusion.

 

[JSanderO]

When is the last time a debunker forum member ever published something in a scientific journal?

I am not a debunker and have no interest in publishing anything or publicity. I participate to inform my thinking and share my ideas with others.

Why do you assume that someone who posts and opines is a "debunker"?

 

[skyeagle409]

Again you're just making an unambigious statement about something that can not be known for sure.

It was no secret. Furthermore, did you hear demolition explosions as the Aladdin Hotel collapsed? Yes.

Did you hear demolition explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed? No.

 

[MicahJava]

It was no secret. Furthermore, did you hear demolition explosions as the Aladdin Hotel collapsed? Yes.

Did you hear demolition explosions as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed? No.

Again, you are referring to devices designed for commercial demos. You have no point. What does this have to do with seisemic signals? The loudness of the Aladdin implosion only speaks to the fact to how versatile demolitions can be in regards to their seisemic impact. So, it is a null issue.

 

[MicahJava]

I am not a debunker and have no interest in publishing anything or publicity. I participate to inform my thinking and share my ideas with others.

Why do you assume that someone who posts and opines is a "debunker"?

Just saying, there are 2 peer reviewed critiques of the mainstream explination for the smoothness of WTC 1. Another one was rejected for review in the JOSE for dubious reasons. In classic debunker style, I am asking you for published scientific material solidifying your claim that the missing jolt is not an anomoly.

 

[GlennB]

Again, you are referring to devices designed for commercial demos. You have no point. What does this have to do with seisemic signals? The loudness of the Aladdin implosion only speaks to the fact to how versatile demolitions can be in regards to their seisemic impact. So, it is a null issue.

No. If you want the rapid destruction of a column then it will inevitably be loud. Much energy being delivered in a short time-frame.

Quiet means slow, which means lack of synchronisation. You can't have your cake and eat it - science doesn't like that kind of thing.

Meanwhile, the Aladdin did register seismically, so your point fails at multiple levels.

 

[jaydeehess]

https://youtu.be/cRaNwPGcQcM

You mean the part when the spectators say "there it goes" and its obvious THEY heard the explosions? One can hear them in the video too, they are just quieter than the nearby voices.

"But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust ... the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide."

www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1999/Apr-11-Sun-1999/news/10963838.html

Link takes you to a search page. What is the name on the article, please?

I suspect that the Alladin was not on bedrock, nor on piles that were coupled to bedrock but to sand instead.

The Manhattan structures however were very much coupled to/attached to bedrock and the seismic record very much DID register the aircraft impacts and thus WOULD HAVE registered high explosives then as well.

 

[jaydeehess]

Again, you are referring to devices designed for commercial demos. You have no point. What does this have to do with seisemic signals? The loudness of the Aladdin implosion only speaks to the fact to how versatile demolitions can be in regards to their seisemic impact. So, it is a null issue.

Because they have sooper seecrit demolition charges that no one can prove don't exist?

 

[abaddon]

When is the last time a debunker forum member ever published something in a scientific journal?

Dunno. When was the last time a debunker made wild improbable claims unsupported by evidence?

 

[skyeagle409]

Again, you are referring to devices designed for commercial demos. You have no point. What does this have to do with seisemic signals? The loudness of the Aladdin implosion only speaks to the fact to how versatile demolitions can be in regards to their seisemic impact. So, it is a null issue.

The loudness of demolition explosions of the Aladdin implosion that was not heard as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, and you missed the point about the construction of the Aladdin Hotel vs. the steel construction of the WTC buildings..

 

[jaydeehess]

It's simple! The Aladdin Hotel was not a steel frame building, but a Reinforced Concrete Masonry Unit (RCMU) hotel structure and the collapse vibrations were well within limits.

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/aladdin-hotel

Just after 7:30 PM, CDI detonated 232.5 lb. of explosives in 863 different locations, in four (4) levels of the 21-level Aladdin Hotel Tower. The initiation and implosion sequence detonated over a 17 second period, with structural motion starting at the southwest corner of the structure, approximately 9.5 seconds into the program, allowing over 50 million lb. of masonry to settle gently to the ground. Vibration readings were well within allowable limits.

What???? No free fall??

 

[jaydeehess]

"But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust ... the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide."

www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1999/Apr-11-Sun-1999/news/10963838.html

Link takes you to a search page. What is the name on the article, please?

I suspect that the Alladin was not on bedrock, nor on piles that were coupled to bedrock but to sand instead.

The Manhattan structures however were very much coupled to/attached to bedrock and the seismic record very much DID register the aircraft impacts and thus WOULD HAVE registered high explosives then as well.

Oh, now I see that you quoted from an article posted on 911research.wtc7.net. I have to wonder what the link you posted was supposed to tell us.

The article you should have quoted is
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html In which the article you posted as a link is cited. Apparently YOU chose not to bother trying to read that article, as I did and found ,,, welll, that it cannot be found any longer. Probably removed to save drive space..

Me,,,, I wanted to see what the geology professor actually said about the subject rather than take Jim Hoffman's parsed quote at the literal value he places on it.
You,,, don't give a dang about original sources do you.
Here's Blanchard's original article which Hoffman is deriding.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Here's a good one from Hoffman "His (Blanchard's) arguments amount to a series of fallacies wrapped in appeals to authority and reinforced with pretentious language."

Odd that a Professor would balk at technical language used in an article on a technical subject. In fact of course Blanchard could have been much more technical and did in fact dumb the language used down quite a bit. I know I had absolutely NO problem reading and understanding Blanchard.

There's more but I don't have the time.