No Explosives Here?

[George 152]

Heck, in World War I the U.S. built several concrete ships. What made them think of that?

A lot of people built boats out of ferro-cement and some are still getting a yearly survey

 

[Zorglub]

I did a search but found nothing. Perhaps the question is so dumb everyone else understood it's not worth asking.
But, is there some way you can calculate the dB of an explosion? It seems possible to at least end up in the ballpark if you know the the energy released when a known brand of explosives is detonated.

Let's say i have 1000 lbs of Semtex. Can i estimate the dB of the sound wave 100 yards away, nothing but an open field between me and the detonation ?

The reason i ask is that some truthers claim that we cannot say for sure that there had to be a pressure wave when the hidden explosives detonated on 9/11 [sic]. Wich is......well a really silly thing to say.

 

[R.Mackey]

The hard part is computing the pressure front caused by the explosive. Once you know the magnitude of the shock, it's straightforward to compute the Sound Pressure Level in decibels.

Computing the pressure front depends on the explosive, its composition, and the geometry of the problem. An example calculation I've used as an illustration in the past is found here at the Journal of Battlefield Technology. As you can see, it can be done, it just takes a little effort.

There are some simplified approximations that work reasonably well if you assume, for instance, point-source explosion of a given energy along a half-plane (i.e. the ground with no obstacles), but they're not very precise. Particularly considering an explosion used for demolition where geometry of both charge and environment will be complicated.

What is clear, however, is that there has to be "a pressure wave." That's how explosives work. The force of the explosion is a sound. NIST covers the minimum sound expected as a result of a demolition charge quite thoroughly in NCSTAR1-9, and it's so loud (> 130 dB at 1 km distance) that it would be absolutely unmistakable. You're arguing with idiots.

 

[carlitos]

Many of us who were there on 9/11 believe it.
...
I was there ...

Where were you exactly on the morning of 11-September, 2001? What were you doing that morning that gave you more exposure to this event than the rest of us?

 

[Zorglub]

The hard part is computing the pressure front caused by the explosive. Once you know the magnitude of the shock, it's straightforward to compute the Sound Pressure Level in decibels.

Computing the pressure front depends on the explosive, its composition, and the geometry of the problem. An example calculation I've used as an illustration in the past is found here at the Journal of Battlefield Technology. As you can see, it can be done, it just takes a little effort.

There are some simplified approximations that work reasonably well if you assume, for instance, point-source explosion of a given energy along a half-plane (i.e. the ground with no obstacles), but they're not very precise. Particularly considering an explosion used for demolition where geometry of both charge and environment will be complicated.

Thank you very much. Impeccable advice as always.

What is clear, however, is that there has to be "a pressure wave." That's how explosives work. The force of the explosion is a sound. NIST covers the minimum sound expected as a result of a demolition charge quite thoroughly in NCSTAR1-9, and it's so loud (> 130 dB at 1 km distance) that it would be absolutely unmistakable.

And a reference to where I can find this in NIST, you do know this stuff don´t you?

-If an explosion goes of an no video camera with sound recording equipment is there to record the sound. Is there a shockwave?
A truther would answer "no".

You're arguing with idiots.

Well, yes. But they have such fascinating arguments I can´t stop poking in their anthill of stupid to see what happens.

Again, thanks for the help and advice!

 

[R.Mackey]

Thank you very much. Impeccable advice as always.

And a reference to where I can find this in NIST, you do know this stuff don´t you?

On the off-chance even that reference isn't precise enough, it's in NCSTAR1-9, Appendix D. Go here. But it's pretty darn easy to find.

-If an explosion goes of an no video camera with sound recording equipment is there to record the sound. Is there a shockwave?
A truther would answer "no".

They say lots of stupid things.

One of the funniest bits of "flip-flopping" they've ever done is the Nanothermite Dance. Nobody has yet proposed how to use thermite to topple a building, but it is true that melting rather than exploding would be fairly quiet, so the theory was at least consistent with one piece of evidence, even if it failed all the others. However, for some reason I've never been able to figure out, on their own initiative they've backed away from this and proposed "nanothermite," trying to make thermite into an explosive...

Classic case of trying to have your cake and eat it too, that's what it is. Hence, demand a hypothesis, and one that doesn't morph between explosives/incendiaries only every time you take your eyes off of it. But you'll never get one.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

911T is 'small?? Try Massive! with thousands of groups worldwide, There are engineers 911 groups, firemen's groups, independents like Hoffman and Ryan and so so many people (see 911blogger), podcasts, blogs, video sites, Try google and you will see how wrong you are. There are 'truthers' on every corner of the planet! bc the evidence leaves you little choice in the matter. Most of them will never get involved in activism or even publicly dissenting the OCT as I do. (that will change with time)

Based on my own informal surveys, most people (who've looked at the evidence carefully) agree with me.. many do not act bc they feel powerless, are too busy etc. I know bc I ask. Despite this, I believe 9/11 Truth will continue to grow over time because the evidence is so damning. I can think of quite a few people (myself incl) who were not doubters or questioners of the official conspiracy theory (OCT) and after really seeing and laying out the facts, and doing a little research on their own, believe otherwise today.

More research will be conducted,more people will come out, and when you are told what to think by the talking heads on your TV screens then you will nod your heads in accord, and realize you were so wrong on this issue all that time. Not one 'debunker' has explained so much as the bloody squibs, for goodness sakes!

Friend, it wouldn't matter if 99% of the Earth's population "believed" there exists a Starbuck's on the far side of the moon. Believing, hoping, fervently wishing a thing to be so doesn't make it so.

Same goes for any two or more people who, for lack of education or the presence of ulterior motives, want to pretend the events of 9/11 were somehow an "inside job."

You'll get a double tall latte on the edge of a lunar crater sooner than the "truth movement" deals in anything other than fiction.

 

[fourtoe]

A short list:
-squibs
-molten metal
-speed and symmetry (wtc 1 2 & 7)
-explosiveness wtc 1&2 (missing bodies, DNA, pulverization of contents, etc)

I told you that you are in disagreement with Dr Jones on this matter. Do you understand that this is something that your movement's head researcher states is a 'false premise'?

-neat rubble pile on wtc 7
-Residual heat and fires that 'would not go out' for 99 days

Could you please give me a link that says that this phenomenon is a common by-product of a CD?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I was there. and my neighbor works for the PA and told me the horror stories of working down there in the weeks that followed.

And when after 9/11 did you return to Manchester?

 

[atavisms]

Exactly. Anyone who thinks a sword would be a better weapon in a confined space doesn't know anything about combat. [/url]

All of these speculative notions, in one direction or the other, are made completely irrelevant in the face of the mountain of factual evidence that belies the official conspiracy theiory.

Evidence such as; the speed, symmetry, and precipitous nature of all three (1,2&7) high-rise collapses on 9/11, the energy in 1&2, the neat rubble pile on wtc7, the residual heat of these localized, (supposedly uncontrolled hyrdrocarbon), fires that burned underground for 99 days and would not die out before then, the FEMA BPAt Appendix C. and the Harrit paper (just off the top of my head)

 

[TJM]

All of these speculative notions, in one direction or the other, are made completely irrelevant in the face of the mountain of factual evidence that belies the official conspiracy theiory.

Evidence such as; the speed, symmetry, and precipitous nature of all three (1,2&7) high-rise collapses on 9/11, the energy in 1&2, the neat rubble pile on wtc7, the residual heat of these localized, (supposedly uncontrolled hyrdrocarbon), fires that burned underground for 99 days and would not die out before then, the FEMA BPAt Appendix C. and the Harrit paper (just off the top of my head)

So in short, you wish to disregard all the info in this thread and start over. Moving along then.... nothing to see here....

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Evidence such as; the speed, symmetry, and precipitous nature of all three (1,2&7) high-rise collapses on 9/11, the energy in 1&2, the neat rubble pile on wtc7, the residual heat of these localized, (supposedly uncontrolled hyrdrocarbon), fires that burned underground for 99 days and would not die out before then, the FEMA BPAt Appendix C. and the Harrit paper (just off the top of my head)

Again... you know nothing about 9/11.

 

[johnny karate]

You were not the only person to see these buildings collapse. There were thousands of people in Lower Manhattan that day.

Where are the other witnesses who will corroborate what you saw?

Bump for atavisms.

 

[A W Smith]

Profound Ignorance spews from the top of his head.

All of these speculative notions, in one direction or the other, are made completely irrelevant in the face of the mountain of factual evidence that belies the official conspiracy theiory.

Evidence such as; the speed, symmetry, and precipitous nature of all three (1,2&7) high-rise collapses on 9/11, the energy in 1&2, the neat rubble pile on wtc7, the residual heat of these localized, (supposedly uncontrolled hyrdrocarbon), fires that burned underground for 99 days and would not die out before then, the FEMA BPAt Appendix C. and the Harrit paper (just off the top of my head)

fallacy by assertion noted, We have debunked all that crap. simply re-stating it all over again later in a thread does not make it true.

 

[beachnut]

All of these speculative notions, in one direction or the other, are made completely irrelevant in the face of the mountain of factual evidence that belies the official conspiracy theiory.

Evidence such as; the speed, symmetry, and precipitous nature of all three (1,2&7) high-rise collapses on 9/11, the energy in 1&2, the neat rubble pile on wtc7, the residual heat of these localized, (supposedly uncontrolled hyrdrocarbon), fires that burned underground for 99 days and would not die out before then, the FEMA BPAt Appendix C. and the Harrit paper (just off the top of my head)

It appears you are not an engineer. Other than your failed opinions on 911 do you have some evidence?

Please explain the neat pile of WTC7 with photos.
Please explain why 220 acres of office contents can't burn for months. Use some science instead of your delusional opinions. Show your work.

 

[TruthersLie]

Evidence such as; the speed,

the towers fell in 15 and 20 seconds... wtc7 fell in 18 seconds... how does that show CD? Oh it doesn't.

symmetry,

You really should look up what that word means. None of the buildings fell symmectrically. try again

and precipitous nature of all three (1,2&7) high-rise collapses on 9/11

Precipitious nature? again dictionary.com is your friend.

, the energy in 1&2,

GREAT prove it.. provide the citaitons to support your bs.

the neat rubble pile on wtc7,

this is neat?

Notice that this is well after the clean up started

is this neat?

the residual heat of these localized, (supposedly uncontrolled hyrdrocarbon), fires that burned underground for 99 days and would not die out before then,

Ok twoofie.
1. When did they start trying to put out the fires? 2 weeks AFTER the buildings collapsed. That is 2 weeks for fires to burn uncontrolled under the piles.
2. Please tell me how ANY form of CD can stay burning for 99 days? Thermite? it burns off in minutes and is cool to the touch in hours.

the FEMA BPAt Appendix C.

Fully explained. So sorry you don't understand it. It is called erosions in a high sulphur, high temp envrionment. Go ask any chemistry teacher, they can explain it to you

and the Harrit paper (just off the top of my head)

Oh the BS craptacular "paper" (snicker) which has over 20 methodological errors, and has not been replicated by anyone? really?

ROFLMAO.
Go back to school twoofie.

 

[atavisms]

1. Impact damage from 400+ MPH jets hitting the structure, severing many connections and transferring loads to other load bearing elements of the structure.
2. Those already stressed load bearing elements facing loads in directions they're not designed to handle.
3. Those already stressed load bearing elements facing increasing weakening from raging fires across several different floors.
4. Those elements eventually failing, some from reaching a critical temperature and losing the ability to bear the load they're receiving, others from the sudden imposition of load that was previously being handled by the recently heat failed elements.
5. The "upper section" (i.e. the floors above the fire and impact zones) no longer having structural elements below them to hold them up, thus falling onto the first intact floor below the fire and impact damage zones.
6. Most of the falling debris impacting not the vertical columns (the structural elements providing vertical support), but insteand hitting the floors themselves, which are not designed to bear the weight of the upper floors. Understand: They can bear some weight - I think someone here calculated them to be able to support the weight of what, 10 or 11 floors if they weren't actually moving - but not the weight that ultimately hit them, and certainly not that mass accelerating due to gravity. Also understand: It's the columns that "hold things up" (i.e. bear vertical loads). The floors are there to "hold things together" (i.e. horizontally support the columns). So most of the mass ends up transferring its influence from the columns - elements in the intact towers specifically used to handle vertical loads - to the floors - elements never intended to handle any vertical load other than their own weight plus the weight of the office interiors.
7. A repeat of step 6 over and over again as it moves downward: The accreting, accelerating mass continuing to mostly hit floors (again, not designed for vertical stresses) and severing them from columns (elements not designed to stand upright without the floors bracing them). This doesn't stop because the mass is growing - it's gathering floors on the way down - and accelerating - because the resistance of each floor is insufficient to slow it down significantly.

No explosives required for this scenario. And it fits all the evidence. Whereas there is no remaining evidence for explosives, whether conventional or exotic. There was insufficient sound pressure levels, as demonstrated by both the unbroken glass in the surrounding area as well as a lack of characteristic trauma being inflicted on people, and there is zero evidence left on the recovered steel structures themselves. QED.

I appreciate your reply..and wish it was correct..but I'll tell you why I believe you are not correct.

re: "Impact damage" The impacts did not cause the collapse of these 'highly redundant buildings' -Thomas Eager, MIT) Thomas Eager wrote what is essentially an article pretending to be a paper explaining the OCT (or how the twin towers turned to dust from only fire and gravity in 56 & 102 minutes) **all you have to do is see his photo of "Resulting Fires" -he shows the fireballs, heh..whaddahdik! its incredible nonsense anyone can see through (sorry I will not link it, findit urself).

Consider:
110 storey WTC 1/2 were leveled in 15-17 seconds
47 storey WTC 7 in 6-7 seconds.
Both in well documented, and extremely revealing ways.

"No evidence of explosives"? Unless you're completely ignoring reality!!

U'r talking about "accelerating mass continuing to mostly hit floors" and ignoring the cores. Floors crashing down one atop the next would not only experience conservation of momentum and be much slower than the observed explosive collapses.. but this also completely ignores the disappearance (and utter destruction!) of the massive steel coreS.

Your main argument is refuted by the fact that the Towers were designed to do just that; support many times their real world weight, even in gale force winds.http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/perimeter.html

'No Explosives Required??"?! ​

Both buildings were hit high above.., in the case of the north tower, 15 floors from the roof.. How can we imagine that the lightest parts (the top) could (like a "pile driver" we are asked to believe) pulverize itself ( I mean, 'themselves') in midair, to ground level with such powerful lateral energies? (800 foot debris field, tens of thousands of body parts etc)

The towers' cores alone could hold up several times the weight of each building, and then there were all those perimeter columns. All of them got thicker and stronger as they went lower down, the larger WTC (1&2's 47 massive) box columns in the cores were 53" wide and "almost solid steel at the bottom." http://911research.com/wtc/arch/core.html

There were approx 5 storey holes punched into the 2 Towers, near the tops, and localized fires. With a commercial plane hitting skyscraper, (a study showed) the greatest impacts are seen being made by the liquids (fuel) and the engines.. so, the wing span. (bc the fuel tanks are in the wings) Now think how massive the towers were.

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
]The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

The fires, when compared to the size of the towers were small and the time they burned was 56 & 102min; not very long at all http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/fires.html#north

In the case of the south tower; we see a massive (approx 30 storey) block that falls, largely intact, and clearly considerably outside of, it's perimeter line..It then disintegrates into a massive rubble cloud falling into the path of maximum resistance, in the most unnatural way. In the real (natural) world, that large piece would have fallen largely intact into the street . In this photo http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc2exp4.html you can already see the systematic explosions that will make their way, blasting out multiple floors at a time, and moving down down and up from the points of impact. (see videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c
& the frame by frame at 911research)

​

The photographic and video evidence clearly reveal the towers being systematically blown outward with high explosive forces. This refutes any possibility of it being gravity (impact damage, jet fuel, fires and gravity) alone acting on the structures. Fires cause gradual deformations and could not possibly account for the observed and resulting events.

CALLED "PROOF" IN THE REAL WORLD:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

On 9/11: Keep it simple & factual.

Asymmetrical damage (impacts and fires) cannot cause symmetrical and well defined (each in it's own way) damage. There are many clearly established facts that make the OCT utterly impossible. For example: the symmetry and speed prove demolition beyond any reasonable doubt.

No one has refuted (how could they?!) the basic facts revealed in Harrit et.s paper; that the elemental composition confirms a hightech, nanoengineered aluminothermic explosive. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/...om they oppress." --Frederick Douglass[/SIZE]

 

[TruthersLie]

Twoofie, I"m not going to refute every point.. what is the point? you will just keep on spewing the same refuted lies. I'll just hit the interesting points.

Consider:
110 storey WTC 1/2 were leveled in 15-17 seconds
47 storey WTC 7 in 6-7 seconds.

The second tower to collapse took over 20 seconds.

Ummm... you might just want to look up the whole collapse of wtc7. It took over 18 seconds for the full collapse. Look it up twoof.

"No evidence of explosives"? Unless you're completely ignoring reality!!

Really? Then provide any example of explosives which can cut steel columns silently.

I'll wait. Please. Pretty please.

U'r talking about "accelerating mass continuing to mostly hit floors" and ignoring the cores. Floors crashing down one atop the next would not only experience conservation of momentum and be much slower than the observed explosive collapses.. but this also completely ignores the disappearance (and utter destruction!) of the massive steel coreS.

disappearance? You might want to examine the images... plenty of core columns were found and examined.

2. youmay want to go and ctually learn what the conservation of momentum is... but if you say they wrong please provide your physics proof. We will wait.

Both buildings were hit high above.., in the case of the north tower, 15 floors from the roof.. How can we imagine that the lightest parts (the top) could (like a "pile driver" we are asked to believe) pulverize itself ( I mean, 'themselves') in midair, to ground level with such powerful lateral energies? (800 foot debris field, tens of thousands of body parts etc)

Look up verinage techniques twoofie... or better yet. If NIST is wrong, please provide ANY peer reviewed engineering journal articles from ANYWHERE in the world saying they are wrong.

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
]The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Lovely data mined quote from a man boasting about his project... hey what does the lead structural engineer from the twin towers say? You know leslie robertson? what does he say?

The fires, when compared to the size of the towers were small and the time they burned was 56 & 102min; not very long at all http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/fires.html#north

Truther lie. I love it. How big were the towers? each floor was an acre.
this is a "small" fire?

or this?

do you want to take that LIE back?

In the case of the south tower; we see a massive (approx 30 storey) block that falls, largely intact, and clearly considerably outside of, it's perimeter line..It then disintegrates into a massive rubble cloud falling into the path of maximum resistance, in the most unnatural way. In the real (natural) world, that large piece would have fallen largely intact into the street .

argument from ignorance noted. It would only have fallen intact into the street if it had been something solid... like a tree. try again twoof.

Fires cause gradual deformations and could not possibly account for the observed and resulting events.

What do you call the outward bowing noted up to 30 minutes before the collapse?

or the slant and way wtc7 was bowing up to 3 hours before the collapse?

CALLED "PROOF" IN THE REAL WORLD:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

PMSLMAO.

No in the real world it is called "crap."

Asymmetrical damage (impacts and fires) cannot cause symmetrical and well defined (each in it's own way) damage. There are many clearly established facts that make the OCT utterly impossible. For example: the symmetry and speed prove demolition beyond any reasonable doubt.

You keep using that word. You might just want to look it up... it doesn't mean what you think it means.

No one has refuted (how could they?!) the basic facts revealed in Harrit et.s paper; that the elemental composition confirms a hightech, nanoengineered aluminothermic explosive. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/...ote] of which you most definately are one...

 

[Jocce]

the twin towers turned to dust from only fire and gravity

This refutes itself because it's simply evident that there was more than dust in the remaining piles of stuff.

"No evidence of explosives"? Unless you're completely ignoring reality!!

Then provide the evidence. Should be simple.

Floors crashing down one atop the next would not only experience conservation of momentum and be much slower than the observed explosive collapses.. but this also completely ignores the disappearance (and utter destruction!) of the massive steel coreS.

You saying what would or would not happen means nothing without calculations to support those beliefs.

How can we imagine that the lightest parts (the top) could (like a "pile driver" we are asked to believe) pulverize itself ( I mean, 'themselves') in midair

Pulverization in mid air is not obsered by anyone but you. Or do you have some kind of proof?

There were approx 5 storey holes punched into the 2 Towers, near the tops, and localized fires.

And your definition of localized fires would be raging infernos on full floors?

In the case of the south tower; we see a massive (approx 30 storey) block that falls, largely intact, and clearly considerably outside of, it's perimeter line.

Excuse me, but didn't you just claim that it pulverized in mid air? What do you mean by outside it's perimeter line? It fell straight down.

It then disintegrates into a massive rubble cloud falling into the path of maximum resistance, in the most unnatural way

Show some calculations why it's unnatural and while you're at it, provide some evidence of it disintegrating into a rubble cloud. Incidently, is rubble cloud the same as dust now?

The photographic and video evidence clearly reveal the towers being systematically blown outward with high explosive forces

That force doesn't come from silent bombs, a much bigger force is acting to push dust and debris sideways. Guess what?

Asymmetrical damage (impacts and fires) cannot cause symmetrical and well defined (each in it's own way) damage.

Proof?

No one has refuted (how could they?!) the basic facts revealed in Harrit et.s paper; that the elemental composition confirms a hightech, nanoengineered aluminothermic explosive.

Orly? Haven't read many threads on this forum then have you?

 

[HeyLeroy]

(snip)

9/11 is about an outrageous crime that goes unpunished, and a people that continue to be manipulated.

Okay.

Besides sputtering on teh intarwebs, what are you going to do to bring those dastardly criminals to justice?

Have you contacted the FBI? Have you contacted any state or federal prosecutors? The press?

Why are you doing nothing but posting on a forum?