'What about building 7'?

[JayUtah]

Here is another compilation

You post only videos of WTC tower collapses already in progress, some clearly shot from miles away.

However the audio we're interested in is not the low frequency, moderate amplitude rumble of the collapse, but the sharp reports of the demolition charges that are clearly heard in all the counterexample videos, even if the collapse rumble is not heard. And these reports occur before collapse initiation.

Apples and oranges. Try again.

 

[pgimeno]

The recorded audio simply does not capture the event clearly enough for people to claim there were no explosions occurring during that collapse or that of WTC1 and WTC7.

Every controlled demolition with explosives made by demolition companies which is recorded at less than a couple miles with sound, exhibits loud bangs that are clearly audible, far louder than the sound of the collapsing building.

No video of WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7 records such a thing. Not just "clearly enough". It just didn't. The collapse is audible, the bangs aren't.

 

[JayUtah]

Every controlled demolition with explosives made by demolition companies which is recorded at less than a couple miles with sound, exhibits loud bangs that are clearly audible, far louder than the sound of the collapsing building.

No video of WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7 records such a thing. Not just "clearly enough". It just didn't. The collapse is audible, the bangs aren't.

MM seems to want to argue that the rumbling of the collapse would saturate the audio according to one of his electronics scenarios to the point where it would obscure the distinct reports of the demolition charges. He has made the saturation argument, which seems to be aimed in that direction. And he has made the argument that the audio would be too indistinct or degraded in order to separate "sources."

I'm baffled. The demolition charges go off before the building collapses, not during or after. They are, after all, the putative cause of the collapse, and the collapse is the alleged cause of all the various audio saturation scenarios. Why MM thinks the audio environment long after detonation is expected would affect whether the detonations were recorded is utterly absurd.

But let's keep in mind that happenstance audio recordings are just one of several indicators that would be seen if demolition charges had been set off on WTC 7. Despite MM's frantic handwaving, none of these indicators shows evidence of detonations. There simply is no documentary evidence supporting the belief that demolition charges were set off.

 

[pgimeno]

MM seems to want to argue that the rumbling of the collapse would saturate the audio according to one of his electronics scenarios to the point where it would obscure the distinct reports of the demolition charges. He has made the saturation argument, which seems to be aimed in that direction. And he has made the argument that the audio would be too indistinct or degraded in order to separate "sources."

That's why I think my comparison is pertinent. In every video of an explosive demolition I've watched, the level of the booms is well above the level of the rumble of the collapse. In the WTC building collapses, the rumble of the collapse is all that is heard.

MM would then have to explain why all videos in the WTC case were recorded in such a way that the booms can't be heard, while all videos of CDs don't exhibit such a strange property.

 

[JayUtah]

That's why I think my comparison is pertinent. In every video of an explosive demolition I've watched, the level of the booms is well above the level of the rumble of the collapse. In the WTC building collapses, the rumble of the collapse is all that is heard.

There's a huge connection between explosive brisance and acoustic effect -- necessarily so. There's no necessary connection between a pile of suddenly disconnected building materials falling into a heap and the noise it makes.

A structure composed of party balloons hot-glued together would fall to the ground silently if suddenly rendered structurally unsound, but if you used a firecracker to pop the key structural balloons, you'd clearly hear that. The balloons don't have to make noise as the crash into each other during global collapse, but the firecracker must make noise in order to produce the destructive effect. The noise is a necessary effect of having produced enough effective force in so short a period of time.

Now that's a contrived example, obviously. But it illustrates the point that there is no expected correlation between the acoustic properties of demolition charges and the incidental sound of collapsing rubble. Obviously the huge mass of structural materials that compose any sizable building will make noise as they fall. But you can't use that as any sort of indicator for whether demolition charges could be heard or recorded. It's a completely different kind of sound and a completely different amount of it.

 

[jaydeehess]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

This video has a good example from the demolition of WTC2 at 00:08:26;

In which of these clips are we to hear audio saturation? I sat through the whole thing and nada.

Even people nearby and screaming are heard quite well.

The reporter's audio sounded fine, and he was obviously a witness to, and terrified by, the huge explosion that occurred while he was speaking to the camera.

All things considered, (and if you don't watch the background picture), the recorded sound (increasing rumble), hardly testifies to the severity of the massive thunder storm that was actually occurring.

Nor does it testify to any loud sharp blast as heard as is most common in videos of actual balst demolitions.

The recorded audio simply does not capture the event clearly enough for people to claim there were no explosions occurring during that collapse or that of WTC1 and WTC7.

Odd that this manifestation you seem unable to properly explain, would be in effect in even single video, professional and amatuer, of all thre collapses.

 

[Miragememories]

Nano-thermite in combination with sol-gel chemistry can create an explosive formulation.

Thermite would be found in the residue.

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf
Synthesis and Characterization of Mixed Metal Oxide Nanocomposite Energetic Materials

It begins: “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives...using sol-gel chemistry.”

I can link you to many more papers if you require additional proof.

I worked at LLNL.

They don't agree with your findings.

<snip> I'll offer some more sources in support of the explosive potential of nanothermites.

https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
NanoScale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives

This paper discusses sol-gel nanothermites as explosives.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cm034740t
Aero-Sol−Gel Synthesis of Nanoporous Iron-Oxide Particles:  A Potential Oxidizer for Nanoenergetic Materials
"Interest in developing an oxidizer matrix for reaction with nano-aluminum [nanothermite] for energy-intensive applications involving explosives and propellants have led to the development of an aerosol-based sol−gel method (Aero-sol−gel) for preparing nanoporous iron-oxide nanoparticles with high internal surface area."

Note that one of the paper's authors is Michael Zachariah who was formerly employed by the NIST.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403624/military-reloads-with-nanotech/
Military Reloads with Nanotech
"Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos."

https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2008/techprogram/P128319.HTM
Tunability of Nanoenergetic Materials
"Application of nanoenergetic materials as components of various products requires that the ignition and reaction characteristics be tailored to have specific sensitivities and energy outputs. This research effort will address how ignition sensitivity thresholds, reaction rate, and pressure generation can be tailored to have a wide range of values."

More if you need it.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited, Rule 0

 

[GlennB]

I'm baffled. The demolition charges go off before the building collapses, not during or after. They are, after all, the putative cause of the collapse, and the collapse is the alleged cause of all the various audio saturation scenarios. Why MM thinks the audio environment long after detonation is expected would affect whether the detonations were recorded is utterly absurd.

You're entitled to be baffled. MM's whole 'period of freefall' explanation revolves around simultaneous removal of all vertical support over 8 storeys.

Why we might expect explosions to be muffled by the sound of the collapse makes zero sense.

But, hey, MM is a sound engineer. Maybe collapse sounds travel faster than explosion sounds and drown them out?

 

[jaydeehess]

Still waiting for those audio clips that demonstrate audio saturation that masks the sound of explosives.

Whether nanosuperthemitic explosive of plain old (??) RDX explosive, in order to cut a heavy column in milliseconds its still going to create a very powerful BANG!

However, truthers cannot decide whether they want to invoke quieter thermal cutting ala thermite, or loud high explosive severing and have tried to propose a quiet high explosive thermal cutting method.

No demonstration of such a method cutting a heavy column.

Here's the rub. If its high heat that cuts a column there's no requirement for thermite since there was enough heat from the fires to more slowly cause plastic deformation to take its toll. In fact slow is demonstrated in the collapses by the slow onset of inward pulling of the perimeter columns. No explosive could do that, its quite obviously a manifestation of the effects of heat on the structure.

 

[jaydeehess]

https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
NanoScale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives

Conclusion:These energetic nanocomposites have potential applications as pyrotechnics and propellants.
This paper discusses sol-gel nanothermites as explosives.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cm034740t
Aero-Sol−Gel Synthesis of Nanoporous Iron-Oxide Particles:  A Potential Oxidizer for Nanoenergetic Materials
"Interest in developing an oxidizer matrix for reaction with nano-aluminum [nanothermite] for energy-intensive applications involving explosives and propellants have led to the development of an aerosol-based sol−gel method (Aero-sol−gel) for preparing nanoporous iron-oxide nanoparticles with high internal surface area."

" "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well.""
IOW, it still goes BANG!

Note that one of the paper's authors is Michael Zachariah who was formerly employed by the NIST.

That is significant or merely a coincidence?

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/403624/military-reloads-with-nanotech/
Military Reloads with Nanotech
"Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.

"Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. “The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says. "
IOW it still goes BANG!

https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2008/techprogram/P128319.HTM
Tunability of Nanoenergetic Materials
"Application of nanoenergetic materials as components of various products requires that the ignition and reaction characteristics be tailored to have specific sensitivities and energy outputs. This research effort will address how ignition sensitivity thresholds, reaction rate, and pressure generation can be tailored to have a wide range of values."

More if you need it.

No, we already know that explosives go BANG! and when they are having to sever large steel columns they go BANG! in a really big way.

Basically all you have discovered that nanotech is creating explosives in which less is required to get the same BANG! However you still need the same BANG! to sever the same column that you may have previously used RDX(albeit in larger amount).

In all of it there is still a trade off, insert a lot of thermitic material and you get a slower but hotter explosive, use less and you get a faster but cooler explosive.

So if these materials CAN do what you claim they can do and they are available, then let's see Gage part with a few bucks and demonstrate a large column being severed in milliseconds without a consequent very loud and sharp BANG!

 

[DGM]

More if you need it.

Now we're getting somewhere. We don't need more, just the one that matches the makeup of the chips in your heroes paper. Let me guess, the really super secret stuff is not public knowledge?


Let the tap dancing begin.

 

[Redwood]

Odd how every controlled demolition I've been to, I was able to record the sound. Every video seen of them also contained sound, some by those crappy news set-ups those hacks use. Some close by, some not so much. Only on 9/11 were explosives not able to be recorded. Is this another case where 9/11 defied the laws of physics?





ETA: I think I told the story about my deaf friend I go to CD's with. She like's them because it one of the few things she can "hear".

Do I understand this correctly? The new MM position is that the explosives were so loud as to not register on any recording device? And nobody reported hearing them? Nobody was temporarily deafened? Windows weren't broken all over Manhattan? (Window breakage in nearby buildings is always a problem in demos; see the photo from the Landmark Tower demolition.)

 

[DGM]

Do I understand this correctly? The new MM position is that the explosives were so loud as to not register on any recording device? And nobody reported hearing them? Nobody was temporarily deafened? Windows weren't broken all over Manhattan? (Window breakage in nearby buildings is always a problem in demos; see the photo from the Landmark Tower demolition.)

Or the sound of the building collapsing would drown them out. Odd how the building usually collapses after the explosives.

As you know, the rules of science were suspended on 9/11. So anything is possible.

 

[pgimeno]

Do I understand this correctly? The new MM position is that the explosives were so loud as to not register on any recording device? And nobody reported hearing them? Nobody was temporarily deafened? Windows weren't broken all over Manhattan?

Not even in the WTC1, 2 and 7 buildings themselves.

 

[tsig]

Or the sound of the building collapsing would drown them out. Odd how the building usually collapses after the explosives.

As you know, the rules of science were suspended on 9/11. So anything is possible.

They used time delay fuses so the sound was delayed til after the explosion.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

This video has a good example from the demolition of WTC2 at 00:08:26;

The reporter's audio sounded fine, and he was obviously a witness to, and terrified by, the huge explosion that occurred while he was speaking to the camera.

You'll ignore the point anyway but for such a loud, thunderous explosion the reporter's voice is sure clearly audible as he remarks on the building raining debris. I have absolutely no trouble making out what he says when he is almost directly under the building as it fell. So, I think we know when the audio directly contradicts what you are interpretting with out needing 30 years of experience in audio analysis.

And as others have noted this thunderous clap of explosives did not exist to be recorded in the first place. Such is bleedingly obvious from the benchmark audio that you yourself posted as an example...


EDIT: I'll be accused of calling the journalist a liar.... but I don't feel arsed to split hairs over his words, except that contradictory evidence doesn't make him one.

 

[ProBonoShill]

You do know what a lie is don't you?

Sure do and you were caught telling a whopper.

See posts:

1551, 1552, 1554, 1555 and 1558

Wow, all this scrambling to provide YouTube videos of building demolitions, dating back to DGM's borrowed video.

Audio that supposedly matches DGM's memory of how the audio sounded in a video he believes he shot 26 years ago on VHS.

Yet, where are all the videos with HQ audio from the biggest building demolitions in U.S. history?[/color]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

This video has a good example from the demolition of WTC2 at 00:08:26;



The reporter's audio sounded fine, and he was obviously a witness to, and terrified by, the huge explosion that occurred while he was speaking to the camera.

All things considered, (and if you don't watch the background picture), the recorded sound (increasing rumble), hardly testifies to the severity of the massive thunder storm that was actually occurring.

The recorded audio simply does not capture the event clearly enough for people to claim there were no explosions occurring during that collapse or that of WTC1 and WTC7.

Here is another compilation;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_GpPdgAGwk

None of that is even close to refuting the content in the links I provided above, but thanks for those videos, nothing more amusing than truthers debunking themselves.

Good job!

 

[000063]

You do know what a lie is don't you?

Wow, all this scrambling to provide YouTube videos of building demolitions, dating back to DGM's borrowed video.

Two people is a "scramble". Uh huh.

Audio that supposedly matches DGM's memory of how the audio sounded in a video he believes he shot 26 years ago on VHS.

Please, just come out and say DGM's a liar.

Yet, where are all the videos with HQ audio from the biggest building demolitions in U.S. history?

That's an excellent question. Why haven't you been able to provide any other videos of CDs with comparable results to what you're saying happened on 9/11? Why are you ignoring the more technical objections?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhyu-fZ2nRA

This video has a good example from the demolition of WTC2 at 00:08:26;

You misspelled "destruction".

The reporter's audio sounded fine, and he was obviously a witness to, and terrified by, the huge explosion that occurred while he was speaking to the camera.

All things considered, (and if you don't watch the background picture), the recorded sound (increasing rumble), hardly testifies to the severity of the massive thunder storm that was actually occurring.

The recorded audio simply does not capture the event clearly enough for people to claim there were no explosions occurring during that collapse or that of WTC1 and WTC7.

Or, perhaps, there were no explosions, and hence they were not caught. Try to grasp the concept.

Now that's a contrived example, obviously.

Oh, good, I thought you had been to my last birthday party.

<snip> I'll offer some more sources in support of the explosive potential of nanothermites.

[stuff]

No, let's get back to the explosives which leveled a building but don't seem to have any other affect on anyone or anything nearby.

However, truthers cannot decide whether they want to invoke quieter thermal cutting ala thermite, or loud high explosive severing and have tried to propose a quiet high explosive thermal cutting method.

Hence my use of the term "Schrodinger's Explosive'.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This feels like a real life play out of Gamora's lampooning of Drax for taking everything told to him literally. I have a new crank for everytime I see the "witness reports of explosions" being brought up by people as proof of "CD" now...

_{*people will recognize the reference*}

 

[000063]

Truther: Witnesses reported explosions!
Sensible person: Was there any other corroborating evidence?
Truther: Witnesses reported explosions!
Sensible Person: And were there any explosions consistent with the explosives necessary to sever steel?
Truther: Witnesses reported explosions!