ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd October 2017, 10:55 AM   #1
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,988
South Tower: Calculating the moment of the initial boom

https://isgp-studies.com/911-evidenc...t-WTC#evidence

Has anybody refuted this point based on possible video/audio evidence that the South Tower started rumbling a moment before the exterior began moving downward?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 11:05 AM   #2
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,304
How about you support the claim rather than ask others to refute it?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 11:10 AM   #3
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 19,783
I'd have thought that the boom was generated at the moment the planes impacted the buildings, and was heard by observers at different locations at a few parts-of-seconds later depending on how far away they were and the speed of sound in those conditions that day. Is there any point saying anything else?
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 11:13 AM   #4
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How about you support the claim rather than ask others to refute it?
That's not his MO.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 11:29 AM   #5
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,381
Initial boom? What does this even mean?

There is a continuous rumble that is steadily getting louder.
__________________
this space for rent
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 12:52 PM   #6
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,235
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
https://isgp-studies.com/911-evidenc...t-WTC#evidence

Has anybody refuted this point based on possible video/audio evidence that the South Tower started rumbling a moment before the exterior began moving downward?

Any such noise was the result of structural failure that had nothing to do with CD explosives. Case in point can be heard in the following video at time lines: 0:42 to 048.

Sound of structural failure

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjib_I_ab84

.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 3rd October 2017 at 12:54 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 01:32 PM   #7
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,638
A skyscraper "rumbled" before it visibly collapsed. No ****, sherlock.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 02:30 PM   #8
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,790
Rumble = evidence for explosives in 9/11 truth fantasy world of woo

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
https://isgp-studies.com/911-evidenc...t-WTC#evidence

Has anybody refuted this point based on possible video/audio evidence that the South Tower started rumbling a moment before the exterior began moving downward?
Are you saying the bad guys you can't name who did 9/11 in your fantasy found explosives which rumble instead of making the sound of explosives? How you end up using web sites filled with dumbed down claims debunked since 9/11.

lol, evidence for thermite, and explosives - where is the evidence.

Just a note on your special woo expert web site.
The idiotic web site calls the steel which was corroded in the pile, vaporized. My battery box in my 1970 Capri was vaporized, as was our 1973 Porsche, our donated 1966 Mustang, etc. A sad day when idiots call corroded steel, vaporized steel. Now, the WTC steel which is called vaporized did corrodes at high temperatures, at 800 to 1000C. To use corroded steel as evidence for melted steel, is insanity. Your web site source is insane, and anti-intellectual claptrap.

Do you have a special search engine to find insane 9/11 truth websites.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 3rd October 2017 at 02:31 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 03:06 PM   #9
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,849
There is no "boom". Nothing even remotely resembling the sharp, brisant "PENG" of steel-cutting high explosives.

Here is the clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LVg1tO2uyI

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


The sound is stereo - and it appears they have two microphones pointing in rather different directions: One is directed at the reporter (left channel), the other is geared to pick up surrounding sounds, perhaps directed at the towers.

On the left channel, you hear the growing rumble only in the background, the loudness of the voice remains at almost the same level it was before the rumble - all through the end, the loudness is dominated by the voice.
On the right hand channel, however, you first hear the voice above the background noises - a little dull perhaps, but louder than background. The syllable "of-" of "officers" at 1.15 seconds creates a level peak in both channels.
Still on the right channel, the collapse's rumble starts swelling at 1.6 or 1.7 seconds, loudness increases for about 0.5 seconds - and then the sound gets "denser", not louder, without being clipped. What happens there apparently is that the sound recorder auto-adjust recording level!
On the left channel however, where sound dominates, and background rumble is subdued due to mic being pointed at reporter, background noise keeps swelling!

At no time it there a solitary "boom", "bang" or "peng".

The page that MJ links to has the "first rumble" at Frame 156 = 5.2 seconds. Measured from where? The 6.9 seconds clip that they linked to? Then that's at least 3.5 seconds AFTER the first rumble ACTUALLY is heard.

Claim debunked.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 02:18 AM   #10
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,811
We know from the videos that the first visible evidence of collapse initiation in the South Tower was the point at which inward bowing of the perimeter columns became so severe that the columns collapsed inwards. This was then followed by the upper part of the structure tipping, followed by its descent. It's hardly surprising, therefore, if the sound of the inward collapse of the perimeter columns preceded the drop of the upper block by a significant amount. The argument on the website that this noise cannot have been caused by pancaking floors is a strawman argument; we know from the NIST report that pancaking floors were not the cause of collapse initiation, though pancaking of floors no doubt took place during the collapse.

The very fact that the South Tower collapse initiated with the perimeter columns collapsing inward is a very strong indication that structural deformation, not explosives, were the cause of the collapse; we can literally see the structural deformations initiating the collapse before our eyes.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 07:20 AM   #11
Gamolon
Master Poster
 
Gamolon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,061
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
There is no "boom".
I thought the same thing after reading the initial post.

How do we go from "initial boom" in the title to "rumbling" in the post?

Not the same.
Gamolon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 07:50 AM   #12
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,910
It's amazing how quickly junior here returns to defend his position.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 11:09 AM   #13
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
We know from the videos that the first visible evidence of collapse initiation in the South Tower was the point at which inward bowing of the perimeter columns became so severe that the columns collapsed inwards. This was then followed by the upper part of the structure tipping, followed by its descent. It's hardly surprising, therefore, if the sound of the inward collapse of the perimeter columns preceded the drop of the upper block by a significant amount. The argument on the website that this noise cannot have been caused by pancaking floors is a strawman argument; we know from the NIST report that pancaking floors were not the cause of collapse initiation, though pancaking of floors no doubt took place during the collapse.

The very fact that the South Tower collapse initiated with the perimeter columns collapsing inward is a very strong indication that structural deformation, not explosives, were the cause of the collapse; we can literally see the structural deformations initiating the collapse before our eyes.

Dave
So this only works in a scenario where the core starts collapsing first, dragging down the perimeter over half a second later? Half a second is quite a while here.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 11:44 AM   #14
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,790
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So this only works in a scenario where the core starts collapsing first, dragging down the perimeter over half a second later? Half a second is quite a while here.
Why does it have to be the core? The WTC towers are a system of core and shell connected with the floors. About half the weight is carried by the core, half by the shell. The core does not have to fail first to have the shell bow in slowly over time. How do you get the core to fail falling slowly? Trying to back in CD with BS slow moving core dragging in the shell, is not evidence for explosives which were not heard on 9/11. Better stick with the fantasy of thermite, it is not as loud as reality based explosives.

Where do you guys get the rumble explosives? Did thunder bring down the WTC. Who did your inside job fantasy?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 11:58 AM   #15
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So this only works in a scenario where the core starts collapsing first, dragging down the perimeter over half a second later? Half a second is quite a while here.
The bowing is caused by the lateral I-beams losing rigidity and sagging pulling the outer walls inward. This was one of the drawbacks to having a lot of office space. The sagging has nothing to do with the center other than the lateral beams are connected to the core structure also.

Last edited by bknight; 4th October 2017 at 12:27 PM. Reason: Added a b to owing.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 12:18 PM   #16
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,811
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So this only works in a scenario where the core starts collapsing first, dragging down the perimeter over half a second later?
No. We're talking about observations.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 02:06 PM   #17
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,849
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So this only works in a scenario where the core starts collapsing first, dragging down the perimeter over half a second later? Half a second is quite a while here.
Rule of So: No, you are wrong.
What you say there completely contradicts what David wrote. Almost as if you didn't understand a word.

I also want to remind you that there was no "boom" in the sound track. You kinda ignore that. Your Truther source is deluded.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 08:22 PM   #18
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Rule of So: No, you are wrong.
What you say there completely contradicts what David wrote. Almost as if you didn't understand a word.

I also want to remind you that there was no "boom" in the sound track. You kinda ignore that. Your Truther source is deluded.
If it is true that the audio/video evidence shows that the South Tower started making noise noise started over half a second before the exterior started coming down, then that would only leave a core-lead explanation like how the North Tower's antenna shows the same thing, falling downwards a moment before the exterior.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 08:30 PM   #19
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
There is no "boom". Nothing even remotely resembling the sharp, brisant "PENG" of steel-cutting high explosives.

Here is the clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LVg1tO2uyI

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


The sound is stereo - and it appears they have two microphones pointing in rather different directions: One is directed at the reporter (left channel), the other is geared to pick up surrounding sounds, perhaps directed at the towers.

On the left channel, you hear the growing rumble only in the background, the loudness of the voice remains at almost the same level it was before the rumble - all through the end, the loudness is dominated by the voice.
On the right hand channel, however, you first hear the voice above the background noises - a little dull perhaps, but louder than background. The syllable "of-" of "officers" at 1.15 seconds creates a level peak in both channels.
Still on the right channel, the collapse's rumble starts swelling at 1.6 or 1.7 seconds, loudness increases for about 0.5 seconds - and then the sound gets "denser", not louder, without being clipped. What happens there apparently is that the sound recorder auto-adjust recording level!
On the left channel however, where sound dominates, and background rumble is subdued due to mic being pointed at reporter, background noise keeps swelling!

At no time it there a solitary "boom", "bang" or "peng".

The page that MJ links to has the "first rumble" at Frame 156 = 5.2 seconds. Measured from where? The 6.9 seconds clip that they linked to? Then that's at least 3.5 seconds AFTER the first rumble ACTUALLY is heard.

Claim debunked.
Do you think the distinct roaring of the South Tower is actually just the microphone readjusting to the normal background noise? Or are you just getting hung up on the word "boom", which is a word the author used? The legitimacy of the author's point about the audio/video evidence is what should be discussed here.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 08:35 PM   #20
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,381
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do you think the distinct roaring of the South Tower is actually just the microphone readjusting to the normal background noise? Or are you just getting hung up on the word "boom", which is a word the author used? The legitimacy of the author's point about the audio/video evidence is what should be discussed here.
But the whole point was the claim there was a "boom" when there is absolutely was no such thing whatsoever. You literally put it in the title of this thread. The claim that there was a distinct boom was utterly destroyed.

You also completely misunderstood oystein's analysis.
__________________
this space for rent

Last edited by The Big Dog; 4th October 2017 at 08:39 PM.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 12:57 AM   #21
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,811
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If it is true that the audio/video evidence shows that the South Tower started making noise noise started over half a second before the exterior started coming down, then that would only leave a core-lead explanation like how the North Tower's antenna shows the same thing, falling downwards a moment before the exterior.
No, it wouldn't. It would simply indicate that something noisy was happening in a building that was experiencing one of the largest building fires ever seen (specifically, one of the three largest) and was within a second of collapsing completely. To describe this as unsurprising would be a colossal understatement.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 01:00 AM   #22
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,811
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The legitimacy of the author's point about the audio/video evidence is what should be discussed here.
The underlying claim that the author is trying to make, as with all these arguments, is that the collapse was initiated by explosives. Since no sound indicative of the type of explosives required to cut steel was actually heard, the underlying claim is therefore rejected. There were no explosives, and the collapse was not initiated by demolition explosives. All that remains is discussing the precise sequence of fire-induced structural failures that led to the initiation of global collapse, and we all know that's not on your agenda.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 12:48 PM   #23
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,235
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do you think the distinct roaring of the South Tower is actually just the microphone readjusting to the normal background noise? Or are you just getting hung up on the word "boom", which is a word the author used? The legitimacy of the author's point about the audio/video evidence is what should be discussed here.

You need to get away from CD because there was no CD boom noise nor any evidence of CD at ground zero.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 12:49 PM   #24
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,235
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If it is true that the audio/video evidence shows that the South Tower started making noise noise started over half a second before the exterior started coming down, then that would only leave a core-lead explanation like how the North Tower's antenna shows the same thing, falling downwards a moment before the exterior.

Could it be structural failure? Definitely nothing to do with explosives. No sound of CD explosions!
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 03:29 PM   #25
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,849
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If it is true that the audio/video evidence shows that the South Tower started making noise noise started over half a second before the exterior started coming down, then that would only leave a core-lead explanation like how the North Tower's antenna shows the same thing, falling downwards a moment before the exterior.
No, I see at least one other possibility: That your uneducated expectation of how the collapse would be visible in a handheld, wildly panning video shot from that position is uneducated and mistaken.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 03:35 PM   #26
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,849
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do you think the distinct roaring of the South Tower is actually just the microphone readjusting to the normal background noise? Or are you just getting hung up on the word "boom", which is a word the author used? The legitimacy of the author's point about the audio/video evidence is what should be discussed here.
I think the roaring is actually a roaring, with no distinguishable pressure maximum - no "boom". The author's point is something something relative in time to an imagined boom that never happened. There was a roar of increasing loudness. The waveform of it has indeed a local maximum at some point, but that is not indicative of when there was a "boom", but rather of when the increasing noise reached a threshold where the auto-adjust of the camera would kick in and tune recording level down go prevent maxing out.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 06:51 PM   #27
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Could it be structural failure? Definitely nothing to do with explosives. No sound of CD explosions!
You should read this:

Collapse or Explosion? A Discussion of the "Sounds of Explosions" Issue by Adam Taylor.

Also my suggestion: What if pre-positioned heating elements could weaken the steel very quickly before relatively small kicker charges are then used? You would need less explosive that way.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 07:12 PM   #28
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,381
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You should read this:

Collapse or Explosion? A Discussion of the "Sounds of Explosions" Issue by Adam Taylor.

Also my suggestion: What if pre-positioned heating elements could weaken the steel very quickly before relatively small kicker charges are then used? You would need less explosive that way.
Thermite and super nano thermite! Say, you bailed on the op in what is near record time.

Op: the moment of initial collapse sounds like boom!
Everyone: there clearly was no boom.
Mj: well how about thermite?
Tbd:
__________________
this space for rent
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 07:25 PM   #29
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,995
While we're talking WTC 7, this is a simulation that was posted September 11, 2016. I don't know if it has already been posted. If so I apologize for wasting your time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkTbyENZ5s

He used Blender 3D software, and the specs are listed in the video description, and states that it's not intended to prove or disprove anything.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 07:30 PM   #30
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,235
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You should read this:

Collapse or Explosion? A Discussion of the "Sounds of Explosions" Issue by Adam Taylor.

Also my suggestion: What if pre-positioned heating elements could weaken the steel very quickly before relatively small kicker charges are then used? You would need less explosive that way.

Reality doesn't work that way and I have experienced all kinds of explosions in war to know that guy hasn't a clue.

Secondly, explosives are ineffective if a steel structure is not pre-weakened. You add cutter charges and you still need explosives such as dynamite to finish the job. Have you ever seen videos of steel buildings withstanding the blast wave of a nuclear bomb? I have and I might add that the steel structures remained standing because they were not pre-weakened, which is why the structure of WTC 1 remained standing within a bomb crater after a vehicle bomb was donated beneath that building.


Photo of WTC 1 Structure Standing in Bomb Crater

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...TF_Commons.jpg


Thirdly, even if explosions were muffled, shockwaves would have been generated which would have traveled down the steel structures and into the ground where the signals would have been detected by seismographs and I have to say that there were no signals as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, not to mention that no evidence of such muffling was found at ground zero. In addition, there were no physical evidence of such muffling nor physical evidence that explosives were used. How do you muffle the structure a huge building to drown out explosions and not attract a lot of attention?

It would have been impossible to properly pre-weaken the structures of the WTC buildings unnoticed because such operations are extremely noisy, generate hazardous debris and dust into the air and takes many months of preparation even before explosives are placed. It took many months just to drop a steel bridge with explosives and that was nothing compared to what it would have taken to do the same with explosives in regard to the WTC buildings.

To sum it up, claims that CD explosives were used to drop the WTC buildings were nothing more than fabrications and such claims have been used to discredit the truth movement and it worked.

I might also add that CD explosives leave behind lots of physical evidence on-site and yet, not one single piece of detonation hardware was ever found at ground zero, which simply means there is zero evidence for explosives. Seems that you are unaware of hoaxes regarding explosives and the WTC buildings. and amazingly, I have had truthers smack me with their CD evidence in the form of videos..........................the same hoaxed videos that I had warned truthers about. Simply amazlng!!!

It soon became apparent that there were truthers who were unaware of my warnings about those hoaxed WTC CD videos because they didn't bother to do their homework.

.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 5th October 2017 at 07:48 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 07:45 PM   #31
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,790
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You should read this:

Collapse or Explosion? A Discussion of the "Sounds of Explosions" Issue by Adam Taylor.

Also my suggestion: What if pre-positioned heating elements could weaken the steel very quickly before relatively small kicker charges are then used? You would need less explosive that way.
Holy Crap! What do you think CD is? Did you try to study first, do research? NO, you are full of paranoid BS based on BS, which is based on BS. BS3
---- math for stupid to the nth power of woo

Hey JFK paranoid BS CTer, MJ, the CD is engineered by cutting columns almost through, and setting cutter charges, "very small" charges, which end up being "VERY LOUD" because supersonic explosives make "LOUD Sounds", even in small amounts.

The energy used to destroy building is E=mgh, the building and gravity do the work, the explosives start the collapse, Gravity finishes with the OVERWHELMING work as E=mgh is turned into KE. Learn physics and stop being a pawn, a lowly cult member in the dumbest movement since flat earth and Bigfoot.


WTC collapses don't look like CD, CD looks like a gravity collapse. Get thee to a physics class and this time stop staring out the window
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 08:28 PM   #32
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Thermite and super nano thermite! Say, you bailed on the op in what is near record time.

Op: the moment of initial collapse sounds like boom!
Everyone: there clearly was no boom.
Mj: well how about thermite?
Tbd:
I have also wondered if it would be theoretically possible to harvest electricity from the buildings and use it to run currents through the steel. But even if so that would require a redundant network of very thick cables wired to the columns.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 09:13 PM   #33
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,790
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I have also wondered if it would be theoretically possible to harvest electricity from the buildings and use it to run currents through the steel. But even if so that would require a redundant network of very thick cables wired to the columns.
lol, why did the circuit breaker pop

Your knowledge of electricity matches your knowledge of explosives, physics, et al.

Wow, look up dead short, and stop being a paranoid gullible conspiracy theorist. What was your SAT score? Get thee to a comprehensive science course quickly before Hamlet dies
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 09:34 PM   #34
Norman Alexander
Master Poster
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,101
We are surely not going back to the long-disproved "hush-a-boom" theory, are we? ARE WE??!

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fun:Th...her_Dictionary

http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.co...-wewative.html
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

Last edited by Norman Alexander; 5th October 2017 at 09:44 PM.
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 01:34 AM   #35
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,811
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I have also wondered if it would be theoretically possible to harvest electricity from the buildings and use it to run currents through the steel. But even if so that would require a redundant network of very thick cables wired to the columns.
Nice try, but you need more HAARP and harvesting energy from hurricanes. With a bit of work, though, you're on your way to a theory that nobody can read without laughing out loud.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 01:56 AM   #36
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,811
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post

Well, the first obvious fatal error in this is the discussion of NFPA 921 stating that the sound of an explosion is "not an essential element in the definition of an explosion". There are many types of explosion, and only very high-velocity explosions are capable of cutting steel with the precision stipulated by 9/11 CD theories; these explosions have a very characteristic sound, and it's that sound that was conspicuous by its absence. The second is the discussion of continuous explosions as the towers collapse; these ignore the fundamental causal principle that the sound of these explosions would have to precede the initiation of collapse, when in fact they were coincident with it. It then descends into a mash-up of thermite and explosive theories to try and cloud the issue of whether explosives were used by suggesting two contradictory theories at once, as so many truthers try to do; thermite, of course, is a non-starter as a theory because nobody's been able to even suggest a means of cutting thick steel columns with thermite that wouldn't require enormous amounts of equipment that would be obvious to everyone in the towers.

Basically, no, you shouldn't read this; it's just more truther time-wasting that re-hashes all the usual nonsense. But go ahead if you feel like it, heaven forbid I be accused of trying to suppress evidence however worthless.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Also my suggestion: What if pre-positioned heating elements could weaken the steel very quickly before relatively small kicker charges are then used? You would need less explosive that way.
If the pre-positioned heating elements are powerful enough, you wouldn't need any explosives at all. For example, burning all the contents of the buildings has been shown to be capable of weakening the steel enough to produce that effect, both theoretically and in practice.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 02:07 AM   #37
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,849
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I have also wondered if it would be theoretically possible to harvest electricity from the buildings and use it to run currents through the steel. But even if so that would require a redundant network of very thick cables wired to the columns.
And now you have jumped the shark.

Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 04:02 AM   #38
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,033
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
And now you have jumped the shark.

Sent from mobile phone through Tapatalk

Juiced the piglet
, surely?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 11:04 AM   #39
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,995
MJ occupies the fringe-theory wing of CT Land. You know, those folks who grasp at off the wall scenarios to make their hack CT's work since the weight of the ACTUAL SCIENCE is stacked against them.

These folks never look at what actual special operations demo experts would have actually done, or what their realistic capabilities were in 2001, nor are they familiar with demolition techniques or explosive charges of any stripe. That's how you get nanothermite - morons spinning theories based on zero knowledge of content or deployment of such a device.

And nobody has yet to explain why WTC7 would be targeted for total destruction in the first place...other than it was owned by a Jew.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2017, 11:19 AM   #40
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
MJ occupies the fringe-theory wing of CT Land. You know, those folks who grasp at off the wall scenarios to make their hack CT's work since the weight of the ACTUAL SCIENCE is stacked against them.

These folks never look at what actual special operations demo experts would have actually done, or what their realistic capabilities were in 2001, nor are they familiar with demolition techniques or explosive charges of any stripe. That's how you get nanothermite - morons spinning theories based on zero knowledge of content or deployment of such a device.

And nobody has yet to explain why WTC7 would be targeted for total destruction in the first place...other than it was owned by a Jew.
IIRC wasn't the secret service housed in that building? So the story line would be the building was destroyed to destroy the records of the secret service involvement in the taking down WTC 1 and 2.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.