North Tower Demolition Adjusted For Sound Delay Proves Explosions Occurred Before "Collapse"

[footballphenom34]

I honestly thought the sounds were very "boomish" and heard the 5,4,3,2,1, and then I heard about 100 more of the same sounds getting faster and faster... I did find the video interesting but I think you proved yourself wrong because someone with ears could heard the same sounds following eachother after your countdown. My conclusion- levels, wieghting tons upon tons, falling at increasing speeds. not bombs that dont go off when planes and jet fuel hit them.. thanks for the video though.

[StevenM818]

@footballphenom34

Your comment makes no sense, but thanks for the input.

[StevenM818]

@Steelerguy6178

The audible signatures from the helicopter and the "Booms" are not the same. The "Boom" sound only occurs when the tower fell (the video is much longer than the excerpt presented here, and there were no "Booms" b4 it fell). There are also other videos that corroborate the "Boom" sound (without helicopters overhead). The "Booms" have always been explained as floors falling on each other. But once the sound delay is adjusted, it's clear the "Booms" occurred before the tower fell.

[FlashMeterRed]

how red would those terrorist's faces be if they knew the bush admin were already going to destroy the towers with explosives? and ON THE SAME DAY! talk about looking silly...

[pjnlsn]

For example, there are reports from NYPD's aviation unit which include, at 10:21, the report that the north tower is buckling at the southwest corner and leaning to the south. The tower collapsed 7 minutes later. I would say that the shell acted basically like a lever, after the buckling and weakening of the south face, and rotated the top around that face and corner, until it couldn't handle the shifting weight. And then, collapse.

[StevenM818]

@pjnlsn

So do you have video of the tower buckling 7 minutes before it went down? If so lets see it? The explosions heard on this video prove they occurred seconds before the tower is seen falling or changing shape in any manner. If floors were sagging, buckling, or rotating we'd observe the top of the tower moving at the onset of explosions. But that's not the case. They're heard well before the tower can be seen moving at all. Watch the antenna. It drops well after the initial explosions.

[pjnlsn]

@StevenM818 I'm sure that you dismiss any talk of floor or column sag, but perhaps you should listen more to those whose beliefs you oppose. For nobody actually says that the floors and columns were perfectly straight, and then *suddenly* underwent massive deformation 10 seconds before the tower fell. That's just silly. Didn't I say the sagging/buckling was first observed 7 minutes before collapse?

[DarkwingScooter]

"Well, C4 *is* RDX"

Mostly at least (90%), just in a different application. C4 is RDX but RDX isn't C4. May or may not be a significant difference, but that is another thing we just don't know.

The thing with an explosive, and what distinguishes it as such, is the nature and speed of the reaction.

Super thermites are described in the literature as explosive and I don't think you can argue that (given the thermate debate video) thermate cannot explode in the right conditions.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter Oh, and about C4. There's a simpler way to think about it. C4 is RDX, mixed with some plastic. In a 90% 10% mix I suppose. It's what makes it able to be molded to a chosen shape. I think it's a bit more stable as well. In fact, it takes a very high temperature to set it off, at lower it will just burn normally. Funny enough I hear Vietnam soldiers used to burn it for heat on cold nights.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn "Funny enough I hear Vietnam soldiers used to burn it for heat on cold nights."

Lol, rather you than I hehe.

My point is just that there are other RDX compounds such as PBX which may or may not have the same sound characteristics.

"If I hear you correctly."

You don't. Thermate charges can produce loud bangs, as evidenced by the 'thermate debate' video. Nano-thermites, being more energetic, can naturally be expected to be louder.

[noozilander]

Interesting.

There is no way that the top 15 floors of the North tower could destroy the lower 95 floors AND itself in the process. The demolition practice of verinage proves this. It relies on an equal mass above to destroy the mass below. Simple physics and common sense really.

[pjnlsn]

What a revelation!

Oh, wait, except you don't need the sound. Seeing as you have visual evidence.

Or are you saying the sound of explosions went out before the light? ^.^

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn What are you smoking? You are aware no doubt that sound travels a bit slower than light aren't you?

Not a lot mind you...

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter Light travels many, many times faster than sound. I was just pointing out that if you have visual evidence, you don't need sound. For light traveling a distance shorter than the earth's diameter, for example, travels instantaneously, more or less.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn I was being sarcastic....

It almost seemed like you were saying the technique was invalid or not enlightening for some reason. Why wouldn't you want to know how the sound actually lined up?

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter That's kind've what i'm saying. That it complicates things without giving you much. You can see the explosion in the video, can't you?

That is, unless the time until sound heard is, oh, a second or more before the visual, or something equally interesting, like that.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter unless that's what you're saying...

Because to me it seems like that explosion occurs at or after collapse.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn Given that the reason that no explosives were looked for was that there were claimed to be no explosive noises and debunkers have been fond of associating the sounds with the collapse sounds, so establishing the noise as occurring before the main movement starts is rather significant wouldn't you say?

Of course debunkers will claim some hitherto undescribed property of nature, but that is like saying the sun rises in the morning.

The sound happens before the movement unless your blind.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter Or deaf. I'm sure the calculation is right, in any case.

So that sound begins about a second before the top section shifts.

Of course, that's not the sound of explosives, it's a deep, sustained rumble. So you're to reject those who dismiss what your saying by throwing out mentaion of the curious behavior of sound waves, or whatever. But you're not right in saying that sounds like explosive. An explosion, perhaps, but those are hardly the same.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn As I was saying, hitherto undescribed property of nature. I should have added semantics too.

So now an explosion sounds are different from explosive sounds?

That is a classic piece of debunker reasoning there. Right up there with the more insane and inane claims they have made. Still claiming that thermite can't cut vertical columns eh? Or that the metal flowing out the side was aluminium?

Try harder.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter Incidentally, yes. But that's not what I said.

And yes. Explosives create explosions which are very loud and create shockwaves. And then there are other 'explosions.'

But, does it matter what I believe? Does it matter that I might not believe you even if you had proof? Or does it just matter that you don't even have anything to prove it to yourself.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter if debunkers are too pedantic then truthers are too loose. I believe what you've said can be summed up as 'loud noises are suspicious.'

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn Just to see the very beginning of the problem with your reasoning you need to see the effect of loud sounds in controlled conditions:

WBBN_tC8StQ

HP5wmYzBwA0

Furthermore 1 ton of TnT at 250 feet produces about the same noise level as a quarter stick of dynamite at ~175 db

makeitlouder [dot] com/Decibel%20Level%20Chart [dot] txt

You need to cite a study to show the validity of your method determining the source of sound by the db level like you do. Until then you got nothing.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter Well actually, my bad, I didn't say that part.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter So loose you can't even understand what I was saying. It wasn't the volume, it was how the sound continued through the tower half collapsed. Which wouldn't make it solely from that of a device detonated, right? Unless you wish to say that the explosives or else continue going off second after second?

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn "if debunkers are too pedantic then truthers are too loose."

How are debunkers too pedantic? There is not a single part of there argument that is reproducible in experiment to date.

If anything the opposite is the case.

"Unless you wish to say that the explosives or else continue going off second after second?"

What does the evidence suggest to you? The fist sound could not have been from the collapse, but it is similar to the sound during collapse. Conclusion?

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter Obviously that it's the same sound. Not the sound of thermite however. Maybe a whole bunch of C4, at least if it only lasted part of a second.

Does it sound like anything but the roar of building materials crumbling?

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn I'm not sure if one could tell the difference by the sound from that kind of distance.

The big problem is that if it was an interior source the high frequency sound wave which would have been indicative of high explosives would be soaked up and scattered.

All you get is the low frequencies:

rcKX4wCcU5k

Sound can be deceiving sometimes.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn Again, can you demonstrate that you can tell the difference between military grade explosive thermite compound of unknown description, C4, RdX or building collapse noises (which is practically eliminated as the source already because of the timing but we'll keep for the sake of argument) by the sound only at this kind of range when there is no line of sight to the actual event and there are many baffles in place?

My guess is you can't, so it is not a valid line of reasoning.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter Well, C4 *is* RDX, so there's that. Between thermite and...I don't know if I could demonstrate the difference but I doubt you can say this is thermite, or explosives.

Why do I doubt it? It's not just because I've heard what thermite sounds like ignited and what high explosive sounds like. Anything that burns or explodes increase the volume in a system. They release gases. High explosives release so fast that the push makes a shockwave, breaking the sound barrier.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter We didn't hear that, so I don't think there were high explosives. So I don't think you could match the sound in this video to a chemical reaction, like how the specific frequencies and pattern of a person speaking can be made into a recognizable pattern, and then matched against another voice sample. I.e. a voiceprint. You're right, the sound is too vague for that kind of detail. But the sound gives clues like the lack of a shockwave sound.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter So I don't think there was high explosives, but I think you would agree, so, anyways.

Now, it could be thermite. Or it could be a thousand other incendiarys or fast burning materials. Or it could be something.....Not an incendiary!?!

So if you want to go ahead and say it was thermite or nano thermite or nano thermate, what have you. Or something completely different, then i'd say you've got some work to do. Some sign given by some mix of thermite evident in the sound.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn What you are distinguishing between is high explosive like RDX and explosives like the thermate (and possibly also military nano-thermites).

The distinguishing characteristic is detonation speed, i.e. it the blast is faster than the speed of sound.

The way you distinguish that by sound is pitch. Low velocity=low pitch, high velocity= low pitch. No mystery at all to it.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter You can't tell, at least without knowing things which I don't. I did say that.

If that detonation speed was faster than the speed of sound, what is called a sonic boom would build up, and then ripple outwards, creating an intense burst of noise whenever it passes. It's a binary field, is it either: less than, or equal to or greater than the speed of sound. As we do not hear the sonic boom, we might reasonable conclude that there were no high explosives used.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn You are confusing loudness with pitch. A higher velocity blast does not necessarily produce a louder blast, it produces a higher frequency component in the waveform.

Pitch is a function of frequency, not energy. The thing is that the ear will perceive a high frequency blast as being louder than a blast with exactly the same energy and a lower pitch.

RDX produces a characteristic 'PWANG' at a high frequency, it is these high frequencies that don't travel well and is easily baffled.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter ....so there it is.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn High pitches are readily absorbed by baffles, low pitches are less so. Hearing a low pitch does not allow you to conclude the original complex waveform was made up primarily of low pitches. Too many variables here to say by sound alone what the source is. But...

We can say what the source is likely not: Falling rubble. Because of the timing.

So unless you can demonstrate that nano-thermites do not make even MORE noise than thermate charges, you've got a problem and an enigma, not me.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter You're saying nano-thermites, like thermites are too quiet too hear?

Are you not distressed by the fact that both there being _no thermites whatsoever_ and there being (nano)-thermite charges produces more or less the same evidence in sound? I.e. none?

If I hear you correctly.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn Either way, you just cannot tell. You cannot tell the type of source because of the natural baffles of an urban environment and distant interior source.

You do not know the sound characteristics of various nano-thermites in various different layouts, so you cannot rightfully exclude low velocity explosions either. Unless you can produce some actual HARD EVIDENCE (not of "thermite can't cut vertical beams" variety) that they are quiet.

You do not know the microphone type even.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter Yes, well, I'd say that while one C4 charge going off in the towers might be lost, but more than 20 at once, or so, would probably be more evident, and we might hear this sudden abundance of high frequency waves in this video.

So let us then say not that there is probably no C4, but that there is probably not a significant amount of C4.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn The reason why C4's high reaction speed is significant is because the work that is done is done by that blast wave. Anything you hear is not being put to useful work.

A perfectly efficient C4 application would be inaudible (theoretically speaking).

When you are using something like a variety of thermite the work is being done by principly by the heat. You don't need a fast reaction speed, but a nano-thermite as opposed to a drug-store thermite reacts faster and more energetically.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter Or you could just go on saying that you can't tell....in which case I might ask....how can you tell? You apparently have *some* idea of what happened, right?

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter Oh and btw C4's reaction speed is about 8000 m/s.

Compare this to the speed of sound at ~300 m/s. I'm not sure a building could completely absorb the energy in the wave from this difference. Some materials might more easily absorb waves of a certain frequency, but they're going to absorb an amount of energy from the wave, not depending on the total energy of it.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn I agree that it was almost not C4 being used.

It doesn't matter how fast the reaction speed is though, energy release is not a function of reaction speed and a fast reaction speed is not indicative of high energy.

The sound wave generated by a volcano is immensely more energetic than anything humans have produced and yet it would register as a soft breeze from a couple of miles out, too low pitched to be audible.

As for absorption:

Have you ever seen one of those containment vessels?

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn The reason why the faster reaction speed and concomitant explosion (which is not necessarily supersonic, just a bang of any description) is useful in thermite charges is because the air pressure helps to focus the heat where you want the work done. Efficiency is again the name of the game.

The NIST logic:

C4 does demos -> C4 makes a loud bang -> Loud bang does demos...

...is wholly incorrect.

The point is to get enough energy to the place where you want work done when you need it.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter Actually the speed of the reaction is proportional to the frequency of pressure waves from the source. All combustion, slow, or fast, or called explosive, all combustion increases the volume in a space by releasing gases. Explosives are engineered to do this very fast, and to release much heat, so as to incinerate nearby materials.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn "Explosives are engineered to do this very fast, and to release much heat, so as to incinerate nearby materials"

No. It is not the heat that does the damage in C4, it is the pressure wave itself.

"Actually the speed of the reaction is proportional to the frequency of pressure waves from the source"

False. I can produce with the very slow chemical reaction in my muscles the same frequency sound wave by singing falsetto without breaking a sweat.

Frequency =/= energy.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter And, yeah, I think you're right about high explosive working through an extreme pressure increase. Forgive me, I was very tired last night.

As far as energy with frequency of wave. I meant that in a combusting material, the pressure waves coming off the movement of released gases have a frequency which is proportional to the speed of the reaction. Not that all processes creating pressure waves create them with frequencies proportional to their reaction speed. Specifics.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter I hate to nitpick, but frequency of a wave *is* almost exactly, the energy. The only energy in that wave. With sound waves, it's kinetic energy, the kinetic energy of the shifting air molecules.

Vocal cords don't produce sound by burning calories, they move muscles in the diaphram, to push air over the larynx, which vibrates, creature pressure waves, i.e sound waves. It's a mechanical process built on a chemical one, not just a chemical process.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter The point is that, like high explosive, thermites also leave evidence, and of a more permanent kind. So tell, me where is this evidence?

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn "So tell, me where is this evidence?"

That is a leading question, you know it is what is at issue. i.e. Your refusal to accept valid empirical evidence.

"I hate to nitpick, but frequency of a wave *is* almost exactly, the energy."

Waves are two-dimensional (at least). The energy is not only a function of the frequency but also the amplitude and the complexity of the waveform itself.

Double the frequency and ceteris paribus you double the energy yes. But you cannot assume that.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter Right, the frequency and amplitude. Which is constant in a simple wave.

But is there evidence for charges, of any kind?

You say that the sounds of collapse (whatever their cause) occur before the building visibly compacts, and that this indicates charges placed intentionally. But this is a rather thin platform to place a hypothesis on. Why do you assume that there was not crumbling in the interior, before final collapse occurs?

*That* is some faulty reasoning.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn "Right, the frequency and amplitude. Which is constant in a simple wave."

In your physics textbook perhaps, but never in real life. Also you are neglecting the waveform itself. You can't simply assume that it is a sine wave for all explosives.

"this is a rather thin platform to place a hypothesis on"

An hypothesis, by its nature, does not require a platform, only observation. This is why science is an empirical study, not only a theoretical one.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn There is no faulty reasoning in accepting an hypothesis, it is the antecedent in a proposition.

If Martian wasps eat gooseberries Then Fred is a elephant

There are three statements: A, B and If A then B.

What this statement says is: Given that A is true and that the If-Then statement itself is true, B must also be true.

If we find later find B to be false then the If-Then is false.

There is no call for A to be reasonable or well-founded in logic, *that* is some faulty reasoning.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn Seen in the context of our present question:

On what basis do you assume that the early noise was building collapse? You don't have any reason to. In fact the observation contradicts such a claim because OS'ers claim that the ejections were ALSO caused by collapsing material.

If Sounds are from collapse Then there should be visible evidence of collapse.

There is no visible evidence of collapse therefore Not(Sounds are from collapse).

What is the basis of you claiming Not(explosives)?

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter I'm not claiming Not-anything. I'm claiming building collapse. Of course, strictly, it wouldn't be the building collapse, it would be materials bending and crumbling which proceeds the collapse. Specifically I believe such sound is from the sagging of floors, and attached perimeter columns, and materials which are broken apart as the columns and trusses bend and sag. Until one of the faces completely fails, and the building falls, without it's support.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter 10:21 am.

And what is the basis that you are claiming explosives?

[StevenM818]

@pjnlsn

All the evidence points towards explosives. And all the evidence shows that there's been a cover-up of that evidence. There were explosions reported by witnesses & recorded by cameras seconds before the twin towers fell, including Building 7. For years NIST has denied any reports about explosions or evidence that they were captured on video. They also deny any evidence of molten iron, even though several experts on scene witnessed it. NIST also admits they never tested for explosives.

[pjnlsn]

@StevenM818 All the evidence, or all the *lack* of evidence? If it's the fact that certain kinds of evidence don't exist, and this is suspicious, then let me say this: people fill in gaps in their knowledge with what they expect to be there. I'm sure you're convinced of the existence of high explosives or powerful incendiaries, but not everyone believes as you do.

[StevenM818]

@pjnlsn

Before I proceed further with you I'd like to ask you a few simple questions. Do you believe NIST conducted an honest and thorough investigation, that presented the truth for why the twin towers and Building 7 failed? Do you believe Building 7 fell from fire and structural damage? If not, do you think there should be another official investigation into why the WTC fell?

[pjnlsn]

@StevenM818 I believe they all fell from fire and structural damage. As far as an honest and thorough investigation, I don't think a certain higher standard of thoroughness was achieved, nor was attempted. This was not a scientific investigation, per se. Hard science is rigorous and full of tedium, but it tends to make the truth brilliantly obvious. That all being said, you should not attribute to malice what can adequately be described by stupidity, just don't rule out malice.

[StevenM818]

@pjnlsn

"I believe they all fell from fire and structural damage"

Sorry but I refuse to waste any more of my time on you. Your page says you're only 20 years old, & it's quite obvious, from reading your comments, that the stage of your research still lies in infancy. Perhaps after you've spent as much time as I or others (such as ae911truth w/ 1400 architects and engineers) who've studied and shredded this case to bits for several years, you will reverse your inaccurate conclusion. Good luck!

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn f) The apparent similarity of the collapses despite differences in tower design (specifically the hat truss), damage type and collapse onset mode.

3) Positive proof (these are highly disputed for obvious reasons):

a) The thermite study has been attacked largely on ad hominem grounds. There have been replications of all the key claims and no published refutation.

b) The type of damage seen on the columns. Some of these damage types are very unlikely to have been caused by gravity.

[pjnlsn]

@StevenM818 There are still questions, but none of them revolve around conspiracies, not even that by Al-Qaeda. The questions are in engineering, and they ask how these buildings collapsed, and what parts of their design should we avoid, and what parts should we redesign, so as to prevent future buildings from this kind of catastrophe.

The difference between lacking rigor and actively misleading those who would read your reports is very great, and I do not see the latter.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn The second problem related to the first issue is that all gravitational theories rely on some form of solid rigid upper body to perform the crushing work:

a) Bazant's solid block crush-up crush down.

b) A flat pancake type floor collapse to produce the 'air pressure' ejections.

c) A wedge shape mass of material to produce the bowing of the exterior columns while simultaneously continue the progression.

None of these have any basis in empirically demonstrated physical reality.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn 2) Some features of the collapse are most likely not explicable by gravitation alone.

These include:

a) The highly localized ejections.

b) The completeness of the collapse (no tower stub remains).

c) The rapidity of the collapse (debatable for the twins but not so much for WTC7)

d) The sound evidence presented here (which does not match any gravitation only descriptions known to me)

e) The apparent symmetry of the collapses despite a highly asymmetrical onset in at least one tower.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn c) The angle cuts on the columns. I am actually on my third reconsideration of this famous image - the major problem is that the alternative hypothesis (thermic lances during cleanup) does not appear to make this kind of straight edge cut and I have not seen angled cuts made by them.

d) The general state of dissociation of the debris suggestion more energy than gravity alone could provide.

4) Sociological issues: The behavior of the Bush admin and security apparatus before and after.

[pjnlsn]

@StevenM818 You need to be more specific. If you mean explosives as: 'things which explode,' then sure, the towers were just riddled with explosives. Every inch of those buildings, explosive!

On the other hand, if you mean high explosives, then, no. Did anybody hear C4 going off? Had anybody nearby even heard what a true explosive sounds like before the attack?

Go on and talk about quiet 'explosives' i.e. thermite, but know that lack of evidence for something else is not evidence for anything.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn "And what is the basis that you are claiming explosives?"

Look at all the information known about the buildings coming down. Now constrain your domain of knowledge only to what you can observe and known empirically demonstrated physical law.

What is the simplest and most powerful hypothesis to explain the event. Explosives.

I don't care about your terrorist scares and fears about political stability. Only what the evidence that is directly relevant at that level will support.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter If any comparisons are going to be made, you first are going to explain yourself. Details!

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn "Details!"

You know them as well as I do, stop stalling.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter I've never actually heard any from someone who thinks there were explosives. People throw out kinds of explosives, it 'could' have been thermite, witnesses heard some loud noises some time. No one has made it coherent. I've acquired the belief that none of you really knows what you're talking about. But feel free to contradict that belief.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn "But feel free to contradict that belief."

Okay, I'll indulge. Bear in mind space is short.

The major issues that non-explosive explanations for the collapse face are:

1) No precedents for the proposed mode of gravitational collapse, they all exist in the minds of the theorists.

The biggest single problem in this regard is the supposed 'thermal expansion' theories' for sudden global collapse onset as required. These have never been demonstrated to occur in sufficient magnitudes.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter As gases are released by combustion, the nearby air molecules are pushed aside. If gases are released from a point faster than the nearby air molecules can respond, which is essentially the speed of sound, then they build up around the combustion source, and depending on the difference between reaction speed and speed of sound in the appropriate medium, the air molecules dislodged will propagate a pressure wave, of higher and higher frequency with a higher reaction speed.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter In essense, a combustion reaction proceeding faster than the speed of sound releases a sonic boom into every direction, a stacked pressure wave off of every air molecule dislodged at reaction speed.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn "a combustion reaction proceeding faster than the speed of sound releases a sonic boom into every direction"

Slower than speed of sound: Conflagration

Faster than speed of sound: Detonation

Relevance: Zero

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter The 'sound' of the reaction, as in sound created in the combustion itself, is something to be eliminated as to make the reaction more efficient. However, the sound wave from the rapid volume increase cannot, unless a different material be devised in which the reaction speed is lowered. However, this lessens the, say, destructive potential of the material.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter So, no a perfectly efficient high explosive, would have a sort of 'pwang' sound, which cannot be eliminated. RDX is quite efficient as it is.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter Explosives produce sound evidence. Thermite produce oxidized metals. As neither were found in quantity, is it not reasonable to conclude that none existed?

By in quantity, it is as I said that while we cannot say there were zero blocks of C4 ignited, we can say that there were not a significant amount to produce evidence in sound. We can also say that as there were not a significant amount of thermite packages ignited so as to produce significant evidence in material remnants.

[DarkwingScooter]

@pjnlsn No, you are incorrectly confusing explosives with high explosives and assuming that because the RDX does its work by means of a pressure wave which produces a distinctive sound signature ALL explosives (note: not high explosives) must work in the same way to be efficient.

This is simply false and incorrect reasoning.

Thermate is an example of an explosive reaction (as distinguished from a detonation) that does not rely primarily on the explosion to do the work.

[pjnlsn]

@DarkwingScooter As far as I know, the word 'explosive' doesn't refer to a specific material, but to any combustion reaction which proceeds reasonably fast. I meant high explosive whenever I said 'explosive.' A rather unspecific word.

Yes, you're right as thermite reactions do not release gases, even thermite engineered for reaction speed won't release a pressure wave like high explosive, as the volume increase is not usually significant. I.e. Iron oxide + Al becomes Al-Oxide + Iron.

[PeakedEarth]

Nice work... we are all asleep though... and I bet there is some sports game on tv I could be watching. I was at ground zero on 9/11. Those buildings were brought down by explosives. I watched and even said to a friend there is no way they would fall.... great work.... and I heard the explosions load and clear without headphones. I also heard them standing there.

[amy2x]

Good video. I like the ending with the eye.

My theory is there also was bombs going off while the area was in-golfed in the cloud of debris. In WTC-7 and some surrounding buildings.

[IranContraScumDid911]

Very Good. Added to the favs. Thanks Steve.

[Airave]

Keep up the good work. Thanks.

[simonty1811]

so what is the theory? bombs were placed at the base of the building? Watch how the building falls. The top of the building above the impact zone falls first. The structure below the impact zone remains stationary until the top half has collapsed. If an explosion occured at the base of the building, you would see the entire building collapse together. Yes there may be sounds that occurred prior to the collapse but its a stretch to conclude that these were bombs planted previously et al.

[reefcut]

@simonty1811

GOVERNMENT TROLL!

Like it is impossible to set the explosives to destroy the floors above the impact point and then destroy the rest of the building a floor at a time. Go and annoy the people on the X factor videos or get yourself an aspartame rich coca cola zero from the fountain at your '50 cent army' headquarters.

[wickedroy]

@simonty1811 the building was demolished with planted explosives idiot

[xxNutcasexx]

@simonty1811 If that's your argument then watch building 7 fall just the way you describe if explosion occurred at base.

[simonty1811]

@xxNutcasexx building 7 is another matter. I didn't comment on that.

[StevenM818]

@simonty1811

Thanks for the comment. I know it's hard to accept, or even consider those buildings were destroyed with explosives. But the more you study what happened, it should become clear that explosives were used. I could fill hours of videos and comments with evidence proving it, but I don't have that kind of time right now. Check out the website ae911truth. It's a US based organization with nearly 1,400 architects & engineers who've studied the WTC & have concluded explosives were used.

[simonty1811]

@StevenM818 hmmm thanks for your saner response. As opposed to others such as "your a gov troll" or "you're an idiot". Hilarious. I have indeed checked out the truther sites - all possible. I have studied it over a number of months. All that I can say is that I don't know what happened. All I am prepared to admit is that there is more to the incident than meets the eye.

[StevenM818]

@simonty1811

I hear ya. Unfortunately when we comment on videos we open ourselves up to ridicule from an occasional A-hole (on both sides of the debate). I for one don't doubt your intentions at all. That's why I showed you respect in my previous comment. I checked out your channel & you definitely passed the "government troll" smell test LOL. You said: "there is more to the incident than meets the eye". Agreed. If you have time check out "Core Of Corruption". It connects many of the dots...

[0urGaia]

@simonty1811, their is another video that shows top antenna falling before anything else moved (after tremor that lasted few seconds). Looks as if central support columns fell first, pulling exterior support walls down. So what appears to look like a top level collapse for exterior may indeed be a bottom level collapse of interior.

[DarkwingScooter]

@simonty1811 Actually, if you watch a couple of controlled demos you will notice that the crimp usually precedes the main charge and pre-weakening is the norm.

Sometimes the time between the first charge and the main phase collapse can be quite long.

[DarkwingScooter]

@simonty1811 Read through your comment again. Why do you assume if there were bombs they must have been at the base?

That is a pretty big unsupported assumption your making there.

[simonty1811]

@DarkwingScooter I don't need to read through my comments again. My assumption is based on the fact that a bomb at the base is the most effective to bring a building down. Or atleast some way below the impact zone. The weight of the buildng would then fall in on itself. The alternative is that the bomb was planted around the impact zone? Extremely unlikely. The whole incident is very suspicious, however an even bigger assumption is that the US go was responsible.

[DarkwingScooter]

@simonty1811 Again, your hypothesis is incorrect in at least three counts:

1) Refer to the style of demolition known as Verinage, of which there are plentiful examples on Youtube. A direct falsification of your assumption.

2) You incorrectly assume that efficiency had to necessarily be a goal. There is no reason to believe this is the case, so it is pure unsupported speculation.

3) You assume that what you describe would have been the most efficient in this building given the desired parameters.