Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited.

reply to post by Damocles


I would agree with your assessment. On scene we have never consulted with a building owner on what course we should take. We dont have to ask for permission to withdrawal from a unsafe structure/scene. We dont even tell them we are pulling out. I find it hard to believe that Mr Silverstein would even have access to a Chief during a event such as this, no matter who he thinks he is.

Damocles, do gaseous explosions, like thermobarics, have a low frequency footprint?
Probably, the answer depends on the material and form of the container(s) holding the ingredients.


If I fill a strong plastic garbage bag with a mix of Acetylene gas and oxygen gas from a official gas supplier (to cut steel and iron), close it with a tie rip, with a slow burning LONG lunt-cord inside, and detonate it, you will hear quite an impressive low frequency detonation, which you will feel more in your stomach than hear in your ears, when you situate yourself at some distance.

Disclaimer : don't do this in your neighbourhood at New Years eve, the windows of your or your neighbours houses will break, when a big bag is used.
Do it in an open field, and use a LONG cord, or else.....
Gas can leak very easily and ignite premature....

A more sophisticated example can be made from a plastic container, with a firecracker glued gas-tight inside the container-lid, with its lunt sticking outside through a tiny hole drilled in the lid. Fill the gases mixture in, and close the lid. Etc....

Be damn careful, these homemade devices are much more powerful than you would expect. Especially using thick-walled containers, or even tin-plate ones.

reply to post by LaBTop


yeah they would probably have low frequency signatures but they also have much less power than a solid explosive would and they tend to not do nearly the structural damage that a solid would. sure if you set one off inside of a house you may even pop the windows depending on the size, but its unlikely that unless you filled a room with gas that your going to do much damage.

also, consider that for it to be strong enough to say, show up on a seizmograph, it would have to be very large.

yes, the sound frequency would have a lowrange component but there would stll be a VERY significant audible signature from any such device. acetalyne will have less audible than say...propane would and a plastic bag full of propane is going to have less audible than say, a large cylander in a BLEVE situation, but of the bag or bleve, which is more likely to be an effective blasting device?

the video of the guys near a payphone, im guessing of course, but to me that was more indicative of a gas explosion (or even a steampipe?) than say a cratering charge or a breaching charge.

so i appreciate the question, i like things that make me think a little, but im unsure as to the point?

reply to post by LaBTop


OH i nearly forgot. and this isnt even my place to say it but im going to since it is something ive had to try to work around in the past many times...be careful when you post anything that could be taken as instructions on how to make ANYTHING that could go boom. speaking in abstract terms is one thing but explaining anything that any 12yo could go do right now is quite another (hey, i know 12yo's when i was that age that had access to dads cutting torch on the farm...)

we dont need to do an ats anarchists cookbook or have improvised demo 101.

something to consider. just a suggestion as id never consider telling you what or how to do.

peace

delete


[edit on 20-12-2007 by albie]

Damocles, the point is that we are left with only a few options regarding eventual explosives used on the demolition of these 3 buildings, if you come to a point where you start to accept a demolition.
One option : the used ordnance must have a very low frequency footprint, according to the video of 911Eyewitness Rick Siegel.
And since there were no sharp, loud cracking sounds of HE to be heard on the collapse videos.

Thanks to ZeuZZ, from his excellent post here :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This video is probably the best angle to see the symmetrical (demolition) ring running at freefall speed down the building :

www.youtube.com...

This is the clearest example of demolition traces running down the building's facades, especially when you see the inverted colour footage at the very end of this BBC video footage from the collapse of WTC 2, south tower, the first collapse.
Watch first the black bulb emanating many floors under the demolition front, then see the sudden black bulb enfolding just in front of the crashing down demolition front ring of smoke, bursting out of all the buildings faces.

I used this exact video btw a few years back to prove that the total collapse time of the total structure of the building must have been about 12 + 12 seconds, since you can count the seconds after the first sign of implosion on WTC 2 faces, until the first big chunk of perimeter column packet thunders into the Plaza's ground level, at 12 seconds. At that point, still about half of the building stands. Thus about 12 more seconds were needed to let the last rubble come to rest.

EDIT : forgot to mention to pay attention at the last seconds of this video, the very indicative horizontal line of demolition-smoke ejections emanating from the reinforced service floors, the black band around the building (they had no windows, only louvres). These floors had to be taken out just before the demolition front reached them, so it wasn't as obvious as if they had done that a few seconds earlier.
It still however, is crystal clear to see that the reinforced concrete floors were blown out.

I also forgot to mention, that a recent Russian army video I posted in my thermobaric thread, shows how a huge concrete complex was blown to smithereens by one of the LATESTS thermobaric devices, and in the last few shots, you see that all the concrete had turned to fine DUST and small concrete chunks, just like as we saw in the WTC debris.

[edit on 20/12/07 by LaBTop]

I think it's wise to take the time now, to (re)read my thread about thermobaric devices :

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And then observe the overlaying of the two 3D seismic fingerprint graphs of the collapses of the South and North Towers by LCSN at Palisades LDEO seismic station in NY State, done by Rick Siegel or the Blue Media Group publishers of the 9/11Eyewitness video :

Google Video Link

Source : video.google.co.uk...

They conclude that the identical sharp peaks placements in the two graphs indicate the use of HE, High Explosives, at the initiation of the collapses.

Watch this video where you can see the ring of demolition charges going off, one by one.
(This is a different one than the other one I posted, it's bigger)
Source : www.youtube.com...
Damning WTC demolition charges exposed.

im not going to bother quoting much cuz you know what you typed and im simply too lazy right now.

ok, the slowest "high explosives" i have data for detonate at approximatly 8000fps and is fairly weak (RE factor of .42) and the strongest detonate at over 26000fps (re factor of 1.34)

so, the speed of the detonation is going to determine the frequency of the sound to a degree. (think guitar strings. thin ones vibrate faster and have a higher frequency, conversly the thicker ones vibrate slower and have a lower frequency) anything with a low enough frequency to go undetected is simply not going to have the power to do the job.

in the first video of your second post they again discuss the magnitudes of the seizmic events and say they register right at 2 on the scale yet based on what the seizmologist is on record as saying, blasts from the same distance away that register between 1 and 2 are caused by 80,000lbs of explosives going off. most quarries use anfo so the more efficient equivilant to that is C4 which would take 25000lbs.

so, even something with an RE factor of 50 would STILL require 672 lbs and would release the same energy. so no matter how you read that, if 672lbs of something would register as a 1-2 magnitude on their scales, its going to be VERY loud becuase its releasing that same energy much faster.

im not in college anymore so i dont have access to a chem professor, so if anyone wants to ask one if its possible to even make even in theory something chemical based thats 50 times stronger than tnt. imagine the military implications. you could start putting more bombs on a bomber becuase you only need 1/50th of the ordinance for the same job.

but, after all of this we're back to my opening post. for the size of the seizmic event you'd need 12.5tons of C4 and theres just no way possible in this dimension that it happened.

so, i really admire all of the work youve put into your research and i still think you make several valid points insofar as the time discrepancies and the fall times. but, those initial seizmic events werent caused by explosives. i know that you didnt start that particular theory, but the guys at 911eyewitness are wrong.

also consider this, IF it was some far out there exotic explosive that caused ultra low frequencies, wouldnt the length of the initial spike be longer? thats a totally hypothetical question but youve made me think outside the box.

now about the second video in your second post. if you watch the left margin of the building and see the first jet of debris you will notice something. it starts, and then keeps jetting material. explosives wont do this. any jets like that caused by explosives would be initiated by the pressure wave of the explosive and drop off instantly becuase the pressure wave is over almost as soon as it starts. if anyone wants to contend that the HE overpressurized the whole floor and the increased pressure in the room did it, then i would contend that to overpressure a square acre 8' tall with enough pressure to do that, it wouldnt be so covert. you can hear the last charges going off in other CD's after the building starts to fall so how'd they have enough to pressureize (and im really not sure how you would overpressureize a room for more than an instant anyway but im trying to think outside the box...) a large area without the sound carrying out even over the sounds of the collapse im not sure. but thats one area i wont stand on as fact. i wasnt there so i dont know exactly how loud the collaspe was...but even using my model of 172lbs/floor id bet 100usd that you'd hear it. (and 172lbs is NOT enough to pressureize a room enough to make a continuous jet "squib")

so, IMO we're back to where i started in my OP and if anything im more sure of my thesis. i like to try to stand by the "anything is possible" (without being gullable of course) but i cant see how the seizmic spikes recorded at the initiation of collapse was explosives. the evidence just doesnt support it once you plug actual numbers into it

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Damocles]

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Damocles]

[edit on 21-12-2007 by Damocles]

Did you read and follow all my links in my thread about thermobarics?
And did you see the diagram of a thermobaric detonation in a confined space LIKE A BUILDING AS THE WTC TOWERS :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I hope you to listen to these two pod-casts, and pay attention to the 7 seconds difference, according to William Rodriguez, between the first huge explosion in the BASEMENTS, and the actual IMPACT and JET-FUEL EXPLOSION FAR ABOVE of the plane.
In those 7 seconds he and many others saw a coloured guy from Nicaragua who used to fill the vending machines, come running into the lobby, with his skin hanging off his hands and arms to his shoulders, and half of the skin hanging off his left face, SCREAMING : Explosion, explosion.

www.podtrac.com... Part 1
www.podtrac.com... Part 2

So damn-it, please let nobody start that old lie again, that jet-fuel passed all the way down to the basement, and only THEN exploded (yeah, sure: ), when you hear William clearly prove that there were SEVEN SECONDS between the TWO explosions, one down, the later one up.

So how could the jet fuel, streaming down a 400 meter high elevator shaft, which fuel wasn't there at all, 7 seconds before, could EVER caused the first, basement explosion.

Damocles, look it up in the links for thermobarics I provided.

One by-product of a MODERN Thermobaric (not a FAE from the far past!) is terribly burned victims with their skin peeled off, if they were "lucky enough" to be far enough from the center of detonation of the piezo-electric charge for the secondary explosion which detonates the cloud.

BTW, Willie Rodriguez is on the no-flying, first interrogate, list of Homeland Security.
Any more totally idiotic politicians in the USA able of coming up with this kind of decisions?

BTW, Thanks a BIG time to ATS, to let Willie AT LAST tell his FULL story, without cutting him off, like ALL the main media anchors did to him in all his public interviews.

ok, read the thermobarics thread and followed a lot of the links, (great thread by the way. lot of interesting reading) but not all. im getting ready to crash for the night. BUT i did see the diagrams about the TB vs HE in confined space and the overpressure graphs.

so, using your graphs as a basis i would like to point out a few things.

the first is that if you noticed the initial over pressure spike is LARGER for a standard HE. based on your graph would you agree with that?
if so then you have to realize that while it takes 12.5tons of c4 to register a 1-2 on the richter 17miles away (or so) then you would need a proportionally LARGER explosion from a TB to get the same seizmic data. (i couldnt say with certainty HOW much larger as i dont have any RE factors at the moment for a TB and it would also vary depending on what material they used for the airborne portion of it)

next is that a TB explosion has a longer period of underpressure so what you should see from the "squibs" is that instead of a constant under pressure jet of material, you get a jet and you should see at least SOME of it sucked back in (not likley from the ones preceding the collapse wave but certainly from the ones lower down)

last, and this goes true for any CD theory (except thermite but lets not even go there, id have to gouge out my eyes) you would HAVE to see/hear the first explosion in the seconds before you see the collapse initiate. becuase even though you see something before you hear it, you may be watching, you'd see it start to fall then hear it, you'd still hear the blast first becuase the sounds of the collapse are not going to overtake the sound waves of the blast and drown them out. its not like an indy car passing a geo metro on the highway.

so, while i still admire the work youve put in, i havnt found anything anywhere that would suggest im wrong when i say that the observed evidence doesnt support the presense of any type of preplaced explosive device be it conventional HE OR TB device.

now, i havnt listened to the podcasts yet, wife is asleep so i keep my volume off but just from all of the times ive read wilies testimony, (and it has seemed to change, does he address that in the podcasts?) i still have a few lingering questions and they are illustrated in the following quote:

Originally posted by LaBTop
I hope you to listen to these two pod-casts, and pay attention to the 7 seconds difference, according to William Rodriguez, between the first huge explosion in the BASEMENTS, and the actual IMPACT and JET-FUEL EXPLOSION FAR ABOVE of the plane.

7 seconds. not 5? not 90? not 2? does everyone look at their watch when they hear a loud noise or explosion? it just seems to be very specific. being a paranoid sort i almost feel its TOO specific but thats just a gut reaction.

In those 7 seconds he and many others saw a coloured guy from Nicaragua who used to fill the vending machines, come running into the lobby, with his skin hanging off his hands and arms to his shoulders, and half of the skin hanging off his left face, SCREAMING : Explosion, explosion.

so, JUST so that i understand what youre saying. in 7 seconds there was an explosion BELOW HIM and a man came from there up to the lobby and started screaming explosion, and THEN the plane hit. do i have that right?

so, guy below the floor willie is on, is in an explosion, has time to gather his wits and go upstairs by whatever means (stairs? elevator?) in 7 seconds? while he's injured to the point he's got chunks of skin hanging off his body? yeah, i know shock can do a lot to a person but if anything id expect him to be moving pretty slow after that.

someone PLEASE tell me that im not the only one who reads that and is left scratching his head..

Originally posted by LaBTop
BTW, Willie Rodriguez is on the no-flying, first interrogate, list of Homeland Security.
Any more totally idiotic politicians in the USA able of coming up with this kind of decisions?

lol i just had to add...i seemed to be on that list for a while. i couldnt get on a plane without being "randomly" selected for "extra screening"

(gee a demo/wmd expert who's got a current suit with the govt and is disgruntled needing extra security screening? imagine that lol)

Well, I'll wait for you to wake up, and then wait until you have heard the whole 1.5 hour interview with William Rodriguez.
There you will definitely find all the answers to your Rodriguez questions from above last post of yours.

In the mean time I will study a bit more the arguments you have offered.

For me, the only left problem is to explain to myself, what kind of source caused that huge seismic disturbance, before the global collapse of WTC 7 commenced.

In the case of accepting a human hand in this, we must also assume these hands wanted to be unseen through the whole demolition process.

So they will have planned for a hidden programming of the collapse process, but as I said before, it seems that WTC 7 had to go in concert with WTC 1, but somehow this misfired, and it kept standing, with a relatively small corner gash where we have pictures of, and some unseen and unclear damage elsewhere.
Not much to lean on for the official explainers, neither for us, the disbelievers of a lot of their explanations.
In that case they had to quickly improvise, and go by the contingency plan B.
Which must have been placement of quite destructive charges, which would have had a very low audible footprint.

That's why I keep looking for help with finding methods of destruction, which fit the low frequency footprint, and if possible also all 3 collapse video footage.

I have thought about that fairly new expansion-demolition powder, which if filled into a boxed-off type of steel column, and then whetted, will expand with such a tremendous force, that it will spread the column or beam open like a tulip.
That stuff is totally soundless, except the shearing noises of the metal.

I have also thought about some kind of huge oscillating device, hidden in the basements, which could create an intensive oscillation of the main columns, and causing the bolds and welds to break.
Since I don't know yet of such a device, it lands in the SF corner, for now.

Then I have really done my best to come up with a reasonable explanation of the sulfurized steel beams found from WTC 7 or WTC 1 and 2.
Some kind of acidification of the inside of H and I beams perhaps, or a very caustic gas filling, or whatever else we can come up with.

Both planes seemed to have impacting floors with acid filled rows of emergency power batteries. If we may believe the source of that info.

But for all this, there must have been a means of regulating those processes, in such a way as we have video proof of.
That's not easy.
But since I have proved that huge pre-running seismic energy packet for all 3 collapses, I still must find a solution for my problem.

Fuel Air Explosives and Thermobaric explosives compared :



Source : www.youtube.com...

If you watch that video at 3:00 to 3:30 you'll see that for a FAE, a fuel air explosive :
1. the explosion releases white to grayish smoke,
2. the secondary, most devastating explosion is nearly smoke-less.
In fact, you see the figure being shredded in small pieces by an overpressure wave.

If you watch it at 3:38 to 4:00 you'll see that for a TBE, a thermo baric explosive :
1. He says that normally, a thermobaric device would be used INSIDE a BUILDING,
2. Now when we see the effect in the outside,
At 3:50 to the end,
3. We see that a TBE emanates whitish smoke,
4. A relatively small, bright flash in the centre of the combined explosion.

Watch the flashes going off in the whitish/grayish rings of explosive dust clouds emanating from the WTC tower collapse initiation in the following video :



Source : www.youtube.com...

In other videos from further away, you all saw the strange huge implosion effects of huge parts of billowing collapse dust and small debris getting sucked back in the center of the demolition.
If this was planned so meticulous, they could take the risk to ignite the real big TBE building busters right during that stage, when heaps of smoke would be produced already, which would mask these building crunchers detonations.
Huge TBE's create an immense vacuum, since they lightning fast burn up all oxygen from the available portion of air, that's about 20 percent of the air.

Powder Game 2.8 - Thermobaric Bomb / MotherOfAllBombs / FatherOAB, showing the vacuum effect in blue :



Source : www.youtube.com...

In this following Russian video of the detonation of a huge thermobaric over a concrete complex, you see the same left-over fine dust and cement particles as on Ground Zero at the WTC complex after the collapses :

Test of new russian vacuum aerosol bomb, see the dust at 01:05 to 01:30 :



Source : www.youtube.com...

This following one is part of the same video, with English commentary, but NO DUST shown :
Russian Vacuum Bomb :



Source : www.youtube.com...

These Russians are saying "It contains about seven tons of high explosives compared with more than eight tons for the Moab but is four times more powerful because it uses a new type of explosives developed with the use of nanotechnology".

This is a video already watched 2,630,024 times, and commented on 17423 times :
9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!



Source : www.youtube.com...

About This Video
Bombs, explosions, secondary explosions, explosive devices....how many more times do we need to hear these words being said by 9/11 witnesses before we start asking questions about what really happened on that awful day?

This video shows that many actual 9/11 witnesses heard and saw explosions going off inside the towers, long before they actually fell. These witnesses include police, firemen and mainstream media reporters.

And what is even more shocking is the fact that all of this has been ignored by the mainstream media.

We really need to wake up to the facts and ask questions. If we don't, what does that say about us?

And for those paid or unpaid debunkers who try to ridicule videos like this, please save your breath. No, there were NO gas pipes in the twin towers. And the sound of TV's exploding is nothing like as loud as the repeated explosions that were heard all over the towers. And finally, the reason why some of the lip movements of the speakers do not quite match up with the audio is because YouTube compresses videos into FLV format which causes the video and audio to fall out of sync.

And of course you have to consider from now on, the officially unexplainable energy burst depicted in the seismic records of the 3 building collapses, before any one of them started to globally collapse.


Damocles, why are we still bickering about calculations using HE data from your era and your allowed experience (there will be other He's, FAE and TBE's which you have never get near to, we may suspect), when in fact we are looking for a kind of new demolition explosive, which has a few scary properties :
1. no or nearly no traces of its use afterwards (a gas, dispersing in the air)
2. low frequency sound of detonation
3. huge vacuum effect (peoples lungs get sucked out)
4. small initiation flashes
5. whitish to grayish smoke emanation
6. huge overpressure that crushes cement and concrete
7. lower than HE detonation speed, 3 to 4 km/sec

Btw, did you ever ask yourself where all that black smoke went that was billowing out of the top parts of the towers, when global collapse initiated for all 3 towers ?

""where do you expect all the air and smoke INSIDE the building to go if the ceiling COLLAPSES down onto it? ... ""

Did you pay attention ?
What colour had the SMOKE billowing out the building before collapse?
Yes, black, sooty black.
What colour have the smoke rings bursting out of the collapsing rows of floors?

Ye...ehh, No, not black at all, but white or light grey.
What does that tell you?

That the collapse did NOT START at the floors of the plane impact, to begin with, and certainly not at the floors above that point, which were smoldering, as can be seen by the black sooth rich, oxygen starved indicative colour of that smoke billowing out just before initiation of collapse.

And where would one expect initiation of a natural collapse?
Well, best chance for that would be at floors still having "raging" fires in them, so, those floors which could have some load bearing columns or beams in them, heated above such points that the steel would have had time to soften. (NIST found no steel heated above 600° Celsius, btw)

Most of the fires went already several floors up, leaving the initially impacted floors and left these behind, to cool down again.
And steel does a fairly fast job of spreading heat to other connected components.
And the wind at that height also did a fine cooling job on floors not on fire anymore.

reply to post by Damocles


When you factor in eyewitness testimony like William Rodriguez that seems to indicate explosions in the basement before the North Tower was struck, coupled with the following testimony about what happened before the South Tower collapsed.

whatreallyhappened.com...

"Shortly before the first tower came down I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running...." [Bradley Mann, Lieutenant (E.M.S.)

"We felt the ground shake. You could see the towers sway and then it just came down and I never looked back once I started running." [Lonnie Penn, E.M.T. (E.M.S.)]

all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet. ... The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing." [Paul Curran, Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]

See the following link for more on the ground shaking
whatreallyhappened.com...

When you put this together with what LapTop is saying surely this is cause for alarm.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Damocles, why are we still bickering about calculations using HE data from your era and your allowed experience (there will be other He's, FAE and TBE's which you have never get near to, we may suspect),

well, my era so to speak only ended 6 years ago, the army hasnt fielded new explosives for blasting ops in nearly 30 years. i still talk to people in the army engineer corps and nothing new's been fielded in those 6 years. i use the data from my era as its factual data and isnt it always best to base discussions of this type in fact? with verifiable data? (i mean you wouldnt just take my say so would you? you'd want to be able to verify what i say yeah?) if we're not going to base in fact we're only speculating and then we might as well say it was anything. (holograms and space lasers anyone?)

7. lower than HE detonation speed, 3 to 4 km/sec

i dont disagree with the other 6 points but this one is most relevant. this is actually faster det velocity than anfo if i did the math right. 3km/s is 3000m/s is 9750fps ((3000*39)/12=9750) anfo=8900fps

so, while i wont deny that a TB would do a lot of damage in an enclosed area, i have to say that it would likely take a LARGE explosion to fail the building. heres why. to cut steel columns with explosives 3 are really only 3 ways. put shape charges around the column, doesnt take much (relativly speaking) to cut each one. in the case of the columns at the 66th floor its around 3.5lbs/ea. you can put C4 (or equivilant) on each one which would take 23.4lbs/ea. or, you can do a brute force blast which means that youre explosive has to have enough oomph to bust them all without being in contact with them. remember the truck bomb in 93 wasnt big enough (and honestly in the wrong place...not sure that mattered much though)

now, i know youre looking for some ultra low frequency explosive that no one would hear...but TB's arent THAT low frequency. im not sure its even physically possible to have an EXPLOSIVE that was such a low frequency as to be relativly silent (remember it would take a large explosion to do a brute force blast of the core columns)

so, i know you think my calculations are irrelevant, but they are quite relevant. in order for a CD theory to make sense and fit the observed events you have to understand how much explosive, of any kind, would be necessary to bring down the buildings. IF you do the math and realize that it would take an explosion on a magnitude that was so large you couldnt hide it, then you realize that based on the evidence, there was no explosion like that observed.

so even going on the high end of your posted det velocites, that puts it at ~13000fps, which would ROUGHLY equal something with an RE factor of .65 which means that to create a seizmic spike of ~2 you would need the EQUIVILANT of 51000lbs of tnt (and i rounded down)(admittedly i had to SWAG this as TB typically fall into the realm of aerial bombs and those dong get assigned RE factors so the previous figures were extrapolated from existing data and may be off a small (or large lol) amount, but id bet they are close enough as to illustrate my point)

now labtop, you too have seen poster after poster on many forums say how the falls "defied the laws of physics" yeah? can you honestly tell me that the idea of setting off an explosion equal to 25 tons of tnt doesnt defy the laws of physics?

""where do you expect all the air and smoke INSIDE the building to go if the ceiling COLLAPSES down onto it? ... ""

did i post that or someone else? its so hard to remember some days.

now im going to be honest, im not sure what point you were trying to make with the rest of the post ive quoted you from, are you saying that the collapse started lower than the impact zones even though thats what we see start to give out first?

because that raises another point, how would you use a thermobaric inside floors of a building that were on fire? as soon as your flamable material hit a spark...it may not detonate depending on the material but its likely it would burn which would cause your blast to be uneven, which is bad.
so the one thing i will agree is that IF this type of material was used, then it certainly wasnt on the impacted floors.

but then consider too, go a few floors lower and set off a TB, what should we have seen from nearly every window on that floor? either they all go shooting outward at once from the detonation. or they survived the detonation and get sucked into the vacuum (though since the building isnt sealed well enough for the falling debris to create a piston effect that causes air to bust out windows it certainly wouldnt be airtight enough for the momentary vacuum of a TB to suck any of them in right?)

last point to consider is that we're talking about a pretty big open area that is, as has been argued by many on the CT side, pretty rugged in construction. its going to take a decent sized device. you'd also want it pretty central in the area to insure an even filling of the space. that means it would likely have been sitting in the middle of the halway where the elevators were. no one noticed it? there were survivors afterall...

Damocles, have a look again at the other thread I mentioned,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and read my new posts there on page 3, regarding the shaped-charged effects of the latests thermobaric explosives there.
I think that these were used at the mechanical floors, and under the impact zones to initiate collapses.
Don't think that these were huge detonations, like you calculated.
These shaped-charged TBE's have a very different audio footprint than you expect, a small flash, and a fast bleeding off explosive force outside the perimeter of the discus formed triple explosion cloud.
But they can shatter massive steel parts of columns, tens of cm high, instead of cutting through them in a few cm spaced cut like HE cutter charges do.

Question :
What happens to the force, audio footprint and especially the seismic effect of a few massive standard HE cutting charge explosions meant to cut the base core columns, when the detonation is set off UNDER a few meters of water, in a confined space (floor, space filled with water, ceiling), compared to the same explosive force, set off in the same space, but now empty, so, not filled with water?
Because we have to find an explanation for these 3 identical pre-collapse energy pulses in all 3 towers, bigger than f.ex. the global collapse of WTC 7.

Would you even hear the same sharp short sounds of HE detonated in open air, if detonated in the fifth basement of the WTC towers?

Wouldn't the bathtub construction around the bases of both towers act as a sort of muffler, which would "translate" higher frequencies to lower ones, and subsequently send those low frequency sound waves through the Hudson River water masses, to the video and audio equipment of Rick Siegel, filming on that Pier, about one mile away, at the other side of the Hudson.

Originally posted by LaBTop
Damocles, have a look again at the other thread I mentioned,
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and read my new posts there on page 3, regarding the shaped-charged effects of the latests thermobaric explosives there.
I think that these were used at the mechanical floors, and under the impact zones to initiate collapses.
Don't think that these were huge detonations, like you calculated.
These shaped-charged TBE's have a very different audio footprint than you expect, a small flash, and a fast bleeding off explosive force outside the perimeter of the discus formed triple explosion cloud.
But they can shatter massive steel parts of columns, tens of cm high, instead of cutting through them in a few cm spaced cut like HE cutter charges do.

ive read your posts and ive watched the videos, and i just want to make sure im clear on something youre saying. are you saying that with a TBE you can set off a blast that will cut through 47 columns which have wall thicknesses of 2" and thicker, and the sound of this 8000fps detonation is going to bleed off before it gets to where someone would hear it audibly and distinctly? i just want to make sure im reading you correctly.

also i feel i really MUST make a clarification to anyone else reading this. MY calculations for what it would take to drop the building and what i calculated to cause the observed seismic data are TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS though in my opinion they both show that explosives likely were not used.

why you might ask? glad you asked. what i calculated would take to drop the towers is too small to register pretty much at all on the seizmic data and what i calculated (actually i didnt really calculate the one for seizmic data, i took known variables and simply made them more efficient if you paid attention to the first post in this thread) what it would take for the seizmic shocks was simply too big to go unnoticed by pretty much all of manhattan.

so, to clarify. to drop the towers its 172lbs/floor (though that number would get bigger the closer you got to the ground)

12.5 tons of C4 to register on the seizmic charts the magnitude we're discussing here.

Question :
What happens to the force, audio footprint and especially the seismic effect of a few massive standard HE cutting charge explosions meant to cut the base core columns, when the detonation is set off UNDER a few meters of water, in a confined space (floor, space filled with water, ceiling), compared to the same explosive force, set off in the same space, but now empty, so, not filled with water?

water would certainly dull the sound of the explosions but ive never done any real UDT so you'd be better off asking a seal honestly. but from what i know yes, it would be quieter....but...(more on that later)

Because we have to find an explanation for these 3 identical pre-collapse energy pulses in all 3 towers, bigger than f.ex. the global collapse of WTC 7.

this i agree with though, and i mean this with respect, i have come to question your objectivity in the matter. it seems that your opinion is that the ONLY way it could happen is through explosives and youve gone and done a LOT of research (very good research dont get me wrong here) to prove your point.

but, and this is my opinion, i dont think you quite have proven it in honesty.

yes, you have shown a video of a TBE destroying a concrete building. it was a 7 ton bomb if i recall correctly. so isnt drawing a comparison between the two not only innaccurate but possibly just a little misleading? (i would never say you were trying to be misleading please dont read it that way, jsut that someone without much knowledge of explosives may not see the difference and be (possibly) premature to make an opinion of the matter)

Wouldn't the bathtub construction around the bases of both towers act as a sort of muffler, which would "translate" higher frequencies to lower ones, and subsequently send those low frequency sound waves through the Hudson River water masses, to the video and audio equipment of Rick Siegel, filming on that Pier, about one mile away, at the other side of the Hudson.

again i want to insure that im reading correctly. are you saying the soundwaves went into the ground at the wtc, through the water, and THEN were audible on the other side of the river? is that corrrect? i just want to be sure im clear on such things.

becuase what it looks like to me is that youre trying to find a solution to a problem that involves a predetermined answer. you are looking for a way to register the equivilant of 12.5 tons of C4 on a seizmograph and STILL go pretty much unnoticed by the whole of lower manhattan.

i mean this with the utmost sincertity labtop as i really do respect the strength of your convictions, i admire that you are thinking outside the box and doing so very logically, probably moreso than most other 911 researchers. but, the key to thinking outside the box is that you kinda have to keep your eye on the box, doesnt matter how far away you get from it, just make sure you can still see it (its ok to use binoculars though )

Originally posted by LaBTop
I have thought about that fairly new expansion-demolition powder, which if filled into a boxed-off type of steel column, and then whetted, will expand with such a tremendous force, that it will spread the column or beam open like a tulip.
That stuff is totally soundless, except the shearing noises of the metal.

I've used a cellulose material fitting that description for breaking rock to erect power poles in areas where explosives would upset the locals. It expands greatly in all directions but it's not fast and it's very imprecise - basicly you bore about a 2" hole into the the rock then wet the material and pack it in then wait about an hour to see how much fractured rock you can get out then break out the jackhammers etc to finish the job. Definitely not adaptable to remote control of any kind.

reply to post by Pilgrum


i think he's referring more to something akin to an aqueous anfo or a gas (i hear xenon is nice for such applications but have never tried it) to fill the columns and bust them. so these are things that are going to be much more efficient than the thermobarics ive put together on the fly (improvised demo classes were SO much fun hehe) and honestly, nothing i built comes close to current stuff thermobaric wise.

so that begs the question, WERE the core columns busted open like tulips anywhere in their length?

ive never heard a single report that they may have been but, ill admit ive not read all the reports. honestly ive read very little of the nist or fema reports as they are unnecessary for the angle of this that i have any working knowledge of.