But the last Three Stooges film was made back in 1970. Why have we been withheld this information for THIRTY NINE YEARS!!!
Clearly this calls for a toothpick model.
Remind us all what you would have expected to be seen, had such explosives been used anywhere on the core columns?
Convince me all those problems are insurmountable.
No, but it does shut up all those who mocked the idea of “silent” explosives.
Somehow I’m hearing this in the back of my mind and thinking “Herewith begins a brand new SDMB catch phrase.”
No, we’re still mocking the idea. Explosives damage things by making a strong pressure wave that hits something strongly and suddenly. A pressure wave is the same thing as sound. You can’t have explosives without the accompanying loud bang.
Shouldn’t a member of the Science Advisory Board be addressing the ridiculous idea of “silent explosives”, rather than be evaluating possible new SDMB memes?
No. Because it’s, as you say, “ridiculous.” As I think it’s been mentioned before, if not here then in many other places, when the rubble was gone through there was never any detrius of a planned, controlled detonation found. No blasting caps, no detonation cords, no remote detonators, no manual detonators, no nothing. Nor did anyone report any evidence that the amount of physical preparation to the building was ever done. Just because the explosive may be silent does not mean that there is any less preparation for it or that it doesnt leave just as much evidence behind. It’s just not there.
[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
Bearing in mind that was in 1988 and who knows what improvements might have been made in the following 13 years, does anyone want to comment on this little fact?
[/QUOTE]
Since an explosion is the rapid release of energy, coupled some kind of thermal bloom and a pressure wave, I’d have to say ‘bullshit’. Certainly there are things that can be done to mitigate these effects (somewhat)…ways to dampen the sound, different types of explosive materials, etc. I believe that there are some ‘silent’ type explosives that are used in earth moving operations (‘silent’ meaning ‘not as loud as normal explosives’, not ACTUALLY silent).
But from your (one line, no cite) quote, they supposedly tossed this stuff at the base of a heavy iron door and blew it open. THAT is going to require quite a bit of energy transfer, with an associated shockwave…which, in practical terms equals sound. It might not be a particularly loud sound (especially if they set it up as a shaped charge and didn’t just drop it at the base of the door), but there is going to be SOME noise associated with it.
What’s your point though? Who cares if there was or wasn’t sound? How does this help your (I presume) case that sooper sekrit ‘silent’ explosives were used to take down the WTC buildings? Whether they were silent or make a lot of noise, you’d still need to have hooked up explosives to load bearing members in the building, then run det cord back to your detonator…or hooked up a ton of radio controls (with all of the associated problems with that), and done so when no one was looking. Again, it takes real demolition companies months to prep a building to bring it down…and it’s kind of obvious that they are doing it, since it entails stripping the concrete and other stuff from those load bearing members and then running all the cable infrastructure to each, setting up the explosives, safe-ing everything (to make sure it doesn’t go off prematurely), etc etc.
We won’t even talk about the fact that when real demo companies bring down a building they generally bring it down from the bottom up…they don’t, in general, start their explosions from somewhere in the middle of a building and leave it at that.
And this doesn’t even get into the fact that when you demo a building there is all kinds of evidence left behind…explosive residue, deformed trusses, det cord, evidence of the primers, etc etc etc etc etc. So…where is the EVIDENCE that ANY of this stuff was found? Unless, besides using sooper sekrit ‘silent’ explosives they also used magical ones that left no evidence…or, unless everyone who was part of the investigation was in on it…then there would be some kind of evidence left behind. Where is it? As with the supposed missile that shot down one of the planes, and the supposed cruise missile (or whatever) that took out the Pentagon, that evidence stuff is, sadly, lacking.
-XT
Would you really expect a cite for Mossad operational tactics involving the assassination of an enemy of the state? I’d have thought the author mentioned would be astute enough to know if he was being bullshitted on such a matter?
Do you want to describe what the remnants of such explosive charges would look like among however many tons of rubble the towers consisted of after the collapses? And how many of the onsite rubble-removing team were trained in identifying such devices?
Can I see a cite that declares every single scrap of rubble from the complex was examined for such devices?
Sure. As soon as you show us a cite that provides positive evidence that silent explosives were used.
[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
Would you really expect a cite for Mossad operational tactics involving the assassination of an enemy of the state? I’d have thought the author mentioned would be astute enough to know if he was being bullshitted on such a matter?
[/QUOTE]
As you said, it was in 1988…so, a cite showing what the ‘silent’ explosive was isn’t unreasonable, by this point. As for being bullshitted…maybe yes, maybe no. However, in my own experience with intelligence types, they love to embellish a story (or misdirect, just for drill), and exaggerations or out right fabrication isn’t exactly unknown. Maybe, for whatever reason, the author you quoted wanted to make it SEEM like Israel had some magic, silent means to open the door…or, maybe the author was protecting a source (perhaps someone just let the assassination team in, and the Israeli’s didn’t want said person to get whacked for their participation). Or, perhaps they used a shaped charge explosive that caused less noise than normal.
I can think of any number of reasonable explanations, but the thing is, it’s a moot point. Whether or not they had ‘silent’ explosives is really irrelevant. For my part, my BS detector is twitching, as I can’t see how you could blow open a heavy iron door with an explosive device that made no sound. But even if they did…so what?
Assuming they wanted to bring the buildings down with explosives, I’d expect to see some kind of evidence, even in tons of rubble. The biggest piece of evidence would be the explosive deformation of the load bearing members. I know for a fact that these were specifically searched for and examined, since they used their deformation in their collapse models. Having found them, it would have been readily apparent if they had been deformed due to explosives (which leave a rather, um, distinct mark) or due to heat. AFAIK, there was no (read: zero) evidence that ANY of the load bearing members (the things you would HAVE to target with explosives if you wanted to bring the buildings down) were deformed or cut using explosives.
As for other evidence, there is always some. If you are using an explosive device then parts of those devices would remain. If you are using radio control devices, then parts of those would remain. If you are using det cord then some of that would remain. Even in the rubble, and especially at the structural members supposedly targeted by explosives (and specifically looked for and found), there would be some evidence. Even in tons of debris. There is none.
ETA: One point I forgot to make is, when demo companies bring down a building using explosives, they generally cut partially through the load bearing structural supports. This is to ensure that the members fail in certain, specific ways…and also so that they can use less explosives. If one was trying to bring down the WTC buildings by this method, one would either have to have crews tearing up the building to get to those structural supports with torches, to do the same thing, or they would need to use even more explosives to get the job done (they would still need to GET to those supports through the concrete btw). That would leave even more evidence, either way.
-XT
I can picture a silenced explosion, in the sense that the explosive is perfectly placed to take advantage of a structural vulnerability and then has sandbags piled on top of it. When it goes off, all its force is directed at a very specific target (i.e. to create a crack in a structural member with the goal of setting off a larger collapse) and maybe nobody nearby hears it, or at most they hear it as a vague thump and not an Earth-shattering kaboom.
In the case of knocking down a door, I’d put small charges on the hinges, cover them with insulation and then maybe I could remove the door with minimal noise and damage.
Of course, we’re not talking about a door but a pair of 110-story office buildings, so you’d still need a demolition crew, unfettered access to the building’s superstructure to place hundreds (if not thousands) of charges, and the much bulkier sandbags, plenty of time to do so (a month, at least), and you’ll need to come and go while riding magical unicorns that have the power of invisibility so nobody notices.
I rest my case! 
( in response to Xtisme’s :p)
Maybe the towers were taken down with cold thermite! Israel has that, right?
Prove me wrong!
We’re gonna need a lot more toothpicks.
Are jew suggesting it was something to jew, I mean, do with Teh Jooz?
ADMINNNNNNNNN! We have a nazi in our midst!
(bolding mine)
The list of suspects is growing.
You think Kipling did it, right??
-XT
Don’t know … I’ve never seen a building kippled.
How can you people not know about silent explosives? Just keep on “believing” your “experts” that they don’t exist. They’ve been around since 1961! Cite
I’m disappointed - almost half a day and I’m the first one to bring up Moose and Squirrel?