Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[ergo]

@ Oystein: We're not talking about HushABoom, here. My questioning is in response to that argument.

The points I'm drawing attention to are:

1) Traditional CD charges may not have been used. Other kinds of explosives could have been. Do you think explosives can't cut steel? We're told by you folks it's the only thing that can, in an instant.

2) Since your own arguments suggest that the collapses are driven mostly by gravity in the first place, you shouldn't find it hard to imagine that sinking the core may not require too many areas of severed columns.

3) Despite bedunker efforts to discredit and confuse, we do have testimony of explosions heard from both outside and inside witnesses, as well as, of course, the massive basement-level explosions.

4) The sound of the several explosions from the inner core would be different depending on where people are. And we don't know how even traditional CD detonations coming from the inner core of a fully furnished building would sound on the outside - or on the inside.

 

[beachnut]

Hi, Oystein. You've taken me off Ignore?



So you DO know how detonations from an inner core in a building filled with furniture sound like on the outside? How would you know this?

BOOM! Very loud with a precise attack and decay of an explosive. People survived in the core, it there had been explosives they would have been killed by blast effects.

Blast effects would show up. Supersonic ejection of debris would be seen on 911, but alas, only gravity initiated ejection at low speed.

If 911 truth could do physics, 911 truth would be able to calculate kinetic energy of 130 TONS of TNT during the collapse of one tower, which is enough energy to do what we see. Gravity responsible for the energy of collapse which was equal to 130 2,000 pound bombs. A fact 911 truth can't grasp.

911 truth is the technobabble movement of delusions, why can't they grasp physics?

Wait you are right there were sounds like explosions going off.

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off

What kind of explosives were these? Did you know so many people heard this? I bet there were more who heard these exact sounds. What do you think, how did 911 truth miss all this evidence?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Bolded sentences are mine:

The points I'm drawing attention to are:

1) Traditional CD charges may not have been used. Other kinds of explosives could have been. Do you think explosives can't cut steel? We're told by you folks it's the only thing that can, in an instant.

There isn't copper residue on the steel @ JFK Airport in Hanger 17. Nor is there detenation cord. Using a remote control system won't work either, too much radio interferrence around NYC.

2) Since your own arguments suggest that the collapses are driven mostly by gravity in the first place, you shouldn't find it hard to imagine that sinking the core may not require too many areas of severed columns.

No **** Sherlock! Ever wonder why the planes made a bee line towards the Towers?!

3) Despite bedunker efforts to discredit and confuse, we do have testimony of explosions heard from both outside and inside witnesses, as well as, of course, the massive basement-level explosions.

The firefighters & rescue workers beg to differ: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...s_full_01.html

4) The sound of the several explosions from the inner core would be different depending on where people are. And we don't know how even traditional CD detonations coming from the inner core of a fully furnished building would sound on the outside - or on the inside.

The firefighters & rescue workers beg to differ: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...s_full_01.html

 

[Oystein]

...(...videos exist of CDs where the loud bangs are barely distinguishable from other kinds of noises, e.g.: the Stardust in Las Vegas).
...

Actually, it was the fireworks I was referring to. The demolition sounds are not much louder than the fireworks which precedes them. (Certainly not "twice" as loud.)
...

WHo are you trying to fool? Fireworks are explosions. Demo charges are explosions. They are not "other" kinds of noises, they are the very same kind of noises! Do you honestly think anyone is surprised that explosions sound like other explosions??

 

[The Platypus]

Actually, it was the fireworks I was referring to. The demolition sounds are not much louder than the fireworks which precedes them. (Certainly not "twice" as loud.)

But this is a minor point in my OP. The question is, what do detonations from an inner core in a building filled with furniture sound like on the outside? We don't know, do we?

And who's to say the explosions were from traditional CD charges? Other kinds of bombs could have been used.

More speculation...

[CT thinking]
What if it was people from the future using futuristic weapons they brought back with their time machine?? What if you are one of the time travellers here just trying to throw us off?? We don't know, do we?
[/CT thinking]

One can make up boundless wild speculation about anything...

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I might be in the fire service & know exactly can cause explosions (other than dynamite/explosives) but Ergo isn't pressing the point.

Ergo must think about the explosions people heard that day. He has to think what they described them as being. He also has to think that those people, including some firefighters, couldn't distinguish what made those sounds.

Sure, Ergo thinks the explosions were caused by "explosives". But the thing that really matters, how can he know for certain that those sounds came from explosives? He wasn't there to hear them!

BTW: Ergo, you don't have confirmation of the people across the Hudson River. They were 1/2 mile away, they would've heard the explosives going off if there was a CD.

 

[twinstead]

One can make up boundless wild speculation about anything...

That's the big advantage truthers have. All they need to do is just make up anything they want, invoke whatever magic is necessary to close gaps in their arguments, and shazzam--Big Debate Mojo.

Well, at least in their minds.

 

[Oystein]

@ Oystein: We're not talking about HushABoom, here. My questioning is in response to that argument.

The points I'm drawing attention to are:

1) Traditional CD charges may not have been used. Other kinds of explosives could have been. Do you think explosives can't cut steel? We're told by you folks it's the only thing that can, in an instant.

What properties would these non-traditional bombs have to have to help your theory along? Please be specific, and expect to get nailed on your reply! If you don't dare to name at least one specific property of explosives that your theory requires but that traditional charges don't have, then you better retract this item.

2) Since your own arguments suggest that the collapses are driven mostly by gravity in the first place, you shouldn't find it hard to imagine that sinking the core may not require too many areas of severed columns.

True. The collapses are mostly gravity driven, as is every explosive controlled demolition of any highrise todate.
You only need to severe several core columns. For each column you need one charge that, in order to cut that column without previously cutting that column in part, makes BANG! insanely loudly - on the order of 130dB half a mile away (if unimpeded; with furniture and glass in the way, you might get down to 120 or 110dB - still insanely loud. This would result in something like this:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

May I however remind you of you own theory:

...
Putting detonation charges on only the core columns, at intervals, would mitigate the sound.
...

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this sounds as if you want to put several explosive charges on each column, multiplying the insanely loud BANG!s. Your own theory would now require this soundtrack:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
(assuming you want 3 intervals per column)

3) Despite bedunker efforts to discredit and confuse, we do have testimony of explosions heard from both outside and inside witnesses, as well as, of course, the massive basement-level explosions.

I already told you this before, and you ignored it:

...
None of these booms was consistent in timing, brisance and location with explosive demolition charges: Collapse was top down and arrived at the lobby second to last, and the basement last. Nothing that went "boom" down there long before the collapse had anything to do with the collapse.
This is common sense.
...

Please address this fundamental problem of your theory!

4) The sound of the several explosions from the inner core would be different depending on where people are. And we don't know how even traditional CD detonations coming from the inner core of a fully furnished building would sound on the outside - or on the inside.

This is wrong. We know what they would sound like:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
We don't know if they would be 130dB, 120dB or 110dB at half a mile away. But that doesn't matter much. They would in any case have to be awesomely, insanely loud.

 

[The Almond]

Oystein, I have decided to name a specific proof after you:

The Oystein Proof: A demonstration of relative signal strength which is linearly mapped to the color and size of the font, with red being the highest color and 7 being the highest font size. A red bang in font size 7 corresponds to a unit of eleventybillion (which is close to a lot).

 

[jiggeryqua]

Unless somehow, magically, core demolitions went off... except where those folks were at.

I realise that applying critical thinking to 'debunkers' rather than 'woos' or 'twoofers' will convince some of you I'm one or other of the latter two, but isn't this just a variation of the Texan Sharpshooter Fallacy? It would hardly be 'magic' if there were survivors at a point of explosive failure (that's a big 'if', it's a lot of ifs, it's a series of highly unlikely, improbable, impossible, fictitious ifs, but all the same...) It wouldn't be that the explosives didn't go off where the survivors were, it would be survivors where the explosives didn't go off, which would be unremarkable and certainly not magical. If you're going to silence the lunatics (a noble, if futile, aim) then don't give them such an easy excuse to stop listening.

 

[twinstead]

Oystein, I have decided to name a specific proof after you:

The Oystein Proof: A demonstration of relative signal strength which is linearly mapped to the color and size of the font, with red being the highest color and 7 being the highest font size. A red bang in font size 7 corresponds to a unit of eleventybillion (which is close to a lot).

Is eleventybillion more than a gagglogoogleplex?

 

[phunk]

The cores took longer to collapse than the rest of the building.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein, I have decided to name a specific proof after you:

The Oystein Proof: A demonstration of relative signal strength which is linearly mapped to the color and size of the font, with red being the highest color and 7 being the highest font size. A red bang in font size 7 corresponds to a unit of eleventybillion (which is close to a lot).

I wonder what a font size of eleventybillion would map to!

 

[femr2]

Do we know what detonations sound like if they have only been laid in the core column structure, in a building that has not been emptied out

Anyone venturing to provide a useful response to the OP is going to have to get their hands dirty with...

a) Specific device position, especially height
b) The effect of all materials between sound source and receiver in terms of deflection and absorbtion

Render from source to receiver and see what amplitude you end up with.

Anything else is not going to answer the question, however much you may think other factors negate actually doing so.

Have fun

 

[Oystein]

Anyone venturing to provide a useful response to the OP is going to have to get their hands dirty with...

a) Specific device position, especially height
b) The effect of all materials between sound source and receiver in terms of deflection and absorbtion

Render from source to receiver and see what amplitude you end up with.

Anything else is not going to answer the question.

Have fun

No. This is not the obligation of anyone responding to the OP. It is the obligation of the author of the OP to provide with the necessary input and calculations. He is the one who claims that explosives could fracture the core, bring down the towers and not emit any discernable noises. He has not spelled out a hypothesis yet that could be tested against these claims.

 

[TruthersLie]

@ Oystein: We're not talking about HushABoom, here. My questioning is in response to that argument.

The points I'm drawing attention to are:

1) Traditional CD charges may not have been used. Other kinds of explosives could have been. Do you think explosives can't cut steel? We're told by you folks it's the only thing that can, in an instant.

2) Since your own arguments suggest that the collapses are driven mostly by gravity in the first place, you shouldn't find it hard to imagine that sinking the core may not require too many areas of severed columns.

3) Despite bedunker efforts to discredit and confuse, we do have testimony of explosions heard from both outside and inside witnesses, as well as, of course, the massive basement-level explosions.

4) The sound of the several explosions from the inner core would be different depending on where people are. And we don't know how even traditional CD detonations coming from the inner core of a fully furnished building would sound on the outside - or on the inside.

We'll just skip over your basic ignorance (into vs onto, essentially vs actually, about, center of mass, exponential) and nail you to the wall.

You keep stating that the towers were the first time in history a steel framed skyscraper had collapsed the way they have.... and because it was the first time in history it couldnt happen the way the common narrative claims.

It would be the first time in history a building full of people, with an open floor plan would have selective explosives placed on the core and then detonated.... using your spurious logic it couldnt happen. Ergo you are wrong. (again)

That is just the start
There are phone calls from people in the towers when they collapsed, not one has a sound anywhere near an "explosion."

There were people in the stairwells who survived the collapse who don't report any "explosions."

In the 1993 bombing, a car bomb that didn't sever a column was heard BY EVERYONE in the WTC complex.... yet you are now claiming that there were charges on specific floors and NO ONE heard them?

We have the film from the lobby of one of the towers when the first tower collapsed... yet not a single "explosion" is evident in it. Amazing.

 

[femr2]

No. This is not the obligation of anyone responding to the OP. It is the obligation of the author of the OP to provide with the necessary input and calculations.

Seems rather a feeble stance. The OP contains, as far as I'm concerned, not much beyond the question...

Do we know what detonations sound like if they have only been laid in the core column structure, in a building that has not been emptied out

...and if you have no reasoned answer to that question you're not really in a position to wallpaper the place with immature huge red fonts, in my opinion


So you can walk away, but to close the thread you need to know the effect upon the sound from source to receiver, in detail.


I don't think the question is too unreasonable.


Have fun.

 

[beachnut]

Anyone who thinks explosives were used to bring down the WTC towers after studying the evidence is slow of mind, delusional and insane.

Lack of a science background is typical of 911 truth believers, a cult based on delusions. The complex plot keeps fooling the elite 911 truth cult, unable to grasp the two steps to kill on 911. The United States set up by years of letting Hijackers take planes, letting them land somewhere, and everyone being quiet and sitting down. The two steps, take planes, crash planes, so complex the simple minds of 911 truth have to make up simple plots of explosives, etc.

The best part of about being in 911 truth, you can make up stuff and ask stupid questions, never have to come up with the physics or math. 911 truth does not do differential equations, this is not science 911 truth uses, it is wootectics.

 

[WildCat]

(although videos exist of CDs where the loud bangs are barely distinguishable from other kinds of noises, e.g.: the Stardust in Las Vegas).

The "other kinds of noises" in this case being a gigantic professional fireworks display!

 

[Oystein]

Seems rather a feeble stance. The OP contains, as far as I'm concerned, not much beyond the question...

iaw: JAQing off.

...and if you have no reasoned answer to that question you're not really in a position to wallpaper the place with immature huge red fonts, in my opinion

The OP was unable to show any case of demolition by cutting charges that were attenuated to a point where they did not go BANG! in red and FONTSIZE=7.
The question in the OP has at its base the possibility that such attenuation is possible.
He did not provide any reason to believe this assumption. The OP is therefore moot.

So you can walk away, but to close the thread you need to know the effect upon the sound from source to receiver, in detail.

No. To close the thread it suffices to point out who has the burden of proof here. If the author of the OP is unable or unwilling to present evidence in favour of his hypothesis, the hypothesis is stillborn.

I don't think the question is too unreasonable.

You are entitled to your opinion, which is, just like the OP, informed by foregone conclusions. Both you and ergo want to believe in the possibility of explosive demolition, despite the entire lack of positive proof.

Your opinion is wrong, however. You know as well as anyone here (and that includes ergo) that all explosive demolitions of highrises produce VERY loud BANG!s. Just asking the question if the demolition of the largest highrise that ever collapsed could go without such is unreasonable if not accompanied by a theory that takes into account all known evidence and everything we already know about explosive demolitions.

If this question is reasonable, than any question is reasonable.

Have fun.

Why else should I reply to someone I have on ignore