Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[ergo]

I think a big part of the learning barrier here is the 9/11 bedunker dogma that "no explosions were heard" - by anyone. They're so convinced of this that it really zips up the argument very conveniently for them. They're literally blind and deaf to the presentation of extensive testimonial from the building workers, especially the ones who were in the basement at the time, and that of inside survivors, and outside witnesses, including firefighters. Yes, we know that bodies hitting cement and glass made explosive sounds. Bedunkers like to point out the few testimonies (I think you can count them on one hand) that make this comparison. In doing so, they have already debunked themselves, in that explosive sounds were indeed heard. People inside the building however, on the sub levels and higher floors would not be hearing the bodies hitting. They heard something else. There is extensive video evidence of news footage at the time describing explosions, of firefighters describing explosions. People thought there were bombs in the buildings. Many testimonials compared the sound to that of the 1993 bombing. Was everyone deafened in the 1993 bombing?

Explosions were heard, and felt. To say there is "no evidence" of them is simply lying, and an absurd kind of lying since the evidence and testimonial is abundant and readily found.

 

[Oystein]

I think a big part of the learning barrier here is the 9/11 bedunker dogma that "no explosions were heard" - by anyone. They're so convinced of this that it really zips up the argument very conveniently for them. They're literally blind and deaf to the presentation of extensive testimonial from the building workers, especially the ones who were in the basement at the time,...

Not a single person survived who was in the basement at the time of collapse initiation. (Could well be that there was no person left in the basement at the time of collapse initiation).

It follows logically that no witness can possibly have reported an explosion that initiated the collapse while he or she was in the basement.

Any boom any witness may have heard in the basement and reported later therefore was NOT an event that has anything to do with collapse initiation.


However, tens of thousands of people were outside the towers and in a position to hear at least some of the explosions you'd need to initiate a collapse if explosive demolition took place. None actually reported hearing any explosions that were consistent in loudness, brisance and timing with collapse initiation.

In addition, no recording device recorded any such explosions.

In addition, explosions in the basement cannot possibly be linked to collapse initiation, as the collapse occured from the top down.

In addition, such explosions in the basement could not possibly have lead to the destcruction of the core first, as the cores were seen to collapse last.


You know all these facts, and the logic has been presented to you before.

 

[Oystein]

That could certainly be a potential output, and yes, that's why I suggested that most folks should, imo, be interested in the basic premise, though I don't think it would be necessary to go to the *all possible values* extent. A sub-set including limiting cases at extremes would probably do.

As I've also said, I don't know the *answer* so results could be surprising.

Only one way to find out though.

The cost and effort of such an endeavour should better be motivated by a plausible argument that more than one result is even remotely possible.

Absent such a motivation, the work should be done by those who already believe in that crap.

 

[WildCat]

What is the effect of the intervening structure between a BOOM high up in the core of the tower and a microphone at ground level a distance from the base ?

It doesn't matter, because we have plenty of video recordings of the collapse, with sound. You do realize that video of the collapse means no intervening structure, don't you?

 

[Oystein]

...
The core dropped first. Its remnants hung in the air for a bit, then they dropped.

Stundied

 

[beachnut]

Who has experience a bomb blast up close enough to feel your guts move? No one in 911 truth?
Who has experienced a bomb blast big enough to ruin the largest 4th of July fireworks display forever? No one in 911 truth?
Who has seen a bomb blast kill people blocks away in a city from the concussion? My dad did. No one in 911 truth?
Who has experience a bomb blast knock out windows? No one in 911 truth?

The window were blown out of my office, the explosion moved me, and has ruined firework shows forever.

911 truth cult members are clueless on what explosives do. The windows would be blasted out, on 911 they were not.

On 911 no one was killed by explosives.
On 911 there were zero blast sounds from explosives.
On 911 there were zero blast effects found on steel.
On 911 and during clean up, zero evidence of explosives.
People survived in the core, explosives would have killed them.

911 truth is evidence free on the explosives delusion. Why can't 911 truth find evidence for explosives? There is none. 911 truth has delusions and can't grasp the energy of a gravity collapse. E=mgh, is not used in 911 truth. 911 truth, physics free, very proud of it.

There are only a few 911 truthers left to push the failed explosives lie.

 

[WildCat]

Stundied

Truthers really did learn their physics from Wile E. Coyote.

 

[femr2]

You do realize that video of the collapse means no intervening structure, don't you?

Apart from... the intervening structure... you're quite right

 

[jiggeryqua]

Sorry that was a misquote. Was meant for Femr

Your original post did remind me of something though. We have (sadly) a recording of a victim on the phone with 9-1-1 at the time of collapse. No deafening booms. 105th floor, Tower 2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pMcaNuO8gs

Apology accepted. I have listened to that phone call so often, and even now just thinking about it my blood runs cold. Essentially, we listen to his death. I didn't know him, I couldn't tell you his name from memory, but if I don't end this post and change my subject soon I will weep for him again. In another thread I'm discussing the pros and cons of modern technology - I'm not sure under which heading a live phone call from the heart of a profound tragedy would fall. Regardless of the arguments as to who was responsible or how it occurred, real people really died in the most appalling circumstances.

 

[femr2]

The cost and effort of such an endeavour should better be motivated by a plausible argument that more than one result is even remotely possible.

I don't see either cost or effort being significant, but one result ? The output would basically be change in *volume* dependant upon a number of factors. I assume you believe that such change would be low ?

Again, the only way to know if you are right is to run the calcs.

I see you are not motivated to do so, but until someone does, this thread (and probably others) will continue and resurface ad infinitum.

I'd have to say that discussion of the thread topic without addressing this fundamental factor is pretty pointless. It could, as you say, be the element that you "could always reference that work and put to rest once and for all any theory of explosive demolition"

And no-one wants to have at it ?

 

[beachnut]

... There is extensive video evidence of news footage at the time describing explosions, of firefighters describing explosions. People thought there were bombs in the buildings. Many testimonials compared the sound to that of the 1993 bombing. Was everyone deafened in the 1993 bombing?

Explosions were heard, and felt. To say there is "no evidence" of them is simply lying, and an absurd kind of lying since the evidence and testimonial is abundant and readily found.

Where are the people with injuries from the blasts?
No one on 911 heard explosives, they heard loud sounds. You are cherry picking, and quote mining, and failing.
1993, people had traumatic injuries from the blast itself.

Please post by name people who said the sounds were like the explosion on 1993. Source.

No one heard explosives on 911, to say otherwise is a delusional lie based on nonsense. Zero evidence of explosives used on 911. 911 truth failure continues unabated, with 10 years of failure guaranteed.

 

[Dog Town]

And no-one wants to have at it ?

No one wants to paint your fence. Feel free to do your own work. I'm sure it will be checked. Watch out for those pesky positive, and negative symbols.

 

[Oystein]

I don't see either cost or effort being significant,

Hm. I do. You see, I have a girl friend...

but one result ?

The one result would be "can't mute all explosives for all devices".

The output would basically be change in *volume* dependant upon a number of factors. I assume you believe that such change would be low ?

If "low" is synomous with "not extreme", then yeah. But since it isn't, no. I would expect the attenuation to be less than extreme.

Again, the only way to know if you are right is to run the calcs.

No.

I see you are not motivated to do so, but until someone does, this thread (and probably others) will continue and resurface ad infinitum.

Since the thread is not about your version of one question extracted from the OP and rephrased as you see fit, but instead a trolling effort by ergo, I hope it dies soon after I lose my interest in this particular piece of entertainment. So far, the thread has yielded 2 Stundie-nominations. I guess after the 3rd, it will grow old.

I'd have to say that discussion of the thread topic without addressing this fundamental factor is pretty pointless.

The fundamental factor has been addressed. Just not to the degree of perfection you wish it were. But that is a fallacy on your part.

It could, as you say, be the element that you "could always reference that work and put to rest once and for all any theory of explosive demolition"

And no-one wants to have at it ?

Again, ergo's trolling ain't worth it for me.

 

[A W Smith]

Another jackass for troof proposes a strawman

I don't see either cost or effort being significant, but one result ? The output would basically be change in *volume* dependant upon a number of factors. I assume you believe that such change would be low ?

Again, the only way to know if you are right is to run the calcs.

I see you are not motivated to do so, but until someone does, this thread (and probably others) will continue and resurface ad infinitum.

I'd have to say that discussion of the thread topic without addressing this fundamental factor is pretty pointless. It could, as you say, be the element that you "could always reference that work and put to rest once and for all any theory of explosive demolition"

And no-one wants to have at it ?

Shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy noted. As well as an appeal to perfection logical fallacy. You are proposing a controlled demolition scenario in which explosive controlled demolition blasts are attenuated to a point to be unnoticeable or inaudible because of "office furniture" or "intervening structure". So have at it. Show us YOUR math for YOUR conspiracy scenario.

 

[beachnut]

"The Scott cylinders [firefighters' air packs] and the oxygen cylinders were all letting go. They were blowing up left and right." –Firefighter Todd Heaney, FDNY

Loud sounds, not explosives. Darn. No evidence to save the 911 truth moronic explosives claims.

911 truth fails to produce evidence to support their lies.

 

[A W Smith]

Ergo shows us just how little he knows about sound attenuation

What about filing cabinet systems, desks, marble slabs on the walls, heavy doors, concrete partitions, concrete encasement of beams in the core, the reinforced floors on the MER levels?

Stundied! Your examples of materials favorable to sound attenuation are anything but! Do yourself a favor and Google STC rated assemblies, Or NRC for that matter.

 

[femr2]

Shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy noted. As well as an appeal to perfection logical fallacy.

What a lot of nonsense you have picked up here. It's not big, and it's not clever. LOL.

Perfection ? Not at all.

Calculated, rather than hand-waved ? Absolutely. Of course.

You are proposing a controlled demolition scenario...

Absolute nonsense...aka baseless assertion...aka lie.

...in which explosive controlled demolition blasts are attenuated to a point to be unnoticeable or inaudible...

Absolute nonsense...aka baseless assertion...aka lie.

...because of "office furniture" or "intervening structure".

I'd like to quantify the attenuation through intervening structures, absolutely.

Do you know the scale of change ? If not, it needs quantifying.

So have at it. Show us YOUR math

Might well do. Start simple I supposre, and flesh it out.

Point source x dB center of 98th floor core okay ?

for YOUR conspiracy scenario.

What scenario would that be braniac ?

 

[ergo]

Stundied! Your examples of materials favorable to sound attenuation are anything but! Do yourself a favor and Google STC rated assemblies, Or NRC for that matter.

Really? Marble slabs and concrete, heavy doors or large filing cabinets behind walls don't reduce sound? Gee, you must know so much about this.

 

[A W Smith]

Really? Marble slabs and concrete, heavy doors or large filing cabinets behind walls don't reduce sound? Gee, you must know so much about this.

Yes! Ive built STC rated assemblies. look it up!

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Seriously, Mr Smith? I'm no expert, and I'm prepared to be disabused of the notion that a closed door (however heavy) would necessarily reduce the sound of an event on one side heard by someone on the other side, as compared to a similar scenario with the door open, but I'd want more than an anonymous assertion to shift my position.