Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[DGM]

You can call it idle curiosity if you like, but given that folk have bandied around the notion that because there's no *boom* in footage *x* at time *y* that proves *z*,.

I think it would be in addition to "a"."b"."c"."d".and "f", "x" and "y" proves "z". It's essentially one more reason not to believe controlled demolition.

 

[jaydeehess]

I pointed out that not a single microphone or ear - no matter how close, far away, high or low, even in the buildings - registered an explosion. This remains a fact.

Yet in known explosive demolitions they do.

Thus it seems a moot point except for perhaps what I would consider minutia such as exactly how much the larger WTC structure would affect the sound level of explosives.

Since femr is interested in such minutia he has been invited to do the work to approixmate what that level of attenutation would be..
That he derides anyone who has decided that such an endevour is not worth much would suggest an agenda beyond what he is willing to put in posts.

 

[femr2]

Since femr is interested in such minutia he has been invited to do the work to approixmate what that level of attenutation would be.

Invited ? Hmm. Interesting choice of word. As I've said numerous times, I may well do so.

That he derides anyone who has decided that such an endevour is not worth much would suggest an agenda beyond what he is willing to put in posts.

And where is this derision of which you speak ? In your delusional mind pal. I really don't care if you don't think it's worth the effort. Suit yourself. As I said earlier (and you ignored)...

LOL. Who is deriding who ?

Yet again, I've said repeatedly I'd like to know WHAT AMOUNT of attenuation is reasonably accurate.

If you interpret that as derision, or manipulate the scope to the difference between *what amount of* and *not to this point* you have problems, or more likely it's simply hapless attempts to try and justify your repeated inept misinterpretations.

Either way, your whining is irrelevant, and your assertions are incorrect.

 

[Fly Poster]

Talking about the towers here. My post in this thread got me thinking about the towers' cores and the argument that explosive demolition will be easily recognizable by its sound. Bedunkers typically refer to videos of controlled demolitions with the signature loud bang-bang-bang sounds of the detonations (although videos exist of CDs where the loud bangs are barely distinguishable from other kinds of noises, e.g.: the Stardust in Las Vegas).

So we know what controlled demolition using detonation charges sounds like in emptied out buildings where the charges are laid throughout the building, including the perimeter structures. 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 - indeed, is full of furniture, and sadly, still has people in it? I don't think we can know that because it hasn't occurred before.

Putting detonation charges on only the core columns, at intervals, would mitigate the sound. Perhaps not many charges would be needed to bring down the core. We certainly have read and heard testimony about the huge explosions that occurred in the basement levels, and have seen and heard the evidence of the blown-out lobbies, which cannot be explained by a fuel fireball traveling half a kilometre down through a staggered elevator system, as Jeff King easily points out. As well as testimony from inside-the-tower witnesses of explosions occurring on levels below them.

If the perimeter columns merely needed to be cut up so they can peel off in the manner we see, then incendiaries could do that job. But to sink the core would probably require explosives - maybe not typical of typical CD, but explosions that were indeed heard by witnesses.

The problem you have is that we know for definite that the bulk of the core collapsed last in the north tower, it was standing for just over 30 seconds.

Therefore the explosives would have been exposed.

Done and done.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

but given that folk have bandied around the notion that because there's no *boom* in footage *x* at time *y* that proves *z*, personally, I think it prudent to actually look at what is expected to be picked up by device *a* at location *b* relative to a theoretical *boom* at location *c*. That's just me

Efficiency of audio recording and distance from a percieved point of detonation, or for that matter sound dissipation because of the materials that it has to pass through before reaching the device. Maybe you'd have a point in the right context, but it ain't working here. Most would probably find this argument more reasonable if there was a stronger case to supplement it, but you're not offering it here. If there's an argument to be had about your motives then it would here. The whole issue I have in terms of your motivations isn't as much that I think you're trying to do anything nefarious, but more that you're giving pieces of an argument, but not the whole thing, certainly not enough to say that we can establish the use of something other than plane+fire.

Anyway, I agree that there are no audio recordings consistent with detonations of bombs. The reference points for these come from existing recordings of other demolitions and attacks, and all of the references point to recording deficiencies being much less of an issue than you imply in such specific cases. The other issue about arguing over recording efficiency is you're dealing with numerous sampling at a huge variance of distances from the towers. Sound intensity is higher when you're closer to a source, and there are audio recordings from inside the towers, which is almost as close as you can get...

 

[DGM]

Yet again, I've said repeatedly I'd like to know WHAT AMOUNT of attenuation is reasonably accurate.

Then tell us how large the source is and where exactly it was located.

 

[femr2]

all of the references point to recording deficiencies being much less of an issue than you imply in such specific cases

I'm not implying issues, I simply want to know, with numerical justification and method, what the behaviour would be estimated to be. Perhaps the attenuation would be effectively negligible, perhaps not. Until myself, or someone else, bothers to find out, the answer is an unknown. I'm not keen on that type of unknown, therefore my interest.

 

[femr2]

Then tell us how large the source is

Any size, a variable of the model/simulation. Singular though for simplicity, of course. An output would then be the ability to state a minimum size that should be audible in a particular recording. A limiting case if you will.

and where exactly it was located.

Again, should be a variable of the model/sim. Have suggested a position no end of times, namely, center of core, 98th floor (or even better initially, floor 109)

 

[DGM]

Any size, a variable of the model/simulation. Singular though for simplicity, of course. An output would then be the ability to state a minimum size that should be audible in a particular recording. A limiting case if you will.



Again, should be a variable of the model/sim. Have suggested a position no end of times, namely, center of core, 98th floor (or even better initially, floor 109)

Why exactly do you think we should be interested in doing all this work for a hypothetical model? If you want this done (without paying for it) you need to be really specific.

 

[Disbelief]

And where is this derision of which you speak ? In your delusional mind pal. I really don't care if you don't think it's worth the effort. Suit yourself. As I said earlier (and you ignored)...

You mean like post #129?

I still think it would be a useful thing to determine, but it's pretty clear that none of the regular posters have any intention, or more probably the capability, to perform such.

Hey ho. Perhaps I'll have a stab at it, then drop it in and watch the complaints begin. I'll leave out diffraction in the first run-thru

 

[DGM]

femr2:
What you're asking for is a universal model for sound levels over every given elevation and distance taking into consideration (as a variable) every background reflective/absorption source over every source intensity?

Do you consider this reasonable?

 

[femr2]

Why exactly do you think we should be interested in doing all this work for a hypothetical model?

You don't have to be interested at all, as I've said on numerous occasions within this thread.

Why exactly do you have trouble comprehending that ?

 

[jaydeehess]

I was wrong.... There is no derison of those not interested in pursueing the line of calculation femr proposes.

All without having any quantifyable way of determining how the sound will be affected by the factors I'm pointing towards. Pretty lame.I see working out what a *boom* high up in the tower would actually sound like from various positions quite useful. You don't have to agree, but as far as I'm concerned anyone then mentioning how loud an event should be in the audio track of a specific piece of footage is talking out of their posterior. That ol' got math ? got physics ? meme y'know

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 ?

You don't know, but it can be worked out. You'd then be in a position to state a reasoned estimate of the amplitude change between source and receiver, and actually negate the question. If you don't...If you want to, pardon the pun, put your fingers in your ears because you don't like the nature of the question, go ahead, but you know and I know you haven't actually answered the question...

What would an explosion 1200ft up inside the core actually sound like at ground level from one of the known camera viewpoints ?

I'd be interested to KNOW. If you're not, that's your lookout, but speaks volumes.

You don't know the extent at all. You're handwaving.

I'd quite like to know fairly accurately.

Still results in big bang ? Fine. You have something useful for your purposes. Not doing so...hand wave.

Nope. Interested in the ACTUAL effect on such an audio event by the intervening structure. If you're too blinkered by your agenda, that's not my problem, son Do you not agree ??? Strange if not. Would have thought that would be a VERY useful piece of work in environment here.

 

[DGM]

You don't have to be interested at all, as I've said on numerous occasions within this thread.

Why exactly do you have trouble comprehending that ?

I have no trouble comprehending that. see my post above (#231). Is this what you want?

 

[femr2]

femr2:
What you're asking for is a universal model for sound levels over every given elevation and distance taking into consideration (as a variable) every background reflective/absorption source over every source intensity?

To a certain extent, sure, why not. Not an awful lot different to a light ray-tracer. There are more than a few appropriate computation environments kicking around I am sure. I have some tools available, but not quite appropriate for this just yet.

Do you consider this reasonable?

Irrelevant imo.

 

[DGM]

To a certain extent, sure, why not. Not an awful lot different to a light ray-tracer. There are more than a few appropriate computation environments kicking around I am sure. I have some tools available, but not quite appropriate for this just yet.

But, without giving a source or intensity this is what you're asking.

Irrelevant imo.

So why do you keep asking for it?

 

[femr2]

But, without giving a source or intensity this is what you're asking.

A lack of specific initial set of parameters is no block to any kind of progress. Pick one.

So why do you keep asking for it?

I was saying whether it's reasonable or not is irrelevant.

 

[DGM]

A lack of specific initial set of parameters is no block to any kind of progress. Pick one.

OK, would you like me to do an M-80 on the 98th floor at ground level 3000' away?

I was saying whether it's reasonable or not is irrelevant.

So, why are you asking others to do this for you?

 

[femr2]

OK, would you like me to do an M-80 on the 98th floor at ground level 3000' away?

100' away would be more interesting to me, but sure. That would be great.

So, why are you asking others to do this for you?

I'm not, though if you have the tools available it would save a lot of time if you are inclined to use them.

 

[DGM]

100' away would be more interesting to me, but sure. That would be great.

Is there any background noise and what would you consider to be a good minimum threshold at that distance (obviously a mouse can be heard across country is you can listen close enough).?

I'm not, though if you have the tools available it would save a lot of time if you are inclined to use them.

You need to make me want to pull in a favor. My engineer is going to want to know why I want this.