Debunker says what?

[Baylor]

So deep, can you PLEASE tell me why you have argued with me and others, but then say that you agree with us?? This makes no sense. Maybe I read too much into things, but it seems that YOU don't know what you believe.

So, were there bombs or not??

Where do YOU personally stand re:911???

You can see his answer coming from a mile away. "No one knows what happened never a full investigation yadaydaada truther blather yadadada".

 

[johnny karate]

Given the information we have, which do you think is more likely:

1) Ultimately useless bombs were randomly planted in the towers by persons unknown for reasons unknown.

2) Loud explosions occurred as an expected result of two 110-story buildings crashing to the ground.

Yes they are in that option 2 would preclude the existence of any explosive devices. With that in mind, please make your selection.

Bump for deep44.

 

[deep]

Bump for deep44.

You're asking a loaded question - why in the world would I answer it?

 

[Audible Click]

Because you're looking for the truth?

 

[jaydeehess]

Let me share a quote with you (reposted from Wikipedia: "Marcello Truzzi"):

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.​

– Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987​

Well then you should be able to see immediately that the 'more extrodinary' claim for the sounds heard would be that they were caused by bombs in the building and thus this claim requires much greater evidence than does the one that they were caused by falling bodies or the explosive ignition of other items on the fire floors.

Next we note the fact that there are eyewitness accounts of people falling and creating loud noises upon hitting the ground and the fact that we know for certain that major office fires often include the explosive ignition of items, both of which bode well for those being the source of the sounds heard. In addition there is no audio recording of anything resembling the type of explosive sound that would be created by the type and size of explosive used to sever large columns.

On the other hand the only evidence that these sounds were caused by explosives is the speculation of some people that this was the source of the sounds. There are no eyewitness accounts by anyone who saw an explosion occur, only characterizations of sounds as 'explosions'. Whereas a propane bottle, or even a fire extinguisher, cooking off is indeed an explosion it is not even close to that of a charge designed to cause structural damage. Failing floor sections hitting the next floor down make even louder sounds and can easily be described as 'explosive' sounds, and although they are indicative of structural damage they are not the sounds of actual explosive charges designed to cause structural damage. Both of these situations can and do occur in major office fires.
The office fires in the towers also had two charactersitics never seen in 'normal' office fires. They were large multifloor fires within seconds of impact,('normally' it takes several hours to get to this stage) AND that impact caused major structural damage to the floor pans of several floors. (obviously a characteristic rarely, if ever , encountered especially in combination with the afore mentioned immediate multifloor fire)

A true skeptic would weigh the evidence pro and con each claim and note that it is quite obvious that logic heavily favours one over the other.
A true skeptic acknowledges that there is a small percentage chance that the bulk of evidence is pointing to the wrong claim but that it is highly unlikely that the claim with the least evidence is the correct one.

 

[jaydeehess]

I should add that I have been on holiday for a while and only recently came back to this thread and have not read the intervening pages. However Deep's insistence that explosives have not been disproved struck me as quite extrodinary especially as opposed to the commonly accepted history of the collapses.

 

[johnny karate]

You're asking a loaded question - why in the world would I answer it?

To demonstrate you're not an intellectually dishonest fraud?

How about this, I'll rephrase the question:

Do you believe the explosions witnessed on 9/11 were most likely caused by bombs, or the "natural phenomena" of a collapsing skyscraper?

 

[triforcharity]

Oh, Oh, here is another thing that goes boom in this incident.

After the first collapse, there were unknown firefighters missing. 99% of those firefighters had SCOTT packs on. Those pack have LARGE BOTTLES OF OXYGEN. Could THEY have gone boom??? ABSOLUTELY!!

I try to block out some of these things. Its disturbing. Like like the videos that I see that have the PASS device going off. KNowing what it is, and what it indicates, is very ehart wrenching for ANY firefighter.

 

[BigAl]

Oh, Oh, here is another thing that goes boom in this incident.

After the first collapse, there were unknown firefighters missing. 99% of those firefighters had SCOTT packs on. Those pack have LARGE BOTTLES OF OXYGEN. Could THEY have gone boom??? ABSOLUTELY!!

Yup.

"The Scott cylinders and the oxygen cylinders were all letting go. They were blowing up left and right."

FDNY Firefighter Todd Heaney on 9/11 (FDNY oral testimony transcripts)​

QUESTION: Are they really O2 bottles and not just compressed air? O2 can be dangerous.

 

[lapman]

Yup.



QUESTION: Are they really O2 bottles and not just compressed air? O2 can be dangerous.

They would be air. Breathing only pure O2 would kill you.

 

[BigAl]

They would be air. Breathing only pure O2 would kill you.

If it were pure O2, the breathing apparatus would mix it down.

 

[triforcharity]

Actually, most departments use something simmilar to Nitrus Oxide. The same stuff that divers use in their SCUBA tanks. The regulator doesn't mix it with anything, as the air around could contaminate the air.

Its not pure O2 though, but obviously it has a content of oxygen.

So, to answer you guys' questions, no. Its not pure O2. But, still VERY flameable, and WILL "cook off" in a fire like this. The newest tanks are Carbon Fiber, and will melt and burn if exposed to fire. Not just heat, but direct flame exposure. Or if they are punctured, they will also go flying off like a rocket.

And just compressed air would not sustain life too well. Its too weak, as ambient air is only 21% O2 content.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Actually, most departments use something simmilar to Nitrus Oxide. The same stuff that divers use in their SCUBA tanks. The regulator doesn't mix it with anything, as the air around could contaminate the air.

Its not pure O2 though, but obviously it has a content of oxygen.

So, to answer you guys' questions, no. Its not pure O2. But, still VERY flameable, and WILL "cook off" in a fire like this. The newest tanks are Carbon Fiber, and will melt and burn if exposed to fire. Not just heat, but direct flame exposure. Or if they are punctured, they will also go flying off like a rocket.

And just compressed air would not sustain life too well. Its too weak, as ambient air is only 21% O2 content.

So when you were down at ground zero that day hearing all these different explosions and deciphering exactly what they were and weren't with your super human fireman dog ears how come some of your fellow firemen didn't have this same talent?

I mean some of them did report secondary explosions? They didn't say anything about Oxygen tanks.

Exploding rockets huh?

So I guess my question is if there were so many other available things to be exploding during the collapse of the WTC buildings that weren't bombs then where are the recordings of all these other things exploding?

And please... grace us with you expertise. Explain exactly for instance the difference between the sound of a bomb and say a power line or electrical transformer blowing up.

And how loud would it be in the middle (the core) of a collapsing 110 story building with acre wide floors? Who stood around to hear this?

And if people were close enough did hear such a sound then how many would still be alive?

 

[BigAl]

So when you were down at ground zero that day hearing all these different explosions and deciphering exactly what they were and weren't with your super human fireman dog ears how come some of your fellow firemen didn't have this same talent?

I mean some of them did report secondary explosions? They didn't say anything about Oxygen tanks.

Exploding rockets huh?

So I guess my question is if there were so many other available things to be exploding during the collapse of the WTC buildings that weren't bombs then where are the recordings of all these other things exploding?

Because all the noises heard weren't as loud as man-made explosive demolition. No man-made demolition would be heard by only one person or a few people. Baed on experience with teh 1993 bombing, everyone at WTC would have heard the same explsion.

There is also something called "brisance", the sound explosives make. People that make been around real explosives know brisance associated with chemical explosives and know it doesn't sound the same and a steel beam hitting another steel beam.

Lots of people who were at WTC knew what real explosives sounds like. Anyone that had been in the military and lots of construction workers would know the difference. People the set off big fireworks would even know that stuff crashing on the ground isn't the same as jumbo M-80 firework.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance

 

[triforcharity]

So when you were down at ground zero that day hearing all these different explosions and deciphering exactly what they were and weren't with your super human fireman dog ears how come some of your fellow firemen didn't have this same talent??

Other fireman DID hear it. Some brought it up, some didn't during the Post-9/11 interviews. As I believe BigAl posted,

"The Scott cylinders and the oxygen cylinders were all letting go. They were blowing up left and right."
FDNY Firefighter Todd Heaney on 9/11 (FDNY oral testimony transcripts)"

Here is the link.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110255.PDF

Page 13 of 16 in the PDF.

This is by Todd Hearney, and is a good friend of mine. I still talk to him today.

I mean some of them did report secondary explosions? They didn't say anything about Oxygen tanks.

Exploding rockets huh??

Some of them also didn't say anything about falling bodies either. But, as we all know, there were loud bangs from people jumping out of the building.

So I guess my question is if there were so many other available things to be exploding during the collapse of the WTC buildings that weren't bombs then where are the recordings of all these other things exploding?

To answer this assinine question is going to be easy.

TNT-RDX etc. typically have a Db level of 140 decibels. This is just short of hearing damage, depending on the distance from the source. You won't understand this, but SCOTT packs going off are only around 90-100 db.

And please... grace us with you expertise. Explain exactly for instance the difference between the sound of a bomb and say a power line or electrical transformer blowing up.

I will be glad to. I'll even use small words for you so your brain can understand them easily.

Power line's don't blow up. Transformers do. Transistors do. Fuses do.

Arc?? Yes, but that is a whole different noise all together.

Again, bomb going off 140+ depending on the distance from source. Plus, the echo would have been heard EVERYWHERE, not just around a certain area. Plus, not to mention, a bomb going off is usually a very short, loud noise. Air tanks, etc, not so short, not so loud.

And how loud would it be in the middle (the core) of a collapsing 110 story building with acre wide floors? Who stood around to hear this?

And if people were close enough did hear such a sound then how many would still be alive?

Are you serious?? Could it be possible that you could present such a dirt-dumb question WITHOUT being a complete fool???

Anyway, I would imagine the decibel level would be well beyond the levels that your ear drum could sustain. (Which, BTW, is around 194.

Here is a site to use. Its easy to understand.

http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html

 

[BigAl]

To answer this assinine question is going to be easy.

TNT-RDX etc. typically have a Db level of 140 decibels. This is just short of hearing damage, depending on the distance from the source. You won't understand this, but SCOTT packs going off are only around 90-100 db.
....
Again, bomb going off 140+ depending on the distance from source. Plus, the echo would have been heard EVERYWHERE, not just around a certain area. Plus, not to mention, a bomb going off is usually a very short, loud noise. Air tanks, etc, not so short, not so loud.

You're new around here. This spring there was a thread that demonstrated that the usual suspects are completely incapable of understanding sound level perception and the Db scale.

The topic was a DoD paper on techniques that can muffle the sound of explosions and it was proposed that this was the much-sought-after hush-a-boom. One was massive mats filled with something kind of heavy. The loons thought that half the sound level (3Db) was a big deal.

As a side effect, these mats actually increased the seismic signature which made them even less likely to have been used at WTC.

 

[Homeland Insurgency]

Hey twoofer, perhaps you'll explain why no very loud booms were recorded on any video? No, of course you won't. You're a twoofer.

I've asked the very same question of tryforcharity about all the explosions he apparently heard.

Are they on tape somewhere?

Glad we think alike on on some things buddy.

 

[BigAl]

I've asked the very same question of tryforcharity about all the explosions he apparently heard.

And you got a very fact-filled answer. The noises made by the collapse of the towers was nowhere near as loud as the supersonic shock waves produced by chemical explosives.

It also wasn't timed to be a man-made demolition.

A noise heard minutes before a collapse isn't an indication of man-made demolition.

A noise heard while the building is collapsing isn't an indication of man-made demolition.

 

[dtugg]

I've asked the very same question of tryforcharity about all the explosions he apparently heard.

Are they on tape somewhere?

Glad we think alike on on some things buddy.

I know you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed so I'll make this as simple as possible: They weren't recorded on any videos because they weren't loud enough. Therefore they couldn't have been explosives because explosives make very louds sounds which would have been recorded and heard by everybody in the lower Manhattan area. I hope this clears up any issues that you may have. I doubt it though, you have proven time and time again that you are unable to understand very simple concepts.

 

[Baylor]

And how loud would it be in the middle (the core) of a collapsing 110 story building with acre wide floors?