Explosives, explosions, and loud noises: A Rant

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I am completely exasperated with the constant equivocating of explosions, explosives and loud noises as exhibited some of the people that post here. What follows is a rant with the intent to provide edification on the matter.

Executive Summary
The use of "explosive" and "explosion" interchangeably in discussion is erroneous; and the use of "explosions" as evidence of "explosives" is fundamentally flawed.

Loud Noises (aka bangs, booms, cracks, explosions (heard but not seen) etc)
Q. What are loud noises?
A. Within the context of this post I will be defining loud noises as "Sound or a sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired." http://www.thefreedictionary.com/noise (def. #1)

Explosions
Q. What are explosions?
A. Wikipedia defines Explosions^WP as "a sudden increase in volume and release of energy in a violent manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion causes pressure waves in the local medium in which it occurs. Explosions are categorized as deflagrations if these waves are subsonic and detonations if they are supersonic (shock waves)."

Q. What are causes of explosions?
A. The Wikipedia article on Explosions^WP lists a number of causes of explosions:

• Chemical explosions
• Nuclear explosions
• Steam boiler explosions
• Electrical explosions
• Volcanic explosions
• Astronomical event explosions and
• Exploding animals

Explosives
Q. What are explosives?
A. Wikipedia defines Explosives^WP as "a material that either is chemically or otherwise energetically unstable or produces a sudden expansion of the material usually accompanied by the production of heat and large changes in pressure (and typically also a flash and/or loud noise) upon initiation; this is called the explosion."

The Logic
Argument 1
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: An explosive is detonated;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.

This is a logically sound argument. P1 is true by definition of what an explosive does and is included in the definition of things that can cause explosions.
This is known as affirming the antecedent and is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: A;
C: Therefore, B.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 2
P1: If there is an explosion, then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, it was heard as a loud noise.

This is a logically sound argument. P1 is true as, by definition, explosions create shock-waves. The shock-waves are heard and meet the criteria of being a loud noise.
This is known as affirming the antecedent and is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: A;
C: Therefore, B.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 3
P1: If there is an explosion then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: There was a loud noise;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.

This is not a logically sound argument as there are, by definition of what a loud noise is, causes of loud noises that are not explosions (ex. steel bar snapping, book slamming on the floor, etc).
This is known as affirming the consequent and is a logical fallacy. It is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: B;
C: Therefore, A.

The generalized expression of why it is fallacious is:
P1: If A then B;
P2: If C then B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Expressed as such, it is clear why it is not a sound logical argument.

It can be made in to a sound logical argument with the addition of another premise (which must be shown to be true), such that:
P1: If A then B;
P2: Only A can cause B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Therefore, we would have to be able to say:
P1: If there is an explosion then you will hear a loud noise;
P2: Only explosions can cause loud noises;
P3: There was a loud noise;
C: Therefore, there was an explosion.

This is clearly an untenable argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument 4
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, there was an explosive was detonated.

This is not a logically sound argument as there are, by definition of what a loud noise is, causes of loud noises that are not explosions (ex. steel bar snapping, book slamming on the floor, etc).
This is known as affirming the consequent and is a logical fallacy. It is expressed as:
P1: If A then B;
P2: B;
C: Therefore, A.

The generalized expression of why it is fallacious is:
P1: If A then B;
P2: If C then B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

Expressed as such, it is clear why it is not a sound logical argument.

It can be made in to a sound logical argument with the addition of another premise (which must be shown to be true), such that:
P1: If A then B;
P2: Only A can cause B;
P3: B;
C: Therefore, A.

This requirement means that for proponent of CD in the WTC to claim that witness reports of explosions are evidence of the use of explosives the following must be true:
P1: If an explosive is detonated then there will be an explosion;
P2: Only explosives can cause explosions;
P3: There was an explosion;
C: Therefore, there was an explosive was detonated.

This clearly runs counter to the definition of what an explosion is, and is shown to not be true by the examples cited for causes of explosions that do not fall in to the category of explosives. Therefore, this is also an untenable argument.

What does this mean for discussion?
It means that...

• ... if a witness reported hearing a loud noise and called it an explosion we can not conclude it was caused by an explosion
• ... if a witness reported seeing an explosion we can not conclude it was caused by an explosive
• ... the term "explosion" and "explosive" can not be used interchangeably

 

[CHF]

I've personally seen a house on fire in which explosions could be heard. And that's just from beams breaking, the structure coming apart, or canisters blowing up.

I can imagine that a skyscraper on fire where beams are bending, pulling loose from anchors, and debris is falling down shafts would offer up a few "explosions" as well.

 

[Disbelief]

Excellent write up. Too many people equate an explosion with explosives as opposed to many other things - transformers, high voltage cable, etc. Of course, this won't change the argument from their standpoint.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

RE: CHF & Disbelief,

Danke.

 

[T.A.M.]

What I would like to see is a compilation of the exact quotes that involve this word "explosion" from the 9/11 attacks, and see them in their context. I am sure the VAST majority of the use of the word, is in the generic "I heard a loud noise" sense of the word.

TAM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What I would like to see is a compilation of the exact quotes that involve this word "explosion" from the 9/11 attacks, and see them in their context. I am sure the VAST majority of the use of the word, is in the generic "I heard a loud noise" sense of the word.

TAM

That is my assumption as well, but part of the impetus of my OP was to show that, when dealing with the witness testimony, unless they saw the explosive (C4, TNT, thermite*, whatever) it can not be said to be evidence of an explosive being used.



* ETA: yes, I know, thermite isn't an explosive, but it gets lumped in the there so often it felt appropriate to include

 

[T.A.M.]

absolutely. Even then, I would qualify it, that the witness would have to have the expertese to identify visually what an explosive device looks like, prior to detonation and then see it actually detonate, to confirm they saw an "explosive".

TAM

 

[Augustine]

Excellent post. Sometimes I wonder what all the Conspiracy Theorists expect a building collapse to sound like - the unfortunate confluence of a complete lack of subject knowledge or experience, and a ridiculously over-inflated sense of confidence in one's own innate "common sense" - an arrogant ignorance, if you will.

 

[T.A.M.]

What I really hate about this angle, the "explosions = explosives" angle, is that even their limited common sense tells them this is not true, but they PURPOSEFULLY use this, out of context, inappropriately, only to serve their agenda.

TAM