Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[jiggeryqua]

You know the old saying, about the shoe and it fitting, right?

Aw, bless, you went to all that trouble to import that quote from another thread. Yes, I do appreciate that the people I was referring to seem to abandon any attempt at understanding or logical, rational thought in their enthusiasm for attacking anybody who dares not to join in the often vicious, frequently uncivil and occasionally baseless or misguided or just plain wrong attacks on 'twoofers'. I made that very clear in the part of the post that you didn't quote. Now here you are proving it for me, just as you posted in the thread the quote came from to prove the contention of the OP.

It is a fact that, from time to time, posts by 'debunkers' are riddled with inaccuracies or fallacious reasoning. As I said in the thread you've dragged this argument from, I fondly imagined the same standards of critical thought would pertain to this sub-forum as they do elsewhere on JREF, but apparantly here the bloodlust is rampant and anyone who doesn't stand with, or dares to criticise a post by a member of, the aggressively dominant group is assumed to be part of the other, 'enemy' group.

Perhaps it's a necessary playground for people (like you, as you've shown) who struggle to play by the rules in the other parts of the forum. I shall be popping you on ignore, by the way. You can pretend, as does sometimes happen, that that means you're right and I'm wrong. It's no skin off my nose.

 

[WildCat]

Do I?

Oh, that was femr2. Hard to tell you guys apart, neither of you has seen a conspiracy theory too ridiculous to dismiss.

Was I? Which thread? What post?

This thread, where you rushed to Dakota's defense in post #52.

 

[Quad4_72]

Do I?




Was I? Which thread? What post?

Here is the exact post for you:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6974215#post6974215

Why is it you would rather attempt to defend a mini nuker as opposed to debunking them? Do you believe mini nukes are possible?

 

[Animal]

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

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

Sound is a lot like water......the easiest path of travel. You can have a 75 STC wall, put a hole through it and it is as if the wall isn't there.

 

[Animal]

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.

troofers always seem to believe that explosions = explosives, and loud noises = explosives. I guess they have never seen and heard a transformer explode of a steel beam fail.

 

[carlitos]

Cool. A truther who wins because nobody can answer an irrelevent question. lol.

By femr2's logic, the hypothesis of Mothra would stand until someone proved otherwise and "ran the calcs." We really are dealing with the bottom of the barrel here. Enjoy the "debate" folks.

 

[1337m4n]

Explosions actually aren't an uncommon occurrence in a burning building.

Nearly every building that suffers a major fire will have explosions. None of these explosions come from demolition charges.

 

[Dog Town]

Aw, bless, you went to all that trouble to import that quote from another thread.

*Buzzer*
Wrong again!
Post 105 in THIS thread!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6989024&postcount=105


Priceless!

 

[femr2]

I'm comparing soundwaves to...soundwaves. And it's not my conspiracy. You're making a common mistake I referred to earlier in this thread - expecting 'debunkers' to make sense doesn't make me a 'twoofer'.

They are not capable of understanding such simple statements I'm afraid.

Ergo is talking about multi-floor demolition. I'm talking about clarifying understanding of how the sound of a *boom* high up in the tower would be affected by the intervening structure and materials, and how the location and orientation of source and receiver would come into play.

Yet they can't tell the difference between us. Yikes Not too smart.

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

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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.

Noone's saying that there weren't explosions, they're saying there weren't explosives. Please read before shooting your thoughts to your chubby digits.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm talking about clarifying understanding of how the sound of a *boom* high up in the tower would be affected by the intervening structure and materials, and how the location and orientation of source and receiver would come into play.

[...]

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.

I imagine it might be a useful thing to determine if, for example, you were researching into the possibility of conducting a top-down demolition with minimum shockwave damage to surrounding buildings, and you wanted to understand how elevating the position of the starting explosion, and possibly confining it to the inner structural elements of a building, would reduce the peak overpressures in the immediate vicinity. Since there is absolutely no reason to suppose that any such thing happened on 9/11, however, it seems of no more relevance to the events of 9/11 than an analysis of how the sound of a Led Zeppelin gig high up in the tower would be affected by the intervening structure and materials, and how the location and orientation of source and receiver would come into play. While, in principle, I suppose you could say that this refuted one argument against there having been a Led Zeppelin gig in progress in one of the Twin Towers, it seems rather pointless, given that we can be absolutely certain that there wasn't.

Dave

 

[Scott Sommers]

They are not capable of understanding such simple statements I'm afraid.

Ergo is talking about multi-floor demolition. I'm talking about clarifying understanding of how the sound of a *boom* high up in the tower would be affected by the intervening structure and materials, and how the location and orientation of source and receiver would come into play.

Yet they can't tell the difference between us. Yikes Not too smart.

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

The complexity of this Truther position is amazing. The ins and outs confound any simple answer with their details. You must certainly be a master of the evidence to be able to deal with such intricacies. It's like an episode of Ellery Queen, or dare I say, like decoding the Matrix.

 

[NoahFence]

Noone's saying that there weren't explosions, they're saying there weren't explosives. Please read before shooting your thoughts to your chubby digits.

I find it amazing that twoofers still to this day cling to the notion that explosions = explosives. As I said on the facebook page (prior to my being censored) the worst explosion I've seen personally was caused by water. Water + Metal Foundry = BOOM

Now that I'm here on JREF, where's the pyroclastic cloud thread? Gotta be here somewhere.

 

[Dog Town]

.

Yet they can't tell the difference between us. Yikes Not too smart.

The irony here is, the person you are replying to, can't even remember what thread he/she posted in! Then goes on a tangent of accusation about it.

Priceless. Do continue.

 

[femr2]

I imagine it might be a useful thing to determine if, for example, you were researching into the possibility of conducting a top-down demolition with minimum shockwave damage to surrounding buildings, and you wanted to understand how elevating the position of the starting explosion, and possibly confining it to the inner structural elements of a building, would reduce the peak overpressures in the immediate vicinity.

I imagine so, but to what extent ?

I've lost count of the number of times that folk have stated that because there were no *booms* in the audio track of video footage (x) filmed from location with directional camera oriented (z) that there were no *booms* at all, yet in the same breath state that *booms* that are present in audio track (b) cannot possibly be anything but (c) and a window pane breaking would sound exactly like that in recording (d)...

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

Might have a crack at it.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I find it amazing that twoofers still to this day cling to the notion that explosions = explosives. As I said on the facebook page (prior to my being censored) the worst explosion I've seen personally was caused by water. Water + Metal Foundry = BOOM

Now that I'm here on JREF, where's the pyroclastic cloud thread? Gotta be here somewhere.

I know Steve, I find it amazing that they remain blatantly stupid. Explosions = explosives, pfffft yeah right. I know what you've said on facebook and you witnessed something that doesn't involve explosives.

Where's the pyroclastic cloud thread? It's gotta be around here somewhere!

 

[jaydeehess]

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

I assume that someone else pointed out that this sentence seems to rely on Wile E. Coyote physics.

ETA: I see Wildcat made the reference...

 

[jaydeehess]

Oy...

In a way Ergo is right. His sloppy use of english, his poor vocabulary and his inability to properly use the correct definitions of the terms is what is confusing this.

At the point of failure, the core failed (and using Bazants limiting case) that was all it took to bring down the towers (a fall of one floor).

So in this instance S Ergo is saying that the core failed at the initiation area, and the rest of the building collapsed... what we see is then the lower core still standing (you know... the parts they didn't need to put explosives on)

I did understand what he was attempting to say. However the sheer hilarity at how he put,,,, I could not ignore.

 

[tsig]

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.

Then the explosives would have to have a 100% kill ratio, otherwise some survivors would show signs of injuries due to explosions.

 

[tsig]

Demonstrating the lateral focus I mentioned.


Utterly dependant upon the type and location.


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

I'd quite like to know fairly accurately.


Again, you are assuming my opinion. I'm afraid you're still quite wrong. If I've told you once, ...


Where is your sound-path render answering the question then ?

What is the dB reduction ?


ROFL. Misleading ? That's funny. Once you have an environment with which you can calculate from source to receiver it can be tested from many locations. You don't have that yet, so whining about what location is referenced is just a bit pathetic.


That's fine. Apply the calcs to them all. Bit boring without actually doing a single scenario check though eh.

A boom center of core about 1200ft up. Pick a dB value for the boom, render the wave through all intervening materials accounting for reflection and absorbtion etc. Spit out resultant dB value for a ground level receiver, say, 100m from the base.

Then you'll have a method. Apply it to other locations.

Still results in big bang ? Fine. You have something useful for your purposes. Not doing so...hand wave.
Strawman. Work it out with the actual structure and scenario on the table, ie intact WTC.


Strawman. CC up top were remarkably skinny, as I am sure you know well. Irrelevant to the base technical question to boot.


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


You told him he was wrong, when it's a question you can't give a decent answer to. As I said, I don't think it's an unreasonable question. A decent answer or an honest admission that you just don't know (which therefore MUST include the possibility that you may not expect to be able to hear it )


No, I don't know. Might end up a bang loud enough to be detected by a particular directional microphone of a particular camera at the scene, might not. I think the sound pressure wave would be affected significantly by the structure, especially so far up in the air, but I haven't tested it. It should be possible to work it out though within reasonable margins, without too much effort.

Until someone does, it's a question that I think would be useful to try and answer.

Do you not agree ??? Strange if not. Would have thought that would be a VERY useful piece of work in environment here.


You can do as much private thinking as you like in the most public form you can think of (which I imagine is here) but it doesn't change the fact that, yes, I *deny* that I know what effect the structure would have, though I'd be fairly confident in suggesting that the maximum scale BANG would only be heard along quite a narrow cone laterally outward from the vertical level of the source of such a BANG How it would all pan out at the various camera locations...not too sure.

If you *do the math*, cool, let me know. If not, you just don't know. I might get around to it at some point.
Have fun.

So you're not doing it. Waves hand.