Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

I just have one image to sum up my reaction to this whole thread:

thum_168034d853033834df.jpg


Here's the coup-de-grace, folks. Go to http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf. The part relevant to this thread is under the title "Assertion #4" on page 6 of the pdf; scroll down there and read it good.

These comments come from Protec. Protec is a demolitions company and as such employs demolitions experts; you know, the people who would be the most experienced and knowledgeable about controlled demolitions.

If you're going to argue against actual demolitions experts about whether WTC was a controlled demolition, you'd better have something more up your sleeve than just wild, made-up speculation. "Could haves", "might haves", and "maybes" will not refute this paper, only hard evidence will. Got evidence?
 
femr2 said:
As I said, parameterise the pulse. Abstract it. FFS :)


So ? A question of interest jumped out at me from the OP, so I'm discussing it. The relation to the OP is clear.


Here will do fine, thanks :)


No I don't. I'm interested in...(repeat what I've said about twenty times already)


What conspiracy would that be ?


I've made what I want to explore clear.


Agreed.


And what conspiracy theory would that be ?


Noted.
Click to expand...

Shame you couldn't have fought it off on your own.
 
DGM said:
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).?
Click to expand...
I guess you could call the locailty in at least *busy street* territory, so at least 70dB, with an extra 5dB being the minimum threshold above that, but feel free to alter these if they are none too practical.

You need to make me want to pull in a favor. My engineer is going to want to know why I want this.
Click to expand...
Setting up the structure (98 storeys worth of stuff) sounds quite time consuming, but I'm all for simplification within reason.

How do I make you want to pull in a favour ? Hmmm. Hows this... If the result is cool, you'll hear nowt from me about audio levels ever again :)
 
femr2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You want to know but not enough to be bothered to find out.

I think we need to know exactly how much all the furniture above the impact zone weighed. Get right on that will you. lol
 
tsig said:
I think we need to know exactly how much all the furniture above the impact zone weighed. Get right on that will you. lol
Click to expand...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/0-0-0-9-20

You can use the data in there (sheet:tower) to determine furniture mass estimate based upon per floor structural masses, scaled live loads and relative tenant floorspace usage. You're welcome :)
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
... 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,...
Click to expand...

No huge explosions in the basement - this was refuted long ago. A huge explosion in the basement would kill people, no one died from huge explosions.

http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1997183&postcount=1
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127136
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3193586&postcount=55
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1907291&postcount=40
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76025

The aircraft impacts on 911 were equal in energy to 1300 and 2000 pound bombs, this is what caused the damage we see to the WTC before they collapsed. Aircraft traveling 800 feet per second, coming to a complete stop in 200 feet.

Where does 911 truth come up with these mangled clay-brained nut-hook claims of explosives?

Where are your sources for, huge explosions. Source it, by name, who said so? Back up your claims with some evidence.
 
femr2 said:
How do I make you want to pull in a favour ? Hmmm. Hows this... If the result is cool, you'll hear nowt from me about audio levels ever again :)
Click to expand...

Now we have a problem. You see my back pool house is getting really old. I want to build a new one with a cantilevered deck and a "hot tub" (there's a stream and a small natural water-fall). I have a bit of a problem with "wet land concerns" so favors are at a premium. My GF likes the idea and it's secluded so, well....you get the idea.

Now if you can come up with a reason this should be important to me, well maybe I can be convinced.
 
Last edited:
femr2 said:
Thought we might :) As I said, I may get around to it myself. If you feel inclined, or curious, be my guest.
Click to expand...

And here's me thinking there aint no one smart enough round here to 'get it'. Geez. Fancy bringing such a conundrum that nobody can answer. lol. We 'debunkers' just don't get it. You sure are too smart femr. Far too clever for this forum. lol.

Who'd a thunk dat in 2011 we wud be talkin bout de noiz levuls ov imaginhairy explblosifz. Geex ya got me femr. I gives up.
 
femr2 said:
You appear unable to read.

I am interested in determining to what extent the intervening structure and environment attenuates the *volume* of a *boom* from inside the core, up-top of the tower, given a directional mic at ground level near the base.
Click to expand...

Well then answer the question I asked a few days ago - to what end?

Curiosity or to prove something?
 
Why is this thread 5 pages long?

Has anyone pointed out that the cores remained standing several seconds after the collapse yet?
 
ergo said:
There weren't in the Alfred P. Murrah building, either. Only one. That we know of.
Click to expand...

different building, different circumstances.

I believe I've stated repeatedly that the explosives used may not necessarily have been traditional CD cutter charges.
Click to expand...


Having said that, the only other option was that whoever planted whatever charges, did so perfectly without prior testing, and also managed to do load the building - then run next door and do the other one - with nobody noticing.
 
femr2 said:
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*,
Click to expand...


How does that differ from twoofer narratives?

They insist that no wreckage at the pentagon (which we all know is false anyway) proves that a missile hit it.

No Plane *boom*
at the Pentagon "in footage x"
at the impact site "at time y"
proves missile "*z*"

It's identical to what you just wrote.
 
NoahFence said:
It's identical to what you just wrote.
Click to expand...
LOL. Far from it, and an interesting choice of position at which to snip my comment. Here is the full quote...
femr2 said:
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*, 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. If folk aren't interested, that's fine. If folk start throwing their toys out the cot making ludicrous inept claims about the intent, then I'm forced to *lol* a bit.
Click to expand...

You fall under the category of those that I am forced to *LOL* at a bit I'm afraid.

The intent is as stated, and one end result may well be confirmation that any microphone type, at any location would pick up even a sinlge suitably loud *boom* from any location within the towers whatsoever. Until there is some way to empirically clarify that, I don't know the answer. Neither do you. You could guess, but you could be wrong.

Now, given that my statement relates to affirmations made by so-called *debunkers*, that you compare it to logical reasoning made by so-called *twoofers* is rather humerous, and mildly ironic.

As I said to you before...

I'm afraid you'll find I'm really not at all concerned by your inept attempts at *twoofer baiting*. You are particulary poor at it by the way, but by all means carry on :) x
 
femr2 said:
LOL. Far from it, and an interesting choice of position at which to snip my comment. Here is the full quote...


You fall under the category of those that I am forced to *LOL* at a bit I'm afraid.

The intent is as stated, and one end result may well be confirmation that any microphone type, at any location would pick up even a sinlge suitably loud *boom* from any location within the towers whatsoever. Until there is some way to empirically clarify that, I don't know the answer. Neither do you. You could guess, but you could be wrong.

Now, given that my statement relates to affirmations made by so-called *debunkers*, that you compare it to logical reasoning made by so-called *twoofers* is rather humerous, and mildly ironic.

As I said to you before...

I'm afraid you'll find I'm really not at all concerned by your inept attempts at *twoofer baiting*. You are particulary poor at it by the way, but by all means carry on :) x
Click to expand...

Do you personally believe that such an event should be picked up by a microphone on the ground? Or not?
 
Justin39640 said:
Do you personally believe that such an event should be picked up by a microphone on the ground? Or not?
Click to expand...
Belief has nothing to do with it, and should not.

What intensity spike would be picked up on a directional microphone at ground level 100m from the base of the tower is a *boom* occurred in the middle of the core near the top of the tower ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom