The 9/11 Forum

no_body wrote:The white rectangular object (search light?) on the NW corner begins to move simultaneously with the bang,

There is a small burst from the NW face at the corner floor 101?, which also coincides with the bang as does some black smoke explosively ejected further up floor 106?. We have multiple events and a single sound - a bang, and the building begins to fall, what happens next isn't really relevant is it?

The mast has already begun moving about a meter? (guessing) at bang time, then the first linear expulsions along the N and NW face occur more or less as the bang ends,

I hardly think it has anything to do with 'gale force winds' and 'forest fires' (IMO)

OWE

I felt the discussion was veering into how much air was being expelled, which has nothing to do with this (IMO)
This is a single sound, do all the columns 'break, in unison? something sure does go bang tho'

Once AGAIN YOU are the one who bought the expulsions of fire and smoke into the conversation NOT me.

Once AGAIN you have failed to comprehend the relevance of the calculations.

You think that considering how fast the air is expelled from the building, and having something real to compare that to is irrelevant to considering wether or not those expulsions of fire and smoke could be caused by the full or partial collapse of a floor?

You are most assuredly profoundly and gravely mistaken.

Also, do I need to point out that the roof of the height of the towers was 1360 feet (+change), so approximating this to 1000 feet introduces about a 30% error, which introduces a 60% error into any calculations of straightline distance (and there for travel time) based on this?

(Found the problem btw, I couldn't hear the audio because I was using the wrong version of the quicktime audio codec - needed to update my quicktime player, which I have since done).

You asked me whether expulsions were relevant, I tried to explain how relevant I think they are. The speed of escaping air has nought to do with it . And now you're shouting,

1000 feet is an estimate based on the camera being 150- 200 ft ASL and the height of the 95 -100 th floor. it's kind of in the middle of that spread.

With the measurement taken from the roof the distance to the camera is 1632 m the video uses 1608 m

That's not a 60% difference
Large Bang observed on initiation of collapse
Get over it
More to follow.........

Best Regards

no_body wrote:You asked me whether expulsions were relevant, I tried to explain how relevant I think they are. The speed of escaping air has nought to do with it . And now your shouting,

I'm calling this statement BS.
You claimed that the expulsions, which coincided with the noise (you have no justification for calling it loud, especially if it's that quiet by the time it gets to the camera that it's subject to suggestability, as you have claimed it was).

I pointed out that the expulsions, and the noise might have been caused by the full or partial collapse of one floor onto the floor below it.

I then did the calculations to show that "Yes, exactly like that".
So far, all you've done is run in circles, flap your arms in the air, and call me a liar.
Now, do you have something of substance that actually contradicts anything i've said, or can we expect more of the same from you.

no_body wrote:1000 feet is an estimate based on the camera being 150- 200 ft ASL and the height of the 95 -100 th floor. it's kind of in the middle of that spread.

Oh woe is me He said "The distance up the tower from the camera is" and I misheard him Oh sob I've been found out as a liar (note the sarcasm in my voice at this stage).

no_body wrote:With the measurement taken from the roof the distance to the camera is 1632 m the video uses 1608 m

That's not a 60% difference

That's not what I said though is it?
What I said was that approximating 1360 feet as 1000 feet introduces a 30% error, which when you square the value, introduces a 60% error.

no_body wrote:Large Bang observed on initiation of collapse
Get over it
More to follow.........

Best Regards

Right, a large bang which has several other possible explanations, none of which you've been able to definitively exclude.

So far all you have is hand waving.

no_body wrote:The white rectangular object (search light?) on the NW corner begins to move simultaneously with the bang,

That's the window washer apparatus.

Given this timing mark, it's at global initiation.

We have multiple events and a single sound - a bang, and the building begins to fall, what happens next isn't really relevant is it?

It could be (I think it is, see below). Given the timing you've indicated, the building is already moving down on the south side, so floor collapses may not even be the complete picture. The point at which global failure occurs is discernable in the displacement record and is the time you give.

Now I realize we probably haven't been talking about the same expulsions.

The mast has already begun moving about a meter? (guessing) at bang time,

Exactly, the building is deforming in some fashion, most generally referred to as tilting but there's no need to be that specific. Slumping, loss of the core, fill in the blank.

...then the first linear expulsions along the N and NW face occur more or less as the bang ends,

And this is when the building IS coming down so 'what happens next' is clearly relevant. The columns broke just before this.

This is a single sound, do all the columns 'break, in unison?

No more than about 0.8 seconds. Ask Major_Tom about this, he thinks it's a lot less, maybe simultaneous. This snapping, if that's what it was, presumably would have occurred on the east side as well so that's half the tower perimeter giving out in under a second. Now, I wouldn't expect it to be louder than the collapse, not at all, but it could be rapid, sharp and loud. Even slightly ahead of the noise of the global collapse.


Edit: Major_Tom may have opinions on the coincidence of this sound with the failure propagation and differ from my interpretation, won't put words in his mouth

Ok Trippy you've had your fun kindly leave the thread. You quite clearly can't control your emotions.

I think you need to let your maturity glands swell a bit. We're clearly not going to get along.

As I said above it's about all the evidence taken together, that's what builds the picture.
To me the sound is an explosion, to Fox News it's a car back firing, this is just evidence.

I'm ignoring you as you have nothing of value to contribute.

So
Bye Bye

OWE
OK Looks like your going for a simultaneous snapping of columns, as I said it's spychoacoustics I know what I'm hearing and seeing and so everyone else has their own rationalisation of what's going on let, the listener be the judge.

Wow all the columns snapping in unison from asymmetrical damage you see to me that's a bit far fetched. improbable if you like, however each to his own I suppose.

There's no evidence of any tilt at that time in the collapse, and there's no evidence about the South side, it's conjecture. Can you see through buildings?

To no one in particular

I detect a lot of fear on this forum. People suffering from cognitive dissonance perhaps.

'till next time

bye

Maybe I'm considering the wrong expulsions, but I thought we were talking about the expulsions from the lowest burning floor - forlack of a better way of putting it, itlooks to be completely engulfed in flame, it's below the impact point, and appears to expel quite a bit offlame and smoke at the same time as this noise, both of which are conincident with the obvious downwards motion.

no_body wrote:Ok Trippy you've had your fun kindly leave the thread. You quite clearly can't control your emotions.

This from someone who has blatantly accused me of lying on three seperate occasions>

no_body wrote:I think you need to let your maturity glands swell a bit. We're clearly not going to get along.

Physician heal thyself. There are plenty of people I disagree with that I get on,the difference is I don't have to suffer their immature tempertantrums and outbursts, and they don't accuse me of lying on the public record.

no_body wrote:I'm ignoring you as you have nothing of value to contribute.

No, you're ignoring me because with a little rational thought i've rendered your evidence as dust.

no_body wrote:...as I said it's spychoacoustics I know what I'm hearing and seeing and so everyone else has their own rationalisation of what's going on let, the listener be the judge...

no_body wrote:There's no evidence of any tilt at that time in the collapse, and there's no evidence about the South side, it's conjecture. Can you see through buildings?

no_body wrote:I detect a lot of fear on this forum. People suffering from cognitive dissonance perhaps.

'till next time

bye

There's the 'let me enlighten you' pseudo religous rhetoric.

no_body wrote:Ok Trippy you've had your fun kindly leave the thread. You quite clearly can't control your emotions.

A little chilling is in order, it seems. I like vicious, slanderous, frothing argumentation, but find not too many others that do.

We're clearly not going to get along.

Looks that way.

I'm ignoring you as you have nothing of value to contribute.

It is your right. And if Trippy really was derailing the thread instead of making a counterargument or suggesting plausible alternatives, then it would be your right to request he leave the thread. I don't believe that's the case.

But you seriously can't expect to put up a claim and have no scrutiny, right? Scrutiny looks and feels just like this!

no_body wrote:OWE
OK Looks like your going for a simultaneous snapping of columns, as I said it's spychoacoustics I know what I'm hearing and seeing and so everyone else has their own rationalisation of what's going on let, the listener be the judge.

I'm suggesting that something very significant is happening during that time, something that would be expected to be loud. I could be wrong in associating these events! Or not.

Wow all the columns snapping in unison from asymmetrical damage you see to me that's a bit far fetched. improbable if you like, however each to his own I suppose.

Everyone pretty much assumed they buckled and rather slowly until Major_Tom, a proponent of CD, showed they snapped and, in his opinion, nearly simultaneously. If there were charges that did it, that might well explain your sound. If it wasn't charges that did it - well, they snapped anyway and I think that would be louder than hell, actually.

The progression south to north was very rapid. Explain it any way you want. If you don't agree, I'll pull out what evidence I can find - if you even want to see it.

There's no evidence of any tilt at that time in the collapse, and there's no evidence about the South side, it's conjecture. Can you see through buildings?

There are other videos, you know.

I detect a lot of fear on this forum.

Gods, where have you visited? The board is mostly CTers!

People suffering from cognitive dissonance perhaps.

Not me. I just don't buy into things with minimal evidence and a preponderance of subjectivity. Unless that subjectivity comes from me! It works all the way around; e.g., NIST doesn't have a lot of credibility with me.

'till next time

bye

It's up to you whether this is worth it for you or not. Personally, I don't want you to leave. And, yes, I'll just lay off and not participate the thread if that's what you want. But is that what you came here for - agreement, confirmation without scrutiny... applause? Seriously, you may be on to something. Defend it!

Just to prove my point a little further:

Garces, M.; Hetzer C., Merrifield M., Willis M. and Aucan J. (2003).

Comparison of ocean buoy measurements with infrasonic array data collected during the epic winter of 2002–2003 shows a clear relationship between breaking ocean wave height and infrasonic signal levels.

Garces, M.; Willis, M. (2006). Modeling and Characterization of Microbarom Signals in the Pacific.

Naturally occurring sources of infrasound include (but are not limited to) severe weather, volcanoes, bolides, earthquakes, surf, mountain waves, and, the focus of this research, nonlinear ocean wave interactions.

They're also produced by the calving of icebergs, and avalanches - the last one perhaps being a point of note.

So detecting infrasonics is by no means exclusively diagnostic of the use of explosives, in fact one might argue that they should be expected as a consequence of any (building) collapse.

Here's something else to consider.
Much to my Wife's dismay, I decided to carry out an experiement.
I slammed my door lounge door closed, and recorded the sound through my Singstar mic (I bought it as a party game, and assumed it had better acoustics than my laptop's built in Mic).
This is the result.

Note the sudden rise time and what appears to (me at least) to be a hint of infrasonics?
Now, before anybody accuses me of being off topic or dishonest, i'm quite happy to email people the original sound file (1.97s in duration) so they can run their own tests, but as far as I can see, that combined with my previous post pretty much disproves the idea that the sound on the Sauret footage MUST be caused by explosives.

Crikey. Another busy thread.

I have to say, having been on this board for a while now, that one of the useful things I have learned is to think quick, think slow, think deep, think well....then try and make every post emotionally neutral and contain information which progresses each thread. (I say try, as we can all lose the plot at times)

There's a lot of *discussion* going on. It almost felt like I was in a *chat room* (This place is not like J, no, I can't say it. "Side of fence" badge off at the door please.)

Facts or increase in detail of sound resoning is a much more decisive way to respond to any *disagreement* IMO...

Having said that, I can't add to the thread right now , as I'm a bit busy for a few days, but this is right up my street (having done much low-level sound engineering in my time), and I hope to include comparative audio analysis in the near future.

Note to OP: Comparing the Sauret audio with the audio footage from very similar position for WTC2 descent is very interesting. Focussing on the 80Hz to 150Hz frequency range is quite enlightening. There are audio features of several videos which are very interesting, and it's good to see a new thread which will allow me to drop in various observations (I'll limit to Sauret here)

With psychoacoustics in mind...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QvMnqzT2rk
Look like a reaction to a low frequency shockwave to you ? Or a *bang* ? Or a reaction simply to others around him based on their visual cue ? Sorry if this seems OT, but I think it could be very relevant to the low frequency sound/distance element of the discussion (especially when the frequency response pattern of various mics are taken into account)

No loud explosive bangs at the onset of WTC2 collapse, but the sound of interior collapse precedes the exterior collapse by some ~500 miliseconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkP6jpZ4V1c

Trippy wrote:Taking into account the reduced volume, and the fact that the perimeter columns were 1'-2" in the appropriate ddirection, and the void space in the cores, yields a cross sectional area of 1,067 m^2 - both window space and core void space to escape, and gives us a flow velocity of 15.2 m/s which is still Force 7 on the Beaufort Scale.

That's close to what I calculated some time ago.

And yes, assuming all the windows already broken is quite reasonable for the initiation floor 97. See NCSTAR1--5A.

no_body --- Poster Trippy is offering what I take to be valid criticisms and in a responsible manner.

By the way, notice what happens when you clap your hands together.