Of course you don't. You haven't bothered to try.
Correct. Because it ain't necessary to approach perfection here.
What part of being interested in the basic question of how the actual structure affects such a pulse leads you into such polarised nonsense ?
Please explain why this is nonsense.
In WHAT WAY do you think I'm suggesting that the result should be massive reduction to inaudible levels ? I've clearly said *I don't know*, but *would be interested in finding out*. Not guessing. Not applying baseless assertions such as folding in floor by floor explosives. Jebus
The question posed by ergo in the OP is only "interesting" or "reasonable" if there is at least a remote chance a-priori that the result would be a massive reduction to inaudible levels, because it is already established that no set of explosions was heard or recorded immediately prior to collapse initiation, and that explosives massive enough to collapse buildings are generally very loud (red font size=7, you get the drift) and many.
I did not assert "floor by floor explosives", but "explosives at intervalls" - which is ergo's hypothesis. I recommend you re-read ergo's first few posts in this thread to get up to task.
Did I suggest a massive detonation ?
You didn't, but the entire body of knowledge about explosive CDs does, as do the NIST experts.
Did I suggest many massive detonations ?
You didn't, but ergo did.
You don't have to be interested in answering my simpple rephrased question, but repeatedly folding in this kind of crap in dialogue with me is rather annoying.
Oh - I thought you wanted me to answer ergo's question. Now suddenly it is your rephrased question? Sorry, but I am going to stick with the OP in this thread.
What planet are you on ? It's a height. Would work out not far from floor 98. I'd personally start at the roof if I was going to generate some numbers,
Why start with the least relevant extremes? Clearly, ergo's hypothesis involves explosives around the 70th floor, and lower (possibly down to basement level), where charges would have to be larger as columns get thicker.
Suppose we find that there is a column near the roof that we could crack and not hear at the ground - would that validate ergo's hypothesis? NO! Because we also need to look at the larger charger lower down as recorded by devices higher up. So please let's start lower.
then go down in 3 storey heights (or base up similarly). Such silly complaints just show your personal emotionally charged and motivated perspective. Learn to control your emotions.
Ay, father. Thanks for lecturing me. I bow before ye.
Emotive stuff
No, just work out what ACTUALLY happens to the *volume* of a *boom* high up in the middle of the core of a WTC tower in between it's source and a directional microphone at another location, say at ground level 100m away. Seemples
Not needed.
Do you really think I'm talking about anything but the paraphrased question ?
I thought you were talking about the OP, along with a couple of clarifications by ergo.
It really doesn't matter. Going through the process of defining the *model* would allow simple relocation and recalc. A useful end product.
A useful excercise maybe, for practice.
Not necessary though to sort ergo's hypothesis where it belongs: Lala-land.
Not really. Surprisingly skinny.
That would depend on personal expectations, wouldn't it?
But irrelevant. The cross section of the columns needs not be measured against expectations, but against those of other, known CDs. (Sure, I haven't done that)
No math needed. I told you this several times. Why did you ignore it?
I saw a car crash the other day: One car pulled into the street without looking, the other didn't have a chance to stop or go around, so they crashed. Did I do the math on that? No. Am I correct? Yes. See, I didn't know exactly how fast each car was going, what the distance was when the first car appeared in the street, or how much grip the tires had. I just have seen enough cars driving and breaking to be able to estimate roughly if it was possible or impossible to avoid the crash. In that case, it was impossible. The second car went approx. 70km/h and had only approx. 5 meters. Now tell me: Did I need math? Did I need an exact model? 5 meters for 70km/h is pretty extreme, even if I don't calculate acceleration.
Not surprisingly, I do not agree
Ok. How many models do you require? How many elements per model? How many pairs of explosion location and device location? How many relevant digits to the dB number?
Please be specific.
Please be prepared to receive a few laughing dogs when your specific requirement reveals the appeal to perfection fallacy.
Are you lying to me ? As I said...
The OP contains, as far as I'm concerned, not much beyond the question.
The OP claims that a certain set of CD explosions in a video can't be discerned from
other kinds of noises when it is patently obvious that the very loud and prominent explosions sounds can be easily discerned from any non-explosion sounds in that video. So he lied there. He later claims he meant that one can't tell much of a difference between the CD charges and the fireworks - which are not other kinds of noise but the very same kind of noises: explosions. That is the second lie.
I note that you are not concerned when a truther lies to you. A masochistic lie, too.
