Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[DGM]

I liken the non-auditory sensation to having someone slam you in the chest with a pillow.

I don't know exactly what she "hears" but, The smile and look on her face makes the whole trip worthwhile.

 

[femr2]

FEMR, I posted 4 videos of a person up high in a building (sorry not a tower) located several hundred feet away from a location through walls, glass and partitions were able to record CD charges going off.

I'm still waiting for you to comment on those videos

Again, apples and oranges.

A *boom* in the center of the structure 1200ft ABOVE the receiver is not equivalent to series of explosive charges at various locations within and at the outermost locations of a building over various heights relative to said receiver. What's in between in your videos ? Air. Whoopee. What's around ? Other buildings. Extra helpings of reflection. Compare to scenario I put on the table. Discuss.

In what way does posting your YouTube videos provide the math and physics detail required to determine the difference between audio signature of a *boom* 1200ft up in the center of WTC1 and the audio recorded by a directional microphone at ground level 100m from the base ?

If you're trying to prove something, knock yourself out. Proclaim away.

If you're going to begin the process of defining how the intervening structure affects the audio wave, I'm all ears

You're too obsessed with your paranoid theories. Hit the beach x

 

[jaydeehess]

To what end? Simple curiosity, or to prove the existence of explosives?

Its typical femrism.
He claims only to want to seek the knowledge but derides anyone who believes that his investigation into minutia is not worth the effort.

He further goes on at length about not working towards proving any particular contention yet is quite clearly leaning towards the notion that the towers and WTC 7 were propsely demolished by means other than aircarft and fire.

 

[Dog Town]

its typical femrism.
He claims only to want to seek the knowledge but derides anyone who believes that his investigation into minutia is not worth the effort.

He further goes on at length about not working towards proving any particular contention yet is quite clearly leaning towards the notion that the towers and wtc 7 were propsely demolished by means other than aircarft and fire.

Exactamundo!

 

[femr2]

You try to lure us off-topic on purpose.

You appear to suffer from paranoid delusion.

Consider this section of the OP...

Do we know what detonations sound like if they have only been laid in the core column structure, in a building that has not been emptied out

That's the only bit of the OP that interests me.

I've put a couple of parameters on the basic question abstracting it slightly, sure.

Luring you off topic on purpose (wwooooo scaaary) ? Nope.

Why don't you open your own thread to pose your own question and discuss your own topic?

I'm discussing an element of this one. Why do you have a problem with that ?

(If I get around to *running the math*, I may well do so, but for now...nah, here'll do. The nonsense accusations are interesting to see repeatedly placed in stone.)

 

[carlitos]

I'm simply trying to quantify the effect upon loud sound sources in the real world environment.

You officially have the world's lamest hobbies.

You don't know the extent. Neither do I. I'm curious to find out. You're not. Your paranoid assumptions are therefore quite humerous to me.

Bone-dry humour. Nice.

I'm wondering about the effect of a sound in the center of the building a 100 storeys above the receiver, which itself probably has a directional microphone.

Hmm. Why's that? Again, lame hobbies.

Your fourth mistake. I've stated repeatedly that I doubt anyone has the motivation nor ability to do so, but that doesn't change the fact that I'd like to find out the *answer*. As I've also said repeatedly, I may do so myself.

Threatening to do your own personal hobby is a curious tactic. Best of luck!

what's the ACTUAL effect on the sound of a *boom* high up in the tower ?

What boom? What tower? What's the point?

Fingers in ears. lol.

Finally, some productive sound-attenuating techniques! Your hobby may help us all learn something yet!

No theory braniac,

No **** Sherlock!

simply the interest to understand the actual behaviour,

actual behavior of __________?

Getting boring this.

Sentence diagramming this.

Who said that is what the outcome would be ?

Outcome of what?

In direct contrast, you may not my reponse to the suggestion earlier that such a *study* could be used to put a nail in the coffin for any suggestion of the presence of explosives.

What explosives? It's all nanutermites these days. Explosives were debunked on 9/11/2001.

You don't want to understand the actual behaviour of the sound wave because it is not convenient for your personal crusade ? ROFL.

WHAT SOUND WAVE?

Without looking at the actual, or comparable scenario you're waving hands.

What actual scenario?

I'd like to determine what a microphone 100m from the base of WTC1 would pick up if there was a *boom* in the center of the core up at about floor 98, for whatever reason you choose to assume.

Sure, whatever. Enjoy. I'm hitting the beach for a run myself. Much more productive.

 

[femr2]

Its typical femrism.
He claims only to want to seek the knowledge but derides anyone who believes that his investigation into minutia is not worth the effort.

Yet again, utterly wrong. I don't care if you don't *do the math* but if no-one does then making conclusions which depend on having a clue about that actual behaviour is erronious, and I'll point out such. Seemples, innit

I note you have ignored your many errors highlighted in this response in ignorance and your preferred mode of deceitful, er, slander ? (Not that I reeeeellly give a hoot Say what you like. You haven't provided any useful information, so are surplus to my requirements. lol.)

 

[jaydeehess]

That would be the Royal *we* one would assume. You can feel justified in any stance that you please, but in the process you reduce the quality of your critical thinking/skeptical viewpoint/knowledge to what is in my opinion useless banter based upon gross assumption, gross misrepresentation of the scope of what I'm discussing and ample amounts of handwaving.

You don't agree that the consensus among those who's thoughts closely align with mine is that there are no sounds in the audio tracks of the WTC collapses that match the sounds in audio tracks of known explosives demolitions?
Or was your above paragraph just useless banter?

Your first mistake. By applying primitive grouping of your personal belief of various different peoples viewpoints, you end up writing nonsense...

OK so re-read it as if I made mention of no one but you if it makes you feel more special.

Your second mistake. I'm not trying to get around anything in the slightest. That's an invention within your own private world I'm afraid. I'm simply trying to quantify the effect upon loud sound sources in the real world environment. You don't know the extent. Neither do I. I'm curious to find out. You're not. Your paranoid assumptions are therefore quite humerous to me.

Yeah, yeah I know, you are only seeking a better understanding of the minutia of the situation, you have utterly no agenda.

Your fourth mistake. I've stated repeatedly that I doubt anyone has the motivation nor ability to do so, but that doesn't change the fact that I'd like to find out the *answer*. As I've also said repeatedly, I may do so myself.

Actuall I beliebe that had I the motivation, and the time to research this that I would be quite capable of reaching at least a good approzimation of the attenuation at various frequencies in the situation.
You are correct though, I have no motivation to do so. Nor do I have the time.

. That anyone should object to the suggestion of actually working out the real world behaviour is laughable, though very common in this place.

Your own fantasies are showing femr. Very few here have "objected" to the suggestion of working this out. You have been invited to do so what,,, a dozen times in the last few pages?....



Just as a period of free fall does not constitute evidence of explosives neither would showing that the sound would be attenuated and I know, I know, you say that you hold no such view. Pretend then that in saying this that I am addressing those who would claim work you do is indicative of explosives.

 

[jaydeehess]

Yet again, utterly wrong. I don't care if you don't *do the math* but if no-one does then making conclusions which depend on having a clue about that actual behaviour is erronious, and I'll point out such. Seemples, innit

I don't care if you do or don't either.
However given that even in similar structures that we do know were taken down by explosives, the recordings indicate very distinct sounds I find it rather odd to suggest that a larger structure would attenuate the sound so much that it would be very muted and muffled at ground level.

I note you have ignored your many errors highlighted in this response in ignorance and your preferred mode of deceitful, er, slander ? (Not that I reeeeellly give a hoot Say what you like. You haven't provided any useful information, so are surplus to my requirements. lol.)

You will note then that your post which I quote here was posted in the same minute as the post by me that follows it.

 

[femr2]

You officially have the world's lamest hobbies.

Real world immersive soundscape engineering is quite a lucrative arena, especially in the gaming sector, y'know

Bone-dry humour. Nice.

Am always spelin that rong

Sure, whatever. Enjoy. I'm hitting the beach for a run myself. Much more productive.

Go for it.

 

[Oystein]

...
I'm discussing an element of this one. Why do you have a problem with that ?

(If I get around to *running the math*, I may well do so, but for now...nah, here'll do. The nonsense accusations are interesting to see repeatedly placed in stone.)

Because your interest is quite different from the OP's.
Yours requires math - on account of you absolutely insisting you want to see math.
The OP requires no math at all.

You are basically hijacking a thread. (You might argue that you improved on it, since it started out as an unsalvagable wreck. However you decreased the entertainment value, which is my sole interest )

 

[Oystein]

Yet again, utterly wrong. I don't care if you don't *do the math* but if no-one does then making conclusions which depend on having a clue about that actual behaviour is erronious, and I'll point out such. ...

Math isn't necessary to know enough about sound propagation in order to assess the thread topic as per the OP.

 

[femr2]

I find it rather odd to suggest that a larger structure would attenuate the sound so much that it would be very muted and muffled at ground level.

I never said it would. I've said repeatedly I'd like to know WHAT AMOUNT of attenuation is reasonably accurate.

 

[WildCat]

You see, the NWO knew when the WTC was built that they would blow it up and that they would cover it up with a remote-controlled airplane strike. So they designed it like a giant silencer, so no sond escapes to give away the massive nuclear hand grenade explosions.

 

[BasqueArch]

You see, the NWO knew when the WTC was built that they would blow it up and that they would cover it up with a remote-controlled airplane strike. So they designed it like a giant silencer, so no sond escapes to give away the massive nuclear hand grenade explosions.

This is an unfortunately plausible observation.
You will be receiving a call soon.

 

[A W Smith]

WTC, not a controlled demolition, Via Etienne Sauret

WTC at altitude, No explosive demolition.


@ 2.47,, Attenuate this
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition

 

[tsig]

I never said it would. I've said repeatedly I'd like to know WHAT AMOUNT of attenuation is reasonably accurate.

But you won't lift a finger to find out on your own instead you prefer to berate others for not doing the work for you.

 

[femr2]

WTC at altitude

Altitude ? Sauret footage camera viewpoint is about 32m above ground. Long way away, roughly 4900ft, so you could be forgiven for making the mistake of thinking it's higher than it is....if you didn't say stupid things like this...

Attenuate this

...as if you think you're proving something.

Sniff my finger

In what way does your video provide the methods to calculate to what extent the microphone for that camera view would pick up a *boom* of (x) dB at the center of the core all the way up on floor 98 ?

Now, once you get outside of the tower, it's pretty easy. Plenty of equations kicking around for determining attenuation through air. It's a long ass way (nearly 5000ft) so just that element is going to be a pretty significant drop. I'd work it out, but without knowing what the sound level would be at the north face there's little point doing a calc. Veeery roughly about half the source level.

That's the bit I'd like to have reasonable calcs for, the bit before reaching the outside, or for short distance from the tower but at ground level. Y'see ?

I can then apply similar to other camera locations, take local ambient noise levels into account and have a decent idea of what a *boom* should sound like if there was one from pretty much anywhere

Sure, it could get very complicated, if enough factors are included, but these computery things are well handy for dooin' stuff loike daaat.

 

[tsig]

Altitude ? Sauret footage camera viewpoint is about 32m above ground. Long way away, roughly 4900ft, so you could be forgiven for making the mistake of thinking it's higher than it is....if you didn't say stupid things like this...

...as if you think you're proving something.

Sniff my finger

In what way does your video provide the methods to calculate to what extent the microphone for that camera view would pick up a *boom* of (x) dB at the center of the core all the way up on floor 98 ?

Now, once you get outside of the tower, it's pretty easy. Plenty of equations kicking around for determining attenuation through air. It's a long ass way (nearly 5000ft) so just that element is going to be a pretty significant drop. I'd work it out, but without knowing what the sound level would be at the north face there's little point doing a calc. Veeery roughly about half the source level.

That's the bit I'd like to have reasonable calcs for, the bit before reaching the outside, or for short distance from the tower but at ground level. Y'see ?

I can then apply similar to other camera locations, take local ambient noise levels into account and have a decent idea of what a *boom* should sound like if there was one from pretty much anywhere

Sure, it could get very complicated, if enough factors are included, but these computery things are well handy for dooin' stuff loike daaat.

Shame you don't have one of those computery things. It might help you with spelling.

 

[TruthersLie]

Again, apples and oranges.

A *boom* in the center of the structure 1200ft ABOVE the receiver is not equivalent to series of explosive charges at various locations within and at the outermost locations of a building over various heights relative to said receiver. What's in between in your videos ? Air. Whoopee. What's around ? Other buildings. Extra helpings of reflection. Compare to scenario I put on the table. Discuss.

In what way does posting your YouTube videos provide the math and physics detail required to determine the difference between audio signature of a *boom* 1200ft up in the center of WTC1 and the audio recorded by a directional microphone at ground level 100m from the base ?

If you're trying to prove something, knock yourself out. Proclaim away.

If you're going to begin the process of defining how the intervening structure affects the audio wave, I'm all ears

You're too obsessed with your paranoid theories. Hit the beach x

You are claiming that any materials inside of a building would dampen the sound (it should). I am just turning around your requirement. Instead of a building filled with materials which would dampen the sound (and not possibly be demolished due to the debris and associated clean up). I have given you several demolitions where the interior of the demolished buildings have been cleaned out, but the people who are HEARING the CD explosion are INSIDE of adjacent buildings with the windows closed and they have materials around them which would deaden the sound.

In those videos we can still hear the sounds of the CD's going off. Behind office windows (very thick glass), and at higher altitudes than the explosions (the 1000 feet away).

Your appeal to perfection fallacy is noted. And so is your handwave. The videos I have shown demonstrate that even with sound deadneing materials (furniture, closed office windows) in place and at a distance of several hundred meters you can still CLEARLY hear the CD charges going off.

your hand wave is noted.