Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[Jackanory]

making conclusions which depend on having a clue about that actual behaviour is erronious, and I'll point out such. Seemples, innit

You haven't provided any useful information, so are surplus to my requirements. lol.)

You failed to answer your own erronious behaviour. You cant give your own irrelevent 'calcs'.

Nothing new in the 'hit and run' tactics you use. To what end are you asking? The same end as your irrelevent erronious 'POD's'. You can't distinguish from manufactured items supposed to be fitted to an aircraft and pass them of as 'bombs'. lol. Pose, pause..............fail.......again and again and again, lol.

Your 'calcs' are not required to continue. No explosives on 911. Plenty of 'explosions' but no 'explosives'. Intelectual dishonesty is your only forte. Seemples, innit. lol.

Been having fun for almost 10 years of stupid. lol. Crack on you internetz warrior you. lol.

 

[Jackanory]

Sniff my finger

Naah thanks. You have it in too many silly pies.

 

[femr2]

You are claiming that any materials inside of a building would dampen the sound (it should).

A rather primitive way of looking at it. More to do with sound path through and around the structure rather than what you seem to be implying.

I am just turning around your requirement.

And in the process showing you don't quite get the point.

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.

Totally different to the sound path implied by a receiver being near the base when a single loud noise source occurs up-top inside the core.

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).

So ? In what way are the two scenarios comparable, and in what way have you determined the relative reduction in *volume* ?

Your appeal to perfection fallacy is noted.

Nonsense. Perfection is not necessary, but a means to estimate the actual dB reduction is what I'm after, sure.

And so is your handwave.

Nonsense. No handwave. Have said I may get around to doing the legwork. Seems no-one here has a clue. All you can do is talk about controlled demolitions and bait twoofers. Sad waste of time in my opinion. Doing the leg work on this process can actually get you to use your brain. But maybe you best not engage that eh

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.

You can repeat that as many times as you like, but it's an irrelevant statement.

What drop in volume can be expected to be picked up for a directional microphone located near the base of the tower if a boom occurs high up in the tower in the middle of the core ?

Answers to that question, with numerical proof, are all I'm interested in. If you say something else, .... not interested.

your hand wave is noted.

Still no handwave going on.

Have fun.

 

[triforcharity]

Really? Marble slabs and concrete, heavy doors or large filing cabinets behind walls don't reduce sound? Gee, you must know so much about this.

Marble slabs and concrete actually reflect sound quite well. Why do you think they put them next to interstates? To REFLECT sound, not absorb.

LOL!!!

Good one!!

 

[triforcharity]

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

Since you are an expert at everything, tell me something.

What is the difference (expressed in numbers) between a sound registering at 100 db, and a sound at 140 db.


Hint-It should look like this.

"A noise that registers at 140 db. is _________ times as loud as something at 100 db. "

Do the math.

 

[femr2]

Hint-It should look like this.

LOL. You should really make it clear what unit you are talking about, dimensionless scales and all that, but...

"A noise that registers at 140 db. is _________ times as loud as something at 100 db. "

Making a few assumptions about units...

A noise that registers at 140 dB is 10000 times larger in relative terms than something at 100 dB.

(A difference of 9.999E14 times the threshold of hearing)

Do the math.

Funny. Understand the terms first.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
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.

In deriding anyone who suggests that it would not attenuate the sound to this point ( pointing out that structures do not attenuate explosive sounds in known explosive situations) IS suggesting that it may well do so.

 

[newton3376]

Interesting discussion......there are several issues I see with this...

1. What "type" of explosives would we use for the calculation? Are we talking high order or low order explosives?

2. Are these directional charges or not?

3. Since you would have to use one type of explosive to cut a column and a different type to hurl a beam several hundred feet we would need to run a simulation with both explosives going off. This is in addition to normal wave propogation effects like reflection, refraction, and diffraction.

4. How would we account for the cell phone calls from within the towers that did not pick up any loud "booms" when the towers fell?

5. Focusing only on the audible aspect ignores the seismic evidence that would exist if explosives had actually gone off.

So while this might be an interesting discussion from a modeling and simulation (M&S) viewpoint to those of us who do not regularly perform such simulations.....the fact remains that any such calculation with regard to proving or disproving explosives in the towers is useless.

Any calculation showing that the sound level is more then high enough to be heard can be explained away by truthers by simply saying it was some kind of super secret silent explosive.

As a side note...I have always found it strange that truthers claim that "nano-thermite" is some kind of military grade SECRET explosive while then making reference to quite public documents on that very topic.....doesn't really seem very secret if investi-googlers can find it so easily.

 

[femr2]

In deriding anyone who suggests that it would not attenuate the sound to this point

LOL. Who is deriding who ?

Yet again, I've said repeatedly I'd like to know WHAT AMOUNT of attenuation is reasonably accurate.

If you interpret that as derision, or manipulate the scope to the difference between *what amount of* and *not to this point* you have problems, or more likely it's simply hapless attempts to try and justify your repeated inept misinterpretations.

Either way, your whining is irrelevant, and your assertions are incorrect.

 

[carlitos]

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

Not for you it isn't.

 

[femr2]

Interesting discussion......there are several issues I see with this...

1. What "type" of explosives would we use for the calculation? Are we talking high order or low order explosives?

Given the intent would be a parameterised model, with sound being the focus, I don't think it matters too much. Properties of the pulse source could be varied.

2. Are these directional charges or not?

I'd suggest that shaped point source would be a useful property, though for simplicity I'd suggest an initial spherical source.

3. Since you would have to use one type of explosive to cut a column and a different type to hurl a beam several hundred feet we would need to run a simulation with both explosives going off.

I do not agree. You are, with respect, poisoning the well. You know as well as I do that perimeter peeling was a side effect of the primary ROOSD process and mas funneling.

normal wave propogation effects like reflection, refraction, and diffraction.

Would need inclusion, sure.

4. How would we account for the cell phone calls from within the towers that did not pick up any loud "booms" when the towers fell?

Still stuck in your conspiracy theory. Model the sound from source to receiver, apply to any scenario you please afterwards, once the math model exists.

5. Focusing only on the audible aspect ignores the seismic evidence that would exist if explosives had actually gone off.

A boom high up in the tower doesn't have to be ground linked in any practical way. You are still blinkering your viewpoint with your conspiracy theory lilt.

So while this might be an interesting discussion from a modeling and simulation (M&S) viewpoint

Go for it.

 

[ergo]

3. Since you would have to use one type of explosive to cut a column and a different type to hurl a beam several hundred feet we would need to run a simulation with both explosives going off.

Are you suggesting that only explosives can hurl steel beams several hundred feet?

4. How would we account for the cell phone calls from within the towers that did not pick up any loud "booms" when the towers fell?

Your fellow bedunkers insist that explosions were heard, and that for them not to be heard would be strange. So why indeed did cell phone calls not pick up any of these sounds that survivors and witnesses describe having heard?

5. Focusing only on the audible aspect ignores the seismic evidence that would exist if explosives had actually gone off.

Which bedunker scientist claimed that the seismic records were "unreliable" due to all the chaos of the day. Was it Bazant? Yes, I think it was Bazant.

 

[NoahFence]

Femr - if you want to hear what a building sounds like at altitude, when it collapses WITHOUT the use of explosives, see 9/11.

Otherwise, like a typical twoofer you're just trying to find something that CAN'T be proven, which will of course mean you're right.

EVERY twoofer tactic has been thoroughly blasted out of existence by now. Try to keep up.

 

[femr2]

Femr - if you want to hear what a building sounds like at altitude, when it collapses WITHOUT the use of explosives, see 9/11.

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.

Otherwise, like a typical twoofer you're just trying to find something that CAN'T be proven, which will of course mean you're right.

Not only are you unable to read, but you are mildly delusional as well. See paragraph above.

EVERY twoofer tactic has been thoroughly blasted out of existence by now. Try to keep up.

ROFL. Grow up sonny. 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

 

[carlitos]

Still stuck in your conspiracy theory.

See top of page:

 

[Oystein]

3. Since you would have to use one type of explosive to cut a column and a different type to hurl a beam several hundred feet we would need to run a simulation with both explosives going off.

Are you suggesting that only explosives can hurl steel beams several hundred feet?

No, he isn't suggesting that at all. Some truthers are suggesting it, for example Richard Gage. Newton mere gives Femr2 the recommendation to run his boom-attenuation math for all common truther scenarios, as the aim is to prove once and for all that any truther delusion of explosives is false.

4. How would we account for the cell phone calls from within the towers that did not pick up any loud "booms" when the towers fell?

Your fellow bedunkers insist that explosions were heard, and that for them not to be heard would be strange. So why indeed did cell phone calls not pick up any of these sounds that survivors and witnesses describe having heard?

Good question ergo! Why indeed?
Here is the good (and easy) answer: Us fellow bee-dunkers agree and insist that there were no such loud "booms" when the towers fell. I here highlighted a phrase newton used in the post you quoted, which you ignored. As you probably read before, because I, Dave Rogers and other frequently pointed out in threads that you participated in, including (iirc) this current one: There were no booms consistent in timing, brisance and loudness with demolition charges.
To hammer this in:
There were plenty of booms while the towers were burning.
However, all of these booms were
- not loud enough
- not brisant enough (this property refers to the suddenness with which maximum amplitude is reached) or
- not heard at the required time, which is immediately before the visible onset of collapse
to be consistent with a high explosive cutter charge. This is proof that no explosion was a cutter charge.

5. Focusing only on the audible aspect ignores the seismic evidence that would exist if explosives had actually gone off.

Which bedunker scientist claimed that the seismic records were "unreliable" due to all the chaos of the day. Was it Bazant? Yes, I think it was Bazant.

Unreliable, as is every single witness who did or did not describe booms.
The seismic record may be unreliable, but is not worthless. It merely needs to be taken with care. If the seismic record was the only evidence we have, we might be undecided (but would lean towards no explosives), however it nicely corroborates all the other evidence we have: Video, phone calls, witness statements, and lack of cut and/or copper-lined structural steel that would be consistent with CD.

 

[Grassy Knowlington]

"A noise that registers at 140 db. is _________ times as loud as something at 100 db. "

Assuming 'as loud' refers to subjective loudness then the accepted answer would be 16 times as loud.

 

[femr2]

Assuming 'as loud' refers to subjective loudness then the accepted answer would be 16 times as loud.

Whilst I agree the convention is in regular use, the psycho-accoustic volume (loudness) is, as you say, very subjective and even beyond that human subjectiveness is dependant upon the frequency content, pulse, etc...

The value I provided (x10000) is in energy terms, so for modelling would be more appropriate, and the reason I highlighted the need to make assumptions about units from the question posed.

Not sure what he thinks the worth of the question is, but hey-ho.

 

[Sunstealer]

Really? Why don't we hear them on the video footage or the phone call recordings then?

Because regardless of energy or size all explosions have the same decibel rating - they all sound aloud the same. Pop a balloon or stand next to a nuclear explosion and they will sound the same won't they?

 

[GlennB]

Whilst I agree the convention is in regular use, the psycho-accoustic volume (loudness) is, as you say, very subjective and even beyond that human subjectiveness is dependant upon the frequency content, pulse, etc...

The value I provided (x10000) is in energy terms, so for modelling would be more appropriate, and the reason I highlighted the need to make assumptions about units from the question posed.

My bolding. No it wouldn't. We're clearly discussing human perception here - whether on the spot or through recordings. Suitable meters to record the energy output were not available.

Meanwhile your objections about height, distance and directionality of microphones fails at every fence. There were many microphones, and far more human ears of course, and precisely zero registered explosive blast. None.

Your argument is mere sophism.