• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

'What about building 7'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am saying that surroundings have a significant effect on sound.



Even enough to suppress the sound of every column on 8 stories of WTC 7 being removed in an instant? (I'm reasonable sure that much explosives would have leveled several blocks).

You did say that in order for the building to collapse as seen ALL structure had to be removed. Let's not forget all the explosives under the penthouses, you did say they didn't collapse into the building.

BTW: Did you find that "Nano-thermite" formulation that matched the Harrit et al papers data yet?
 
Last edited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08nhsn9w9Vg
WTC South Tower collapse compilation
From the start of this clip, the reporter's audio, while still intelligible suffers from over-modulation distortion.
In the clip in which we hear the person with the camera( or someone very close by) exclaiming "holy ****") you'll notice that the sound level of the voice is a lot greater than the sound of collapse dues to the proximity of mic to person. Yet that voice is not saturating the audio even while the sound of collapse contiues. Thus to expect that the lower collapse sounds are clipping in the audio circuitry while the louder voice isn't, is rather stupid. However this more distant rumble sounds very much like the closer video at the beginning of the compilation. Indeed the closer video includes more higher frequency content than the distant video which is to be expected.
Also in that first clip there is a fleeting glimpse of major debris only a couple floors from hitting the ground and as the camera pans away we hear a very large boom at the exact time one would expect that large debris to hit the ground. IOW its not a bomb going off at low level, its the first heavy debris hitting the earth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOx08-o16wE
NIST FOIA: WNYW Dub1 Clips 51-53 (WTC2 Collapse, 9:59am)

At about 00:00:24 the over-modulation distortion is quite severe.

There are plenty of other examples but these illustrate what I have been talking about.

Odd that even during the loudest portions of the collapse we can still hear the slap of shoes on pavement.
In addition, the continuing collapse would occur after the supposed explosions that initialized the collapse, which no matter the sound level later, should be clearly audible.

In any event, given that there are dozenas of examples of demolitions going off in videos of real demolitions, and no commensurate examples of such sounds in any WTC videos, it is again rather stupid to expect that over mod/audio saturation/clipping has masked these sounds in every video.
 
I am saying that surroundings have a significant effect on sound.

A core explosion on a floor filled with sound absorbing office furnishings and surrounded by sealed windows will be heard much differently than a similar core explosion on a floor that is nothing but hard reflective surfaces and surrounded by open windows.

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTCFloorComp_zps509f33a7.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/OrfieldLaboratory_zpsfafd3ed4.png[/qimg]

This room is supposed to be the quietest place on the planet. It is in the Orfield Laboratory in Minneapolis.

Now you are just speculating. That room has special sound deadening material and design. And aren't your explosives going off at once on 8 stories worth of perimeter columns? I ain't buying it. You shouldn't either.

In any case, you were first making an argument for so loud it saturates. Now you are making it whisper quiet. Give up the magical thinking, your argument is doing a triple Lutz now.
 
Last edited:
I am saying that surroundings have a significant effect on sound.

A core explosion on a floor filled with sound absorbing office furnishings and surrounded by sealed windows will be heard much differently than a similar core explosion on a floor that is nothing but hard reflective surfaces and surrounded by open windows.

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTCFloorComp_zps509f33a7.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/OrfieldLaboratory_zpsfafd3ed4.png[/qimg]

This room is supposed to be the quietest place on the planet. It is in the Orfield Laboratory in Minneapolis.

So you are now admitting that the steel perimeter column sections that went 500-600 feet were not propelled by explosives?
Only core mounted explosives and even those only below the impact floors where offices and their contents were plowed away from the now broken windows.
 
I am saying that surroundings have a significant effect on sound.

A core explosion on a floor filled with sound absorbing office furnishings and surrounded by sealed windows will be heard much differently than a similar core explosion on a floor that is nothing but hard reflective surfaces and surrounded by open windows.

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTCFloorComp_zps509f33a7.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/OrfieldLaboratory_zpsfafd3ed4.png[/qimg]
This room is supposed to be the quietest place on the planet. It is in the Oh waitOrfield Laboratory in Minneapolis.

I see, so first it was the camera's fault, now it's due to office furnishings.:rolleyes:

You really believe windows and furniture are a match for high powered explosives???


Let's just go with that even though it's the height of idiocy.
I'm sure you'll be able to produce video of "sealed windows" shattering to pieces before the towers fell right? I mean these "sealed windows" masking the sound would've been blown to kingdom come floor by floor when the CD started right????

Let me guess- slips into truther mode- the magical office furnishings protected the windows from the explosive blasts too.

Isn't being a truther great! You can ignore math, physics, chemistry, engineering, physical evidence, recorded evidence, not to mention plain old reality and make up stuff as you go along.

Let me try:

Make sure you're all seated because what you're about to read is Shocking!!! Shocking I tell ya!!!!!! ELEVENTY!

The very same legion of invisible ninjas that planted the explosives also went around with thousands of egg cartons and attached them to the inside of the building to muffle the sound. After the towers fell, not only did those bastards not test for bubblegum, vintage wines or thermite, they never tested for egg carton dust either. Can you believe that?

What a coverup! Inside Job! Youtube!!!!!!! Run Sheeple Ruuuuuuuuuuuuun!!!!!
 
I am saying that surroundings have a significant effect on sound.

A core explosion on a floor filled with sound absorbing office furnishings and surrounded by sealed windows will be heard much differently than a similar core explosion on a floor that is nothing but hard reflective surfaces and surrounded by open windows.

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/WTCFloorComp_zps509f33a7.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj515/Miragememories/OrfieldLaboratory_zpsfafd3ed4.png[/qimg]

This room is supposed to be the quietest place on the planet. It is in the Orfield Laboratory in Minneapolis.

"Soft furnishings would attenuate the sounds of explosions!", MM said, right before posting a picture with a massive open gap above the walls of the cubicles.

Others have tried that gambit before. Absolutely none of them were able to prove the furnishings would muffle the sounds to any degree significantly affecting their audibility. Also, you can't argue that explosions both were heard and wouldn't be heard. Also, on several of the floors which would've held charges, there's a massive gap to the outside with little more sonic resistance than air, due to a pair of planes plowing through the places.
 
"Soft furnishings would attenuate the sounds of explosions!", MM said, right before posting a picture with a massive open gap above the walls of the cubicles.

Others have tried that gambit before. Absolutely none of them were able to prove the furnishings would muffle the sounds to any degree significantly affecting their audibility. Also, you can't argue that explosions both were heard and wouldn't be heard. Also, on several of the floors which would've held charges, there's a massive gap to the outside with little more sonic resistance than air, due to a pair of planes plowing through the places.

Sure you can, you just need to take a trip to TRUTHERLAND!
 
I am saying that surroundings have a significant effect on sound.


They have a significant effect on sound generated in the same space and traveling through air. If the sound is created by cutting the building structure, it will travel through the structure. Steel structure conducts sound much more aptly than air. No amount of padding in the air space that structure contains will keep you from hearing and feeling it.

No, suggesting that office furniture will muffle demolition charges in that same building is just ludicrous.
 
You are going over old ground.

No, you're repeating old arguments that have been pretty soundly debunked (pun intended).

The "I'm an audio engineer" argument is flat. There are other audio engineers talking to you on this forum and explaining why your argument doesn't work.

The "audio equipment wouldn't pick it up" argument is laughable. There is a monumental plethora of examples to the contrary, using all kinds of equipment under all kinds of circumstances. Your counterexamples were contrived to avoid that part of the chain of events where demolition charges would have been appropriate.

I disagree about your notion that a sharp report would have been picked up.

Keep trying to explain away all that empirical evidence to the contrary. It's highly amusing.

There were too many witnesses that did hear explosions preceding the collapses.

You've cited people who use the word "explosion" but you beg the question of what they actually heard. You simply trust their interpretation of the observation.

Many members like to compare the 9/11 WTC controlled demolitions with those done commercially.

There is only one kind of controlled demolition -- those done commercially. You're the one trying to invent a new kind of "controlled demolition" that magically has all the properties you need in order for your conspiracy theory to be true.

The comparison to the only defined form of demolition using explosives originated with the Truthers, who argued that the manner in which the buildings collapsed resembled what they thought a controlled demolition looked like. They maintain that to this day. To say that we're amiss in comparing the 9/11 collapses to controlled demolition -- specifically noting that the resemblance is actually only superficial -- is absurdly disingenuous.

This needs to be considered when pondering the nature of the sound that will be heard and recorded from a building that has not been prepped in this manner.[/color]

Asked and answered. The explosive nature of the demolition charges that are required to cut robust structural steel are not going to have their sound muffled by anything that's part of the building, and will carry over great distances. No Hush-A-Boom magic explosives exist.
 
I actually did witness a terrorist bomb exploding many years ago when I was having dinner on Chambers Street and a bomb went off at the Federal Building in 1983. It was very very loud and it didn't even do much damage if I recall...

"The Commissioner gave the following details of the bombings:

- The first detonated at 9:27 P.M. on the north side of 26 Federal Plaza, which houses the offices of the F.B.I. and other Federal agencies. The device, made of several sticks of dynamite and a timer, knocked out windows on three floors but caused no injuries. "

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/02/n...errorists-suspected-in-new-year-bombings.html

You are not going to blow up a building and it makes no sound. PERIOD.
 
As usual in this forum, intentional misunderstanding reigns supreme.

On 9/11, there were no shortage of testimonials from first responders and the public who witnessed the sound of explosions from the
World Trade Center.

Yet members who worship at the alter of denial continue to grasp at any straw that will allow them to continue in their desperate belief that all the perpetrators have been accounted for.

Unquestionably, explosive devices, unless somehow activated in a vacuum, are sound generators.

What I have been trying to point out is that the recording and perception of sound can be strongly influenced by many factors.

Simply put, a typical floor in a building rigged for commercial explosive demolition will have its windows removed as well as its furnishings.

At the time of detonation, the waiting public often hears a countdown followed by the easily heard reports of exploding cutter charges.

A generated sound which is reflected off every hard surface and freely radiated, unresisted by furnishing's absorption and a windowless perimeter.

This situation accounts for why commercial demolitions are clearly heard and why recording devices can more easily pickup the explosion's high frequency sound component.

A typical floor in the World Trade Center on 9/11 was fully furnished and enclosed by sealed windows. From inside, only the loudest sounds generated in the city below would be heard (sirens etc.).

A core detonation would generate sound waves radiating outward, encountering sound absorbing furnishings and finally sound blocking windows.

Of course the windows would yield to the pressure wave but during all this, a good deal of the high frequency sound would have been absorbed and deflected. The sounds escaping the building would be mostly powerful low frequencies (bass which travels well) while its remaining high frequency component (treble which is easily absorbed and/or reflected), would dissipate in the city environment.

For reasons already stated, most usable recordings from 9/11 reveal heavily mixed rumble and boom with little of the telltale high end frequency that makes an explosion discernible from the sounds of structural collapse.

The fact that on-the-scene reporters were obviously using directional microphones further inhibited recording devices from properly 'hearing' background sound.

Unlike microphones, well placed human ears, as revealed by eyewitness testimony, identified the sound of explosions prior to, and during, the rumble of collapse.

http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html
Witnesses to the Towers' Explosions

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html
9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC

In all instances, and in particular WTC2 and WTC1, once their global collapses were underway any concern about the sound from a massive use of explosives could be ignored and hand waved as only noise from huge collapsing towers.

Case in point, the south tower (WTC2), showed a steady falling stream of what appeared to be molten iron from a corner column area. This activity ceased only moments before that critical corner failed and global collapse ensued. Nano-thermite could quietly initiate this cause of the observed initial topple, and once observed, explosive charges could be triggered according to plan.
 
They have a significant effect on sound generated in the same space and traveling through air. If the sound is created by cutting the building structure, it will travel through the structure. Steel structure conducts sound much more aptly than air. No amount of padding in the air space that structure contains will keep you from hearing and feeling it.

No, suggesting that office furniture will muffle demolition charges in that same building is just ludicrous.

Ahhh yes, I was thinking that the sounds of collapse itself would be heard approx 1 second after it began due to sound transit time through the air being so much slower than the visual of it.(depending on how far horizontally the viewer is from the tower. 1 second is a valid time delay out to about 1000 feet from the base of the tower)

However of course transmission through the steel would be heard/felt especially by persons in the towers, in about 1/15th of a second.
Which brings up an interesting aspect RE: multiple booms. There would be an echo of sorts as first one hears the sound transmitted via the steel and earth, then gets the delayed sound via the air.

Watching blasting for a roadway I worked on in the late 70s I can attest to the fact that standing a half mile away from the unmatted shot in solid granite, we first saw the rock heave, then quickly felt the blast in our boots and sound as a deep "Whump", then heard the bang and finally the clatter of falling chunks.
 
As usual in this forum, intentional misunderstanding reigns supreme.

Is that why your beliefs are a very, very tiny minority?

On 9/11, there were no shortage of testimonials...

Asked and answered.

Yet members who worship at the alter of denial...

Continual snarkiness doesn't make your arguments convincing.

Unquestionably, explosive devices, unless somehow activated in a vacuum, are sound generators.

You missed my point entirely.

What I have been trying to point out is that the recording and perception of sound can be strongly influenced by many factors.

As for recording, the empirical and analytical evidence is unanimously against you. Give it up.

As for perception, you allow perceptual factors to bear on the argument only in your favor. You won't consider that your precious cadre of earwitnesses might not have heard literal explosions but merely sounds they interpreted as such.

Simply put...

Your problem is that you're trying to think of it only in simple terms. The drivel you write subsequently simply repeats your belief and ignores the explanation of how sound actually propagates.

A core detonation would generate sound waves radiating outward, encountering sound absorbing furnishings and finally sound blocking windows.

Asked and answered.

For reasons already stated, most usable recordings from 9/11 reveal heavily mixed rumble and boom...

Asked and answered.

In all instances, and in particular WTC2 and WTC1, once their global collapses were underway any concern about the sound from a massive use of explosives...

Asked and answered.
 
As usual in this forum, intentional misunderstanding reigns supreme.

On 9/11, there were no shortage of testimonials from first responders and the public who witnessed the sound of explosions from the
World Trade Center.
There is no misunderstanding on this side of the debate. While you keep harping on the least reliable form of documentary evidence, witness testimony, we have been asking for docuementary evidence that does not depend on personal interpretation of an event that took place while the witnesses were in fear of their lives or for the lives of persons in the area, an event that took less than 20 seconds, at a location that was well known to have been the target of a bombing several years earlier. We have been asking for videos in have audio tracks demonstrating similar sounds as are well established to occur on a great number of videos of known explosions.

Who is guilty of misunderstanding?


Unquestionably, explosive devices, unless somehow activated in a vacuum, are sound generators.

Something you got correct.

What I have been trying to point out is that the recording and perception of sound can be strongly influenced by many factors.

Simply put, a typical floor in a building rigged for commercial explosive demolition will have its windows removed as well as its furnishings.

At the time of detonation, the waiting public often hears a countdown followed by the easily heard reports of exploding cutter charges.

A generated sound which is reflected off every hard surface and freely radiated, unresisted by furnishing's absorption and a windowless perimeter.

This situation accounts for why commercial demolitions are clearly heard and why recording devices can more easily pickup the explosion's high frequency sound component.

A typical floor in the World Trade Center on 9/11 was fully furnished and enclosed by sealed windows. ......

A core detonation would generate sound waves radiating outward, encountering sound absorbing furnishings and finally sound blocking windows.

..........

For reasons already stated, most usable recordings from 9/11 reveal heavily mixed rumble and boom with little of the telltale high end frequency that makes an explosion discernible from the sounds of structural collapse.

The fact that on-the-scene reporters were obviously using directional microphones further inhibited recording devices from properly 'hearing' background sound.

.....


Continue to grasp at any straw that will allow them to continue in their desperate belief that all the perpetrators have not been accounted for.


In all instances, and in particular WTC2 and WTC1, once their global collapses were underway any concern about the sound from a massive use of explosives could be ignored and hand waved as only noise from huge collapsing towers.

Because there is no evidence at all that it was anything but the sound of huge buildings collapsing

Case in point, the south tower (WTC2), showed a steady falling stream of what appeared to be molten iron from a corner column area. This activity ceased only moments before that critical corner failed and global collapse ensued. Nano-thermite could quietly initiate this cause of the observed initial topple, and once observed, explosive charges could be triggered according to plan.

Are you arguing that the continuing collapse was effected by this type of slow thermal cutting?
Are arguing that heat caused the initial collapse?
I thought you were arguing, earlier in this thread, for a form of high explosive that utilized the addition of nanosized thermitic components and, a few months ago, in enough quantity that this resulted in an enormous amount of unburnt, "leftover" thermitic material to keep the rubble pile hot (albeit for some unexplained reason only within the nonviewable rubble under its surface), now you seem to be saying that all that was required to initiate collapse was regular thermite heat input to supplement the heat of the large area office fires.
 
Last edited:
It's painfully obvious MM has absolutely no experience whatsoever with explosives or explosions.

IF an audio track was recorded had a loud sound, saying a person in the foreground screamin g continuously throughout the collapse seen in the background, it might exhit that type of masking of the collapse sounds. However in order for his masking by audio circuitry stauration to be in effect the loud portions of foreground sound would have to very closley, temporally , match the sharp retort sounds of explosives.

In the video I posted above of an open pit mine "shot" there is clear sound of the rows of explosives going off and in a faster succession than was the supposed case at the 110 storey WTC towers. In addition we then hear the sounds of rocks clattering back down. In addition in this video we also hear what I believe may be the initial detcord ignition, the sharp crack at the beginning.

The second open pit mine shot from much closer demonstrates the effect of the blast wave as the camera shakes and that this audio easily records the sounds of the blasts.
 
Here are some links to further the discourse about the problems faced when recording sudden, very loud audio sources.

http://recording.org/index.php?threads/recording-explosions.33798/
"At very high *SPLs, such as those made by a fireworks explosion, the air itself clips - firstly on the negative half cycles. Why? As you may know, sound travels through the air as a series of compressions and rarefactions of atmospheric pressure. If recorded correctly, the compressions are the positive half cycles and the rarefactions are the negative half cycles. Anyway, you can only rarefy the air to the point that it creates a vacuum - beyond that, the air itself runs out of headroom and clips.".[/color]


^^ This is a characteristic of all explosions including those that are recorded well such as the multiple real demolitions we have seen posted on JREF.
It refers to what actually reaches the mic AND the ear of anyone at the scene.
In addition its a caveat to the sound tech that its NOT the sound equipment that is responsible for the clipping seen in the visual graphic of the sound waveform.
From the same post:

Also, remember that this clipping has happened at the point of the explosion itself and is, from then on, an inherent part of the sound. Moving your mics further away will make no difference, although it will make it all sound duller and thereby lose impact.
From another poster on the same thread:
Any good stereo microphone setup should work well. When I worked for the Cleveland Orchestra I recorded the ending fireworks from the 1812 overture many times using the microphones suspended over the orchestra at the Blossom Music Center and they not only sound GREAT but you can actually hear both the explosion and the decay and the reverb. I have also recorded fireworks at our local 4th of July celebration with a RODE NT-4 and a portable CD recorder. I basically setup the microphone(s) at the outer edge of the crowd on a lightweight microphone stand and they sound not only realistic but with the crowd noise and the oohs and awes you can almost believe you were there.

Explosions and orchestral performance.

Basically, if you can hear both the sounds of debris falling, and a louder, closer voice, then there is no reason at all that you would not hear the sound of explosions that are louder than the debris fall yet not as loud as the close voices yelling , unless the explosive sound coincides with the loud voice.
( or temporally very close to the loud voice -20 msec prior to, or +100 msec after)
A phenomena known as non-simultaneous masking)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom