Brand New CT sub-group: No-Sounders

[LastChild]

It is interesting that you would say such a thing. You know that such knowledge is anathema among truthers, don't you?

It depends on the Truther. If Gravy's only contention is that the WTC wasn't a controlled Demolition in the traditional sense of the term then I would agree.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

No one was standing quietly listing to a countdown with their breath held listening for the first demo charge to pop.

Did I say that I and everyone was standing around quietly listening to a countdown? No it doesn’t matter how quietly everyone was standing around. We could have been in the middle of a rock concert and you would have still been able to hear the charges go off.

As you will learn as you grow older, there is no substitute for personal experience in these matters.

I also think it's disingenuous to imply that there were no explosives in the wtc because of a comparison made to some much lower buildings loaded with demo charges

You are right of course, If there were explosives in the towers, being higher up would have meant that more people would have been able to hear them as there would not have been other buildings in the way to block and muffle the sound. Thank you for pointing out the flaw in your own argument.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

There is much prep work that goes into a traditional control demolition that more or less guts the building. They also don't always use loads of explosives where they can use the weight to do much of the work...

It is interesting that you would say such a thing. You know that such knowledge is anathema among truthers, don't you?

It depends on the Truther. If Gravy's only contention is that the WTC wasn't a controlled Demolition in the traditional sense of the term then I would agree.

Would you agree that your original statement above means that gravity alone is sufficeint to sustain a collapse once it is initiated?

 

[Myriad]

No I was talking about the difference between them. What does a condenser mic amplify?

Technically, microphones don't amplify anything. They transduce air pressure variations over time into a varying electromagnetic potential with similar variations over time. (Some have electronic amplifiers built in, that amplify the resulting electromagnetic signal to be in the proper range for output to another device, but strictly speaking that's not the microphone, that's a pre-amp that happens to be built into the same container.)

The steepest air pressure variation that can be experienced in the normal operating environment of a microphone is the overpressure wave from a high explosive detonation. Therefore, all microphones will transduce that variation into an electrical signal greater than or equal to the signals they output in response to any other sound.

This is very simple and obvious. A microphone in working order cannot fail to transduce the overpressure wave from a nearby high explosive detonation, just as any car in working order, regardless of differences in model, must steer to the right when the steering wheel is turned to the right.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I read the entire thread, and still am. I'm always bewildered by ignorant people arguing with knowledgeable people in their area of expertise.

Which is why truthers are so much fun to play with.

 

[LastChild]

Technically, microphones don't amplify anything. They transduce air pressure variations over time into a varying electromagnetic potential with similar variations over time. (Some have electronic amplifiers built in, that amplify the resulting electromagnetic signal to be in the proper range for output to another device, but strictly speaking that's not the microphone, that's a pre-amp that happens to be built into the same container.)

http://www.epanorama.net/circuits/microphone_powering.html

Many types of microphones require power to operate, as a general rule these types are described as condenser microphones. The power is used for internal pre-amplifiers and polarizing microphone capsules.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4757545.html

A microphone comprising a double membrane condenser unit and an amplifier circuit is connected to a power supply.

The steepest air pressure variation that can be experienced in the normal operating environment of a microphone is the overpressure wave from a high explosive detonation. Therefore, all microphones will transduce that variation into an electrical signal greater than or equal to the signals they output in response to any other sound.

Don't forget the tube. What's the tube for in a condenser mic? What's flat frequency response?

This is very simple and obvious. A microphone in working order cannot fail to transduce the overpressure wave from a nearby high explosive detonation, just as any car in working order, regardless of differences in model, must steer to the right when the steering wheel is turned to the right.

How do you know how near it was? What it was?

 

[LastChild]

Would you agree that your original statement above means that gravity alone is sufficeint to sustain a collapse once it is initiated?

No. Why? Did they say No explosives? Why do debunkers have to rely on the all or nothing scenario on so many topics regarding 9/11? It's the basis for all your arguments.

 

[Myriad]

Many types of microphones require power to operate, as a general rule these types are described as condenser microphones. The power is used for internal pre-amplifiers and polarizing microphone capsules.

Sure they do. Many types of trandsucers require power. Even the retinas of your eyes. I never said otherwise.

And I believe I mentioned internal preamplifiers, so thank you for confirming that I know what I'm talking about.

Of course, being powered devices means that if they lack power, they won't function. Is it your contention that all the microphones recording the collapses of the World Trade Center towers were not properly powered so as to function correctly? If not, then there doesn't seem to be much point in mentioning this.

Don't forget the tube. What's the tube for in a condenser mic? What's flat frequency response?

Irrelevant to the fact that a microphone transduces air pressure variations into a varying voltage signal. A steep pressure front such as a blast overpressure wave comprises a wide range of frequencies (see the Fourier spectrum for a square wave) so any microphone capable of adequately trandsucing human-audible sound will respond to it.

The most common use of tubes attached to microphones is to provide a handle to hold the microphone with. If you're instead referring to the interference tube of a shotgun mike, you should also be aware that such mikes are not used by news crews or in consumer video cameras, and that even they would not fail to transduce the overpressure wave from a detonation regardless of designed directionality, just as they would still record a "clunk" if you tap them with spoon from an off-axis direction.

How do you know how near it was?

Rather easily, in the many cases where the microphone is attached to a video camera that was also recording video at the time. Also, the people who made the recordings of the collapses tend to remember where they were at the time.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[The Doc]

Yes. All kinds of techniques to capture the right sound you are looking for and nothing is really wrong. It depends on what you want. But why so many different ways? Why not just stick the instruments in the room with one mic?

*Face palm*

Because you wouldn't have any control over your mix. You couldn't even turn just the drums up, let alone just the snare.

 

[DGM]

No. Why? Did they say No explosives? Why do debunkers have to rely on the all or nothing scenario on so many topics regarding 9/11? It's the basis for all your arguments.

It might help your argument if you specify the timing and amount of explosives needed.

You seem to believe that the initiating event was not an explosion due to the no sounds at the beginning and your assertion that the collapse masked the sounds. Also where the collapse started there was no glass left in the buildings and the height of the building would make the sound more noticeable to everyone (Like fireworks). Is this correct?

Now we can look at the basement location for explosives. They would be muffled and maybe not heard but the is no evidence of explosions large enough to do any structural damage. Also people survived in the core area near ground level so that kind of rules them out because the stairway was still there after the collapse.

This leaves placing them at floor levels under the collapse initiation zone. To be masked by the building they would need to be deep in the core. Problem is the core was the last to fall and framing members would be large requiring large explosives and big noise.

So LastChild;
What is the purpose and where were these un-noticable explosives place and what purpose did they serve?

 

[X]

Is it just me, or had LastChild been reduced to arguing definitions of terms with people who seem to know a lot more about them than he does?

If so, it's an interesting case of the blindness to reason that the remaining ardent truthers must cling to for fear their pet beliefs are compromised.

 

[SDC]

Is it just me, or had LastChild been reduced to arguing definitions of terms with people who seem to know a lot more about them than he does?

If so, it's an interesting case of the blindness to reason that the remaining ardent truthers must cling to for fear their pet beliefs are compromised.

I respectfully disagree. He wasn't "reduced" to that; he started out that way. His statements are all of a piece, in that regard.

 

[tsig]

Is it just me, or had LastChild been reduced to arguing definitions of terms with people who seem to know a lot more about them than he does?

If so, it's an interesting case of the blindness to reason that the remaining ardent truthers must cling to for fear their pet beliefs are compromised.

All I see him doing is quote mining the answers given and then formulating a mocking question from them just to keep the pot stirred.

Do they give out awards in twooferland for how long you can keep a thread going on JREF?

 

[tsig]

I respectfully disagree. He wasn't "reduced" to that; he started out that way. His statements are all of a piece, in that regard.

Yep the only thing this thread did was to highlight and outline the depth of his ignorance.

Ignorance and arrogance always go with the twoof be it 911, bigfoot,UFO's or god.

 

[X]

I respectfully disagree. He wasn't "reduced" to that; he started out that way. His statements are all of a piece, in that regard.

Close enough.
I just wnated to be sure I was interpreting his standpoint more-or-less accurately. I haven't read the whole thread (too much inanity), only bits and sections. I am definately fascinated by the ability of one to continue arguing technical details without a leg to stand on, much less a foot.

The main question, then, that I haven't been able to fathom, is "why?".

 

[DGM]

Close enough.
I just wanted to be sure I was interpreting his standpoint more-or-less accurately. I haven't read the whole thread (too much inanity), only bits and sections. I am definitely fascinated by the ability of one to continue arguing technical details without a leg to stand on, much less a foot.

The main question, then, that I haven't been able to fathom, is "why?".

Sadly enough it's because Gravy made a video. LastChild says he doesn't have any specific claim on CD he simply needs to disagree with Gravy. The rest is he can't stop digging the hole. Maybe he thinks he can get out on the other side. Personally I like to go with the advice in my sig..

 

[Jonnyclueless]

No. Why? Did they say No explosives? Why do debunkers have to rely on the all or nothing scenario on so many topics regarding 9/11? It's the basis for all your arguments.

Because you don't read properly. You don't seem to understand the difference between simply an explosion and the DEMOLITION CHARGES that people are referring to. Yet of course this has already been explained to you, so the real question is, why do you have to keep lying about people?

The answer is that you dug yourself a hole so now you are trying to cover up by trying to lie and twist other people's words.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I did not bring up all mic's being the same I was responding to it. If people don't know what was used in the video that is the topic of this thread then how do they assert to know or even start to bring up every single type of microphone? I was at least trying to keep it general but like always here at JREF people try to sway the conversation to their specific experiences or claimed expertise. When I ask about the topic? I get "I didn't see it"



Good. Explain proximity effect. After you watch Gravy's comparison. You know.? What I'm talking about? You came in the middle of a thread where you have admitted to not even seeing the topic and you're telling me about dodging context?




Really? So why did you try a bunch of different brands?



Really? In any kind of light?



Yes. All kinds of techniques to capture the right sound you are looking for and nothing is really wrong. It depends on what you want. But why so many different ways? Why not just stick the instruments in the room with one mic?



Yes but there is a topic here. Remember what you said about context?



I don't know what you mean by that in context to Gravy's video.

You keep dancing around the issue and avoiding the real issue which you keep ignoring over and over again. There is no microphone or setup in existence that would pick up the soud of the collapse and NOT the demolition charges.

All this argument over the transducer type and polar patter are just a diversion from the fact that your claims are complete nonsense. Arguing how different transducers work is really derailing the thread because it is irrelevant.

This very thread is simply trolling. And a pathetic attempt at that.

 

[LastChild]

Well it seems to be the debunker position that if there were any explosions on 9/11 the many many audio devices that were in the area wouldn't have failed to pick them up. That is whenever the debunker is able to stay on topic. So if that is their case then debunkers should have no problem showing me all the different recordings that captured these explosives sounds recorded on 9/11...



That's the first one. You guys get all the other ones. There should be at least 10 or 20 if not more.

Ready?

Set?

GO!

 

[IMST]

No I was talking about the difference between them. What does a condenser mic amplify?

condenser mics require power to operate. The FET or tube is used to power the transducer capacitor. This creates a sensitive mic, meaning lots of output. The power system for the capacitor is know as the mic pre or mic preamp.

Yeah and I own a bunch of cars but it doesn't make me a mechanic. I do know that there are big differences between all of them though.

Guess I have to repeat myself. There are differences between cars. They all have the same function. None of your cars teleport.

I didn't say anything about directionality setting.

arguing directionality would be the only thing that could potentially make sense for you to argue. Arguing magic as the function of microphones is even stupider.

Another genius huh? Good educate me. Why don't you explain proximity effect and try to keep in in context to Gravy's piece of crap video that proves nothing? And no blowhard revisionism please.

Good news! I already explained proximity effect. Please check my long microphone basics post. Keep in mind that proximity effect only takes place within inches of directional mics. It does not take place at all beyond inches or with omnidirectional mics at any distance.

I did not bring up all mic's being the same I was responding to it. If people don't know what was used in the video that is the topic of this thread then how do they assert to know or even start to bring up every single type of microphone? I was at least trying to keep it general but like always here at JREF people try to sway the conversation to their specific experiences or claimed expertise. When I ask about the topic? I get "I didn't see it"

IIRC, Gravy's video is most of an hour long. Maybe you could refer me to the relevant moment and I could weigh in. I'm not planning to watch the whole thing if it is as long as I think.
The reason I can weigh in is because what you're describing would be impossible for any mic. It would be like a claim that a car teleported, or a camera records pictures with the lens cap on or detergent dyes clothes into a variety of colors.

Good. Explain proximity effect. After you watch Gravy's comparison. You know.? What I'm talking about? You came in the middle of a thread where you have admitted to not even seeing the topic and you're telling me about dodging context?

This shows that you don't know what proximity effect is. There is no way that proximity effect could be relevant to any WTC video. Proximity effect is most commonly heard with hand held vocal mics and sometimes with drums, though it tends to be subtle on drums.

Really? So why did you try a bunch of different brands?

Price. I found out I didn't need to pay more for expensive detergent to get the results I wanted.

Really? In any kind of light?

In any kind of light, cameras will pick up the light that gets into their lens. In any sound conditions, mics will pick up the sound that reaches their transducer.

Yes. All kinds of techniques to capture the right sound you are looking for and nothing is really wrong. It depends on what you want. But why so many different ways? Why not just stick the instruments in the room with one mic?

Sound design. I might want a rock band to have a different sound than a classical ensemble. Since stereo exists, I would never use one mic, but I often use 2-5 distance mics to capture classical ensembles. Look up near-coincident pair technique. That's my favorite for picking up small to medium classical or acoustic folk ensembles. It uses two mics for everyone. I could do the same for a well balanced rock band, but I've yet to hear a well balanced rock band. I also want to avoid any room reverberation on bass sounds in a rock band, so I have to close mic them to get the sound I want. These techniques are all because mics all operate the same way. If mics were as magical as you imply, I would just put up one and get whatever I wanted.

Yes but there is a topic here. Remember what you said about context?

I don't need to see the example to tell magic from reality.

I don't know what you mean by that in context to Gravy's video.

Demolition charges must precede buildings falling. Therefore there is no way for building falling to cover demolition charges. Cause and effect. Time. Both exist.

http://www.epanorama.net/circuits/microphone_powering.html

Many types of microphones require power to operate, as a general rule these types are described as condenser microphones. The power is used for internal pre-amplifiers and polarizing microphone capsules.

all condenser mics require power. I mentioned that in my long post.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4757545.html

A microphone comprising a double membrane condenser unit and an amplifier circuit is connected to a power supply.

included for completeness, mostly since I covered this above. A double membrane allows selectable directionality in condenser mics, by the way.

Don't forget the tube. What's the tube for in a condenser mic? What's flat frequency response?

Most condenser mics do not have a tube. Tubes can be used instead of an FET to power the capacitor. For people with more money than sense, really. Flat frequency response is the claim that a microphone hears all frequencies (pitches) equally. An ideal microphone would hear all those frequencies exactly the same. In reality, none do perfectly. Generally condenser mics come much, much closer to that ideal. This is what I was referring to by "fidelity" in my long post.

How do you know how near it was? What it was?

as myriad said, video mics are generally attached to the camera. What type is was is not relevant, since as we've said over and over, all microphones would be capable of picking up demolition charges. They do not operate by magic.