Molten Steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveAustin said:
Conclusion

"Note that the 'standard' practice provides an almost two-thirds reduction in
peak acoustic pressure.
...
A comparison of the alternative noise abatement techniques and the uncovered TNT data is provided in Figure 34. This figure shows a ranking of average acoustic peak pressures of the alternative
techniques viewed relative to the standard. While the combination blast mat configuration showed favorable acoustic pressure reductions, they were destroyed in one shot and therefore would be a disposable item." (Blast Mats cost $5K)

Therefore we can see while an unexposed explosion could be a (literally) ear splitting 140db - standard industry practise would be expected to reduce noise by two-thirds. And the US had also conducted tests on blast mats in 2000 and reported this information in August 2001, saying that $5000 blast mats "showed favorable acoustic pressure reductions". Therefore, if there was a determined attempt to perform and disguise a Controlled Demolition on WTC buildings then noise levels could be reduced to the levels which were reported on the day.

It is also standard practise to produce a noise abatement report for any controlled demolition in an urban environment.

So please everyone stop trying to argue no explosives because no one heard any explosives (which also ignores everyone who actually did hear them)
Click to expand...

Is this the "standard practice" described?

The MCAAP typical practice of applying two loader buckets, approximately 7 cubic yards, of
earthen overburden provides significant noise abatement relative to uncovered explosives.
Click to expand...

So, no one noticed the two buckets of dirt for each set of explosives?
 
SteveAustin said:
www.prod.sandia.gov/cgi-bin/techlib/access-control.pl/2001/012267.pdf

SANDIA REPORT
SAND2001-2267

Demolition Noise Abatement
Technique Demonstration

Dated August 2001 (Experiements conducted in 2000).

......

Conclusion

"Note that the 'standard' practice provides an almost two-thirds reduction in
peak acoustic pressure.
...
Therefore we can see while an unexposed explosion could be a (literally) ear splitting 140db - standard industry practise would be expected to reduce noise by two-thirds.
Click to expand...


DID YOU READ THAT PUBLICATION?

Reduction of "two thirds" would be about 4 DB - to 136DB. A 4db change is noticeable but hush-a-boom it ain't.

The test was 300 pounds of TNT. That charge would barely make a dent in a WTC tower.

Did you look at the pictures? The size and complexity for any of the effective techniques would be impossible to hide in any occupied building.
 
Last edited:
Disbelief said:
So, no one noticed the two buckets of dirt for each set of explosives?
Click to expand...

So you are assuming that the only methods of noise abatement are those discussed in the report?

9/11 being a military operation they would of course have access to military grade explosives and material.
 
SteveAustin said:
So you are assuming that the only methods of noise abatement are those discussed in the report?

9/11 being a military operation they would of course have access to military grade explosives and material.
Click to expand...

No, I am telling you that the conclusion you reported as proof of noise abatement, is no such thing.
 
SteveAustin said:
Hey, if the owner of the buildings wanted stuff brought in why do you think he would have any trouble doing so?
Click to expand...

You missed the important word

No problem to sneak these into the WTC totally unnoticed, no problem whatsoever
Click to expand...

Don't you think that somebody might notice people planting thermite, explosives and blast mats that weighted in at between 2600 and 5200 lbs ?
 
SteveAustin said:
Therefore we can see while an unexposed explosion could be a (literally) ear splitting 140db - standard industry practise would be expected to reduce noise by two-thirds.
Click to expand...

Which would be a noise level of 136dB, still well above the damage threshold and expected to be clearly audible on every recording of the collapses.

Dave
 
Last edited:
stateofgrace said:
Don't you think that somebody might notice people planting thermite, explosives and blast mats that weighted in at between 2600 and 5200 lbs ?
Click to expand...

Yea, "don't worry about the big mats folks, just step over them. Sir, we had to move your desk in the hallway, no problem though. Those mats are just insulation. Nothing to see here, get back to work"
 
BigAl said:
DID YOU READ THAT PUBLICATION?

Reduction of "two thirds" would be about 4 DB. 4BD is noticeable but hush-a-boom it ain't.

The test was 300 pounds of TNT. That charge would barely make a dent in a WTC tower.

Did you look at the pictures? The size and complexity for any of the effective techniques would be impossible to hide in any occupied building.
Click to expand...

I'm going to assume you mistyped that...twice, since a reduction of "two thirds" of 140 is a reduction of about 93, not a reduction of 4, which would bring it down to about 47DB.

That report was also to show you that noise abatement is easily possible. You should not assume that every method of noise abatement possible was investigated in that report, unless you want to try desperately to try and "discredit" noise abatement to justify your point of view.

I simply posted that to show that noise abatement is possible and look at you guys running around here trying to throw water on the fire.
 
SteveAustin said:
So you are assuming that the only methods of noise abatement are those discussed in the report?

9/11 being a military operation they would of course have access to military grade explosives and material.
Click to expand...


Pssst. That is the Dept, of Energy's Sandia labs, which is even better.
 
Last edited:
SteveAustin said:
So you are assuming that the only methods of noise abatement are those discussed in the report?

9/11 being a military operation they would of course have access to military grade explosives and material.
Click to expand...

So the US military was behind the 9/11 attacks?
 
SteveAustin said:
I'm going to assume you mistyped that...twice, since a reduction of "two thirds" of 140 is a reduction of about 93, not a reduction of 4, which would bring it down to about 47DB.
Click to expand...

:dl:

Truthers who think they know everything and don't even understand the decibel scale rock!

(Ha ha, beat twinstead to it!)

Dave
 
Christopher7 said:
Thank you very much Steve. Excellent find. I'll spread it around. I appreciate the help and support. Stick around. ;-)
Click to expand...

Thanks, Chris, but I did not find it myself, a poster over on the BBC blog I have been participating in found it (poster goes by the name ynda20 over there, so all credit to him).
 
ravdin said:
So the US military was behind the 9/11 attacks?
Click to expand...

Any way you look at it it was a covert operation. So from your point of view it was a covert operation by cave dwellers and from my point of view it was a covert operation by US military...what you think there are no black ops military groups that would do such a thing?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Which would be a noise level of 134dB, still well above the damage threshold and expected to be clearly audible on every recording of the collapses.

Dave
Click to expand...
Are you a demolitions expert?

Are you up on all the state of the art technology?

Do you know about everything the military had in 2001?

There are a lot of arm chair experts here and the lot of you are blowin smoke.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom