How WTC 7 was pulled down

[Dog Town]

You're treating science as a personal plaything, MM, and it's obvious you understand sod all about it.

I have often wondered if MM was Dubya?

 

[Miragememories]

Who made the original recording? Is there anything on the right track? Can you post the frequency range we're talking about here?

Nothing on the right track.

All the links have been posted.

Look for yourself.

MM

 

[carlitos]

I listened to that youtube. There is no "explosion." The person who posted it is imagining things.

 

[triforcharity]

We have the eyewitness reports and a good recording from Hoboken.

Unfortunately, Richard Siegel gets really testy about his recordings getting YouTubed.

If you have 911 EyeWitness Hoboken, give it a view.

The pre-collapse explosions are quite clearly just wind on the microphone. Given the fact that no seismic record exists that show a large explosion before the collapse.

MM

FTFY. No need to thank me.

 

[triforcharity]

I listened to that youtube. There is no "explosion." The person who posted it is imagining things.

Not to mention if there really was a loud boom before the collapse, not one person that was heard talking on the video noticed it. But yet, they noticed right away the collapse.

Imagine that. MM still doesn't understand 140 db would have been EASILY recorded. EASILY.

Not only on the audio recordings, but on the seismic readouts also.

 

[Oystein]

Stundied yourself.

And I bet you don't even understand why.

Too funny.

MM
---------------

Kid,

your graph shows an amplitude peak that is about 3 times as high as the apparent background noise preceding it.

If that were, say dB, (a log10 scale), and the values are 1 and 3 dB (barely audible), i.e. a gain of 2dB, that would be nearly imperceptible. If the values were 50 (normal conversation at 3 feet) and 150dB (jet engine causing ear damage), you'd have a gain of 100dB - very very massive. So seeing visually that the dB value increases threefold conveys hardly any information. Is the gain 2, 20, 50, 100dB? That is really the question.

If, on the other hand, your graph showed sound pressure on a linear scale, then the gain in dB would be known: it is 10*log10(3) = 4.8dB. That is the difference between total silence and a soft whipser. It is one fourth the gain between the softest and the loudest parts of normal speech.

What we are looking for is a signal well above 100dB (shockwave of an explosion strong enough to cut one WTC7 column, assuming we are much farther than 1/2 mile away and allow for unrealistically high attenuation) sticking out of a background of at most 90dB (extremely busy traffic directly in front of you), or a gain of more than 10dB. Probably more like 40dB.



So to sum up: If logarithmic scale, we need values, an increase of plotted amplitude by a factor of 3 is a meaningless number. If linear scale, we know the gain is way too little to be caused by explosives.



If you don't understand that threefold increase on a logarithmic scale, without having absolute values, is meaningless, then you have not understood logarithmic scales. It is a simple as that.

 

[Oystein]

You just do not know how to read apparently.

Nothing I can do about that.

Apparently you do not know how to search for english definitions, or, own a dictionary with the word 'relative' in it.

It explains a lot.

MM

Come on, kid, explain logarithmic vs. linear scales to me, and how you apply the word "relative" to them!

What does that scale-less graph teach us? What is the meaning of the threefold increase of the peak? Is it something relevant, or random flutter?

 

[Miragememories]

Not to mention if there really was a loud boom before the collapse, not one person that was heard talking on the video noticed it. But yet, they noticed right away the collapse.

Imagine that. MM still doesn't understand 140 db would have been EASILY recorded. EASILY.

Not only on the audio recordings, but on the seismic readouts also.

The idiocy of the responses is truly amazing.

I keep pointing out how significant sounds were buried in the cacophony of background sound.

The people near that camera showed no reaction to the WTC7 East Penthouse collapse either.

It wasn't until the whole WTC7 started dropping that the background voices reacted.

MM

 

[DGM]

Nothing on the right track.

All the links have been posted.

Look for yourself.

MM

I did! I thought you might have some information on this. If that's the way you want to be, so be it, no skin of my back.

(back to trying to down load my 401K info to Quicken, I wish I understood this stuff better )

 

[Miragememories]

Not to mention if there really was a loud boom before the collapse, not one person that was heard talking on the video noticed it. But yet, they noticed right away the collapse.

Imagine that. MM still doesn't understand 140 db would have been EASILY recorded. EASILY.

Not only on the audio recordings, but on the seismic readouts also.

Very funny.

It depends on the record level setting and how focused is the recording device.

Just like a camera, if the settings and lens are not right, the recording will suffer.

MM

 

[Oystein]

The idiocy of the responses is truly amazing.

I keep pointing out how significant sounds were buried in the cacophony of background sound.

The people near that camera showed no reaction to the WTC7 East Penthouse collapse either.

It wasn't until the whole WTC7 started dropping that the background voices reacted.

MM

140dB buried in <90dB?

You truly truly do not understand logarithmic scales and dB.
(For the record: I wouldn't push 140dB. I'd be careful and start with the lower bound of 130dB, and allow for some additional distance and attenuation and end with a very conservative lower limit of 110dB. That would represent a gain to the peak of the loudest of city noises of >20dB. If you know the first thing about acoustics, and understood the logarithmic scaling of dB, you would know immediately that +20dB does NOT get buried. No *********** way. >120dB explosion over <90dB background would stand out as much as someone speaking over a calm room, or a car passing close by over a conversation.

Also, the swelling of that peak over a period of a quarter second is totally out of line with an explosion. The pressure peak should have built up within 1/50th of a second or less.

 

[Miragememories]

I did! I thought you might have some information on this. If that's the way you want to be, so be it, no skin of my back.

(back to trying to down load my 401K info to Quicken, I wish I understood this stuff better )

What is there to say?

I told you clearly that there was only audio on the left channel!

If you doubt my word, check for yourself is all I meant.

Since I have little faith in the integrity of the NIST, I would suspect that they deliberately digitized a bad copy.

MM

 

[triforcharity]

The idiocy of the responses is truly amazing.

I keep pointing out how significant sounds were buried in the cacophony of background sound.

The people near that camera showed no reaction to the WTC7 East Penthouse collapse either.

It wasn't until the whole WTC7 started dropping that the background voices reacted.

MM

But yet, an EXPLOSIVE would NOT have been burried.

An explosive capable of cutting any core columns of 7WTC would have been around 140 db.

I guestimate the collapse of 7WTC to be around 110-120 100 db.

What is the difference between the two MM?

Your answer should look like this.

140 db is _____ times as loud at 120 100 db.

Take your time.

ETA: I will stand corrected on my guestimates. I just talked to a buddy, and he agrees that the collapse would be round 100 db.

So, I have changed the numbers to reflect 100.

 

[A W Smith]

That Hoboken video was debunked as wind on the microphone back in 2008 if i recall.

 

[carlitos]

Yup.

Oystein - good explanation about the scales on the graph. It's too bad that someone would rather believe a delusion than actually learn something about sound. Especially someone with (IIRC) an interest in music.

 

[Miragememories]

That Hoboken video was debunked as wind on the microphone back in 2008 if i recall.

You recall wrong.

MM

 

[Mikemcc]

But yet, an EXPLOSIVE would NOT have been burried.

An explosive capable of cutting any core columns of 7WTC would have been around 140 db.

I guestimate the collapse of 7WTC to be around 110-120 100 db.

What is the difference between the two MM?

Your answer should look like this.

140 db is _____ times as loud at 120 100 db.

Take your time.

ETA: I will stand corrected on my guestimates. I just talked to a buddy, and he agrees that the collapse would be round 100 db.

So, I have changed the numbers to reflect 100.

40dB difference, 3dB = 1 doubling, so 13 doublings and change.

2¹³ = 8192 times louder, ouch!

 

[Mikemcc]

What is there to say?

I told you clearly that there was only audio on the left channel!

If you doubt my word, check for yourself is all I meant.

Since I have little faith in the integrity of the NIST, I would suspect that they deliberately digitized a bad copy.

MM

One that couldn't be analysed as a fake by the thousands of sound engineers aroud the world...

 

[Edx]

This is more about the WTC Twin Towers than specifically WTC7 but I will reply.

Well of course you want to refer to WTC7 because it was less dramatic you think you can get away with claiming it was quieter.

But you think all columns had to be removed simultaneously but even one would be louder than a small hickup on a recording you need to push volume up to notice and wasnt captured on any other.

No demolitions work the way you guys claim they do. Go find explosives that are intense enough to toss around multi-ton steel like you claim happened on 911, also find a demolition where the cacophony of the collapse of the building is louder than the explosives. You wont find it.

At LEAST claim it was quiet because of thermite, then you wouldnt need to deal with this. Gage does say this of course, but then doesnt understand that this means it also cant be as dramatic.

Regarding your stated incomprehension above, I have never said anything of the sort, but apparently you are filtering out what I say because your brain is too occupied assuming it already knows what I am saying?

No, I know what you're saying you just dont understand anything about the topics you talk about.

Explosions, depending on their magnitude make a very loud noise.

Heavy, multi-ton structural steel columns being ripped free, also make a very loud noise.

It is a fact that heavy, multi-ton structural steel columns were ripped free, and therefore, it must be a fact that a loud noise must have been created, with each and every occurrence.

That's exactly correct I was the one that told YOU that, remember? Which is why WTC7 would still have made a loud noise.

Your problem you keep ignoring is that explosives would make a lot more noise.

We arent talking about steel being ripped free, we arent talking about shape charges cutting columns which would be loud enough (just see Landmark implosion videos again). You are claiming that your explosives on 911 could detonate with such a violent force it could propel heavy steel away from its location hundreds of feet AND be QUIETER (or covered up by) the sound of the building collapsing.

If you're nodding saying, yes, thats what happened and that you dont see a reason why not, then that's my point. You just dont understand explosives or sound, just like Richard Gage.

It comes down to your unproven expectations.

I'm not the one claiming there was explosives that are quiet yet intense.

And yes, I know you said they were loud but covered up by the "cacophony of the collapse" but if that happened they would by definition still be quiet.

You apparently don't expect anyone to hear, or any recording to display, the sound of whatever force was behind those heavy, multi-ton structural steel columns being ripped free and tossed hundreds of feet as each tower collapsed, unless it was caused by internal explosions.

Huh? I do expect people to record it on the videos that were in perfect locations to do so.

You keep saying "multi-ton structural steel columns being ripped free and tossed hundreds of feet", so how many tons of TNT equivalent energy do you believe it would take to "toss" around heavy steel? When you have worked that out, maybe you'll realise why expecting explosives that intense to be covered by the collapse of a building even as big as the WTC is insane or just stupid.

The sound of any other possible force causing this, you believe would not be near as loud.

Thats because gravity is rather quiet.

Go jump off a bridge and see how much sound your body makes. The force on the steel and debris is the upper block, the trajectory is expected and it travels far because the WTC is freakin' 110 stories high. If you watch verinage stuff is ejected out the sides of the collapse zone as well and in the same way. The WTC was just a lot bigger and had a lot more energy and was constructed in a way that meant steel would be ejected rather than bits of concrete.

Some people hear explosions while others hear pan-caking floors.

We dont need to rely on the unqualified opinions of witness' when we have multiple video's all showing the same event from various locations and even have seismic readings and none show your explosives you say tossed around heavy steel. If that happened it would need an enormous release of energy, that would make one helleva BOOM.

We have no shortage of eyewitnesses claiming they heard explosions. Because of the cacophony of sound, we do have a shortage of sound recordings that clearly display the sounds of explosions.

Because you see if explosives started at the top the sound of the explosives would be clearly audible down at the bottom of the building because it would take far longer for the sound of the collapse to reach the volume it did. All videos show a progressive sound, no explosives whatsoever. Well, that and the explosives you're hypothesising would probably deafen everyone in Manhattan but that's just another problem.

And lots of people heard explosions but for some reason no one was harmed by any of them. Truthers know the names of people they think were caught in explosive blasts, they dont realise they should have blast injuries if they were.

 

[Edx]

The people near that camera showed no reaction to the WTC7 East Penthouse collapse either.

It wasn't until the whole WTC7 started dropping that the background voices reacted.

And you're actually using that as a point in your favour? Wow.