Here's the thing femr;
by illustrating the sound of demolition charges in known building demolitions we feel it is justifiable to discount the existance of demolition charges in the towers since no sounds consistent with known demolitions charges is heard in any audio track of the tower's collapses.
That would be the Royal *we* one would assume. You can feel justified in any stance that you please, but in the process you reduce the quality of your critical thinking/skeptical viewpoint/knowledge to what is in my opinion useless banter based upon gross assumption, gross misrepresentation of the scope of what I'm discussing and ample amounts of handwaving.
You and your fellow 9/11 speculators
Your first mistake. By applying primitive grouping of your personal belief of various different peoples viewpoints, you end up writing nonsense...
then attempt to get around this lack of audible demolition charges
Your second mistake. I'm not trying to get around anything in the slightest. That's an invention within your own private world I'm afraid. I'm simply trying to quantify the effect upon loud sound sources in the real world environment. You don't know the extent. Neither do I. I'm curious to find out. You're not. Your paranoid assumptions are therefore quite humerous to me.
by claiming that the intervening structure and several hundred feet of air will attenuate the sound enough so that it will not resemble the sounds heard in known demolitions.
Your third mistake. I make no such claim. Yet again you are applying your own nonsensical assumptions. I'd quite like to know how much the sound is attenuated, sure, but not by something as primitive as air. That's just a pathetic lack of understanding about the question in hand. Through air you're talking about a 7dB reduction over about 100m. I'm wondering about the effect of a sound in the center of the building a 100 storeys above the receiver, which itself probably has a directional microphone.
Yet you have tried and tried to have those of us who do NOT contend this to attempt to show calcs.
Your fourth mistake. I've stated repeatedly that I doubt anyone has the motivation nor ability to do so, but that doesn't change the fact that I'd like to find out the *answer*. As I've also said repeatedly, I may do so myself.
Seems to me that this work is up to those who DO propose such a mechanism at work. That's you!
Your fifth mistake. You carry forth your paranoid assumptions from your earlier mistakes. There is no doubt at all that some attenuation will occur. The question is how much. As I've said, yet again, I may do the leg work. As I've also said, until someone does, claims or conclusions such as those in your first paragraph are based upon nowt but hand-waving and belief, rather than that ol' beachnut favorite math and physics. That anyone should object to the suggestion of actually working out the real world behaviour is laughable, though very common in this place. If all you have to entertain yourself is *twoofer baiting*, have fun. Sad waste of time in my opinion, but knock yourself out. There's only one point of interest for me in this thread, that I identified at post one, namely, what's the ACTUAL effect on the sound of a *boom* high up in the tower ? You don't know. You haven't done the leg work. Well done. Fingers in ears. lol.
There are other problems for such a theory though.
Where are we, sixth mistake ? No theory braniac, simply the interest to understand the actual behaviour, but continue by all means...
Let's say that you did prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the sound would be sufficiently muffled so that it does not even resemble the sounds heard in audio tracks of known demolitions.
Getting boring this. Who said that is what the outcome would be ? In direct contrast, you may not my reponse to the suggestion earlier that such a *study* could be used to put a nail in the coffin for any suggestion of the presence of explosives. You guys really do tend to kick yourself in the teeth repeatedly you know
You still have not proved that such charges were in fact in the structures.
In what way do you think I'm trying to ? LOL. See my pre-release motion data for WTC7 and WTC1 and ask yourself in what way doing so is an attempt to suggest that explosives at the point of release is the cause of subsequent descent ? Idjits
All you have done is disprove the contention that there should be such sounds.
You really are off in some fantasy land. Meanwhile back on planet earth...
Any contention that a lack of such sounds proves demolitions charges would be an appeal to ignorance (ie. 'since we cannot prove or disprove their existance they were probably there')
Oh yawn. You don't want to understand the actual behaviour of the sound wave because it is not convenient for your personal crusade ? ROFL.
Personally I have been about 150 feet from the open air blast of two sticks of dynamite. I have been 1 mile(5000 feet+) from, ( and still in sight of) an un-matted rock blast (highway construction through Canadian Shield granite) and as I said before I have experienced a mining shot a 1000+ feet below my feet. In the first two cases the one thing that characterized the blast is that it is freakin' loud. In the rock cut blast, I, and all of the construction workers with me knew the blast was coming, we heard the warning whistle, we heard the countdown and 'fire in the hole', and yet with out exception we all jumped a bit at the sound. We were several times farther away than the people at street level in Manhattan!
So ? Apples and oranges. Perhaps the result of working out the *math and physics* would be that the amplitude would be almost as high as at source, perhaps not. Without looking at the actual, or comparable scenario you're waving hands.
The mining shot was less loud but had a very definite 'feel' to it.
So ? In what way would a microphone record that *feel* in your opinion ?
jig wishes that an explosion is a soundwave just like the sound of a voice. I do believe that you know better.
Sure, but hardly the point in hand. Stephen Evans probably had an opinion on that at some point, but hey ho. I'd like to determine what a microphone 100m from the base of WTC1 would pick up if there was a *boom* in the center of the core up at about floor 98, for whatever reason you choose to assume.
Have fun.
with directional camera oriented (z) that there were no *booms* at all, yet in the same breath state that *booms* that are present in audio track (b) cannot possibly be anything but (c) and a window pane breaking would sound exactly like that in recording (d)...
Not too smart.