Brand New CT sub-group: No-Sounders

[LastChild]

Should they be? Different events, different distances, different ambient noises.

What have I been saying? So how do you know the WTC microphone was in a position to clearly pick up explosive sounds in the middle of a 110 story building collapse or above the 70th floor in all the commotion that was going on the morning of 9/11?

An explosion inside a building (especially one where many of the windows are already broken) is still going to be extremely loud when heard outdoors. It (the explosion in another building) won't be nearly as loud from within a building with sealed windows, buildings are usually designed to mute outside noises.

Was every window on the wtc broken? Was the Dallas building completely closed? Now I'm not arguing with you on the point you're trying to make. I made the same point in the other thread and was told I was wrong.

And I almost feel sorry for you that this has to be explained, it must be hard going through life with such poor cognitive ability.

Explained by who? Explained by me? Then I was told this...

Which just makes your case even more nonsense since the demo blasts would have been not only much much louder, but would have blown out every window in the buildings and knocked people back. The volume of the explosive charges would have been so loud that any camera mic would be completely distorted. Yet we hear nothing. 100% nothing.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You lie and you lie because it's all you got.

And still you lie.







Now tell everyone here once and for all King Audio how explosions would have been clearly heard over the sound of the collapsing wtc in Gravy's crap video.

And tell everyone once and for all what kind of camera and microphone or pad or whatever else was used in the wtc clip in Gravy's movie and just how you know it.

No need to get your panties in a bunch and throw such a hissy. Just back it up.

Or just tell another lie. You’re good at that.

Hey liar, did you bother to read the post you were responding to? The one which specifically addresses the issue you claim is a lie? The one which explains how you went on to say that the dynamic mic prevents sound from being picked up behind it, not through that single sentence, but through the rest of your posts?

And you DO realize that the quote of yours I used still points out your incompetence because what you are saying in that quote is 100% absolutely wrong. It is FALSE that a dynamic microphone picks up the front and reduces sound from the rear. That is 100% absolutely WRONG WRONG WRONG.What you *meant* to say was that a cardioid polar patter picks up from the front and rejects sound from the rear.

Once again, please stop lying and further lying by pretending that the people who point out your lies and incompetence are then lying.

 

[LastChild]

In all three of your videos despite two of them being viewed from inside a closed space i can clearly hear demolition explosives.

Really? I thought you claimed it was muffled because the explosives were far from the windows? Now you clearly hear them? Which is it?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

What have I been saying? So how do you know the WTC microphone was in a position to clearly pick up explosive sounds in the middle of a 110 story building collapse or above the 70th floor in all the commotion that was going on the morning of 9/11?

No one can possibly be this stupid, it's just not possible. Are you going to sit here and claim that there is a position of a mic that can reject the loudest sounds while still picking up the softer sound? That's the most idiotic claim I have ever seen on this forum. That's a stundie hands down! And what's worse is your claim that the height of the building was a factor. This is beyond idiotic. IT's so absolutely absurd and laughable.

Please prove to us that a mic position can reject the loudest of sounds because of height/altitude, but pickup the sounds not as loud at the same height? OMG, I have to frame this post of yours. You really REALLY have absolutely no idea what you are talking about what so ever. Do you even know what sound is period? LOL!

Was every window on the wtc broken? Was the Dallas building completely closed? Now I'm not arguing with you on the point you're trying to make. I made the same point in the other thread and was told I was wrong.

No you're not arguing the same point. You realized that it would be impossible for the windows to survive the concussion wave generated by the explosives. But your claim that the building contents determines if the charges can be heard is absolutely WRONG. Perhaps you could show us some examples of demolitions in closed buildings where the explosive charges can't be heard? I mean, I assume you are taking this from some experience and not simply making it up right?

Explained by who? Explained by me? Then I was told this...

Seriously, are we on candid camera here? No one can make such absolutely absurd nonsense claims.

 

[A W Smith]

Really? I thought you claimed it was muffled because the explosives were far from the windows? Now you clearly hear them? Which is it?

false choice fallacy noted

They are muffled but still can clearly be heard as demolition explosions. so where are your silent demolitions ?

 

[LastChild]

Hey liar, did you bother to read the post you were responding to? The one which specifically addresses the issue you claim is a lie? The one which explains how you went on to say that the dynamic mic prevents sound from being picked up behind it, not through that single sentence, but through the rest of your posts?

And you DO realize that the quote of yours I used still points out your incompetence because what you are saying in that quote is 100% absolutely wrong. It is FALSE that a dynamic microphone picks up the front and reduces sound from the rear. That is 100% absolutely WRONG WRONG WRONG.What you *meant* to say was that a cardioid polar patter picks up from the front and rejects sound from the rear.

Once again, please stop lying and further lying by pretending that the people who point out your lies and incompetence are then lying.

LOL You are the one who was caught lying at least three time on just one sentence of mine. And all you have in response is a hissy fit of more lies.

Good job. Why don’t you follow it up now with one of your ill-informed irrelevant to the topic tutorials on recording Mr. Expert?

 

[LastChild]

false choice fallacy noted

They are muffled but still can clearly be heard as demolition explosions.

LOL

CLASSIC!

You never fail to come with the hard facts do ya?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Dance little one dance. Pretend it's all a dream. LOL!!!

And was this your sentence about how dynamic mics work? HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Oh and BTW, since I am aparantly lying Lastchild, That means that you acknowledge that the WTC would have made audible demolition charges in the recordings but didn't, thus proving there were no demolition charges. Do youb agree this rules out demolition charges? Because according to your new claim, they would have been heard since the dynamic mic (according to your incorrect definition) doesn't completely reject the sound from behind it (also ignoring this major assumption on your part that every single mic that recorded the WTC were this type of mic and all pointed away or by people running, etc).

 

[A W Smith]

heres another fact

LOL

CLASSIC!

You never fail to come with the hard facts do ya?

the fact that you failed to produce an example of a silent CD

 

[LastChild]

No one can possibly be this stupid, it's just not possible. Are you going to sit here and claim that there is a position of a mic that can reject the loudest sounds while still picking up the softer sound? That's the most idiotic claim I have ever seen on this forum. That's a stundie hands down! And what's worse is your claim that the height of the building was a factor. This is beyond idiotic. IT's so absolutely absurd and laughable.

Please prove to us that a mic position can reject the loudest of sounds because of height/altitude, but pickup the sounds not as loud at the same height? OMG, I have to frame this post of yours. You really REALLY have absolutely no idea what you are talking about what so ever. Do you even know what sound is period? LOL!


No you're not arguing the same point. You realized that it would be impossible for the windows to survive the concussion wave generated by the explosives. But your claim that the building contents determines if the charges can be heard is absolutely WRONG. Perhaps you could show us some examples of demolitions in closed buildings where the explosive charges can't be heard? I mean, I assume you are taking this from some experience and not simply making it up right?


Seriously, are we on candid camera here? No one can make such absolutely absurd nonsense claims.

This is about the windows dummy. Try to follow will ya? Now I believe you disagree with Wildcat on this. Why don't you two genius's fight it out? BTW he would be right and you would be wrong on this. But then again you are mostly wrong on everything even things you claim to be an expert at. You did get your name right though didn't ya? Or was that your mother who nailed that one? Keep up the good work. You are doing the debunking movement a great service. LOL

 

[Good Lt]

Prove 9-11 was an inside job, LC.

Ready

Set

GO!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

This is about the windows dummy. Try to follow will ya? Now I believe you disagree with Wildcat on this. Why don't you two genius's fight it out? BTW he would be right and you would be wrong on this. But then again you are mostly wrong on everything even things you claim to be an expert at. You did get your name right though didn't ya? Or was that your mother who nailed that one? Keep up the good work. You are doing the debunking movement a great service. LOL

yes it is about the windows. That's what makes it so damn funny!!!!

Couldn't help but notice you didn't address my questions. Not to surprising coming from someone like you who doesn't know what you are talking about and makes claims such as a dynamic mic picking up sound in front and rejecting the rear. I bet all the omni directional dynamic mics would be interested to hear that. It's jsut sad that you can't even admit how wrong you are in that alone. Forgetting about all the problems with your other claims.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Where did you witness a controlled demolition like anything I described there?

I was present at two separate CD events c.a. 1998 and 1999 in Chicago. The first was a five building public housing complex along the lakefront. The buildings were spread out with the distance between the farthest out about ½ mile. I was about a ¼ mile south of the southern most building. They set off the charges in sequence starting with the one nearest to me going north.

The second CD event was a two building complex that I was about ¼ mile from as well.

In both cases the sounds of the charges were loud. But, more importantly, you could feel the blasts when the shock wave hit your chest cavity. The sounds of the buildings coming down afterward were nothing in comparison.

In the first case, when they set off the charges in the buildings farthest away from me (over ½ mile), the sounds of the blasts were clear, the sounds of the collapse were muted and less distinct.


Have you ever been to a fireworks show?

Have you ever been to one where they have a crescendo of loud blasts in the grand finale? Did you feel the blasts?

The CD blasts were quite similer.

There were no sounds of explosives before or during the 9/11 collapses because there were no explosives. The collapses are perfectly explainable based on the structural damage and fire conditions present at the time.

 

[IMST]

What's it got to do with Gravy's movie?

Nothing. It has to do with your knowledge of microphones, which is a substantial portion of this thread and relevant to the OP. I haven't seen Gravy's movie.

It couldn't hurt. And it might be useful to those reading the thread who are not familiar with the technical aspects of audio equipment.

Seriously, if possible, post some basics. Or refer /link if you can't post them.

A day learning something new is a day well spent.

Edit: Let me expand on this. Reading the thread, I find most people's statements about audio basics to be plausible. LC then says "no." I don't trust his views in general, because he has consistently proved himself to be unreliable in other ways. But in this specific technical area, I'd like to understand better the basic errors in his statements.

I should say "I'm astonished" to see his denials and negations, but considering some of the nonsense Truthers feel able to post on other technical topics (structural engineering, etc.), I suppose I shouldn't be.

Can do. Give me a little while to get some material together.

 

[IMST]

Microphone Basics:
POLAR PATTERN
Polar pattern refers to the directionality of a microphone. Though possible polar patterns are infinite, there are a few patterns that are far more common than any others.
Omnidirectional
An omnidirectional microphone hears in all directions equally, with a minor rejection directly backward to soundwaves smaller that the microphone itself. This apply only to very high pitched sounds. For context, the human voice has wave lengths measured in several feet for vowels, to several inches for consonants.
Strengths of omnidirectional mics are ability to hear anything around them, lack of rejection of low frequency sounds, and lack of proximity effect (explained below). The only weakness is inability to focus in any particular direction.
Omni pattern chart:

This chart shows the omni as a circle, which means there is no reduction at any angle from where the mic is pointed. 0 degrees is where the mic is pointed for any chart, anywhere a line moves toward the center of the chart there is reduction of the sound picked up.
Cardioid:
Cardioid (aka unidirectional) microphones hear best out the front and not at all out the exact back. This is the ideal, but in the real world anywhere but an anechoic chamber (no echo chamber) a sound from directly behind would be heard somewhat. At 90 degrees of axis, sound is reduced by about 1/2, though to the ear it would seem like more than 1/2 the intensity (too long a discussion to get into here). Strengths are a tendency to pick up one particular direction. Weaknesses are minor rejection of low frequencies, only minor rejection from the sides and minor proximity effect. Proximity effect is the tendency for a mic to overproduce low frequencies from a very close (inches or less) sound source. Here is the pattern for a cardioid mic:

Note the major rejection from the back and minor rejection from the sides. Cardioid mics can also be hyper cardioid, which creates more rejection to the sides, but less at the back. These are better for isolation in some contexts. Here is that pattern:
Bi-directional:
Bi-directional (aka figure 8) microphones hear equally well out the front or back, but reject the sides completely. This is most common in ribbon microphones. Strengths are an extreme rejection from the sides and ability to capture two separate sources. Weaknesses are proximity effect and low frequency rejection. Here is a bi-directional pattern:

Note the side rejection and the equal front and back lobes.

PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION
There are two major principles of operation for microphones and two major categories of each principle.

DYNAMIC MICS:
Dynamic microphones use passive electronics to move either a coil or a ribbon in a magnetic field in response to sound pressure and induce a voltage across attached wires. These microphones do not need a power source to operate. They generally are cheaper and lower sound quality than condenser microphones. They can have any polar pattern.
Moving coil mics:
These are by far the most common microphone on the market. This is the classic Shure SM-57, useful for loud sound sources and pounding in stage nails:

Though they can be any polar pattern, cardioid and hyper cardioid are the most common. Their strengths are low cost, durability, and tolerance for high sound pressure levels (SPL). Weaknesses are transient response (rate at which they react to changes in SPL), noise and fidelity.
Ribbon Mics:
These are the old time radio style mics. They have made a comeback recently for studio applications. This is the Cascade Victor Long Ribbon Microphone:
These mics are easiest to implement in a bidirectional (fig. 8) polar pattern, but can also be omni. Strengths are mainly transient response, though may have more fidelity than moving coils. Weaknesses are extreme fragility, limited directional choices in commercially available models, cost and sensitivity (meaning they put out very little voltage)

CONDENSER MICS
Condenser (or capacitor) mics use active electronics to allow a capacitor to move in response to sound pressure and induce a voltage across attached wires. These require that the capacitor be powered by either a Field Effect Transistor (FET) or vacuum tube. FET and tube mics are the two major implementations of condenser mics, and I won't bother discussing them separately for purposes of this. Here is a Neumann TLM 103 large capsule Condenser:

and a Behringer B-5 small capsule condenser:

Many large condensers allow polar pattern to be selected between many choices, and a few allow pattern to be swept to any of the infinite patterns possible. Strengths are excellent fidelity, high sensitivity, and numerous available polar responses. Weaknesses are cost and fragility. I use condenser mics whenever possible.

Any questions?

 

[LastChild]

I was present at two separate CD events c.a. 1998 and 1999 in Chicago. The first was a five building public housing complex along the lakefront. The buildings were spread out with the distance between the farthest out about ½ mile. I was about a ¼ mile south of the southern most building. They set off the charges in sequence starting with the one nearest to me going north.

The second CD event was a two building complex that I was about ¼ mile from as well.

In both cases the sounds of the charges were loud. But, more importantly, you could feel the blasts when the shock wave hit your chest cavity. The sounds of the buildings coming down afterward were nothing in comparison.

In the first case, when they set off the charges in the buildings farthest away from me (over ½ mile), the sounds of the blasts were clear, the sounds of the collapse were muted and less distinct.


Have you ever been to a fireworks show?

Have you ever been to one where they have a crescendo of loud blasts in the grand finale? Did you feel the blasts?

The CD blasts were quite similer.

There were no sounds of explosives before or during the 9/11 collapses because there were no explosives. The collapses are perfectly explainable based on the structural damage and fire conditions present at the time.

That's fine. I don't doubt what you witnessed but I still don't see how it compares to what I described. I also don't doubt that demolition charges are loud and compare to fireworks. 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...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

Now the WTC started collapsing at the top very high up. What caused that initiation is debated by some. But if it was an explosion I don't think it would have necessarily have been heard or deciphered from the falling upper floors and the sound made from that in addition to all the already existing noise going on during the morning of 9/11 that was much closer to any microphones. No one was standing quietly listing to a countdown with their breath held listening for the first demo charge to pop. 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. It wouldn't necessarily have been done the same way. Lastly to claim the fact that no explosions were discernable in the audio of video depicting the collapse of a 110 story skyscraper actually proves something is ridiculous.

The collapse itself has yet to be completely explained by anyone officially or otherwise.

 

[calebprime]

cool

and, being silly, I link to my favorite parabolic site:

http://www.parabs.com/

(I know from experience that even if I were pointing my parabolic directly away from a loud low-frequency sound, it would still pick it up.)

eta: I'm referring to post #176 by In My Spare Time

 

[LastChild]

Microphone Basics:
POLAR PATTERN
Polar pattern refers to the directionality of a microphone. Though possible polar patterns are infinite, there are a few patterns that are far more common than any others.
Omnidirectional
An omnidirectional microphone hears in all directions equally, with a minor rejection directly backward to soundwaves smaller that the microphone itself. This apply only to very high pitched sounds. For context, the human voice has wave lengths measured in several feet for vowels, to several inches for consonants.
Strengths of omnidirectional mics are ability to hear anything around them, lack of rejection of low frequency sounds, and lack of proximity effect (explained below). The only weakness is inability to focus in any particular direction.
Omni pattern chart:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1800647795894a63c7.gif[/qimg]
This chart shows the omni as a circle, which means there is no reduction at any angle from where the mic is pointed. 0 degrees is where the mic is pointed for any chart, anywhere a line moves toward the center of the chart there is reduction of the sound picked up.
Cardioid:
Cardioid (aka unidirectional) microphones hear best out the front and not at all out the exact back. This is the ideal, but in the real world anywhere but an anechoic chamber (no echo chamber) a sound from directly behind would be heard somewhat. At 90 degrees of axis, sound is reduced by about 1/2, though to the ear it would seem like more than 1/2 the intensity (too long a discussion to get into here). Strengths are a tendency to pick up one particular direction. Weaknesses are minor rejection of low frequencies, only minor rejection from the sides and minor proximity effect. Proximity effect is the tendency for a mic to overproduce low frequencies from a very close (inches or less) sound source. Here is the pattern for a cardioid mic:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/18006477959fc6f1b7.gif[/qimg]
Note the major rejection from the back and minor rejection from the sides. Cardioid mics can also be hyper cardioid, which creates more rejection to the sides, but less at the back. These are better for isolation in some contexts. Here is that pattern: [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1800647795b5501135.jpg[/qimg]
Bi-directional:
Bi-directional (aka figure 8) microphones hear equally well out the front or back, but reject the sides completely. This is most common in ribbon microphones. Strengths are an extreme rejection from the sides and ability to capture two separate sources. Weaknesses are proximity effect and low frequency rejection. Here is a bi-directional pattern:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1800647795c01d9c9c.gif[/qimg]
Note the side rejection and the equal front and back lobes.

PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION
There are two major principles of operation for microphones and two major categories of each principle.

DYNAMIC MICS:
Dynamic microphones use passive electronics to move either a coil or a ribbon in a magnetic field in response to sound pressure and induce a voltage across attached wires. These microphones do not need a power source to operate. They generally are cheaper and lower sound quality than condenser microphones. They can have any polar pattern.
Moving coil mics:
These are by far the most common microphone on the market. This is the classic Shure SM-57, useful for loud sound sources and pounding in stage nails:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_180064779558a63c87.jpg[/qimg]
Though they can be any polar pattern, cardioid and hyper cardioid are the most common. Their strengths are low cost, durability, and tolerance for high sound pressure levels (SPL). Weaknesses are transient response (rate at which they react to changes in SPL), noise and fidelity.
Ribbon Mics:
These are the old time radio style mics. They have made a comeback recently for studio applications. This is the Cascade Victor Long Ribbon Microphone: [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_18006477956bb9595f.jpg[/qimg]
These mics are easiest to implement in a bidirectional (fig. 8) polar pattern, but can also be omni. Strengths are mainly transient response, though may have more fidelity than moving coils. Weaknesses are extreme fragility, limited directional choices in commercially available models, cost and sensitivity (meaning they put out very little voltage)

CONDENSER MICS
Condenser (or capacitor) mics use active electronics to allow a capacitor to move in response to sound pressure and induce a voltage across attached wires. These require that the capacitor be powered by either a Field Effect Transistor (FET) or vacuum tube. FET and tube mics are the two major implementations of condenser mics, and I won't bother discussing them separately for purposes of this. Here is a Neumann TLM 103 large capsule Condenser:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1800647795e3b119fb.jpg[/qimg]
and a Behringer B-5 small capsule condenser:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1800647795eb14075f.jpg[/qimg]
Many large condensers allow polar pattern to be selected between many choices, and a few allow pattern to be swept to any of the infinite patterns possible. Strengths are excellent fidelity, high sensitivity, and numerous available polar responses. Weaknesses are cost and fragility. I use condenser mics whenever possible.

Any questions?

Yes. Does the same thing recorded by any two of them sound exactly the same?

 

[SDC]

Microphone Basics:
... [cut by me]
Any questions?

Many thanks. My wife is a musician and talks about microphone problems a lot. Now I'll be able to nod a bit more knowledgeably. "Yes, dear..."

But now a question: what on god's green earth does LC think he is talking about?