Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[femr2]

The OP was unable to show any case of demolition by cutting charges that were attenuated to a point where they did not go BANG! in red and FONTSIZE=7.
The question in the OP has at its base the possibility that such attenuation is possible.
He did not provide any reason to believe this assumption. The OP is therefore moot.



No. To close the thread it suffices to point out who has the burden of proof here. If the author of the OP is unable or unwilling to present evidence in favour of his hypothesis, the hypothesis is stillborn.

So you have absolutely no idea how the amplitude would be modulated by the intervening structures. Noted.

You are entitled to your opinion, which is, just like the OP, informed by foregone conclusions.

Incorrect.

Your opinion is wrong, however.

Incorrect. The problem you have is that you incorrectly assume what my opinion is.

You know as well as anyone here (and that includes ergo) that all explosive demolitions of highrises produce VERY loud BANG!s.

How would a loud bang 1200ft up in the air be affected by the intervening structure ?

First thought would be the effect of a plate reverb, very effective at absorbing a lot of energy, and the focussing of air pressure out laterally.

You don't know, but it can be worked out. You'd then be in a position to state a reasoned estimate of the amplitude change between source and receiver, and actually negate the question. If you don't...

If you want to, pardon the pun, put your fingers in your ears because you don't like the nature of the question, go ahead, but you know and I know you haven't actually answered the question...

What would an explosion 1200ft up inside the core actually sound like at ground level from one of the known camera viewpoints ?

I'd be interested to KNOW. If you're not, that's your lookout, but speaks volumes.

 

[Sunstealer]

i wonder what a font size of eleventybillion would map to! :d

[size="eleventybillion"]bang[/size] - I think it breaks the forum so they won't allow it.

One of the problems is; truthers don't actually know what an explosion is.

Truthers go to 3.30 and watch this, it explains it in easy to understand terms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cBHpFNHA2A

then go here to 4.25 to see a cutter charge on a steel beam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMChtqJBAP8&feature=related

Why are the people in the film wearing ear defenders? How many people were made deaf by explosives on 9/11? BANG.

 

[Oystein]

So you have absolutely no idea how the amplitude would be modulated by the intervening structures. Noted.

Incorrect.
I do have an idea. The intervening structure is
- open office space. I know from own experience how little these attenuate - last time I worked in one, they removed all laser printers to closed spaces because one humming printer gets on many people's nerves.
- glas windows - all of which would get blown out by the massive explosions just a few meters away

So yeah, I don't know if that would chop off 10 or 20 dB.
However you'd have to chop off 90dB - that's a long way to go.

Incorrect.

Not incorrect. Without any evidence for explosives whatsoever, and in fact lots of evidence for no explosives, only a person assuming that explosives are likely despite the evidence to the contrary can possibly be of your opinion.

Incorrect. The problem you have is that you incorrectly assume what my opinion is.

I responded to a verbatim copy of your opinion: "I don't think the question is too unreasonable."
I say this opinion is wrong: ergo's question is too unreasonable.

How would a loud bang 1200ft up in the air be affected by the intervening structure ?

Strawman. ergo's assumption is neither limited to, nor does it even include, any "loud bang 1200ft up in the air". That would be near the roof of the towers. Rather, he speculates about explosions near the pöane impact levels, and at intervals (plural) below that. So please correct your misleading question to something like "300-900ft up in the air".
Next, you ought to consider the many cameras that recorded sound, and their many vantage points, some of them possibly on a level with some of ergo's proposed "explosions at intervals".
Finally, look at any videos of highrise CDs: You will notice that, regardless of the height of the detonations, and height and distance of the cameras, the explosions always always always record clearly and loudly on videotape. Explosions that would be much smaller than the ones required to break the much more massive WTC structures.

You are desperately grasping at straws, man.

First thought would be the effect of a plate reverb, very effective at absorbing a lot of energy, and the focussing of air pressure out laterally.

You don't know, but it can be worked out. You'd then be in a position to state a reasoned estimate of the amplitude change between source and receiver, and actually negate the question. If you don't...

Why me? Burden of proof rests squarely on ergo.

If you want to, pardon the pun, put your fingers in your ears because you don't like the nature of the question, go ahead, but you know and I know you haven't actually answered the question...

What would an explosion 1200ft up inside the core actually sound like at ground level from one of the known camera viewpoints ?

I'd be interested to KNOW. If you're not, that's your lookout, but speaks volumes.

You know as well as I what it would sound like:
"BANG!..." (add fancy fonts).
You can deny that you know this as well as I do. But be informed that I will then privately think you are a liar. What a pity. I used to have more respect for you.

 

[femr2]

Incorrect.
I do have an idea. The intervening structure is
- open office space. I know from own experience how little these attenuate - last time I worked in one, they removed all laser printers to closed spaces because one humming printer gets on many people's nerves.

Demonstrating the lateral focus I mentioned.

glas windows - all of which would get blown out by the massive explosions just a few meters away

Utterly dependant upon the type and location.

So yeah, I don't know if that would chop off 10 or 20 dB.
However you'd have to chop off 90dB - that's a long way to go.

You don't know the extent at all. You're handwaving.

I'd quite like to know fairly accurately.

Not incorrect. Without any evidence for explosives whatsoever, and in fact lots of evidence for no explosives, only a person assuming that explosives are likely despite the evidence to the contrary can possibly be of your opinion.

Again, you are assuming my opinion. I'm afraid you're still quite wrong. If I've told you once, ...

I responded to a verbatim copy of your opinion: "I don't think the question is too unreasonable."
I say this opinion is wrong: ergo's question is too unreasonable.

Where is your sound-path render answering the question then ?

What is the dB reduction ?

Strawman. ergo's assumption is neither limited to, nor does it even include, any "loud bang 1200ft up in the air". That would be near the roof of the towers. Rather, he speculates about explosions near the pöane impact levels, and at intervals (plural) below that. So please correct your misleading question to something like "300-900ft up in the air".

ROFL. Misleading ? That's funny. Once you have an environment with which you can calculate from source to receiver it can be tested from many locations. You don't have that yet, so whining about what location is referenced is just a bit pathetic.

Next, you ought to consider the many cameras that recorded sound, and their many vantage points, some of them possibly on a level with some of ergo's proposed "explosions at intervals".

That's fine. Apply the calcs to them all. Bit boring without actually doing a single scenario check though eh.

A boom center of core about 1200ft up. Pick a dB value for the boom, render the wave through all intervening materials accounting for reflection and absorbtion etc. Spit out resultant dB value for a ground level receiver, say, 100m from the base.

Then you'll have a method. Apply it to other locations.

Still results in big bang ? Fine. You have something useful for your purposes. Not doing so...hand wave.

Finally, look at any videos of highrise CDs: You will notice that, regardless of the height of the detonations, and height and distance of the cameras, the explosions always always always record clearly and loudly on videotape.

Strawman. Work it out with the actual structure and scenario on the table, ie intact WTC.

Explosions that would be much smaller than the ones required to break the much more massive WTC structures.

Strawman. CC up top were remarkably skinny, as I am sure you know well. Irrelevant to the base technical question to boot.

You are desperately grasping at straws, man.

Nope. Interested in the ACTUAL effect on such an audio event by the intervening structure. If you're too blinkered by your agenda, that's not my problem, son

Why me? Burden of proof rests squarely on ergo.

You told him he was wrong, when it's a question you can't give a decent answer to. As I said, I don't think it's an unreasonable question. A decent answer or an honest admission that you just don't know (which therefore MUST include the possibility that you may not expect to be able to hear it )

You know as well as I what it would sound like:
"BANG!..." (add fancy fonts).

No, I don't know. Might end up a bang loud enough to be detected by a particular directional microphone of a particular camera at the scene, might not. I think the sound pressure wave would be affected significantly by the structure, especially so far up in the air, but I haven't tested it. It should be possible to work it out though within reasonable margins, without too much effort.

Until someone does, it's a question that I think would be useful to try and answer.

Do you not agree ??? Strange if not. Would have thought that would be a VERY useful piece of work in environment here.

You can deny that you know this as well as I do. But be informed that I will then privately think you are a liar. What a pity. I used to have more respect for you.

You can do as much private thinking as you like in the most public form you can think of (which I imagine is here) but it doesn't change the fact that, yes, I *deny* that I know what effect the structure would have, though I'd be fairly confident in suggesting that the maximum scale BANG would only be heard along quite a narrow cone laterally outward from the vertical level of the source of such a BANG How it would all pan out at the various camera locations...not too sure.

If you *do the math*, cool, let me know. If not, you just don't know. I might get around to it at some point.

Have fun.

 

[beachnut]

Coming up on 10 years of failed CD claims made out of ignorance. With all those core fantasy explosives going off, how did the real people live in the core? That is right, no explosives on 911. The delusion pushers are a fringe few who will ask for math, but can't do it themselves. When will 911 truth cult members answer their own questions?

Hush-a-boom bombs, back again, for St Patrick's Day - are they wearing green, or is the green the mold from trying to resurrect dead delusions?

 

[Horatius]

I realise that applying critical thinking to 'debunkers' rather than 'woos' or 'twoofers' will convince some of you I'm one or other of the latter two, but isn't this just a variation of the Texan Sharpshooter Fallacy? It would hardly be 'magic' if there were survivors at a point of explosive failure (that's a big 'if', it's a lot of ifs, it's a series of highly unlikely, improbable, impossible, fictitious ifs, but all the same...) It wouldn't be that the explosives didn't go off where the survivors were, it would be survivors where the explosives didn't go off, which would be unremarkable and certainly not magical. If you're going to silence the lunatics (a noble, if futile, aim) then don't give them such an easy excuse to stop listening.

The problem with using this explanation to justify why none of the survivors heard explosions is, it ignores the fact that we know there's a large range of distances between where an explosive is lethal, and where it becomes inaudible. So the "bullseye" that the Texas Sharpshooter is aiming at would be quite large. With multiple charges as proposed by the OP, we'd have multiple such zones, which would decrease the areas in which people could have survived, but not heard anything.

To suggest that all survivors fell in these sweet spots, and none of them fell into the "Heard it but survived" zones strains credibility.

 

[Dog Town]

The cores took longer to collapse than the rest of the building.

This really bears REPEATING! It should end the madness, but not with FM2 on scene. It will go into minutia hell. I'll watch this from afar.

 

[jiggeryqua]

The problem with using this explanation to justify why none of the survivors heard explosions is, it ignores the fact that we know there's a large range of distances between where an explosive is lethal, and where it becomes inaudible. So the "bullseye" that the Texas Sharpshooter is aiming at would be quite large. With multiple charges as proposed by the OP, we'd have multiple such zones, which would decrease the areas in which people could have survived, but not heard anything.

To suggest that all survivors fell in these sweet spots, and none of them fell into the "Heard it but survived" zones strains credibility.

The problem with your response is that I am in no way suggesting anything to do with hearing. At least you didn't call me a 'twoofer', though you're clearly reading much more into my post than I put there, possibly because, as I suggested, anyone who isn't attacking 'twoofers' will be seen as a 'twoofer'.

Again, the post I was responding to didn't concern audibility. It merely suggested that it was unlikely that the survivors happened to be at the point where the explosives failed. That's clearly fallacious reasoning. Again, if you want to silence the lunatics, it doesn't help to present them with such easily demolished arguments.

There are others here (and in every 9/11 thread, I expect, though since I've been monstered for picking up on poor 'debunker' arguments before I don't comment on them much). 'Why no deaf people?', for example. Because 'dead' trumps 'deaf', perhaps. Were any of the dead people deafened just before they died? We will never know.

 

[Justin39640]

The problem with using this explanation to justify why none of the survivors heard explosions is, it ignores the fact that we know there's a large range of distances between where an explosive is lethal, and where it becomes inaudible. So the "bullseye" that the Texas Sharpshooter is aiming at would be quite large. With multiple charges as proposed by the OP, we'd have multiple such zones, which would decrease the areas in which people could have survived, but not heard anything.

To suggest that all survivors fell in these sweet spots, and none of them fell into the "Heard it but survived" zones strains credibility.

I think the 1993 bombing debunks all of this.

On the 74th floor of the North Tower, Dharam Pal, chief mechanical engineer for plumbing and fire protection for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, thought the noise he heard was only the explosion of the television antenna transformer on the roof, but he didn’t hesitate to leave immediately. In 1993, he and his coworkers had stayed because they didn’t realize the severity of the situation.

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/MbrSecurePDF/Journal0902HumanFactor.pdf

So we have an example of a large explosion, with explosives not typical of CD, several stories beneath the buildings in question, that was heard by pretty much the entire complex. I tried searching for how far away from the towers the explosion was heard, but after a few google searches, my computer vomited out so much woo I had to give up.

Bedunked! WOOHOO!

The cores took longer to collapse than the rest of the building.

This really bears REPEATING! It should end the madness, but not with FM2 on scene. It will go into minutia hell. I'll watch this from afar.

Exactly.
The cores collapsed last Ergo.

 

[Justin39640]

The problem with your response is that I am in no way suggesting anything to do with hearing. At least you didn't call me a 'twoofer', though you're clearly reading much more into my post than I put there, possibly because, as I suggested, anyone who isn't attacking 'twoofers' will be seen as a 'twoofer'.

Again, the post I was responding to didn't concern audibility. It merely suggested that it was unlikely that the survivors happened to be at the point where the explosives failed. That's clearly fallacious reasoning. Again, if you want to silence the lunatics, it doesn't help to present them with such easily demolished arguments.

There are others here (and in every 9/11 thread, I expect, though since I've been monstered for picking up on poor 'debunker' arguments before I don't comment on them much). 'Why no deaf people?', for example. Because 'dead' trumps 'deaf', perhaps. Were any of the dead people deafened just before they died? We will never know.

You do realize that the building's steel would transmit the sounds as well? Especially to those still inside of it. Right?

 

[femr2]

This really bears REPEATING! It should end the madness, but not with FM2 on scene. It will go into minutia hell. I'll watch this from afar.

Your post demonstrates one of the things that reduces all discussion around here into almost worthless nonsense.

I plucked a question from the OP, which to paraphrase goes...

What is the effect of the intervening structure between a BOOM high up in the core of the tower and a microphone at ground level a distance from the base ?

I've yet to see a decent response. Doubt I will.

Personally I'd be quite interested in a decent stab at answering that kind of question, and most of you around here really should also find answering that a challenge, and quite illuminating, regardless of the outcome.

That you are throwing the question to one side by the strawman assumption that the question in isolation implies that there must be floor by floor explosives all the way to the base, in addition to the assumptions about my opinion on even explosives on a single floor...is why you are stuck.

Determining what actually happens to the *volume* of a *boom* in such a scenario should be of interest to you all.

Quite why no-one has taken the time to work it out is quite a surprise. Shouldn't be too tricky to parameterise. Fairly regular structure. Fairly simple set of sound paths. Fairly simple sets of materials.

 

[Justin39640]

Your post demonstrates one of the things that reduces all discussion around here into almost worthless nonsense.

I plucked a question from the OP, which to paraphrase goes...

What is the effect of the intervening structure between a BOOM high up in the core of the tower and a microphone at ground level a distance from the base ?

I've yet to see a decent response. Doubt I will.

Personally I'd be quite interested in a decent stab at answering that kind of question, and most of you around here really should also find answering that a challenge, and quite illuminating, regardless of the outcome.

That you are throwing the question to one side by the strawman assumption that the question in isolation implies that there must be floor by floor explosives all the way to the base, in addition to the assumptions about my opinion on even explosives on a single floor...is why you are stuck.

Determining what actually happens to the *volume* of a *boom* in such a scenario should be of interest to you all.

Quite why no-one has taken the time to work it out is quite a surprise. Shouldn't be too tricky to parameterise. Fairly regular structure. Fairly simple set of sound paths. Fairly simple sets of materials.

How well does steel transmit sound (vibrations)? Oh yeah, better than air. You're welcome.

 

[DGM]

.

Determining what actually happens to the *volume* of a *boom* in such a scenario should be of interest to you all.

So what would happen to it? What has your research found/concluded?

 

[femr2]

How well does steel transmit sound (vibrations)? Oh yeah, better than air. You're welcome.

Stupid response.

So what would happen to it? What has your research found/concluded?

I clearly haven't attempted to render it. Stock response.

Neither of you have answered the question, so it stands.

By all means feel free to get the books out and attempt to render the effect of the structure between a BANG in the center of the core about 1200ft up the tower to a directional microphone at ground level about 100m from the base.

Have fun.

 

[DGM]

Neither of you have answered the question, so it stands.

By all means feel free to get the books out and attempt to render the effect of the structure between a BANG in the center of the core about 1200ft up the tower to a directional microphone at ground level about 100m from the base.

Have fun.

Why on earth would I want or care to know this? There's no reason to think explosives were used.

This whole argument about how loud they would be is pointless unless you can show reason to believe they were there in the first place. Can you do that?

 

[Justin39640]

Stupid response.

Not really. You mentioned materials. There's a reason Willy R heard the plane hit twice....

 

[femr2]

Why on earth would I want or care to know this?

Because if, as beachnut is so fond of saying, you got math and physics...which proves that even a single explosion high up in the tower would be easily picked up by a directional microphone at the base (or wherever else was tested) then you'd have a useful counter-argument to any discussion of BOOMS.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen in print the base assertion...there were no BOOMS because you cannot hear them in the video record.

And yet no-one has done such a *calc*, making all such assertions based upon .... guesswork ? Intuition ? Belief ? Not good enough.

So why on earth would you NOT want or care to know this ?

Shouldn't be too difficult.

Have fun.

 

[DGM]

Because if, as beachnut is so fond of saying, you got math and physics...which proves that even a single explosion high up in the tower would be easily picked up by a directional microphone at the base (or wherever else was tested) then you'd have a useful counter-argument to any discussion of BOOMS.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen in print the base assertion...there were no BOOMS because you cannot hear them in the video record.

And yet no-one has done such a *calc*, making all such assertions based upon .... guesswork ? Intuition ? Belief ? Not good enough.

So why on earth would you NOT want or care to know this ?

Shouldn't be too difficult.

Have fun.

I've been to three controlled demolitions in person. I know what they sound like. How it would sound in every possible scenario, who cares.


Like I said, the whole "how loud it would be" is pointless.

 

[Reactor drone]

Because if, as beachnut is so fond of saying, you got math and physics...which proves that even a single explosion high up in the tower would be easily picked up by a directional microphone at the base (or wherever else was tested) then you'd have a useful counter-argument to any discussion of BOOMS.

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen in print the base assertion...there were no BOOMS because you cannot hear them in the video record.

And yet no-one has done such a *calc*, making all such assertions based upon .... guesswork ? Intuition ? Belief ? Not good enough.

So why on earth would you NOT want or care to know this ?

Shouldn't be too difficult.

Have fun.

So if I were to say that an office partition completely attenuates the sound of a 2kg shaped charge, my assertion would stand as fact until someone mathematically proved otherwise?

 

[Oystein]

Demonstrating the lateral focus I mentioned.

Which focus would you prefer, and why?

Utterly dependant upon the type and location.

Utterly? Why? Got proof? I'd say "somewhat".

You don't know the extent at all. You're handwaving.

This is false. I don't know the extent with much accuracy, but I can limit the extent by referring to experiment and experience. You see, I don't know the distance from here to Fukushima, but I know it is more than 2,000km and less than 20,000km, and that's as accurate as I need it for any practical purposes right now. No need to calculate anything at all, just a quick glance at the globe and referencing my prior knowledge of the distance of other places.

Much in this vein I do not know exactly how lout the bangs would be, but I am extremely confident that it will be less than 160dB and more than 50dB at any location 1-5 blocks away. That is a very wide range, but it suffices for our purposes to estimate that range based on experience and prior knowledge. We are talking about an attenuation of 80dB here - that is immense, and nothing in the known design of the tower suggests that this super-reduction of noise could be approached.

I'd quite like to know fairly accurately.

Why? Appeal to perfection fallacy?

Again, you are assuming my opinion. I'm afraid you're still quite wrong. If I've told you once, ...

Again I am telling you I was addressing your opinion, quoting it verbatim.

Where is your sound-path render answering the question then ?

Appeal to perfection fallacy. We have a large body of similar events (CDs) to compare this to, we have NIST's estimate of how large a charge would have to be for a column at WTC that supports 40 floors, and we have personal experience with sound. All this enables us to estimate that complete muting of many massive detonations towards many recording location is extremely unplausible, and anyone suggesting this needs to work hard to convince us otherwise.

What is the dB reduction ?

Oh it's more than 3dB and less than 80dB.

ROFL. Misleading ? That's funny. Once you have an environment with which you can calculate from source to receiver it can be tested from many locations. You don't have that yet, so whining about what location is referenced is just a bit pathetic.

Alright, alright. 1200ft wasn't misleading. It was completely wrong.

That's fine. Apply the calcs to them all. Bit boring without actually doing a single scenario check though eh.

Should I do every conceivable scenario? Sift through millions of configurations, and if I find one that makes complete silence for all known recording positions capitulate and congratulate ergo for his great science?

I don't think so. I think ergo should improve on his hypothesis to make it testable.

A boom center of core about 1200ft up. Pick a dB value for the boom, render the wave through all intervening materials accounting for reflection and absorbtion etc. Spit out resultant dB value for a ground level receiver, say, 100m from the base.

Ahhh too bad you repeat the misleading completely false "1200ft" strawman. Femr, seriously, that smacks of transparent dishonesty. I don't like that at all.

Besides - ground level? Only 100m from base? Was there any known recording made at such an extreme location?

Then you'll have a method. Apply it to other locations.

That is not the only valid method to limit an estimate.

Still results in big bang ? Fine. You have something useful for your purposes. Not doing so...hand wave.

Incorrect.

Strawman. Work it out with the actual structure and scenario on the table, ie intact WTC.

Appeal to perfection fallacy.

Strawman. CC up top were remarkably skinny, as I am sure you know well. Irrelevant to the base technical question to boot.

Skinny compared to what they were at the base. Quite impressive compared to smaller structures.

You see, ergo not only imagines explosives at the plane impact levels high above (where CC had to support 15-30 stories above), but also lower in the towers "at intervals" - remember? Why do you keep ignoring ergo's assumptions? In his sloppiness he fails to mention how deep down he wants to place explosives, but I would say it is fair to say that he imagines some explosives as low as 100m above ground, if not ground level or basement, where they support 80-115 floors. Skinny? Hmmmmmm

Nope. Interested in the ACTUAL effect on such an audio event by the intervening structure. If you're too blinkered by your agenda, that's not my problem, son

I am not much interested in the precise volume at every location around the WTC for every possible arrangement of explosives along the core. I am only interested in the person advancing the total-muting hypothesis to show that it is even remotely possible. No effort from that side, just JAQing off.

You told him he was wrong, when it's a question you can't give a decent answer to.

I tell him that he is wrong. Period.
He asks a question about a hypothetical event that he can't demonstrate to be even remotely possible. No need to answer questions about the elements of a set that is extremely likely empty.

As I said, I don't think it's an unreasonable question. A decent answer or an honest admission that you just don't know (which therefore MUST include the possibility that you may not expect to be able to hear it )

Well, I do expect to be able to hear it from at least some recording location, 99.9% certain. Why should I bother with even the remotest probability if no one is able to provide evidence for it?

No, I don't know. Might end up a bang loud enough to be detected by a particular directional microphone of a particular camera at the scene, might not. I think the sound pressure wave would be affected significantly by the structure, especially so far up in the air, but I haven't tested it. It should be possible to work it out though within reasonable margins, without too much effort.

Just watch videos of dozends and dozends of CDs, taken from all sorts of locations relative to the source of the bangs. Report what you find!

Until someone does, it's a question that I think would be useful to try and answer.

I have answered it. You just don't like my answer because it isn't perfect.

Do you not agree ??? Strange if not. Would have thought that would be a VERY useful piece of work in environment here.

I do not agree, obviously.

You can do as much private thinking as you like in the most public form you can think of (which I imagine is here) but it doesn't change the fact that, yes, I *deny* that I know what effect the structure would have, though I'd be fairly confident in suggesting that the maximum scale BANG would only be heard along quite a narrow cone laterally outward from the vertical level of the source of such a BANG How it would all pan out at the various camera locations...not too sure.

This is not supported by plenty of available video of real explosions.
You don't need a line of sight to hear BANG!s. Plus, ergo imagines these massive explosions on many levels, from 95th floor down to possibly ground level, and we have recordings from many levels. So even if I can't hear some bangs from some levels on some recordings, I am absolutely certain to hear some other bangs very very clearly on some other recordings. If some are focussed away from cam 1 to cam n, there is bound to be some cam n+1 that this blast is focussed towards.
Besides, if all BANGS go out laterally, who will hear them? Yes, everyone in all of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Hoboken. You ought to be able to come up with hundreds of thousands of earwitnesses.
How many do you have?
Zero.

If you *do the math*, cool, let me know. If not, you just don't know. I might get around to it at some point.

Math isn't needed here to refute an outlandish idea, especially since that idea is not defined well enough.

Let me repeat: Appeal to Perfection fallacy. Just because I can't present you a full model and compute it through to spit out some dB value down to 3 digits to the right of the decimal point, doesn't mean the roughest of estimates isn't right and sufficient.

Have fun.

Are you having fun when being lied to?

Doesn't it bother you that ergo had to resort to two lies in the very first paragraph of his OP when trying to convince people that there might be something to his imagination? Why do I have to do the refuting legwork when the original hypothesis rests on nothing but imagination and plain lies?