• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split From Dick Oliver thread

RedIbis

Philosopher
RedIbis
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
6,899
Dave Rogers said:
Since his view was obscured, as he clearly stated, the fact that he failed to spot the airliner is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

There's a phenomenon called an 'echo'; you may not have heard of it. In an area with many sound-reflecting surfaces, such as New York for example, it can cause sounds, particularly low frequency sounds, to persist after their cause is no longer present. Since this phenomenon removes energy from the direct sound path, it will also reduce the intensity of the sound heard at the time it's made, to the extent that people not in direct line of sight to the object may not experience a particularly disturbing or exceptional volume of sound.



Dave
Click to expand...

Except for an internal explosion in WTC 7, right?
 
RedIbis said:
Except for an internal explosion in WTC 7, right?
Click to expand...

A Boeing 767 puts out about 87dB of sound, and even when attenuated this was clearly audible in the video. The minimum size of charge required to sever column 79 in WTC7 would produce over 130dB, more than ten thousand times the sound intensity. So, unless your imaginary explosion was attenuated more than ten thousand times as much as the sound of the airliner, it must have registered on video soundtracks in the vicinity. So it appears that jammonius's video soundtrack disproves your explosives. Thanks for pointing that out.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
A Boeing 767 puts out about 87dB of sound, and even when attenuated this was clearly audible in the video. The minimum size of charge required to sever column 79 in WTC7 would produce over 130dB, more than ten thousand times the sound intensity.
Click to expand...

And on what material are you basing this figure?
 
RedIbis said:
And on what material are you basing this figure?
Click to expand...

The 767 volume comes from an EC document on airport noise reduction. The figure of 130dB comes from the NIST report. Dispute these figures if you like, but it's an infinitely more rigorous position than your vague assertion that the sound might not have been picked up, which appears to be based on the Law of Narrative Convenience.

Dave
 
RedIbis said:
On what type of explosive? As I'm sure you're aware, there are many [kinds of explosives] .
Click to expand...

None of which are silent and none of which were anywhere near WTC on 9/11. (Yes, there was other blasting in progress on Manhattan. )
 
RedIbis said:
That's what you got out of my question?
Click to expand...

Yes Red that is what I got out of your question

You seem to be angry when we lump you in with the no planers, yet you don't do a damn thing to step up and put them in in their place.
 
16.5 said:
Yes Red that is what I got out of your question

You seem to be angry when we lump you in with the no planers, yet you don't do a damn thing to step up and put them in in their place.
Click to expand...

I don't have the irrational desire to put someone in his place. If you read post #5, you'll see that I don't agree with the premise of the thread.

If anything of value came out of this exchange it's that Dave didn't recognize a significant strawman argument.
 
RedIbis said:
Except for an internal explosion in WTC 7, right?
Click to expand...

Red,

Why do you even TRY to compare an airplane's noise, and an explosion? You KNOW that an explosion, capable of failing a core column in WTC7, would have been 10,000 times LOUDER that the airplane. You have been told this numerous times.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
On what type of explosive? As I'm sure you're aware, there are many.
Click to expand...

An explosive with the required properties to sever steel. As I'm sure you're aware, the physical process which cuts the steel is the same physical process which creates the shockwave and hence the sound of the explosion. Therefore, the two can be related directly without the necessity to specify the exact type of explosive required. Hush-a-boom is no more than another truther fantasy; I use the term exactly, since it contradicts the known laws of nature.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Interesting use of language. What do you imagine to have been a strawman argument?

Dave
Click to expand...

Your numbers are based on a type of explosive that is not generally considered in alternative theories. You know this and that's why you refuse to acknowledge the specific type.
 
RedIbis said:
Your numbers are based on a type of explosive that is not generally considered in alternative theories. You know this and that's why you refuse to acknowledge the specific type.
Click to expand...

Please tell us the type of explosive you think could have been used.
 
Prove that nano-thermite/thermate/whatever doesn't make any noise. It should be easy enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom