How WTC 7 was pulled down

[carlitos]

It shows the relative differences in the amplitude over time

On a linear scale, or a logarithmic one like db?

 

[Oystein]

They were screen captures of a an audio waveform display that does not provide db amplitude data on a Y-axis.

The value in that image is visual. It shows the relative differences in the amplitude over time, and was not intended to convey empirical data of measured sound intensity.

MM

We don't even know if the Y-axis is linear or logarithmic scale. We also need the absolute values to decides if the whisper of the wind was disturbed by flapping wings of a bird, or if VERY loud noises got drowned by INSANELY LOUD BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANGs..

Pathetic

 

[triforcharity]

That's funny MM, why didn't anyone across the Hudson River hear any of these explosions? They were 1/2 a mile away for a CD to be heard, why didn't they hear them??

Across the river is more than a mile. Just FYI.

 

[GlennB]

The value in that image is visual. It shows the relative differences in the amplitude over time, and was not intended to convey empirical data of measured sound intensity.

So the 'boom' edited onto that graphic is utterly meaningless. OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Miragememories]

On a linear scale, or a logarithmic one like db?

It does not matter.

It is like a bar chart in that you visually see the amplitude relative to something of a lesser amplitude.
The display increases in vertical magnitude when the detonation is heard.

The actual numeric value for the change in audio db values is not likely to convey more meaning than the visual display.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

So the 'boom' edited onto that graphic is utterly meaningless. OK. Thanks for clearing that up.

Gee Glenn I really didn't mean to confuse you?

I thought it was obviously just a marker for those who just don't get it.

Sorry about that.

Next time I'll pm you an advisory.

MM

 

[Oystein]

They were screen captures of a an audio waveform display that does not provide db amplitude data on a Y-axis.

The value in that image is visual. It shows the relative differences in the amplitude over time, and was not intended to convey empirical data of measured sound intensity.

MM

On a linear scale, or a logarithmic one like db?

It does not matter.

It is like a bar chart in that you visually see the amplitude relative to something of a lesser amplitude.
The display increases in vertical magnitude when the detonation is heard.

The actual numeric value for the change in audio db values is not likely to convey more meaning than the visual display.

MM

Stundied. (And I expect you don't even understand why)

 

[DGM]

It does not matter.

It is like a bar chart in that you visually see the amplitude relative to something of a lesser amplitude.
The display increases in vertical magnitude when the detonation is heard.

The actual numeric value for the change in audio db values is not likely to convey more meaning than the visual display.

MM

How about a frequency range? He said he had to boost the low and increase the gain. What frequencies did he boost?

ETA: Why was it only on one channel? Low frequencies don't separate readily in the real world.

 

[Miragememories]

Across the river is more than a mile. Just FYI.

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 clear.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

Stundied. (And I expect you don't even understand why)

Stundied yourself.

And I bet you don't even understand why.

Too funny.

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

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It does not matter.

Yikes. We know it doesn't matter to you. You've convinced yourself that you see something significant, even though you don't really know what you're looking at.

For those here that do know how to analyze the information you've presented, it apparently does matter.

 

[Dog Town]

It does not matter...

The actual numeric value for the change in audio db values is not likely to convey more meaning than the visual display.

MM

Reminds me of one of the CIT morons!
I paraphrase:
" My sea saw analogy renders your calculations moo..."

Priceless!

 

[carlitos]

 

[Miragememories]

"It does not matter.

It is like a bar chart in that you visually see the amplitude relative to something of a lesser amplitude.
The display increases in vertical magnitude when the detonation is heard.

The actual numeric value for the change in audio db values is not likely to convey more meaning than the visual display."

"How about a frequency range? He said he had to boost the low and increase the gain. What frequencies did he boost?

ETA: Why was it only on one channel? Low frequencies don't separate easily in the real world."

The original recording had very low audio recorded, and only on the left channel; but a good question.

What made that recording rare and special, is that it actually contained audio from WTC 7 just prior to the East Penthouse collapse.

The NIST has been accused of editing the audio through straight A/V cuts, to straight all-channel audio erasure, on a number of the FOIA videos that show the WTC 7 collapse.

You are right about low frequencies.

Which is one of the reasons why it was virtually impossible to hear any explosions once the global collapses were initiated.

It is unfortunate, that the dynamic range displayed on most of the WTC Tower collapse recordings is compressed.

Most of the sound details are buried.

MM

 

[carlitos]

deleted

 

[GlennB]

I thought it was obviously just a marker for those who just don't get it.

A marker indicating what? A 'boom' from high-explosives or a door closing somewhere near the mike? Why no more 'booms' when the building collapses several seconds later? It was a single-boom CD with delayed reaction?

What is the value of the amplitude change? Oh wait ..... you don't say and I'm about the 8th person to ask this.

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

 

[Miragememories]

Yikes. We know it doesn't matter to you. You've convinced yourself that you see something significant, even though you don't really know what you're looking at.

For those here that do know how to analyze the information you've presented, it apparently does matter.

Well that would be those members who are seeking the truth.

The rest of the crowd argue with whatever they find in a post.

MM

 

[Miragememories]

A marker indicating what? A 'boom' from high-explosives or a door closing somewhere near the mike? Why no more 'booms' when the building collapses several seconds later? It was a single-boom CD with delayed reaction?

What is the value of the amplitude change? Oh wait ..... you don't say and I'm about the 8th person to ask this.

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

How many B O O M S do you need Glenn?

MM

 

[DGM]

The original recording had very low audio recorded, and only on the left channel; but a good question.

What made that recording rare and special, is that it actually contained audio from WTC 7 just prior to the East Penthouse collapse.

The NIST has been accused of editing the audio through straight A/V cuts, to straight all-channel audio erasure, on a number of the FOIA videos that show the WTC 7 collapse.

You are right about low frequencies.

Which is one of the reasons why it was virtually impossible to hear any explosions once the global collapses were initiated.

It is unfortunate, that the dynamic range displayed on most of the WTC Tower collapse recordings is compressed.

Most of the sound details are buried.

MM

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

 

[carlitos]

How many B O O M S do you need?

Proof for one would be a start.