New Alienentity video on WTC 7

carlitos said:
There were no explosives anywhere near that building on that day, and they did not explode. Were you trying to make some other point than this, or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?
Click to expand...

Well if you recall prior conversations we've had. I've brought forth videos that show the blast sounding a whole lot less while being a whole lot closer. Recall the video of the parking lot I showed a while back. Which BTW was conveniently debunked as "youtube videos are not reliable". So after a long series of typical debunker posts requesting proof I bring forth a set of data (remember the ambulance?) and what happens? Well all of a sudden "youtube material is not reliable", but now it back on the reliability charts?
 
carlitos said:
Given that you replied one minute after BigAl's post, had you previously read and understood the material at the links above?
Click to expand...

Nope, actually I haven't even read them. But it proves that the word "damping" is valid and usable. Given the respectable publishers that back such usage.
 
Actually Carlitos the search of "dampening concrete" in Amazon results in:

Your search "dampening concrete" did not match any products.

So I find it rather bothersome that someone picks up on my terminology to try to discredit me, but turns out even worse for himself.
 
Java Man said:
Actually Carlitos the search of "dampening concrete" in Amazon results in:

Your search "dampening concrete" did not match any products.

So I find it rather bothersome that someone picks up on my terminology to try to discredit me, but turns out even worse for himself.
Click to expand...

I'm confused here. You brought the word dampening into the discussion and Al pointed out that you were wrong - the proper terminology being damping. You then show a bunch of links using the word damping, backing up Al's term. Then he basically tells you that concrete does not have very good damping properties, and you post some links that have a damping and concrete in a book.

You have a very odd argument style.
 
Disbelief said:
I'm confused here. You brought the word dampening into the discussion and Al pointed out that you were wrong - the proper terminology being damping. You then show a bunch of links using the word damping, backing up Al's term. Then he basically tells you that concrete does not have very good damping properties, and you post some links that have a damping and concrete in a book.

You have a very odd argument style.
Click to expand...

LOL, true I stand corrected. It is also funny how BigAl then keeps arguing against me after I "switch sides" which is basically against himself.
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
Nope, actually I haven't even read them. But it proves that the word "damping" is valid and usable. Given the respectable publishers that back such usage.
Click to expand...

The damping characteristics of concrete are significant for things like sound deadening between rooms.

F or the concrete canyons of Manhattan, that is irrelevant and the hard flat surfaces do anything but dampen a blast.
 
Disbelief said:
I'm confused here. You brought the word dampening into the discussion and Al pointed out that you were wrong - the proper terminology being damping. You then show a bunch of links using the word damping, backing up Al's term. Then he basically tells you that concrete does not have very good damping properties, and you post some links that have a damping and concrete in a book.
Click to expand...

This is sort of what I was getting at. And regarding the books.... he admittedly hasn't read, therefore cannot possibly understand their relevance to this conversation.
Disbelief said:
You have a very odd argument style.
Click to expand...
This is true.
Java Man said:
I've brought forth videos that show the blast sounding a whole lot less while being a whole lot closer.
Click to expand...
It's been a while, and my memory is not perfect, but I vaguely recall someone putting that audio on a scope and showing ... something. Maybe I'm wrong. Care to reference the original so we can see?

Again, (peeks at thread topic), the question is "do you hear the boom boom boom?" And the answer is yes. Live witnesses and video cameras on 9/11/2001 would have heard explosives, had they been present and employed to demolish a building.

Does any semantic debate beyond the above serve any purpose?
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
Follow his conversation regarding my usage of fire arms.
Click to expand...

I don't see what your usage of firearms has to do with what I said.
Please be more specific. I don't like to guess what you mean.
 
Java Man said:
Well if you recall prior conversations we've had. I've brought forth videos that show the blast sounding a whole lot less while being a whole lot closer. Recall the video of the parking lot I showed a while back. Which BTW was conveniently debunked as "youtube videos are not reliable". So after a long series of typical debunker posts requesting proof I bring forth a set of data (remember the ambulance?) and what happens? Well all of a sudden "youtube material is not reliable", but now it back on the reliability charts?
Click to expand...

I agree with you that the sound would not be 'amplified' in any real way. Surely energy will be lost even if the sound bounces off hard surfaces, but if your argument is that one would barely hear the explosions from 2000 feet away or less, no it's not a valid argument.
There isn't enough attenuation under those conditions to make the explosion disappear.

And you've missed one critical key in your argument - the existing recordings do in fact pick up the sound of the collapsing building, just not any explosion sounds.

So the plain evidence is that the sound of the building falling was loud enough to make it whatever distance the video camera was at.
You are not going to be able to explain (excuse) how the alleged explosions didn't make it, as they would be necessarily much louder than the collapse.

So your argument fails because of this.
 
In both examples the cameras can see the buildings and both would hear the direct unreflected sound at the same level with the same delay(dependent on exact distance), in the case of open space that is the only sound you would hear but in a built up area you would get the additional reflected sounds building up shortly after.
 
alexi_drago said:
In both examples the cameras can see the buildings and both would hear the direct unreflected sound at the same level with the same delay(dependent on exact distance), in the case of open space that is the only sound you would hear but in a built up area you would get the additional reflected sounds building up shortly after.
Click to expand...

Right. There are 3 different sites near my home where fireworks go off. In all 3 cases, when they do the typical big "finale" of aerial bombs, I first hear the loud 'booms' and then the clusters of deflected sounds from the various tall buildings around.
 
carlitos said:
Right. There are 3 different sites near my home where fireworks go off. In all 3 cases, when they do the typical big "finale" of aerial bombs, I first hear the loud 'booms' and then the clusters of deflected sounds from the various tall buildings around.
Click to expand...

I live about 400m away from where fireworks go off in my hometown, one in spring, one in fall. The next will be this friday, I believe.
I remember that we hear even the smaller crackers, even if at ground level, with lots of buildings in the line of sight, and the noises (music, laughter, merry-go-rounds) of the semi-annual fair around us. I'd estimate most of these bombettes to contain on the order of a few (<10g) of black powder or similar low explosives.
The entire town hears them, children inside houses wake up from the explosions. Every video device records the booms without fail.
 
In Vancouver I watch the 'Celebration of Light' annual fireworks competition from various locations.
One really cool thing is hearing a bang, then hearing the various echos, from nearby buildings and then finally from the North Shore Mountains.
 
alienentity said:
In Vancouver I watch the 'Celebration of Light' annual fireworks competition from various locations.
One really cool thing is hearing a bang, then hearing the various echos, from nearby buildings and then finally from the North Shore Mountains.
Click to expand...

The big fireworks display in NYC is sometimes on the East river, lower Manhattan. (South St. Seaport). If you are up front you have all of the Wall St. skyline immediately behind you. The buildings reflect the big blasts conclusively and with different time delays according to how far back a building is.

There are buildings on the opposite shore that echo blasts with a delay of maybe 15 seconds.
 
There are videos of people right next to WTC 2 when it collapsed. Not 1 detonation. Why do people actually believe this crap?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom