New Alienentity video on WTC 7

[alienentity]

Hi all,

ETA: Note that video is still processing...check back in an hour or so..
I just created a very quick video to correct the audio for the latest CBS WTC 7 video, and also added a comparison to a recent actual CD from roughly the same distance for comparison.

Yeah, I know that the CBS video doesn't have a CD explosion sound, but it bugs the hell out of me that truthers keep making that claim.

I am amused by the 'turn up the bass' David Chandler approach to finding a phantom CD where none exists... but it is getting very old in a hurry.:(

If explosions are there to be heard, they always seem to show up just fine on every CD video out there on youtube....except for the WTC buildings. Funny how microphones are so hostile to 9/11 Truth myths huh?:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAYa9I8GV94


JAYa9I8GV94

[leftysergeant]

You need to check your post again. YouTube returns a message that this video has not yet processed.

[alienentity]

It's uploaded but video doesn't play yet....sorry. Very fresh product, you see:D

[leftysergeant]

After two hours? You need to check that again.

[Childlike Empress]

Here are some explosions while we wait. :D

pk30a0qsVIk

[Oystein]

Here are some explosions while we wait. :D

pk30a0qsVIk

:jaw-dropp

Only thermite can explain those hair-dos! :D

[alienentity]

OK, I had to re-upload it as it was just not working.

Here's the new link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tNhnTBzSyQ

5tNhnTBzSyQ

[TexasJack]

Yep, that's some mighty quiet explosives that can't even drown out the guy speaking.

[rjh01]

Deleted. Got beaten to it.

[alienentity]

Deleted. Got beaten to it.

The first upload just cacked, this is a re-upload. Yup, it's a new channel as of last year.

AE911Truth had me shut down because I quoted an ad of theirs.

[leftysergeant]

How can AE911 shut people down? They're using other people's stuff themselves, and abusing most of that.

Where did you get this with audio?

[alienentity]

How can AE911 shut people down? They're using other people's stuff themselves, and abusing most of that.

Where did you get this with audio?

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus

I created a proper mono track. The original was panned hard to one channel.
I also brought the audio level up by 10 db or so. STill doesn't sound like an explosion tho:)

[angrysoba]

The first upload just cacked, this is a re-upload. Yup, it's a new channel as of last year.

AE911Truth had me shut down because I quoted an ad of theirs.

What? Is this true?

AE911Truth had you shut down?

Really?

I mean...really?

[Java Man]

OK, I had to re-upload it as it was just not working.

Here's the new link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tNhnTBzSyQ

5tNhnTBzSyQ

There's something missing in the Ocean Tower CD video. Did you notice?

[leftysergeant]

There's something missing in the Ocean Tower CD video. Did you notice?Somebody pointed out that there was a shockwave associated with the Ocean Tower that was not observed at WTC 7, but I cannot see what you are referring to here.

[Java Man]

Somebody pointed out that there was a shockwave associated with the Ocean Tower that was not observed at WTC 7, but I cannot see what you are referring to here.

Buildings. It's a direct shot from the camera to the building. While WTC7 has many standing in between.

[Grizzly Bear]

Buildings. It's a direct shot from the camera to the building. While WTC7 has many standing in between.

Which if I'm not mistaken would have potential to hurt some of the conspiracy notions even worse. Sound has a tendency of bouncing off surfaces and getting amplified (AKA reverberation). Knock on wood... somebody with better background should follow up on that one.

[Java Man]

Which if I'm not mistaken would probably hurt some of the conspiracy notions even worse. Sound has a tendency of bouncing off surfaces and getting amplified. Knock on wood... somebody with better background should follow up on that one.

Oh so why do people build these between highways and residential areas?

http://designshrine.net/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/aee31_AE002a.jpg

[Grizzly Bear]

Last I checked a highway sound barrier was not a street-scape surrounded by tall buildings with tons of various materials with hard surfaces capable of reflecting sound.

[Java Man]

Last I checked a highway sound barrier was not a street-scape surrounded by tall buildings with tons of various materials capable of reflecting sound.

And your point?

[Grizzly Bear]

Other than you not having much familiarity with accoustics?
Seriously... you're comparing a sound barrier used on major traffic venues to the urban fabric of a major city... I'm not a genius when it comes to discussing acoustical behavior but there's a rather spectacular gap between the two...

[ozeco41]

Buildings. It's a direct shot from the camera to the building. While WTC7 has many standing in between.

What point are you trying to make?

[Java Man]

Other than you not having much familiarity with accoustics?

Well if sound were to so easily reverberate in NY wouldn't it make any noise unbearable? That effect would apply for everyday, not just 911. Right?

I think you're just grabbing on to a phenomenon that does happen and applying it here to justify your cause without really thinking about the implications.

[Java Man]

What point are you trying to make?

That the OP should take into consideration that one scenario has obstructions and the other does not.

[AJM8125]

khD2gZkkSu0

[Java Man]

khD2gZkkSu0

Did you notice how your video is so much louder than Alienentity's?

The collapse of the building on your video is clearly heard. Making the other sound like a whisper in comparison.

What would you attribute that to?

[Grizzly Bear]

Well if sound were to so easily reverberate in NY wouldn't it make any noise unbearable?
*Sigh* drop the hyperboles, kthnx

I think you're just grabbing on to a phenomenon that does happen and applying it here to justify your cause without really thinking about the implications.
Tall buildings aren't quite like highway sound barriers that are specifically engineered to reduce noise levels. Acoustical response doesn't necessarily apply the same in all situations. The point you missed or apparently don't understand. Some materials reflect sound, and others absorb it, buildings aren't monotonous. Consider it next time you ask.

As for your quibble about obstruction, masking the sound; doesn't make a significant difference if it were amplified or not, a series of explosives detonating at 140 decibels doesn't go unnoticed from that distance.

[AJM8125]

Did you notice how your video is so much louder than Alienentity's?

No.

[Java Man]

Acoustical response doesn't necessarily apply the same in all situations. The point you missed or apparently don't understand. Some materials reflect sound, and others absorb it, buildings aren't monotonous.

True, but you portray it as if some amplification was bound to take place. More so you try to make us believe that on 911 this would have happened. Building structure and layout would have contributed to "amplification". But on any other average NY day it wouldn't.

In other words while the phenomenon(reverberation) you mention does happen and I agree it happens. It's a long shot to say it happened in that particular place at that particular time. More so given that your thesis proposes there was no explosion. So there isn't even a test to determine that it would have sounded like you claim it would. What we do get in your video is a very faint sound level of the collapsing building (faint compared to other videos brought forth). So based on your reverberation theory the sound of the collapsing building should have been much much louder, but it was not.

[Java Man]

No.

You should go back and listen to both then.

[AJM8125]

You should go back and listen to both then.

Don't have to. I understand the difference.

[alienentity]

You should go back and listen to both then.

I actually increased the audio by 10db. Didn't see the point in going higher, since you can always crank the volume on your speakers.

I take your point about the lack of other buildings, but as you may have noticed in dense urban areas, sounds do actually travel quite efficiently because the surfaces don't absorb much energy.

However, assuming that sound does attenuate in either case, there's no physical reason why it would attenuate so much that you couldn't hear a very loud explosion. I won't get into the technical details, but we've discussed them thoroughly before.

I'll give you another example, which is the famous Ashleigh Banfield video, where she's interviewing a lady a few blocks from 7 as it comes down.
You can hear the building collapsing (kind of a vague rumble) but absolutely NO explosions of any kind at that time.

So the question becomes, why did the mic pick up the rumble, but not the 'explosion' which truthers seem to think must've been there?
Answer: there was no explosion. The mic doesn't differentiate, it just picks up any sounds that are there.

Hope that helps.

AE

[BigAl]

Well if sound were to so easily reverberate in NY wouldn't it make any noise unbearable? That effect would apply for everyday, not just 911. Right?

I think you're just grabbing on to a phenomenon that does happen and applying it here to justify your cause without really thinking about the implications.


The bold part is correct. NYC is loud by some standards. It's safe to say that the loudest source of every-day noise -- rush hour traffic -- would be much more tolerable if the major roads ran through forests of trees instead of valleys of concrete.

("reverberation" isn't the word you were looking for. Reflection is better. I don't know of a good word for non-attenuation.)

[leftysergeant]

Don't even bother with the high sound barrier walls. They baffle sound outside the immediate highway corridor, but travelling between them, it is like tap-dancing inside a huge guitar body.

They recently installed sound walls along the on-ramps to IO-5 in Tacoma. Driving through there at night with no other traffic, the sound of my own tires is astoundingly loud. The walls are there to keep sound IN.

The canyons of the city do the same thing. Listen to the backgrouind noises on any video from that day. Notice on the Naudet film that the sound of the first palne in-bound does not seem to be at the same volumn all the way. This is because it passed behind a few buildings and out of line of sight.

In the some of the shots of the second plane, it cannot be heard until right overhead, but on the Hezarkhani video, it can be heard some distance out.

Tall buildings baffle the sounds of aircraft until they are right overhead.

But a noise originating inside the canyon walls will stay inside and travel some distance. Note that we can clearly hear the much softer sounds of the breakup of WTC 7 much more clearly as more of the action occurs at street level, well into collapse.

So, basicly, Java Man, you have nothing of forensic value here.

[bill smith]

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus

I created a proper mono track. The original was panned hard to one channel.
I also brought the audio level up by 10 db or so. STill doesn't sound like an explosion tho:)

When you watch the Penthouse collapse into the building so neatly it is no problem to tell that this was a deliberate act to drop first one Penthouse inside the building and then the other.And finally to cover them both with the wreckage of the main demolition.

There was something they wanted to fide in the Penthouses, no error..

[leftysergeant]

There was something they wanted to fide in the Penthouses, no error..

They still had Freon in their HVAC system and were going to use it to generate a cloud of phosgene gas and kill everyone in the area, maybe. But they might have decided that would be too big a giveaway.

[angrysoba]

When you watch the Penthouse collapse into the building so neatly it is no problem to tell that this was a deliberate act to drop first one Penthouse inside the building and then the other.And finally to cover them both with the wreckage of the main demolition.

There was something they wanted to fide in the Penthouses, no error..

The Ark of the Covenant, no less!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ub20K-o0cio/S-n1GyehJFI/AAAAAAAAAOc/fYh68lEJUMI/s320/raiders+melty+face.jpg

[Scott Jurgenson]

khD2gZkkSu0

I was there, those sounds almost made your body rumble. It was something you never forget. This is why I want the CT's to give me more than just a few people saying they heard explosions but hundreds, **** thousands who were there.

Or at least one video where "BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM, (collapse initiation), BOOM BOOM (Building Fall)" is heard.

[triforcharity]

Did you notice how your video is so much louder than Alienentity's?

The collapse of the building on your video is clearly heard. Making the other sound like a whisper in comparison.

What would you attribute that to?

Stop adjusting the volume on your computer. That should help.

[Java Man]

Stop adjusting the volume on your computer. That should help.

That's the first precaution I took, not to alter volume levels.

[Java Man]

But a noise originating inside the canyon walls will stay inside and travel some distance. Note that we can clearly hear the much softer sounds of the breakup of WTC 7 much more clearly as more of the action occurs at street level, well into collapse.

So, basicly, Java Man, you have nothing of forensic value here.

Yes noise will stay in the canyon walls, but:

- there are many "canyon walls" in downtown NY, each taking sound away from the camera and only one bringing it to the camera
- you will not get a distinct sound signature from the blast because there are building standing in between
- you will get a distorted sound signature that is a sum of the sound waves echoing along the canyon wall leading to you

Some noise will be colinear to the street, but most of it will not. It will bounce of one wall and then the other and the other. Some will hit the walls at lower angles and some at higher angles. Those at lower angles will reach you sooner and those at higher angles will take longer (as they bounce more times to reach you and their path is longer). Thus spreading the "bang"(and energy) over a longer period of time.

There is also the fact that (unlike stealth aircraft) buildings are large squared boxes laid out over perpendicular lines called streets. Just like you show us with your car example the sound will bounce right back to the source, the collapsing building. Without oblique surfaces like a stealth aircraft to divert the energy it will mostly happen as you say, bounce right back to the source.

In other words why would sound that is comfortably traveling down a "street canyon" all of the sudden make a left or right turn and come headed your way?

[Oystein]

Yes noise will stay in the canyon walls, but:

- there are many "canyon walls" in downtown NY, each taking sound away from the camera and only one bringing it to the camera
- you will not get a distinct sound signature from the blast because there are building standing in between
- you will get a distorted sound signature that is a sum of the sound waves echoing along the canyon wall leading to you

Some noise will be colinear to the street, but most of it will not. It will bounce of one wall and then the other and the other. Some will hit the walls at lower angles and some at higher angles. Those at lower angles will reach you sooner and those at higher angles will take longer (as they bounce more times to reach you and their path is longer). Thus spreading the "bang"(and energy) over a longer period of time.

There is also the fact that (unlike stealth aircraft) buildings are large squared boxes laid out over perpendicular lines called streets. Just like you show us with your car example the sound will bounce right back to the source, the collapsing building. Without oblique surfaces like a stealth aircraft to divert the energy it will mostly happen as you say, bounce right back to the source.

In other words why would sound that is comfortably traveling down a "street canyon" all of the sudden make a left or right turn and come headed your way?

There are plenty of youtube videos of explosive demolitions in large cities whose "canyons" would have properties as you describe.
Some of these taken from many blocks away.

Invariably, all of these videos feature many very clearly audible BANGs. Most of the time, these BANGs are INSANELY loud, awesomely loud, often shocking even the people who fully expected them.

Never are these BANGs missing or uncertain.

[carlitos]

Well if sound were to so easily reverberate in NY wouldn't it make any noise unbearable? That effect would apply for everyday, not just 911. Right?

I think you're just grabbing on to a phenomenon that does happen and applying it here to justify your cause without really thinking about the implications.

Yes noise will stay in the canyon walls, but:

- there are many "canyon walls" in downtown NY, each taking sound away from the camera and only one bringing it to the camera
- you will not get a distinct sound signature from the blast because there are building standing in between
- you will get a distorted sound signature that is a sum of the sound waves echoing along the canyon wall leading to you

I hope this doesn't sound condescending, but have you ever been to a large city?

I recommend that you visit NYC during Fleet Week, or Chicago during the Air and Water Show. You will experience all of these phenomena in a way that you won't need it explained.

Specific to explosions, visit any big city high rise district during a nearby fireworks display. Trust me when I tell you that you hear distinct, "boom boom boom" explosions, even in the heart of a big city high rise canyon district. And the directionality of the microphones in the videos referenced here would have picked up a controlled demolition-type blast very, very clearly. Especially the Ashley Banfield one.

[Oystein]

Oh so why do people build these between highways and residential areas?

http://designshrine.net/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/aee31_AE002a.jpg

To attenuate the 60dB or what noise levels (at half a mile) that come from rubber tires roling on asphalt, and some already attenuated motors sputtering.

If you explode the 8-10 pounds worth of TNT on the same highway, everybody in the residential area would hear the INSANELY LOUD BANG.

If these barriers can reduce noise by, say, 30dB (a very very tall order, quite unrealistic, really), then the 60dB of noisy highway (equivalent to TV set 3 feet away) would go down to bearly audible 30dB (calm room). The 130dB of that explosion at half a mile away would go down to 100dB - equivalent to a jack-hammer 3 feet away.

[Java Man]

If these barriers can reduce noise by, say, 30dB (a very very tall order, quite unrealistic, really), then the 60dB of noisy highway (equivalent to TV set 3 feet away) would go down to bearly audible 30dB (calm room). The 130dB of that explosion at half a mile away would go down to 100dB - equivalent to a jack-hammer 3 feet away.

You're not taking into consideration the dampening of being "half a mile away"

[Java Man]

Trust me when I tell you that you hear distinct, "boom boom boom" explosions, even in the heart of a big city high rise canyon district.

Yes, but that's not the issue here. The question is do you hear the boom booms less loud that without the interfering canyons. The issue here is that the debunker implies that the canyons would act as "amplifiers". Basically stating that his point stands because the canyons would canalize the sound and make it sound louder than a straight line of sight to the blast. Which is very hard to believe just like that. Sounds like he's just pulling arguments off the top of his head to support his statement.

[BigAl]

You're not taking into consideration the dampening of being "half a mile away"

What "damping"? You seem to have a problem with your acoustics terminology and concepts.

Have you ever been within a few feet of the firing of a rifle?

Yes or no (no is ok)

If yes, how far?

[Java Man]

What "damping"? You seem to have a problem with your acoustics terminology and concepts.

Have you ever been within a few feet of the firing of a rifle?

Yes or no (no is ok)

If yes, how far?

Yes, 9mm and 45 autos, M1 rifle and 12 gauge shotgun. Distance: arm's length or less.

[BigAl]

Yes, but that's not the issue here. The question is do you hear the boom booms less loud that without the interfering canyons. .

Demolitions are so loud that to the extent you have any valid points about acoustics in general, they are irrelevant to what the many thousands of people near WTC didn't hear on 9/11.

[Java Man]

What "damping"? You seem to have a problem with your acoustics terminology and concepts.


I suggest you fix wikipedia as soon as possible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping

There's a guy who actually wrote a whole book using the wrong word:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DampedSimpleHarmonicMotionOverdamping.html

It got published by some unknown editorial called Wolfram Research that has a meager program called Mathematica.

http://www.wolfram.com/

[Java Man]

Have you ever been within a few feet of the firing of a rifle?

Yes or no (no is ok)

If yes, how far?

I'm still waiting for the relevance of the rifle fire. Was it meant to have any value to the discussion at hand or just portray me as some soft cored liberal?

[BigAl]

Yes, 9mm and 45 autos, M1 rifle and 12 gauge shotgun. Distance: arm's length or less.

Great. The smallest explosive charge capable of cutting a WTC7 beam (*) generates a 130db blast and at half a mile would be comparable to being a few yards from the discharge of your M1.

On 9/11 there were many many thousands of people within that radius and many much closer.Nobody heard anything contestant with man-made demolition


* Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell (3:40 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_iBYSqEsc

QA http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

[BigAl]

I suggest you fix wikipedia as soon as possible:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping

There's a guy who actually wrote a whole book using the wrong word:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DampedSimpleHarmonicMotionOverdamping.html

It got published by some unknown editorial called Wolfram Research that has a meager program called Mathematica.

http://www.wolfram.com/

Damping is real but doesn't apply in a world of concrete.

[Java Man]

What "damping"? You seem to have a problem with your acoustics terminology and concepts.


Geezzz I just found a 249 dollar book that uses the word damping.

http://www.amazon.com/Damped-Transport-Relaxation-Renganathan-Sharma/dp/0444519432/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283872898&sr=1-1

Published by no less than Elsevier Science

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/homepage.cws_home

[BigAl]

Geezzz I just found a 249 dollar book that uses the word damping.

http://www.amazon.com/Damped-Transport-Relaxation-Renganathan-Sharma/dp/0444519432/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283872898&sr=1-1

Published by no less than Elsevier Science

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/homepage.cws_home

Damping is real but doesn't apply in a world of concrete.

[Java Man]

Damping is real but doesn't apply in a world of concrete.

Really?

http://www.amazon.com/reader/0471081221?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib_books_pg&qid=1283873189&query=damping%20concrete#reader_0471081221

http://www.amazon.com/retrofit-existing-concrete-structures-viscoelastic/dp/B00010Q9EU/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283873189&sr=1-3

Publisher: US Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories National Technical Information Service, distributor (1995)

http://www.amazon.com/Damping-low-aspect-ratio-reinforced-concrete-shear/dp/B00010FQXK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283873189&sr=1-1

Publisher: Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1993)

[Oystein]

You're not taking into consideration the dampening of being "half a mile away"

Wrong. I did. I wrote "half a mile away" next to two dB numbers. And meant it. I wrote "at 3 feet (away)" next to two other dB numbers. And meant it, too. Try reading my post a second time.

[carlitos]

Yes, but that's not the issue here. The question is do you hear the boom booms less loud that without the interfering canyons.

...and the answer to your highlighted question, for the Salomon Brothers Building, on 9/11/2001, in real life and in all of these videos, most notably the Ashley Banfield one, is "yes." The booms would be so loud, and the acoustics of the area, would result in thousands of ear-witnesses and all the videos' capturing the sound.

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?

[Java Man]

Wrong. I did. I wrote "half a mile away" next to two dB numbers. And meant it. I wrote "at 3 feet (away)" next to two other dB numbers. And meant it, too. Try reading my post a second time.

It seems to be contradictory to BigAl's statement.

[carlitos]

Really?

http://www.amazon.com/reader/0471081221?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib_books_pg&qid=1283873189&query=damping%20concrete#reader_0471081221

http://www.amazon.com/retrofit-existing-concrete-structures-viscoelastic/dp/B00010Q9EU/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283873189&sr=1-3

Publisher: US Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories National Technical Information Service, distributor (1995)

http://www.amazon.com/Damping-low-aspect-ratio-reinforced-concrete-shear/dp/B00010FQXK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283873189&sr=1-1

Publisher: Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1993)
Given that you replied one minute after BigAl's post, had you previously read and understood the material at the links above?

[Java Man]

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?

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?

[Java Man]

Given that you replied one minute after BigAl's post, had you previously read and understood the material at the links above?

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.

[Oystein]

It seems to be contradictory to BigAl's statement.

Aha. How so?

[Java Man]

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]

Aha. How so?

Follow his conversation regarding my usage of fire arms.

[Disbelief]

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.

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.

[Java Man]

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.

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.

[BigAl]

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.

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.

[carlitos]

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.



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. You have a very odd argument style.This is true.
I've brought forth videos that show the blast sounding a whole lot less while being a whole lot closer.
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?

[Oystein]

Follow his conversation regarding my usage of fire arms.

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.

[alienentity]

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?

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.

[Oystein]

...the hard flat surfaces do anything but dampen a blast.

Uhm - the surfaces do dampen a blast - just not by much at all.

[alexi_drago]

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.

[carlitos]

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.

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.

[Oystein]

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.

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.

[alienentity]

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.

[BigAl]

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.

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.

[grandmastershek]

There are videos of people right next to WTC 2 when it collapsed. Not 1 detonation. Why do people actually believe this crap?