Hey guys, if you are tired of Dueces responding to you just ask him to define what he means by a "mechanism" he just ignores you after that!

If you bother to learn what 130-140 dB means, you can translate eyewitness reports to dB. Nearly anyone with half a brain can.

Given that dB is a function of the square root of distance, you'd not have people complaining of a loud sound if they were closer than 2 football fields. You would have people with ruptured eardrums.

https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafe...n/dblevels.htm

NIST does give the mechanism.

Also, thermite doesn't explode.

There were explosions recorded. Whether they fit to your layman opinion of "consistent with controlled demolition" is neither here nor there.

If you think all these firemen, other first responders, and eyewitnesses on the scene somehow coordinated their similar reports of explosions...well I think that is a crazy conspiracy theory. Or if you think all of these reports from disparate people actually there just happen by chance to conform...well I think that is crazy coincidence theory.

Either way you're a nutcake.

"Explaining how" is what "giving a mechanism" is.

Have the controlled demolition folk given a mechanism for how thermite isn't an explosive? Because it is not an explosive. This seems important for some reason since you keep saying "explosion."

"Consistent with" would mean that they were loud enough. They weren't. End of story.

Also, thermite doesn't explode.

I know what it means. So does wikipedia:
Emphasis mine.

Do you think this wiki article, which only gives the natural collapse perspective, also doesn't know what mechanism means?

I wouldn't bother to read a wiki article when I have read the NIST site as well as the various websites laughing about thermite not being an explosive and it being a bit strange that the controlled demo folk think it is an explosive.

LMAO. I've watched lots of the youtube videos of the towers collapsing and have heard nothing in any of them that sounds like the explosions in the controlled demolition compilation i posed above, and what the **** I'll post it again here:



Can you post one video with those kinds of explosions in them?

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse lol.

you can translate eyewitness reports to dB
you can translate eyewitness reports to dB
you can translate eyewitness reports to dB
you can translate eyewitness reports to dB
you can translate eyewitness reports to dB
you can translate eyewitness reports to dB
you can translate eyewitness reports to dB

Are you claiming that you aren't capable of translating dB to a person's description of how loud something is? Keep in mind that I gave you a handy dandy chart to use in case you had absolutely no knowledge of what a dB was!

Would you make the further claim that you can't do the math to arrive at the distance at which ruptured eardrums would occur?

Brian is that your way of telling us you only have half a brain, perhaps as a result from an accident or medical condition? If so I won't call you names anymore.

Because every demolition is done the same way with the same materials? And people didn't bust out their nonexistent video camera phones in 2001 and capture audio while running for their life? And news crews didn't back the hell up and take their video from far away? And there aren't sounds that could be interpreted either way on those sources which were somewhat close? If not then your argument is rather weak (your argument is rather weak).

The other half is on reserve waiting for you to offer a more difficult task than having a basic junior-high level understanding of sound.

The NIST gives a very detailed account of how the collapse started. But they don't go into the same detail on what happens during the collapse.

That's obviously because it would be a giant waste of time given that:

1. The important lessons to be learned are how to avoid a catastrophic collapse and not in how you engineer a way to stop that collapse once it's begun.

2. The mechanics of the collapse are relatively obvious. They point out that once the collapse started the way it did there is no way the lower columns would provide significant resistance and so the outcome is obvious.

This is all quite reasonable unless you have a motivation like Deuces and need to be intellectually dishonest.

Once again none of this applies to the paper you quoted that was published in 2007.

So even if you weren't lying about the NIST report, your point is nonsensical.

Can you not prove your point that I quoted where you said the 2007 paper was rejected by the NIST?

They had invented eardrums by the early 2000s, iirc.

Evidence of all the ruptured ones? Not everyone was more than 200 yards away.

These explosions must have been those special ones where the quantity of sound is not directly proportional to the explosive force. Maybe that is why they used thermite, since it is non-explosive.

More generally, I am claiming that no one can do this- not even you and your half brain. Maybe in some cases when someone says "it was as loud as if you were standing X distance from Z noise maker" this might translate, with great variance, into a reliable range of dB if Z noise maker reliably produces sounds within that range at that distance. But when people exclaim "Yeah it was loud, it shook the ground, it was like BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM" and you don't know exactly where they were wrt to the source or what the source is, there is no sense in trying to "translate to dB's" lol.

But please, go on about the dark art of translating words into dB's, of approximate ordinal data into numerical measurements.

I'm all ears.

So basically we should ignore ear-witness reports and rely on video evidence that is easy to identify noise level and distance from the source.

Do you have any of these showing explosive level blasts?

lolololol why am I so entertained by this stuff today? Ok let's go. Why it's a waste of time to explain how the buildings fell, take 243:

Wouldn't the exact mechanism of collapse, you know, like how it happened, be important in engineering a building which wasn't given the catastrophic collapse so that we, ya know, not build in that vulnerability?

And in this same interest, wouldn't it be of benefit for NIST to release their supporting calculations as to why building 7 fell? Or do you disagree with NIST and think they should show their work which we paid for?

If they are obvious then why aren't they articulated? And if they are obvious why are there so many different theories in the mainstream but outside of NIST, even under the umbrella of natural collapse due to damage from the planes?

This would be how to avoid the collapse from happening. The NIST gave extremely fine details on how the collapse started and changes that can be made to help prevent a similar collapse.

You know this but like lying.





They are articulated at a high level.

Why don't you point me to all of these theories? But first explain how the 2007 report contradicts the NIST.

"Mumble, mumble, mumble, my ear drums have ruptured" indicates 150 dB. You could also check to see if they were actively bleeding out of their ears and skip over asking them what they heard.

"OMG!!! It hurt so bad and was literally deafening! I couldn't believe it and I wonder if I will ever regain full use of my hearing" indicates 140 dB. 140 dB is 1/2 the sound level of 150 dB.

"OMG!!! It was the loudest thing I have ever heard and I am dumb enough to shoot my shotgun without using hearing protection!" indicates 130 dB. 130 dB is 1/2 the sound level of 140 dB. 130 dB, if you are keeping track, is the MIMIMUM level for the imagined explosion at 1/2 mile away.

"Wowzwers!!! It sounded like a thunder bolt directly overhead! I nearly crapped myself!" indicates 120 dB. 120 dB is 1/2 the sound level of 130 dB. This would be the MINIMUM sound level for the imagined explosion at 1.5 miles away.

***

The ease of getting the number is because each increase of 10 dB is a doubling of the sound level.

Deuces. So that we can argue honestly, can you provide me the definition of mechanism you are using?

The dB argument is really typical of this thread. Deuces obviously knows nothing about dBs, and still thinks he can reject Brian's argument without even understanding it. Now he just has one more untenable position that his stubborness will force him to defend.
No one is going to watch half an hour of this but feel free to point to the time where someone mentions something consistent with the dB levels given by Brian. You're looking for witnesses who were outside of the building and ended up with damaged hearing due to the sound of an explosion.

What Deuces says:
What the NIST says:
So, in Deuces mind, "the propagation of the collapse was readily explained without the same complexity of modeling" means the same thing as "we are rejecting every existing explanation of the propagation!".

Do you have any idea how moronic you sound, defending the moronic idea that when really loud sounds happen you can translate qualitative descriptions in dBs? Man, I hate calling people stupid. I like to think we all have the capacity to think logically and see things when explained well.

You know that when different people use different descriptive words they can and usually do mean different things, but when you specify a dB measurement that always means the same thing, right?

You know that how far away someone is from the source of the sound determines, in part, how loud they experience the sound, right?

You know that no specific method of demolition have been advocated to the exclusion of others, and that different methods sound different, right?


This thread is a conspiracy to turn me into an elitist conservative who thinks most people are just born plain dumb and can't be helped. I feel the wolf in me stirring already.