Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:55 pm Post subject: What hit the South Tower?
'Where is the roaring noise from huge jet engines? Where is the gigantic bang or explosion one would expect from a huge Boeing 767 slamming into a building?'
Oh Look, thought criminal has posted another YouTube video.
Seems he has the volume turned down on his computer, though.
The allegedly missing noises were so loud I couldn't hear my radio!
If you are convinced that what you hearing is the roar of a Boeing or any similar plane in a built up area then I would heavily suggest that you have never been to an airport or you are a dumber bunny than I originally took you for. _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
.... or that sound takes time to travel through space?
And will appear quieter when it is further away?
Try 80 stories up...
Try again boys...
Are you honestly going to stand by that statement? You are telling me that the roar of those engines would not have been picked up by the people on the ground in that clip?
Go and bang your head against a wall! _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
No TC, I haven't changed my mind, I said that it will be quieter that if it was next to you if it is 80 stories up - I'd like you to point out where you believe I said it couldn't be heard?
Un-mute your computer the roar of the engine is pretty clearly there, my response was to two things- you saying "have you never been to an airport", well at an airport the planes don't land 80 stories above your head, so yes they will sound quieter in that instance.
The first part "sound takes time to travel" is in response to son of a witchfinder saying "it seems to continue on longer than it should". No. Since the sound has to travel down 80 stories it SHOULD be slightly delayed.
No TC, I haven't changed my mind, I said that it will be quieter that if it was next to you if it is 80 stories up - I'd like you to point out where you believe I said it couldn't be heard?
Un-mute your computer the roar of the engine is pretty clearly there, my response was to two things- you saying "have you never been to an airport", well at an airport the planes don't land 80 stories above your head, so yes they will sound quieter in that instance.
The first part "sound takes time to travel" is in response to son of a witchfinder saying "it seems to continue on longer than it should". No. Since the sound has to travel down 80 stories it SHOULD be slightly delayed.
All very simple.
There is no roar on that footage, there is other footage that depicts what a plane would sound like. So, why do they both differ when they are taken at roughly the same distance.
Your lies will be pulverised, Stefan. _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
There is no roar on that footage, there is other footage that depicts what a plane would sound like. So, why do they both differ when they are taken at roughly the same distance.
Your lies will be pulverised, Stefan.
I'm sorry but there clearly is a clearly an engine roar, although the explosion sound is somewhat muffled. Any differences between the noises picked up by this camera's mike and any other can be explained by the quality of the sound recording equipment in question, and the relative positions on the ground. This is filmed from what appears to be the west side of the North Tower - a few hundred metres away from the South Tower I would guess, the impact being on the far side of the building - not the best place to hear it by far.
Height of Tower Two: 415 metres
Each tower had 110 stories.
Impact on floor 78 and above
78/110 x 415 = approximately 294m up
The speed of sound = 344 m/s
294/344 = 0.86 seconds for the sound of the impact to reach ground level in a straight line, longer at an angle.
Explosions happen instantly in Hollywood, with no time delay between seeing and hearing an event, but in reality you see an explosion (or any distant, loud event) before you hear it. _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:17 am Post subject:
thought criminal wrote:
There is no roar on that footage, there is other footage that depicts what a plane would sound like. So, why do they both differ when they are taken at roughly the same distance.
Your lies will be pulverised, Stefan.
Different frequency responses on the mics?
Different sampling rates used in the audio recording software?
Digital or analogue format?
Any built in limiting, gating or compression?
We'd have to know the make and model of the original cameras that took the material to be sure.
Even wind direction is a factor.
Hey! Let's not!
Let's all just jump to ridiculous and unfounded conclusions based on our utter lack of knowledge about anything instead! _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us.
Last edited by chek on Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:18 am; edited 1 time in total
There is no roar on that footage, there is other footage that depicts what a plane would sound like. So, why do they both differ when they are taken at roughly the same distance.
Your lies will be pulverised, Stefan.
I'm sorry but there clearly is a clearly an engine roar, although the explosion sound is somewhat muffled. Any differences between the noises picked up by this camera's mike and any other can be explained by the quality of the sound recording equipment in question, and the relative positions on the ground. This is filmed from what appears to be the west side of the North Tower - a few hundred metres away from the South Tower I would guess, the impact being on the far side of the building - not the best place to hear it by far.
Height of Tower Two: 415 metres
Each tower had 110 stories.
Impact on floor 78 and above
78/110 x 415 = approximately 294m up
The speed of sound = 344 m/s
294/344 = 0.86 seconds for the sound of the impact to reach ground level in a straight line, longer at an angle.
Explosions happen instantly in Hollywood, with no time delay between seeing and hearing an event, but in reality you see an explosion (or any distant, loud event) before you hear it.
Come on, enlighten me with 'the inverse square law'.
Can't wait.
I put all user names in italics. Paranoid?
As for the inverse square law and your lack of knowledge of it, that simply illustrates how ill-researched you and your cartoon theories are. You didn't even have the gumption to put 'inverse square law' and 'sound' in a Google search.
No TC, I haven't changed my mind, I said that it will be quieter that if it was next to you if it is 80 stories up - I'd like you to point out where you believe I said it couldn't be heard?
Un-mute your computer the roar of the engine is pretty clearly there, my response was to two things- you saying "have you never been to an airport", well at an airport the planes don't land 80 stories above your head, so yes they will sound quieter in that instance.
The first part "sound takes time to travel" is in response to son of a witchfinder saying "it seems to continue on longer than it should". No. Since the sound has to travel down 80 stories it SHOULD be slightly delayed.
I don't see any glaring inconsistencies there - there's a significant delay between the sight of the impact and explosion of fuel and the audio, and there's no obstructing objects to speak of so the sound comes in pretty clearly, much as it does when picked up from the east side of Tower 2, as seen here, by Scott Myers.
Link _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
Last edited by EmptyBee on Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:33 am; edited 1 time in total
Come on, enlighten me with 'the inverse square law'.
Can't wait.
I put all user names in italics. Paranoid?
As for the inverse square law and your lack of knowledge of it, that simply illustrates how ill-researched you and your cartoon theories are. You didn't even have the gumption to put 'inverse square law' and 'sound' in a Google search.
I want you to tell me. I like laughing at your feeble reponses. I doubt you have the capacity to surpass the sheer idiocy of your last post, though. I want you to explain it in your own words.
'Maybe it was a subtle way of telling him they had a copy'. _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
I don't see any glaring inconsistencies there - there's a significant delay between the sound of the impact and explosion of fuel and the audio, and there's no obstructing objects to speak of so the sound comes in pretty clearly, much as it does when picked up from the east side of Tower 2, as seen here, by Scott Myers.
How many agents are on here. You can't all be on the dole. Who is paying your wages???
They say you can't argue with a sick mind, so why try? I've no expectation of reaching you with logic, you're evidently too far gone for that, I'm merely curious to see how far you can take your thoughts before you retreat into the kind paranoia you display above. _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
How many agents are on here. You can't all be on the dole. Who is paying your wages???
They say you can't argue with a sick mind, so why try? I've no expectation of reaching you with logic, you're evidently too far gone for that, I'm merely curious to see how far you can take your thoughts before you retreat into the kind paranoia you display above.
You seriously think it's paranoia? You are seriously so naive as to think shills will not be operating on this forum? Are you?? _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
You seriously think it's paranoia? You are seriously so naive as to think shills will not be operating on this forum? Are you??
I have no strong opinion on the matter, I just find it telling how quickly you resort to accusations of 'shilling' when you're having trouble forming a coherent argument. _________________ "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
You seriously think it's paranoia? You are seriously so naive as to think shills will not be operating on this forum? Are you??
I have no strong opinion on the matter, I just find it telling how quickly you resort to accusations of 'shilling' when you're having trouble forming a coherent argument.
Whatever, I refuse to waste my energies on a bunch of shills and their naive followers. Do or say what you want. I'm reserving my energies for my campaigning. This board is a sick joke. Have fun. _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
