It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I Should have typed Very Low Frequency SOUND waves.
My gut feeling
nitpicking
Infrasound also can be generated by human-made processes such as sonic booms and explosions (both chemical and nuclear).
Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Originally posted by -PLB-
Do you understand that those infrasounds a) are not registered by a microphone b) are not played back by speakers and c) are not registered by the human ear? Yet you can identify them from a microphone recording played back on speakers using your ears. Do you realize how incredibly unrealistic that is?
Well, I agree with the OP, the truth movement will never get further than petty arguments. Like SunnyDee perfectly illustrates, its mostly based on an argument from incredulity.
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by LaBTop
Do you understand that those infrasounds a) are not registered by a microphone b) are not played back by speakers and c) are not registered by the human ear? Yet you can identify them from a microphone recording played back on speakers using your ears. Do you realize how incredibly unrealistic that is?
Back to the nitpicking-tour, out of 100,000 words, video's and photo's, you find 3 characters that could be a mistake, misunderstanding, typo, whatever.
So, let's cut one off, and instead make it Very Low Frequency Sounds and not radio wavelengths.
We are for years already, talking about explosions, with SOUND frequencies with very long wavelengths. My intention is clear, my definition disputable?
Some countries want to restrict the term ULF to radio-waves spectra effects only, some also use the term for sound-waves spectra effects and electromagnetic spectra effects.
You may also call it tactile sound, or infra sound if you like that better.
Human reactions to infrasound :
20 Hz is considered the normal low-frequency limit of human hearing. When pure sine waves are reproduced under ideal conditions and at very high volume, a human listener will be able to identify tones as low as 12 Hz.[28] Below 10 Hz it is possible to perceive the single cycles of the sound, along with a sensation of pressure at the eardrums.
The dynamic range of the auditory system decreases with decreasing frequency. This compression can be seen in the equal-loudness-level contours, and it implies that a slight increase in level can change the perceived loudness from barely audible, to loud. Combined with the natural spread in thresholds within a population, it may have the effect that a very low-frequency sound which is inaudible to some people may be loud to others.
You know very well what I mean, SOUND waves (no radio waves) so low in frequency, that you nearly can't hear them with your ears, but for sure feel them in your stomach, as I already many times wrote in my recent posts.
Of course you want to change the subject as soon as you realize that I am not baffled by your gibberish and see right through it, as I actually know a thing or two about the subject. All in a sudden (LT: where do you base that on? I offered you a bulk of physical evidence on page 13 and YOU change the subject repeatedly) you want to talk about some other Youtube videos (No, I gave an additional post with the same subjects and some more.! ) and the current subject has become nitpicking all in a sudden (LT: There is no current subject anymore, I admitted it should be VLF instead of ULF, so stop this PETTY behavior). Until of course I demonstrate how your next "argument" is complete nonsense (LT: come on then, BRING IT ON.! ) then you will call that nitpicking and you will change the subject again, claiming that this new subject is the actual important one. And this will repeat ad infinitum. (LT: I expanded my subjects with a LOT more, linked to by me, and you try at all costs to change the real subject, namely all my posted evidence based on solid physics, that 911 was a black operation, and not from AlQaida)
Well, I agree with the OP, the truth movement will never get further than petty arguments (LT: If that is not the BIGGEST LIE I saw on this board and many others, then what shall we call a lie anymore? See my next comment! ). Like SunnyDee perfectly illustrates, its mostly based on an argument from incredulity. (LT: Come on then, bring on your REFUTATIONS.! Let's CHALLENGE you to make your BIG LIES come true, have a try at it. My posts are the sole ones in this thread with constructive additions to the 911 research pool. You and your ilk can only come up with those PETTY arguments from the opening poster, clearly to see for anyone reading them.
Just a thought that came up. Do not go rampant on things like this, since the immediate question that comes up is : Why was such a possible weapon then still attached to the plane's belly, 10 meters from nose cone impact?
An FAE exploding is not going to just have a low rumbling noise, especially when standing less than a block away from its detonation, nor is it indicative of steel beams being severed by this particular blast. It is a very loud blast heard for miles and you would see it occurring as all windows being blown out from the over pressure of the FAE explosion, which is what it does. A massive over pressure that incinerates and flattens, not severs steel columns and beams. Covering it with water will negate the whole damn thing because it is counter to what a FAE needs: fuel being dispersed in air for proper mix and then ignition. And no, your made up TB is a load of bull plop. You cannot go and make up a fantastic new device, call it the same thing as a real device which works completely opposite of what you claim, and then link to sites and things that all are opposite of what you claim.
I do not see any mention of your fantasy version for cutting steel beams with water tampers..
10. High explosives (HE) cutting charges, set off under water, also deliver a sound pattern which would fit that rumbling sound in the WTC 7 video's I posted.
The supersonic cutting plasma stream of these HE's will still cut the steel in a drowned elevator shaft bottom, and they will also cut the side of a m3 water tank first, which was placed tight against a central steel column in a basement or higher floor of a WTC building.
Also, I cannot believe you are going back to that "pod" nonsense under the second airplane. This is where you have completely gone off the rails. And the "laser" designator? What is this, 2005?
LT: See that photo included. Its slick and slim exterior would fit the famous payload extension seen by many under the body of the second attack plane in New York. Especially when fitted with these various system packages, which extends the length of this TB bomb to twice its length, and fits that grainy video where we see that long thin "thingy" extension under the belly of Flight 175. And see perhaps a laser pointer as the flash on the facade, just right of the nose cone of the plane. Then set to detonate 10 millisecond after penetration of the outer facade, the resulting huge fireball would look damn equal to what we see in all these video's of the second impact.
Just a thought that came up. Don't go rampant on things like this, since the immediate question that comes up is : Why was such a possible weapon then still attached to the plane's belly, 10 meters from nose cone impact?
GR: An FAE exploding is not going to just have a low rumbling noise, especially when standing less than a block away from its detonation, nor is it indicative of steel beams being severed by this particular blast.
GR: It is a very loud blast heard for miles and you would see it occurring as all windows being blown out from the over pressure of the FAE explosion, which is what it does.
A massive over pressure that incinerates and flattens, not severs steel columns and beams.
Covering it with water will negate the whole damn thing because it is counter to what a FAE needs: fuel being dispersed in air for proper mix and then ignition.
And no, your made up TB is a load of bull plop. You cannot go and make up a fantastic new device, call it the same thing as a real device which works completely opposite of what you claim, and then link to sites and things that all are opposite of what you claim.
Originally posted by LaBTopmore than what you hear in the 3 video's I posted which have those Very Low Frequency audio footprints in them,
Originally posted by hellobruce
No, he like most truthers they have very little understanding of physics, or how things work. They probably have never experienced a explosion, or seen and felt explosives going off. All their information comes from silly conspiracy theory sites, then they try and use wiki to back their claims up, not really understanding them.
Well, I agree with the OP, the truth movement will never get further than petty arguments. Like SunnyDee perfectly illustrates, its mostly based on an argument from incredulity.
They cannot even agree as to what caused the buildings to collapse. eg mini nukes, nano thermite, hush a boom explosives etc. They also keep bringing much discredited hoaxes up, like "pod carrying aircraft"!
Originally posted by LaBTop
Attack my posted evidence from page 12 and 13. It's all physics based
How did you determine that your bombs match this signature?
How did you determine that nothing else matches this signature?
Originally posted by LaBTop
When are you going to address the real evidence ?
Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by LaBTop
The reason why it is important that I expose your argument from gibberish is that it shows that you are not shy of deceptive debating tactics. It also shows your ignorance on the subject, which is rather important.
You keep complaining that I make a big deal about it and that I am nitpicking. All while you have spend a couple of very lengthy posts about it. All while avoiding my actual important questions like:
How did you determine that your bombs match this signature?
Or
How did you determine that nothing else matches this signature?
That is what hypocrites do, accuse others of something the are guilty of themselves. But we both know why you avoid these actual relevant and important questions. Its because you do not have an answer. Your "argument" is nothing more than "Low frequency sounds heard on a video --> EXPLOSIVES". Any logic, critical thinking or scientific analysis is completely missing.edit on 8-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by LaBTopmore than what you hear in the 3 video's I posted which have those Very Low Frequency audio footprints in them,
Even after it was explained to you that video camera's and microphones do NOT pick up VLF audio signals, you ignore that fact as it makes your claims look silly.
Originally posted by LaBTop
You and I and everybody else hear those detonation sounds in those videos,
and suddenly those videos are worthless?
Or do you mean that since I defined the description of those sounds wrong, the videos are thus also wrong?
without addressing the physics based evidence in those other videos.
THIS VERY LONG POST full of PHYSICS BASED EVIDENCE OF 911 DEMOLITIONS?