Fires too intense on 9/11, or were they?
Fires too intense on 9/11, or were they?
Hint - Don't notice the guy in the black suit
Repeat after me:
My perception will NEVER be managed.
I will never allow my thinking to be outsourced during a traumatic event. False flags DO NOT happen. Fake "truthers" do not infiltrate the truth movement to lead truth seekers astray. There is no need for me to do my own research. I just need to listen to other people who claim to know the truth. My government loves me and will never lie to me.
There are 3 issues most people have when faced with the truth regarding the events of 9/11.
1. Problem solving skills
2. Group Think
3. They just can't handle the implications
Official narrative – Jet fuel.
Option behind door no 1 – explosives,
door no 2 – thermite,
door no 3 – buried or mini nukes.
Just don’t look at where the EVIDENCE points to.
If you like reading my articles and would like to buy me a coffee, please follow the link to my PayPal, as substack does not allow for payments to my country yet, I’ll really appreciate it.
If this is the first article of mine you’re reading, please rewind to my first article and work your way through all 69 of them, as you’ve missed out on a lot of valuable 9/11 and “9/11 truther movement” information.
Remember DO NOT get your hands on this absolutely scary book by Dr Judy Wood.
And whatever you do, don’t watch the 1h “9/11 Essential Guide”.
Free PDF book downloads by Andrew Johnson:
I surely give very high probability it was DEW's although I suspect some explosives were used on the initial evidence. We know there was a pick of the interior a short while before that day with a bunch of cartons of what was labeled, I think it was "detonation cords" or such. However the psychopaths in control brought down those buildings, it was NOT jets and their fuel.
I can tell you as an audio engineer that the claim in the Rumble film from the NIST engineer that we should have heard "sounds" of 120 or 130dB "half a mile to a mile away" is so casual, airy and handwaving that it's almost bound to be wrong. It's too easy to pull the wool over people's eyes with a logarithmic scale like decibels and this claim is an obvious candidate for exaggeration. Let's show how this works and give some markers.
120dB is the loudest sound you will ever have heard from a loudspeaker, and it's more likely than not that you will never have heard ANY speaker go that loud. Getting 110dB from a speaker at 1 metre is quite an achievement by itself, for any domestic loudspeaker, and you are looking at something pretty damn large and that is likely to dominate almost any living space. The loudest I know of can manage about 117dB and we're looking at 15 inch drivers with a throw of, not the usual 6mm or so, but 40mm peak-to-peak and costing in the region of £100k for two of them. We are already in the most rarified space.
That figure halves with every doubling in distance. On this log scale that is a loss of 6dB. So at 2m the 117dB becomes 111dB, at 4m it is 105dB, at 8m 99dB and 93dB at 16m. At the distance he's talking about, we'll say 1024m, the sound pressure level has fallen by a full 60dB or (a factor of 1000 in spl terms and 1 millionth the amount of power!) and this "loudest sound you've ever heard" is now at the level of two people chatting in a library, trying to keep their voices down.
Or, looking at it the other way around, if you really are hearing 120-30dB where you're standing, a kilometer away, the explosion itself was 1000x louder at up to 190dB! The only think I can think of that might have got that loud is a Saturn V rocket launch and the explosion of a bit of kerosene (most of it in free air, outside), plus squibs, is nothing like comparable. Kerosene is hardly even explosive; this is more like your central heating boiler switching on - and that actually has forced air to help the kerosene burn more completely, which 9/11 didn't (and burnt with a very smoky yellow flame). Boilers don't often have you jumping out of your seat with surprise, do they?
Of course you can use more than one speaker (or source) and you might think you've heard higher than 120dB at a rock concert, perhaps. Well, it's touch and go. If the venue has speakers this capable (which is unlikely, so it will have to use probably 4 speakers to produce the initial spl) and has 32 of them (the high performance ones) then, if it were open air, those closer than 100ft (the 32 metres) could have spl levels at or above the original 117dB (and you'll need twice the power to get to 120dB - and 10x the power to get from 120dB to 130dB!), so it's still pretty unlikely. Indoors it's a bit different because the sound can be reflected from the walls (though it is also absorbed), so it is a touch easier to get to these ear damaging levels.
Note that no dispensation is given in the film for any of WTCs to absorb any sound at all so these calculations should really be showing higher figures still, which are now getting beyond silly. IMO, this is just a poor, off-the-cuff, bit of guesswork that they hoped would defend them against accusations that the buildings were rigged with explosives. It doesn't, and it is so outlandish that it takes us into the realm of impossible behaviours and impossibly rare sound pressure levels which don't withstand scrutiny. (I'd like to mention here that we could do this examination from the perspective of the amount of energy or power required to make these sorts of levels of noise. My guess - though it still is a guess - is that it would fail that test also.)