New Gravy video: World Trade Center Not a Demolition

[qarnos]

Good work, Gravy. I think using text rather than audio is not such a bad thing; it helps you absorb the information. Better than a do-over voice-over, at least.

 

[Arus808]

nicely done. when you put things into perspective, it all makes sense.

 

[cyclonic]

brilliant video gravy! imo the best cd debunking video yet.

 

[scissorhands]

Hip hop soundtracks help with adding gravitas, apparently, but apart from that oversight this is an excellent video.
Well done Gravy.

 

[Mancman]

Very good.

I thought the comparison between the cooling tower implosion (in which the charges were very loud even 2 miles away) and the WTC1 footage was very effective.

Anyone have an idea how far away the camera was from WTC1 in that footage? I'm guessing it's a similar distance to the cooling tower footage but I'd like to be sure.

 

[SkepticGuy]

There's a "spirited" discussion of this video happening on AboveTopSecret here:
World Trade Center Not a Demolition: New Mark Roberts Video.
For those who would like to review a more diverse mixture of responses.

 

[Pookster]

There's a "spirited" discussion of this video happening on AboveTopSecret here:
World Trade Center Not a Demolition: New Mark Roberts Video.
For those who would like to review a more diverse mixture of responses.

The discussion seems to be about Mark Roberts instead of the video. The thread comes across as one big ad hominem argument about the qualifications of a NYC tour guide and such. It then devolves to the same tired arguments between truthers and skeptics. There are a few posts in the four page thread specifically about the video, but they easily get lost in all the personal attacks and related noise.

If your advertised thread actually gets to being a spirited discussion of the video, let us know. Thanks.

 

[Stout]

Ya...O lost interest in reading that thread about half way through. Once the idea of super secret building demo technology developed by the military came out I started thinking Hollywood... and belief...and I lost interest.

I take it I'm not missing much?

 

[Arus808]

well, on page 4 they haven't brought up anything useful in that thread ( which is why i stopped visiting that forum ages ago). And the first post of page 4 is very telling:

I haven't watched the video yet, when i do i will post the probable innaccuracies in it. I can guess at what the main ideas in the documentary will be about;

> There will be a lot of time wasted on the obscure topic of fireproofing

> No mention of the laws of momentum

> No mention of other laws of physics and how they apply to the collapse

> They will say that once collapse started, global collapse was inevitable, but they wont actually analyse the way the building collapsed after the initial movement.

> They will pick their witness testimony to suit themselves, and leave out testimony from William Rodriguez and others

> They will not mention the molten metal at ground zero and all the witnesses, or they'll outright denying it was even there

So he'll probably not realize these points are important in destroying the 911 CD claims.

 

[LastChild]

I suffered through the first couple of minutes of this garbage. When I got to the part where he shows the Controlled demolitions of gutted windowless buildings the sound got so loud I think I heard an ant crap about a mile away. Nice little disclaimer there before hand on how you turned the sound down. This is why on even most home video cameras there are built in noise reduction and noise gates to keep the sound level.

I like the little quote in the beginning too...

"To be highly certain of something with a very low order of evidence is a sign that something is wrong with your mind."

I guess that is being used the same way as the disclaimer about the sound being turned down huh?

Just throw the video on the rest of the pile of “low order of evidence"

 

[332nd]

I suffered through the first couple of minutes of this garbage. When I got to the part where he shows the Controlled demolitions of gutted windowless buildings the sound got so loud I think I heard an ant crap about a mile away. Nice little disclaimer there before hand on how you turned the sound down. This is why on even most home video cameras there are built in noise reduction and noise gates to keep the sound level.

I like the little quote in the beginning too...

"To be highly certain of something with a very low order of evidence is a sign that something is wrong with your mind."

I guess that is being used the same way as the disclaimer about the sound being turned down huh?

Just throw the video on the rest of the pile of “low order of evidence"

So you don't believe CD charges are really that loud? Ever seen one in person?

 

[LastChild]

So you don't believe CD charges are really that loud? Ever seen one in person?

Oh they're loud I'm not disputing it. But to compare those examples of traditional CD of a gutted building in the video to a tape of the WTC collapsing 70 stories up and comparing the audio as your evidense is stupid if not dishonest

 

[Brainster]

Let me suggest though that Gravy needs to work on his titles. "World Trade Center Not a Demolition" is as dull as dishwater. So let's work on a better title for the film!

My thoughts:

Probable Collapse. Of course it would help if anybody had actually seen Mike Berger's film Improbable Collapse to get the gag, and the "Probable" part is weak.

Couple of Bucks. Takeoff on Loose Change, but has the same weakness; no apparent relationship between the title and the film.

9-11 Mysteries Solved. Negative is that there's no bit with Gravy saying clunkety clunk 110 times in 10 seconds to prove Sofia wrong.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah, so the contents of the buildings and the windows muffle the sounds of explosives completely? Care to provide anything to back that up?

BTW, the distance many of the video cameras on 9/11 was much less than that of the cameras on those demolition examples. Are we implying that somehow altitude somehow prevents sound form traveling? That's a pretty interesting claim.

 

[332nd]

Oh they're loud I'm not disputing it. But to compare those examples of traditional CD of a gutted building in the video to a tape of the WTC collapsing 70 stories up and comparing the audio as your evidense is stupid if not dishonest

So the CD of the WTC would be quieter? How? Would the collapse have been louder than the explosions?

 

[LastChild]

Ah, so the contents of the buildings and the windows muffle the sounds of explosives completely? Care to provide anything to back that up?

BTW, the distance many of the video cameras on 9/11 was much less than that of the cameras on those demolition examples. Are we implying that somehow altitude somehow prevents sound form traveling? That's a pretty interesting claim.

Ah, so the contents of the buildings and the windows muffle the sounds of explosives completely? Care to provide anything to back that up?

I didn't say completely. And are you claiming the WTC made no sound? I think it's even Gravy on his web page who tries to assert that witnesses even firefighters claimed to hear explosive like sounds but that they weren't explosives. Now all of a sudden there is completely no sound? And there is such a thing as acoustics. Ever hear a Bass Bin? Do you know how a Bose stereo work? It’s the same effect as a boom omitting from empty rooms and halls out open windows. There is also such a thing as contrast while everyone is standing around quietly holding their breath waiting for the first explosions to go off. There is a big jump in the sound. With the WTC there are sirens going off, helicopters, people screaming, and a 110 story building collapsing the noise gate on the camera is already up.

BTW, the distance many of the video cameras on 9/11 was much less than that of the cameras on those demolition examples. Are we implying that somehow altitude somehow prevents sound form traveling? That's a pretty interesting claim.

Bull. The distant is the same if not closer and much lower gutted windowless buildings. And the sound is turned up. And there is no 110 story building collapsing at the same time. It's stupid.

 

[LastChild]

So the CD of the WTC would be quieter? How? Would the collapse have been louder than the explosions?

Who is claiming it was? You're comparing cherry picked recorded audio nothing else. The wtc was loud. Just read Gravy's page about the explosive like sounds.

 

[DGM]

LastChild:
I didn't catch whether you've seen a CD live? I've been involved in a few and do you know why the glass is removed? If the towers and building 7 were CD lower Manhattan would be showered in glass. Glass and explosives shock waves don't mix well. Steven Jones knew this that's why he made up thermate.

 

[SDC]

Yah, title is weak. How about, "Frisky Scantily Clad Cheerleaders, ah, get Frisky and remain Scantily Clad"?

Oh come on L.Child. Do some work.

 

[LastChild]

LastChild:
I didn't catch whether you've seen a CD live? I've been involved in a few and do you know why the glass is removed? If the towers and building 7 were CD lower Manhattan would be showered in glass. Glass and explosives shock waves don't mix well. Steven Jones knew this that's why he made up thermate.

No I haven't but what does that matter? Were you at the WTC when it fell? If you have to see one live then what good is the so-called video evidence that is implied? Now I do know about sound and recording. How about you? I can tell you that the comparisons made in the video are evidence of nothing.