Brand New CT sub-group: No-Sounders

[LastChild]

Where did you get this idea from?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257902,00.html

 

[mortimer]

I don't know if it is possible at this point to determine if there was evidence of demolition charges or not. There could however be further investigation into other areas though.

So why are you focusing your energies on this facet of the attacks, and not in those "other areas"?

 

[332nd]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257902,00.html

That's odd, it seems the the facility where they were sifting through the ashes was only shut down last month.
http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_7695364?nclick_check=1

 

[LastChild]

So why are you focusing your energies on this facet of the attacks, and not in those "other areas"?

I have. Right now I'm showing Gravy's movie is proof of nothing and I'm using his own debunker standard.

Got anything on that?

 

[LastChild]

That's odd, it seems the the facility where they were sifting through the ashes was only shut down last month.
http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_7695364?nclick_check=1

I can't read that. It's asking me to register.

 

[The Big Dog]

I have. Right now I'm showing Gravy's movie is proof of nothing and I'm using his own debunker standard.

Got anything on that?

How are you doing that exactly? By petulance? By adding the word "Fail" to very other post? Why are you trolling your own thread?

 

[332nd]

Really? I'm not registered there either. Anyway...

NYC shuts 9/11 remains sifting facility
By AMY WESTFELDT Associated Press Writer
Article Last Updated: 12/11/2007 09:14:24 PM CST


NEW YORK—The city has closed a facility where debris was sifted for Sept. 11 victims' remains, but the search won't end until after the World Trade Center site is rebuilt, a city official said Tuesday. Ongoing construction around ground zero—including the dismantling of a toxic skyscraper that caught fire in August—could put off a complete search of areas believed to contain human remains for years, according to a memo by Deputy Mayor Ed Skyler.
"At no point in the near future would it be prudent to declare this search 'over,'" Skyler wrote to Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The discovery of more than 80 bones in a manhole at ground zero in October 2006 prompted an expanded search of nearby rooftops, manholes and sewer lines for bone fragments of victims of the terrorist attacks. Hundreds of bones were found beginning in 2005 at the former Deutsche Bank tower across from the trade center site.
The city has found 1,772 bones and fragments so far. Seven victims have been identified from bones found in a service road at ground zero and on the roof of the bank building, Skyler said. More than 1,100 of the trade center victims have not been identified from the thousands of remains found after the attack.
The medical examiner's office finished work Monday at a facility opened last year to hand-sift debris from around ground zero, but it will use a tractor-trailer and other equipment to continue sifting remains, Skyler said.

 

[WildCat]

I can't read that. It's asking me to register.

Here's an AP story about it: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ilrvwWZJK5BHZzncU3lZInAdkHsQD8TFL4O01

 

[LastChild]

That's odd, it seems the the facility where they were sifting through the ashes was only shut down last month.
http://www.twincities.com/national/ci_7695364?nclick_check=1

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2004-10-06-families-landfill_x.htm

On the Hornings' first visit to Fresh Kills, during the 10 months of sifting and sorting material from Ground Zero, the couple saw the ashes and asked to have some to bury. They say they were told the ashes, or "fines," were being kept separate from the building debris. The family would be able to bury some after the sorting process ended.

But when the sorting operation closed down in June 2002, the Hornings discovered that the fines and larger debris were put together into the landfill — separated by a layer of dirt from the last of the city's trash hauled there before Fresh Kills closed in March 2001.

Maybe you should start another thread.

 

[LastChild]

Really? I'm not registered there either. Anyway...

"The discovery of more than 80 bones in a manhole at ground zero in October 2006 prompted an expanded search of nearby rooftops, manholes and sewer lines for bone fragments of victims of the terrorist attacks. Hundreds of bones were found beginning in 2005 at the former Deutsche Bank tower across from the trade center site."

Too little too late.

 

[332nd]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2004-10-06-families-landfill_x.htm

On the Hornings' first visit to Fresh Kills, during the 10 months of sifting and sorting material from Ground Zero, the couple saw the ashes and asked to have some to bury. They say they were told the ashes, or "fines," were being kept separate from the building debris. The family would be able to bury some after the sorting process ended.

But when the sorting operation closed down in June 2002, the Hornings discovered that the fines and larger debris were put together into the landfill — separated by a layer of dirt from the last of the city's trash hauled there before Fresh Kills closed in March 2001.

Maybe you should start another thread.

If you didn't want to discuss it why did you bring it up?

NYC shuts 9/11 remains sifting facility
By AMY WESTFELDT Associated Press Writer
Article Last Updated: 12/11/2007 09:14:24 PM CST

From the USA TODAY article.

The impasse between some families and the city over Fresh Kills contrasts with the intense search after Sept. 11 to find human remains at Ground Zero and the landfill. Forensic teams from the FBI and New York police sifted the material three times: Nothing larger than one-quarter inch escaped examination. The medical examiner's office received nearly 20,000 human remains from both sites and is still working to identify them.

This to you is not worried about finding all the remains possible?

 

[funk de fino]

the mask of zen slips again

 

[LastChild]

If you didn't want to discuss it why did you bring it up?

Who said I didn't want to discuss it? I said start another thread if you like. I mentioned it in relation to evidence and scoop and dump. And I didn't coin the phrase "scoop and dump" is well known and contended by many.

NYC shuts 9/11 remains sifting facility
By AMY WESTFELDT Associated Press Writer
Article Last Updated: 12/11/2007 09:14:24 PM CST

From the USA TODAY article.

This to you is not worried about finding all the remains possible?

So many remains winding up in a landfill in the first place is being concerned? How many victims last resting place is a landfill?

 

[Myriad]

I have. Right now I'm showing Gravy's movie is proof of nothing and I'm using his own debunker standard.

Who said it was "proof" of anything? It's a very strong argument, but how can it possibly be "proof" when all it would take to cast it into serious doubt is any trustworthy audiovisual recording of any controlled demolition using explosives ever, in which the audio continuously recorded ambient sounds and the sound of the building collapsing, but failed to record to sound of the demolition charges going off.

Which, I notice, LastChild has not offered in evidence.

His failure to do so is an even stronger argument for Gravy's point. In fact, every time LastChild or anyone else offers an argument or a piece of evidence against Gravy's point, other than an audiovisual recording of an explosive controlled demolition in which the audio records the sound of the building collapsing but not the demolition charges going off, the argument made by Gravy's video is underscored and strengthened.

For example, a claim that the imperfections of microphones might have made it possible for the collapse sound but not the demolition charge detonations to be recorded, is also an argument that many audiovisual recordings of explosive controlled demolitions in which the audio records the sound of the building collapsing but not the demolition charges going off should exist, so there should be no reason not to nullify Gravy's argument by presenting one.

Thanks to LastChild's earnest efforts to "debunk" it in every way conceivable except the one simple effective way to debunk it, the argument Gravy made in the video is much stronger now than it was when this thread began. Perhaps a link to this thread should be added to the video.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[mortimer]

I have. Right now I'm showing Gravy's movie is proof of nothing and I'm using his own debunker standard.

Got anything on that?

What did Gravy supposedly purport the movie was proof of?

 

[LastChild]

Who said it was "proof" of anything? It's a very strong argument, but how can it possibly be "proof" when all it would take to cast it into serious doubt is any trustworthy audiovisual recording of any controlled demolition using explosives ever, in which the audio continuously recorded ambient sounds and the sound of the building collapsing, but failed to record to sound of the demolition charges going off.

I claim it's not proof. If you agree that it's not proof then why are so many people arguing with me including you?

Which, I notice, LastChild has not offered in evidence.

I offered the same standard of evidence Gravy uses.

His failure to do so is an even stronger argument for Gravy's point. In fact, every time LastChild or anyone else offers an argument or a piece of evidence against Gravy's point, other than an audiovisual recording of an explosive controlled demolition in which the audio records the sound of the building collapsing but not the demolition charges going off, the argument made by Gravy's video is underscored and strengthened.

This is not true. In fact I have been told here that in CD demolition the charges go off before the building collapses. So I asked then why does gravy compare CD videos to the collapse of the tower already in progress?

Gravy's contention after he implies one audio of the same video is fake and that in the real audio if there were demolition charges they would be heard not only in the Trinity Church video but they would be so loud they would be heard by other audio as well.

I contend not necessarily. The collapse of the building itself was so loud that to decipher one explosive sound from another might not be so cut and dry.

If demolition charges are so loud they would have been picked up loud and clear by many recording devices on 9/11 then I asked this question...

Why in the 9/11 video that I supply of an explosive sound that is just as loud as a demolition charge is there not other recordings of that sound and recorded just as loud anywhere?

For example, a claim that the imperfections of microphones might have made it possible for the collapse sound but not the demolition charge detonations to be recorded, is also an argument that many audiovisual recordings of explosive controlled demolitions in which the audio records the sound of the building collapsing but not the demolition charges going off should exist, so there should be no reason not to nullify Gravy's argument by presenting one.

Because for one Gravy's videos are cherry picked. I also supplied a controlled demolition from Dallas at different angles where depending on which angle the charges were recorded at different levels. And none of them were as loud as any in gravy's video. In fact the demolition charge sound in one of them couldn't even be heard over the people talking never mind had there been a 110 story building collapsing at the same time.

Thanks to LastChild's earnest efforts to "debunk" it in every way conceivable except the one simple effective way to debunk it, the argument Gravy made in the video is much stronger now than it was when this thread began. Perhaps a link to this thread should be added to the video.

I’m really just using one conceivable way. And it was conceived by debunkers. How's it taste?

YOU FAIL

Respectfully,
LastChild

 

[LastChild]

What did Gravy supposedly purport the movie was proof of?

He purports because no demolition charge sounds can be deciphered over the sound of the wtc collapsing on one video then there could not have been any explosives.

 

[WildCat]

This is not true. In fact I have been told here that in CD demolition the charges go off before the building collapses. So I asked then why does gravy compare CD videos to the collapse of the tower already in progress?

So if we show you a video of the towers prior to and including the collapse and there are no charges going off you'll admit there were none, correct?

 

[WildCat]

He purports because no demolition charge sounds can be deciphered over the sound of the wtc collapsing on one video then there could not have been any explosives.

All of us contend that, because demo charges are loud. Very loud. Louder than the collapsing building.

Unless you're claiming magic microphones again...

 

[LastChild]

So if we show you a video of the towers prior to and including the collapse and there are no charges going off you'll admit there were none, correct?

No why? Do you need to revise Gravy’s movie now? Move the goal posts? And is that my contention or the debunkers? And how do you know you would have heard those when you can't even find any other video picking up the sounds I supplied from down in the street never mind 70 stories up possibly in the core of the building?