I'm much more interested in you telling us more how you know it's a fake. You seemed to think you're on to something there. Run with it. Go ahead and start and I'll go call guys with the white coats and the big net. Just relax. Think of it as a long over due vacation.
You have a remarkably low IQ, but surely you must sense that we get the idea that I already told you why I think the video is a fake. The camera is pointed at a kid making a phone call: Why would the camera be pointed at this kid when, if we buy the premise that it's September 11, 2001, there are, uh, more interesting things to point a camera at? We also notice that when video of real firefighters is spliced in, it looks different. We never see the two kids and the firefighters in the same frame.
You are welcome to continue spouting your mindless and childish insults.
We missed your explanation for the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy's bizarre detonation of exactly ONE charge. You'll admit it's an interesting question. Why on earth would the most gigantic cabal in history, a conspiracy so enormous that it is mathematically impossible for it to avoid leaking a secret or two, explode EXACTLY < ONE > charge?
I strongly suggest you spew some more puerile insults rather than attempt to formulate a coherent response.
Guys - he's reduced to nothing more than taunts even too immature for me to respond to. Why keep this up? He's just working on getting himself banned, so why help him?
You have a remarkably low IQ, but surely you must sense that we get the idea that I already told you why I think the video is a fake. The camera is pointed at a kid making a phone call: Why would the camera be pointed at this kid when, if we buy the premise that it's September 11, 2001, there are, uh, more interesting things to point a camera at? We also notice that when video of real firefighters is spliced in, it looks different. We never see the two kids and the firefighters in the same frame.
You are welcome to continue spouting your mindless and childish insults.
Ah maybe you should look at it again. They are in the video at the same time. Oh that's right you need new glasses. Or maybe you did see it but forgot already? I think it might be getting worse for you. You should start looking into retirement homes now. Or maybe you did but forgot that too? Maybe you should have someone do it for you? But don't forget ok?
Did you forget already?
Try tying a string to your finger. What's a string?
We missed your explanation for the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy's bizarre detonation of exactly ONE charge. You'll admit it's an interesting question. Why on earth would the most gigantic cabal in history, a conspiracy so enormous that it is mathematically impossible for it to avoid leaking a secret or two, explode EXACTLY < ONE > charge?
I strongly suggest you spew some more puerile insults rather than attempt to formulate a coherent response.
How vast was that Al Queda conspiracy to take down the WTC by hijacking 4 planes at the same time? It's funny how no one caught on to that one. How many people are in Al Queda anyway? How did they all keep it a secret? How come there are no terrorist whistleblowers who can tell us where UBL is even under torture? Is he fake? Does he really exsist? Are you drooling on yourself yet?
Yes, it's time for you to leave. Here was the question that short-circuited you.
We missed your explanation for the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy's bizarre detonation of exactly ONE charge. You'll admit it's an interesting question. Why on earth would the most gigantic cabal in history, a conspiracy so enormous that it is mathematically impossible for it to avoid leaking a secret or two, explode EXACTLY < ONE > charge?
I strongly suggest you spew some more puerile insults rather than attempt to formulate a coherent response. Today 08:15 PM
Yes, it's a disturbing story. Many books--objects made of paper containing many words--have been written discussing the intelligence failures that allowed al Qaeda to execute its plan successfully.
So, are you just trolling, now? I see you refused to answer my questions. You may have me on ignore, but I think you will not pass up the opportunity to read someone quoting you.
On the other hand, maybe you are serious. Maybe I am drastically wrong, and need to apologize immediately, if not sooner. To prove to me and everyone else reading this thread that you are sincere, answer without dodging: Can you briefly explain (in a paragraph or two) what your position is? If not, why not?
So, are you just trolling, now? I see you refused to answer my questions. You may have me on ignore, but I think you will not pass up the opportunity to read someone quoting you.
On the other hand, maybe you are serious. Maybe I am drastically wrong, and need to apologize immediately, if not sooner. To prove to me and everyone else reading this thread that you are sincere, answer these two questions without dodging: Can you briefly explain (in a paragraph or two) what your position is? If not, why not?
Oh, I noticed, but I still think that maybe my tone has something to do with it. For instance, if he/she answered that he/she won't answer my question because of the way I asked it, I would try to rephrase it. If he/she said that they had no intention of answering because they didn't like me, perhaps someone else could rephrase the question. I am not smart enough to get into technicalities, so rather, I try to comprehend what our conspiratorially inclined friends see as the big picture.
So, are you just trolling, now? I see you refused to answer my questions. You may have me on ignore, but I think you will not pass up the opportunity to read someone quoting you.
On the other hand, maybe you are serious. Maybe I am drastically wrong, and need to apologize immediately, if not sooner. To prove to me and everyone else reading this thread that you are sincere, answer without dodging: Can you briefly explain (in a paragraph or two) what your position is? If not, why not?
Well it seems to be the debunker position that if there were any explosions on 9/11 the many many audio devices that were in the area wouldn't have failed to pick them up. That is whenever the debunker is able to stay on topic. So if that is their case then debunkers should have no problem showing me all the different recordings that captured these explosives sounds recorded on 9/11...
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?
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.
So, are you just trolling, now? I see you refused to answer my questions. You may have me on ignore, but I think you will not pass up the opportunity to read someone quoting you.
On the other hand, maybe you are serious. Maybe I am drastically wrong, and need to apologize immediately, if not sooner. To prove to me and everyone else reading this thread that you are sincere, answer without dodging: Can you briefly explain (in a paragraph or two) what your position is? If not, why not?
Well it seems to be the debunker position that if there were any explosions on 9/11 the many many audio devices that were in the area wouldn't have failed to pick them up. That is whenever the debunker is able to stay on topic. So if that is their case then debunkers should have no problem showing me all the different recordings that captured these explosives sounds recorded on 9/11...
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 ask 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?
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.
This is one of those things where it was amusing to see this guy keep making a fool out of himself over and over and just continue to do so. Sorta like physical comedy. But now it's just getting sad. To think, this is a person's life and how they think. Can anyone imagine going through life like that? It's sad really. Now I just feel bad about making fun of him in the way one should feel bad for making fun of someone with disabilities.
Well it seems to be the debunker position that if there were any explosions on 9/11 the many many audio devices that were in the area wouldn't have failed to pick them up. That is whenever the debunker is able to stay on topic. So if that is their case then debunkers should have no problem showing me all the different recordings that captured these explosives sounds recorded on 9/11...
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?
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.
Well it seems to be the debunker position that if there were any explosions on 9/11 the many many audio devices that were in the area wouldn't have failed to pick them up. That is whenever the debunker is able to stay on topic. So if that is their case then debunkers should have no problem showing me all the different recordings that captured these explosives sounds recorded on 9/11...
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?
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.
Once again, you still do not understand the argument being made. Which is that the fact that none of the footage of ANY cameras picked up ANY demolition charges going off, yet picked up the quieter things such as the collapse itself disproves your claim that the equipment is the reason that none of them picked it up. Remember your idiotic claim? Or were you hoping we would somehow forget that?
The video you used there is not of demoilition charges going off, it's of Steel fatiguing. It's one of the many many explosion sounds caused by such things in such events. It's not just before the collapse as happens with demolition charges and it's not what a demolition charge sounds like.
And you want to talk about staying on topic when you keep playing the conspiracy shuffle jumping from one argument to the next? THAT's a laugh!
And please show us video footage of the WTC collapse proceeded by demolition charges going off. You can't do it other than the one that was doctored by CTers. So don't pretend that it's being deceptively cut out when we all know it doesn't exist. Gravy's contention is 100% correct.
And there you go again pretending that the demolition charges must have been going off as the building was collapsing. Which of course is an oxy moron that has been pointed out to you many times now. Because if the charges are going off AFTER the collapse begins, what's causing the collapse and why would they need demolition charges if the building is already collapsing? Man oh man that's just the most nonsense I have ever read.
And no, the steel sound you have in your video is not as loud as a demolition charge, you just wish that it was. And that wasn't just prior to the collapse. But maybe you can explain these magical explosives which go off and cause the building to collapse 30 minutes later? Oh that's right, you aren't claiming there were explosives. Gotcha *wink wink*.
And as for your video examples, can you show me in which one the demolition charges are not audible, but the collapse is? Please re-link me to that one. Thanks champ.
If you want to claim they are faked audio then provide the proof like you ask the no-planners to provide proof of fake video. Are you a conspiracy theorist now?
I've provided evidence for the "talking on phone" explosion video. In fact there's a thread on it somewhere. But in summary:
1) The actions of the people in the video do not reflect the explosion noise
2) The actions of the cameraman do not reflect the explosion noise
3) The audio profile of the explosion does not match the other sounds in the video (specifically, it rates at higher dB across all frequencies than clipping audio in the video, yet the explosion noise does not clip).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
