Brand New CT sub-group: No-Sounders

[Slayhamlet]

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.

Wait, which video are we talking about now?

 

[LastChild]

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

A lie trying to be passed off as some kind of expert observation.

2) The actions of the cameraman do not reflect the explosion noise

Same as 1). You know other people can see what you are trying to lie about.

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).

Oh brother another self proclaimed audio expert.

You are officially a no-sounder. There is no evidence anywhere that the audio is fake. Just a bare assertion.

YOU LIE AND YOU FAIL

 

[CHF]

I have a plan: let's stop wasting time with this teenage fool.

Child indeed.

 

[pomeroo]

A lie trying to be passed off as some kind of expert observation.



Same as 1). You know other people can see what you are trying to lie about.



Oh brother another self proclaimed audio expert.

You are officially a no-sounder. There is no evidence anywhere that the audio is fake. Just a bare assertion.

YOU LIE AND YOU FAIL

Now, about that lone detonation... Why do you suppose the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy would detonate a single charge? Hmmmm?

We've already instructed you to stop screeching and telling lies. You've been caught. Gumboot is referring to the video where an explosion goes off and nobody reacts.

 

[LastChild]

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?

Once again. The sound of a demolition charge would not have necessarily have been loud enough to have been recorded over the collapse of a 110 story skyscraper. I proved this with the Dallas demolition of a much smaller structure. Did you forget?

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.

You’re not an expert at any of that and it doesn't even make sense. Were you hoping I would somehow forget that?

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!

What's my conspiracy?

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.

I claim it wouldn't have necessarily have been picked up. Remember? If you say it would have then prove it. You have failed so far. You will continue to fail.

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.

It's an oxy moron? LOL I already asked you but you failed to answer that if that's the case then why does Gravy compare the sound of Controlled Demolition to the sound of the WTC already in collapse? So you agree his crap video proves nothing?

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*.

The steel sound? I'm not claiming there were explosives. You are claiming there were microphones everywhere that would have picked up the sounds of explosions no matter what if they were there. So where are all the recordings of the explosions that did happen bombs or otherwise? Do microphones only pick up explosive sounds that are demolition charges? Now that's a magic microphone.

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.

Got one with a 110 stories?

YOU FAIL MISERABLY

You’re welcome Skippy

 

[pomeroo]

Wait, which video are we talking about now?

Check post #242. Note that if this video is accurate, i.e., the first sound we hear is a shaped charge and the identical sound that we hear while the kid is on the phone is also a shaped charge, we have just heard a shaped charge go off at the WTC complex. I guess the debate is over and the twoofers won.

Problems arise when we wonder why this video didn't win someone a Pulitzer Prize. Who are the kids on the phone? Who is holding the camera?
When was this video made? Why aren't the firefighters in the video famous for reporting that they heard a shaped charge go off? Who ordered them not to talk?

Again, it is all so cut-and-dried. We are led to believe that a shaped charge was detonated at the WTC and nobody cared. Why not? What would happen if the anonymous person who shot the video took his blockbuster to a real news outlet (that has a familiar ring)?


The important point is that there were no twoofers on September 11, 2001. Someone is pointing a camera at a kid on the phone when other things of somewhat greater interest are going on. Why would anyone do that?

Why does this video surface years later? Shouldn't it have been played thousands of times on every television news show of every country in the world? If it is definitive proof of a shaped charge being detonated at the WTC complex, it is one of the biggest stories in the history of journalism. And yet, no news outlet anywhere has heard of it.

 

[LastChild]

Now, about that lone detonation... Why do you suppose the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy would detonate a single charge? Hmmmm?

We've already instructed you to stop screeching and telling lies. You've been caught. Gumboot is referring to the video where an explosion goes off and nobody reacts.

I didn't post a video that had people in it and no one reacted. They reacted as far as anyone could tell. If anyone wants to tell the truth that is.

 

[DavidJames]

I have a plan: let's stop wasting time with this teenage fool.

Child indeed.

Agreed. LC is a disenfranchised teenage troll uninterested (and unable) to engage in honest debate.

 

[LastChild]

Now, about that lone detonation... Why do you suppose the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy would detonate a single charge? Hmmmm?

We've already instructed you to stop screeching and telling lies. You've been caught. Gumboot is referring to the video where an explosion goes off and nobody reacts.

I didn't post a video that had people in it and no one reacted. They reacted as far as anyone could tell. If anyone wants to tell the truth that is.

 

[gumboot]

A lie trying to be passed off as some kind of expert observation.

Incorrect. In the thread in question I explained in detail why the actions of the people in the video did not reflect having heard a loud explosion noise. I provided ample very specific evidence to support my claim.

Same as 1). You know other people can see what you are trying to lie about.

Again, I provided ample evidence in the pattern of camera movement to demonstrate that the cameraman was not responding to a loud explosion.

Oh brother another self proclaimed audio expert.

You are officially a no-sounder. There is no evidence anywhere that the audio is fake. Just a bare assertion.

Again, false. I do not claim to be an audio expert - my areas of expertise are film production and cinematography. However I have an "above-layman" knowledge of audio, which is really all that is required to spot most 9/11 video fakes.

The evidence is specifically as detailed. In the video in question, the dialogue of the firemen speaking to the men on the phone clips. This means that during recording of the original audio the sound peaked the microphone. The fundamentals of audio dictate that, for any given frequency range, if the audio peaks at a particular dB level, you cannot have audio in the same recording, at the same frequency range, that exceeds this dB level. If, for arguments sake, the voice peaks at 20dB in the 6kHz range, it is impossible to have other sounds in the 6kHz range recorded at the same time, by the same microphone, that exceeds 20dB.

This is the problem we see with the video of the men talking on the phone. We have a clip in the dialogue, indicating the man's voice peaked during recording. However in the same recording, at the same frequency, we have the explosion noise which does not peak, but which registers at higher dB. This is impossible if the explosion was recorded at the same time, and with the same microphone, as the voice. Therefore the audio in that video must be fake.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Check post #242. Note that if this video is accurate, i.e., the first sound we hear is a shaped charge and the identical sound that we hear while the kid is on the phone is also a shaped charge, we have just heard a shaped charge go off at the WTC complex. I guess the debate is over and the twoofers won.

Of course this alleged shaped charge was captured on video considerably after the collapse of both towers, so one must wonder what relevance it has to proof that either WTC1 or WTC2 were brought down by controlled demolition.

-Gumboot

 

[X]

Why do you keep giving him/her what s/he wants?
Stop responding to his/her infantile behaviour. Let him/her rant and rave and carry on. When s/he realizes (after a day or three) that no one is listening to him/her, s/he'll stop.
If I'm wrong, I'll eat a beet (veritable torture for me).

Just like a child throwing a tantrum will stop when he realizes it dosn't get him attention.

Summary: Stop feeding the troll. Do not reply to anything it says for the next week. Don't even talk about it.

Starting now.

 

[LastChild]

Incorrect. In the thread in question I explained in detail why the actions of the people in the video did not reflect having heard a loud explosion noise. I provided ample very specific evidence to support my claim.




Again, I provided ample evidence in the pattern of camera movement to demonstrate that the cameraman was not responding to a loud explosion.




Again, false. I do not claim to be an audio expert - my areas of expertise are film production and cinematography. However I have an "above-layman" knowledge of audio, which is really all that is required to spot most 9/11 video fakes.

The evidence is specifically as detailed. In the video in question, the dialogue of the firemen speaking to the men on the phone clips. This means that during recording of the original audio the sound peaked the microphone. The fundamentals of audio dictate that, for any given frequency range, if the audio peaks at a particular dB level, you cannot have audio in the same recording, at the same frequency range, that exceeds this dB level. If, for arguments sake, the voice peaks at 20dB in the 6kHz range, it is impossible to have other sounds in the 6kHz range recorded at the same time, by the same microphone, that exceeds 20dB.

This is the problem we see with the video of the men talking on the phone. We have a clip in the dialogue, indicating the man's voice peaked during recording. However in the same recording, at the same frequency, we have the explosion noise which does not peak, but which registers at higher dB. This is impossible if the explosion was recorded at the same time, and with the same microphone, as the voice. Therefore the audio in that video must be fake.

-Gumboot

The only thing your slanted opinions are ample evidence of is the delusional egotistical opinion you have of yourself.

YOU CONTINUE TO FAIL

-LastChild

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Once again. The sound of a demolition charge would not have necessarily have been loud enough to have been recorded over the collapse of a 110 story skyscraper. I proved this with the Dallas demolition of a much smaller structure. Did you forget?

DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ??????

Once again, if the demolition charges went off after the collapse, it would defeat the entire purpose of using them (!!!!!). You didn't prove anything except that you are completely wrong and this claim is 100% nonsense. This must be the 5th time now that this has been addressed. PLEASE READ FROM NOW ON.

You’re not an expert at any of that and it doesn't even make sense. Were you hoping I would somehow forget that?

Way to dodge the issue there cowboy. Were you hoping no one would notice?

What's my conspiracy?

So you agree there is no evidence o one correct? Please answer this time.

I claim it wouldn't have necessarily have been picked up. Remember? If you say it would have then prove it. You have failed so far. You will continue to fail.

And you were proven wrong there. And then when it was obvious you had to start a trolling thread. Unfortunately you didn't get far enough to even start let alone fail. It was PROVEN why it WOULD be picked up. And your implication is that some how magically not a single camera picked it up while easily picking up sounds not as loud from the same exact source. This proves you more than wrong. YOU FAIL (doing a retarded impression of you).

It's an oxy moron? LOL I already asked you but you failed to answer that if that's the case then why does Gravy compare the sound of Controlled Demolition to the sound of the WTC already in collapse? So you agree his crap video proves nothing?

Once again nice attempt to dodge the issue. Could you please show us an example of footage of the WTC collapse preceded by the demolition charges? That's what Gravy did. He showed the footage just before the collapse. No demolition charges. Are you stupid or something? Why do you not grasp this simple issue? His video absolutely proves that the collapse of the WTC in no way resembles a controlled demolition. 100%. Your posts proved that you have no idea what you are talking about, but at least you gave up on the audio route which was a really bad move on your part.

The steel sound? I'm not claiming there were explosives. You are claiming there were microphones everywhere that would have picked up the sounds of explosions no matter what if they were there. So where are all the recordings of the explosions that did happen bombs or otherwise? Do microphones only pick up explosive sounds that are demolition charges? Now that's a magic microphone.

No that's not what I have claimed. And I have explained my claim to you at least 10 times in a row, and 10 times in a row you got it wrong. Take all the camera shots that recorded the collapse itself. Those are picking up the sound of the collapse. The collapse source is the same as it would be for the demolition charges. So these cameras that picked up the sound of the collapse did NOT pick up any demolition charges. Seriously, are you retarded? Because this is at least the 10th time this has been explained to you. No one can be this dumb.

So somehow these microphones were able to pick up the sound of the collapse, but NOT the demolition charges???? THAT is your implication. There's no getting out of this. It's idiotic. And to claim that people are suggesing that mics only pick up sounds that are explosives? Now THAT is stupidity on your part. Because no one ever even so much as remotely implied that. Never. You really need to learn how to read.

And of course you're not claiming there were explosives. You think there were, but if you had to say it, then you would have to face being humiliated even further. Because you know there is absolutely no proof to even suggest there was such a thing. Of course when asked to confirm this, you just so happen to always ignore the question.

Got one with a 110 stories?

YOU FAIL MISERABLY

You’re welcome Skippy

Once again, the words of a complete idiot that you are using.

Keep digging your hole little man.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The only thing your slanted opinions are ample evidence of is the delusional egotistical opinion you have of yourself.

YOU CONTINUE TO FAIL

-LastChild

And getting desperate now I see. Maybe if you put 'YOU CONTINUE TO FAIL' you might feel a little better. LOL!!!!!!!

 

[pomeroo]

I didn't post a video that had people in it and no one reacted. They reacted as far as anyone could tell. If anyone wants to tell the truth that is.

Explain the solo detonation. It seems odd, extremely odd, that the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy would set off a single charge. Draw on your extensive knowledge of demolition and tell us why professionals in that field seeking to bring down an enormous skyscraper--and bring it down in a manner undetectable to anyone who is not a moron--would set off a single charge.

 

[gumboot]

The only thing your slanted opinions are ample evidence of is the delusional egotistical opinion you have of yourself.

YOU CONTINUE TO FAIL

-LastChild

I see, child, that I am wasting my time. Not a surprise, really. I cannot expect someone to understand a subject of which they are utterly and hopelessly ignorant. I'll leave you to play in your sandpit with your bucket and spade.

-Gumboot

 

[pomeroo]

Of course this alleged shaped charge was captured on video considerably after the collapse of both towers, so one must wonder what relevance it has to proof that either WTC1 or WTC2 were brought down by controlled demolition.

-Gumboot

This is what I'm complaining about. We're supposed to have heard a shaped charge go off. When? Who made this video? Where did LC find it? Why isn't it a huge story?

 

[Norseman]

Do these all sound the same? And are any of them as loud as any in Gravy’s movie?

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.

Why do you repeat this, it has been debunked several times already in this thread?

I can hear the explosives detonating in every one of them. As pointed out earlier two of the videos was filmed through windows in an apartment building and I can still hear the detonations going off even when people are speaking. And even worse for you, it clearly looks as though all the windows in the building being demolished are intact before the explosives are set off, and yet the detonations are clearly picked up by the camcorders through two sets of windows.

Here you got another outside video from the event:



And here one with a noisy helicopter flying somewhere close to the camera, and yet the detonations cancel out the sound of the helicopter:



Five videos of the same event, not a single one missed the detonations. Have I missed any of the Dallas videos that support your claim?

Here is a far away shot of The JL Hudson Department Store implosion in Detroit, filmed from far away in city setting similar to the WTC towers. The detonations are clearly heard reverberating between the buildings.(A close up has been show earlier in the thread):



And not one of the WTC collapse videos contain the characteristic sound of demolition detonations heard in the above videos. Why, because it was just aircraft, fire, collapse and nothing else.

There is nothing more to discuss LastChild.

 

[Corsair 115]

The only thing your slanted opinions are ample evidence of is the delusional egotistical opinion you have of yourself.

YOU CONTINUE TO FAIL

Wow, what an incredibly scientific, rational, well thought out, logical, and insightful rebuttal. It's a wonder why you don't win more converts over to your side with such profoundly convincing arguments.