Brand New CT sub-group: No-Sounders

[Slayhamlet]

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.

Sorry, I have him on ignore and am not about to take him off. Is it the same "bomb" as in this Truther video?



If it is, that footage is attributed to a certain Lucia Davis who was working for a company called Broadcast News Networks Inc., located in NYC. Has anybody tried contacting her or the company?

You'd think one of the Truthers might have, considering that if it were real this could potentially blow the lid off the evil conspiracy and land them a nice Pulitzer Prize in the process. Or maybe some of them already have and didn't like the explanation they were given?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Lastchild is now on my ignore list too. Everything he needs to see where he is making mistakes is in this thread and now we're just going in circles. He can go in circles by himself since the information is already in 2 threads and it's a waste of everyone's time to repeat it just because he can't get it.

 

[LastChild]

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?

I never claimed to know it was a shaped charge. Just that it was as loud as one and I provided the comparison that proves it. You can't even follow the thread. Or did you forget again?

YOU FAIL

Can you remember that?

 

[LastChild]

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.

The dallas videos prove that depending on the angle and perhaps what is being used to record the event the sound of the charges can change significantly as far as how loud they are picked up. I too pointed out in the other thread the difference between an open building and a closed one and how it would effect the sound. I was told that was nonsense. One idiot even claimed to know how far the charges were from the windows compared to the wtc even when he claims there weren't any in the wtc. Go figure. That's the debunking standard.

There is no way any of the charges in any of the Dallas angles would have been heard over the collapse of a 110 story skyscraper. Providing yet another video of another demolition where the charges are picked up louder can only prove my point that much more.

There is nothing more to discuss unless of course you would like to continue to support my position. Then go right ahead.

Thank You

YOU FAIL

 

[WildCat]

The dallas videos prove that depending on the angle and perhaps what is being used to record the event the sound of the charges can change significantly as far as how loud they are picked up.

No, all you did was prove that outside sounds from inside a closed and sealed building are muted. And yet you could still hear the demo charges!

The fact is, LC, you have miserably failed in your attempt to find a single video of an actual demolition in which the sound was covered up by anything.

This is the point where rational people would admit defeat, but like a good little troofer you're going to keep plugging along because you're just not bright enough to know when you're wrong.

 

[The Big Dog]

"There is no way any of the charges in any of the Dallas angles would have been heard over the collapse of a 110 story skyscraper."

And dat folks is DA Troof! He don't need no evidence or fancy book learning. There is NO WAY you can hear demolition charges over the collapse of a building. Game, set! Freaking match!

LC: Don't Bother, we know: I FAIL!

/I do get a kick out of the fact that LC tagged his own thread as "garbage."

/I am suprised that the mods have let LC's trolling go on for as long as it has.

 

[tsig]

Tsk tsk you’re not paying attention. Three explosions have been provided thus far. Two by me and one by 1337m4n . One very loud and two not so loud on the recording

If you want to claim they are all different explosions that only makes your story less believable by your own standards. Three different explosions only caught by one microphone a piece? How did that happen? If they are all the same then why is only one very loud and the other two not so loud? There goes all your debunking claims about microphones.

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?

You have failed miserably. Congratulations.

You are not in any position to grade.

 

[pomeroo]

Sorry, I have him on ignore and am not about to take him off. Is it the same "bomb" as in this Truther video?



If it is, that footage is attributed to a certain Lucia Davis who was working for a company called Broadcast News Networks Inc., located in NYC. Has anybody tried contacting her or the company?

You'd think one of the Truthers might have, considering that if it were real this could potentially blow the lid off the evil conspiracy and land them a nice Pulitzer Prize in the process. Or maybe some of them already have and didn't like the explanation they were given?

Yes, this is the same bomb. So, why wasn't this the front-page headline of every newspaper in the country?

 

[pomeroo]

The dallas videos prove that depending on the angle and perhaps what is being used to record the event the sound of the charges can change significantly as far as how loud they are picked up. I too pointed out in the other thread the difference between an open building and a closed one and how it would effect the sound. I was told that was nonsense. One idiot even claimed to know how far the charges were from the windows compared to the wtc even when he claims there weren't any in the wtc. Go figure. That's the debunking standard.

There is no way any of the charges in any of the Dallas angles would have been heard over the collapse of a 110 story skyscraper. Providing yet another video of another demolition where the charges are picked up louder can only prove my point that much more.

Incredible as it sounds, you really don't grasp the idea that charges would not be going off while the building is collapsing.

There is nothing more to discuss unless of course you would like to continue to support my position. Then go right ahead.

Thank You

YOU FAIL

You are spectacular, in your fashion.

 

[twinstead]

This is the point where rational people would admit defeat, but like a good little troofer you're going to keep plugging along because you're just not bright enough to know when you're wrong.

I think he is plenty bright enough to know when he is wrong. That's what makes it even worse.

 

[pomeroo]

I never claimed to know it was a shaped charge. Just that it was as loud as one and I provided the comparison that proves it. You can't even follow the thread. Or did you forget again?

YOU FAIL

Can you remember that?

Why are you lying again? You have been caught far too often. You showed us a twoofer YouTube video that describes a shaped charge, then shows us one being detonated. Next, the same sound is dubbed into a video showing the WTC complex.
Seriously, are you one of those "special" children?

 

[DavidJames]

Incredible as it sounds, you really don't grasp the idea that charges would not be going off while the building is collapsing.

You are thinking of a "conventional" CD. I believe LC is thinking this was an "unconventional" CD and by "unconventional" he means whatever happened was designed to happen and is evidence of a CD.

Everything is evidence of a CD.

 

[pomeroo]

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

Gumboot, I think I follow your argument, but I have no background in audio. Could you flesh out your explanation a bit? Define a "clip" in the dialogue, please.

 

[LastChild]

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

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?

I never claimed to know it was a shaped charge. Just that it was as loud as one and I provided the comparison that proves it. You can't even follow the thread. Or did you forget again?

Why are you lying again? You have been caught far too often. You showed us a twoofer YouTube video that describes a shaped charge, then shows us one being detonated. Next, the same sound is dubbed into a video showing the WTC complex.
Seriously, are you one of those "special" children?

Again I never claimed to know that the sound made while the kid was on the phone was a shaped charge. Sure it sounds exactly like one and is as loud as one and yes maybe some people contend it might be a shaped charge but that’s not my argument.

I merely claimed it was as loud as one and by debunker standard should have been picked up by more then one microphone and just as loud.

So where are all the recordings of that explosive sound?

YOU CONTINUE TO FAIL

 

[LastChild]

Gumboot, I think I follow your argument, but I have no background in audio. Could you flesh out your explanation a bit? Define a "clip" in the dialogue, please.

Oh please. What's the matter did you run out of sleeping pills?

 

[1337m4n]

Look, Lastchild, it's pretty clear there's one of two things going on here:

1) Your point has been thoroughly debunked, and you refuse to admit it, OR

2) Nobody has any clue what the heck your point is, and this thread has gone on for 13 pages of pointless bickering because you were unsuccessful in conveying that point.

I'm going with option 2, because honestly, I have no idea what everyone's arguing about anymore. So I have a proposition: Summarize the point you're trying to make. One or two paragraphs, in simple, concise layman's language, using the following standard argumentation format:

A) Claim (your argument)
B) Warrant (proof and evidence for your argument)
C) Impact (the implications of your argument)

This will help us all understand what you're trying to say, and hopefully restore some order and comprehensibility to this debate.

Have at it, LastChild.

 

[LastChild]

Look, Lastchild, it's pretty clear there's one of two things going on here:

1) Your point has been thoroughly debunked, and you refuse to admit it, OR

2) Nobody has any clue what the heck your point is, and this thread has gone on for 13 pages of pointless bickering because you were unsuccessful in conveying that point.

I'm going with option 2, because honestly, I have no idea what everyone's arguing about anymore. So I have a proposition: Summarize the point you're trying to make. One or two paragraphs, in simple, concise layman's language, using the following standard argumentation format:

A) Claim (your argument)
B) Warrant (proof and evidence for your argument)
C) Impact (the implications of your argument)

This will help us all understand what you're trying to say, and hopefully restore some order and comprehensibility to this debate.

Have at it, LastChild.

No wonder you fail when you can't even read. Is 13 pages a little overwhelming for you? I'll tell you what go back and read what I told the Redworm when it asked the same nonsense. I’m not going to read for you or repeat myself anymore.

btw

YOU ARE FAILING

 

[DGM]

LastChild:
You said that the towers explosions would not be heard over the collapse, Correct?
You "prove" this with a video of a smaller building (although the explosives could be heard) saying because the towers are taller they must have been louder. Correct?
Why would they have to be louder and not just last longer. What do you base this on?

If you can't justify this;

YOU FAILED!!!!!!

 

[ktesibios]

Gumboot, I think I follow your argument, but I have no background in audio. Could you flesh out your explanation a bit? Define a "clip" in the dialogue, please.

Permit me.

Any amplifier has a limit on how far the output voltage can swing in either direction. If the input signal amplitude is high enough that the output swing necessary to follow it is greater than this limit, the output signal runs into a "wall"; this type of distortion is called "clipping"

These oscilloscope images may help to illustrate the phenomenon. They were both taken from the output of a "virtual breadboard" of a single-stage opamp-based amplifier with a voltage gain of 10 and a maximum output swing of approximately + & - 13.65V. In the first image the input signal (blue) has a peak amplitude of 1V; this calls for an output amplitude of 10V- within the amplifier's capability, so the output signal is undistorted:

In this image, the input signal amplitude is increased to 2V. This calls for an output amplitude of 20V, which is greater than the amplifier can deliver. Consequently the output voltage hits a limit at a peak swing of 13.65V and fails to follow the input during the time when the input signal amplitude is greater than 13.65/10 (again, input is blue and output is red):

On an audio signal, clipping produces a distinctive "fuzzy" sound which you've probably heard from overdriven PA systems before- particularly if you've ever been treated to the sound of an idiot with a bullhorn.

Gumboot's point is that since the clipping of the firefighter's voice establishes the maximum peak level the recorder's audio chain could record, an explosion on the same video which has a higher peak level than that cannot have passed through the same camera audio chain. The inference is then that the explosion sound was added after the fact.

An analogy: if you measure a window as being 28 inches wide by 40 inches high, and someone claims that an object 36 inches by 48 inches by 48 inches has passed through that window (without busting a bigger hole in the wall, for which there is no equivalent in audio electronics), you can reject the claim as being impossible.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Is he STILL trying to make the claim about demolition charges not being heard over the collapse, thus disproving a controlled demolition since the building is already collapsing when they go off?

My God, talk about falling off the stupid tree and hitting every branch on the way down.

People please, anyone who can't get that is wasting your time.