Brand New CT sub-group: No-Sounders

[LastChild]

Ahh, so THAT was LastChild's point. I think I get it now.

(Amazing, it takes a debunker to make a truther's point for him. Or at least translate it into something the layman can understand)

Lastchild, this might help:



Nothing's wrong with the microphone, as evidenced by the background noise. No explosive sounds are heard.

Moar:



Again, background noises prove the microphone is FINE.

Now, here's your challenge: explain how it's possible for a microphone to pick up quieter noises while failing to pick up louder ones.

I'll answer that challenge for you right now: You can't. It's impossible.

Game over, LC. It's time for you to admit you've lost this one.



(And I did all this without being able to see his posts)

Why are you adding videos to revise Gravy's crap movie? Wasn't his good enough? Why did he use it then? Videos by the way that don't prove anything. I can hardly hear anything except the people talking. Not even the helicopter overhead is very loud. Then when the tower starts to collapse all I hear is that guy screaming "oh my god". What is this suppose to prove? Besides if you could only read I have already addressed this. An explosion wouldn't necessarily have been heard any louder then the top floors initially crashing down which you can also hardly hear in your video. Secondly there are conspiracy theorist who claim things like thermate combined with explosive devices. In fact I believe they point to this very video of molten metal pouring out of the tower don’t they? So then why would an explosive device be needed to initiate the collapse?

In the end Gravy is comparing traditional CD to a collapse video of the towers not the pre-collapse. If that's a bad comparison then why don't you tell your hero to stop embarrassing himself?

YOU FAIL AGAIN

 

[CHF]

LastChild, just so you know, there are probably hundreds of twoofers reading this thread
saying "someone please shut this LastChild disinfo agent up!"

You're really embarrassing yourself and your cause here.

 

[pomeroo]

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

Tell you what: you explain Gumboot's refutation of your idiocy.

 

[pomeroo]

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:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/378477e920a67be6.jpg

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):

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/378477e920a2d678.jpg

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.

Thank you for your clear explanation.

 

[pomeroo]

I don't think LastChild has any idea what he's trying to argue.

Obviously we're dealing with a 16 year old kid. FAIL FAIL FAIL!!! No adult argues that way.

Obviously he's a kid, but we were all kids once and we weren't as hopelessly obtuse as this one.

 

[pomeroo]

Why are you adding videos to revise Gravy's crap movie? Wasn't his good enough? Why did he use it then? Videos by the way that don't prove anything. I can hardly hear anything except the people talking. Not even the helicopter overhead is very loud. Then when the tower starts to collapse all I hear is that guy screaming "oh my god". What is this suppose to prove? Besides if you could only read I have already addressed this. An explosion wouldn't necessarily have been heard any louder then the top floors initially crashing down which you can also hardly hear in your video. Secondly there are conspiracy theorist who claim things like thermate combined with explosive devices. In fact I believe they point to this very video of molten metal pouring out of the tower don’t they? So then why would an explosive device be needed to initiate the collapse?

In the end Gravy is comparing traditional CD to a collapse video of the towers not the pre-collapse. If that's a bad comparison then why don't you tell your hero to stop embarrassing himself?

YOU FAIL AGAIN

Seriously, do you have any idea at all as to what you're attempting to maintain?

 

[DGM]

I see LastChild has FAILED to justify his statement that the collapse would have drowned out the demolition blasts.

I've been to a few controlled demolitions he has not. My experience shows that the larger building would have collapsed longer not louder. The charges would have been heard.

LASTCHILD:

You didn't Fail! YOU NEVER STARTED!!!!!!!

 

[LastChild]

I see LastChild has FAILED to justify his statement that the collapse would have drowned out the demolition blasts.

I've been to a few controlled demolitions he has not. My experience shows that the larger building would have collapsed longer not louder. The charges would have been heard.

LASTCHILD:

You didn't Fail! YOU NEVER STARTED!!!!!!!

LOL

Why don't you pick up your sippy cup full of your chocolate milk with the crazy straw in it and drop it from an inch high onto the kitchen table. How loud was it?

Now stand on the kitchen chair, hold it over your head and drop it on the table but don't let mommy see you. How loud was it?

Whoops did mommy hear it? I hope I didn't get you in trouble.

YOU FAIL

Keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks or insults to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[johnny karate]

YOU FAIL

I'm sorry, I couldn't be bothered to read any more of your post than this.

I assume you were talking about the Truth Movement's inability to provide a single shred of evidence for their claims, initiate any kind of further investigation or the slightest bit of concern outside of a very small minority, or even lay out a cohesive and consistent alternative theory.

If that is the case, then I say "Bravo", good sir. Very succinct and accurate post.

 

[LastChild]

I'm sorry, I couldn't be bothered to read any more of your post than this.

No you read it all. You're one of my biggest fans. Obsessed some would say.

I assume you were talking about the Truth Movement's inability to provide a single shred of evidence for their claims, initiate any kind of further investigation or the slightest bit of concern outside of a very small minority, or even lay out a cohesive and consistent alternative theory.

Minority? Are you sure the majority agrees with you?

Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment

67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

If that is the case, then I say "Bravo", good sir. Very succinct and accurate post.

But it's not the case and I just proved it. More people then ever have at least some doubts about the official version. In that way you debunkers are a complete failure. A waste of life exiled to a sub forum on JREF with your only support being a handful of each other. Problems with the 9/11 investigation are still in the news today and quote the very people who headed the investigation raising concerns about what they weren't told.

So is it time for you debunkers to start working overtime or just call it a day?

YOU ARE FAILING

 

[Myriad]

Why are you adding videos to revise Gravy's crap movie? Wasn't his good enough? Why did he use it then? Videos by the way that don't prove anything. I can hardly hear anything except the people talking. Not even the helicopter overhead is very loud. Then when the tower starts to collapse all I hear is that guy screaming "oh my god". What is this suppose to prove? Besides if you could only read I have already addressed this. An explosion wouldn't necessarily have been heard any louder then the top floors initially crashing down which you can also hardly hear in your video.

If the sound of detonations of CD charges can be hard to hear over people talking, helicopters, and other background sounds in recordings, then you should have no trouble finding examples of audiovisual recordings of known controlled demolitions in which background sounds are recorded throughout, and the sound of the collapse is recorded, but the sounds of the explosive charges going off cannot be heard.

That would prove Gravy's video wrong.

Each time you attempt some other line of argument, it helps prove Gravy's video correct.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[LastChild]

If the sound of detonations of CD charges can be hard to hear over people talking, helicopters, and other background sounds in recordings, then you should have no trouble finding examples of audiovisual recordings of known controlled demolitions in which background sounds are recorded throughout, and the sound of the collapse is recorded, but the sounds of the explosive charges going off cannot be heard.

That would prove Gravy's video wrong.

Each time you attempt some other line of argument, it helps prove Gravy's video correct.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I did provide video of the demolition in Dallas where multiple charges would not have been heard over the collapse of the wtc. You can play them at the same time of some collapse videos of the wtc and not be able to distinguish shape charges from the sound of falling debris. Go right ahead.

And why are you having so much trouble finding other recordings of my explosive sound that are just as loud and distinguishable as the one I provided? Were all the cameras and audio devises off at that moment?

YOU FAIL BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS

 

[WildCat]

I did provide video of the demolition in Dallas where multiple charges would not have been heard over the collapse of the wtc. You can play them at the same time of some collapse videos of the wtc and not be able to distinguish shape charges from the sound of falling debris. Go right ahead.

So now your claim is that since you could take the audio of a video from a different CD that was recorded from within a sealed building some distance away and play it at the same time as the much louder WTC collapse video this supports you somehow?

And why are you having so much trouble finding other recordings of my explosive sound that are just as loud and distinguishable as the one I provided?

You haven't ever established that you recording is genuine, and thewre is very strong evidence it isn't.

Sorry LC, your video proves... that truthers fake explosions in videos.

 

[LastChild]

So now your claim is that since you could take the audio of a video from a different CD that was recorded from within a sealed building some distance away and play it at the same time as the much louder WTC collapse video this supports you somehow?

I thought a sealed building wouldn't matter? You need to take this up with Jonnyclueless. You two seem to disagree. Try to get your debunking story straight will ya?

You haven't ever established that you recording is genuine, and thewre is very strong evidence it isn't.

Sorry LC, your video proves... that truthers fake explosions in videos.

You sound like a no-planner. Have any other conspiracy theories?

YOU FAIL OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND AGAIN

 

[CHF]

Minority? Are you sure the majority agrees with you?

Zogby Poll: 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment

67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

Would this be the same poll - commissioned by twoofers - that found 4.6% MIHOP?

 

[WildCat]

I thought a sealed building wouldn't matter?

It doesn't matter. You have been completely, hopelessly, utterly unsuccessful in your attempt to find a single CD in which the demo charges were obscured by anything.

Now you're desperately trying to move the goalposts by providing a "what if" scenario that does nothing at all to prove your claim that somehow all microphones recording on 9/11 failed to pick up demo charges because they were masked by the building collapsing... after the demo charges went off!

It's obvious to all here you're either
> a troll
-or-
> very, very stupid.

Or maybe a lot of both.

 

[Myriad]

I did provide video of the demolition in Dallas where multiple charges would not have been heard over the collapse of the wtc. You can play them at the same time of some collapse videos of the wtc and not be able to distinguish shape charges from the sound of falling debris. Go right ahead.

And why are you having so much trouble finding other recordings of my explosive sound that are just as loud and distinguishable as the one I provided? Were all the cameras and audio devises off at that moment?

YOU FAIL BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS

My standards are quite clear and simple. Point out an audiovisual recording of a known controlled demolition in which background sounds are recorded throughout, and the sound of the collapse is audible, but the sounds of the explosive charges going off cannot be heard.

That would prove Gravy's video wrong.

Each time you attempt some other line of argument, it helps prove Gravy's video correct.

Also, I have not failed in any way. I'm not the one attempting to argue that demolition charges might have contributed to the collapse of the WTC towers while audiovisual recordings of the events failed to record their detonation. My goal is not to convince you of anything, which would be about as likely as teaching my dogs to fly. My goal is to clearly and succinctly explain to anyone interested in this discussion what evidence you must show to support that argument for it to be accepted by rational thinkers, and I have done so.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[LastChild]

My standards are quite clear and simple. Point out an audiovisual recording of a known controlled demolition in which background sounds are recorded throughout, and the sound of the collapse is audible, but the sounds of the explosive charges going off cannot be heard.

Got one 110 stories? I've already addressed this.

That would prove Gravy's video wrong.

Most of you here have already declared Gravy's video wrong by claiming charges go off before the collapse not during. Make up your mind. You all really need to get together and come up with some coherent debunking.

Each time you attempt some other line of argument, it helps prove Gravy's video correct.

Each and every time you have posted in response to my challenge you have failed miserably. It's getting to be a real habit with you. But you're not alone so don't feel bad. After all that's what debunking here at JREF is all about. Supporting each others delusions and keeping up the denial.

Also, I have not failed in any way.

Oh yeah you have and miserably. Sorry.

I'm not the one attempting to argue that demolition charges might have contributed to the collapse of the WTC towers while audiovisual recordings of the events failed to record their detonation. My goal is not to convince you of anything, which would be about as likely as teaching my dogs to fly. My goal is to clearly and succinctly explain to anyone interested in this discussion what evidence you must show to support that argument for it to be accepted by rational thinkers, and I have done so.

I don't need to persuade or convince when it’s evident Gravy's movie so obviously proves nothing. He preaches to the choir nothing else. And what rational thinkers could there possibly be I would even need to show how something is so obviously ridiculous in the first place? In other words why so much debating if you’re so confident?

MYRIAD YOU FAIL AGAIN

 

[WildCat]

Got one 110 stories?

Irrelevant. The helicopter was quite audible on the WTC tapes and that was higher than the WTC, so any demo charges would certainly been heard if they existed.

To prove your point, you will have to find a single cd where the demo charges are not audible, but other ambient sounds are.

So far you have been completely unable to do that.

FAIL etc etc.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

It's obvious to all here you're either
> a troll
-or-
> very, very stupid.

Or maybe a lot of both.

Agreed. LC has spent this entire thread being just about as obnoxious as he can get away with.

Let's stick to the subject please LC.