Brand New CT sub-group: No-Sounders

[beachnut]

So is this thing done??

Like sitting across from someone with a giant zit on their face, I couldn't stop staring at this thread.

Anyways..

It's the movie Loose Change that promotes the CD theory right? With the little puffs of debris coming out the side of the towers as they collapsed. I suspect Gravy's video was made specifically to counter the CD claims made in Loose Change. Am I right?

So continuing with my suspicions....

Loose Change = LC
Last Child = LC

Hummmm...LastChild, are you Dylan Avery ?

Dylan does claim to be a film maker, and he would claim great sound tech abilities. Dylan is too dumb to be LC. LC is at least at a level; I have to get back to you, and look this up.

So LC, Dylan, can not find any sounds of explosives, but has lots of people who heard loud noises. That checks with all the witnesses, non who I have talked to heard explosives, but did hear the sounds of the buildings falling.

LC has lost this one! next thread man

 

[Stout]

Boy you duh bunkas really have a lot of conspiracy theories don't you?

Nope, just the one but I'm excited about it and feel a need to assert the truth in face of any possible "evidence" that may emerge to discredit it.

Just think, I, Stout, actually shared a thread with truther royalty.

 

[beachnut]

Give the kid one last chance.

LC, state your position as clearly as you can, preferably in one or two sentences. You might begin, "Gravy's videos are worthless because..."

You mean really say something? With all the facts he spews how do you expect him to have time for such a trivial pursuit, stating his position!? poppycock

 

[fitzgibbon]

http://www.acebaker.com/

For the Canucks on JREF, doesn't the song sound like The Arrogant Worms' "We Are The Beaver"?

Just asking.

 

[fitzgibbon]

And as a follow-up, what do you guys think the percentages are that he licensed any of that video footage?

 

[LastChild]

You mean the fake explosion video of those guys on the phone?

I provided three. Are they all fake? One was news footage about explosions still happening hours later that someone here claimed was the same explosion. Oh well maybe you should get a no-planer to help you with that conspiracy theory of yours.

 

[LastChild]

You mean really say something? With all the facts he spews how do you expect him to have time for such a trivial pursuit, stating his position!? poppycock

Gravy's videos are worthless because they are poppycock.

 

[pomeroo]

And let's not forget the coincidence of all the other recording devices that failed to pick up the explosive sound I linked to.

Still you working on that or what?

The explosive sound you linked to was faked. Have you forgotten so soon?

 

[LastChild]

The explosive sound you linked to was faked. Have you forgotten so soon?

All three? Sounds like a conspiracy. And a pretty vast one that would have had to include the news being in on it too.

What do you think about no planes?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Does LC know that the recording of the explosion he posted was long before the collapse? Or is he going to make an idiotic claim that that explosion (which was steel buckling) was the cause of the collapse? Or perhaps he is going to argue that a single explosion some 40 minutes before the collapse caused as collapse some 40 minutes later?

My God, the stupidity in this thread is astounding!

Even though it's been pointed out, that cameras filming the collapse picked up the sound of the collapse. Any explosives would have been from the same exact source point, and picked up nothing. So then it gets back to magical microphones.

 

[JimBenArm]

What do you think about no planes?

I think they're very quiet.

 

[LastChild]

Does LC know that the recording of the explosion he posted was long before the collapse?

I thought it was faked three times? Make up your mind. What's the difference when it was or even what it was as long as it was loud enough? Was there really only one camera on 9/11?

Or is he going to make an idiotic claim that that explosion (which was steel buckling) was the cause of the collapse? Or perhaps he is going to argue that a single explosion some 40 minutes before the collapse caused as collapse some 40 minutes later?

When did I say it was the cause of the collapse? We're talking about the debunker claims that if there was an explosive sound it would have been picked up by many audio devices documenting 9/11. Would the audio device only have picked up a sound that was a demolition charge even if the sound was as loud as a demolition charge? Now that's a magic microphone. Unless of course you are claming the audio device had a limiter on it like some have implied here at which case I don't know what it is you are arguing from a debunker standpoint. You'll have to ask Gumboot to elaborate on that one.

My God, the stupidity in this thread is astounding!

Maybe you should stop posting then.

Even though it's been pointed out, that cameras filming the collapse picked up the sound of the collapse. Any explosives would have been from the same exact source point, and picked up nothing. So then it gets back to magical microphones.

Really? I thought you believed in magical microphones? How else did they all miss the same sound that at least one mic picked up loud and clear? Was the microphone stuck in the demolition charge only position? What was that you were saying about stupidity?

 

[fitzgibbon]

I thought it was faked three times? Make up your mind. What's the difference when it was or even what it was as long as it was loud enough? Was there really only one camera on 9/11?



When did I say it was the cause of the collapse? We're talking about the debunker claims that if there was an explosive sound it would have been picked up by many audio devices documenting 9/11. Would the audio device only have picked up a sound that was a demolition charge even if the sound was as loud as a demolition charge? Now that's a magic microphone. Unless of course you are claming the audio device had a limiter on it like some have implied here at which case I don't know what it is you are arguing from a debunker standpoint. You'll have to ask Gumboot to elaborate on that one.



Maybe you should stop posting then.



Really? I thought you believed in magical microphones? How else did they all miss the same sound that at least one mic picked up loud and clear? Was the microphone stuck in the demolition charge only position? What was that you were saying about stupidity?

I'm callin' stundie on this one. I mean the whole posting history of LastChild in this thread could qualify as a singularly impressive body of stundie material but this most recent post pretty much sums up the shortcomings and sheer obtuseness of the rest.

Congratulations, LastChild; a singular stundie achievement

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I think LC has provided a years worth of stundies in these 2 threads.The way he is completely oblivious to things is truly amazing. The way he doesn't realize that the cameras picking up the collapse didn't pick up the explosions so he then tries to use fooatage from a different time period an location that picks up a sound that he has no way of measuring comparatively in volume. Funny, his footage doersn't show the sound of the collapse to compare to. Probably because the people in that area would have been killed.

And then when these holes in his absurd claims are pointed out he backs away saying he never made any claims of anything. At least REAL troofers have the guts to stick up for their beliefs instead of weaseling about.

Say, I have footage of an explosion going off a year before 9/11, that must prove the cameras wouldn't have picked it up since that explosion a year before 9/11 wasn't on the footage of the WTC collapse.

 

[chillzero]

Right. This thread is heading for moderated status, unless it can be turned back into some kind of actual discussion. You know ... using words to refute posts and clarify what you agree or disagree with - rather than continual 'nyah nyah nyah you fail' sniping.

Please discuss the topic, and do not personalise the discussion or use insults to make your points.

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

 

[WildCat]

You mean the fake explosion video of those guys on the phone?

Yep, as desperate and pathetic as it is it's all LC has.

Faked explosions in a real video.

 

[DGM]

LastChild:
Is the proof for your statement that the sound of the collapse would drown out the explosions ever going to come? Should we assume that you pulled this out of thin air and can not back it up?

 

[CHF]

LastChild:
Is the proof for your statement that the sound of the collapse would drown out the explosions ever going to come? Should we assume that you pulled this out of thin air and can not back it up?

Doug Plumb of AE911 told me that once: the sound of the collapses drowned out the sound of the bombs.

Needless to say, he couldn't prove it either.

 

[LastChild]

One more time folks.

It is the debunkers claim if there were explosions on 9/11 many microphones would have picked them up. I provided a link to an explosive sound recorded on 9/11. I also provided a link to the sound compared to demolition charges. It is not my assertion that the sound I linked to was a demolition charge but just that it was as loud as one. So where are all the other recordings of it?

I then provided another recording of possibly the same explosion from a different vantage point or possibly an entirely different explosion. If it was the same explosion as the first I ask then why wasn't it recorded as loud or loud enough that it would have been heard over the Trinity Church video Gravy compares to in his movie?

If it is a different explosion then the first one, then where are all the other recordings of this one? That's two explosions one recording a piece.

A third recording of possibly the same explosion was provided here by a debunker from news footage claiming it was the same explosion as the first one. Again if it is the same explosion then why is the recording of it so low as that it would never have been heard over the sound of the trinity church video of the wtc in Gravy's movie? If it too is fake then why is the newscaster talking about it?

If it is an entirely different explosion then where are all the other recordings of this third explosion? That's three explosions only picked up by one microphone a piece. Failing the debunker standard that if an explosive sound went off at ground zero it would have been picked up by many microphones.

The reason people are confused here is because I am debating two different debunker points of view if not more. Some debunkers claim the explosions are fake. This would put those debunkers on par with no-planers since I provided 3 explosions one of them news footage.

Other debunkers claim the explosions are all the same one. At which case it debunks the claim that every microphone would have picked up the same explosion very loud and very clear.

Some debunkers seem to think I'm claiming this explosion is a demolition charge. I'm not. I don't assert to know whether it is or not. Just that it's just as loud as a demolition charge.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

a single explosion does not a demolition make, whether thats your assertion or not


had the WTC been a controlled demolition there would have been dozens, probably hundreds of explosions from the towers, while dozens, probably hundreds of video cameras were pointed directly at them, you are saying that NONE of these cameras would have recorded the explosions, despite being rather close to the towers and pointed right at them

your 3 explosions argument doesnt cut it, as this was later in the day when far fewer cameras were rolling and the ones that were werent all focused on a single point