This is just classic. First you tell me even the crappiest microphone will pick up the sounds of explosions, then you tell me, using the example I showed, why the microphone couldn't pick up the explosive sounds properly
No, I did not say that....
I said that the video you posted
CLEARLY picked up the demolition but because it clips so easily it cannot recover quickly enough between detonations which means its harder to
differentiate between
individual detonations.
suggesting that better mics or ones with greater calibration do pick up the sound.
On the contrary I said it distorted from the detonations when they started
immediately and that this is clearly different from the wind and that better microphones would (and they do) pick up the detonations individually and you will be able to hear them better (whch you can).
You originally claimed there was a "lack of explosive sounds" in this demolition, except there was and other videos clearly caught it better. We have plenty of videos around all around the WTC buildings when they collapsed, do you have any videos that show anything like that? What videos suddenly distort when the building collapses? None, obviously.
The mic in question was only subject to some wind or does that cause crazy interference?
The wind was causing distortion because the mic was cheap or broken but you can clearly see the difference in sound when the building collapses. I am unsure whether you were attempting to claim that this video you posted shows that you can have a demolition without audible explosive detonations or whether videos can't pick up the explosions. Either way you're wrong and you're just being typically belligerent.
The buildings in my video clip were in open air, unlike WTC7 which had its lower floors surrounded by other buildings, yet the microphone still couldn't quite cope.
Once more again truthers astound me. What you truthers claim about WTC7 would be heard for miles around, just like every other explosive demoltion. Buildings (or any other dense matter) directly in front you would to some degree muffle a small amount of high frequency sound (but not enough, to be clear), but low frequencies would travel much further. We have cameras only a couple of blocks away from WTC7 as it collapses and you don't hear anything, yet every other explosive demolition will be clearly audible. Its not like the building collapsed encased in a massive thick sound proofed chamber.
And don't forget WTC1 and 2. I posted two videos close up and none show these gigantically ridiculously intense explosives flinging steel and pulverizing concrete that Gage and and his gaggle of incompetents believe were in the building. There is certainly no getting away from that because you guys have decided it was going to be this huge dramatic event but then have to rationalise why no videos even ones close up picked up any, not even ones as powerfull as a normal demolition would use!
What is it to be - are mics all the same or do they have limits?
Not all mics are the same, but none work the way you think they do and certainly not the ones clearly used on 911. Again, look at more videos of explosive demolitions, no cameras, even crappy ones, have any trouble picking up the sound but you guys claim much more intense explosives were used to fling heavy steel hundreds of feet.
And no, your video clips do not show many of the initiations.
I asked you for examples so I know what you're talking about.
Most start as global collapse is a second or two into its stage. The first stage of collapse starts several seconds before that. The only one which shows the whole collapse from close up at street level is the one with the cops and the microphone is already picking up the noise of those people on the street which is akin to my example and you accept in that case that the microphone was unable to pick up the explosive sounds due to the wind.
Totally wrong because the reason why the video you posted couldn't pick up
individual detonations very well is because it was clipping with the slightest sound ie.wind.
For what you're saying to be true here it would require the sound to be so distorted all the way through that you cannot tell when the detonations start which isn't even the case with the video you posted. If its not clipping we should be able to hear and theres no reason why we shouldn't.
Why doesn't the microphone near those cops pick up the sound of the building falling (which it doesn't except for the faintest of rumbles) or, assuming it was a natural collapse, the sounds of the breaking structure and penthouse destruction which must have been deafening?
It would have been quite loud and some do pick that up, but nowhere near as loud as a demolition. At least ten times as loud I would say judging from verinage compared to similar sized explosive demolitions. I gave you a South tower collapse video that clearly did pick up the sound of the collapse form beginning to end, why didn't we hear any detonations whatsoever in either video?
You've hardly made me look silly as you asserted you would have you?
Considering you posted a video of a demolition you claimed didnt have any explosions going off, even though it did, but you also neglected to watch any other videos of the same demolition that do show clear explosions much better than the one you posted, yes I do think its very silly. I also think its silly how you think microphones and sound work.
Still waiting for you to explain this to me:
So if one day I video something flying in the air am I just as right to think it could be an alien space ship even though it looks exactly like a plane and seeing planes are common? I'd have to explain how I could distinguish between an alien space ship and the plane if they both look identical. In the absence of any evidence, what logical reason do we have to conclude it is an alien space ship rather than a plane? YOu claimed that all the evidence points to people hearing and experiencing bombs/explosives on 911, so where's this evidence then and what reason do you give anyone to think it was a bomb rather than the hundred other things it could be? Imagine you're in a court in front of a jury arguing your case, they want to know why they should accept your theory thats its bombs, what do you tell them?
