Edx, that's a lot of words
Shame you obviously didn't read any of them.
yet proves nothing about sound and microphones other than cheap or broken microphones don't record very well.
You still don't get it.
1. The cheap or broken microphone in the video you posted
still picks up the sound of the detonation and it
is differentiated between the wind
2. We have no similar videos on 911 with audio
that poor or worse filming the WTC -
where (crucial point here)
the sound is so bad we aren't able to tell what sound is from the collapse and what sound is from something else.
3. All videos of all 3 collapses we have show
zero explosive detonations, even if one couldn't pick it up because it was broken, another would have. That is exactly what we seen with the demolition you posted earlier, where all the videos I saw, even other crappy ones, the explosions from the demolition were clearly picked up. You are claiming that of
all the videos and microphones on 911 filming the collapse were not working correctly. But its worse than that because no videos on 911 were broken the way they would have to be broken to make it hard or impossible to tell the explosive detonations from any other sound (
see 2)
4. We already know the most dramatic collapses on 911 (WTC1 and 2) is where truthers claim the most dramatic explosive effects, like explosives so intense they flung heavy steel hundreds of feet. I posted 2 professionally recorded videos practically right under the collapse that showed a progressive rumble turning into a roar. If there were gigantic explosives going off it would have been clearly audible on those recordings, there's really no way to argue to the contrary. If it couldn't pick up indiviudal detonations the explosions would have to be SO loud it
immediately distorted the microphones instantly and continuously, which is what Im asking for as well, except you don't have that either.
Where's the sound of the falling structure of the Penthouse and the buckling of the columns between 7 and 14 again?
The cameras were far enough away to not capture it. Again, we have videos of the collapse at various distances, one at least is only a few blocks away with a camera pointed right at it while they were giving an interview on the street.
There is a certain directional component to professional recording equipment the news uses but its not
THAT good and in fact would have been picked up anyway as WTC7 was right behind the reporter even if it was. Explosives you're talking about would be many many times louder than the sound of the collapse itself, just watch some verinage videos for the kind of sound a building collapse makes without explosives.
The video you posted wasn't even a very big demolition with probably only minimal explosives used, yet you claim a
far more dramatic intense one for WTC7 and
ABSURDLY intense explosives going off in WTC1+2, yet the demolition in the video you posted was still extremely loud and much louder than what you can show on 911 anyway. Long story short, it would have picked it up if it had happened.
And what about Bill's video posted this morning of the explosive noises - could these be charges going off in building 7 and if not, why not?
Again, plenty of things can explode, and hearing explosions are not remarkable in a building fire. Even when its not a building fire, plenty of things can sound like an explosion and youve already been shown plenty of examples. People even use words like explosion, blast and that it sounded like a bomb even when they already know they arent talking about an actual bomb when they said it.
I already challenged you to tell me how to tell the difference between someone hearing an explosive going off and someone hearing something else. I guess we have to add to that what evidence or reason you have that the sound in that video is from an explosive rather than something else. Because if there are multitude of things it could be and explosions in this context are completely expected, then what reason do we have to think it's specifically explosives? I already gave you the example of me claiming to have filmed an alien spaceship even thouigh it looks just like a plane and planes are common in the area, what reason would I have to claim it was something other than a plane?
Your video does not show the collapse of WTC7 either. We
know that if there were explosives going off when it collapsed, which is the claim made by people like Richard Gage, that they would have been picked up on video. The fact that videos in a position to record this did not pick this up in any of the collapses even though
that is the moment when all these amazingly dramatic things truthers claim are supposed to be happening is conclusive evidence they did not happen and could not have happened, unless you want to claim quiet explosives went off or was demolished entirely with thermite or something, which brings its own problems but at least it would be quiet.
You can find me all the loud sounds you want, but if you're someone thats going to claim things like steel was ejected by massive explosives in the collapse, or 8 stories was removed instantly to allow 2.25 seconds of free fall but all videos in a position to pick up these explosions do not, then I really have no reason to take that claim seriously and thats probably why no one apart from your fringe little group takes any of this seriously.
I should explain that I believe cutting charges went off throughout the day on 9/11 in WTC7 so as to weaken the structure ahead of final demolition - at least one debunker here didn't understand this point.
I do wonder how many cutter charges you imagine had to go off every once and a while over the 7 hours and why no one noticed all these huge blasts going off over and over again. You can see numerous news reports and firefighters that spoke of how concerned they were about the fires and damge of 7, but none said anything like "
...and every once and while a huge explosion would go off and we'd all jump". Nothing like that, why? There's no shortage of firefighters that talked about the state of 7 and how concerned everyone was a. Incidently there's a reason no truther will ever quote a firefighter on 911 about WTC7. NEVER. Why? Because they contradict just about every point truthers make about it.
But yes I do understand the point you're making and I have been asking you what demolition works this way and what explosives work this way for several pages. You don't
know, because you and all other truthers just make up these fantasies of how you think a demolition and explosives work, which is why you'll find truthers claiming you can muffle a high explosive like a silencer on a gun or a building in front of WTC7 would realistically muffle an explosive detonation, or that thermite can fling steel around quietly (yes Gage argued that). You also don't
care how explosives work because you
want to just make up whatever you like, the same way you guys do with nano thermite because you think "nano" means you can ascribe whatever properties you want to it and claim some variation of...
"you dont know what the government has man!!" when anyone says its impossible.
If you're going to claim these things you're going to have to at least provide some evidence explosives work that way or that demolitions have ever worked this way. Failing that, which is a big fail, do you even have a
theory as to how it could work? I'd also like to know, as I mentioned earlier, why no one noticed all these randomly huge detonations going off in WTC7 as it burned for 7 hours.
