Split Thread Analysis of sounds in 9/11 videos

[CompusMentus]

No smoke and fire there. Nope. Nope. Can't see any. None at all.

As I heard Dr Judy say to Prof Jim in an interview once "There was no evidence of fire" (in the WTC towers)

I really don't know how I could function in life with that kind of lack of a grasp of reality. Jam seems to be on the same track.


Compus

 

[BigAl]

What is it that motivates you to make one accusation after another?

Because you have been caught posting ignorant techno-babble.

 

[Mince]

Why do you guys bother with ULTIMA1, the 2nd? It's equivalent in productivity with trying to convince a two-day-old infant that JFK wasn't a space alien. Do you really believe someone who does not think* aircraft hit either WTC building on 9/11 possesses the necessary rationale to accept your argument?








*I mean, really, really believes no aircraft hit WTC 1 or 2. Personally, I think he's just being obstinate to [RULE 10] with you guys.

 

[Juniversal]

Let me say, right here at the outset: I am not willing to conclude the video shows evidence of a jetliner crash based on my first view of it.

Query: How many of you, right here at this stage, are already convinced the video is proof of a jetliner crash?

Question. If the video did have an image of the jetliner as it collided with the building (as the links I posted above) would that convince you that a Jetliner indeed hit the building?? And if not why are you even wasting your time debating if nothing will convince you otherwise?

 

[CompusMentus]

Question. If the video did have an image of the jetliner as it collided with the building (as the links I posted above) would that convince you that a Jetliner indeed hit the building??

Is the pope a protestant?

Falsifiability is an unknown concept to Jam and his ilk.


Compus

 

[DGM]

Question. If the video did have an image of the jetliner as it collided with the building (as the links I posted above) would that convince you that a Jetliner indeed hit the building?? And if not why are you even wasting your time debating if nothing will convince you otherwise?

I asked him earlier what it would take to falsify his belief. Although he typed a huge post he never actually answered my question. I wouldn't hold my breath for an honest answer.

 

[CompusMentus]

I asked him earlier what it would take to falsify his belief. Although he typed a huge post he never actually answered my question. I wouldn't hold my breath for an honest answer.

I do wonder sometimes whether it really is a question of honesty. Perhaps there is something else at play here. It seems to be a malady that courses through conspiracist thinking like a major artery. I've always been mystifyed by the ability of people like Jam and Dr Judy to carefully and scientifically dissect opposing theories (ie the use of thermite on 9/11) quite successfully but then be seemingly blind and very obtuse when it comes to their own pet theory. Don't ask me why but I've always been fascinated by this aspect of "truthism".


Compus

 

[Juniversal]

Is the pope a protestant?

Falsifiability is an unknown concept to Jam and his ilk.


Compus

I asked him earlier what it would take to falsify his belief. Although he typed a huge post he never actually answered my question. I wouldn't hold my breath for an honest answer.

Yea i'm sure my question will fall on deaf ears. Seems Jam wont be satisfied until there's a general consensus that no planes crashed into the towers. Keep dreamin jammonius.

 

[sylvan8798]

I do wonder sometimes whether it really is a question of honesty. Perhaps there is something else at play here. It seems to be a malady that courses through conspiracist thinking like a major artery. I've always been mystifyed by the ability of people like Jam and Dr Judy to carefully and scientifically dissect opposing theories (ie the use of thermite on 9/11) quite successfully but then be seemingly blind and very obtuse when it comes to their own pet theory. Don't ask me why but I've always been fascinated by this aspect of "truthism".


Compus

So have I. I have a pet theory that the truther simply cannot believe that anyone would believe in a cause so much that they would strap on a bomb, or commandeer an airplane, and intentionally kill themselves. They can't believe this in part because, despite believing the most outrageous things imaginable (eg. the FDNY was complicit in killing 343 of their co-workers/friends/family members), they themselves have no more compulsion than to type out their irritations on the internets.

 

[dafydd]

Posts like the above are useless. You lay claim to a list of qualifications about sound, sound recording, sound quality, etc., and then, in context of an opportunity to discuss the issue of the sound qualities of the videos in question, you give a one word reply that adds not one iota of substance to the discussion.

I'd almost be willing to bet that in some post or another, past or future, you are going to accuse me of "handwaving" now that you have clearly done exactly that in the above post.

Saying that what I have called attention to concerning the sound of the Dick Olvier video that can best be described as six seconds of noise, followed by a squeak, and interspersed with a thump, and then a diminution of the noise following the squeak, as being indicative of the quality of the sound recording device and the subsequent playback on youtube "nonsense" is, itself a nonsensical handwave that adds nothing to the discussion, except a bald-faced appeal based on a claim of authority.

I hereby invest you with The Grand Order Of The Jammy Dodger.

(For our American listeners http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammie_Dodgers)

 

[NutCracker]

I do wonder sometimes whether it really is a question of honesty. Perhaps there is something else at play here. It seems to be a malady that courses through conspiracist thinking like a major artery. I've always been mystifyed by the ability of people like Jam and Dr Judy to carefully and scientifically dissect opposing theories (ie the use of thermite on 9/11) quite successfully but then be seemingly blind and very obtuse when it comes to their own pet theory. Don't ask me why but I've always been fascinated by this aspect of "truthism".


Compus

They have an interest of some kind in believing in their theories. That interest drives what is considered a fact, a valid argument and what is considered to be false and what is considered to be nonsense.

 

[Bell]

Bell,

Thanks for your substantive post. I will reply a bit later as your post contains videos that have to be looked at and a witness statement, that of Chief Pfiefer, that has to be examined, as well. That takes time.

And? Have you got around it yet?

 

[I Ratant]

And? Have you got around it yet?

.
Read your signature.

 

[Bell]

.
Read your signature.

I know what my signature says.

 

[Juniversal]

I do wonder sometimes whether it really is a question of honesty. Perhaps there is something else at play here. It seems to be a malady that courses through conspiracist thinking like a major artery. I've always been mystifyed by the ability of people like Jam and Dr Judy to carefully and scientifically dissect opposing theories (ie the use of thermite on 9/11) quite successfully but then be seemingly blind and very obtuse when it comes to their own pet theory. Don't ask me why but I've always been fascinated by this aspect of "truthism".


Compus

Yea and as a "debunker" it's pretty difficult or next to impossible to actively debate someone with an inherently untenable position that's based on personal belief rather then facts, reality or logic. You say "no explosives were found". They say "the fireman and police were in on it". Constant moving of the goal post. It's pretty much the equivalent of a dog chasing its tail. It is amazing to see ones ability to suspend logic and common sense when it comes to these CT's. One video that doesn't show the plane (because it's pointed at the reporters feet) is enough proof that there wasn't a plane regardless of the ovewhelming evidence to the contrary.

There are SOME people who are honestly curious and will concede their point once they discover all the facts. There's others (your archtypal 9/11 truther) who will fight tooth and nail to support an untenable position.

 

[sylvan8798]

Yea and as a "debunker" it's pretty difficult or next to impossible to actively debate someone with an inherently untenable position that's based on personal belief rather then facts, reality or logic. You say "no explosives were found". They say "the fireman and police were in on it". Constant moving of the goal post. It's pretty much the equivalent of a dog chasing its tail. It is amazing to see ones ability to suspend logic and common sense when it comes to these CT's.

I once had a truther on another forum say that the FBI took control of ground zero on 9/11 and could have gone out that day and removed all the evidence of the controlled demolition. I think that was when I realized just how far over the falls and down the river some of these people had gone.

 

[Bell]

*bump* for Jammonius.

Within two minutes of reporting on CNN, a large two engine jet was reported.



And that is just one report! Let alone the Naudet video that shows AA11 crash into WTC1.



Chief Pfeifer was the first to report the crash. He suspected a terror act, since the plane looked to be aiming directly at the Trade Center. Chief Pfeifer lost his brother in the collapse of WTC1.

Is chief Pfeifer part of the conspiracy? Claiming he saw a plane, were there was non? If he was part of the conspiracy, why didn't he stop his brother from going up WTC1?

Bell,

Thanks for your substantive post. I will reply a bit later as your post contains videos that have to be looked at and a witness statement, that of Chief Pfiefer, that has to be examined, as well. That takes time.

And? Have you got around it yet?

Well, Jammonius?

 

[twinstead]

Who in their right mind can look at the videos posted on this page and still claim that there was no plane?

 

[sylvan8798]

Who in their right mind can look at the videos posted on this page and still claim that there was no plane?

Well that's your answer, right there. But then, we know jammonius doesn't actually believe this carp. He just likes to argue.

 

[jammonius]

*bump* for Jammonius.










Well, Jammonius?

You posted the Naudet video that shows a blurry blob. I think we're all agreed on that. No one takes that video seriously as it simply does not prove anything.

You also posted up the narrative of Sean Murtagh, who is said to be a CNN VP of finance. He is not mentioned in either the NIST repoort or, to my knowledge, in the 9/11 Commission Report either. His statement is in the form of an Easter egg. From the point of view of evidence, his statement is totally inadmissible as evidence.

I have also commented upon him in the Dick Oliver thread.

As you know, we have had a lot of discussion concerning the Dick Oliver video (now plural -- videos) that are considered to be far more informative and directly contradictory of the claim a jetliner hit the WTC. Please feel free to join that discussion.

Finally, as to Chief Pfiefer, I recommend you read his entire statement as he has some interesting things to say about the annihilation of the buildings that is supportive of DEW.

If you take him at his word as to plane spotting, then fine. I take him at his word as to the process of annihilation of the complex.