Brand New CT sub-group: No-Sounders

[LastChild]

Oh OK, so the towers were blasted into dust with debris being catapulted in all directions....but the noise of the bombs required to do this weren't loud enough to be recorded.

You're insane.

Really? How many explosions do you claim were needed to blast the towers into dust with debris being catapulted in all directions?

You're an idiot.

 

[332nd]

I provided an explosive sound from down in the street never mind over 70 stories up in the air and have yet been provided with any other recording that picked it up. Will you please get that for me now?

How far "down the street"?

 

[pomeroo]

You have already proven you haven't even read what I have already posted and now you claim I'm not listening and not answering?

You listen.

I contend Gravy's video of the wtc already in collapse compared to CD videos proves nothing. Are you agreeing with me?

No, you have been proven wrong.

I don't contend any explosive devices would be needed before collapse initiation

Stop. Please stop right here. Stop and repeat what you have just written.

No, you didn't repeat it often enough. Try again.

"I don't contend any explosive devices would be needed before collapse initiation..."

Got it? No, I don't think you do. Look again:

"I DON'T CONTEND ANY EXPLOSIVE DEVICES WOULD BE NEEDED BEFORE COLLAPSE INITIATION..."

When, in your opinion, would explosive devices be needed to cause a building to collapse: a) before it collapses; b) while it is collapsing?

Please demonstrate that the implications of this question are clear to you before continuing.

or that if there were any 70 floors up they would have been heard. I don't even know if there were any explosives at all. Just that Gravy's video proves nothing either way.

I provided an explosive sound from down in the street never mind over 70 stories up in the air and have yet been provided with any other recording that picked it up. Will please get that for me now?

YOU KNOW? PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION FOR ONCE?

No, for once, you should answer a question.

 

[LastChild]

How far "down the street"?

Down in the street. I don't know how close but it was as loud as the demolituin charge video it was compared to.

 

[pomeroo]

One more fail. Anyone else?

Can anyone guess what the rationalists are supposedly failing at? LC presents a short video containing the sound of--I don't know--something falling, something blowing up. He has no idea of what produced the sound or when the video was made. I suspect that, in his mind, he has made some sort of point, but what could it be?

 

[DGM]

Down in the street. I don't know how close but it was as loud as the demolituin charge video it was compared to.

Why are you ignoring the fact that you posted the two videos you wanted. The two you posted are the same noise from different locations. Deal with it.

 

[332nd]

Down in the street. I don't know how close but it was as loud as the demolituin charge video it was compared to.

How do you know it was down in the street?

ETA: What did you use to measure both videos to know it was just as loud as the CD charge?

 

[LastChild]

No, you have been proven wrong.

No you have failed to meet your own standard. Are you not smart enough to see that?

Stop. Please stop right here. Stop and repeat what you have just written.

What is the Steven Jones theory? Thermate possibly combined with explosive devices.

No, you didn't repeat it often enough. Try again.

"I don't contend any explosive devices would be needed before collapse initiation..."

Got it? No, I don't think you do. Look again:

"I DON'T CONTEND ANY EXPLOSIVE DEVICES WOULD BE NEEDED BEFORE COLLAPSE INITIATION..."

Do you need new glasses or are you senile?

When, in your opinion, would explosive devices be needed to cause a building to collapse: a) before it collapses; b) while it is collapsing?

To get the lower building out of the way. You know? The resistence?

Please demonstrate that the implications of this question are clear to you before continuing.

Done. Now go get what I asked. You are presently in the smelly fail pile. Good job.

No, for once, you should answer a question.

I have answered. You FAIL to meet your own standard of truth.

 

[gumboot]

Just what, exactly, are you claiming, LC. Please lay it out for us. Just a concise paragraph or two, so no one gets confused as to what you are debating. Thank you.

Can I second this?

And can I just add that re: the Op, LastChild you know nothing about audio or microphones, judging by your comments. And I've seen a LOT of 9/11 videos where Conspiracy Theorists had quite obviously faked the audio so to be frank I'm not going to trust anything that appears on YouTube (if there's a lot that are badly faked it stands to reason that there's going to be a few that were faked well).

-Gumboot

 

[LastChild]

How do you know it was down in the street?

ETA: What did you use to measure both videos to know it was just as loud as the CD charge?

What did Gravy use?

 

[332nd]

What did Gravy use?

I don't recall him making the statement that the CD charges were just as loud as some unknown noise.

Now then, how do you know the noise was down in the street?

 

[beachnut]

Sorry, based on experience, and knowledge, the sounds of explosives would be recorded on 9/11 and heard by real people. Real people did not hear sounds of explosives used to bring down the WTC. There is enough evidence to prove you could hear blasts if they were present on 9/11. I can clearly hear the blast of the impact, you can not even correct your errors, or hear anything you do not want to.
oops engine and impact sounds

oops engine and impact sounds

You know there are real people who walked around the WTC complex on 9/11 and not one has come to support the few idiots making up lies about 9/11 explosives. Why?

 

[CHF]

Really? How many explosions do you claim were needed to blast the towers into dust with debris being catapulted in all directions?

NONE.

I think a collapsing mass of 50,000 and 120,000 tons could result in what we observed, and also account for the lack of demolition charges going off.

You're, meanwhile, are left with a 110 story building being blown up with bombs that were too quiet to be recorded. In other words, you've got nothing but the voices in your head.

 

[A W Smith]

Down in the street. I don't know how close but it was as loud as the demolituin charge video it was compared to.

Well then why didn't the ambulances and sirens and hustle and bustle of surrounding Manhattan drown out that explosion? You made such a claim earlier. Theres something missing in that video. Perhaps a collapsing building would have made your point.

 

[LastChild]

I don't recall him making the statement that the CD charges were just as loud as some unknown noise.

Now then, how do you know the noise was down in the street?

I don't. I was going by the volume of it and the direction they swung the camera after they heard it.

 

[LastChild]

Why are you ignoring the fact that you posted the two videos you wanted. The two you posted are the same noise from different locations. Deal with it.

I'm sorry you are correct. I was going to wait on the second one because I wasn't sure it was the same one. But it looks like I posted that one first. I had to go back and look. My bad.

My point with the second one if it is the same explosion is that it is not loud at all from where it was recorded. In fact if it had occured at the time of the collapse it wouldn't have been heard at all.

If it's not the same explosion as the demolition comparison one then there should be other sources of this one as well. So now all you need to do is find another 10 or 20 recordings that picked it up. Good luck.

 

[pomeroo]

No you have failed to meet your own standard. Are you not smart enough to see that?

I, like everyone here laughing at your stupidity and ignorance, am vastly smarter than you.

What is the Steven Jones theory? Thermate possibly combined with explosive devices.

Irrelevant. Jones is a charlatan who has been thoroughly debunked.

"I don't contend any explosive devices would be needed before collapse initiation..."



Do you need new glasses or are you senile?



To get the lower building out of the way. You know? The resistence?

Congratulations. You have made your first correct statement since arriving here (we'll overlook the spelling error). Now, do you understand what you are committed to?

Done. Now go get what I asked. You are presently in the smelly fail pile. Good job.



I have answered. You FAIL to meet your own standard of truth.

Drivel. We have established that no explosives would be going off DURING the collapses.

 

[1337m4n]

I don't contend to know for certain if there were explosive devices in the towers at all.

No, I'm gonna have to say that's a lie. Otherwise, you wouldn't be so fervent and angry about this.

I mean, if you opinion on the WTC collapse really is "I don't know what caused it", why do you show so much more animosity to the debunker side than to the truther side? And why do you invest so much time and energy into debunking a video that you believe proves nothing?

Let me ask you this: when was the last time you offered any critique of the controlled demolitions theory?

 

[pomeroo]

Well then why didn't the ambulances and sirens and hustle and bustle of surrounding Manhattan drown out that explosion? You made such a claim earlier.

Theres something missing in that video. Perhaps a collapsing building would have made your point.

BINGO!

 

[WildCat]

I don't. I was going by the volume of it and the direction they swung the camera after they heard it.

They swung the camera at the fireman who was telling them to get out of the area. They were also reacting to the fireman, the explosion was dubbed in by troofers.

And it's funny how you claim the noise came from down the street, you have no idea who filmed that, where it was, what time it was.

Of course, the reason no truther reveals the full original video is because the explosion was faked.