I'm astonished that this thread has ballooned to nine pages of troll-feeding, particularly with such a puerile troll.
The essence of Gravy's video is a simple piece of logic, denying the consequent, like so:
If A, then B
Not B.
Therefore, not A.
Unlike the favorite CTer fallacies of affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent, this is a valid form of reasoning. In fact, it's the basis of pretty much all diagnostic thinking. I use it all the time in troubleshooting audio systems, and the last time I saw a doctor for an ailment rather than a checkup, he explained how he had eliminated two of the possible causes of the problem by testing to see if other predictable effects of these causes were there and finding that they weren't.
Trivial example:
If the mains fuse is blown, the pilot light won't illuminate.
The pilot light is lit.
Therefore the mains fuse is not blown.
Gravy demonstrates that in an explosive demolition the sounds of the cutting charges detonating can be heard and recorded (and make people flinch) at a considerable distance and that they are louder than the sound of the now-unsupported building collapsing. So then we have:
If the destruction of the WTC towers was done with explosives as is done in the demolition industry, the sound of the charges detonating would be audible outside the buildings and recorded on the audio tracks of any nearby video cameras aimed at the buildings. (if A then B)
No authentic recording of the collapses reveals anything of the sort. (not B)
Therefore explosive charges were not used to make the towers collapse. (therefore not A)
This applies to other predictable effects of steel-cutting charges detonating within the burning buildings, such as obvious disturbances of the smoke by pressure waves propagating outward from the charges and the effects of these overpressures on nearby buildings and people.
If someone produces an
authentic record of the collapses which
does reveal these effects, the conclusion that explosives were not used would have to be reevaluated, but in the present state of the complete absence of that evidence one is justified in holding that the evidence refutes the use of explosives.
No amount of nitpicking about microphones or recorder circuitry can alter that, nor any quantity of handwaving and kook-dancing.
Unless LastChild can produce evidence that the predictable effects of explosive demolition were in fact present and have been overlooked, there is no point at all in continuing to indulge him/her.
Although I'll admit that it has been amusing to watch another CTer provide conclusive proof that he/she doesn't even come close to knowing what he/she is talking about.
