It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jones Talks About His "Debunkers" and other Interesting Facts: Possible Use of Thermitic Material

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



So you're saying you have no explanation as to why there are no explosions from the "controlled demolition" on the audio prior to the collapse. Mmm hmm, gotcha.

Nor are there any reactions from said explosions before the building starts to fall down around them while they run for cover. No explanation at all?

Well, I guess that totally blows your theory out of the water, and forces you guys back to magic hush-a-booms.

Unless you want to go the space beam route.




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
So you're saying you have no explanation as to why there are no explosions from the "controlled demolition" on the audio prior to the collapse. Mmm hmm, gotcha.


That's not what I said, but that's what you wanted to hear I guess.


Nor are there any reactions from said explosions before the building starts to fall down around them while they run for cover. No explanation at all?


And yet you ignore the firefighters themselves saying they heard "boom boom boom boom boom" and that it sounded like "detonators"? What in the hell are you talking about "no reaction from said explosions," when this is exactly what they say after the fact? You wouldn't know a reaction if you saw one; you would just say they were reacting to something else.



Well, I guess that totally blows your theory out of the water, and forces you guys back to magic hush-a-booms.


Isn't "hush-a-boom" supposed to mean no one heard any explosions? Are you just going to keep ignoring the fact that people did hear explosions, even the firefighters on the very same film you're referencing?

Looks like you're back to out-and-out trolling.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And yet you ignore the firefighters themselves saying they heard "boom boom boom boom boom" and that it sounded like "detonators"?


Clearly the video and audio evidence at the time does not corroborate the "boom boom boom boom", where is it?



What in the hell are you talking about "no reaction from said explosions," when this is exactly what they say after the fact?


I'm talking about the people in the video at the time of collapse, do try and keep up. Where is there reaction to all the "boom boom boom booms" that should have been heard prior to collapse? There is none. Why? Because there were no explosions prior to collapse.



Isn't "hush-a-boom" supposed to mean no one heard any explosions? Are you just going to keep ignoring the fact that people did hear explosions, even the firefighters on the very same film you're referencing?


Can you point out the explosions in the Naudet footage from the base of the towers?


Looks like you're back to out-and-out trolling.


Look like you're at a loss.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
And yet you ignore the firefighters themselves saying they heard "boom boom boom boom boom" and that it sounded like "detonators"?

Clearly the video and audio evidence at the time does not corroborate the "boom boom boom boom", where is it?


Do you know what the effective frequency range on the audio is? Do you know what a deep, low-frequency "boom" would sound like amidst all the other noise?

If there was no "boom boom boom boom boom" then why do the firefighters on the same film say there was?

I've seen videos of the collapse on TV from network archived footage, complete with subwoofers, and you definitely can hear the deep "boom" 's going off. You can almost feel them going off if you have subwoofers and a good quality video. If you can't hear them, that's your problem. I've heard them, the firefighters who are in the same film you're "discussing" to the exclusion of all else heard them, and many many other witnesses heard, saw, and were even injured by explosions at the WTC.


I'm talking about the people in the video at the time of collapse, do try and keep up. Where is there reaction to all the "boom boom boom booms" that should have been heard prior to collapse? There is none. Why? Because there were no explosions prior to collapse.


I don't know what you would expect to see, because many people did say they heard a "boom" or explosions before the collapses initiated.



Isn't "hush-a-boom" supposed to mean no one heard any explosions? Are you just going to keep ignoring the fact that people did hear explosions, even the firefighters on the very same film you're referencing?


Can you point out the explosions in the Naudet footage from the base of the towers?


See above.

Get a real copy of the footage instead of static. And learn to also consider witness testimony, because they didn't have the disadvantage of having to listen to a digital copy.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Here's some audio from outside during the start of WTC2's collapse:



You can clearly hear a low-frequency "boom" that's followed by shallower noise. It sounds like a clap of thunder followed by a noisy roar, two distinctly different sounds. If you have good bass or subwoofers you can hear it even more clearly. When they play this stuff on TV on History Channel programs, you can also hear it very clearly there.


Here's the FDNY testimony from the Naudet footage you keep ignoring, from the people who were there and heard it in person:




A similar deep sequence of "booms" coming from WTC7 prior to its collapse:




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Do you know what the effective frequency range on the audio is? Do you know what a deep, low-frequency "boom" would sound like amidst all the other noise?


LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Yes actually, the Sony Mini-DV camera they used has a recording audio frequency range of 20Hz to 20kHz, which is about what the average adult human can hear.

I guess it's those super-secret low frequency hush-a-booms, that only firemen seem to hear yet the horrible Naudet footage simply couldn't pick up! Bwahahahahahaha!


I've seen videos of the collapse on TV from network archived footage, complete with subwoofers, and you definitely can hear the deep "boom" 's going off.


They were standing there having a conversation, yet you cannot hear all the "boom boom boom boom" that would have to happened PRIOR to the collapse.


If you can't hear them, that's your problem.


So point them out! The world is waiting! Almost 10 years and no booms! Sounds like you know so much, please don't hold out on us!


Unless of course, it's like I suspect and explosions only some truthers seem to hear.



I don't know what you would expect to see, because many people did say they heard a "boom" or explosions before the collapses initiated.



Well for one, being that close to that many explosions, you would expect to see them very startled while they are going off! Yet, you don't, they only start running for cover as the building is collapsing.

Being that close to the event, we should have heard many many many "boom boom boom booms" but they aren't there. Yet crappy camcorders many blocks away can pick them up just fine in other demolitions that weed showed earlier.

I guess that's why the whole hush-a-boom craze happened!

Silly truther fads



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


There is nothing on any of those that sounds remotely like a controlled demolition.

One only has to look at the vids weed posted so see an OBVIOUS difference.

But, of course, this was a "magical" hush-a-boom demo right? So why would there be any sounds anyways? LOL!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
LOL!!!!!!!!!!

Yes actually, the Sony Mini-DV camera they used has a recording audio frequency range of 20Hz to 20kHz, which is about what the average adult human can hear.


And you have a good bass system, and can't hear the deep booms? Maybe your hearing needs checked. I've heard these booms online, on TV, and witnesses are telling you they heard them there in person. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I guess it's those super-secret low frequency hush-a-booms, that only firemen seem to hear yet the horrible Naudet footage simply couldn't pick up! Bwahahahahahaha!


I never said they didn't pick it up. I said there must be some problem if you aren't hearing anything.



I've seen videos of the collapse on TV from network archived footage, complete with subwoofers, and you definitely can hear the deep "boom" 's going off.


They were standing there having a conversation, yet you cannot hear all the "boom boom boom boom" that would have to happened PRIOR to the collapse.


The firefighters say themselves that the "boom boom boom boom boom" was during the collapse. If you want to talk about the Naudet footage why don't you actually pay attention to it?




If you can't hear them, that's your problem.


So point them out! The world is waiting! Almost 10 years and no booms! Sounds like you know so much, please don't hold out on us!


Ten years of your problem.
I'm not the only one who knows these things are recorded. There are other recordings of explosions that I'm sure you've even heard, that happened prior to the "collapses." You ever seen the one with the firefighters standing by a pay phone when one goes off, and they start yelling at each other about it and saying they have to get back there? If not, it's been 10 years, so what are you waiting for?



Well for one, being that close to that many explosions, you would expect to see them very startled while they are going off! Yet, you don't, they only start running for cover as the building is collapsing.


That close? You mean in the lobby while the "booms" are coming from completely different parts of the building? They act typical for people that are in shock.


Being that close to the event, we should have heard many many many "boom boom boom booms" but they aren't there.


You going to tell that to the firemen who were there, and disagree with you?


Yet crappy camcorders many blocks away can pick them up just fine in other demolitions that weed showed earlier.


Other demolitions use conventional high explosives like C4. Are you going to prove that C4 had to be used, so that you could hear it?


I guess that's why the whole hush-a-boom craze happened!

Silly truther fads


Why do you keep denying any explosions even happened? Are you being serious? Even most of your "debunker" friends admit there were explosions and just think something else must have caused them all. You seem to be the only one who can totally ignore every single piece of testimony like some religious zealot blocking out any evidence they don't want to hear, let alone sounds that you can hear yourself if it weren't for the fact that you're already convinced they're not there.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
There is nothing on any of those that sounds remotely like a controlled demolition.


You mean a conventional demolition using C4, etc. I agree. I don't think the buildings were loaded down with tons of C4.


One only has to look at the vids weed posted so see an OBVIOUS difference.


An OBVIOUS difference kind of like, the OBVIOUS difference between a COMMERCIAL, LEGAL demolition and an UNCONVENTIONAL, ILLEGAL demolition?


But, of course, this was a "magical" hush-a-boom demo right? So why would there be any sounds anyways? LOL!


What are you, talking to yourself now? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I never said there were no explosions, I keep trying to point out to you that THERE WERE EXPLOSIONS, evidenced by everything from recordings to scores of testimonies from civilians to police to firefighters, to seismic records, photographs of damage to the lobby, pretty much anything you could ask for except pieces of the explosives themselves.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


LOL!

All this squirming is getting you nowhere.



Since you seem to be one of the only ones that can hear the massive amounts of "booms" you claim that are on the footage, that no one on that footage appears to react to in anyway, please enlighten us on what the frequency of these booms are in Hz.

This should be good!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
LOL!

All this squirming is getting you nowhere.


I'm not the one doing the squirming, and reducing my "responses" to nothing but LOL!!!!'s. Not to mention you keep trying to put words in my mouth. That's desperation. I bet you aren't even watching the videos I'm posting because you're afraid to learn something.


Since you seem to be one of the only ones that can hear the massive amounts of "booms"


Where did I say I could hear "massive amounts"? Speaking of putting words in my mouth, here's a fresh example. "LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!"



you claim that are on the footage


I said there is one deep boom like a clap of thunder, distinct from and preceding the rest of the collapse in the video of WTC2 I posted above. The news reporter in the video even says there is another explosion right as it is happening.



that no one on that footage appears to react to in anyway


Oh yeah, blatantly mentioning that there was just an explosion isn't reacting to it at all.



please enlighten us on what the frequency of these booms are in Hz.

This should be good!


What difference would it make to tell you the range? I posted a video above where you can hear it. If your speakers have good bass then there is no reason you can't hear what I'm talking about. You're not going to convince me that I'm not hearing what I'm hearing, just by being sarcastic and posting LOL's. Like I said, I've heard this stuff on mainstream TV too so I know it's not edited in. I think your problem is that you don't WANT to hear anything so you're just not going to, in the same way you WANT to think Harrit, Jones, et al are all "suspicious" so you just pretend they are without needing an actual reason to think so.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
What difference would it make to tell you the range? I posted a video above where you can hear it.



Well you asked about the range of the audio in the Naudet footage which I provided. I would be interested to see what this mysterious silent boom's frequency is.

Since we know the range on the camera, and you claim that people heard it, let's see what you got!



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
What difference would it make to tell you the range? I posted a video above where you can hear it.


Well you asked about the range of the audio in the Naudet footage which I provided.


No, you didn't even provide any footage in this thread.

"LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"



I would be interested to see what this mysterious silent boom's frequency is.


I would be interested in seeing where you even posted a video anywhere on this thread.



Since we know the range on the camera, and you claim that people heard it, let's see what you got!


Hey, hello? Are you awake? The FIREFIGHTERS THEMSELVES said they heard "boom boom boom boom boom," that isn't MY CLAIM.




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well you asked about the range of the audio in the Naudet footage, which I provided.

No, you didn't even provide any footage in this thread.


Man, that comprehension problem is sneaking back up on you again.

Ohhhhh... I left out a comma, there I fixed it for you since you're having a hard time and all.

So, that's all you got? Since you're so all knowing and all hearing, you cannot even give us something as simple as the frequency in Hz of the explosions you claim are on the Naudet footage and others?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well you asked about the range of the audio in the Naudet footage, which I provided.

No, you didn't even provide any footage in this thread.


Man, that comprehension problem is sneaking back up on you again.

Ohhhhh... I left out a comma, there I fixed it for you since you're having a hard time and all.


You are still asking me to analyze the frequencies of a video clip that you haven't even posted.

What's not hard, is just listening to the clip I posted above. If you don't hear the deep boom when it started, and all the rumbling that comes with it as the "collapse" starts, then you literally have a problem, either a technical problem where your bass is drowned out, or some other problem that is preventing you from hearing what is in that video. The news reporter who was there even says there was an explosion as all of this is just starting to happen. That's your clue to listen for what he's just heard.


Since you're so all knowing and all hearing


I said I'm not the only person who has heard these booms, by far. You keep ignoring the fact that the firefighters in the very same documentary tell you the same thing. You're desperately trying to stretch what I'm saying, and completely ignoring large chunks of my posts as it conveniences you.


you cannot even give us something as simple as the frequency in Hz of the explosions you claim are on the Naudet footage and others?




www.mediumrecords.com...


I told you I'm not the only person who's hearing this stuff, and neither are the firefighters in the Naudet footage that you keep blatantly ignoring.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Once again....what people HEARD, and then described as a comparison doesn't mean that what they HEARD was, in actual fact, HOW they described it!!!


That takes care of the OS eyewitness doesn’t it? Then do not expect people to believe in your OS witness, they can make the same claims, correct?


I have seen, besides that clip, one by the Naudet brothers....they are most famous for being out on the streets of Manhattan and swinging the camera around, upon hearing the approaching American 11, and catching the only footage if its impact. However, they filmed much more that day....including capturing the impressions and reactions of the NYFD personnel, IN one of the NYFD houses. In that clip I have seen, witnesses (firefighters) recall seeing the Tower (I assume the South Tower, first to collapse) and the progressive "popping" floor-by-floor. THIS IS CONSISTENT with the fact that, once the structure began the failure process, it progressed.


Fact is, science does not support the pancake collapse, or your theory.


It is utterly impossible for a "gravitational collapse" to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC "collapses" can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults: the unnaturally-brief durations of the highly destructive top-down "collapses" reveal that the towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they came down because something [else] was causing them to disintegrate.
as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways and even upward ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was pulverized -- actually disintegrated is a much better word. (Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns...!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. (source) So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, [color=gold]gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.

911blimp.net...


It is a LOUD event...and those sounds can resemble "explosions"....because they occur with violence, as the material gives way. SO, in a sense, they do "explode". Same as you taking a wooden dowel, and subjecting it to enough stress so that it snaps...it "explodes" at the fracture point(s).


Demolition is loud too. Just because we do not have any of the explosives as evidences, it doesn’t mean they were not were used, to help bring down the WTC. Since you want to speculate to what happened at the WTC, then you shouldn’t mind other posters speculating what happened as well.

Let’s see some science to back your theory?

Here is some science and evidences that backs up our accusations and claims.

These are claims that the debunkers on ATS cannot dispute with any science.


But, a little bit of thinking and reflection will help lead people to the comprehension, and NOT the immediate leap to "demolition" ---- which is, frankly, ludicrous for many, many reasons already delineated countless times.


Fact: science supports demolition, and if Truthers are wrong, I would love to see you prove it?


Reply to Protec's
A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT

911research.wtc7.net...



118 Witnesses:
The Firefighters’ Testimony to Explosions in the Twin Towers

www.journalof911studies.com...


Concrete Pulverization Twin Towers' Concrete Turned to Dust in Mid-Air

911research.wtc7.net...


The Open Chemical Physics Journal

www.bentham.org.../2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM


Forensic Metallurgy, Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

911research.wtc7.net...


Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage

www.journalof911studies.com...


Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories
Kevin Ryan - U.L. whistleblower - former Site Manager

www.911review.com...


The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True

911review.com...


PROOF THAT THE THERMAL AND GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY
AVAILABLE WERE INSUFFICIENT TO MELT STEEL IN THE TWIN
TOWERS AND 7 WORLD TRADE CENTER ON 9/11/01

www.journalof911studies.com...


Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

journalof911studies.com...

The debunkers want critical thinkers to believe in the impossibility that office fires along with jet fuel weakened the WTC steel in less that an hour after planes impact Towers. The fact is, with all the building materials and office furniture, carpeting, electronics, and jet fuel could not burn hot enough to weaken the WTC steel in under an hour. WTC steel was tested to withstand heat up to 2200 degrees for many hours without weakening the WTC steel.
edit on 15-1-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

You are still asking me to analyze the frequencies of a video clip that you haven't even posted.


You knew what it was, or you wouldn't have asked me about the frequency range of their equipment. Stop stalling. What's the frequency in Hz?


What's not hard, is just listening to the clip I posted above. If you don't hear the deep boom when it started, and all the rumbling that comes with it as the "collapse" starts, then you literally have a problem, either a technical problem where your bass is drowned out, or some other problem that is preventing you from hearing what is in that video. The news reporter who was there even says there was an explosion as all of this is just starting to happen. That's your clue to listen for what he's just heard.


I have a recording studio in my house and can hear everything just fine. Funny though, I hear no explosions, only the collapse of the building.

Like I said they must be magical "silent" explosions, that only certain truthers seem to hear, most likely because that's what they WANT to hear.

The "huge explosion now raining debris on top of us" line from the reporter was clearly from the collapse, and not any actual "explosion".



I said I'm not the only person who has heard these booms, by far.


Some truthers say they hear explosions. Some say they were silent. It seems your camp is in a major disagreement.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
You knew what it was, or you wouldn't have asked me about the frequency range of their equipment. Stop stalling. What's the frequency in Hz?


I didn't ask about their equipment, I asked about the audio you were listening to. That could mean anywhere between the capturing of the data and it being digitally played back through your speakers.

This shows the frequencies in Hz, in case you missed it before:



See where it says "intense low frequencies" and points to brightly-colored data plots that match up with low frequencies on the left-hand side? That is what I'm talking about. Those are deep booms, rumbles, whatever you want to call them, that represent relatively large amplitude sound waves.

What does that mean? It means if you want to hear the "boom boom boom," you have to have a sound system with a subwoofer or otherwise good bass. It means, it's not a treble sound. It means, it doesn't sound like C4 cracking off. It means it sounds more like a bomb. You getting a picture yet?

Again, watch this video and listen:



If the audio on your computer sucks so bad that you can't hear that deep "boom" that starts off the rest of the collapse, that the reporter even refers to as an "explosion" as its just beginning to happen, then that's your problem. I don't have your problem. I've even heard this stuff on TV, as I keep telling you over and over, but you keep ignoring because of your extreme bias.


I have a recording studio in my house and can hear everything just fine. Funny though, I hear no explosions, only the collapse of the building.


You know, I wouldn't expect you to ever say anything else. The fact remains that I can hear a distinctly different noise that starts WTC2, compared to what follows in the video above. And the fact also remains that the firefighters who were there also heard the "boom boom boom boom boom", and you even have an image now that illustrates the fact that yes, a lot of low-frequency stuff was going on in the audio, that was derived from another collapse video. If you have any idea what you're talking about then you could just listen to the videos and already know they're going to have a large low-frequency component to what you're hearing, just based on hearing it.


Like I said they must be magical "silent" explosions


That go "boom boom boom boom boom" and are described by scores of witnesses as "explosions"?


You ever thought about why fundamentalist zealots, are fundamentalist zealots? It's because they never actually think about the evidence that is staring them in the face, like in this case witness testimonies and audio analysis and the sounds themselves. They just automatically respond with a knee-jerk reaction, a bunch of LOL!!!!!!!'s and anything else that's totally irrational.


The "huge explosion now raining debris on top of us" line from the reporter was clearly from the collapse, and not any actual "explosion".


The "collapse" had only barely begun, and "explosion" does not mean "collapse." I think even a news reporter would know that much. Of course I'm sure you'll disagree since you know so much better than all of us.




I said I'm not the only person who has heard these booms, by far.


Some truthers say they hear explosions. Some say they were silent. It seems your camp is in a major disagreement.


It's also not my problem that you choose to put vastly different people all in the same category. If I grouped all you official story believers together, you all contradict each other too. Like I said above, others accept that there were explosions and just try to explain them with anything but explosives. You can't even agree that they exist at all, and keep pretending they never happened. Seems like you people are in major denial.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

This shows the frequencies in Hz, in case you missed it before:


That has nothing to do with the Naudet footage.

These "intense low frequencies" are not even that, given that the lowest is roughly 300-350 Hz. Well above the middle C on a piano.

Total no go, if these "explosions" were in the 300-350 Hz range there should be no problem hearing them. Heck most subwoofers produce sounds in the 20–200 Hz range anyhow, so you wouldn't even need them to hear all these massive demolition "explosions".

What you're hearing and trying to pass off as explosions is the building collapse, nothing more.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join