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: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

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.


You never even posted the part of the Naudet footage you're talking about. What am I supposed to go guess what you're referring to, and then analyze it too? Why don't you do it yourself if you're so damned convinced there's nothing there? The analysis I posted was done using a video taken from outside the towers and with shouldn't have picked up anything drastically different from any other recording device.


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.


I don't know what sonogram you think you're reading but the one I posted points out high amplitude sound waves between the 0.25 kHz mark and 0.00 kHz mark, and much closer to the 0.00 kHz mark. In case your engineering math is where your problem is coming from, 0.25 kHz = 250 Hz, so I don't know where you get off saying the lowest frequencies were 300-350 Hz except that you can't read the sonogram at all. Those yellow patches near the bottom go below 100 Hz almost all the way down to the 0.00 mark.


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".


Too bad that would only be relevant if you read the sonogram right in the first place.



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


For someone who says he has so much audio software, you must not be too familiar with it if you can't even just listen to the videos and tell that there are high-amplitude low-frequency sounds being generated.




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's hilarious watching you flip around knowing that you don't know what you're talking about.

LOL!

Tell you what, once you figure out what you've got wrong, and identify the "booms" on the Naudet video, feel free to let us know!

Until then lets just assume that you're hearing the "truther booms"!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
reply to post by bsbray11
 


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's hilarious watching you flip around knowing that you don't know what you're talking about.

LOL!


Jesus dude, you're getting really predictable when I smash your claims. Every single time you get blown out of the water, you just respond with massive LOL!!!!!!! spam.



Massive LOL spam doesn't explain why you can't read a clearly labeled sonogram though, does it?






Tell you what, once you figure out what you've got wrong, and identify the "booms" on the Naudet video, feel free to let us know!


Or how about once you figure out how to tell the difference between 350 Hz and



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Jesus dude, you're getting really predictable when I smash your claims.


You've smashed nothing. You've only proven that you are just hearing what you want to hear! The Naudet footage is there, it's the closest to the event that exists, yet there is NOTHING that indicates a controlled demolition and your excuses are quite telling.

I find it hilarious!



Or how about once you figure out how to tell the difference between 350 Hz and



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   


Or how about once you figure out how to tell the difference between 350 Hz and



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And then you had to go embarrass yourself by not being able to read the labels on the sonogram, because you were just so anxious to prove me wrong, you'd be damned if you let me actually being right stand in your way.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watching you twist about does give me quite a laugh. You go on thinking you're right though! LOL!!



The Naudet footage has the same low "booms" that the firefighters describe and that I just showed from that other video. But you haven't even posted the footage you're referring to, I can only imagine because you either don't know how or you're too afraid to. It's on YouTube you know


You know exactly the footage I'm talking about. There is only 1 version. No need to repost it, you're just stalling here!


Well I don't guess you're going to "debunk" the fact that 0.25 kHz = 250 Hz.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Really, Soloist, you audio expert, you.


Stick to your day job buddy! LOL!!!!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Sorry, I just totally smashed your claim that nothing was lower than 300 Hz. Eat crow.


No you didn't. LOL! Maybe some day you will figure out where you have screwed up! But until then I'll get massive amount of entertainment out of this!!

I want to give you a hint sooooooooo bad, but this is too much fun!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
And then you had to go embarrass yourself by not being able to read the labels on the sonogram, because you were just so anxious to prove me wrong, you'd be damned if you let me actually being right stand in your way.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watching you twist about does give me quite a laugh. You go on thinking you're right though! LOL!!


You're not even trying to defend your blatant mistakes. You're just posting crap like this, over and over, "LOL" spam.

You know you were wrong. Speaking of twisting and squirming, all of this LOL crap is just being too spineless to admit you misread the sonograph, and is completely dishonest. Like a snake with its head caught under a hoe. Thanks to interactions with you on other threads though I'm not the least surprised by now.


You know exactly the footage I'm talking about. There is only 1 version. No need to repost it, you're just stalling here!


I know what footage, yes, but I don't know what you think isn't on it. If you don't hear deep booms in that footage then you have the same problem you do with the other videos and even the sonogram I posted, namely that you choose intentionally not to hear anything.



Well I don't guess you're going to "debunk" the fact that 0.25 kHz = 250 Hz.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Lmao, I should go pop some popcorn. You're actually starting to make me laugh with this ridiculous LOL!!!!!!!!! crap.
It's not even a response.



Really, Soloist, you audio expert, you.


Stick to your day job buddy! LOL!!!!


So I guess by now you've realized you were dead wrong. Just not going to admit it, huh. Or else surely you would have come up with some more intelligent response than "LOL!!!!!" and "stick to your day job!" by now.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
No you didn't. LOL! Maybe some day you will figure out where you have screwed up! But until then I'll get massive amount of entertainment out of this!!

I want to give you a hint sooooooooo bad, but this is too much fun!


lmao




You can see it plain as day there.

0.50 kHz = 500 Hz.

0.25 kHz = 250 Hz.

0.00 kHz = 0 Hz.


You said:


Originally posted by Soloist
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.


Here's a hint for you: You can't read a sonogram.


You're going to have to come up with a less lame excuse than "LOL."



Btw you pulled this same stunt on the Jones/Peer Review thread, and it failed just as spectacularly there. Start learning some new tricks for saving face.
edit on 16-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Here's a hint for you: You can't read a sonogram.


Hahahahahaha!!!! I have to tell you, my friends and I here are getting a good laugh at this one!



Good luck finding your mistake! If you would've been nicer maybe I would help you out, but no! That's what you get for acting like you know what you're talking about, when you clearly don't! LOL!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Btw you pulled this same stunt on the Jones/Peer Review thread, and it failed just as spectacularly there. Start learning some new tricks for saving face


Oh yeah, the one where you called me a liar for 3 pages before I busted you!

And yet, you still wouldn't give up once caught! I wonder how many pages I should let this one go before shaming you here too! LOL!!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Hahahahahaha!!!! I have to tell you, my friends and I here are getting a good laugh at this one!



Good luck finding your mistake! If you would've been nicer maybe I would help you out, but no! That's what you get for acting like you know what you're talking about, when you clearly don't! LOL!



Like I said, you tried to pull this stunt on the other thread, to try to save face after being embarrassed by your own ignorance. I didn't fall for it the first time.


It's too bad for you that I know for a fact that 0.50 kHz is 500 Hz, etc. Kilo = 1000. You're not holding out on some mysterious secret of mathematics.


I'm showing how you can't read a sonogram one more time and then I'm going to bed, and you can keep playing games with yourself all you want. You're still wrong, and too dishonest to even admit it.





Originally posted by Soloist
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.


Keep advertising how much of a troll you are, when anyone with eyes can see the amplitudes well below 300 Hz there. You're not doing yourself any favors.




Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
Btw you pulled this same stunt on the Jones/Peer Review thread, and it failed just as spectacularly there. Start learning some new tricks for saving face


Oh yeah, the one where you called me a liar for 3 pages before I busted you!


Yeah, except you actually were lying.

You still haven't given a reason to find their work "suspicious." Logical fallacies and bigotry aren't reasons.



And yet, you still wouldn't give up once caught! I wonder how many pages I should let this one go before shaming you here too! LOL!!


For as long as you're unable to admit you were blatantly wrong, and want me to keep advertising it, sure, we can keep doing this for as long as you want. But I'm going to have to pick back up tomorrow.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Like I said, you tried to pull this stunt on the other thread, to try to save face after being embarrassed by your own ignorance.


Funny how you got exposed, and the only way you could try and save it was to chop my quotes up. Didn't work then, won't work now.


It's too bad for you that I know for a fact that 0.50 kHz is 500 Hz, etc. Kilo = 1000. You're not holding out on some mysterious secret of mathematics.


Never said I was.



I'm showing how you can't read a sonogram one more time and then I'm going to bed, and you can keep playing games with yourself all you want. You're still wrong, and too dishonest to even admit it.


LOL! Keep telling yourself that! Like I said before, I can't wait to see how long you flounder about thinking you know it all.




Keep advertising how much of a troll you are, when anyone with eyes can see the amplitudes well below 300 Hz there. You're not doing yourself any favors.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Yeah, except you actually were lying.


You can say it all you want, but the post times don't lie. You got caught and tried to butcher posts to make it seem like you didn't. But everyone can see the truth.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
Like I said, you tried to pull this stunt on the other thread, to try to save face after being embarrassed by your own ignorance.


Funny how you got exposed, and the only way you could try and save it was to chop my quotes up. Didn't work then, won't work now.


It's too bad for you that I know for a fact that 0.50 kHz is 500 Hz, etc. Kilo = 1000. You're not holding out on some mysterious secret of mathematics.


Soloist. He showed you a sonogram which is clear evidence that sounds in the 250 Hz range. I really do not see what you are trying to debate here. You are saying its not there, while everybody can clearly see its there. Thats not a legitimate debate, thats trolling the forums.



I'm showing how you can't read a sonogram one more time and then I'm going to bed, and you can keep playing games with yourself all you want. You're still wrong, and too dishonest to even admit it.


LOL! Keep telling yourself that! Like I said before, I can't wait to see how long you flounder about thinking you know it all.




Keep advertising how much of a troll you are, when anyone with eyes can see the amplitudes well below 300 Hz there. You're not doing yourself any favors.


LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Yeah, except you actually were lying.


You can say it all you want, but the post times don't lie. You got caught and tried to butcher posts to make it seem like you didn't. But everyone can see the truth.



I dont know what you are trying to debate here soloist. You are saying its not there, while everyone can clearly see on the sonogram, that it is there. That is not debating, that is trolling.
edit on 16-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
I dont know what you are trying to debate here soloist.


That's not surprising.


You are saying its not there, while everyone can clearly see on the sonogram, that it is there.


Mmhmm, now it's REALLY obvious you don't know. It's ok though, the last thread I let him flounder on for 3 pages or so making a fool out of himself before exposing him. This time I may let him go on for much much longer.




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


Okay then show us how the sonogram does not show that there are sounds in the 250 Hz range and below. Are you saying he is reading the sonogram wrong and that the darker coloured parts is what the sonogram measured and not the lighter coloured parts? Is that it? As it is, the sonogram shows noises in the 250 Hz range and below, something that can be caused by explosives and explosions is what have been whitnessed. There is no counterpoint to that from you. Spamming LOL isnt a counterpoint.

And try to do so without insulting or belitteling people. Your constant belitteling is making the discourse of the conversation very unpleasant.
edit on 16-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Are you saying he is reading the sonogram wrong and that the darker coloured parts is what the sonogram measured and not the lighter coloured parts? Is that it?


No, that is not it.


As it is, the sonogram shows noises in the 250 Hz range and below, something that can be caused by explosives and explosions is what have been whitnessed. There is no counterpoint to that from you.




Here's a hint, "showing noises" doesn't always mean a legitimate recorded sound from the source.

So, you're either stuck with explosions that magically aren't audible on any of the footage, especially the Naudet footage, or hush-a-booms. But, you guys insist so many people heard these massive amounts of explosions, so why aren't they audible? LOL.

Truthers always want it multiple ways so they have a way to twist it around, but it never works on those of us who see through the sham.



And try to do so without insulting or belitteling people. Your constant belitteling is making the discourse of the conversation very unpleasant.


Here you are defending someone who has been caught calling me a liar and busted so bad that he had to attempt to chop up posts to make it seem like he was right. It failed miserably.

And someone who also recently has taken it upon himself to send me childish and insulting u2u's since he most likely knows he's been caught being wrong yet AGAIN.... LOL

It works both ways, you know... maybe you should ask the same of your fellow "play mates" as well. But we know that won't happen right?

You have an ignore option, I would suggest you use it then. I see through all this truther nonsense and will never stop exposing the junk. Just so you know, you may want to be proactive against those who *gasp* disagree with these misguided "truths".



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


So you are saying those are merely interferences. Many people heard the explosions and reported them as such, there have even been reports on the news media of explosions, cnn and foxnews. So I really dont know where you are getting the impression those were "hushabooms". The article from where the sonogram is says explosion, you say interference, I really dont see why those would be interferences. If those are interferences what would cause them and why in a range so low. And why arent those interferences on all the sonograms on that site?

Also sorry I am not quite as interested in following your little catfight to keep track who insulted whom first.
edit on 16-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Many people heard the explosions and reported them as such, there have even been reports on the news media of explosions, cnn and foxnews.


Yet, we have no audible recording of these massive "explosions". Other than truthers who insist that the only way to hear them is when they actually are low frequency enough to hear on a subwoofer. Which makes me LOL!

Where are the massive explosions on the Naudet footage? It's the closest recording that exists, yet, nothing.


So I really dont know where you are getting the impression those were "hushabooms".


Ask your fellow truthers. One minute they are claiming loud explosions that everyone heard, and when pointed out they don't exist in the audio, they switch to super-secret hush-a-booms.

Maybe Jones' next paper should be on silent explosives! LOL!



The article from where the sonogram is says explosion, you say interference, I really dont see why those would be interferences.If those are interferences what would cause them and why in a range so low. And why arent those interferences on all the sonograms on that site?


Actually, that's not what I said, stop making stuff up. But do go ahead and believe what some truther site is telling you that they are "explosions" and the rest of us will continue to LOL.



Also sorry I am not quite as interested in following your little catfight to keep track who insulted whom first.


Then please keep your thoughts to yourself, instead of attempting to solely accuse me of "insulting or belitteling people".



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
I dont know what you are trying to debate here soloist. You are saying its not there, while everyone can clearly see on the sonogram, that it is there. That is not debating, that is trolling.


Exactly, and until he can come up with an intelligible response instead of just "LOL!!!!!!!!!!!", there's really no point in responding to trolling. There is no substance in his posts at this point at all. He just constantly confuses what is being said.
edit on 16-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join