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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
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!


Once again, yes, you can hear what the sonogram shows in the videos. When we point this out, you claim no one heard anything, which is another blatant lie, and you continue to ignore all the other people who did report hearing the explosions.


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.


The only person using that stupid term "hush-a-boom" is you. The whole point we are trying to drill into your head is that they did make noises, that scores of people heard, that you can hear in the videos, and that can even be shown in the audio in a visual spectrogram.


All you are doing, is trolling. What's new.
edit on 16-1-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Once again, yes, you can hear what the sonogram shows in the videos. When we point this out, you claim no one heard anything, which is another blatant lie, and you continue to ignore all the other people who did report hearing the explosions.


Ah, here we go with the "lying" junk again. It's so funny that you have to resort to that and childish u2u's when you have nothing to support your "theory".

There are no explosions in any of the audio. Sorry. You can try to twist it all you like, but like seeing images in clouds, you are only playing make believe.


The only person using that stupid term "hush-a-boom" is you.


I didn't invent it, although it is quite hilarious. This forum is full of rabid truthers who declare the explosions were silent because they were super-duper-sekrit!


The whole point we are trying to drill into your head is that they did make noises, that scores of people heard, that you can hear in the videos, and that can even be shown in the audio in a visual spectrogram.


Noises != Explosions.



All you are doing, is trolling.


Hilarious, coming from the likes of you.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Ah, here we go with the "lying" junk again. It's so funny that you have to resort to that and childish u2u's when you have nothing to support your "theory".

There are no explosions in any of the audio. Sorry. You can try to twist it all you like, but like seeing images in clouds, you are only playing make believe.


Look at what you're posting. You keep denying there are any sounds in the videos, even when the people in the videos are telling you when there are explosions, and firefighters are saying "boom boom boom boom boom." And then you say "Oh they must have been "hush-a-booms" because no one heard anything."
When you have been repeatedly shown that plenty of people heard explosions, and you keep implying they didn't, what's that called? It's dishonest, and since you know better, it's lying.

When are you going to admit that plenty of witnesses heard explosions, and stop lying and saying no one heard anything? When you know better and you post something that isn't true, that's a lie.



The only person using that stupid term "hush-a-boom" is you.


I didn't invent it


I didn't say you were clever enough to invent it, I said you're the only one using that term and it doesn't even make sense considering people did hear explosions. This "hush-a-boom" crap comes from an era in 9/11 denialism when people dismissed out-of-hand the very idea that anyone heard explosions. 10 years later and we've pieced together plenty enough witness testimonies, recordings, etc. to prove that isn't the case. You're way behind.



The whole point we are trying to drill into your head is that they did make noises, that scores of people heard, that you can hear in the videos, and that can even be shown in the audio in a visual spectrogram.


Noises != Explosions.


An explosion is a type of noise, yes. I guess we're making baby steps here.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


Somebody had an epiphany
(I hope).
edit on 16-1-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You keep denying there are any sounds in the videos


No, I'm not denying there are any sounds in the videos.

I'm saying there are no audible explosions.


And then you say "Oh they must have been "hush-a-booms" because no one heard anything."


Tell your fellow truthers about that one, since they are the ones who started claiming that since there are no audible explosions in any of the videos that it must be some super secret silent demolition technique.


When you have been repeatedly shown that plenty of people heard explosions, and you keep implying they didn't, what's that called?


They made simple mistakes, they hear the building collapse, and call it an "explosion" at the time it's collapsing.

I'm flat out saying that if they did hear demolition explosives, we would have them on most of the audio , ESPECIALLY the Naudet footage. What you're trying to pass off as explosions is nothing more than the building collapse. Needless to say there is no evidence of any massive amounts of explosions prior to that collapse either.



It's dishonest, and since you know better, it's lying.


Yep, here you go again. LOL! You should be ashamed of yourself, you've already been caught doing this before, and it burned you.



10 years later and we've pieced together plenty enough witness testimonies, recordings, etc. to prove that isn't the case. You're way behind.


10 years of no audible demolition explosions that you say people claim they heard. Looks like your the one way behind! LOL!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


If it werent explosions, what did those people hear and what do we hear on the video and see on the sonogram?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


I just explained that in my above post.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Tell your fellow truthers about that one, since they are the ones who started claiming that since there are no audible explosions in any of the videos that it must be some super secret silent demolition technique.


Who said that again? Can you give me some usernames of people here, as examples? Maybe even some quotes?



When you have been repeatedly shown that plenty of people heard explosions, and you keep implying they didn't, what's that called?


They made simple mistakes, they hear the building collapse, and call it an "explosion" at the time it's collapsing.


Right, a mistake. Who is a more credible source: the scores of people who were there, police officers to firefighters to civilians, who said they saw, heard, and were even injured by explosions, not just a "collapse," or an opinionated forum troll?


I'm flat out saying that if they did hear demolition explosives, we would have them on most of the audio , ESPECIALLY the Naudet footage.


You mean like C4. So all they had to do was use something that creates a deeper "boom" than C4 and they've already outsmarted you. Something, coincidentally, like what you hear on the video I posted on the last thread page, that the news reporter even calls an explosion right as it happens.


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


And you base this opinion on.... absolutely nothing. Well, except for pre-conceived bias.



It's dishonest, and since you know better, it's lying.

Yep, here you go again. LOL! You should be ashamed of yourself, you've already been caught doing this before, and it burned you.


Aren't I supposed to feel burned then?


You keep saying no one heard explosions. Nope, sorry.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Soloist
 


No you did not. If it werent explosions, what did all those whitnesses hear and what do we hear on the videos and see on the sonogram? What were thos BOOM noises, that sounded just like an explosion?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Soloist
 


No you did not.


Yes I did.

Go back and read the post!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Who said that again? Can you give me some usernames of people here, as examples? Maybe even some quotes?


I'm not your monkey. Feel free to use the search function. I don't keep track of all the whacky truther theories and which ATS user belongs to each of them.


Right, a mistake. Who is a more credible source:


The video evidence is the more credible source.


So all they had to do was use something that creates a deeper "boom" than C4 and they've already outsmarted you. Something, coincidentally, like what you hear on the video I posted on the last thread page, that the news reporter even calls an explosion right as it happens.


When he clearly is talking about the collapse itself. Broadcast quality gear would have NO problem picking up the audio from an actual explosion. Yet there is none, only the collapse.

So what did they create that creates this mysterious "boom" that people can hear, but good video gear cannot record? Where is this substance? I'm assuming you've got something to compare to?




And you base this opinion on.... absolutely nothing. Well, except for pre-conceived bias.


It's based on every other demo shown on this thread at the very least! Your the one with the truther bias that makes you hear things that don't exist.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
Who said that again? Can you give me some usernames of people here, as examples? Maybe even some quotes?

I'm not your monkey. Feel free to use the search function. I don't keep track of all the whacky truther theories and which ATS user belongs to each of them.


Oh, okay, so you don't mind putting words in our mouths, but then when I want to see who you're talking about you don't even know. No one in this thread is saying anything about explosions being silent, or anything about space beams or holograms either. You're making stuff up again just to avoid anything relevant.


The video evidence is the more credible source.


I don't dispute that, but you refuse to hear what's in the video. And then when I show you the spectrogram, you say it's just noise. Actually, you never even elaborated on what the hell you were trying to say, because first you incorrectly said there wasn't anything below 300 Hz, and then you just went on a massive "LOL!!!!!!!!!" spurt when I called you on your carelessness and left it at that.

And then you say no one heard any explosions, as if that's supposed to bolster your argument, when in fact scores of witnesses did report hearing explosions. And then you just call them all wrong too. You're ridiculous.


When he clearly is talking about the collapse itself.


Collapse = "explosion"? He said "explosion."


Broadcast quality gear would have NO problem picking up the audio from an actual explosion.


Which is in the spectrogram, which you couldn't even read.


So what did they create that creates this mysterious "boom" that people can hear, but good video gear cannot record?


Once again, it's in the recordings, and it's in spectrograms, and plenty of people heard it and reported as much who were there.


It's based on every other demo shown on this thread at the very least! Your the one with the truther bias that makes you hear things that don't exist.


Those demolitions use conventional high explosives. Even in the 1993 bombing a conventional explosive wasn't used, and it completely decimated the parking garage. If they used the same kind of bomb again, I guess it would just be way too over your head.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Oh, okay, so you don't mind putting words in our mouths, but then when I want to see who you're talking about you don't even know. No one in this thread is saying anything about explosions being silent, or anything about space beams or holograms either. You're making stuff up again just to avoid anything relevant.


I never said anyone in this thread, did I? Who's making up stuff, now?

This forum is full of what you're asking for, feel free to look it up.



I don't dispute that, but you refuse to hear what's in the video.


Not at all. I hear a collapsing building, that is all. No explosions.

It is you who are hearing what you want to hear by making up stuff that simply isn't there. When confronted on it, you simply say it could be some magical low frequency material? LOL!

Where is an example of this stuff that we can compare?


And then you say no one heard any explosions, as if that's supposed to bolster your argument, when in fact scores of witnesses did report hearing explosions. And then you just call them all wrong too. You're ridiculous.


I say they are mistaken, yes.

We hear no explosions on the audio, they mistake the collapse for explosion. It's pretty simple.



He said "explosion."


Yet there wasn't an explosion, just the collapse. That's all one can see and hear. He can call it "monkey boogers" for all I care, it's still from the collapse as is evident on the video. You just refuse to take it all in context since it destroys your demolition fantasy.



Which is in the spectrogram, which you couldn't even read.


LOL! If the explosion was audible at that close range, the mic would have NO PROBLEM picking it up. Yet it didn't. It is simply the collapse, nothing more.



Those demolitions use conventional high explosives. Even in the 1993 bombing a conventional explosive wasn't used, and it completely decimated the parking garage. If they used the same kind of bomb again, I guess it would just be way too over your head.


Still waiting on your proof of these special explosives that could not be picked up on audio above the sound of a collapsing building, and weren't audible prior to the collapse!



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
I never said anyone in this thread, did I? Who's making up stuff, now?


I didn't say you said anyone in this thread said it.


I said you can't show anyone who said it. What these other people that you can't even name think is irrelevant to our discussion.



This forum is full of what you're asking for, feel free to look it up.


If that were true then you could back up your claim that lots of us apparently believe in "hush-a-booms" when there is plenty of testimony and other evidence of explosions. It's not my responsibility to prove your own garbage to you, even if it were actually relevant.


I hear a collapsing building, that is all. No explosions.


Then you're not hearing what plenty of other people, including scores of people who were actually there, are hearing. Bias and unyielding faith will do that to someone.


Where is an example of this stuff that we can compare?


You wouldn't even look up someone who actually made the idiotic claim that there were such a thing as "hush-a-booms." What makes you think I'm going to go look through recordings of explosions for you when I already know they can produce low frequency sound waves? I'm not your monkey, either.




And then you say no one heard any explosions, as if that's supposed to bolster your argument, when in fact scores of witnesses did report hearing explosions. And then you just call them all wrong too. You're ridiculous.


I say they are mistaken, yes.


And that's ridiculous. Scores of people who were actually there, versus... (yawn)


We hear no explosions on the audio, they mistake the collapse for explosion. It's pretty simple.


Except explosions make noises, and if they aren't hearing something that sounds like an explosion, they wouldn't say "explosion." We hear explosions, including many people who were there. You're mistaken, because you're biased. Even simpler.



He said "explosion."


Yet there wasn't an explosion, just the collapse.


Says you.



Which is in the spectrogram, which you couldn't even read.


LOL! If the explosion was audible at that close range, the mic would have NO PROBLEM picking it up. Yet it didn't. It is simply the collapse, nothing more.


It did pick it up. I don't know what part of that you don't understand. I even told you what to listen for, and I guess you just ignored that because you don't want to hear it anyway. Hearing the same explosion all these other people did at this point would just make you look silly and you can't have that.



Still waiting on your proof of these special explosives that could not be picked up on audio above the sound of a collapsing building, and weren't audible prior to the collapse!


For the love of god, I'm not saying that they weren't picked up on audio. You must have a serious reading problem.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I didn't say you said anyone in this thread said it.


You were the one who mentioned this thread, not I.


If that were true then you could back up your claim that lots of us apparently believe in "hush-a-booms" when there is plenty of testimony and other evidence of explosions. It's not my responsibility to prove your own garbage to you, even if it were actually relevant.


It's all there, not my fault your too lazy to search.



Then you're not hearing what plenty of other people, including scores of people who were actually there, are hearing. Bias and unyielding faith will do that to someone.


I'm not hearing imaginary explosions, that's right.



What makes you think I'm going to go look through recordings of explosions for you ...


Because you can't.



Except explosions make noises, and if they aren't hearing something that sounds like an explosion, they wouldn't say "explosion."


Yet, there are no explosions in the audio or video, we only see and hear the building collapse.




Yet there wasn't an explosion, just the collapse.

Says you.


Says the video. Must be hard to be proven wrong by your own "evidence" LOL!



I even told you what to listen for, and I guess you just ignored that because you don't want to hear it anyway. Hearing the same explosion all these other people did at this point would just make you look silly and you can't have that.


Except, you cannot even prove what it is that we are supposed to be listening for. You don't get to define that, there are no explosions on the audio. Period.



For the love of god, I'm not saying that they weren't picked up on audio. You must have a serious reading proble.


Really, now? Are truthers the only ones who can hear these magic explosions? Others seem to disagree with your statements.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist
Yet, there are no explosions in the audio or video


There are plenty of people who disagree with you, including scores of witnesses who were there. I've heard them on TV footage, etc. You want to disagree, fine.



Yet there wasn't an explosion, just the collapse.

Says you.


Says the video.


There is an audio event at the very start of the collapse that even the news reporter calls an "explosion." I've told you this like 50 times. If you don't want to hear it, go cry about it, I don't care.


Except, you cannot even prove what it is that we are supposed to be listening for.


That's what the spectrograph was for. The one you couldn't read, remember?


Really, now? Are truthers the only ones who can hear these magic explosions?


Truthers, police, firefighters and civilians who were actually there, and anyone else whose ears aren't clogged.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
There is an audio event at the very start of the collapse...



That "audio event" is the collapse.

There is no explosion, or massive series of explosions that would have to take place on that video, or the Naudet footage, or any other footage.

Nor is there anything prior to the collapse. These sure were the world's most complex and quiet demolitions!



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
There is an audio event at the very start of the collapse...


That "audio event" is the collapse.


....that even the reporter in the video calls an "explosion."

And even I can hear. I can hear them every time they play "collapse" footage on TV through my sound system too, even though they rarely actually do that outside of a special documentary anymore. It sounds just like the firefighters said it did, "boom boom boom boom boom."



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
If those boom noises werent explosions, what are those sounds of explosions on the videos and what did all these whitnesses hear and what are we seeing on the sonogram?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Here we go... another armchair pseudo wanna-be scientist trying desperately to uphold the official story of 911 using nonsensical arguments and alice in wonderland logic.

Where do you come up with some of these explanations?

People heard, saw, felt, witnesses explosions. People were there, you weren't so you should consider a shut up moment.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join