• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

New Member

gumboot said:
Another of firemen at a phone booth with the added stero explosion supposedly of WTC7.


-Gumboot
Click to expand...

I have seen that video and I don't think the explosion is added. All 3 men in the video react to it and one describes it as an explosion.
 
tonicblue said:
I have seen that video and I don't think the explosion is added. All 3 men in the video react to it and one describes it as an explosion.
Click to expand...
Hello, tonicblue.

I don't have the ability to analyze the audio, and I'm fine with it being an explosion if it's not faked. And? There were many explosions after each tower collapse.
 
Gravy said:
Hello, tonicblue.

I don't have the ability to analyze the audio, and I'm fine with it being an explosion if it's not faked. And? There were many explosions after each tower collapse.
Click to expand...

I wasn't making any wider point, just correcting the false information. Like yourself, I dont like to see lies disseminated.
 
tonicblue said:
I wasn't making any wider point, just correcting the false information. Like yourself, I dont like to see lies disseminated.
Click to expand...

Then you should have no problem explaining the basis upon which you call it "false information" and upon which basis you presume it to be "lies" being disseminated, right?

Please explain.
 
LashL said:
Then you should have no problem explaining the basis upon which you call it "false information" and upon which basis you presume it to be "lies" being disseminated, right?

Please explain.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any analysis of the audio in question. Maybe I missed it? Without that, I wouldn't take anyone's word about its authenticity. There was obviously a really loud noise there!
 
Gravy said:
I haven't seen any analysis of the audio in question. Maybe I missed it? Without that, I wouldn't take anyone's word about its authenticity. There was obviously a really loud noise there!
Click to expand...

Thus my question to tonicblue as he/she seems to think that he/she has knowledge of "false information" and "lies being disseminated".

I do not view gumboot's assertions about the audio as being "false information" or "lies" and I have seen no analysis of the audio at all by "tonicblue", so I see nothing wrong with my question to "tonicblue" asking him to support his allegations.
 
Last edited:
tonicblue said:
I have seen that video and I don't think the explosion is added. All 3 men in the video react to it and one describes it as an explosion.
Click to expand...


Incorrect.

Only one person is in the video at the time of the noise. He looks out casually and slowly, as does the camera person. There is no sudden jerk reaction from either him or the camera. After the "explosion" neither the two firemen who appear nor the man with "Police US INS" on his shirt appear concerned about the apparant explosion that they must have just heard.

No one mentions or refers to the alleged noise in any way whatsoever. The firemen tell them they're not supposed to be there, and need to get back. The police officer tells them not to worry about him, and asks if they need to make calls.

Watching the video without sound makes it patently obvious that no explosion occurs during the clip. For comparison, watch other videos in which explosions were occuring during the video (CDs, video from Iraq, etc).

-Gumboot

ETA. And Tonicblue, welcome to the forums. :)
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
Incorrect.

Only one person is in the video at the time of the noise. He looks out casually and slowly, as does the camera person. There is no sudden jerk reaction from either him or the camera. After the "explosion" neither the two firemen who appear nor the man with "Police US INS" on his shirt appear concerned about the apparant explosion that they must have just heard.

No one mentions or refers to the alleged noise in any way whatsoever. The firemen tell them they're not supposed to be there, and need to get back. The police officer tells them not to worry about him, and asks if they need to make calls.

Watching the video without sound makes it patently obvious that no explosion occurs during the clip. For comparison, watch other videos in which explosions were occuring during the video (CDs, video from Iraq, etc).

-Gumboot
Click to expand...



One of the firefighters says "sxxt's exploding."

Edit: Let people watch the video and judge for themselves. The explosion clearly happens.

youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Do investigative journalists usually yell insanities through a bullhorn at cultish rallies?
Click to expand...

I don't consider Jones an investigative journalist, really. More a PT Barnum type.

Have you read Hopsicker? Do you know where he stands? (Without looking it up?)
 
tonicblue said:
One of the firefighters says "sxxt's exploding."

Edit: Let people watch the video and judge for themselves. The explosion clearly happens.
Click to expand...



It doesn't. The sound is fake. It has been added. The fireman in question says "I know that, but you gotta get back, the city's exploded."

The people present talk over the explosion, as if it had never happened. In addition, the explosion is heard most clearly in the low frequency range and upper range. The volume levels for the explosion are well below all other sound in the area - the voices of the people peak frequently and yet the only peaking on the explosion is below 60 Hz.

The lower end could be explained by a distant explosion, however the high-volume upper end indicates close proximity to the explosion. Consumer handycams have very poor performance at the lower end of the audio range, and professional cameras are equipped with shotgun microphones designed specifically to pick up human voices.

There is no echo on the explosion - and yet it supposedly occured in a crowded city - which produces multiple echos.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
It doesn't. The sound is fake. It has been added. The fireman in question says "I know that, but you gotta get back, the city's exploded."

The people present talk over the explosion, as if it had never happened. In addition, the explosion is heard most clearly in the low frequency range and upper range. The volume levels for the explosion are well below all other sound in the area - the voices of the people peak frequently and yet the only peaking on the explosion is below 60 Hz.

The lower end could be explained by a distant explosion, however the high-volume upper end indicates close proximity to the explosion. Consumer handycams have very poor performance at the lower end of the audio range, and professional cameras are equipped with shotgun microphones designed specifically to pick up human voices.

There is no echo on the explosion - and yet it supposedly occured in a crowded city - which produces multiple echos.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

He does not say the city exploded. That is absurd. All 3 men react to the explosion and the camera turns. The firefighter says sxxt's exploding.

How can you possibly derive all that from a compressed youtube video which probably is not in sync? How can you even know it's a handycam?

Edit: The guy on the phone actually ducks when the explosion happens and snaps his head around with a look of surprise and fear. The firefighter points in the direction of the explosion.

There is another video of the guy on the phone being interviewed. I'll try and get hold of it.
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
It doesn't. The sound is fake. It has been added. The fireman in question says "I know that, but you gotta get back, the city's exploded."
Click to expand...

I can't begin to remember where, but I have seen this video somewhere other than the internet. I distinctly remember the "here's the guy who's gonna tell you I'm OK" bit. All that's needed is to track down the original and... problem solved.
 
I can't speak to the audio analysis of that clip with the alleged explosion, but the video does not support the idea of an explosion.

When the sound occurs, only one person is fully in screen--the one on the phone. He turns at the time of the sound, though not definitely in a startled manner. It is as likely that he is responding to the arrival of the two firefighters. The right arm and right side of the face of another man (the Police INS shirt) are also in screen; this man does not react at all.

The two firefighters show no reaction. The one says something which is partially covered by the other firefighter. The discernible words are "city" and "exploding," not "◊◊◊◊" and "exploding."

Finally, they end simply by asking if anyone needs to make a phone call.

Add gumboot's audio analysis, and I think it clear that the weight is on his side.
 
Garrette said:
I can't speak to the audio analysis of that clip with the alleged explosion, but the video does not support the idea of an explosion.

When the sound occurs, only one person is fully in screen--the one on the phone. He turns at the time of the sound, though not definitely in a startled manner. It is as likely that he is responding to the arrival of the two firefighters. The right arm and right side of the face of another man (the Police INS shirt) are also in screen; this man does not react at all.

The two firefighters show no reaction. The one says something which is partially covered by the other firefighter. The discernible words are "city" and "exploding," not "◊◊◊◊" and "exploding."

Finally, they end simply by asking if anyone needs to make a phone call.

Add gumboot's audio analysis, and I think it clear that the weight is on his side.
Click to expand...

The man on the phone ducks. The camera is turned toward the buildings. The firefighter that mentions exploding points to the buildings the camera looked at. The explosion is what causes the firemen to try and get the men to hurry to leave.

It is an explosion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom