Brand New CT sub-group: No-Sounders

[LastChild]

So, Lastchild, am I to believe you have NO prevailing opinion on whether WTC was a controlled demolition?

No my prevailing opinion as far as this is concerned is that Gravy's video is a stupid waste of time and proves nothing.

 

[LastChild]

No you didn't prove anything. Volume is relative. You can still hear the demolition charges can you not? You can still hear the collapse do you not? And demolition charges go off *****BEFORE**** a collapse. Now you're trying to claim that the charges went off as the building collapsed. In which case there would be NO POINT in using demolition charges if the building is already collapsing.

You are just amazing. I hope you keep records of your claims so you can read them when you grow up.

Here's what you still don't get about the volume. No one is arguing that some things might be louder than the charges. You're arguing that they couldn't be heard because other noises obscured them. yet those other noises didn't obscure the sound of the actual collapse which is from the same sound source and location and is not as loud of an event as demolition charges.

Volume is relative in relation to whether or not you can hear something? You are an idiot. It's official.

 

[WildCat]

I thought that was your claim? Or is it your claim that you have magic ears that can make sense of the sound of the WTC collapse?

There are no sounds of explosions on any video of the WTC collapsing.

Except the ones faked by truthers, of course.

This isn't because everyone recording the event had some kind of magical microphone incapable of picking up sounds of explosions. It's because there were no explosions.

 

[A W Smith]

Still waiting for example videos of those silent CDs LostChild

 

[SDC]

Yes I'm somewhat of a musician myself. Now why don't you answer the question? Why so many different kinds of microphones?

Is that a serious question? That's the sort of question on this topic that I would ask -- if I were trying to pester my wife into giving an answer aimed at the meanest intelligence. (Which, in terms of music and the technologies related thereto, I am.)

Why are there so many types of automobiles when they all do the same kind of thing? Why so many different times of musical instruments when they all do the same kind of thing? Why so many different styles of shoes... You get the idea.

Surely you don't mean that as a serious question.

Edit: others more knowledgeable than I have already made these points. LC's comments are beyond ridiculous. As someone has as a sig line (approx): his comments don't even reach the status of being wrong.

Oh, and a happy new year to all. May the coming year (I guess some of the Europeans have already made it) be filled with knowledge based on serious appreciation of facts.

 

[MetalliSociety]

Well we have all heard of the No-Planers right? Well apparently we now have the No-Sounders. The No-Sounders claim first that no audio captured on 9/11 has the sound of explosions. Secondly in the same breath the no-sounders then claim if there are any sounds of explosions caught on any of the many recordings captured on 9/11 they are either explosive sounds that are not explosives or they are fake.

That’s right! You heard it. Fake audio just like the no-planers claim fake video.

And who prêt ell is behind such evil doings as to put the sound of explosions into wtc collapse videos? Are you ready for this?

Rudi Giuliani.

That’s right folks. Apparently according to Gravy and ktesibios Rudy and his evil cohorts may have had access to a Hollywood FX lab and put the sounds of explosions into a WTC collapse video.

Why would he do this?

I have no frigging idea.

Some no-sounders like Jonnyclueless go further and claim that all microphones record sound the same exact way. So it doesn’t matter that it is not known what was used in any of the recordings of the wtc collapse videos because all microphones would have distinctly picked up the sound of explosions over the sound of a collapsing 110 story building the same exact way. Even if it was just a microphone built into a hand-held camcorder while the person holding it is running for their life. Jonnyclueless also claims that the sound of something carries just as well from underground or behind walls as it does in an open environment. He knows this because he is an expert who knows more then anyone here on JREF about audio.

I’ve started this thread so that they may explain their conspiracy theory in more detail. I’m especially interested in what they have to claim about fake audio and Rudy.

When it's already been shown that alot of tuther videos, like 9/11 Mysteries, did put fake sounds in there(according to the person that recorded the collapses), thats pretty sure fire way to lose more credability on the truther side.

And if you listen to Prof. Jones, they used non-explosive thermite, so then explosions mean nothing.

Don't you think that loud booms will be inevitably heard when a huge building is coming down?

No evidence of explosives being planted were found either, according to those that were on the scene.

Eye witnesses that are experts on the subject that were at ground zero for the whole clean-up said they didn't find a shred of evidence that any CD devices were used.

Imagine that. Experts on the subject that were there say theres no conspiracy. Hard to comprehnd I know!

 

[MetalliSociety]

No my prevailing opinion as far as this is concerned is that Gravy's video is a stupid waste of time and proves nothing.

OK...And this thread you started is stupid waste of time and proves nothing. Guess its all even.

 

[IMST]

So that makes them all the same?

You are the one that brought up anything about all mics being the same. They all have the same basic function to the extent that all cars have the same basic function. There is no more difference between a U47 FET and a SM-57 than there is between a Pinto and a Mercedes, nor is there any less. Can we leave this stupid part of the conversation behind? All microphones pick up what they hear, all cars drive people places, there are differences in quality.

You feel? I thought you claimed to know?

nice dodge of context. I know a lot about mics. I know very little about cars if it helps.

Well then that's not very far.

I've tried a bunch of brands of detergent. Result: clean clothes. That as much as these queer eyes can tell.

How do you know the explosives would be in it's field? How do you know what it's field is if you don't know what it is?

I said nothing about explosives in my comment on the cameras. I was merely pointing out that they simply see, like microphones simply hear. There's no camera incapable of seeing certain things if you point it at them. There's no mic incapable of hearing certain things if you put it in range.

I don't know what you record but none of that would work for me. Cheap mics on the drums? The Bass only Direct Boxed in the studio? (maybe live?) I know for a fact that instruments can be in the same room all of them very loud with some of them not getting picked up from one source or another. If you put a cheap mic in front of the drums there is a good chance it will distort if you put it too close and not pick up anything else.

Maybe we have a different definition of cheap mics. I generally use a D-112 on kick, SM-57s on snare and toms and cheap cardioid small cap condensers (often Sennheisers) as overheads. All of these are in the 3 figures range of price (US dollars). Expensive mics would be in the 4 figures range. Bass is almost always used with a direct box since it is very difficult to keep bass amp sounds out of other mics if they are not very close, overheads in particular. It is very common to have the bass amp missing altogether or in a different room if the sound is essential. When I do mic a bass amp I carefully use an omnidirectional condenser mic. And I'm more likely to mic a bass amp live than in studio since the amp has to be there. That tends to be expensive. The only way to keep other instruments in the same room out of each other's mics is to have the mics extremely close to the sound source. Even then you can usually find other things on the tracks if you solo. I think your knowledge for a fact there was a lie. The cheap mics are the ones less likely to distort since they will be moving coil dynamics which have excellent tolerance of high SPLs. Usually, though mics don't distort at all in the studio. The preamp does. Makes it very easy for an inexperienced sound engineer to screw up. I've you've been recording, you comments here make it obvious you don't do it well.

That's what this thread is about. Did you read the OP at least?

And I'm talking about the relevant audio matters where I have experience.

Right. And if there is a loud collapsing building you might not hear anything else or be able to pick it out from the rest of the explosive like sounds.

wrong. Cause and effect and time both exist.

 

[Slayhamlet]

There are no sounds of explosions on any video of the WTC collapsing.

Except the ones faked by truthers, of course.

This isn't because everyone recording the event had some kind of magical microphone incapable of picking up sounds of explosions. It's because there were no explosions.

The explosions in the Trinity Church video were faked in a studio by filmmakers, not Truthers. Sophia Shafquat is the only Truther whom I'm certain added fake explosion sounds to video, in "9/11 Mysteries". And she admitted it.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Volume is relative in relation to whether or not you can hear something? You are an idiot. It's official.

You really can't be this stupid. Nice way to try and dodge the post there cowboy. Sad, just sad. Let us know when you learn the basics of sound.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The explosions in the Trinity Church video were faked in a studio by filmmakers, not Truthers. Sophia Shafquat is the only Truther whom I'm certain added fake explosion sounds to video, in "9/11 Mysteries". And she admitted it.

i know there was one other video where the audio was altered, but that could be the 9/11 mysteries footage

it was shot from what looks like a courtyard fairly close to the towers, with some firemen around, im not sure who altered the audio

heres a video which juxtaposes both audio tracks

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5499892486580378532

i notice the fake one has a discovery channel bug in the corner, anyone know what show it was from?

 

[The Doc]

"A dynamic mic is designed to pickup whats in front of it and cut down as much as possible the sounds further away." - Lastchild.

No. You are absolutely wrong. You are referring to "directional" microphones, which can be either dynamic or condenser microphones.

I own dozens of microphones. Several of my dynamic microphones are omni-directional, meaning that they pick up sounds from all directions. Others have switches that can control this.

"A dynamic mic is designed to pickup whats in front of it and cut down as much as possible the sounds further away." - Lastchild.

A microphone isn't classified as either dynamic or condenser based on its directionality setting. Dynamic microphones are dynamic because they work by electromagnetic induction.

Please educate yourself in these areas before you further humiliate yourself.

 

[Slayhamlet]

Please educate yourself in these areas before you further humiliate yourself.

That ship sailed long ago.

 

[pomeroo]

You what I find interesting about this thread? A complete know-nothing, one of the most bumptious ignoramuses on the forum, managed to provoke very informative responses from some extremely knowledgeable people. It's amazing how much there is to learn here when you don't already know everything.

Thanks, guys.

 

[The Doc]

That ship sailed long ago.

Yeah I figured as much. I was just reading the first page and had to get that little rant off my chest as I was utterly bewildered by what he was saying.

 

[JimBenArm]

Yeah I figured as much. I was just reading the first page and had to get that little rant off my chest as I was utterly bewildered by what he was saying.

I read the entire thread, and still am. I'm always bewildered by ignorant people arguing with knowledgeable people in their area of expertise.

 

[LastChild]

No. You are absolutely wrong. You are referring to "directional" microphones, which can be either dynamic or condenser microphones.

No I was talking about the difference between them. What does a condenser mic amplify?

I own dozens of microphones. Several of my dynamic microphones are omni-directional, meaning that they pick up sounds from all directions. Others have switches that can control this.

Yeah and I own a bunch of cars but it doesn't make me a mechanic. I do know that there are big differences between all of them though.

A microphone isn't classified as either dynamic or condenser based on its directionality setting. Dynamic microphones are dynamic because they work by electromagnetic induction.

I didn't say anything about directionality setting.

Please educate yourself in these areas before you further humiliate yourself.

Another genius huh? Good educate me. Why don't you explain proximity effect and try to keep in in context to Gravy's piece of crap video that proves nothing? And no blowhard revisionism please.

 

[slyjoe]

...
Another genius huh? Good educate me. Why don't you explain proximity effect and try to keep in in context to Gravy's piece of crap video that proves nothing? And no blowhard revisionism please.

Proximity effect basically deals with the closer you are to the mic, the less bass attenuation there is. Are you sure you aren't asking for "distance effect"?

You know, why don't you tell us what proximity or distance effects have to do with picking up sounds of a controlled demolition?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

There is much prep work that goes into a traditional control demolition that more or less guts the building. They also don't always use loads of explosives where they can use the weight to do much of the work...

It is interesting that you would say such a thing. You know that such knowledge is anathema among truthers, don't you?

 

[LastChild]

You are the one that brought up anything about all mics being the same. They all have the same basic function to the extent that all cars have the same basic function. There is no more difference between a U47 FET and a SM-57 than there is between a Pinto and a Mercedes, nor is there any less. Can we leave this stupid part of the conversation behind? All microphones pick up what they hear, all cars drive people places, there are differences in quality.

I did not bring up all mic's being the same I was responding to it. If people don't know what was used in the video that is the topic of this thread then how do they assert to know or even start to bring up every single type of microphone? I was at least trying to keep it general but like always here at JREF people try to sway the conversation to their specific experiences or claimed expertise. When I ask about the topic? I get "I didn't see it"

nice dodge of context. I know a lot about mics. I know very little about cars if it helps.

Good. Explain proximity effect. After you watch Gravy's comparison. You know.? What I'm talking about? You came in the middle of a thread where you have admitted to not even seeing the topic and you're telling me about dodging context?

I've tried a bunch of brands of detergent. Result: clean clothes. That as much as these queer eyes can tell.

Really? So why did you try a bunch of different brands?

I said nothing about explosives in my comment on the cameras. I was merely pointing out that they simply see, like microphones simply hear. There's no camera incapable of seeing certain things if you point it at them. There's no mic incapable of hearing certain things if you put it in range.

Really? In any kind of light?

Maybe we have a different definition of cheap mics. I generally use a D-112 on kick, SM-57s on snare and toms and cheap cardioid small cap condensers (often Sennheisers) as overheads. All of these are in the 3 figures range of price (US dollars). Expensive mics would be in the 4 figures range. Bass is almost always used with a direct box since it is very difficult to keep bass amp sounds out of other mics if they are not very close, overheads in particular. It is very common to have the bass amp missing altogether or in a different room if the sound is essential. When I do mic a bass amp I carefully use an omnidirectional condenser mic. And I'm more likely to mic a bass amp live than in studio since the amp has to be there. That tends to be expensive. The only way to keep other instruments in the same room out of each other's mics is to have the mics extremely close to the sound source. Even then you can usually find other things on the tracks if you solo. I think your knowledge for a fact there was a lie. The cheap mics are the ones less likely to distort since they will be moving coil dynamics which have excellent tolerance of high SPLs. Usually, though mics don't distort at all in the studio. The preamp does. Makes it very easy for an inexperienced sound engineer to screw up. I've you've been recording, you comments here make it obvious you don't do it well.

Yes. All kinds of techniques to capture the right sound you are looking for and nothing is really wrong. It depends on what you want. But why so many different ways? Why not just stick the instruments in the room with one mic?

And I'm talking about the relevant audio matters where I have experience.

Yes but there is a topic here. Remember what you said about context?

wrong. Cause and effect and time both exist.

I don't know what you mean by that in context to Gravy's video.