Split Thread henryco's new paper

[bill smith]

********!
1) There is nothing easier than filtering the required frequencies to suppress or just smooth anything you want from a sound track and even from an image.
And most of the time you would not even need to make the effort because an imperfect recorder would do it itself. I'm a physicist and i'm teaching signal treatment and analysis.

2) How many videos were taken close enough to the WTCs to catch the explosions: 1 ?, 2?
i know personally one of them which is the video we are discussing and we find it in to versions : one with the noise of the explosions and the collapse and the other with just a big CHHHHHH...find the bug! )

I heared that there exists another sound track of WTC7 with nothing but the voices (57 floors building collapse completely inaudible). If some one knows where i can find it, thank you .

3) If you want videos of witnesses (Firefighters here!) but also recorded explosions go here
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8
it's just a small sample!

4) Comparing WTCs demolition with another controlled demolition is a priori ******** method because in the case of the WTC you expect people to try to be as discrete as possible because it's a crime : so you'd better not use huge explosive but rather many many small ones just to cut many columns (hence many heard "pops running in all direction inside the building") and thermite just as an incendiary (not an explosive) to help melt the columns
and you will use the more powerful explosives only when the collapse has fully started . Hear again the Landmark Tower demolition when the collapse has started and realise how loud is the sound of a collapse even when there is no more explosion...then compare it to the video track sound we are talking about.

All these arguments are quite obvious. I'm wondering why nobody seems to be able to understand these obvious arguments and evidences here.

F H-C

Good post. I think about 50% of the core columns up to about the 88th floor were completely melted away and the columns above those were mostly blown away by high explosive.

This can be seen in the amount of flying columns near the top of the buildings and the lack of them lower down. Two different mechanisms. at work. (I think that the affected hollow core columns were filled with nanothermite by the way)

 

[bill smith]

********!
1) There is nothing easier than filtering the required frequencies to suppress or just smooth anything you want from a sound track and even from an image.
And most of the time you would not even need to make the effort because an imperfect recorder would do it itself. I'm a physicist and i'm teaching signal treatment and analysis.

2) How many videos were taken close enough to the WTCs to catch the explosions: 1 ?, 2?
i know personally one of them which is the video we are discussing and we find it in to versions : one with the noise of the explosions and the collapse and the other with just a big CHHHHHH...find the bug! )

I heared that there exists another sound track of WTC7 with nothing but the voices (57 floors building collapse completely inaudible). If some one knows where i can find it, thank you .

3) If you want videos of witnesses (Firefighters here!) but also recorded explosions go here
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8
it's just a small sample!

4) Comparing WTCs demolition with another controlled demolition is a priori ******** method because in the case of the WTC you expect people to try to be as discrete as possible because it's a crime : so you'd better not use huge explosive but rather many many small ones just to cut many columns (hence many heard "pops running in all direction inside the building") and thermite just as an incendiary (not an explosive) to help melt the columns
and you will use the more powerful explosives only when the collapse has fully started . Hear again the Landmark Tower demolition when the collapse has started and realise how loud is the sound of a collapse even when there is no more explosion...then compare it to the video track sound we are talking about.

All these arguments are quite obvious. I'm wondering why nobody seems to be able to understand these obvious arguments and evidences here.

F H-C

Have you ever noticed with debunkers that they always say that the hundreds of people who report explosions awere all mistaken or crazy ? When they say that the people wre mistaken they say that the big sound that they heard was actually something else making the big noise .'' Do you know what a huge explosion a jumper from a quarter mile high makes ''? they say

But they never explain why we don't even hear those noises that were not explosions on the 9/i1 videos either . Didn't the jumpers make any noise then ?

Debunkers.... ?

I think we can use this fact to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 9/11 videos have been tampered with.

 

[BigAl]

Have you ever noticed with debunkers that they always say that the hundreds of people who report explosions awere all mistaken or crazy ?

Who says either of those things? "explosion" is a fine word for "loud noise". Lots of people heard loud noises at WTC on 9/11.

Nobody heard any explosions consistent in timing, loudness or brisance with man-made demolition.

 

[bill smith]

Who says either of those things? "explosion" is a fine word for "loud noise". Lots of people heard loud noises at WTC on 9/11.

Nobody heard any explosions consistent in timing, loudness or brisance with man-made demolition.

Remember when Shyam Sunder mentioned the lack of explosion noises after he produced the final report on wTC7 ? I could see then that that was going to be his final line of defence

Now that ae911truth.org are calling for a Grand Jury Investigation into NIST and naming Shyam Sunder in person it looks like we aare going to have some fun.

I hope he doesn't run....but if he does that will just prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

have you guys successfully sued anybody yet?

 

[bill smith]

have you guys successfully sued anybody yet?

Well the courts are not bvery cooperative on that. When the 400 9/11 family members filed suit against Bush and co for murder in 2004 a tame judge dismissd the case. And then when Bush was sued for rape in 2003 the plaintiff shot herself (many say that ahe was suicided) a few months later.

So the courts don't work well for us. (Yet).

 

[TJM]

Well the courts are not bvery cooperative on that. When the 400 9/11 family members filed suit against Bush and co for murder in 2004 a tame judge dismissd the case. And then when Bussh was sued for rape in 2003 the plaintiff shot herseelf (many say that ahe was suicided) a few months later.

So the courts don't work well for us. (Yet).

Silly of me I know, but perhaps this might be a good time to think that one through.

Bah. Didn't think so.

Carry on.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

Well the courts are not bvery cooperative on that. When the 400 9/11 family members filed suit against Bush and co for murder in 2004 a tame judge dismissd the case. And then when Bussh was sued for rape in 2003 the plaintiff shot herseelf (many say that ahe was suicided) a few months later.

So the courts don't work well for us. (Yet).

that's a big no. Which is funny, because the courts took 2 weeks to try and find Jeffrey Dahmer guilty of killing and eating people in his apartment, and all this with evidence found at the scene of the crime, which included a human head in the fridge. i was just wondering why you can't come up with something in almost 9 years after the fact.

 

[BigAl]

Remember when Shyam Sunder mentioned the lack of explosion noises after he produced the final report on wTC7 ? I could see then that that was going to be his final line of defence

Now that ae911truth.org are calling for a Grand Jury Investigation into NIST and naming Shyam Sunder in person it looks like we aare going to have some fun.

I hope he doesn't run....but if he does that will just prove that 9/11 was an inside job.

Dodge much?

There were no noises heard at WTC on 9/11 that were consistent in timing, loudness or brisance with man-made demolition.

 

[ktesibios]

********!
1) There is nothing easier than filtering the required frequencies to suppress or just smooth anything you want from a sound track and even from an image.
And most of the time you would not even need to make the effort because an imperfect recorder would do it itself. I'm a physicist and i'm teaching signal treatment and analysis.

O RLY?

By a strange coincidence I've lately become interested in learning about the characteristics of authentic demolition blasts as recorded in internet videos. To that end I've been garnering soundtracks of real demolitions from YouTube, capturing the audio with Wiretap Pro, a program which intercepts the data going to the computer's sound card and records it as an audio file.

Ultimately I hope to be able to provide some statistics on such parameters of interest as risetime and spectral distribution. However, even with the relatively crude tools I have available at workplace #1 we can examine a few of those soundtracks and see if we can determine just which frequencies you would have to filter out to suppress the sound of chaped charges going off.

Let's start with the demolition of the Landmark Tower in Texas. I selected the first four blasts (selection is shown in the waveform display below)

and did an FFT spectrum analysis of the selected portion:

The horizontal axis is logarithmic with the major divisions being 1 kHz apart. The vertical axis is linear in decibels, 6 dB/div.

You'll notice that while there is quite a bit of bass, the spectrum is nearly flat out past 3 kHz and continuous. Now let's look at a time-versus-spectral density display for the same selection:

Horizontal axis is time, linear, 1 second/div. Vertical axis is frequency, linear, 1 kHz/div. Intensity within a frequency bin is denoted by color, with brighter colors indicating higher amplitude.

The individual blasts show up nicely in this display; they're hard to distinguish in the waveform display because each succeeding blast goes off before the sound of the previous one has finished bucketing around the gutted building. You'll notice that each shows a continuous spectrum with considerable energy out beyond 5 kHz. This is consistent with the audible fact that instead of going "BOOM" or "Whoom", the explosions go

BAM! BAM! BAM-BAM-BAM!
So, if you want to use filtering to remove the sound of the explosions, you would have to take out everything between DC and 6 kHz or so. The technical term for doing this is "making your recording utterly unintelligible and useless".

Now, let's look at a couple more demolition soundtracks. The Everglades Hotel:

spectrum

spectrogram

The Kingdome in Seattle:

spectrum

spectrogram

They both have something in common with the Landmark demolition: the explosions produce continuous spectra with plenty of energy up into the midrange. The notion that frequency-selective filtering could remove the blasts from the recording without introducing painfully obvious artifacts is nothing short of laughable.

I've experimented with using some digital single-ended noise reduction techniques to try to remove the blast sounds. Multiband noise gating had no effect because, as I tried to explain to femr2 above, the blasts have a higher amplitude than the background sound and consequently just open the gates wide. Using spectral subtraction with the first blast as a sample of the "noise" to be reduced just turned the entire track into something that sounded like R2D2 inciting a riot in an aviary.

Which is more probable- that the eevil gummint has some magical technique for removing the sound of explosions from audio recordings without leaving a trace and has done this with every WTC collapse video floating around the 'net, or that people with an axe to grind or a twisted sense of humor have occasionally added phony sound tracks to existing videos and uploaded them to YouTube just to wind-up rubes who, in the immortal words of Honest John Barlow "won't know enough to do any smart checking"?

 

[bill smith]

I don't think there were that many different videos around in the days and weeks after 9/11. It's almost as if they have been steadily fed into circulation from that time right up until the present day. And of course everything is digital. Some of the videos recorded on the day of 9/11 may have been analogue but by the time anybody saw them on their computer they had been digitised.

Maybe there was some very good software about ? Government ? Military ? With digital anything is possible. Especially with only a few initial videos to alter. The rest came on line as ready. Virtually everything came through government or media channels.

Lord Griffin has spoken of extremely advanced audio technology in play around 9/11. All in all I am not convinced.

 

[femr2]

I tried to explain to femr2 above, the blasts have a higher amplitude than the background sound

Perhaps you should consider that I'm not looking to find explosions. I am looking to understand what does and does not get recorded. What can and cannot be heard. That you incorrectly assume my position, and go to the effort you have, purely with that in mind is a bit of a shame (and as such a waste of time). It's interesting to note that you've stopped short of actually applying any processing to the audio streams, and instead simply made statements such as "The technical term for doing this is "making your recording utterly unintelligible and useless".".

As I said, I'll get around to an audio analysis. I imagine the leg work will be done over at the911forum, but I'll drop the occasional link here if there are points of note.

 

[BigAl]

I don't think there were that many different videos around in the days and weeks after 9/11. It's almost as if they have been steadily fed into circulation from that time right up until the present day. And of course everything is digital. Some of the videos recorded on the day of 9/11 may have been analogue but by the time anybody saw them on their computer they had been digitised.

Maybe there was some very good software about ? Government ? Military ? With digital anything is possible. Especially with only a few initial videos to alter. The rest came on line as ready. Virtually everything came through government or media channels.

Lord Griffin has spoken of extremely advanced audio technology in play around 9/11. All in all I am not convinced.

What the videos show matches what the thousands of eyewitnesses saw. Your unsubstantiated conjecture is wrong.

 

[bill smith]

What the videos show matches what the thousands of eyewitnesses saw. Your unsubstantiated conjecture is wrong.

No it's not Al. We will prove it when the time is right.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

No it's not Al. We will prove it when the time is right.

can you hurry this up? I'm playing golf all next week.

 

[bill smith]

can you hurry this up? I'm playing golf all next week.

What's the rush ? What difference will another while make ?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

What's the rush ? What difference will another while make ?

you have any idea how hard it is to get a tee time at Ponte Vedra?

 

[leftysergeant]

3) If you want videos of witnesses (Firefighters here!) but also recorded explosions go here
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8
it's just a small sample!

Mostly, it is a sample of what makes Gary Lawyer a waste of a badge. Childish little rubbish pile of a site. Same old debunked BS. The boy is barely bright enough to screw two hose coupling together, as far as I can see.

What I find especially disgusting is that one of the clips he shows is of a young fire fighter describing what idiot boy Lawyer and the nutty Canadian monk MacQueen think are bombs going off. Can any of you hose draggers from the NYC area identify the fire fightrer with the dirty face and maybe poiont us toward his comments in the oral histories project? I am just betting that this was one of the men coming down the stair well in the north tower as the south tower collapsed, or one of those who survived trapped in a stairwell after the building collapsed around them. If so, I would further bet that he is one of those who describe the blast that hit him as a "wind," which is utterly inconsistant with the impact of high explosives.

4) Comparing WTCs demolition with another controlled demolition is a priori ******** method because in the case of the WTC you expect people to try to be as discrete as possible because it's a crime : so you'd better not use huge explosive but rather many many small ones just to cut many columns (hence many heard "pops running in all direction inside the building") and thermite just as an incendiary (not an explosive) to help melt the columns
and you will use the more powerful explosives only when the collapse has fully started .

Big problem here. There are no thermite-damaged columns. The "pops" were probably rivets shearing. They produce a rather explosion-like noise when they fail.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Big problem here. There are no thermite-damaged columns. The "pops" were probably rivets shearing. They produce a rather explosion-like noise when they fail.

Bolts! Rivets are old! Kinda like you!

Zing! Sorry, I couldn't help myself

 

[leftysergeant]

Bolts! Rivets are old! Kinda like you!

Whatever the fasteners were that held the perimeter column segments together apparently fail suddenly or tore out the holes through which they were installed. If you look at the perimeter segments, many of the holes are pulled out neatly on a horizontal plane, with very little warpping of the metal. This is, to my thinking, consistant with the interior being over-pressurized by the build-up of rubble and the whole structure being unpeeled like a banana. The bolts or rivets or whatever through those plates would not fail silently or slowly.