Help me out with this video, please

[alienentity]

I did my best to track down the documentary that supposedly started this whole question. It's called 'In Memoriam New York City 9/11/01' and was released by HBO.

Ive checked two versions on youtube, both have stereo soundtracks, however, the scene in question is not covered in full in the video, in either version I had.

This is video 3 of 8, and all it shows is the first part of the telephone scene. The film cuts away b4 the firemen come along, so we cannot compare with the clips now on youtube.

Unless we could find an original of the news footage, we'll never know. For the record, the explosion that exists on the youtube videos is NOT stereo, it's mono. So again we cannot use that as a way to eliminate it.

Again, it does NOT appear that the whole scene appears in the documentary.

Goto about 7 min in or use the long link to jump right to it.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abph6hekFZQ&t=7m20s

 

[000063]

I can quote things too.

A large bang. Big *********** deal. Lots of things go boom, especially in burning buildings.

Same old boring song and dance...just older, and more boring.

TAM

 

[paperboy05]

I did my best to track down the documentary that supposedly started this whole question. It's called 'In Memoriam New York City 9/11/01' and was released by HBO.

Unless we could find an original of the news footage, we'll never know. For the record, the explosion that exists on the youtube videos is NOT stereo, it's mono. So again we cannot use that as a way to eliminate it.

It appears the Museum of the City of New York has a screening of that documentary every year on 9/11. It appears from their event page that they currently have all the footage from that documentary:
http://www.mcny.org/public-programs/all/Memorium.html.

Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani narrates this documentary created for HBO in 2002. The film draws upon interviews, photography, video, and unprecedented access to City Hall. Footage collected for In Memoriam was donated to the Museum of the City of New York 9/11 Archive, with generous support from AOL/Time Warner.

Wow, so this really has been discussed extensively here, I feel bad for bumping the thread

 

[gumboot]

Sorry guys, I can't support the theory that this explosion sound was added to the video later. Below is a jpg of the waveform. I'll explain what I see:

1)The whole track here is in mono, not stereo. I have no way to pick out the explosion from the audio on the basis that it is in stereo, but perhaps someone has a different version.

Yes, I do, as a matter-of-fact. I have the version that was originally uploaded to youtube years ago. The explosion is definitely stereo, and definitely does not clip.

2) There is a lot of audio clipping throughout the track, from the mens voices and also from the explosion sound. This is consistent with them all being produced by the same camera electronics.

See above.

3) You will notice the density of the sound of conversation (amplitude is represented vertically, time horizontally) is high at the beginning of the clip. The explosion sound occurs about 4.75 bars into the clip (yeah, I didn't bother measuring in seconds, sorry!) You can see the limiter circuitry kicked in and tried to attenuate the levels...now you see a lot of peaks, probably the sampling rate of the limiter. Conversation is again heard, but is affected by the limiter circuitry until about 7.25 bars in.

The reason for the increased peaks in during the explosion sound is because the explosion is actually (at least on the original video) a much more dynamic, and much cleaner sound than the rest of the video, as reflected in the increase in peaks. The high-peak section ends the moment the explosion sound does.

The problem with your limiter argument is that the dialogue clips before the explosion. If a limiter was operating at the time of this recording it would have prevented this. Of course an alternative explanation is that the clipping in the video happened as a post-process and the original footage doesn't clip at all. But if this were the case the explosion should experience extensively more clipping than the dialogue. As it is, the explosion is heavily present in the upper and lower frequencies while the voice is (obviously) in the normal frequencies for voice. The only clipping of the explosion on the original video is below the 60Hz range, which is well below the range any camera-mounted microphone is going to detect in the field. In fact field microphones tend to specifically filter out the lower frequencies because that's where you get wind noise. Other than the explosion, the spectral frequency display of the video is practically empty below 100Hz.

Had the explosion just been superimposed on the existing audio track, you would not have seen the waveform of the men's voices altered from 4.75 to 7.25. It appears that the camera's limiter was responding to the explosion for several seconds.

...No it doesn't. That's not what a limiter would look like at all.

At least that's my interpretation of it. It would be nice to have a stereo original version to analyze, if one indeed exists.

ETA: I listened very carefully thru headphones to the conversation and comments directly following the explosion. I can not support the claim that someone mentions building 7. If you can make that out from the garbled mess, then you must have superpowers I do not possess. At best this is a very liberal interpretation of what is on the audio track..... IMO.

I believe the line is "the city's exploding" not "seven's exploding".

 

[gumboot]

I did my best to track down the documentary that supposedly started this whole question. It's called 'In Memoriam New York City 9/11/01' and was released by HBO.

It was originally shown in the documentary "9/11 Stories From The City" by Reality TV. According to the distributors this was the events of 9/11 told through the eyes of everyday New Yorkers and the videos they took themselves.

This is video 3 of 8, and all it shows is the first part of the telephone scene. The film cuts away b4 the firemen come along, so we cannot compare with the clips now on youtube.

"Stories From The City" includes the full video.

Unless we could find an original of the news footage, we'll never know. For the record, the explosion that exists on the youtube videos is NOT stereo, it's mono. So again we cannot use that as a way to eliminate it.

The one I have is stereo. Jus' saying.

Again, it does NOT appear that the whole scene appears in the documentary.

That's because you've got the wrong documentary. The video is from distributor Camera Planet, who established an extensive archive of 9/11 footage. The HBO documentary obviously utilised the Camera Planet source video.

 

[gumboot]

From the archived thread referred to:



Seems like a plausible explanation.

No it isn't. Adjusting the volume of a video will have exactly zero effect on clipping. Once again you show your ignorance. Give it up.

 

[alienentity]

I'll leave you to your opinions on limiters, fact is I cannot track down a version of the video you refer to.

If the explosion is in stereo, it's fake. The original material was clearly mono. But again I don't have evidence, it's just second-hand info from gumboot and others.

Would be nice to have someone post the clip as it appeared in the documentary so we can view it...

 

[femr2]

I have the version that was originally uploaded to youtube years ago.

Can I suggest uploading the original to a file-share site such as megaupload ?

 

[gumboot]

Come to think of it, there are a few inconsistencies in what Gumboots has posted here.

No there isn't. Perhaps you'd care to explain. My analysis of the sound didn't take long. It was all the other messing around and slamming my head against a wall trying to explain it to deliberately obtuse Conspiracy Theorists that took hours. That and trying to track down the source.

So when I not only did that, but posted the screen caps so that he could explain his points, what was his response?

fitzgibbon pointed this out in post 26 of this thread. If you don't read it properly that's not my fault, is it?

More contradictions:

None of those statements are contradictory. At all.

Even though he just supplied a likely reason why it might have been done.

I can think of quite a few plausible explanations for the explosion being added. I have no reason to believe any of them is the explanation in this case, so no opinion on what actually happened. I have no idea why it was added. I don't even know who added it.

Actually, as anyone who has worked with digital sound even in an amateur fashion knows, you can do anything you want with it. You can cut segments out, enhance them or edit them in any way you want, and reinsert it. Like cutting and pasting.

Wow. I apologise for ever attempting to engage you in discussion about audio analysis. I didn't realise you were this ignorant.

Indeed, this is what he has already suggested occurred, for completely unsuspicious reasons.

Actually no, I didn't. But well done. I offered a plausible non-suspicious explanation for the explosion being added (without making any comment on whether I believed that is what actually did happen) and that explanation was that the explosion sound was layered over the top of the original audio.

Again, this contradicts what the simple audio of the Landmark implosion shows, as I point out above. The sounds were captured. No reason to suspect that they had been added or enhanced. Same signature as we see in the video in question.

In the video linked in the OP? Yes. Extensive clipping of audio right across the frequency range (the actual specifics of the explosions are quite different but this key feature is the same). But it's pretty clear the audio in the linked OP video has been modified (either deliberately or accidentally) to result in extensive clipping because the video I downloaded which was the popular clip when this first surfaced didn't feature said clipping.

Stupid. He's trying to claim that capturing that sound live would have required superhuman live mixing.

To record it the way it appears in the video would have, yes.

He's already acknowledged that the audio he examined was from the documentary. He's already acknowledged why that segment might have been enhanced or otherwise altered.

Your point?

Moreover, as the Landmark video shows, a simple camera mic can capture explosion sounds with a good degree of accuracy.

Ah... no. The Landmark demolition videos have exactly what we'd expect; the explosions peak the **** out of the microphones.

 

[gumboot]

Good idea. Just clicking on the tag link produced this page:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags.php?tag=fake+explosion+sound

listing several threads in which Gumboots proclaims audio fakery for just about any truther video with explosions in it. And he's so darn sure of himself - every time.

You do realise they're all talking about the same video, right?

 

[gumboot]

I'll leave you to your opinions on limiters, fact is I cannot track down a version of the video you refer to.

If the explosion is in stereo, it's fake. The original material was clearly mono. But again I don't have evidence, it's just second-hand info from gumboot and others.

Would be nice to have someone post the clip as it appeared in the documentary so we can view it...

I think this is the video I originally used, however YouTube converts all video to mono, so even if you extract this media clip it's going to be mono sound.

To be honest I can't remember where I got the video I analysed from. I thought I still had a copy but turns out I don't. Hardly surprising as my current computer is the fourth I've owned since I first discussed this video in 2006 and there's been dozens of reinstalls. The video I have is, I am guessing, from a more recent time I tried to get the stereo version again after it was brought up.

Does anyone know if Google Video or any of those other now defunct video sharing sites used to allow stereo audio?

Maybe one day the original documentary will crop up somewhere in English and the mystery can be resolved. It might even be worth having another crack at accquiring a copy from RealityTV or Camera Planet.

For me, it's not important enough to be of any use. All the video shows, even if it's 100% genuine, is an explosion on 9/11. Everyone knows there were explosions on 9/11. This is not a shocking or interesting revelation. From memory when the video first cropped up Conspiracy Theorists weren't actually salivating over the explosion noise but over the theory that one of the men in the video says "seven's exploding" (which they don't).

 

[femr2]

I have the version that was originally uploaded to youtube years ago. The explosion is definitely stereo, and definitely does not clip.

The one I have is stereo.

A bit perfect copy to a file share site would be the best (only) route.

http://megaupload.com

YouTube converts all video to mono

Not since about 2008. Stereo is fine for YT.

The video I have is, I am guessing, from a more recent time I tried to get the stereo version again after it was brought up.

Without access to a bit-perfect copy of your stereo version, no-one can validly discuss your suggestions.

 

[leftysergeant]

Without access to a bit-perfect copy of your stereo version, no-one can validly discuss your suggestions.

It is also without any value as evidence of anything at all, is it not?

 

[waypastvne]

Very strange editing in this version changes picture quality and sound quality mid scene.


30 sec in.

 

[000063]

It is also without any value as evidence of anything at all, is it not?

Why would that someone from nitpicking speculation? You need to think outside the box, Lefty.

 

[ergo]

Without access to a bit-perfect copy of your stereo version, no-one can validly discuss your suggestions.

I agree, but according to Gumboot, "most" of the points he makes can be verified by uploading a copy of the video to any basic sound editing application:

[Y]ou can actually determine most of the points I've explained using Windows Sound Wave, and all of them using even the most basic sound-editing software....

Just download the video and load it into sound editing software.

When I did this and posted the results he mumbled something then ran away.

 

[ergo]

No it isn't. Adjusting the volume of a video will have exactly zero effect on clipping. Once again you show your ignorance. Give it up.

So you're disagreeing with MikeW's original analysis then?

 

[ergo]

It is also without any value as evidence of anything at all, is it not?

I believe that's what's been determined, bedunker conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

 

[ergo]

You do realise they're all talking about the same video, right?

No, they're not. But if you were, that might explain some of your problem.

 

[leftysergeant]

So you're disagreeing with MikeW's original analysis then?

It has no value as evindence of anything other than twoofer excitability. It has been determined by the shadows that it was after the collapse of the towers but long before WTC 7 fell. The explosive sound could have been a car cooking off, or edited-in sound effects.

The non-reaction of the man on the left of the screen supports editing 99%. He would have to be pretty numb not to flinch with his whole body at a noise that loud.