Help me out with this video, please

[ergo]

The other point to be made about the perceived (on the part of bedunkers) lack of appropriate reaction from the emergency personnel to the sound of an explosion occurring not far from them is that, according to most other sources, explosions were being heard everywhere. So indeed this one, although startling, did not cause them to run for cover, because they'd been hearing it all morning.

 

[fitzgibbon]

DNFTTs

 

[EventHorizon]

Is this another one of those threads where Thruters (because mixing up letters in words is hilarious!) fail to realize that just because someone hears an explosion it doesn't mean that there were explosives?

 

[ergo]

I guess that's the argument you'll have to go back to now...

 

[000063]

So "it's pretty clear," he says... "because the video I downloaded ....didn't feature [that] clipping."

In other words, it's "pretty clear" that the audio was modified--why? Because he analyzed a different sourced video.

What compelling bedunker logic.

No, it's clear the audio's been modified because he originally saw a different video whose audio was different from the current version being distributed. You can't record a stereo sound on a mono mike. It's that simple. Along with the context.

And again, you dodge my posts and respond to no one. Just because someone doesn't answer yours about his claims, especially after he says he's done discussing it, isn't evidence of anything. When one can't even answer repeated questions as to what one's own position even is, much less its validity, there's some chichanery goin' on.

Looking at and listening to the videos again, I come to the conclusion that, absent any other evidence, there's nothing suspicious here.

I presented other evidence, and you never responded, you dishonest sophist. The "other evidence" would be context, which you ignore, because it debunks your arguments. As you do.

The peaking in the payphone vid explosion is uncontroversial since that is what we would expect, and indeed we see the exact same thing in the Landmark implosion video. The peaking in the talking prior to the explosion is just a result of either the recording volume or production volume.

Who's "we"? How far was the Landmark mic? How far was the mic in the video in question? Could other sounds be heard with the Landmark explosives going off and the mic peaked?

Finally, that the explosion segment peaks in the same way as the lower dB talking may simply be a consequence of using a crappy camera mic. Perhaps this is simply the kind of signature you're going to get recording any explosion with a low-quality camera mic. No controversy.

I'm noticing a lot of "perhaps"es and expectations here, and you've all but admitted you know very little about audio analysis. For some reason, I prefer to listen to the guys who both a)know what they're talking about, and b)answer questions instead of ignoring them.

The other point to be made about the perceived (on the part of bedunkers) lack of appropriate reaction from the emergency personnel to the sound of an explosion occurring not far from them is that, according to most other sources, explosions were being heard everywhere. So indeed this one, although startling, did not cause them to run for cover, because they'd been hearing it all morning.

Except that a demolitions explosion would be much different in magnitude and nature than the ones they'd been listening to. As well as the physical effects, such a barotrauma, which wasn't reported even by people in the buildings.

The only people you're fooling with this nonsense is other Truthers. And yourself, of course.

I guess that's the argument you'll have to go back to now...

That and the lack of reports of barotrauma, witness testimony of explosions consistent with explosives, trauma consistent with explosives, and a workable plan to plant said explosives.

 

[EventHorizon]

I guess that's the argument you'll have to go back to now...

The truth makes a pretty darn good argument. "Truthers" should try it some time.

 

[ergo]

Who's "we"?

Anyone who can view the audio signature that I posted.

I presented other evidence, and you never responded, you dishonest sophist. The "other evidence" would be context, which you ignore, because it debunks your arguments. As you do.

You haven't presented any "evidence" here, or anywhere else, as far as I can tell. You usually just present conjecture, opinion, and regurgitated analysis from someone else.

 

[fitzgibbon]

You haven't presented any "evidence" here, or anywhere else, as far as I can tell. You usually just present conjecture, opinion, and regurgitated analysis from someone else.

Unlike 'truthers'.

 

[fitzgibbon]

No, it's clear the audio's been modified because he originally saw a different video whose audio was different from the current version being distributed. You can't record a stereo sound on a mono mike. It's that simple. Along with the context.

000063,

Even if I'd never seen the clip with the stereo 'explosion', as gumboot and I've been repeatedly pointing out, in a mono environment the 'explosion' is still off. fermr wants to focus on the 'get me the stereo version' ? Let 'im. He can move the goalposts around the field all he wants. It just shows he doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't want to accept the experienced opinion of professionals in the field.

His problem.

 

[femr2]

Don't need to.

So you assume. Okay.

Find me the news shooter today (or EFP to give you that extra bit of rope to hang yourself with) that's shooting with a stereo mic.

Ask a simple question, get a hissy-fit in response

Why would I be interested in doing so ? I have no idea about what equipment they were using, and though you may assume (correctly) that a mono ausio stream was recorded, that's not what I asked you.

I guess you feel the need to lash out when you don't want to answer simple questions with a yes/no.

Your answer is "no".

Go ahead. I'm patient. Find 'em before you reply

Go ahead with what ? LOL.

Had? Or heard? In any case, is he arguing that stereo made a difference? Or are you?

...

The explosion has a wider stereo signature than the other sound in the video. In simple terms, this means there's a noticeable difference between the left and right channels of the explosion.

See above.

Yet two media professionals say that mono or stereo, it's clear it's fake and you insist on hearing the obviously fake version even when compelling expert evidence is presented to you based on the mono version more readily available? Where's the bridge you reside beneath?

We've had discussion before fitzgibbon, and need I remind you that the narrow viewpoint of someone working in a very narrow field is not technical expertise outside of "the office" ?

Given that gumboot is asserting a stereo (not dual-mono) explosion, then, as I said, the simple test for fakery is to look at the stereo audio stream. If the rest of the signal is in dual-mono but the explosion is in stereo (different left/right data) then it's clearly a fake.

If you're asserting a stereo shoot

Where did I assert such ?

Use the search function to find where gumboot identified the source of the clip and then you can upload the stereo clip you so desperately want.

Calm down dear. I'm not desperate in the slightest. I'll certainly try and find the stereo ausio gumboot has referred to. Without it the assertion of stereo explosion cannot be verified. With the stereo audio it's a piece of pie, of course.

But even a single-channel mono would be enough for anyone without an axe to grind to discern how fake the audio was. If you don't understand this most basic of differences, your aren't worth the powder to blow them to Hell.

You really need to calm down dear.

Here's an image of the waveform from one of the YT vids...

Not a lot of peaking a-goin on.

Reading comprehension challenge you? What part of "too much depth, not enough clipping " didn't register with you? That would be clear in full stereo, 2-track mono or 1-track mono to anyone who wanted to hear it.

I've made zero assertion about anything in the slightest, except that without a stereo audio file, stereo explsion signal cannot be verified.

You really must calm down. You're getting awfully wound up. Reminds me of our previous video-based discussions. Not a pretty sight.

Or do you want to acknowledge that elephant?

That would depend upon how loud the source noise of the "explosion" was. If you're making an assumption about what the noise was to decide that it was overlaid, then you're making a basic error.

Step #1 - Source stereo audio signal. See if gumboot is right about the base audio being dual stereo and the explosion in stereo.

I'm sure you'll find the source that gumboot cited and then you can buy it, analyse it and show your work.

Cool. There you go. Rationalism. Not so hard, was it.

I can hardly wait

You seem like a patient fellow

Assertion of stereo is moot only insofar as an argument relies solely on stereo. Mine doesn't. Yours? Your positive assertion is non-existent, based on something you don't have and which you seem inclined to insist others provide to you and/or are disinclined to find yourself.

See quote from gumboot above.

You want a pristine copy of a fake.

A pristine copy of the audio gumboot identified as having a true stereo "explosion" sound, absolutely.

Got one ?

 

[000063]

Very good, Ergo, now answer all the other questions I put to you. Or just one, even.

Anyone who can view the audio signature that I posted.

You haven't presented any "evidence" here, or anywhere else, as far as I can tell. You usually just present conjecture, opinion, and regurgitated analysis from someone else.

Wow, even in your question-dodging ad hominem you can't keep consistent. I'm either always full of it, or not. If not, then I have to be posting evidence at some point.

Also, you really don't want me to go back through my posting history and list the points you've not acknowledged, such as the post you're responding to, in which several paragraphs of mine have somehow been condensed to four sentences. More importantly, I don't want to.

So, let me just ask you a single, question, which you will doubtless ignore; Is it possible to determine the time of day from the Sun's position? Yes or no. Remember, "no", here, means "it's absolutely impossible", and "yes" means "it can be done, ever".

 

[000063]

000063,

Even if I'd never seen the clip with the stereo 'explosion', as gumboot and I've been repeatedly pointing out, in a mono environment the 'explosion' is still off. fermr wants to focus on the 'get me the stereo version' ? Let 'im. He can move the goalposts around the field all he wants. It just shows he doesn't know what he's talking about and doesn't want to accept the experienced opinion of professionals in the field.

His problem.

Yes, I know. I'm good with pattern recognition, and certain illogical techniques stand out if I see them enough. I've got ergo pretty much scanned. For example, if Gumboot did actually respond to Ergo's nonsensical questions, he'd ridicule "bedunkers" (and Gumboot is apparently representative of all of us) for being unable to stay away from an argument, even after they said they would. Since Gumboot is staying away, Ergo acts like Gummy is afraid of debate. In his mind, it's a win-win.

Neither actually requires Ergo to understand the facts/context of the matter, which indicate that any explosion that may have been recorded on the videotape was not a demo charge, or multiple examples thereof. He assumes his limited understanding of the subject is always correct, even when corrected several times.

 

[000063]

So you assume. Okay.

No, that's his expert opinion.

Ask a simple question, get a hissy-fit in response

Why would I be interested in doing so ? I have no idea about what equipment they were using,

Then find out.

and though you may assume (correctly) that a mono ausio stream was recorded, that's not what I asked you.

Fitz's claim is that the information you requested is unnecessary to determine whether the audio is faked.

Also, I find it odd that you asked him what camera and mic was used, yet apparently have no interest in what camera and mic was used.

I guess you feel the need to lash out when you don't want to answer simple questions with a yes/no.

"Rope to hang yourself with" isn't a hissy fit. Claiming the question is irrelevant to proving the veracity (or lack thereof) of the explosion is not a hissy fit. Hypocritically, you've spent more keystrokes attacking him for said fit than the fit itself.

Your answer is "no".

Femr, I thought you didn't like it when people assumed they "knew" anything about your beliefs. You shouldn't be so willing to do it to others.

Go ahead with what ? LOL.

Finding a news camera with a stereo mic setup. Go on.

...

See above.

I guess you feel the avoid answering when you don't want to answer simple questions with a yes/no.

We've had discussion before fitzgibbon, and need I remind you that the narrow viewpoint of someone working in a very narrow field is not technical expertise outside of "the office" ?

Audio expert. Question about audio. I don't ask my mechanic to remove a tumor from my pancreas, and your implication that a layman's opinion trumps an expert is a cornerstone of the Truther movement.

Given that gumboot is asserting a stereo (not dual-mono) explosion, then, as I said, the simple test for fakery is to look at the stereo audio stream. If the rest of the signal is in dual-mono but the explosion is in stereo (different left/right data) then it's clearly a fake.

That seems to be roughly what Gumboot and Fitz claimed.

Where did I assert such ?

eE didn't say you did. Or do you not know what "if" means? You so rarely actually assert anything other than "NIST is wrong" that it's hard to tell what points you are or aren't making.

Calm down dear.

His name is fitzgibbon, femr.

I'm not desperate in the slightest. I'll certainly try and find the stereo ausio gumboot has referred to. Without it the assertion of stereo explosion cannot be verified. With the stereo audio it's a piece of pie, of course.

Not that the stereo/mono audio is actually needed to disprove the assertion that this video is the demo charges or suchlike going off.

You really need to calm down dear.

More pointless condescension. You really did attend the Ergo School of Arguing, didn't you?

Here's an image of the waveform from one of the YT vids...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/9/2/501087855.jpg[/qimg]

Not a lot of peaking a-goin on.

I'm pretty sure Fitz and Gummy both made the claim that an explosion would've peaked the mic. Thanks for supporting their argument.

I've made zero assertion about anything in the slightest, except that without a stereo audio file, stereo explsion signal cannot be verified.

I've made the assertion that you don't need said audio to debunk this video.

You really must calm down. You're getting awfully wound up. Reminds me of our previous video-based discussions. Not a pretty sight.

I suspect your condescension might have had something to do with that.

That would depend upon how loud the source noise of the "explosion" was. If you're making an assumption about what the noise was to decide that it was overlaid, then you're making a basic error.

However, whatever source it was was not a demo charge, since those are really, really loud. Leaving aside the larger context of 9/11 and the evidence thereof, we wouldn't have been able to hear those guys talking. Whatever the sound was, wherever it came from, it wasn't a demo charge.

Step #1 - Source stereo audio signal. See if gumboot is right about the base audio being dual stereo and the explosion in stereo.

You have heard several people saying they were having difficulty just finding the old file with the stereo sound, right?

Cool. There you go. Rationalism. Not so hard, was it.

Yes, one wonders why you don't use it more.

See quote from gumboot above.

Still no positive assertion on your part, I note. It seems counterintuitive to rely on a position where you have to not claim things, but perhaps it makes more sense to you.

A pristine copy of the audio gumboot identified as having a true stereo "explosion" sound, absolutely.

Got one ?

The one several people specifically said they were having trouble finding? That one? Boy, that sure would be convenient.

Problem is, any argument that relies on us not having the original sound to analyze, therefore the debunkers' claims are wrong, means you also have to discount the claims of the people who claimed to have seen the original video. Unless you're willing to say they were all mistaken, lying, or both.

 

[gumboot]

I don't have time to reply to specific posts in this thread (some of us work for a living ) but if I get time at any point this weekend I'll collect up some screen grabs and stick them up.

I'll have to check but I am pretty sure the clip I have got illustrates the clipping issue, which indicates the explosion is not original with the other sound. This doesn't require a stereo clip.

I'd like to reiterate (there appears to be some confusion) that at one point - about late 2006 - I did have a stereo copy of the video on my computer which was used for my original analysis. That video has since gone. I currently have a mono version of the clip from 2009, which sounds like it still illustrates the clipping issue. I have already confirmed the greater dynamic range of the explosion which is another indicator of a fake (though less compelling than the other two). So I'll include a screen capture to indicate that too.

Of the three key indicators of fakery; clipping, dynamic range, and stereo separation - only the last requires a stereo copy to illustrate, so I am hopeful I can address the others.

I'll do this for femr2, and any lurkers out there. Not ergo, who appears uninterested in learning anything from this discussion.

Hope everyone has a great week.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I'll do this for femr2, and any lurkers out there. Not ergo, who appears uninterested in learning anything from this discussion.

Given this response:

Why would I be interested in doing so ? I have no idea about what equipment they were using, and though you may assume (correctly) that a mono ausio stream was recorded,

I wouldn't expect he's any more interested in learning than ergo is. Plus any proof you provide that gainsays his worldview is likely to be dismissed because

the narrow viewpoint of someone working in a very narrow field is not technical expertise outside of "the office" ?

So "expertise" disappears "outside of "the office" ". Who knew?

 

[ergo]

Of the three key indicators of fakery; clipping, dynamic range, and stereo separation - only the last requires a stereo copy to illustrate, so I am hopeful I can address the others.

I'll be very interested in seeing how your screen captures will allow you to explain your points in a way that the ones I provided did not.

 

[femr2]

I am pretty sure the clip I have got illustrates the clipping issue

There's very little clipping in the waveform I posted in my previous quote.

which indicates the explosion is not original with the other sound.

I haven't approached the "clipping issues" really, though I'd suggest that "a noise" may be being pre-determined to be "an explosion" and so assumed behaviours applied.

By me entering the discussion, it appears that several folk are assuming that I'm "debunking" or "disputing" or "refuting" or some other position biased nonsense.

Put simply, from my perspective, the simplest and easiest way to clarify, without any doubt at all, the veracity of fakery claims/assertions/... is to source a stereo version which ehxibits a dual mono voice track and a true stereo "explosion" sound.

When you get beyond that easy point of provable reference, analysis becomes rather subjective and boils down to "someone" saying "I know more than you, so I say (X) and you accept it". Regardless of the ill-founded opinions of others, I'm more than able to analyse audio data. Until the stereo audio track is declared "MIA" and NOT going to resurface, ever, I'm not really too interested in discussion beyond that on this topic.

stereo separation

Only thing I want to look at at this time.

I'll do this for femr2, and any lurkers out there.

Much appreciated, though if I disagree with subsequent assertions it will appear to be a battle of "wits". I see hardly any clipping in the waveform I posted earlier. In clipping terms, the noise could be genuine and not clip if it's not "an explosion"...If you are assuming it is "an explosion" and assuming it should have a higher dB signature, then assumptions about how it "should" behave, in your opinion, creep in. That is the flaw I see in the assertions about "fakery" utilising a simplistic "clipping" assertion. What part of being a "not explosion" precludes the audio stream from being genuine ?

If you understand what I am saying, may I request that you confirm.

 

[ergo]

I'm either always full of it,

You really shouldn't tempt me this way.

If not, then I have to be posting evidence at some point.

I think I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[ergo]

... the facts/context of the matter, which indicate that any explosion that may have been recorded on the videotape was not a demo charge, or multiple examples thereof.

If you knew anything about factual argumentation, or even anything about what's being discussed in this thread, you would know that you cannot make this claim any more than I can claim the contrary.

 

[femr2]

I wouldn't expect he's any more interested in learning

Through our prior discussions, it became clear to me that your working knowledge does not result in good low-level analysis skills.

You may well be correct in asserting that, even to this day, news broadcast audio streams are recorded in mono (I haven't checked), but (in the same way that even though a news-reader is involved with "hi-tech" gear "all day, every day" they are very unlikely to have low-level knowledge of, say, DV encoding format specifics) you have previously demonstrated that your assertions are based upon quite narrow low-level technical analysis experience.

I'm always open to learning new things, but saying "I know more than you" doesn't wash with me I'm afraid.

You've made a medium sized hillock of assumptions in your recent snark-filled posts, which appear to be based upon your presumption that I'm disputing something.

It would be interesting to see what you think of the above sentence, maybe.

Hopefully a stereo audio source will resurface and it can be made visually clear that the "explosion" sound was/was not overlaid as a stereo sample upon a mono original source.