Help me out with this video, please

[000063]

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.

It'll probably have something to do with the fact that he has the slightest idea what he's talking about, whereas you still haven't answered my simple question about whether the sun can be used to determine time of day. Problem is, "no" is obviously incorrect, and "yes" means admitting debunkers were right about something. And more importantly to you, it means admitting you were wrong about something.

You really shouldn't tempt me this way.

Considering that you had to quote-mine a sentence fragment from a statement about your inconsistencies to get that straight line, I could care less.

I've noticed that Truthers' mined-quotes tend to get shorter and shorter as an argument goes on. I wonder why?

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

I suppose so, since you certainly don't have any facts to give.

See, Ergo? That's what you do with a straight line. Note how mine is actually on topic, instead of trying to distract from the issue by means of passive-aggressive ad-hominem.

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.

Yes I can. And I can back it up. Also, please quit with the passive-aggressive AH, the quote-mining, and address the facts. Here's what you quoted;

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.

Here's my full post.

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]

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

If my doctor sticks and endoscope down my throat, and finds an stomach ulcer, who am I to go "hey, doc, maybe it's just gas!"

You may well be correct in asserting that, even to this day, news broadcast audio streams are recorded in mono (I haven't checked),

I suggest you do so.

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.

Is this the part of the discussion where you start using invented terms so vague and nebulous they can't be effectively discussed? Because I already discussed how the explosion isn't demolitions explosives, without even getting into technical analysis.

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

At a guess, I'd say your ego doesn't permit you to admit it. If someone is teaching you something, they know more about the something than you.

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.

You often give that illusion, based on your reluctance to make any real assertions or clarify your position. In fact, you usually refuse to even form working hypothesises(sp). This makes it rather difficult to engage in a discussion with you.

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

Ergo tactic: "What do you think of X?"

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.

Affirming the Consequent.

 

[ergo]

Here's my full post.

Thank you for highlighting the exact selection that I excerpted. That explains so much more.

M. 00063, take a rest. You don't even know what quote mining is. Did you not take Bedunker 101?

 

[tsig]

Thank you for highlighting the exact selection that I excerpted. That explains so much more.

M. 00063, take a rest. You don't even know what quote mining is. Did you not take Bedunker 101?

Did you have an argument to make or would you rather attack the arguer?

 

[000063]

Thank you for highlighting the exact selection that I excerpted. That explains so much more.

It explains how I think you prefer to engage in your intellectually dishonest sophistry. Given that it had little direct relevance to the argument, the only real reason to remove it is out of, well, embarrassment.

Also, you claimed I don't have facts, yet, curiously, don't deign to actually address a single point that I made. I find that odd.

M. 00063, take a rest. You don't even know what quote mining is. Did you not take Bedunker 101?

1. You missed a 0.
2. You carefully cropped out my question about determining time from sun position, because you can't answer it either way without looking like an idiot. You also took six words from a sentence to try, and fail, to make me look like an idiot. That's quote-mining. You probably should've replaced the "either" with a "...", so it wouldn't be clear that you were omitting the second option, "or not".

And then you cropped the aforementioned sun question out of your response.

 

[000063]

Did you have an argument to make or would you rather attack the arguer?

And quote-mined. Don't forget the quote-mining.

 

[alienentity]

His experience with limiters exactly matches mine a half a world away. That's experience not opinion.

I leave you two to your opinions. I'm not arguing that point any further.

It was when originally uploaded and was called-out as a bit of manufactured 'trutherism' for precisely that reason. The uploader then re-upped a mono'd version to get around the stereo elephant in the room while not understanding (as you seem not to) that the dynamic range of the 'explosion' (even when mono'd) is at odds with the rest of the sync.

I am entertaining a different POV than you. Be careful about disparaging my approach unless you can explain your opinion in a technical way - I have provided the waveform of the clip I analyzed and there is a lot of clipping. This could very well indicate that the original sound was clipped.

The actual original material wasn't. That's the crux. The mono version is only "original" to you. In any case, for reasons that gumboot has explained at greater length than I, you seem to want to hang your hat on a canard despite extensive explanations from media professionals.

Yes, the original material was in mono, that being the original footage taken on 9/11. We both agree that the explosion, if it were recorded by the same camera that day, would also be in mono.
You have painstakingly emphasized that the original footage would have been in mono. I agree 100%.

You could look it up and purchase it I'm sure. Be sure to let us know when you do.

Fitz

I've been trying to do just that. And you can be sure I will let you know if I'm successful. I've already listened to the HBO documentary, but it doesn't include the entire sequence in question. The street audio is in mono.
That's all I have so far.

btw, for the record, I have no agenda to find the explosion a fake. I can accept that there may have been an explosion that day, it makes no difference to the fall of WTC 7 due to fires. I regret that you find my position so irritating.

 

[alienentity]

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.

Thx. I'm trying to get hold of a copy of the documentary, will gladly share the relevant section if I succeed. I'm editing a video and organizing a campaign to help a close relative who is looking for a stem cell donor, so the 9/11 explosion is not a high priority.

 

[000063]

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

[snip]

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".

I'd like to point out that Ergo never answered this simple question. We can add "the sun" to the list with "into/onto", how a building's penthouse isn't part of the building, and the ton of other things Ergo doesn't understand.

 

[ergo]

Two weeks and still no bedunker substantiation?

So two weeks have now passed since gumboot agreed to make some attempt to back up his accusations of audio fakery for the video linked to in the OP. For something that, as he claims, "only takes a few minutes", it seems to be presenting some real problems for him. I notice that he never actually backed up his claim in any of the previous threads on this subject, either. It's looking very much like how a lot of 9/11 "debunking" gets done around here: make a spurious allegation, fill several threads with idiotic bluster, then hope the thread disappears after a few weeks and call the subject "debunked".

As far as this video is concerned I'm going back to my conclusions posted two weeks ago, that the waveforms of an explosion captured by a low quality camera mic will tend to look the same, as I've shown in the screen caps I provided. Whatever audio version gumboot was viewing (giving him the benefit of the doubt) we have no idea in any case where it came from, and who may have adulterated it before he got hold of it. Even if he was to find it, it is not proof of anything, and several common sense scenarios already explain the observations better.

So unless gumboot can put his money where his mouth is (and his posting history shows an inability to do so, at least on this topic) I call this (bedunker) topic debunked. Have a nice day.

 

[The Big Dog]

So unless gumboot can put his money where his mouth is (and his posting history shows an inability to do so, at least on this topic) I call this (bedunker) topic debunked. Have a nice day.

Uhh, so the whole it was taken shortly after the collapse of the Towers and LONG before the collapse of the WTC7 you are just going to flat *********** ignore?

lulz.

Call us "bedunkers" again! It is clever!

So many truther lies to debunk
They're mad, so they switch to be-dunk
Ergo thinks that it's clever
He's the only one, ever
And his claims are still nothing but junk.

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

Bull flops. You never get totally used to it. Never served in the military or fire fighting, did you?

Take it from those of us who have, you will still react.

 

[ergo]

Take it from those of us who have, you will still react.

Interesting then, that that's exactly what we see them doing.

 

[leftysergeant]

Interesting then, that that's exactly what we see them doing.

The one on the phone turns, apparently in reaction to something moving in his peripheral vision, like he was expecting a supervisor to tell him that he had other things to do just then . The one to the left of the phone seems to me not to react at all.

 

[ergo]

And the others? The FFs? The camera person? What do they suddenly start talking about?

But I don't see the point of arguing the existence of something that is visually obvious to anyone who views this video...

 

[fitzgibbon]

But I don't see the point of arguing the existence of something that is visually obvious to anyone who views this video...

You're arguing audio with two media professionals who heard the same thing and you're pretending you're coming out on top?

You rely on visuals to 'prove' your point in an audio medium? You don't recognise the disconnect unimpinged ears and brains recognise? The problem is yours.

 

[ergo]

You're arguing audio with two media professionals who heard the same thing and you're pretending you're coming out on top?

Um, no. The quote you excerpted is my reply to leftysergeant about what we're seeing, not what we're hearing.

But with regards to the audio, you're arguing from authority, and anonymous, self-declared authority at that. Neither you nor gumboots have backed up your claim. We're on page 4 of this stupid thread. How many more pages is it going to take before you cough something up? Talk about fakery...

 

[leftysergeant]

And the others? The FFs? The camera person? What do they suddenly start talking about?

This appears to have been about the time that FDNY ordered the establishment of the collapse zone around WTC 7 and people were being a little stubborn about leaving the area.

 

[ergo]

bump

I'm not really bumping the thread. I just thought I might have left my sunglasses in here.

Oh yes, here they are.

 

[leftysergeant]

So, while you are here, whether the explosion wasedited-in or for real, what are you trying to prove? It is clearly not a cause of the collapses. Wrong time frame.