Help me out with this video, please

Btodd

Critical Thinker
B
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
257
I tried to search for it, but I remember a thread about this video. A truther is trying to use it as evidence of WTC7 being a controlled demolition...I seem to remember someone figuring out where this phone booth was, and seem to recall that the direction they look in is not toward WTC7, or that the explosion was added? I might be confusing two different videos; not sure.

Thanks in advance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2vxj2yxfAM&feature=player_embedded
 
Last edited:
Btodd said:
Thanks, Tri. I just found this by doing a google search for 'Phone booth + wtc7 + JREF':

http://www.911myths.com/index.php?title=A_WTC7_explosion_video&redirect=no
Click to expand...

"....Using the sun position calculator on the Naval Observatory website, we can tell when the sun was in that approximate position on 9/11/2001 in NYC: ..."

:D

Bedunker super google sleuthers! This is hilarious.


,,,,
"It's a car exploding."

"No, it's steel falling!"

"No, it's a water cooler exploding!"

"NO! It's a pumpkin dropping on the pavement! They're really loud, you know..."

Always remember: explosion sounds are never, ever explosives.... :eye-poppi ;)
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Always remember: explosion sounds are never, ever explosives.
Click to expand...

The other side of that coin is that explosion sounds are never ever not explosives. Both are wrong.

In the case of 9/11 there is no physical evidence to support the presence and use of explosives. No bits of det cord or other telltale debris always found after explosives have been used, none of the physical trauma always associated with being too close to a detonation of the type truthers claim to have happened, no physical markings on any of the building parts that explosives will always leave behind and no witnesses even claiming to have seen anything close to what would have had to have been seen prior to 9/11 in regards to preparing the buildings for CD.

All of these facts, in addition to the well known fact that common items found in almost every large office building have been known to explode when subjected to intense heat, make the claims of explosives very hard to swallow even on a good day.
 
ergo said:
"....Using the sun position calculator on the Naval Observatory website, we can tell when the sun was in that approximate position on 9/11/2001 in NYC: ..."

:D

Bedunker super google sleuthers! This is hilarious.


,,,,
"It's a car exploding."

"No, it's steel falling!"

"No, it's a water cooler exploding!"

"NO! It's a pumpkin dropping on the pavement! They're really loud, you know..."

Always remember: explosion sounds are never, ever explosives.... :eye-poppi ;)
Click to expand...




When this video first cropped up I did a quick analysis of the sound, and even that was enough to determine conclusively that the explosion had been added to the video post-recording. I'm interested to see that Mike managed to track down an original copy of the video and it's interesting it appears in the documentary, but the fact remains it was not recorded live on the scene.

The audio signature of the explosion is totally at odds with the rest of the sound being recorded on the video. A number of key characteristics are giveaways:

1. The speaking in the video causes the microphone to peak, but the much louder explosion does not. This is physically impossible if the two were recorded in the same place, at the same time, by the same microphone.
2. The dynamic range of the explosion greatly exceeds that of the sound in the rest of the video. This is easy to spot because explosions have quite a distinct audio signature that makes them notoriously difficult to capture on low quality microphones due to the limit in dynamic range. The sort of explosions you hear in movies are generally built up from multiple separate recordings, and/or captured with multiple different types of microphone. For a more familiar illustration of what I am talking about, consider the difference in the sound of a rock band's drum as recorded professionally versus as recorded on a single video camera microphone. Professional recording of a drum kit requires multiple microphones. In more elaborate as many as ten or twelve microphones might be utilised to capture a single drum kit.
3. 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. This is a tell-tale indicator that the sound in question has been created in a studio and not recorded in the field. Wide or narrow stereo sound is literally dependent on how far apart the two microphones are (just as 3D depth is created by altering the separation between two cameras used to capture 3D images). When utilising a microphone mounted on a camera, even if it is a discreet stereo microphone (i.e. actually two separate microphones) they are located almost in the same place, and the difference in sound is negligible.

These three characteristics combined clearly indicate that the sound on that video was not recorded on the same device as the rest of the video. I.E. it is fake. Even if WTC7 was destroyed by a bomb, and other videos had irrefutably captured the explosion, this video would still be a fake.
 
The biggest give-away to me was the fact that only the man on the phone seems to react in any way. The man barely visibile to the left doesn't even flinch. FAKE.
 
And the version with the subtitles is faked as well.....the subtitles do not match what the guys actually says.....clever trick but turn off the monitor and listen to the soundtrack only and its not at all clear what he says but it is NOT that "Seven is exploding!"
 
ergo said:
"....Using the sun position calculator on the Naval Observatory website, we can tell when the sun was in that approximate position on 9/11/2001 in NYC: ..."

:D

Bedunker super google sleuthers! This is hilarious.
Click to expand...



So, rather than just posting your usual dismissive nonsense, why don't you try explaining why you think this is "hilarious"? What, exactly, is wrong with using a publicly available resource to determine the position of the sun on any given day and time? Particularly when that resource is intended for that very purpose?

Go ahead, explain it.
 
Horatius said:
So, rather than just posting your usual dismissive nonsense, why don't you try explaining why you think this is "hilarious"? What, exactly, is wrong with using a publicly available resource to determine the position of the sun on any given day and time? Particularly when that resource is intended for that very purpose?

Go ahead, explain it.
Click to expand...

Dude, it's ergo, let it go.

he is completely unaware of using math and shadow angles to determine the time of day.

The only thing hilarious about this is how incompetent ergo is.

Math, how does it *********** work ergo? lulz
 
16.5 said:
Dude, it's ergo, let it go.

he is completely unaware of using math and shadow angles to determine the time of day.

The only thing hilarious about this is how incompetent ergo is.

Math, how does it *********** work ergo? lulz
Click to expand...



Yeah, I'm mostly just hoping for a really good follow-up.
 
This is funny. Steel doesn't explode when you subject it to the heat of an office fire.

Remember: By the time WTC 1 and WTC 2 went POOF, the 19-Arab-Conspiracy Theory says all that was happening inside the buildings was a regular office fire.

For being anti-conspiracy theorists, I've found JREFers to be adamant that this particular conspiracy is true.



Sam.I.Am said:
The other side of that coin is that explosion sounds are never ever not explosives. Both are wrong.

In the case of 9/11 there is no physical evidence to support the presence and use of explosives. No bits of det cord or other telltale debris always found after explosives have been used, none of the physical trauma always associated with being too close to a detonation of the type truthers claim to have happened, no physical markings on any of the building parts that explosives will always leave behind and no witnesses even claiming to have seen anything close to what would have had to have been seen prior to 9/11 in regards to preparing the buildings for CD.

All of these facts, in addition to the well known fact that common items found in almost every large office building have been known to explode when subjected to intense heat, make the claims of explosives very hard to swallow even on a good day.
Click to expand...
 
WTC Dust said:
This is funny. Steel doesn't explode when you subject it to the heat of an office fire.
Click to expand...

I was beginning to forget how greatly truthers depend on straw-man arguments. These are just a few of the things that could have been responsible for the explosion in the video (if it's even real)...

-Exploding underground gas lines, damaged by the South Tower collapse
-Exploding gas tank or pressurized tires from vehicles set ablaze
-Electrical explosions
-Exploding Scott packs (firefighter oxygen tanks)
-Police officers firing their weapons to gain access into surrounding buildings (which was known to happen)

To truthers, explosion automatically means bomb. BTW, the video was shot by a Lucia Davis of BNN, according to the documentary "9/11: In Memoriam" in which it also appears. I've been trying to find a copy of her full tape because in the bits and pieces of it that I've seen, she captured a friend of mine in her video photographing the collapsing North Tower (oddly he never knew that a video existed of him until I showed him it). And yes, the rest of her video that is online fits with it being shot between 10:15 and 10:28. She was on West Broadway and Chambers when the North Tower collapsed (I know this because a Chambers St sign is visible in my friend's pictures, and he's visible photographing in her video), which is two blocks north of Murray. It seems she pulled back two blocks after the guy in the video told them to get back.
 
Last edited:
WTC Dust said:
This is funny. Steel doesn't explode when you subject it to the heat of an office fire.
Click to expand...

Your right it doesn't and it didn't and no one claimed it did.

Remember: By the time WTC 1 and WTC 2 went POOF, the 19-Arab-Conspiracy Theory says all that was happening inside the buildings was a regular office fire.
Click to expand...

Well WTC1 had huge fires over at least ten floors, the building has sustained heavy damage and there was no water to fight it........so how was it like any office fire ever before or since?

For being anti-conspiracy theorists, I've found JREFers to be adamant that this particular conspiracy is true.
Click to expand...

no evidence otherwise and lots of evidence for.....not really something to be skeptical about......now your CT is a different ball of wax.
Click to expand...
 
Gumboot's arguments sound like he's trying to draw general conclusions from a single specific without knowing anything about the specific. They also explain why high explosive sounds are missing from the audio of many WTC videos, so he's not only contradicting himself but a fundamental bedunker talking point at the same time.

Maybe get your stories straight -- and stop conjuring up paranoid theories.
 
ergo said:
Gumboot's arguments sound like he's trying to draw general conclusions from a single specific without knowing anything about the specific. They also explain why high explosive sounds are missing from the audio of many WTC videos, so he's not only contradicting himself but a fundamental bedunker talking point at the same time.

Maybe get your stories straight -- and stop conjuring up paranoid theories.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps you could take lessons in English comprehension and stop talking outside your intellectual and educational limits?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom