Help me out with this video, please

[sheeplesnshills]

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

and wheres that irony meter?

 

[Horatius]

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.

You do realize there's a difference between "not recording the explosion sounds accurately" and "not recording the explosion sounds at all", don't you?

What am I asking? Of course you don't.

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot's arguments sound like he's trying to draw general conclusions from a single specific without knowing anything about the specific.

My argument is entirely based on the audio signature of the video recording. The simplicity of my analysis is that, if the explosion is part of the original sound, no matter what post-processing, conversion to other formats, or whatever other changes the original recording has undergone, the change should be consistent across all of the sound. Sound engineering software does not recognise or treat differently sound on a video from different sources. To the software it is all just sound, period.

If you have any issues with any of my three key observations, please explain them, I would be happy to discuss them with you.

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.

It sounds like you don't even know what you're saying...

 

[gumboot]

The explosive sound has been faked? You're arguing that it was dubbed onto the audiio track? Really??

Yes. That's exactly what I am saying. Because it was. As I explained.

 

[Travis]

This is funny. Steel doesn't explode when you subject it to the heat of an office fire.

You are right. If anyone had suggested that it would have been funny.

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.

I suppose this is also correct in the same way that saying that the explosion of Mt Pinatubo was a normal volcanic eruption.

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

We hate having things conflict with reality.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Yes. That's exactly what I am saying. Because it was. As I explained.

As I recall, when this was first trotted out on the YouTube stage, the 'explosion' was in full stereo too as opposed to the mono'd stereo it is now.

 

[gumboot]

As I recall, when this was first trotted out on the YouTube stage, the 'explosion' was in full stereo too as opposed to the mono'd stereo it is now.

Oh that's interesting. Yes, that's point 3 in my post. In the video I used for my analysis the left and right channels of the explosion were markedly different. For the remaining sound, left and right channels were virtually identical (as you'd expect from sound recorded on a video camera).

 

[ergo]

Yes. That's exactly what I am saying. Because it was. As I explained.

I think the notion that the explosion sound has been faked, and that the noise the firefighters are responding to when they say "what the hell...?" is something other than the sound we hear is koo-koo cocoa puffs and is about as paranoid and bizarre as you accuse truthers of being. I think you probably don't know as much about audio signatures as you pretend to. Or you <SNIP> know a little about a few things but not much about any one thing. And you have crappy software.

<SNIP>

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comments

 

[ergo]

 

[gumboot]

I think the notion that the explosion sound has been faked, and that the noise the firefighters are responding to when they say "what the hell...?" is something other than the sound we hear is koo-koo cocoa puffs and is about as paranoid and bizarre as you accuse truthers of being.

That's nice, I don't particularly care what you think. I care about the facts, and what they indicate.

I think you probably don't know as much about audio signatures as you pretend to.

You would be wrong.

Or you<SNIP> know a little about a few things but not much about any one thing.

Without blowing my own trumpet, I'm pretty sure I know more about audio and video than you do.

And you have crappy software.

I'm not sure you could call the industry standard sound editing program "crappy", but the fact is you 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.

The fact that you've even suggested this, despite having my explanations available, speaks very strongly to you not having the faintest clue what I'm actually talking about.

<SNIP>

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comments

I'm not wrong. I'm 100% right. It's a bizarre notion, I'll give you that (I was surprised), but nonetheless, it's a fact. The explosion on that video was not recorded at the same time as the rest of the noise. I don't know why it was added. I don't even know when, although MikeW has done some research that suggests the explosion was added by the documentary filmmakers, if not earlier (the documentary was assembled from footage gathered from a variety of sources). I'm certainly not willing to claim someone deliberately "faked" an explosion to support a CD claim, because there's no evidence they did. All I have claimed, with reason, is that the explosion was not recorded with the other sound on the video.

If you think it was, please explain each of the three observations I made:

1. Inconsistency in sound peaking levels between explosion and other sounds
2. Inconsistency in explosion dynamic range and other sound dynamic range
3. Inconsistency in stereo signature of explosion and other sounds

Each of those observations is a fact. If you can't explain how they came about from a live recording, the only remaining conclusion is that the explosion and other sound were not recorded together.

Ball's in your court.

 

[Travis]

Even if the explosion sound in the video is real.....what would that prove?

 

[fitzgibbon]

That's nice, I don't particularly care what you think. I care about the facts, and what they indicate.

You see, that's the problem with debunkers; always letting facts and reality get in the way of opinion.

I think you probably don't know as much about audio signatures as you pretend to.

You would be wrong.

Yes. Yes he would

Without blowing my own trumpet, I'm pretty sure I know more about audio and video than you do.

As does my budgie, I'm pretty sure. And you have the cussedness to explain it clearly too.

I'm not sure you could call the industry standard sound editing program "crappy", but the fact is you 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.

I'll go you one further: anyone with ears, an analytical mind and no axe to grind would call "Fail" on that clip.

All I have claimed, with reason, is that the explosion was not recorded with the other sound on the video.

If you think it was, please explain each of the three observations I made:

1. Inconsistency in sound peaking levels between explosion and other sounds
2. Inconsistency in explosion dynamic range and other sound dynamic range
3. Inconsistency in stereo signature of explosion and other sounds

Each of those observations is a fact. If you can't explain how they came about from a live recording, the only remaining conclusion is that the explosion and other sound were not recorded together.

Ball's in your court.

And there it'll stay, ignored like every other reality Truthers find inconvenient. T'is sad really

Fitz

 

[ergo]

I'm not wrong. I'm 100% right. It's a bizarre notion, I'll give you that (I was surprised), but nonetheless, it's a fact. The explosion on that video was not recorded at the same time as the rest of the noise. I don't know why it was added. I don't even know when, although MikeW has done some research that suggests the explosion was added by the documentary filmmakers, if not earlier (the documentary was assembled from footage gathered from a variety of sources). I'm certainly not willing to claim someone deliberately "faked" an explosion to support a CD claim, because there's no evidence they did. All I have claimed, with reason, is that the explosion was not recorded with the other sound on the video.

How much audio of real, live, not simulated, explosions have you worked with and why?

If you think it was, please explain each of the three observations I made:

1. Inconsistency in sound peaking levels between explosion and other sounds
2. Inconsistency in explosion dynamic range and other sound dynamic range
3. Inconsistency in stereo signature of explosion and other sounds

Each of those observations is a fact.

Until I can view the audio signature myself, I would suggest those observations are based on your interpretations, as well as based on second and third-hand data. Interpretations which, moreover, are likely not informed enough to be able to explain why the signature of a live explosion could be quite a bit different from the rest of the audio, which has no explosions.

The audio fits the visuals. Please tell us your theory of what event this "faked explosion" has replaced.

 

[paperboy05]

Until I can view the audio signature myself, I would suggest those observations are based on your interpretations, as well as based on second and third-hand data. Interpretations which, moreover, are likely not informed enough to be able to explain why the signature of a live explosion could be quite a bit different from the rest of the audio, which has no explosions.

Impressive you can simultaneously not actually do research and still dismiss others' research as ill-informed all in the same post. Kudos!

 

[TJM]

How much audio of real, live, not simulated, explosions have you worked with and why?

 

[Btodd]

Thanks for the added analysis, Gumboot.

On the subject of inserted explosion sounds, wasn't there a particular 9/11 Truth video that was caught red-handed doing that? I seem to recall that happening...in footage shown at the start of the film, perhaps?

 

[Oz1976]

Until I can view the audio signature myself, I would suggest those observations are based on your interpretations, as well as based on second and third-hand data. Interpretations which, moreover, are likely not informed enough to be able to explain why the signature of a live explosion could be quite a bit different from the rest of the audio, which has no explosions.

The audio fits the visuals. Please tell us your theory of what event this "faked explosion" has replaced.

Um so why don't you? http://www.google.com/search?source...T4ACGW_enUS328US328&q=audio+analysis+software

That should get you started. The audio does NOT fit the video or the reactions. The explosion is entirely too loud for the reactions of the 4 men seen in that video. Anyone with half a brain caught that the minute they saw it. Says a lot about you, but I'm not surprised having read the other nonsense you spew on here.

 

[ergo]

Um so why don't you? http://www.google.com/search?source...T4ACGW_enUS328US328&q=audio+analysis+software

That should get you started. The audio does NOT fit the video or the reactions. The explosion is entirely too loud for the reactions of the 4 men seen in that video.

The explosion is "too loud" ?

 

[gumboot]

How much audio of real, live, not simulated, explosions have you worked with and why?

Quite a bit. I am a professional film contractor, and have been for about a decade.

Not that it's particularly important. The fact that we're talking about an explosion is actually irrelevant. It could be any sound you like; the three points will still indicate the sound was fake. It has more to do with microphones than anything else.

Until I can view the audio signature myself

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

I would suggest those observations are based on your interpretations

The observations are based on fact. One doesn't need to "interpret" anything. This can all be quantified in cold, hard numbers, which I did, in my original analysis.

as well as based on second and third-hand data.

Well this is quite true, but it's pretty irrelevant. The explosion and the other sound, if they had been recorded together, would be part of the same audiowave. It's not possible to separate out just the explosion and enhance it in the ways I observed, without also enhancing the other sound in the same way.

For example, if the explosion and audio were recorded together there's no way a lower dB sound in a given frequency would peak but a higher dB sound in the same frequency would not. No amount of modification of the original sound can cause that. Only adding a new sound can.

Interpretations which, moreover, are likely not informed enough to be able to explain why the signature of a live explosion could be quite a bit different from the rest of the audio, which has no explosions.

I don't think you really understand the points I've made. The points I've raised are based on limitations in the microphone. The actual sound source is pretty much irrelevant. A microphone cannot distinguish between different types of sound, it just collects everything it receives. The only theoretical way you could capture live what we see on that video is if a sound mixer was dynamically mixing the audio during the take, but that would require them to know precisely when the explosion is going to happen, and even then the level shift is instantaneous so it would have to be a sound operator with inhuman performance.

The audio fits the visuals.

That's debatable, and I touched on that in my analysis, but in the end, that comes down to a subjective judgment call on how a human should react to a given sound, how quickly, etc. The determination that the sound of the explosion has been added is objective, and can be measured scientifically.

Please tell us your theory of what event this "faked explosion" has replaced.

I don't have a theory. I don't care. My only interest was in whether the sound we hear is genuine or not, which it isn't.

 

[George 152]

Thanks for the added analysis, Gumboot.

On the subject of inserted explosion sounds, wasn't there a particular 9/11 Truth video that was caught red-handed doing that? I seem to recall that happening...in footage shown at the start of the film, perhaps?

I remember that one.
They had the explosion dubbed in at the same time there was a puff of dust/smoke.
Trouble was that there was at least 3 seconds of distance the sound had to travel....