If explosion sounds are notoriously difficult to record with any accuracy, an audio signature for one that was captured accurately would likely not match the rest of the audio for obvious reasons.
You still don't get it,
at all.
Just curious, here. Why do we never see you pipe up when 9/11 bedunkers insist that the absence of signature explosion sounds in most WTC videos means that there were no explosions?
I've only heard it in relation to specific things, such as the WTC collapses. Conventional demolitions use high-explosives which are incredibly loud. Any video of the moments leading up to collapse would capture deafening explosions (like an actual CD). There's even video recorded right in the lobby of WTC1 at the moment WTC2 collapses. No explosions.
In fact the entire reason Conspiracy Theorists introduced the "thermite" hypothesis was because they finally had to admit the absence of irrefutable loud explosions in videos ruled out conventional CD.
It's funny, actually, to think back to a time when thermite wasn't mentioned, and conspiracy theorists focused on conventional demolition, hammering on how the collapse "looked" and artificially enhancing wind noise from video taken five miles away to "prove" there were loud explosions. Laughable. Thermite was a late introduction, a desperate rearguard in the face of overwhelming odds.
Bedunkers always seem to want it both ways. Both the presence of explosion sounds and the absence of them indicate, to them, no explosions.
I've not said anything about the presence or absence of explosions. We're talking about the authenticity of a specific sound in a specific video.
I may sometime when and if I care enough. I would also compare it to other explosion sounds captured by microphone and available on video. My guess is I would find nothing unusual.
You still really don't get it at all.
Unless the higher dB sound is clipped, for obvious reasons. I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but this would seem to be an obvious explanation.
I don't mean to insult
your intelligence, but you don't even know what you're talking about, do you?
The higher dB sound does
not clip. Do you even know what "clipping" and "peaking" mean in relation to audio? I am guessing not. The explosion sound is not clipped
at all. This means the microphone didn't peak
at all during recording. Yet a lower dB sound in the same video (the people speaking) is clipped. It's quite simple. If the dialogue peaks, and the explosion happened at the same time, the explosion has to peak too. There's no way around it.
So recordings of explosion sounds in controlled demolitions are mixed live at the time as well?
Not normally. Every CD explosion I've ever heard recorded up reasonably close peaked the microphone. Not that this really matters, as once again you're floundering in water way over your head. Every single post you've made has indicated you genuinely have no idea what I'm talking about. There's nothing wrong with that. But why not just admit it and ask me some questions so I can explain the issues in terms you do understand? You think you're being a clever dick who's going to catch me out and reveal my ignorance, but the reality is it is
you revealing your ignorance in every post. You clearly know nothing whatsoever about audio.
How do those sounds get replicated with any degree of accuracy?
They don't. Explosions in movies etc. don't actually sound much like
real explosions (for one, they're almost always too slow). They're built up in layers from multiple different recordings.
Have you compared your analysis of this audio with some from recorded demolitions?
No I haven't, and I'm not sure why you think that would prove useful. The question is whether the explosion fits the audio signature of the rest of the video, not whether it sounds like an "actual" explosion or not. It probably is an actual explosion, or more likely multiple explosions layered. The point is it wasn't recorded with that video.
I have to kind of wonder about the professed neutrality of someone who feels the need to digitally analyze a piece of audio that most would not consider remarkable or unusual.
Some consider it remarkable
and unusual. That's the entire reason we're discussing it.
It is, for being fake if nothing else. I did it back when I had a lot of spare time and was really involved in researching 9/11 related stuff. It didn't take particularly long, and it was an interesting exercise. That was, of course, back when I was a little naive and thought Conspiracy Theorists were just ignorant, and might learn if you showed them real research. Since then I've realised it's a waste of time. I seldom post here any more. Every now and then this video crops back up. Some people never learn.
Obviously you had some kind of theory or you wouldn't have bothered.
A theory? Well you could tell from listening to the video that there was something "fishy" about the explosion sound, but the reason I analysed it was because someone started a thread, much like this one, asking about the video. While my ears told me the explosion didn't fit with the rest of the audio, I wasn't willing to rely entirely on my own perception, so I did the analysis to get some hard figures. Not only was I right, but I uncovered the wide stereo characteristic which also points to a fake.
I just want to stress that all three of the key characteristics I've mentioned, alone indicates the audio is fake. All three characteristics can be empirically measured. That the audio is fake is a cold scientific fact.
Moreover the claim you're making begs an obvious question, which could further inform your analysis: what event is the "faked explosion" intended to replace? What were the firefighters reacting to, if not that sound?
I have no idea what they're reacting to. The only people who could possibly answer that are the people in the video, the person that recorded it, and whoever added the explosion sound effect.
Secondly, I might be more inclined to believe you if you weren't the only person who is making this claim.
Well in the same original thread an audio engineer here did a similar analysis. I've also seen it done for a few other videos that were found to be faked by conspiracy theorists. Why don't you ask who in this thread believes the explosion was added, like I do?
For what it's worth, I don't believe you for a second. Even if every other person in this thread said the explosion was fake, you'd still cling to your fantasy. That's why I don't engage in 9/11 research any more. It's a waste of my precious time.
If audio analysis is so easy, surely someone else by now would have discovered the same thing you did? It's a pretty widely distributed video and there are a heck of a lot of bedunkers out there. You seem to be the only one who came to these conclusions. Odd.
I came to them first, I believe (at least on these forums). I'm not the only one who thinks that explosion was added to the video. Also, most people are more interested in the bigger picture. You'll note most of the responses have been that even if there is an explosion in the video, it doesn't mean much. That's true, and I agree with it. For all we know, the explosion is replacing an actual explosion recorded at the time. Perhaps the quality of the explosion was so bad (due to those microphone limitations I keep talking about) the documentary filmmakers put their own explosion in to enhance it. That's quite common. Most documentary films that depict WTC2 being hit, for example, add an explosion.
When a piece of evidence is presented there's really two ways to respond. One is to assess the legitimacy of the evidence, the other is to assess it's importance. Most of your "debunkers" have gone with its importance, and rightly concluded that, fake or not, it's just not important. I agree.
I went the other route. The evidence isn't legitimate. It's fake. It has been tampered with. So its importance is moot.
