Come to think of it, there are a few inconsistencies in what Gumboots has posted here.
Quick analysis of the sound, followed by a more in-depth one, and now he's tired of it.
Also,
So when I not only did that, but posted the screen caps so that he could explain his points, what was his response?
His response was that the video he analyzed and believes was edited was, at some point, further edited to obscure evidence of such editing?
Oh, and Fitzgibbon makes what seems like some excellent points in #72.
More contradictions:
Even though he just supplied a likely reason why it might have been done.
I see your comprehension of the difference between an openly admitted hypothetical and a statement of fact is on the same level as that of the difference between "onto" and "into".
Actually, as anyone who has worked with digital sound even in an amateur fashion knows, you can do anything you want with it. You can cut segments out, enhance them or edit them in any way you want, and reinsert it. Like cutting and pasting. Indeed, this is what he has already suggested occurred, for completely unsuspicious reasons.
Speaking as "someone who has worked with digital sound in an amateur fashion knows," this is broadly correct. However, there is only so much you can do within the limits of the original media and still be plausible, like pasting a stereo sound over a mono soundtrack. In addition to the curiously understated reaction and the lack of corroborating physical evidence and testimony, I'm gonna have to call this one "busted".
Again, this contradicts what the simple audio of the Landmark implosion shows, as I point out above. The sounds were captured. No reason to suspect that they had been added or enhanced.
Except for the part where they're inconsistent with the rest of the audio. And the video. And any sort of corroborating evidence on 9/11.
Same signature as we see in the video in question.
Assuming that's true, you have yet to contest the testimony that there have been multiple versions of the video.
Stupid. He's trying to claim that capturing that sound live would have required superhuman live mixing. He's already acknowledged that the audio he examined was from the documentary. He's already acknowledged why that segment might have been enhanced or otherwise altered.
In post-processing.
After recording. Hypothetical/statement, into/onto, real-time/post-processing. You're building up quite a resume.
Moreover, as the Landmark video shows, a simple camera mic can capture explosion sounds with a good degree of accuracy.
What does accuracy have to do with it? The audio does not make sense in context, period. If you go and look at photos of WTC 7 after the alleged explosion, you'll notice a lack of blown out windows and barotrauma.
Say, I haven't seen the Landmark video. Does the audio peak? What was the range (to the explosion), relative to where this video was shot (in relation to WTC 7)?
How convenient for you. Why did you bother telling me to check it myself then ? 
