Help me out with this video, please

[gumboot]

Not since about 2008. Stereo is fine for YT.

Only if your original file is already in flash format. Youtube's automatic flash conversion compresses all audio to mono.

Without access to a bit-perfect copy of your stereo version, no-one can validly discuss your suggestions.

True. And What I thought was the original video I used turns out it's not. It was only created in November 2009, while you can see that in posts dating back to Feb 2007 I and others were already referring to the previous analysis.

So I guess this entire line of reasoning is dead in the water, with no ability to verify anything. Ergo will be delighted.

 

[gumboot]

So you're disagreeing with MikeW's original analysis then?

Please point to where he ever claimed adjusting the volume would affect clipping.

 

[gumboot]

No, they're not. But if you were, that might explain some of your problem.

Serious question, do you know how to read?

The first thread is this very one, which we already know is about the "payphone" video.

The second, entitled "Video with edited sound, explosions added" is initially about a different video, but then Panoply Prefect links to a second video. That's the only video I respond to. It's removed now, but we know it's the same one:

Let me just make sure we are not talking about two different clips, or parts of the same... In the Rosie O'Donnell clip, at the beginning, were two persons with dust-masks are talking in a public phone, apparently telling someone that they both are allright? Suddenly there are two bangs (which I attributed to falling debris from WTC1 or 2), and the camera pans 180 degrees.

Is that the one?

The third thread is entitled "The "big bang" at WTC7..." and from the OP we can once again establish that it's exactly the same video:

I'm looking for some more help. There is a video floating about that shows either a police officer or a firefighter on public telephone, with a couple others standing close to him. Suddenly there's a loud banging noise and the two not on the phone urge him to get off, saying they have to get out of there pronto.

I heard that the sound in this video is fake/added. Can you please point me to the thread where this was discussed, or provide the details here?

The thread "New Member" is one of the earliest where the video in question is discussed. My first post in the thread is on page 5, and makes no reference to video. I post again on page 5 in response to a video where wind sound has been enhanced to make it sound like explosions. I make an off-handed reference to the payphone video in that post.

I do, indeed, make reference to a number of fake videos, because we've uncovered a lot on these forums. It's not me uncovering all of these fakes, and most of them are discovered simply because someone uncovers an unaltered version. They're indisputably fake.

9/11 Conspiracy Theorists have a long history of faking "evidence" that supports their theories, so this is of no surprise to people like myself who have looked into the subject for a while.

In the final thread "new CT evidence circulating" my only comment is a discussion about determining the location of a video, and musing on how hard/difficult that would be. I don't mention faked videos at all.

The only times I ever discuss fake explosions in videos in any of the threads you've cited, the videos in discussion are the same video we're talking about here.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I'll leave you to your opinions on limiters, fact is I cannot track down a version of the video you refer to.

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

If the explosion is in stereo, it's fake.

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.

The original material was clearly mono. But again I don't have evidence, it's just second-hand info from gumboot and others.

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.

Your choice I guess.

Would be nice to have someone post the clip as it appeared in the documentary so we can view it...

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

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

Without access to a bit-perfect copy of your stereo version, no-one can validly discuss your suggestions.

Actually, anyone with an ounce of real-world experience can "validly discuss" his suggestions. He and I and others have repeatedly pointed out the fly in the ointment even in a mono signal.

For the same reason that you don't need a full-res HD image of the planes crashing to debunk a no-planer, a full-res, full-stereo version of the clip isn't necessary to debunk the 'explosions'.

Fitz

 

[ergo]

The first thread is this very one, which we already know is about the "payphone" video.

The second, entitled "Video with edited sound, explosions added" is initially about a different video, but then Panoply Prefect links to a second video. That's the only video I respond to. It's removed now, but we know it's the same one:



The third thread is entitled "The "big bang" at WTC7..." and from the OP we can once again establish that it's exactly the same video:



The thread "New Member" is one of the earliest where the video in question is discussed. My first post in the thread is on page 5, and makes no reference to video. I post again on page 5 in response to a video where wind sound has been enhanced to make it sound like explosions. I make an off-handed reference to the payphone video in that post.

etc....

Gumboot has time to disprove my claim about those threads, but no time to post simple screen caps of his audio analysis or to explain how the audio signature of the Landmark detonations differs in any significant way from that of the "faked explosion" in question.

I do, indeed, make reference to a number of fake videos, because we've uncovered a lot on these forums. It's not me uncovering all of these fakes, and most of them are discovered simply because someone uncovers an unaltered version. They're indisputably fake.

That you keep repeating this "fake video" claim because you may or may not have detected sound alteration of a specific segment of the audio tells me you're just a bedunker and not interested in discussing any factual observations.

 

[ergo]

Actually, anyone with an ounce of real-world experience can "validly discuss" his suggestions. He and I and others have repeatedly pointed out the fly in the ointment even in a mono signal.

For the same reason that you don't need a full-res HD image of the planes crashing to debunk a no-planer, a full-res, full-stereo version of the clip isn't necessary to debunk the 'explosions'.

Really? Why hasn't anyone done so yet? My screen caps are on the 2nd page of this thread. Have at it.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Really? Why hasn't anyone done so yet? My screen caps are on the 2nd page of this thread. Have at it.

Been done since the get-go of this thread. Been explained in as close to layman's terms as possible without getting into monosyllables.

Go back and re-read if you don't understand. I'm finished crossing this bridge.

 

[000063]

So you're disagreeing with MikeW's original analysis then?

You're doing that thing where you try and get one debunker to disagree with another so you can discount both of their claims, without actually having to present evidence.

The sad thing is that this is quite a childish mentality:
"if two people whose general position I oppose are disagreeing, then they must both be wrong!" It's a sign of maturity to discuss disagreements in a mature manner, as opposed to Truthers, who either pretend opposing Truther viewpoints don't exist or decry them as disinfo agents or the like.

I believe that's what's been determined, bedunker conspiracy theories notwithstanding.

Then what are you still debating?

Also, do you think this video has any value as evidence? A simple yes or no. Your post would indicate "no", but I want to be as clear as possible.

Of course, you won't actually answer a direct question, even when it appears to be a simple one you've already answered. Quite predictable.

etc....

Gumboot has time to disprove my claim about those threads, but no time to post simple screen caps of his audio analysis or to explain how the audio signature of the Landmark detonations differs in any significant way from that of the "faked explosion" in question.

Ah, yes, so when one doesn't meet your arbitrary standard of evidence, you imply that it's because of dishonesty or outright lies, yet when you fail to answer simple questions, it's perfectly acceptable.

That you keep repeating this "fake video" claim because you may or may not have detected sound alteration of a specific segment of the audio tells me you're just a bedunker and not interested in discussing any factual observations.

Ergo, I already pointed out that this video is uncorroborated.

Like any claims of demolition explosives, there have been no widespread reports of injuries consistent with explosive barotrauma, even from people who were inside the towers when these alleged explosives were detonated. *Therm*te burns far too slowly to cut through steel in the milliseconds the plan would've required, and any earlier triggering would have been very conspicuous.

As usual, you ignored these facts, because they consist of context, which Truthers hate. It is also rather hypocritical of you to say everyone else is ignoring facts when your debating technique consists largely of an eye-rolling emote, incredulity, thinking "bedunker" is much witter than it really is, a complete inability to admit when you're wrong or don't understand something, and going "Hey, X, do you agree with Y? You do? Okay, does everyone else agree with Y?" and then quote-mining the answers for things you think are holes in their argument.

Really? Why hasn't anyone done so yet? My screen caps are on the 2nd page of this thread. Have at it.

I already pointed out where the logic doesn't hold up. Speaking as a layman, the explosion seems to be too quiet for any real explosives to be employed. Plus, there's that irritating context you like to ignore.

 

[femr2]

Actually, anyone with an ounce of real-world experience can "validly discuss" his suggestions.

Technical aspects cannot be validly discussed without all parties having access to the same data.

It's like someone saying my ORIGINAL copy of the moon landing video clearly shows a branch of McDonalds in the background, and then expecting everyone to agree even though that video cannot be located.

It's a moot discussion until a proper quality stereo copy of the audio resurfaces.

 

[femr2]

So you're disagreeing with MikeW's original analysis then?

You're doing that thing where you try and get one debunker to disagree with another so you can discount both of their claims, without actually having to present evidence.

What is wrong with a "Yes", or "correct" ?

 

[fitzgibbon]

Actually, anyone with an ounce of real-world experience can "validly discuss" his suggestions. He and I and others have repeatedly pointed out the fly in the ointment even in a mono signal.

For the same reason that you don't need a full-res HD image of the planes crashing to debunk a no-planer, a full-res, full-stereo version of the clip isn't necessary to debunk the 'explosions'.

Fitz

Technical aspects cannot be validly discussed without all parties having access to the same data.

So far as I see, you, ergo, gumboot and I have access to the same data. But this is where that nasty word "experience" comes into play.

Gumboot and I also both pointed out that the the linked file that was initially uploaded had a stereo 'explosion' in a mono environment, a dead giveaway to the 'explosion' not being part of the original recording. But even with the mono'd 'explosion, gumboot and I have both at length explained earlier in this thread (and others on precisely the same clip) why it's still obvious that the 'explosion' wasn't part of the original recording.

So since you have access to the same data as we do, either put forth your sound, reasoned argument rebutting the points he and I have repeatedly made or let this thread die.

It's like someone saying my ORIGINAL copy of the moon landing video clearly shows a branch of McDonalds in the background, and then expecting everyone to agree even though that video cannot be located.

It's a moot discussion until a proper quality stereo copy of the audio resurfaces.

As I said, the stereo 'explosion' original isn't necessary to debunk the clip; it just makes it like shooting fish in a barrel.

A lack of relevant experience and/or analytic skills on someone else's part doesn't mean I then have to ad nauseum indulge that lack. It just means that someone (if it's important to them) has to upgrade their skillset to discuss meaningfully at a higher level.

 

[femr2]

So far as I see, you, ergo, gumboot and I have access to the same data.

No. I don't have a stereo audio copy of the video as referred to by gumboot.

But this is where that nasty word "experience" comes into play.

Experience says that the stereo audio is required to discuss technical details gleaned from a stereo audio version of the data. Rather obviously.

So since you have access to the same data as we do

I'll take a look when the stereo audio version resurfaces.

As I said, the stereo 'explosion' original isn't necessary to debunk the clip

I disagree, and given the clipping present on the mono versions, which is apparently not there on the stereo version aquired by gumboot at one point, the original data is a pre-requisite for me to have a look in depth.

A lack of relevant experience and/or analytic skills on someone else's part

My audio analysis skills are fine for the task, whatever unfounded inferred snark you might decide to throw into the discussion for whatever bizarre reason you choose.

 

[fitzgibbon]

So far as I see, you, ergo, gumboot and I have access to the same data.

No. I don't have a stereo audio copy of the video as referred to by gumboot.

Neither do I. Both gumboot and I mentioned that when the clip was originally posted by a 'truther', it was in stereo thereby very obviously betraying its manufactured origin. However, neither of us downloaded the stereo version before it was replaced by the current mono version.

So we can all work from the same source on an equal footing insofar as quality of source is concerned (unless you want to keep insisting on having the obviously-faked stereo version, that is)

But this is where that nasty word "experience" comes into play.

Experience says that the stereo audio is required to discuss technical details gleaned from a stereo audio version of the data. Rather obviously.

Rather obviously, actual experience says that camcorders such as the one that would've recorded the original scene wouldn't have recorded in stereo because THEY DON'T USE STEREO MICROPHONES. SOP would be to direct the audio signal from the mono shotgun mic to one mono track. That's the way it was and still is in news shooting.

So once again, a stereo signal is a sure sign of 'truther' #Fail.

And just to remind you of the point you chose to cherrypick-out of my post:

Gumboot and I also both pointed out that the the linked file that was initially uploaded had a stereo 'explosion' in a mono environment, a dead giveaway to the 'explosion' not being part of the original recording. But even with the mono'd 'explosion, gumboot and I have both at length explained earlier in this thread (and others on precisely the same clip) why it's still obvious that the 'explosion' wasn't part of the original recording.

So since you have access to the same data as we do

I'll take a look when the stereo audio version resurfaces.

You do realise that in this context, it's been repeatedly pointed out that stereo=fake=#Fail.

You going to demand the original fake? You may be waiting quite some time.

And to reiterate:

either put forth your sound, reasoned argument rebutting the points he and I have repeatedly made or let this thread die.

As I said, the stereo 'explosion' original isn't necessary to debunk the clip

I disagree, and given the clipping present on the mono versions, which is apparently not there on the stereo version

You're free to disagree. On what basis (given all the points mentioned about why even the mono version is clearly a fake) do you disagree? If you understood the point above (stereo=fake=#Fail), why on Earth would you demand a stereo version of something that by its very existence would render your posturing even more obvious?

And I will point out for the last time (because it's been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and every other thread where this clip has been breathlessly cited), that the 'explosion" (even in a mono environment) has too much depth, not enough clipping to have been recorded by the microphone that recorded that moment in time and which is distorting even on simple voice alone.

The 'explosion' is an artifact introduced after the fact. It didn't happen synchronous with the moment captured on video.

aquired by gumboot at one point, the original data is a pre-requisite for me to have a look in depth.

You demand a stereo copy that by its existence is clearly a fake?

A lack of relevant experience and/or analytic skills on someone else's part

My audio analysis skills are fine for the task, whatever unfounded inferred snark you might decide to throw into the discussion for whatever bizarre reason you choose.

Evidently not for points that have been reiterated a number of times. I'll close with the rest of the "snark" which you chose to cherrypick-out and which I shall heretofore stand by insofar as concerns this 'clip'

A lack of relevant experience and/or analytic skills on someone else's part doesn't mean I then have to ad nauseum indulge that lack. It just means that someone (if it's important to them) has to upgrade their skillset to discuss meaningfully at a higher level.

Any further discussion without a reasoned addressing of the points and shortcomings already raised is a waste of bandwidth by someone who either can't or won't dislodge themselves from an endless tail-chase

 

[femr2]

Both gumboot and I mentioned that when the clip was originally posted by a 'truther', it was in stereo thereby very obviously betraying its manufactured origin.

Do you know what camera/mic was used to record it ?

However, neither of us downloaded the stereo version before it was replaced by the current mono version.

gumboot said he had the stereo copy at some point.

So we can all work from the same source on an equal footing insofar as quality of source is concerned (unless you want to keep insisting on having the obviously-faked stereo version, that is)

In order to determine if the "obviously fake stereo version" is indeed fake, I'd need the stereo version, of course.

Rather obviously, actual experience says that camcorders such as the one that would've recorded the original scene wouldn't have recorded in stereo because THEY DON'T USE STEREO MICROPHONES.

You know the actual recording setup used for sure, or are you assuming ?

SOP would be to direct the audio signal from the mono shotgun mic to one mono track. That's the way it was and still is in news shooting.

Maybe, and that would be the reason to get the stereo version.

So once again, a stereo signal is a sure sign of 'truther' #Fail.

If it's "stereo" and not dual-mono, and the explosion has a stereo signature aka different left and right channel data, then, as long as the rest of the audio is dual mono aka no different left and right channel data, then absolutlely that would indicate that the explosion was added to the underlying mono (or dual mono) voice recording.

Thus, I'd like the stereo version.

Simple.

You going to demand the original fake?

Demand ? No. But until it shows up any claim that the explosion is in stereo obviously cannot be verified.

If you understood the point above (stereo=fake=#Fail)

I fully understand the premise, so I'd like to look at the stereo explosion overlaid upon a (dual) mono voice recording. That would indeed prove the explosion was added.

why on Earth would you demand a stereo version of something that by its very existence would render your posturing even more obvious?

I'm not posturing in the slightest, and I've explained above (twice) why I'd like the stereo version.

And I will point out for the last time (because it's been pointed out repeatedly in this thread and every other thread where this clip has been breathlessly cited), that the 'explosion" (even in a mono environment) has too much depth, not enough clipping to have been recorded by the microphone that recorded that moment in time and which is distorting even on simple voice alone.

Very subjective statements (especially as every copy I've seen has rather extreme clipping). I'd rather check out the stereo version thanks.

The 'explosion' is an artifact introduced after the fact. It didn't happen synchronous with the moment captured on video.

A very grey area.

You demand a stereo copy that by its existence is clearly a fake?

Again, demand ? No. Assertion of a stereo explosion is obviously moot until a stereo version of the audio can be relocated.

Any further discussion without a reasoned addressing of the points and shortcomings already raised is a waste of bandwidth by someone who either can't or won't dislodge themselves from an endless tail-chase

Calm down dear.

 

[000063]

What is wrong with a "Yes", or "correct" ?

That's what I want to know. In one post Ergo seems to be agreeing the video has no evidentiary worth, in the next, metaphorically speakking, he's putting 'faked video' in quotation marks. That seems, IMO, that he's skeptical of the video being faked. Problem is, neither statement is particularly clear to me, and I would really like some clarification. However, Ergo automatically avoids direct questions as to what point he's trying to make or what his position is. Only when he lets something slip can people correct him. Oddly enough, it never seems to take, and he makes the same mistakes again and again. As if he's not even listening to the corrections.

It doesn't matter whether Fitz says "yes" or "no". Ergo can't dispute it on his own, so he tries to get another debunker to do it for him instead of admitting his inadequacies. Of course, it doesn't matter, because he's going to reflexively disagree and nitpick them both, regardless of technical validity.

Perhaps you empathize.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Do you know what camera/mic was used to record it ?

Don't need to. Find me the news shooter today (or EFP to give you that extra bit of rope to hang yourself with) that's shooting with a stereo mic.

Go ahead. I'm patient. Find 'em before you reply

gumboot said he had the stereo copy at some point.

Had? Or heard? In any case, is he arguing that stereo made a difference? Or are you?

In order to determine if the "obviously fake stereo version" is indeed fake, I'd need the stereo version, of course.

Yet two media professionals say that mono or stereo, it's clear it's fake and you insist on hearing the obviously fake version even when compelling expert evidence is presented to you based on the mono version more readily available? Where's the bridge you reside beneath?

You know the actual recording setup used for sure, or are you assuming ?

Oh, I don't know. 15 years shooting broadcast news video and friends who're yet news and EFP shooters give me a certain.....knowledge. If you're asserting a stereo shoot, find me the station that even how sends its ENG/EFP shooters out shooting stereo (with links of course).

And while you're at it, find the ones that were shooting stereo in NYC 10 years ago.

Maybe, and that would be the reason to get the stereo version.

Tally ho. Use the search function to find where gumboot identified the source of the clip and then you can upload the stereo clip you so desperately want.

If it's "stereo" and not dual-mono,

Stereo and dual-mono don't sound even remotely alike. But even a single-channel mono would be enough for anyone without an axe to grind to discern how fake the audio was. If you don't understand this most basic of differences, your

audio analysis skills

aren't worth the powder to blow them to Hell.

and the explosion has a stereo signature aka different left and right channel data,

Reading comprehension challenge you? What part of

too much depth, not enough clipping

didn't register with you? That would be clear in full stereo, 2-track mono or 1-track mono to anyone who wanted to hear it.

Or do you want to acknowledge that elephant?

then, as long as the rest of the audio is dual mono aka no different left and right channel data, then absolutlely that would indicate that the explosion was added to the underlying mono (or dual mono) voice recording.

FTFY.

Thus, I'd like the stereo version.

Simple.

Tally ho. The search function is your friend. I'm sure you'll find the source that gumboot cited and then you can buy it, analyse it and show your work.

I can hardly wait

Demand ? No. But until it shows up any claim that the explosion is in stereo obviously cannot be verified.

I fully understand the premise, so I'd like to look at the stereo explosion overlaid upon a (dual) mono voice recording. That would indeed prove the explosion was added.

Knock yourself out. I've already explained at length while the stereo vs mono version is moot. But if you need to have the stereo version to understand why it's fake (even though it's been repeatedly pointed out using the mono version why it's fake), then know yourself out on search.

I'm not posturing in the slightest, and I've explained above (twice) why I'd like the stereo version.

You're posturing. You either don't know it or are doing a Bill Smith.

Very subjective statements (especially as every copy I've seen has rather extreme clipping). I'd rather check out the stereo version thanks.

Search is your friend. Show your work as you go. You seem as adept in audio analysis as you are in video analysis.

Again, demand ? No. Assertion of a stereo explosion is obviously moot until a stereo version of the audio can be relocated.

Assertion of stereo is moot only insofar as an argument relies solely on stereo. Mine doesn't. Yours? Your positive assertion is non-existent, based on something you don't have and which you seem inclined to insist others provide to you and/or are disinclined to find yourself.

Calm down dear.

I am. I'm analysing what's easily sourced and which betrays its origins even in this environment. You? You want a pristine copy of a fake. You going to use the search function or are you going to continue to cherrypick and goalpost-move?

 

[ergo]

From what I can glean over these three pages, here is the sum total of gumboots' arguments:

The speaking in the video causes the microphone to peak, but the much louder explosion does not.

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.

In the video linked in the OP? Yes. Extensive clipping of audio right across the frequency range.

"But", he says,.... "but..."

....it's pretty clear the audio in the linked OP video has been modified (either deliberately or accidentally) to result in extensive clipping because the video I downloaded which was the popular clip when this first surfaced didn't feature said clipping.

So "it's pretty clear," he says... "because the video I downloaded ....didn't feature [that] clipping."

In other words, it's "pretty clear" that the audio was modified--why? Because he analyzed a different sourced video.

What compelling bedunker logic.

 

[fitzgibbon]

In other words, it's "pretty clear" that the audio was modified--why? Because he analyzed a different sourced video.

What compelling bedunker logic.

It's easily debunked whichever version you listen to. You seem inclined to 'truth' as opposed to truth.

What compelling 'truther' logic (oxymoron that that is).

 

[ergo]

Looking at and listening to the videos again, I come to the conclusion that, absent any other evidence, there's nothing suspicious here.

The peaking in the payphone vid explosion is uncontroversial since that is what we would expect, and indeed we see the exact same thing in the Landmark implosion video. The peaking in the talking prior to the explosion is just a result of either the recording volume or production volume. Finally, that the explosion segment peaks in the same way as the lower dB talking may simply be a consequence of using a crappy camera mic. Perhaps this is simply the kind of signature you're going to get recording any explosion with a low-quality camera mic. No controversy.

Screen captures:

Payphone video audio

Landmark implosion audio

Landmark implosion audio with payphone vid explosion signature pasted at beginning for comparison.