• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread henryco's new paper

<snip>

(The purpose of the question is to understand why the recordings do not seem to capture enourmous sound levels which were clearly present. It would be utterly nuts to even think that anyone would suggest that the descents were in reality anything less than ridiculously loud.)


1. Are you saying the sounds were so ridiculously loud they couldn't be heard by recordings or people?
2. Are you saying these ridiculously loud sounds that couldn't be heard were clearly present?
3. Are you saying you know what you're saying?
 
Of course Femr2 is corect. Even though there are no explosions in these videos that almost exclusively came through suspect channels we have possibly thousands of live witness reports of explosions. This does not include the evidence of more than 118 firefighters who describe in graphic detail explosions that they thought sounded like controlled demolition. In their expert opinion that is of course. So those dodgy videos will not save Shilldom from destruction.
 
"Possibly" having and "absolutely" having witnesses are 2 different things, Ankles.

ETA- do we have to go through the definition of what a simile is again?
 
Last edited:
Of course Femr2 is corect. Even though there are no explosions in these videos that almost exclusively came through suspect channels we have possibly thousands of live witness reports of explosions. This does not include the evidence of more than 118 firefighters who describe in graphic detail explosions that they thought sounded like controlled demolition. In their expert opinion that is of course. So those dodgy videos will not save Shilldom from destruction.

You know it would be really good if we could get some of these 118 firemen who heard the explosions to sign the ae911truth petition. You would have thought that since they heard the explosives going off that they would have signed up and since they are experts and all.

Or perhaps they are too frightened, I have heard that said about NYFD. Just wait until we get subpena power!
 
You know it would be really good if we could get some of these 118 firemen who heard the explosions to sign the ae911truth petition. You would have thought that since they heard the explosives going off that they would have signed up and since they are experts and all.

Or perhaps they are too frightened, I have heard that said about NYFD. Just wait until we get subpena power!


"explosions" is not the same thing and is not only connected to "explosives".

"explosion" is just a good word for "loud noise".


There are about 100 "truth Movement" members that showed up in NYC petition drive. They could canvas all the NY firehouses in one day and ask to speak to firemen that were at WTC and ask for petition signatures. Good luck. I hope your medical insurance is paid up, not that I wish any violence on anyone.

This is one more "good idea" that the Twoofers are too lazy to get off the couch and actually execute. It's been 8 years of this crap.

No fireman describes explosives at WTC except by comparison or metaphor.

No eyewitness describes any explosions consistent with man-made demolition.

None. You could prove me wrong by naming one.

Just one. No video. Make it your best case.
 
Last edited:
Of course Femr2 is corect. Even though there are no explosions in these videos that almost exclusively came through suspect channels we have possibly thousands of live witness reports of explosions. This does not include the evidence of more than 118 firefighters who describe in graphic detail explosions that they thought sounded like controlled demolition. In their expert opinion that is of course. So those dodgy videos will not save Shilldom from destruction.

You realize it's not nice to lie, right? Perhaps you can provide a link to 118 firefighters who, whether they really "describe in graphic detail explosions that they thought sounded like controlled demolition" or not, who actually believe it WAS now, or believed it WAS then, a controlled demolition. Or is "expert opinion" only valid to you when you agree with it?
 
Last edited:
This does not include the evidence of more than 118 firefighters who describe in graphic detail explosions that they thought sounded like controlled demolition. In their expert opinion that is of course. So those dodgy videos will not save Shilldom from destruction.

Billy, I'm a firefighter ok. What you said is completely wrong & that doesn't make any difference about what those firefighters heard. Alot of firefighters describe, inside the lobbies, that they heard the bodies of people that were jumping from the building & hitting concrete.

Can you imagine the sound of a human body hitting pavement from a staggering height then all their bones breaking at once from the impact? No you can't because in your flawed mind you have explosions mixed with "explosives".

So don't you give me that crap that explosives would equal to "explosives" because it's a BS theory & you know it! That goes for the rest of you Truthers who think this crap up all the time! Every single Truther is 100% WRONG!
 
Last edited:
The crashes ? Are you talking about the impacts, as I'm not.

But you're absolutely right, even, and especially, for the descents. Seismic level events which in video recordings don't sound very loud.

Why is that, you think ?

(The purpose of the question is to understand why the recordings do not seem to capture enourmous sound levels which were clearly present. It would be utterly nuts to even think that anyone would suggest that the descents were in reality anything less than ridiculously loud.)

Have you seen the naudet video of the collapse from the lobby of the other tower?

It is freaking deafening. Gee...I wonder why.

arguments from ignorance and incredulity ROCK!
 
WTC, NOT a controlled demolition

The crashes ? Are you talking about the impacts, as I'm not.

But you're absolutely right, even, and especially, for the descents. Seismic level events which in video recordings don't sound very loud.

Why is that, you think ?

(The purpose of the question is to understand why the recordings do not seem to capture enourmous sound levels which were clearly present. It would be utterly nuts to even think that anyone would suggest that the descents were in reality anything less than ridiculously loud.)

So explain why all videos of this alleged "explosive demolition" were filtered out but we can point to scores of explosive controlled demolitions that are clearly loud? Also note that in other CD's the crush of the structures after the explosions themselves is no louder that that of the WTC buildings.









Have I made my point femr2? Or should I keep going?
 
Really ? So you're suggesting that a recording with a gate in the chain will not filter out a *boom*, with an appropriate attack envelope ? As suggested, it's only one of many factors, as I'm sure you must concede.
Even Rick Siegel's video?

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/


I would expect this if it were explosives:



The distance is not really a factor. The sound of the explosions exceeds that of the fall itself by a good amount.
 
Of course Femr2 is corect. Even though there are no explosions in these videos that almost exclusively came through suspect channels we have possibly thousands of live witness reports of explosions. This does not include the evidence of more than 118 firefighters who describe in graphic detail explosions that they thought sounded like controlled demolition. In their expert opinion that is of course. So those dodgy videos will not save Shilldom from destruction.

I don't understand why this guy continues to come here and lie? See you in quotes bill.
 
You realize it's not nice to lie, right? Perhaps you can provide a link to 118 firefighters who, whether they really "describe in graphic detail explosions that they thought sounded like controlled demolition" or not, who actually believe it WAS now, or believed it WAS then, a controlled demolition. Or is "expert opinion" only valid to you when you agree with it?

None of them even claim they heard anything that sounded like a controlled demolition.
 
femr2 said:
Really ? So you're suggesting that a recording with a gate in the chain will not filter out a *boom*, with an appropriate attack envelope ? As suggested, it's only one of many factors, as I'm sure you must concede.

No. I really suggest you go and read the Wiki article I linked earlier and this time at least try for comprehension.

Simply put, a noise gate works in this way:
The input signal is applied to the input of a voltage-controlled amplifier (an amplifier whose gain can be set by a DC control voltage applied to a control input port; there are various ways to implement this, but the end result is essentially the same). The input signal is also applied to the input of a level deteector (a circuit which produces a DC output voltage proportional to the magnitude of the input signal. Most noise gates use peak-sensing detection, but on some, e.g. the expander/gate function of the dynamics section on an SSL 9000 series console channel module offers a choice between peak and true RMS level detectors).

The output of the level detector is applied to one input of a comparator and a DC voltage set by the THRESHOLD control is applied to the other comparator input. A comparator is a circuit which provides a yes/no binary answer to the question "is X>Y?". In this case, if the output of the level detector is greater than the reference voltage set by the THRESHOLD control (meaning that the input signal level is higher than the desired gating threshold), the comparator output will switch to the TRUE state.

The on/off output from the comparator is routed through circuits to set the attack time (the time it takes the gain of the gate's signal path to rise to its final value after the input signal exceeds the gating threshold), the hold time (the amount of time that elapses between the input signal level dropping below the turn-off threshold and when the gain of the signal path actually starts to decrease) and the release time ( the time it takes for the signal path gain to decrease from its "gate open" value to its final "gate closed" value).

The result of these shenanigans is a control voltage which is applied to the VCA control port. If the input signal level is greater than the gating threshold the VCA gain will be set to its "open" value (usually unity gain). When the input signal level drops below the gating threshold, the VCA gain will, after the "hold" period if one is set, drop to a minimum value which is usually se with a "RANGE" control at a rate set by the RELEASE control.

So, if you are shooting a video and for some reason have a gate in your audio signal path, what will happen is that if the background sound level is high enough to open the gate (which it would have to be to get your voices, etc. on tape), the addition of an explosion sound to the mix would simply help to keep the gate open. This would have no effect at all on whether the explosion- or anything else- made it to tape.

You can download the user manual for the Drawmer DS-201 2-channel noise gate (an item which is de rigeur for any studio worthy of the name) here. While the schematic is not included, there is a block diagram and explanation which might be useful in understanding how gates function. Or you could find the schematic for the DOD FX-30 gate here. This is a cheap-and-cheerful gate pedal for electric guitarists; it uses a JFET as a voltage-controlled resistor/switch for audio gain control instead of the Blackmer VCA ICs commonly found in studio-quality gear, but if you can read a schematic you'll see that the elements I outlined above are all present, and perhaps even see how it works.

Now before anyone who might be wandering the electronic forest like a lost child decides that it's comp/limiters to blame for the absence of recorded blasts in videos they might want to read this post, in which I investigate the effects of a limiter on combinations of loud sounds on a softer background.
 
No. I really suggest you go and read the Wiki article I linked earlier and this time at least try for comprehension.

Simply put, a noise gate works in this way:
The input signal is applied to the input of a voltage-controlled amplifier (an amplifier whose gain can be set by a DC control voltage applied to a control input port; there are various ways to implement this, but the end result is essentially the same). The input signal is also applied to the input of a level deteector (a circuit which produces a DC output voltage proportional to the magnitude of the input signal. Most noise gates use peak-sensing detection, but on some, e.g. the expander/gate function of the dynamics section on an SSL 9000 series console channel module offers a choice between peak and true RMS level detectors).

The output of the level detector is applied to one input of a comparator and a DC voltage set by the THRESHOLD control is applied to the other comparator input. A comparator is a circuit which provides a yes/no binary answer to the question "is X>Y?". In this case, if the output of the level detector is greater than the reference voltage set by the THRESHOLD control (meaning that the input signal level is higher than the desired gating threshold), the comparator output will switch to the TRUE state.

The on/off output from the comparator is routed through circuits to set the attack time (the time it takes the gain of the gate's signal path to rise to its final value after the input signal exceeds the gating threshold), the hold time (the amount of time that elapses between the input signal level dropping below the turn-off threshold and when the gain of the signal path actually starts to decrease) and the release time ( the time it takes for the signal path gain to decrease from its "gate open" value to its final "gate closed" value).

The result of these shenanigans is a control voltage which is applied to the VCA control port. If the input signal level is greater than the gating threshold the VCA gain will be set to its "open" value (usually unity gain). When the input signal level drops below the gating threshold, the VCA gain will, after the "hold" period if one is set, drop to a minimum value which is usually se with a "RANGE" control at a rate set by the RELEASE control.

So, if you are shooting a video and for some reason have a gate in your audio signal path, what will happen is that if the background sound level is high enough to open the gate (which it would have to be to get your voices, etc. on tape), the addition of an explosion sound to the mix would simply help to keep the gate open. This would have no effect at all on whether the explosion- or anything else- made it to tape.

You can download the user manual for the Drawmer DS-201 2-channel noise gate (an item which is de rigeur for any studio worthy of the name) here. While the schematic is not included, there is a block diagram and explanation which might be useful in understanding how gates function. Or you could find the schematic for the DOD FX-30 gate here. This is a cheap-and-cheerful gate pedal for electric guitarists; it uses a JFET as a voltage-controlled resistor/switch for audio gain control instead of the Blackmer VCA ICs commonly found in studio-quality gear, but if you can read a schematic you'll see that the elements I outlined above are all present, and perhaps even see how it works.

Now before anyone who might be wandering the electronic forest like a lost child decides that it's comp/limiters to blame for the absence of recorded blasts in videos they might want to read this post, in which I investigate the effects of a limiter on combinations of loud sounds on a softer background.

Excellent post....and I just read the post you referred to with the EWB file....nicely done sir.

Its nice to see people posting some circuit analysis in response to the truthers (Im an EE so I like circuits :))....

Anyway....good job and good description. Seemed very accurate although I fear your efforts are in vain when it comes to some truthers.
 
Excellent post....and I just read the post you referred to with the EWB file....nicely done sir.

********!
1) There is nothing easier than filtering the required frequencies to suppress or just smooth anything you want from a sound track and even from an image.
And most of the time you would not even need to make the effort because an imperfect recorder would do it itself. I'm a physicist and i'm teaching signal treatment and analysis.

2) How many videos were taken close enough to the WTCs to catch the explosions: 1 ?, 2?
i know personally one of them which is the video we are discussing and we find it in to versions : one with the noise of the explosions and the collapse and the other with just a big CHHHHHH...find the bug! :-))

I heared that there exists another sound track of WTC7 with nothing but the voices (57 floors building collapse completely inaudible). If some one knows where i can find it, thank you .

3) If you want videos of witnesses (Firefighters here!) but also recorded explosions go here
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8
it's just a small sample!

4) Comparing WTCs demolition with another controlled demolition is a priori ******** method because in the case of the WTC you expect people to try to be as discrete as possible because it's a crime : so you'd better not use huge explosive but rather many many small ones just to cut many columns (hence many heard "pops running in all direction inside the building") and thermite just as an incendiary (not an explosive) to help melt the columns
and you will use the more powerful explosives only when the collapse has fully started . Hear again the Landmark Tower demolition when the collapse has started and realise how loud is the sound of a collapse even when there is no more explosion...then compare it to the video track sound we are talking about.

All these arguments are quite obvious. I'm wondering why nobody seems to be able to understand these obvious arguments and evidences here.

F H-C
 
********!
1) There is nothing easier than filtering the required frequencies to suppress or just smooth anything you want from a sound track and even from an image.
And most of the time you would not even need to make the effort because an imperfect recorder would do it itself. I'm a physicist and i'm teaching signal treatment and analysis.

2) How many videos were taken close enough to the WTCs to catch the explosions: 1 ?, 2?
i know personally one of them which is the video we are discussing and we find it in to versions : one with the noise of the explosions and the collapse and the other with just a big CHHHHHH...find the bug! :-))

I heared that there exists another sound track of WTC7 with nothing but the voices (57 floors building collapse completely inaudible). If some one knows where i can find it, thank you .

3) If you want videos of witnesses (Firefighters here!) but also recorded explosions go here
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=8
it's just a small sample!

4) Comparing WTCs demolition with another controlled demolition is a priori ******** method because in the case of the WTC you expect people to try to be as discrete as possible because it's a crime : so you'd better not use huge explosive but rather many many small ones just to cut many columns (hence many heard "pops running in all direction inside the building") and thermite just as an incendiary (not an explosive) to help melt the columns
and you will use the more powerful explosives only when the collapse has fully started . Hear again the Landmark Tower demolition when the collapse has started and realise how loud is the sound of a collapse even when there is no more explosion...then compare it to the video track sound we are talking about.

All these arguments are quite obvious. I'm wondering why nobody seems to be able to understand these obvious arguments and evidences here.

F H-C
What a load of moronic junk. 8 years and you are still clueless on 911. Even the terrorists take credit for 911 and you are trying to apologize for them! They don't need your help, they are proud to kill Americans, you are only exposing your ignorance. Wake up, if you are anti-war protest it, but don't make up lies, it is pathetic.

You are sick, a lot of the explosions were bodies hitting the ground after they jumped due to fire. You are one sick terrorists apologist making up lies about 911. It is 8 years if you were going to break some evidence that happens at 1 or 2 years not 8 years. You are a failure and your work is delusional. Stop the sick jokes about explosion, many were bodies at terminal velocity impacting the ground. You make the terrorists laugh at your lack of knowledge.

There are no noises of explosives, only in your moronic delusions. If you love terrorists enough to make up lies for them go join them.

After 8 years your stuff is weak. My grandson calls it weaksauce. He is five. Have a great week and stop apologizing for terrorists. I can't believe the delusions you make up!
to be as discrete as possible because it's a crime : so you'd better not use huge explosive but rather many many small ones just to cut
pure delusional...
 
Last edited:
2) How many videos were taken close enough to the WTCs to catch the explosions: 1 ?, 2?
Hundreds. To cut steel you need very powerful explosives.




I heared that there exists another sound track of WTC7 with nothing but the voices (57 floors building collapse completely inaudible). If some one knows where i can find it, thank you .
Maybe this one?



you'd better not use huge explosive but rather many many small ones just to cut many columns (hence many heard "pops running in all direction inside the building")
You can't cut any column with an explosive that just 'pops'.

Hear again the Landmark Tower demolition when the collapse has started and realise how loud is the sound of a collapse even when there is no more explosion...then compare it to the video track sound we are talking about.
When there's no explosion running (discounting the time for sound to reach the helicopter) the sound of the collapse is still lots softer than that of the explosives.
 
Last edited:
All these arguments are quite obvious. I'm wondering why nobody seems to be able to understand these obvious arguments and evidences here.

This is a classic conspiracy theorist smokescreen. Your arguments are quite obvious, but also quite obviously wrong. We all find it a bit perplexing that you don't understand your own arguments well enough to see the obvious flaws in them. Like: Filtering a range of frequencies out of a sound track removes everything in that frequency range, which will be clearly apparent just from listening to it. Or: It only takes one video recorded closely enough to the WTC to catch the explosion, and there is at least one that was recorded close enough and doesn't contain a genuine explosion. Or: Explosions at random times are expected in any large fire, so any number of recorded sounds of explosions at the wrong time are irrelevant. Or: It's not physically possible to cut large columns with small explosive charges, it's not physically practicable to cut any type of column with thermite, and there's no point cutting anything once the collapse has started because it's unstoppable by then.

You formulate your arguments by proposing the impossible, then claiming that it's more likely than the possible and the understood. We aren't the ones who misunderstand this.

Dave
 
Let's add that if there were explosions while the tower was brought down, we shouldn't hear them at a constant volume (it should be louder, as the explosions come closer to the persons), and not in surround sound.
 

Back
Top Bottom