• 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

bill smith said:
Oh well. I guess I can live with that. Anyway back to business.

As I've said before people are listening less and less to debunker rubbish and are starting more and more to use their own logic and senses.

So on that note I recommend for any reader to listen to the two short videos above and using their own best judgement assess in which video the audio has been tampered with.

I say that the clean and full audio in the video marked 'authentic' has been clearly and obviously degraded and degenerated in the video marked 'fake'. This 'fake' with the explosions removed is the one the government say is the true audio.
Click to expand...

So, bill, how do you propose to "remove" the sound of explosions from a recording without creating artifacts which will be painfully obvious to any lnowledgeable listener.

I have successfully removed clicks from a recording (by waveform drawing in Sound Designer II) and a feedback (what our Brit cousins call "howlround" from a live recording (the feed was close enough to a pure tone that I could tune a narrow notch filter to it and apply the filter only to the part of the recording where the feedback took place).

An explosion, however, is neither a simple impulse, like the clicks I took out, so redrawing the waveform isn't gonna work, nor is it narrowband enough for filtering to do the job. The only thing I can think of would be to cut the entire track at the beginning and end of the explosion sound and splice the ends together. That would be guaranteed to produce an obvious discontinuity in the background sound.

Using one's own "senses and logic" is all very well, but you leave out a critical ingredient: knowledge. Because you have none, you can blithely handwave up scenarios which make hose of us who do know what we're talking about wish for an automatic facepalm machine.

Here's an experiment which 240-185 might want to try (I aim to try it tomorrow, assuming I can get access to the DAW at the other studio where I work):

take the second explosion which you extracted from the video.
In a multitrack workstation, goodge it forward and back until it's lined up with the first explosion to within less than a millisecond.
Invert the polarity of the second explosion and sum it with the first. If the two are in fact identical, the explosion will be largely cancelled out, leaving the background.

Good cancellation would be proof that the two explosions are multiple instances of the exact same sound and consequently the product of fakery.
 
ktesibios said:
So, bill, how do you propose to "remove" the sound of explosions from a recording without creating artifacts which will be painfully obvious to any lnowledgeable listener.

I have successfully removed clicks from a recording (by waveform drawing in Sound Designer II) and a feedback (what our Brit cousins call "howlround" from a live recording (the feed was close enough to a pure tone that I could tune a narrow notch filter to it and apply the filter only to the part of the recording where the feedback took place).

An explosion, however, is neither a simple impulse, like the clicks I took out, so redrawing the waveform isn't gonna work, nor is it narrowband enough for filtering to do the job. The only thing I can think of would be to cut the entire track at the beginning and end of the explosion sound and splice the ends together. That would be guaranteed to produce an obvious discontinuity in the background sound.

Using one's own "senses and logic" is all very well, but you leave out a critical ingredient: knowledge. Because you have none, you can blithely handwave up scenarios which make hose of us who do know what we're talking about wish for an automatic facepalm machine.

Here's an experiment which 240-185 might want to try (I aim to try it tomorrow, assuming I can get access to the DAW at the other studio where I work):

take the second explosion which you extracted from the video.
In a multitrack workstation, goodge it forward and back until it's lined up with the first explosion to within less than a millisecond.
Invert the polarity of the second explosion and sum it with the first. If the two are in fact identical, the explosion will be largely cancelled out, leaving the background.

Good cancellation would be proof that the two explosions are multiple instances of the exact same sound and consequently the product of fakery.
Click to expand...

Obveus the gubmint has sooper secrut technolageez from aleyenz. I saw it on da U toobz. It wuz crayZ. da toobz iz fur reelz.
 
Malade de la tete peut etre
Click to expand...
Which means "Mental illness, perhaps". So, when I debunk your nonsense, the only answer you found to refute my analysis is that I'm mentally ill. Where's the button to warn the mods...

the guy appears to say ' C'est fondré '.
Click to expand...
"fondré" is not a french word. While you're phonetically right, the guy says in fact "...s'effondrer" which means "to collapse". Learn french before making such statements.
 
240-185 said:
Which means "Mental illness, perhaps". So, when I debunk your nonsense, the only answer you found to refute my analysis is that I'm mentally ill. Where's the button to warn the mods...


"fondré" is not a french word. While you're phonetically right, the guy says in fact "...s'effondrer" which means "to collapse". Learn french before making such statements.
Click to expand...

Didn't you used to be a mod called 'Nostalgia' on another forum ? Just curious.
 
240-185 said:
Same video, same analysis made in #130. Next.
Click to expand...

Yes, with the many hundreds or thousands of credible oral reports of heavy duty explosions on 9/11 we can discount the fact that explosions do not appear on the 9/11 videos. But we know that 99.9% of those videos came through media or government channels. So we can say with a good deal of certainty that the videos have been tampered with.

If you need proof of the oral reports I can supply you with unbroken hours and hours of continual reports of explosions.
 
240-185 said:
Which means "Mental illness, perhaps". So, when I debunk your nonsense, the only answer you found to refute my analysis is that I'm mentally ill. Where's the button to warn the mods...


"fondré" is not a french word. While you're phonetically right, the guy says in fact "...s'effondrer" which means "to collapse". Learn french before making such statements.
Click to expand...

So the guy said 's'effondrer'. 'To collapse' ? That sounds like a strange way of talking ?

http://www.wordreference.com/fren/s'effondrer collapse

http://www.wordreference.com/fren/fondre melt

So it's almost like a toss-up whether he said 's'effondrer' or 'c'est fondré (fondrait) '

Just another 9/11 entertaining puzzle
 
Last edited:
So it's almost like a toss-up whether he said 's'effondrer' or 'c'est fondré (fondrait) '
Click to expand...

Oh dear, I now understand why I had you on ignore...

th0825acc7.gif
th0825acc7.gif
th0825acc7.gif
th0825acc7.gif
th0825acc7.gif


"C'EST FONDRÉ" (or "c'est fondrait") IS NOT GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT IN FRENCH, "FONDRÉ" IS NOT A VALID FRENCH WORD
th0825acc7.gif
th0825acc7.gif
th0825acc7.gif
th0825acc7.gif
th0825acc7.gif


(The past participle of "fondre" is "fondU")
(BTW, have you ever considered that this chosen extract may have CUT his sentence ?)
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Here's another clip. Notice the way the building collapses with the crowd completely slilent and then suddenly they seem to wake up and start to scatter. Well in the split second before they start to scream i think I hear another sound. Anybody else hear that ?
Click to expand...

That rushing sound? They caught the start of collapse before the first explosive sound. Epic, carreer-destroying, laughing -our -butts -off-at-it FAIL.
 
240-185 said:
Oh dear, I now understand why I had you on ignore...

[qimg]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/link100/th0825acc7.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/link100/th0825acc7.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/link100/th0825acc7.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/link100/th0825acc7.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/link100/th0825acc7.gif[/qimg]

"C'EST FONDRÉ" (or "c'est fondrait") IS NOT GRAMMATICALLY CORRECT IN FRENCH, "FONDRÉ" IS NOT A VALID FRENCH WORD
[qimg]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/link100/th0825acc7.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/link100/th0825acc7.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/link100/th0825acc7.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/link100/th0825acc7.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/link100/th0825acc7.gif[/qimg]

(The past participle of "fondre" is "fondU")
(BTW, have you ever considered that this chosen extract may have CUT his sentence ?)
Click to expand...

I was just a little interested. ' Fondue' like in melted cheese or 'foundry' like in melted steel are also based on that French word 'Fondre' I guess.
 
Last edited:
Bill:
I know you've been asked this before but, how does one "edit out" an explosion in a video? Especially in a city where the echo would go on for a very long time.
 
Quit kidding around bill, we know all government agents are biligual. You tabernacker you :)
 
leftysergeant said:
That rushing sound? They caught the start of collapse before the first explosive sound. Epic, carreer-destroying, laughing -our -butts -off-at-it FAIL.
Click to expand...
No, I listened to it again a few times. Tthat sounds like another, much bigger explosion. It clearly starte the crowds screaming and running when they had silently stood watching right before. It couldn't be clearer.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5542578&postcount=166 hyperlink
 
bill smith said:
Here's another clip. Notice the way the building collapses with the crowd completely slilent and then suddenly they seem to wake up and start to scatter. Well in the split second before they start to scream i think I hear another sound. Anybody else hear that ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWM64aSYxuM&NR=1
Click to expand...
ou'll have to give us a time stamp. The drum beat from the opening screen bleeds over a bit into this version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom