New Member

[gumboot]

He does not say the city exploded. That is absurd. All 3 men react to the explosion and the camera turns. The firefighter says sxxt's exploding.

He does not. All 3 men react? Only two men are there when the "explosion" occurs, and we can only see one of them. The cameraman does not react until after the guy on the phone has. The firemen - who arrive after the explosion - seem utterly oblivious to it. Their attention is clearly on two policemen who are somewhere they shouldn't be.

How can you possibly derive all that from a compressed youtube video which probably is not in sync? How can you even know it's a handycam?

Because I downloaded it as an AVI and loaded it into professional film editing and sound post-production software, where I can manipulate it, including isolating the audio. It also means I can repeat the sequences numerous times to clearly determine what is happening. The sound is not out of synch.

I don't know if it's a handycam. I assumed it was to give the benefit of the doubt. Professional cameras do not have stereo microphones, and their shotgun mics - designed specifically to pick up talking in front of them and filter out ambient sound - would pick up an ambient explosion even more poorly. Handycams, by contrast, often have stereo microphones and tend to have less directional microphones.

To be honest the stability and height of the frame suggests it's a shoulder-mounted camcorder of a more professional nature, which only works against the authenticity of the explosion sound.

Edit: The guy on the phone actually ducks when the explosion happens and snaps his head around with a look of surprise and fear. The firefighter points in the direction of the explosion.

Neither of the firemen point at anything at any point in the entire video. The guy does not "snap his head around". He first looks straight up whilst hunching slightly, then his eyes swing downwards behind and to the right of the camera, which is where the camera then pans to. As an experienced actor, who grew up around experienced actors, and works with experienced actors, I can categorically state that determining the man's emotional state from that video is impossible. He has a mask on his face and he is in a Mid Long Shot.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

The man on the phone ducks. The camera is turned toward the buildings. The firefighter that mentions exploding points to the buildings the camera looked at. The explosion is what causes the firemen to try and get the men to hurry to leave.

You are incorrect. At the beginning of the clip there is a brief shot down the street, where we see one of the firemen approaching two other people. When the firemen reaches the guys at the phone those two in the background are gone. They are clearing the street.

(During the explosion, with most of the explosion noise filtered out, you can just make out the fireman on the right (the one with the muffled voice) calling "get off the phone!", a strange thing to remark in the middle of an explosion!)

The fireman does not point at the building. You are incorrectly interpreting a natural arm gesture as he speaks. Most people gesticulate when they talk. The movements are subconscious.

-Gumboot

 

[tonicblue]

We are just meant to take your word for all this. Where is the original AVI file that you downloaded?

 

[gumboot]

I can't begin to remember where, but I have seen this video somewhere other than the internet. I distinctly remember the "here's the guy who's gonna tell you I'm OK" bit. All that's needed is to track down the original and... problem solved.

That can always be tricky... once these videos get modified by Troofers they flood the net. I remember the same problem with the Rick Siegel video (before seeing the "bomb" version I had seen an unmodified version in which the wind noise had not been enhanced).

The really odd thing about this video is it has MUSIC at the beginning. There is a loud hum at the beginning that abruptly ends as the guys are talking. Having pulled the sound apart, I swear the upper frequencies of this noise sound like orchestral strings! The lower frequencies could almost be brass. It's music. go figure. Maybe some truther stole the sound effects from a movie or something.

-Gumboot

 

[tonicblue]

That can always be tricky... once these videos get modified by Troofers they flood the net. I remember the same problem with the Rick Siegel video (before seeing the "bomb" version I had seen an unmodified version in which the wind noise had not been enhanced).

The really odd thing about this video is it has MUSIC at the beginning. There is a loud hum at the beginning that abruptly ends as the guys are talking. Having pulled the sound apart, I swear the upper frequencies of this noise sound like orchestral strings! The lower frequencies could almost be brass. It's music. go figure. Maybe some truther stole the sound effects from a movie or something.

-Gumboot

The clip has been cut from a documentary, that explains the music.

 

[gumboot]

We are just meant to take your word for all this. Where is the original AVI file that you downloaded?

Sorry, I downloaded it as an embedded flash and converted it to avi.

You don't have to take my word for it. That's entirely up to you.

I'm presenting my analysis for anyone who wishes to consider it. Your reaction suggests to me that you would never accept my explanation anyway (for example your continued incorrect assertion that one of the firemen points at the building).

Some of my analysis relies on the software and expertise I posess, that's true. It's not something that others can independently replicate with ease. However there are other aspects of my analysis that are pretty straight forward and any objective observer can determine these aspects for themselves.

Lastly, the truth movement has a history of fabricating and manipulating evidence to support them. It began with quote mining. This is simply the next step - born of desperation. Other professionals - indeed people even more qualified than myself in audio analysis - have presented evidence of other video audio frauds. One such analysis is linked in this very thread.

My own name, my qualifications, and my profession can easily be confirmed (at least I think so, I'm not sure what my Technical Insititute's policy is on publicly listing graduates), however I have no desire to relinquish my privacy to someone who would ignore me even if I tracked down the cameraman and presented the original tape, sans explosion.

In other words I'm not surprised you reject my analysis.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

The clip has been cut from a documentary, that explains the music.

Do you know the title of the documentary? I would be interested in getting a hold of it in full form. It would be interesting to analyse the audio of this segment in comparison with more footage.

-Gumboot

 

[chipmunk stew]

RE: WTC7 "squibs"

Well i think they look similar even to the point of where squibs/airpressure exits the building (eg look at the roofs of both buildings as they fall).

The analysis half-way down the page at the following link shows quite convincingly that the "squibs" seen in footage of building 7's collapse are not explosive charges:
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

 

[tonicblue]

Do you know the title of the documentary? I would be interested in getting a hold of it in full form. It would be interesting to analyse the audio of this segment in comparison with more footage.

-Gumboot

All I know is that the documentary was HBO.

I do reject your analysis as would anyone. Even gravy said "theres clearly a loud noise there."

 

[chipmunk stew]

Your youtube video shows broken windows messed up by pixels/resolution/video problems for WTC7, or at best breaking windows, but you need to see the damage to that section looks like. That side of WTC7 was already damaged and broken up. The other building was ejecting mistakes made of the CD when parts that were suppose to stay in fell out during the blast. That video actually proves no CD on WTC7, just liars making up "squibs" as the broken windows, already shown as being damaged in other photographs. You know the main energy source for CD? more- http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm Go near the bottom to see the damage to the building the video liars do not tell you was already there. Liars are out there to mislead you. Do not trust anyone you do not know, did you learn this yet? Why the CT world trusts liars everyday who they do not know is the the true CT.

I didn't see this before I posted my last post. Sorry for being redundant.

 

[Gravy]

What is Hopsicker lying about?

What isn't he lying about? Present a 9/11 revelation of his that stands up to scrutiny. Start a new thread, SCG. I'm quite interested to see what your "journalist' hero has come up with since I last checked in with him!

When you're done with that, do the same for Tarpley, Rense, and Jones.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Fair enough?

Then do it.

 

[Garrette]

Gumboot's analysis is not only correct, but obvious.

The man on the phone does not snap his head around. He turns. He also seems to duck a bit while doing it, but he has to duck a bit to turn at all, which he happens to do right when the other two firefighters approach.

The man next to him does not react at all. There are not 3 people in the shot, so kindly stop saying there are. There are 1 and a half when the noise occurs.

The firefighter you say is pointing is doing no such thing. He is gesturing. He was gesturing before the motion you consider to be pointing. By your reasoning we should claim that he "points" up before pointing across the street.

 

[gumboot]

All I know is that the documentary was HBO.

I do reject your analysis as would anyone. Even gravy said "theres clearly a loud noise there."

Consider, from the youtube video alone, one can determine:

1) Only one person reacts immediately to the noise, and their reaction is not sudden or shocked (try watching with no sound)
2) The firemen are clearly oblivious to the massive explosion
3) The explosion does not echo as a loud noise should from within a city of tall buildings (consider when you hear an ambulance or fire engine in a city, it sounds like there are 3 or 4)
4) The voices of the firemen peak, yet the explosion (which is close enough to register at both lower and upper frequencies) does not. Peaking is when the sound becomes too loud for the microphone to capture, and is clipped. It's a clearly identifiable feature if you're familiar with it.

These four points alone, which do not require any indepth analysis, determine that the explosion sound is fake.

Was there some other sound under it, which the guy on the phone and the camerman responded to? A helicopter flying over? A USAF fighter buzzing past? No idea. But that explosion does not belong with that footage.

-Gumboot

 

[Augustine]

Supposedly the clip is from "9/11 - Stories from the City". If anyone can find any further information, or actually watch it, or find the names of the filmmakers, it might help settle the question. The film has aired on Reality TV in the UK, which describes itself as "provid[ing] the very best in reality shows with the additional provision of real-life enactment programmes and shows inspired by actual events".

 

[gumboot]

Supposedly the clip is from "9/11 - Stories from the Cities". If anyone can find any further information, or actually watch it, or find the names of the filmmakers, it might help settle the question. The film has aired on Reality TV in the UK, which describes itself as "provid[ing] the very best in reality shows with the additional provision of real-life enactment programmes and shows inspired by actual events".

I've only found one reference to it, which calls it 9/11 Stories From The City. It's a brief review on the Reality TV website and it doesn't mention filmmakers or anything. Can't find it on IMDB, although there's a whole pile of 9/11 documentaries that don't have much information, so it could be one of them (assuming a title change at some point).

I might fire the website an email and ask for more info.

-Gumboot

 

[Belz...]

Well building 7 looks very similar to a controlled demolition (the speed, the symmetry). My understanding that when steel weakens it starts to yield and gradually bend. Look at how the steel at the windsor reacted to intense heat.

My understanding is that things fall down when their support is gone.

Now, clearly the similarities are striking. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Jowenko seems to hold significant weight. He is an expert, after all.

Well I'll be sure to remember that the next time a forensic pathologist makes an autopsy based on a picture.

I guess those are the "points" which i feel are "good".

Feelings are irrelevant.

What would suffice for me? A larger commission with no ties to the government.

Doesn't that pretty much mean that any investigation would be useless ? When exactly would you decide that such and such scientist is not "tied" to the government in any way, and that another such scientist is ? And if you can't trust experts and scientists, you're left with laymen, who can't possibly make such a commission work.

Yes i am still on the fence on WTC 7. With regards to your statement that WTC 7 looks "nothing like" a controlled demolition. I respectfully disagree with you. I would think if you had to show people the video i posted earlier they would agree that WTC 7 is similar to the controlled demolition. I also would expect few people to go as far to say they look nothing alike in their collapse.

Oh, I agree 7 looks somewhat like a CD. Unfortunately for CTers the similarities end with appearances.

Fair points Minadin. Although, I personally try to refrain from using Occams Razor.

Then you may like my theory about the creation of the universe and the Great Brown Chicken...

 

[Belz...]

Nobody, NOBODY knows what happened that fateful day. Except those who did it.

Way to go: you've just ensured that any and all evidence can be ignored. I hope you have a nice stay in fantasyland.

But I have no scientific proof, so never mind.

Yes, indeed. Never mind.

But, while I'm here, I wouldn't say they intentionally built Al Qaida up to attack the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11/01, per se. But a useful subcontractor to carry out dirty deeds; sure.

Not impossible, but even so, it would not be evidence of MIHOP anyway.

We could be, but that would mean that we conspired together. Which would be a CT, and therefore inherently false.

I get the joke, but just for the record, a conspiracy isn't impossible. Lots of them do exist. The ones that defy logic and physics don't.

 

[Belz...]

Damage to the south side causing a symmetrical global collapse is curious to me.

Who said the damage was only to the side ?

And who said the collapse was symmetrical ?

Did you SEE the rubble after 7's collapse ?

 

[Augustine]

Who said the damage was only to the side ?

And who said the collapse was symmetrical ?

Did you SEE the rubble after 7's collapse ?

I would also point out that the collapse of WTC 7 is curious to structural engineers only in the sense of which column failed and between which floors, i.e. where precisely did the collapse initiate. The issue of "natural collapse due to fire and WTC debris damage" versus "controlled demolition" is not a matter of debate in the structural engineering community. I work for a structural engineering firm in a major metropolitan city and am active in several professional organizations, and I do not know ONE single structural engineer who subscribes to the CD theory. (And the one that I am aware of on the CT websites is an engineer who designs offshore oil platforms, is registered but has no activity in professional societies, and has not published a single technical paper in his career - certainly not at the forefront of his profession.)

 

[Belz...]

He does not say the city exploded. That is absurd. All 3 men react to the explosion and the camera turns. The firefighter says sxxt's exploding.

How can you possibly derive all that from a compressed youtube video which probably is not in sync? How can you even know it's a handycam?

Now you're just beign ridiculous !

"Woah, doctor. I mean, you say this tooth's rotten, but I can't SEE it on the x-ray!"