New Member

[T.A.M.]

Is it possible that in the original clip had a loud noise, but not a "convincing enough one" so someone added a "louder" explosion. To me the explosion does sound like a very typical "Foley" explosion used from a library.

TAM

Edit: I do find the man on the phone reacts slower than I would expect, and the guy next to him does not react at all (pause it repeatedly through this segment and you can see the guy standing next to the guy on the phone barely moves when the explosion occurs).

TAM

 

[skepticalcriticalguy]

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.

No sir. You called them liars. Your burden. Tell me a lie Hopsicker has told.

And also provide your definition of a lie. Does it have to be intentional to be a called a lie? (Like many here have claimed). Because if getting a detail of a story incorrect is a "lie," I'd like to know who your journalistic heroes are.

Hopsicker. Your burden. Now do it.

 

[busherie]

Hey to all your JREF members. Been a reader of this board for the past few months and finally decided to join up.

My personal position in the topic is 9/11 is there is likely some government/military intelligence involvement (guess that makes me a Woo hehe) however, contrary to the believes of many conspiracists i believe there was real hijacked planes, real passenger victims, a plane hit the pentagon and 93 came down in Shanksville.

Ive come to realise this forum has some of the most intelligent posts on the topic (most notably "Gravy" and "Gumboot") and i'm interested in healthy discussion on such a vast topic with you all.

As a stauch atheist and general skeptic for the most part i feel almost dirty being "conspiracy theorist" haha.. though i have to be honest with myself and beliefs. I absolutely support the call for a truly independant investigation into the tragedy of September 11th 2001. If the family members feel that their questions have not been answered (and i dont think everything really has been fully investigated) then i feel there is no real grounds not to grant this request.

I have come here not as a preacher but as a student, and hope to earn the respect of the JREF community.

Cheers!

Hi Hyperviolet. Well I must say I share your vision on 9/11.

I think you will agree with me that the possibility that, with all the intel available in the few months before 9/11, the government thought that 9/11 was the event that could make the implementation of their long-ought agenda (for instance, iraq) a lot easier.

Welcome!

Busherie

 

[Pardalis]

Guys, whatever happened to the stunning footage of Nick Pak of the burning WTC7? It is no longer on Youtube.

 

[PhantomWolf]

He does not say the city exploded.

Um... he does, can you not understand english?

All 3 men react to the explosion and the camera turns.

Yes they react to something, but not to something like that explosion.

The firefighter says sxxt's exploding.

No he says "You've got to get back, the city's exploding."

How can you even know it's a handycam?

Because of the way it's moving about.

 

[WildCat]

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

9/11-Stories From The City is a raw, visceral look at the events of 9/11 and the ensuing week, as seen through the eyes ofeveryday New Yorkers who documented it with their video cameras. The film documents the political clashes in public parks, spontaneous candlelight vigils, singing in the streets and the tireless volunteerism of the rescue efforts. The film features never-before-seen footage, from pedestrians trapped in nearby lobbies during the horrific twin collapses, to Bill Clinton’s visit with grieving families two days after the attack, to the shaky return of businessmen to Wall Street the following Monday. (North American Premiere)

Source.

Looks like Gumboot was right about it being from a handycam - and from a consumer one at that.

 

[tonicblue]

At least we now know the original source of the footage. All we need to do is check it to see if the explosion is there.

Edit: Gumboot did you not think of seeking out the original footage for your audio analysis before declaring it absolutely fake, using some compressed and converted youtube footage?

 

[WildCat]

Apparently it's going to air Sunday at 7:30 PM, but I have no idea where, looks like Thailand maybe?

 

[Pardalis]

Is the sound really an explosion? Could it be something that fell, something heavy like somekind of structure?

All I hear is a loud "boom". It doesn't necesserally imply an explosion.

 

[tonicblue]

Is the sound really an explosion? Could it be something that fell, something heavy like somekind of structure?

All I hear is a loud "boom". It doesn't necesserally imply an explosion.

I agree. I wasn't arguing the significance of the explosion, it could well be a car or a gas explosion. It just perplexed me that such an obviously real clip was declared fake.

Wildcat, it must be on torrents somewhere or something.

 

[gumboot]

At least we now know the original source of the footage. All we need to do is check it to see if the explosion is there.

Well, we don't actually know for sure yet. We think it's from there. Until someone has seen it we don't know.

Edit: Gumboot did you not think of seeking out the original footage for your audio analysis before declaring it absolutely fake, using some compressed and converted youtube footage?

The video in the documentary isn't the original footage either - the original footage is on a video tape somewhere, unless the owner erased it. I don't know why you keep going on about the compressed youtube video thing. None of my determinations rely on the video being high-resolution.

YouTube audio still retains the features of the original audio even if the video gets mangled beyond all recognition.

-Gumboot

 

[WildCat]

I agree. I wasn't arguing the significance of the explosion, it could well be a car or a gas explosion. It just perplexed me that such an obviously real clip was declared fake.

I don't know, I've done a bit of audio recording and when your recording something quiet like speech and all of a sudden an extremely loud noise happens the levels would clip and the sound would be highly distorted. The explosion sounds suspiciously clear and sharp to me, even if there was a limiter (unlikely on a consumer camcorder) it wouldn't sound like that.

If we do find the original, and the explosion is absent, will the truthers claim "they" were gotten to and the clip altered to remove the explosion?

 

[tonicblue]

Well, we don't actually know for sure yet. We think it's from there. Until someone has seen it we don't know.






The video in the documentary isn't the original footage either - the original footage is on a video tape somewhere, unless the owner erased it. I don't know why you keep going on about the compressed youtube video thing. None of my determinations rely on the video being high-resolution.

YouTube audio still retains the features of the original audio even if the video gets mangled beyond all recognition.

-Gumboot

So now the documentary makers are faking footage? Audio gets compressed and distorted too. If you won't be satisfied with anything but the original videotape then either find it, or stop declaring this one fake.

 

[WildCat]

So, is anyone here in Thailand and can watch Sunday evening?

 

[Gravy]

No sir. You called them liars. Your burden. Tell me a lie Hopsicker has told.

And also provide your definition of a lie. Does it have to be intentional to be a called a lie? (Like many here have claimed). Because if getting a detail of a story incorrect is a "lie," I'd like to know who your journalistic heroes are.

Hopsicker. Your burden. Now do it.

Damn, you people make this easy.

How about this, from Hopsicker's website:

But the Moussaoui records yield one further document which conclusively proves the FBI is lying, a fax sent by Atta to a flight school in Miami.

The fax is dated March 11, 2001. It was sent from a Postal Express store barely a mile from the house Atta and Marwan rented while attending Huffman Aviation at the Venice Airport, the home they were supposed to have left for good three months earlier.

Ahem. Check the date on the fax. It says 2014. Obviously the date hasn't been set. Hopsicker claims the fax was sent in March, 2001. Now check the dates on the fax that Atta was requesting flight training: December, 2000 and Jan. 2001 (borne out by the FBI, by the way). I guess those terrorists had a time machine, too!

"Investigative reporter!"



In addition, in "Welcome to Terrorland," Hopsicker claims that the Bin Laden family was whisked out of the U.S. while air traffic was grounded, and that Bush authorized the flight. He made that up.

I'm pretty sure he also directly accuses Rudi Dekkers of close involvement with the terrorists who trained at Huffman, and claims that Wally Hilliard was involved with drug smuggling. I'd have to look that up to be sure, though. By the way, there's no evidence to support those claims.


Now, care to name the correct, significant 9/11 revelations of Hopsicker, Tarpley, Rense, and Jones? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[gumboot]

So now the documentary makers are faking footage? Audio gets compressed and distorted too. If you won't be satisfied with anything but the original videotape then either find it, or stop declaring this one fake.

Audio off youtube doesn't get always distorted in any significant way. Trust me, I know that for a fact. In addition, the audio on this particular piece of footage is very clear. Especially the explosion.

I'm satisfied with this footage. I'm just pointing out that you're using the term "original footage" incorrectly.

Yes it would be very interesting if the explosion was on the original doco, because that would imply the documentary makers faked the explosion, which is pretty odd. I can imagine they might have done it to add drama or to motivate the camera turn, but still it would be a very strange thing to have done.

Or, of course, the person who shot the footage might have added it.

There's plenty of options. Maybe it was a secret government agent who felt guilty about blowing up New York so intercepted the tape and added the explosions as a message to all Conspiracy Theoriests.

Who knows.

But that explosion doesn't belong with the footage, and the things that indicate this aren't going to change in the other versions of the tape.

-Gumboot

 

[MikeW]

So, is anyone here in Thailand and can watch Sunday evening?

At first I thought, no, we're okay, this is TV you can watch over broadband...

But no. Turns out this service is only available in Bangkok, so it's more restrictive than regular TV even.

 

[tonicblue]

In addition, in "Welcome to Terrorland," Hopsicker claims that the Bin Laden family was whisked out of the U.S. while air traffic was grounded, and that Bush authorized the flight. He made that up.

I'm pretty sure he also directly accuses Rudi Dekkers of close involvement with the terrorists who trained at Huffman, and claims that Wally Hilliard was involved with drug smuggling. I'd have to look that up to be sure, though. By the way, there's no evidence to support those claims.


Now, care to name the correct, significant 9/11 revelations of Hopsicker, Tarpley, Rense, and Jones? Inquiring minds want to know!

Wasn't the largest haul of heroin in Florida history found in one of Hillard's Planes and nobody was arrested for it?

 

[gumboot]

So now the documentary makers are faking footage? Audio gets compressed and distorted too. If you won't be satisfied with anything but the original videotape then either find it, or stop declaring this one fake.

What you have to realise, Tonicblue, is that sound provides about 80% of your interpretation of a video that has sound. What you are "seeing" gets heavily influenced by the sound accompanying it, so much so that it's very common to think something is happening when actually it isn't. This is very well known in the film industry, and it's something that filmmakers exploit constantly.

And sound, unlike video, is exceedingly easy to fake or manipulate.

That's why, whenever I watch videos where the sound is the primary evidence (such as these videos of explosions on 9/11) I watch them first without sound.

Explosions are not noises. The sound is merely a byproduct. At close proximity, they are physical. I've been close to explosions myself, and I've watched plenty of video of people recording explosions. The reaction of people in the frame, as well as the cameraman, is always very similar - even when they're expecting it.

It is very quick and easy - watching without sound - to determine whether the people involved have felt the explosion (or in many cases if they have even heard one). If they haven't, I know the explosion would have to be some distance away (only a low boom would be heard) or there was something solid between them and the explosions such as a buildings (in which case the explosion would be muffled). I also take into account the setting. If there's lots of buildings, I expect lots of echo.

Only once I have determined how the sound SHOULD be, do I then play it with sound. If there's anything asynchronous about the sound I hear and the video I saw the first time, I'll investigate further to determine what it is.

That's the method.

 

[Gravy]

Guys, whatever happened to the stunning footage of Nick Pak of the burning WTC7? It is no longer on Youtube.

Steve Spak. You can see it here, starting at about 1:10. I don't recall if it's all the WTC 7 footage as in the other clip.