'What about building 7'?

[jaydeehess]

Still waiting for those audio clips that demonstrate audio saturation that masks the sound of explosives.
.

Anytime MM, now would be good,
little later is just as good,
never is not as good.

 

[LSSBB]

Anytime MM, now would be good,
little later is just as good,
never is not as good.

MM's rebuttal was so forceful it saturated JREF and we didn't hear it.

 

[Miragememories]

Here are some links to further the discourse about the problems faced when recording sudden, very loud audio sources.

http://recording.org/index.php?threads/recording-explosions.33798/
"At very high *SPLs, such as those made by a fireworks explosion, the air itself clips - firstly on the negative half cycles. Why? As you may know, sound travels through the air as a series of compressions and rarefactions of atmospheric pressure. If recorded correctly, the compressions are the positive half cycles and the rarefactions are the negative half cycles. Anyway, you can only rarefy the air to the point that it creates a vacuum - beyond that, the air itself runs out of headroom and clips."

*Sound pressure level (SPL) or sound level is a logarithmic measure of the effective sound pressure of a sound relative to a reference value. It is measured in decibels (dB) above a standard reference level. The standard reference sound pressure in air or other gases is 20 µPa, which is usually considered the threshold of human hearing (at 1*kHz).

http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html
"Some examples of video footage [from the WTC on 9/11] which includes audio can be found and this audio does include evidence of explosions, though it is not generally obvious for a number of reasons. Sounds of intense volume recorded at close distances will tend to overload and be distorted by the time they make it onto tape. If a very loud sound such as an explosion overloads the camera's sound circuitry and is followed very quickly by subsequent loud sounds, the individual sounds will be more difficult to identify because the shape of each sound, the attack and decay, will be masked as the audio circuits are completely saturated with signal. Results will vary depending on camera type, microphone type, specific settings, and proximity to the event. Some angles of the collapses are cut very short so they start playing only after the initiation of collapse sounds, perhaps because some videographers did not capture the first moments on tape or as a result of the news tending to only focus on the "juicy" bits in their presentations. Another problem with internet videos is that when there is sound, it is usually missing a lot of information and/or is distorted from various forms of data compression and/or sloppy transfers. Another problem with internet video in terms of close scrutiny can be audio which is encoded or played back slightly out of synch with the picture."


Here is what just a few of the people who were actually there had to say about the audibility of explosions;

http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html
Witnesses to the Towers' Explosions

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html
9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC

Regarding recordings that reveal over-modulation distortion, here are some links to a few examples;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08nhsn9w9Vg
WTC South Tower collapse compilation
From the start of this clip, the reporter's audio, while still intelligible suffers from over-modulation distortion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOx08-o16wE
NIST FOIA: WNYW Dub1 Clips 51-53 (WTC2 Collapse, 9:59am)

At about 00:00:24 the over-modulation distortion is quite severe.

There are plenty of other examples but these illustrate what I have been talking about.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

EDIT: The explanation is appreciated, however the videos still do not exhibit the explosions that you claim witnesses corroborate

 

[ProBonoShill]

Here are some links to further the discourse about the problems faced when recording sudden, very loud audio sources. >>>>>>>Snipped for brevity

Okay then please explain how numerous recordings of controlled demolition were posted in this thread (pre 2001 I might add), yet none of them seemed to encounter the same problems you attribute to the recordings on 9/11.

They were countless recordings of the tower collapses, are you saying every single one of them missed the telltale very loud bangs associated with CD????

Arguing CD is about as dumb as asserting invisible space beams brought down the towers, find a new hobby.

 

[000063]

What's that, boy? Ignoring counterpoints and requests for evidence to make already-debunked claims? Saying reports of explosions are the same as evidence for explosions? Trying to use the lack of clear audio evidence for CD as evidence for CD, while ignoring the lack of the other evidence that would be present if there was a CD?


Also, Timmy's fallen down a well? To 2007?

 

[ehcks]

Saying reports of explosions are the same as evidence for explosions?

Yes:

Report
noun
5. a loud noise, as from an explosion:

 

[jaydeehess]

Okay then please explain how numerous recordings of controlled demolition were posted in this thread (pre 2001 I might add), yet none of them seemed to encounter the same problems you attribute to the recordings on 9/11.

They were countless recordings of the tower collapses, are you saying every single one of them missed the telltale very loud bangs associated with CD????

Arguing CD is about as dumb as asserting invisible space beams brought down the towers, find a new hobby.

^^^^^^^^ EXACTLY!

We might accept that one or two audio examples display the characteristics MM refers to. But everu single recording? Even that we might be able to accept if not for the numerous examples of clear explosive sounds from known demolitions on both consumer and pro equipment.
Even when we do hear over mod its not constant. Are we to believe that the explosions being masked by over modulation/ saturation of the signal, are timed just so perfectly? That really odd given that louder voices in the crowds occur after the building collapse starts.

 

[beachnut]

...
There are plenty of other examples but these illustrate what I have been talking about.

no blast damage on any steel - oops

no evidence

 

[GlennB]

^^^^^^^^ EXACTLY!

We might accept that one or two audio examples display the characteristics MM refers to. But everu single recording? Even that we might be able to accept if not for the numerous examples of clear explosive sounds from known demolitions on both consumer and pro equipment.
Even when we do hear over mod its not constant. Are we to believe that the explosions being masked by over modulation/ saturation of the signal, are timed just so perfectly? That really odd given that louder voices in the crowds occur after the building collapse starts.

Yes. And a hundred thousand people nearby failed utterly to mention the deafening synchronised explosions that preceded collapse.

MM's desperation to believe is bottomless.

 

[fitzgibbon]

I stand by my claims regarding my work experience as a professional audio/video editor and recording engineer.

As will I

In 2001, audio digital recordings of News events were not commonly made in the field. Digital recordings made with too high an input level are totally contentless and produce a distinctive screeching sound.

Agreed. So discussion of them is as relevant as discussing the presence or lack thereof of purple dinosaurs.

News shooters would've most likely been equipped with BetaSP although it's conceivable (though rather unlikely) there might've been the occasional DBeta camcorder in the mix.

Analog recordings made with too high an input level, become over-modulated and their content is degraded proportionally to the amount of signal received.

You of course forget to mention AGC (automatic gain control) which most news shooters would use in such situations and which would compensate for any overmodulation within a split second. Even if the shooter was set for manual audio, the sharp report that accompanies an explosion of any kind (overmodulated or not) was absent. Even a cursory glance by the greenest researcher at other examples of controlled demolition would have demonstrated this important absence. That's why 'truthers' have had to create the Rube Goldberg-esque therm*te excuse while contorting their 'explanations' in ways that would make rubber envious.

Because of the high sound levels at the WTC on 9/11, over modulation was common in many of the recordings which resulted in audio that was either useless or lacking in conclusive detail.

********** (for reasons already addressed).

There were a number of witnesses to explosions at the WTC.

Barry Jennings was a good choice because he was inside WTC7 when WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed. As well, he insisted that he heard repeated explosions throughout his time trapped inside.

If I'm not mistaken, I think the 'quality' of his 'testimony' has already been discussed thoroughly and afforded its requisite value.

Fitz

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 10. Do not try to circumvent the autocensor.

 

[fitzgibbon]

Yet, where are all the videos with HQ audio from the biggest building demolitions in U.S. history?

Check the Mother Corp. library, MM. "The Fifth Estate" gave 'trutherism' coverage. Or are you going to suggest that they folleyed the audio. OMG! The CBC is in on it too!

Fitz

 

[fitzgibbon]

Just as a quick addendum to the above, both in offline and online situations I've worked with "HQ audio" from the collapses. Everything sounded then as it did on the day (unless you're going to assert that both I and the stockshot library are in on it too.

Fitz

 

[000063]

Yes:

Whoops, typo. Explosions != explosives, I meant to say. I blame autocorrect.

"But 63," you say, "you're typing this on a computer!"

Autocorrect.

 

[Miragememories]

In 2001, the camcorders mostly in use were Sony SP Betacams which recorded analog audio and AFM audio tracks.

In 2001, audio digital recordings of News events were not commonly made in the field. Digital recordings made with too high an input level are totally contentless and produce a distinctive screeching sound.

Agreed. So discussion of them is as relevant as discussing the presence or lack thereof of purple dinosaurs.

News shooters would've most likely been equipped with BetaSP although it's conceivable (though rather unlikely) there might've been the occasional DBeta camcorder in the mix.

You are going over old ground.

You of course forget to mention AGC (automatic gain control) which most news shooters would use in such situations and which would compensate for any overmodulation within a split second.

Even if the shooter was set for manual audio, the sharp report that accompanies an explosion of any kind (overmodulated or not) was absent.

Even a cursory glance by the greenest researcher at other examples of controlled demolition would have demonstrated this important absence.

That's why 'truthers' have had to create the Rube Goldberg-esque therm*te excuse while contorting their 'explanations' in ways that would make rubber envious.

I did not forget AGC. There seemed little point in boring readers with unnecessary technical verbiage until someone raised the question.

AGC is not all that popular because, as you noted, any jump in incoming audio levels will be quickly followed by a drop in record level. You can imagine how crappy a street reporter's sound will be if his/her audio level drops every time the background sound jumps (e.g. car passes).

Directional microphones and manual audio levels (set on the low side) are the most popular setup. When a production can afford it, the field crew will include a dedicated audio person.

Getting back to AGC, in the 9/11 recordings I listened to the reporter's audio level remained unaffected by background sound which tells me that AGC was not being used.

I disagree about your notion that a sharp report would have been picked up. There were too many witnesses that did hear explosions preceding the collapses.

Many members like to compare the 9/11 WTC controlled demolitions with those done commercially.

One thing that is overlooked is the amount of visible preparation (other than planting explosives) that is performed prior to commercial detonations.

Windows are removed to avoid glass shrapnel, as are interior furnishing and other objects which could present an unnecessary risk to the surrounding buildings and public.

This needs to be considered when pondering the nature of the sound that will be heard and recorded from a building that has not been prepped in this manner.

 

[pgimeno]

Windows are removed to avoid glass shrapnel, as are interior furnishing and other objects which could present an unnecessary risk to the surrounding buildings and public.

And how do you suggest they prevented the glass shrapnel from hitting people several blocks away? I raised that point in this same page:

Do I understand this correctly? The new MM position is that the explosives were so loud as to not register on any recording device? And nobody reported hearing them? Nobody was temporarily deafened? Windows weren't broken all over Manhattan?

Not even in the WTC1, 2 and 7 buildings themselves.

It gets more and more unbelievable every time you try to explain something.

 

[LSSBB]

You are going over old ground.



I did not forget AGC. There seemed little point in boring readers with unnecessary technical verbiage until someone raised the question.

AGC is not all that popular because, as you noted, any jump in incoming audio levels will be quickly followed by a drop in record level. You can imagine how crappy a street reporter's sound will be if his/her audio level drops every time the background sound jumps (e.g. car passes).

Directional microphones and manual audio levels (set on the low side) are the most popular setup. When a production can afford it, the field crew will include a dedicated audio person.

Getting back to AGC, in the 9/11 recordings I listened to the reporter's audio level remained unaffected by background sound which tells me that AGC was not being used.

I disagree about your notion that a sharp report would have been picked up. There were too many witnesses that did hear explosions preceding the collapses.

Many members like to compare the 9/11 WTC controlled demolitions with those done commercially.

One thing that is overlooked is the amount of visible preparation (other than planting explosives) that is performed prior to commercial detonations.

Windows are removed to avoid glass shrapnel, as are interior furnishing and other objects which could present an unnecessary risk to the surrounding buildings and public.

This needs to be considered when pondering the nature of the sound that will be heard and recorded from a building that has not been prepped in this manner.

Wait, are you saying that if interfering obstacles are removed, the sound will be quieter?

 

[Miragememories]

I disagree about your notion that a sharp report would have been picked up. There were too many witnesses that did hear explosions preceding the collapses.

Many members like to compare the 9/11 WTC controlled demolitions with those done commercially.

One thing that is overlooked is the amount of visible preparation (other than planting explosives) that is performed prior to commercial detonations.

Windows are removed to avoid glass shrapnel, as are interior furnishings and other objects which could present an unnecessary risk to the surrounding buildings and public.

This needs to be considered when pondering the nature of the sound that will be heard and recorded from a building that has not been prepped in this manner.

Wait, are you saying that if interfering obstacles are removed, the sound will be quieter?

I am saying that surroundings have a significant effect on sound.

A core explosion on a floor filled with sound absorbing office furnishings and surrounded by sealed windows will be heard much differently than a similar core explosion on a floor that is nothing but hard reflective surfaces and surrounded by open windows.

This room is supposed to be the quietest place on the planet. It is in the Orfield Laboratory in Minneapolis.

 

[carlitos]

Yes, everyone who has worked in an office with cubicles can tell you how they wouldn't hear a 150db explosion by the elevators. That's how it's so easy to make private phone calls; the cubes absorb all of the sound! Excellent point, MM!

 

[TJM]

Yes, everyone who has worked in an office with cubicles can tell you how they wouldn't hear a 150db explosion by the elevators. That's how it's so easy to make private phone calls; the cubes absorb all of the sound! Excellent point, MM!

I gotta attest to the superior sound dampening cubicles we have in our office; just the other day I was saying this to a colleague whilst we dangled from a pole in the stairs because the landing we were on exploded - happens from time to time, don't know why. Anyhoo, yeah, those cubicle partitions really soak up sound, I can't hear any of my neighbors various noises at all, truly a life saver.