Split Thread Analysis of sounds in 9/11 videos

CompusMentus

Waiting for the Worms
CompusMentus
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
1,807
Location
Swansea UK
DGM said:
You really need to stop commenting on technical things you have no knowledge of, just saying :o
Click to expand...


Maybe jammonius could try and attenuate this (especially around the 20sec mark) Perhaps a *********** tubetrain or bus did this too?

NB graphic images and profanity





Jam, this is getting beyond a joke. Leave it there FFS.

Compus
 
CompusMentus said:
Maybe jammonius could try and attenuate this (especially around the 20sec mark) Perhaps a *********** tubetrain or bus did this too?

NB graphic images and profanity





Jam, this is getting beyond a joke. Leave it there FFS.

Compus
Click to expand...
What gets me the most when I see these videos documenting when it first happened is many of those first responders you see (and hear) speeding by are no longer with us. :mad:
 
Macgyver1968 said:
Jam...any comments on the sounds of on the video that CM just posted? (at the 20 second mark)
Click to expand...

I've seen that video before, but did not have a link to it, so I am grateful for its posting here. Posting that video adds value to this thread.

As to the sound issue, I am intrigued by it. But, let's start with first things first. I take it all will agree there's no plane to be seen in the video, correct?

Let's see if there's any disagreement with the claim the video shows no plane and then we can all go from that point of presumed agreement. But, rather than presume, let's see if there are any who claim the CM video shows a plane.

Don't all post at once, but do post.
 
jammonius said:
As to the sound issue, I am intrigued by it. But, let's start with first things first. I take it all will agree there's no plane to be seen in the video, correct?
Click to expand...

I didn't see a boat or a horse drawn carriage either. What's your point? You were asked about the sound.

Your dodges are so transparent they're not even remotely believable (as being sincere) anymore.

Stop and be honest for once.
 
CompusMentus said:
And the people tending someone injured by (aircraft? building?) debris (1m 10s mark)


Compus
Click to expand...

Or hit by a car?

Or, as one poster put it at the youtube link itself:

"bonavada (uploader) @bwang4 looks like an injured person on the floor there being tended. perhaps hit by that large piece of debris in the foreground? who knows?
BV 3 months ago"

Emphasis on the words "who knows?" Remember, those are the words of someone who is said to be bonavada (uploader) and are not my words. I interpret those words of baonvada (uploader) to stand for the proposition that bonavada does not know how the person seen to be laying prone and not moving got to be in that position. That is my interpretation.

I do not know what injured the person seen in that video. I also do not know what caused the approximately 2 seconds of sound prior to the crash sound. I do know, however, that the sound interval was a lot shorter than that of the Dick Oliver video that lasted some 6 seconds prior to the crash sound. I also know that there were secondary crash sounds clearly audible in the video, unlike the Dick Oliver video.

My suggestion is that someone carve out and post stills from the video to facilitate discussion of it, just like I did of the Dick Oliver video. I think we can all agree, much information can be gleaned from these videos if we look at them closely and objectively. Emphasis upon "objectively." For instance, the Dick Oliver video showed a bus or two or three. Accordingly, it was appropriate to admit that video showed buses. It was also appropriate to consider whether the buses were the source of the sound in that video, but that was hard for posters to do because there was a determination to conclude the sound heard was that of a jetliner.

Do posters agree the sound interval in the CM video prior to the crash was 1 to 2 seconds and not more than that? And, are posters willing to admit that sound interval differs from that of the Dick Oliver video?

CMs video, as I will here refer to it, shows some interesting things and contains some interesting sounds. However, I do not think it shows a jetliner anywhere in it.

Let me say, right here at the outset: I am not willing to conclude the video shows evidence of a jetliner crash based on my first view of it.

Query: How many of you, right here at this stage, are already convinced the video is proof of a jetliner crash?
 
Last edited:
Sidenote: Bonavada is/was a poster here, and he is surely not a truther.
 
jammonius said:
I've seen that video before, but did not have a link to it, so I am grateful for its posting here. Posting that video adds value to this thread.

As to the sound issue, I am intrigued by it. But, let's start with first things first. I take it all will agree there's no plane to be seen in the video, correct?

Let's see if there's any disagreement with the claim the video shows no plane and then we can all go from that point of presumed agreement. But, rather than presume, let's see if there are any who claim the CM video shows a plane.

Don't all post at once, but do post.
Click to expand...

We are all in agreement...there is no plane shown in the video. However the sound of the plane and impact is clearly recorded...just as in the Dick Oliver video. Now ...what is your take of the sounds in the video around the 20 second mark...which was my original question to you that you dodged.
 
AJM8125 said:
Your post that was moved today was off topic. If the mods wanted to stifle a topic everytime time something goes to AAH then this would be a very empty sub-forum. We certainly wouldn't have a 100 threads about WTC 7 or a dozen threads about Judy Wood.
Click to expand...

You are right..im going off topic in my own thread that has nothing to do with sounds on videos.

Is it possible for a mod to split this thread into a new thread entitled "Analysis of sounds of 9/11 videos" ? Please? I'll be your best friend.
 
jammonius said:
The sounds of noisy things are not picked up all that accurately in mics. Further, the sound of jets is rather unique and rather common. I can normally identify a jet when I hear one and so, presumably, can you and most others. It's an everyday occurrence.

But, mics don't pick up those sounds all that well because of:

a) noise level
b) other noises
c) quality of the technology
Click to expand...
Nonsense.

jammonius said:
I think if you ask a sound engineer
Click to expand...
Did jammonius just appeal to competent technical authority?

The FCC licensed me to work as chief engineer at any commercial radio or television broadcast station in the United States. In addition to the First Class Radiotelephone, Second Class Radiotelegraph, and Amateur Extra licenses I once held, I have some experience with digital recording (as an amateur) and signal processing (as a professional) .

jammonius said:
whether a news camera can accurately and definitively record a jetliner sound such that you can a priori say the bus next to it was not the source of the sound, you are mistaken. Both sounds are mechanical sources of what a mic "hears" as a source of "noise." Noise is not easily distinguishable in microphones.

Further, there are issues of ambience, of "headroom" and all sorts of other technical sound issues that would need to be considered. In considering them, one can more easily say the sound is not that of a jetliner at 500mph than one can say the opposite.
Click to expand...
Nonsense.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Nonsense.


Did jammonius just appeal to competent technical authority?

The FCC licensed me to work as chief engineer at any commercial radio or television broadcast station in the United States. In addition to the First Class Radiotelephone, Second Class Radiotelegraph, and Amateur Extra licenses I once held, I have some experience with digital recording (as an amateur) and signal processing (as a professional) .


Nonsense.
Click to expand...


Posts like the above are useless. You lay claim to a list of qualifications about sound, sound recording, sound quality, etc., and then, in context of an opportunity to discuss the issue of the sound qualities of the videos in question, you give a one word reply that adds not one iota of substance to the discussion.

I'd almost be willing to bet that in some post or another, past or future, you are going to accuse me of "handwaving" now that you have clearly done exactly that in the above post.

Saying that what I have called attention to concerning the sound of the Dick Olvier video that can best be described as six seconds of noise, followed by a squeak, and interspersed with a thump, and then a diminution of the noise following the squeak, as being indicative of the quality of the sound recording device and the subsequent playback on youtube "nonsense" is, itself a nonsensical handwave that adds nothing to the discussion, except a bald-faced appeal based on a claim of authority.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
I'd almost be willing to bet that in some post or another, past or future, you are going to accuse me of "handwaving" now that you have clearly done exactly that in the above post.
Click to expand...
I'm going to observe that, having been caught posting ignorant technobabble, you are now pretending you had said something different:
jammonius said:
Saying that what I have called attention to concerning the sound of the Dick Olvier video that can best be described as six seconds of noise, followed by a squeak, and interspersed with a thump, and then a diminution of the noise following the squeak, as being indicative of the quality of the sound recording device and the subsequent playback on youtube "nonsense" is, itself a nonsensical handwave that adds nothing to the discussion, except a bald-faced appeal based on a claim of authority.
Click to expand...
You made several false claims about microphones. The purpose of those false claims was to create the false impression that there was some technical basis for your claim that microphones are incapable of picking up differences between the sounds made by jet aircraft and city buses. That claim, like most of the technobabble you cranked out to support it, was nonsense.

You are now pretending you had been talking about the entire "sound recording device and the subsequent playback on youtube". That isn't quite as silly as your previous nonsense, but it still fails to support your claim that "one can more easily say the sound is not that of a jetliner at 500mph than one can say the opposite." That claim, like your previous claims, remains nonsense.
 
Within two minutes of reporting on CNN, a large two engine jet was reported.



And that is just one report! Let alone the Naudet video that shows AA11 crash into WTC1.



Chief Pfeifer was the first to report the crash. He suspected a terror act, since the plane looked to be aiming directly at the Trade Center. Chief Pfeifer lost his brother in the collapse of WTC1.

Is chief Pfeifer part of the conspiracy? Claiming he saw a plane, were there was non? If he was part of the conspiracy, why didn't he stop his brother from going up WTC1?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
W.D.Clinger said:
I'm going to observe that, having been caught posting ignorant technobabble, you are now pretending you had said something different:
Click to expand...

What is it that motivates you to make one accusation after another?

One can ask here the following rhetorical questions, intended to serve as a frame of reference concerning our discussion:

Who are you?

By what authority do you sit in judgment of everything I post?

Are you willing to converse and share ideas, or, do you reserve onto yourself the role of judge?

If you do that, why do you do so?

You made several false claims about microphones. The purpose of those false claims was to create the false impression that there was some technical basis for your claim that microphones are incapable of picking up differences between the sounds made by jet aircraft and city buses. That claim, like most of the technobabble you cranked out to support it, was nonsense.
Click to expand...

Let's assess the above statement for content:

"You made several false claims about microphones."

The word "false" entails a judgment. How did you go about making it? While you have declared that "several false claims about microphones" were made, you have not articulated a single one, let alone several. Once again, who are you that you can make self-anointed proclamations about what is true and what is false, no less, without even saying what on earth is false, either singularly, let alone plurally?

Who are you, for goodness sake, that you can do something like that?

Next it is proclaimed that:

"The purpose of those false claims was to create the false impression that there was some technical basis for your claim that microphones are incapable of picking up differences between the sounds made by jet aircraft and city buses."

If you asked me what my purpose was, I missed it. Certainly, I have not said what my "purpose" was in making claims and I have definitely not admitted I made false claims.

So, your construct is utterly and completely without any foundation whatsoever except as it exists within your own mental, or, more likely, emotional being.

If you have impressions about what someone else has said and about why they have said it, would you please give consideration to double checking for accuracy before blurting out conclusions?

Your statement only says something about you and not one darn thing about me. Do you grasp this at long last?


You are now pretending you had been talking about the entire "sound recording device and the subsequent playback on youtube". That isn't quite as silly as your previous nonsense, but it still fails to support your claim that "one can more easily say the sound is not that of a jetliner at 500mph than one can say the opposite." That claim, like your previous claims, remains nonsense.
Click to expand...

You do not know what I am pretending or whether I am pretending. If you want to know such things, then ask and we can discuss it.

You still have failed and failed utterly to give any explanation grounded in reason for your disagreement with me.

Can you write something that is informative as opposed to something that merely engages in denial or not?
 
Bell,

Thanks for your substantive post. I will reply a bit later as your post contains videos that have to be looked at and a witness statement, that of Chief Pfiefer, that has to be examined, as well. That takes time.
 
jammonius said:
What is it that motivates you to make one accusation after another?

One can ask here the following rhetorical questions, intended to serve as a frame of reference concerning our discussion:

Who are you?

By what authority do you sit in judgment of everything I post?

Are you willing to converse and share ideas, or, do you reserve onto yourself the role of judge?

If you do that, why do you do so?
Click to expand...
I stated credentials that, unimpressive though they be, are sufficient to judge your nonsense.

Who are you, jammonius?
 
jammonius said:
I've seen that video before, but did not have a link to it, so I am grateful for its posting here. Posting that video adds value to this thread.

As to the sound issue, I am intrigued by it. But, let's start with first things first. I take it all will agree there's no plane to be seen in the video, correct?

Let's see if there's any disagreement with the claim the video shows no plane and then we can all go from that point of presumed agreement. But, rather than presume, let's see if there are any who claim the CM video shows a plane.

Don't all post at once, but do post.
Click to expand...
Well of course there's no plane in the video. The camera wasn't pointed in the direction of the towers at the time. But there is footage with the camera's pointed at the Towers when the plane hits. So let me guess. You think all this footage WITH the plane in it is fake? :rolleyes::









 
Last edited:
sylvan8798 said:
No smoke and fire there. Nope. Nope. Can't see any. None at all. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


As I heard Dr Judy say to Prof Jim in an interview once "There was no evidence of fire" (in the WTC towers)

I really don't know how I could function in life with that kind of lack of a grasp of reality. Jam seems to be on the same track.


Compus
 
Why do you guys bother with ULTIMA1, the 2nd? It's equivalent in productivity with trying to convince a two-day-old infant that JFK wasn't a space alien. Do you really believe someone who does not think* aircraft hit either WTC building on 9/11 possesses the necessary rationale to accept your argument?








*I mean, really, really believes no aircraft hit WTC 1 or 2. Personally, I think he's just being obstinate to [RULE 10] with you guys.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Let me say, right here at the outset: I am not willing to conclude the video shows evidence of a jetliner crash based on my first view of it.

Query: How many of you, right here at this stage, are already convinced the video is proof of a jetliner crash?
Click to expand...
Question. If the video did have an image of the jetliner as it collided with the building (as the links I posted above) would that convince you that a Jetliner indeed hit the building?? And if not why are you even wasting your time debating if nothing will convince you otherwise?
 
Last edited:
Juniversal said:
Question. If the video did have an image of the jetliner as it collided with the building (as the links I posted above) would that convince you that a Jetliner indeed hit the building??
Click to expand...



Is the pope a protestant?

Falsifiability is an unknown concept to Jam and his ilk.


Compus
 
Juniversal said:
Question. If the video did have an image of the jetliner as it collided with the building (as the links I posted above) would that convince you that a Jetliner indeed hit the building?? And if not why are you even wasting your time debating if nothing will convince you otherwise?
Click to expand...
I asked him earlier what it would take to falsify his belief. Although he typed a huge post he never actually answered my question. I wouldn't hold my breath for an honest answer.
 
DGM said:
I asked him earlier what it would take to falsify his belief. Although he typed a huge post he never actually answered my question. I wouldn't hold my breath for an honest answer.
Click to expand...


I do wonder sometimes whether it really is a question of honesty. Perhaps there is something else at play here. It seems to be a malady that courses through conspiracist thinking like a major artery. I've always been mystifyed by the ability of people like Jam and Dr Judy to carefully and scientifically dissect opposing theories (ie the use of thermite on 9/11) quite successfully but then be seemingly blind and very obtuse when it comes to their own pet theory. Don't ask me why but I've always been fascinated by this aspect of "truthism".


Compus
 
CompusMentus said:
Is the pope a protestant?

Falsifiability is an unknown concept to Jam and his ilk.


Compus
Click to expand...

DGM said:
I asked him earlier what it would take to falsify his belief. Although he typed a huge post he never actually answered my question. I wouldn't hold my breath for an honest answer.
Click to expand...
Yea i'm sure my question will fall on deaf ears. Seems Jam wont be satisfied until there's a general consensus that no planes crashed into the towers. Keep dreamin jammonius. ;)
 
CompusMentus said:
I do wonder sometimes whether it really is a question of honesty. Perhaps there is something else at play here. It seems to be a malady that courses through conspiracist thinking like a major artery. I've always been mystifyed by the ability of people like Jam and Dr Judy to carefully and scientifically dissect opposing theories (ie the use of thermite on 9/11) quite successfully but then be seemingly blind and very obtuse when it comes to their own pet theory. Don't ask me why but I've always been fascinated by this aspect of "truthism".


Compus
Click to expand...

So have I. I have a pet theory that the truther simply cannot believe that anyone would believe in a cause so much that they would strap on a bomb, or commandeer an airplane, and intentionally kill themselves. They can't believe this in part because, despite believing the most outrageous things imaginable (eg. the FDNY was complicit in killing 343 of their co-workers/friends/family members), they themselves have no more compulsion than to type out their irritations on the internets. :eek:
 
jammonius said:
Posts like the above are useless. You lay claim to a list of qualifications about sound, sound recording, sound quality, etc., and then, in context of an opportunity to discuss the issue of the sound qualities of the videos in question, you give a one word reply that adds not one iota of substance to the discussion.

I'd almost be willing to bet that in some post or another, past or future, you are going to accuse me of "handwaving" now that you have clearly done exactly that in the above post.

Saying that what I have called attention to concerning the sound of the Dick Olvier video that can best be described as six seconds of noise, followed by a squeak, and interspersed with a thump, and then a diminution of the noise following the squeak, as being indicative of the quality of the sound recording device and the subsequent playback on youtube "nonsense" is, itself a nonsensical handwave that adds nothing to the discussion, except a bald-faced appeal based on a claim of authority.
Click to expand...

I hereby invest you with The Grand Order Of The Jammy Dodger.

(For our American listeners http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammie_Dodgers)
 
CompusMentus said:
I do wonder sometimes whether it really is a question of honesty. Perhaps there is something else at play here. It seems to be a malady that courses through conspiracist thinking like a major artery. I've always been mystifyed by the ability of people like Jam and Dr Judy to carefully and scientifically dissect opposing theories (ie the use of thermite on 9/11) quite successfully but then be seemingly blind and very obtuse when it comes to their own pet theory. Don't ask me why but I've always been fascinated by this aspect of "truthism".


Compus
Click to expand...


They have an interest of some kind in believing in their theories. That interest drives what is considered a fact, a valid argument and what is considered to be false and what is considered to be nonsense.
 
jammonius said:
Bell,

Thanks for your substantive post. I will reply a bit later as your post contains videos that have to be looked at and a witness statement, that of Chief Pfiefer, that has to be examined, as well. That takes time.
Click to expand...

And? Have you got around it yet?
 
CompusMentus said:
I do wonder sometimes whether it really is a question of honesty. Perhaps there is something else at play here. It seems to be a malady that courses through conspiracist thinking like a major artery. I've always been mystifyed by the ability of people like Jam and Dr Judy to carefully and scientifically dissect opposing theories (ie the use of thermite on 9/11) quite successfully but then be seemingly blind and very obtuse when it comes to their own pet theory. Don't ask me why but I've always been fascinated by this aspect of "truthism".


Compus
Click to expand...
Yea and as a "debunker" it's pretty difficult or next to impossible to actively debate someone with an inherently untenable position that's based on personal belief rather then facts, reality or logic. You say "no explosives were found". They say "the fireman and police were in on it". Constant moving of the goal post. It's pretty much the equivalent of a dog chasing its tail. It is amazing to see ones ability to suspend logic and common sense when it comes to these CT's. One video that doesn't show the plane (because it's pointed at the reporters feet) is enough proof that there wasn't a plane regardless of the ovewhelming evidence to the contrary. :boggled:

There are SOME people who are honestly curious and will concede their point once they discover all the facts. There's others (your archtypal 9/11 truther) who will fight tooth and nail to support an untenable position.
 
Last edited:
Juniversal said:
Yea and as a "debunker" it's pretty difficult or next to impossible to actively debate someone with an inherently untenable position that's based on personal belief rather then facts, reality or logic. You say "no explosives were found". They say "the fireman and police were in on it". Constant moving of the goal post. It's pretty much the equivalent of a dog chasing its tail. It is amazing to see ones ability to suspend logic and common sense when it comes to these CT's.
Click to expand...

I once had a truther on another forum say that the FBI took control of ground zero on 9/11 and could have gone out that day and removed all the evidence of the controlled demolition. I think that was when I realized just how far over the falls and down the river some of these people had gone. :eye-poppi
 
*bump* for Jammonius.

Bell said:
Within two minutes of reporting on CNN, a large two engine jet was reported.



And that is just one report! Let alone the Naudet video that shows AA11 crash into WTC1.



Chief Pfeifer was the first to report the crash. He suspected a terror act, since the plane looked to be aiming directly at the Trade Center. Chief Pfeifer lost his brother in the collapse of WTC1.

Is chief Pfeifer part of the conspiracy? Claiming he saw a plane, were there was non? If he was part of the conspiracy, why didn't he stop his brother from going up WTC1?
Click to expand...


jammonius said:
Bell,

Thanks for your substantive post. I will reply a bit later as your post contains videos that have to be looked at and a witness statement, that of Chief Pfiefer, that has to be examined, as well. That takes time.
Click to expand...


Bell said:
And? Have you got around it yet?
Click to expand...


Well, Jammonius?
 
Who in their right mind can look at the videos posted on this page and still claim that there was no plane?
 
twinstead said:
Who in their right mind can look at the videos posted on this page and still claim that there was no plane?
Click to expand...

Well that's your answer, right there. But then, we know jammonius doesn't actually believe this carp. He just likes to argue.;)
 
Bell said:
*bump* for Jammonius.










Well, Jammonius?
Click to expand...

You posted the Naudet video that shows a blurry blob. I think we're all agreed on that. No one takes that video seriously as it simply does not prove anything.

You also posted up the narrative of Sean Murtagh, who is said to be a CNN VP of finance. He is not mentioned in either the NIST repoort or, to my knowledge, in the 9/11 Commission Report either. His statement is in the form of an Easter egg. From the point of view of evidence, his statement is totally inadmissible as evidence.

I have also commented upon him in the Dick Oliver thread.

As you know, we have had a lot of discussion concerning the Dick Oliver video (now plural -- videos) that are considered to be far more informative and directly contradictory of the claim a jetliner hit the WTC. Please feel free to join that discussion.

Finally, as to Chief Pfiefer, I recommend you read his entire statement as he has some interesting things to say about the annihilation of the buildings that is supportive of DEW.

If you take him at his word as to plane spotting, then fine. I take him at his word as to the process of annihilation of the complex.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom