Scott Myers video: No people heard & sirens stop after hit

Originally posted by Inannamute*edit* I watched the video.. sigh. It's blatantly obvious that the cameras were different ones - different picture quality, different contrast levels. It's also obvious from the sounds around them that the camera operators are standing in a fairly large group of people. It's not hard to believe that (a) a large group of people would have more than one camera and (b) one CNN employee could go up to that group and buy the video from all three people.

So about the CNN video, are you saying 3 different people took them standing right next to each other and followed each other's panning and zooming perfectly and the ALL captured the women's "OMG!" scream, but each one captured different male "OMG/OS" talk?

Man, and you call my theories crazy!

Please people, don't pay attention to this liar and troll.
See my others post in this thread to that effect:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Killtown will keep dodging the important question: "What does that video prove?"
And the reason he keeps dodging the question is because his goals are malicious and corrupted. His goals are to disrupt and confuse the truth, nothing else.

Originally posted by PepeLapew
Please people, don't pay attention to this liar and troll.
See my others post in this thread to that effect:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Killtown will keep dodging the important question: "What does that video prove?"
And the reason he keeps dodging the question is because his goals are malicious and corrupted. His goals are to disrupt and confuse the truth, nothing else.

Wow, that's a lot of accusation there. Care to back any of them up?

Didn't see anyone post it, but in the first video about 30 seconds in a small white object flies from behind the tower stops slightly and keeps going, what is it? can anyone else see it?

Originally posted by Killtown
Wow, that's a lot of accusation there. Care to back any of them up?

Still dodging the question I see. So I'll repeat:
What does that video prove?
What's your point with this thread?

[edit on 6-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

Still dodging the question I see. So I'll repeat:
What does that video prove?
What's your point with this thread?

What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?
What does that video prove?

Originally posted by PepeLapew

Originally posted by Killtown
Wow, that's a lot of accusation there. Care to back any of them up?

Still dodging the question I see. So I'll repeat:
What does that video prove?
What's your point with this thread?

[edit on 6-5-2007 by PepeLapew]

I'm wondering if any part of the is fake. Geez, I thought is was self-evident. Next time I'll write my posts at a 3rd grade level.

So now, care to back up any of your slanderous claims against me?

We've already proven to the satisfaction of the majority of posters in this thread that the video is most likely not fake.

If it were fake, what is it evidence of?

I'd be far more likely to believe in "fake" videos if, for example, there weren't so MANY of them.. The amount of time it would take to create all these fakes and all these fake soundtracks would just be insane.. like, if I took that woman screaming, but mixed other tracks in.. all those man hours for essentially no NET GAIN.

There is no purpose in faking videos that I can see, but obviously since we're all just third graders, perhaps the elucidation of the kindergarten is necessary...

Oh, there IS a reason for editing original videos and then posting them on the Internet for people like Killtown to pick up and then display as evidence that the mass media were faking planes crashing into the towers on 9/11! It's about government (and sometimes amateur) disinformation agents protecting the official story of 9/11 by spreading confusion, so no one can trust the video evidence any more because some of it has been tampered with. That way, when genuine anomalies are discovered on some of the 9/11 video footage, you won't be able to know for certain whether it was genuine or CGI.

Meanwhile, the dupes of this disinformation go around the forums proclaiming how clever they are in discovering evidence of media fakery in order to prop up their pathetic 'no-planes' theory.' It's ludicrous!

Originally posted by Killtown
here's the 2nd hit video taken close that you can hear the "loud" explosion. why did the mic clip on this one?

www.youtube.com...

Having watched the first clip you linked to, the sirens are there in the background although somewhat overshadowed by the crash. Clearly, the camera had an AGC (Automatic Gain Control) which will bring the audio record level down to 0 VU so as not to overdrive the videotape's audio recording capability. This is pretty typical of a consumer-level camera. Also, something you don't seem to be factoring in is that there would be artifacting introduced by the compression that takes place when uploading to YouTube so they can keep the bandwidth requirements down.

The second link you have I assume is from the French brothers that were doing the Doc on the NYFD at the time and the camera's likely at least a prosumer if not a professional-grade camera which'll allow you to set the audio record levels manually. Hence, the different audio.

The other thing to bear in mind (as someone else pointed out) is distance from the respective sound sources. Your first one was obviously much closer and much higher than the second one which is clearly at street level. Ergo, you aren't going to be able to hear the screaming because it's so far away comparatively whereas in the second link, the screamer's much closer and much (relatively) louder than the crash and explosion.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

OK, let's chill out guys.

Originally posted by micpsi
Oh, there IS a reason for editing original videos and then posting them on the Internet for people like Killtown to pick up and then display as evidence that the mass media were faking planes crashing into the towers on 9/11! It's about government (and sometimes amateur) disinformation agents protecting the official story of 9/11 by spreading confusion, so no one can trust the video evidence any more because some of it has been tampered with. That way, when genuine anomalies are discovered on some of the 9/11 video footage, you won't be able to know for certain whether it was genuine or CGI.

Meanwhile, the dupes of this disinformation go around the forums proclaiming how clever they are in discovering evidence of media fakery in order to prop up their pathetic 'no-planes' theory.' It's ludicrous!

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Originally posted by micpsi
Oh, there IS a reason for editing original videos and then posting them on the Internet for people like Killtown to pick up and then display as evidence that the mass media were faking planes crashing into the towers on 9/11! It's about government (and sometimes amateur) disinformation agents protecting the official story of 9/11 by spreading confusion, so no one can trust the video evidence any more because some of it has been tampered with. That way, when genuine anomalies are discovered on some of the 9/11 video footage, you won't be able to know for certain whether it was genuine or CGI.

Meanwhile, the dupes of this disinformation go around the forums proclaiming how clever they are in discovering evidence of media fakery in order to prop up their pathetic 'no-planes' theory.' It's ludicrous!

And people think some of my conspiracy theories are "crazy"!

And btw, if the gov't fakes a video for "dupes like me", is their faking it now a crime?

Originally posted by PepeLapew
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Do you think anytime soon you can back up your slanderous claims against me?

Are you prepared to accept that your "wondering" about whether or not it is fake has pretty soundly been debunked more than once in this thread?

Originally posted by Inannamute
Are you prepared to accept that your "wondering" about whether or not it is fake has pretty soundly been debunked more than once in this thread?

Can you show me another video where its mic gets "limited" by a "really loud sound"?

Originally posted by Killtown
Can you show me another video where its mic gets "limited" by a "really loud sound"?

Here's something for you, KT. Go to any electronics store that sells consumer camcorders. Ask them if the camera has an audio limiter that automatically rides levels. All or almost all do. Ask them how it works. Then report back here if the answer you get doesn't jibe with what I've told you here. The better camcorders will allow you to turn it off and ride the levels yourself if you like but those ones are the exception in the consumer sphere of things.

Or borrow a friend's consumer-level camcorder and do this test. In a quiet room, roll tape for 10-20 seconds or so and then have somebody make a sudden and consistent loud noise (like yelling for instance). When you listen to it back, you'll hear the AGC riding the audio record levels up because it's hunting for sound where there is none and the audio you'll hear will get really damn hissy. When your friend starts making the racket, the noise will be initially distorted until the AGC can respond and bring the record levels down. Then whatever the sound he/she's making should sound right.

And just to clear up an misunderstanding, it isn't the microphone that gets limited; it's the signal that's being recorded onto tape by the camera's AGC. And if you wonder how I know this it's because I work in television and have seen people screw this sort of thing up left, right and centre for years.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by Killtown
Can you show me another video where its mic gets "limited" by a "really loud sound"?

Here's something for you, KT. Go to any electronics store that sells consumer camcorders. Ask them if the camera has an audio limiter that automatically rides levels. All or almost all do. Ask them how it works. Then report back here if the answer you get doesn't jibe with what I've told you here. The better camcorders will allow you to turn it off and ride the levels yourself if you like but those ones are the exception in the consumer sphere of things.

Or borrow a friend's consumer-level camcorder and do this test. In a quiet room, roll tape for 10-20 seconds or so and then have somebody make a sudden and consistent loud noise (like yelling for instance). When you listen to it back, you'll hear the AGC riding the audio record levels up because it's hunting for sound where there is none and the audio you'll hear will get really damn hissy. When your friend starts making the racket, the noise will be initially distorted until the AGC can respond and bring the record levels down. Then whatever the sound he/she's making should sound right.

And just to clear up an misunderstanding, it isn't the microphone that gets limited; it's the signal that's being recorded onto tape by the camera's AGC. And if you wonder how I know this it's because I work in television and have seen people screw this sort of thing up left, right and centre for years.

Funny the "Cheney" 2nd hit video doesn't get limited after the "loud explosion". And if the Myers video got limited, how long does it stay limited and why does the Myers video's volume seem to increase afterward w/out the sound of sirens?

Originally posted by Killtown
Funny the "Cheney" 2nd hit video doesn't get limited after the "loud explosion". And if the Myers video got limited, how long does it stay limited and why does the Myers video's volume seem to increase afterward w/out the sound of sirens?

Uh......did you miss me saying the words "consumer" and "AGC". I don't suppose it occurred to you that that video might be being recorded on a professional camera (which, though it has an AGC circuit, no cameraman who doesn't want his ass kicked will have turned on)? Hence, no audio dip. And that's assuming that there isn't an audio guy on the shoot riding levels manually. As for the Myers clip, the AGC will usually overcompensate downward for a sudden audio spike and then hunt upwards until the audio record levels are at or near 0 vu, the optimal level for most tapes. .

As I and others have said, if you listen closely, you can still make out the siren sounds in the background post-impact but they're obviously being overwhelmed at this point. Had the video clip continued, I'm sure you would've heard things returned to about where they were. But then, you wouldn't have a thread to play with then. And the audio sampling on that is just plain atrocious as there's a ton of digital artifacting in the audio. Whether that was as part of YouTube's compression or some combination of other factors, I won't venture.

However, the apparent loss of the sirens you thought happened, in fact didn't and I'd say that particular clip hardly does anything for your argument.

Originally posted by Killtown

The camera is supposedly taken from a building on Broadway & John St and looks to be mounted on some kind of tripod as its filming up at the burning WTC.

It's as if he was anticipating the 2nd crash and the camera angle shows a perfectly unobstructed view of where this 2nd "plane" will eventually hit.


Also, notice that this video has audio and it recorded the sounds of multiple sirens going off, the sound of a plane, and also the sound of an explosion. However, not a single person is heard talking or screaming in this video. The alleged filmer (Myers) is not even heard in it.


Other things to notice is that the sound of the explosion is greatly delayed from when the explosion happens and there is no deceleration, crumpling and/or breaking of this alleged aluminum plane as it is seen crashing into the side of this steel skyscraper.

this is a feed from a security camera (mounted) as to who filmed this idk how you found that out no info (as far as i know) has been released about this tape.

anticipating the second attack? maybe

the delay...edited????? or no audio and they felt like adding some from other feeds and screwed up?????

no people see above