WTC7 phoneboot explosion sound pinned to corner Murray Str-W.Broadway, 2 blocks from WTC7.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And FYI, here is the faked one, which Bonez says is legit and represented as the original in his post:

www.mediumrecords.com...

vs the original, which Bonez didn't listen to, aparently:

video.google.com...

What's wrong with the original?

And what are all the firefighters reacting to in the video?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And FYI, here is the faked one, which Bonez says is legit and represented as the original in his post:

www.mediumrecords.com...

vs the original, which Bonez didn't listen to, aparently:

video.google.com...

What's wrong with the original?

And what are all the firefighters reacting to in the video?

The original is good.

The fake is being presented as evidence that truthers use audio fakery to bolster their preconceived beliefs. And to ask you if THIS type of objective evidence and forensic methods that were used to prove the Trinity Church false would be sufficent to prove to you that the phone booth video is ALSO faked.

The firefighters? The only one I see react is the guy on the phone. And he's a cop. And he's reacting to the firefighter walking up the street yelling at them to getouttathere since the second one is gonna fall down.

What I DON'T hear is anyone repeating themselves after this "explosion", nor altering the cadence, pausing during the "explosion", and/or altering their volume level right when "it" happens.

That's because, as I've pointed out, it's faked.

And once that's proven forensically, then it'll be just one more nail in the coffin for the already dying truth movement.........

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The firefighters? The only one I see react is the guy on the phone. And he's a cop. And he's reacting to the firefighter walking up the street yelling at them to getouttathere since the second one is gonna fall down.

So much misinformation because people aren't paying attention. They think they got it all figured out, but they're not paying attention.

The one on the phone that reacts when the explosion happens is a firefighter. There's a picture of him holding his firefighter helmet in the OP. The camera-person also reacts by pointing the camera in the direction of the explosion. The middle firefighter also reacts when he says "We gotta get back, Seven's exploding" and moves his hand in the direction that the camera and first firefighter did.

If only people would pay attention.....

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The original is good.

I just realized neither of those videos are the explosion near WTC7, that I'm talking about.

I guess I can't take anything from you for granted, Joey.

What I DON'T hear is anyone repeating themselves after this "explosion", nor altering the cadence, pausing during the "explosion", and/or altering their volume level right when "it" happens.

When it happens, multiple people, including the camera guy, look back towards where WTC7 is, and that's when the firefighter walks up and they start yelling about the building exploding.

You can think what you want man, it doesn't matter what you personally believe anyway, and you still haven't proven this thing is fake and your arguments are completely weak.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

The camera-person also reacts by pointing the camera in the direction of the explosion.

No.

Lucia reacts to the guy yelling, since as a videographer, she realizes that soemone yelling at them to getouttathere because the second one's gonna fall is a more important thing to get recorded, rather than the guys talking to their family.

The middle firefighter also reacts when he says "We gotta get back, Seven's exploding" and moves his hand in the direction that the camera and first firefighter did.

Of couse they're gonna react when the dude tells them that the second one's gonna fall. Would you expect them to NOT react to that?

Originally posted by bsbray11

I just realized neither of those videos are the explosion near WTC7, that I'm talking about.

So now that you're straight about that,care to address the fact that the fake one has been used to bolster conspiracy theorists claims?

Also, would you care to answer whether or not that the type of forensic evidence I presented in the Trinity Church video would be of the quality that would makeyou re-examine your beliefs about whether or not the phone booth video is faked?

When it happens, multiple people, including the camera guy, look back towards where WTC7 is, and that's when the firefighter walks up and they start yelling about the building exploding.

No.

The firefighter is already yelling at them where the fake explosions are added in.

They are reacting to him yelling at them to getouttathere cuz the second one's gonna fall down.

What is your opinion of the audio quality of that video?

DO you agree that the voices are flattened and fuzzy?

DO you agree that the faked explosions are obviously fake since they have a higher fidelity than the voices?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

I just realized neither of those videos are the explosion near WTC7, that I'm talking about.

So now that you're straight about that,care to address the fact that the fake one has been used to bolster conspiracy theorists claims?

Maybe you don't understand what it means that neither of them are the video I am talking about. It means there is no relation. One is a video of WTC2 collapsing and the other is more footage of one of the towers collapsing.

No.

The firefighter is already yelling at them where the fake explosions are added in.

They are reacting to him yelling at them to getouttathere cuz the second one's gonna fall down.

Yeah and just ignore the fact that they all look towards WTC7, including the camera guy, when you hear the explosion. I guess he just decided to turn around and film some random buildings.

The only thing I'll agree to is your arguments being petty and weak and you need to go back to debunker school to learn a more convincing line for your trolling adventures.

Originally posted by bsbray11

One is a video of WTC2 collapsing and the other is more footage of one of the towers collapsing.

And I'll keep asking you if that type and quality of forensic examination will be enough to convince you that the phone booth explosion is faked.

Yeah and just ignore the fact that they all look towards WTC7, including the camera guy, when you hear the explosion.

The camera turns and focuses on the firefighter yelling at them to getouttathere cuz the second one's gonna fall. SO do the rest of the guys there.

None alter the cadence, or volume, or change anything at all about their speech patterns, like anyone would normally do after such an event.

This is undeniable.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
One is a video of WTC2 collapsing and the other is more footage of one of the towers collapsing.

And I'll keep asking you if that type and quality of forensic examination will be enough to convince you that the phone booth explosion is faked.

Dude, if you have evidence related to the WTC7 video, post it. Hypothetical questions are just wasting time. You can't debunk the WTC7 video by trying to debunk a completely different video man.

The camera turns and focuses on the firefighter yelling at them to getouttathere cuz the second one's gonna fall. SO do the rest of the guys there.

Not buying it. When somebody tells people to move, people don't just their heads in the same direction in unison like they just saw a ghost.

I know you're not going to accept this explosion, Joey. Keep making stuff up man, and believe it if you need to, but stop posting it until you can prove any of it.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
One is a video of WTC2 collapsing and the other is more footage of one of the towers collapsing.

And I'll keep asking you if that type and quality of forensic examination will be enough to convince you that the phone booth explosion is faked.

Dude, if you have evidence related to the WTC7 video, post it. Hypothetical questions are just wasting time. You can't debunk the WTC7 video by trying to debunk a completely different video man.

The purpose of my repeating the question was not to debunk the 7 video. Sorry that you're confused about that.

The purpose is to determine if a forensic analysis would be able to convince you that the explosions are faked.

But I think I have my answer now.

That is, since you refuse to answer a simple question regarding the standard of proof that you require, that you're cognizant that you have no standards at all.

You believe anything that promotes the "conspiracy" without any doubts whatsoever. But an objective analysis holds zero weight to you, if it debunks the "9/11 was an inside job" foolishness.

Cool...

reply to post by Joey Canoli


A real forensic investigation by people who are able to demonstrate their claims, yes, I would buy that.

Don't even pretend like that's what you're offering here. You're trying to debunk one video by talking smack about a completely different one.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You're trying to debunk one video by talking smack about a completely different one.

Nope.

I already explained that the work to produce an analysis has been done. But the paper itself hasn't been done since there's zero need to counter a movement that moves nowhere, except in endless circles on internet message boards.

This relied on slightly different forensic evidence of tampering.

As I noted, the human speech showed severe "clipping" due to improper gain levels on the mic. Whereas the "explosion" was clean, and showed no/less clipping. Clearly impossible.

Additionally, all the speech/backgrouns noise, etc was in a very specific frequency range, with no outliers. This indivates the rtange of theaudio recording device. Whereas the "explosions" went well outside that range.

So now we have 2 confirmed and agreed upon cases of obvious audio "fakery" used by the TM. I used quotes cuz there's reason to believe that a TM'er wasn't responsible for the additional audio.

In one WTC 2 case, audio was added to a BBC docu, and TMers took this as proof of explosives.

In the Trinity Chuirch/WTC2 video, the audio was added also as part of a documentary, but I forget which.

Mow we have the phonebooth video, which was ALSO used in a documentary, broadcast in Hungary. It's likely that the same is in effect here. Documentary producer adds in audio for dramatic purposes, and the TM uses it as proof of explosions in 7.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
I already explained that the work to produce an analysis has been done.

Then show it?

"I have proof, you just can't see it!"

reply to post by bsbray11



What part of:

But the paper itself hasn't been done since there's zero need to counter a movement that moves nowhere, except in endless circles on internet message boards.

Did you not understand?

The work is all over the place, on different boards, sometimes by different people.

But you don't have to wait. Just verify for yourself that a) the voices are muddled and b) the "explosion" is clear and shows greater dynamic range. This is clear enough for the rational to give extreme doubt to the explosion actually being there.

Couple that with the fact that faked explosions were added in by legitimate documentaries twice before that I'm aware of, and was imeadiately heralded as the "smoking gun" proof of explosives that the TM so desperately needs to keep from looking like idiots, and you have the obvious truth of the matter. They were added into a documentary.

Deep down, you know I am speaking the truth.

Isn't it time to end the charade?????

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
What part of:

But the paper itself hasn't been done since there's zero need to counter a movement that moves nowhere, except in endless circles on internet message boards.

Did you not understand?

Haha, I understand it perfectly!

It means you can't post the "evidence" here!

Or am I wrong, and you will post it?

reply to post by bsbray11


What part of:

The work is all over the place, on different boards, sometimes by different people.

Do you not understand?

There is zero need for me to go round it all up for you.

You are playing a game, and going no where, much to my personal amusement.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
What part of:

The work is all over the place, on different boards, sometimes by different people.

Do you not understand?

The part where you keep claiming it exists, and evidence exists for this, that, and the other, but you can't post it.

I'm not convinced it even exists. And I'm not about to go on a wild goose chase looking for something that you can't even find.

Thanks for playing though mate.

Originally posted by bsbray11

The part where you keep claiming it exists,

The sad thing is, that one doesn't need these posts to be rounded up at all.

All you need to do is listen to the audio, and if you're honest, you'll admit that the "explosion" has different qualities to it.

Plus, as I've pointed out, this came from a documentary, and it's already been proven that the TM looooooves these videos, with the added in audio...... cuz they need them to maintain the sad belief that 9/11 was an inside job.

So, will you listen honestly to the audio, and then come back here and tell me that it is obviously of a different quality?

Or will you listen with a closed mind, since admitting to the obvious will destroy your personal beliefs about 9/11?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Coming form someone who can't even hear the word "explosion" in the video, you know I don't trust your judgment just listening to the video and telling me it's fake anyway.


Look man, you KNOW you don't go into a debate claiming you have evidence but you just can't show it. You KNOW that doesn't roll and it would be a cold day in hell before someone was like, "Oh, okay, you have evidence, you just can't show it to me, okay, you're right, I believe you!"

I dunno, people hear what they want to hear. Not what is being said for real.

I hear in no way shape or form anyone saying "explosion", but I do hear one firefighter tell the other one to "just hold it" while the other one is saying the second is gonna fall down and they gotta go.

There are no sounds of "plos" anywhere, though I do hear a "hold" in there. In fact, listening to it closely "plode" and "hold" sound an aweful lot alike dont they? Gee, what if someone was saying the "second's gonna fall down" right when someone says "just hold it" right over the "gonna fall" part? That is what I am hear and am 95% sure that is what is being said. I do not see or hear just one firefighter saying something is exploding.