Humint Events Online: The Sound of the 2nd Hit

Saturday, January 27, 2007

The Sound of the 2nd Hit

This video is one of the few I trust to have the actual sound of the attack:


Where is roaring noise from huge jet engines? Where is the gigantic bang or explosion one would expect for a huge Boeing 767 slamming into a building and tearing apart?

What did that guy SEE when he looked up????

29 Comments:

Anonymous reno said...

So because THIS video (in your opinion) supports your crackpotism, you believe it?

12:43 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

I think the question should be more:
do YOU believe it? And if so, what do you think?

2:41 PM  
Anonymous double ha said...

what do YOU believe reno?
step up to the plate for once and explain things.
at least venture an opinion.
i submit that in actuality reno knows absolutely nothing about 9/11!

2:47 PM  
Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

The denier morons discount all evidence that disagrees with their theories. That is why they are morons...

4:31 PM  
Anonymous i heart conspiracy smasher's wife! said...

morons discount all evidence that disagrees with their theories

what evidence and what theories could you possibly be referring to?
oh i know - the many dozens of toasty cars some of which were a mile away from the wtc and are evidence against the NIST/911 claims about the wtc "collapses"!
or maybe the plethora of photos taken at the pentagon which disprove the official claim that AA11 bounced off the lawn and then rammed into the side of the pentagon!

morons discount all evidence that disagrees with their theories

hey i couldn't agree more!

7:05 PM  
Anonymous h is for spice girls! said...

"What did that guy SEE when he looked up????"

i don't think that he could see anything - he and the camera seemed to be standing on the north side of the north tower (where the debris from the flight11 would have fallen if there had really been a flight11) and ua175 would have been approaching from the south side of the south tower right? that is, if ua175 really did hit the south tower (and since ua didn't decommission that particular plane until last year and for numerous other reasons i don't believe that it really did hit the south tower) so that man couldn't have seen whatever did hit the south tower, if anything did.
i think that he heard that weak ass jet motor sound and looked up just in time to see the south tower explosion from where he was standing at the north side of the north tower.

hey guess what? there is no evidence of that phony nose out effect - this video is a damned ringside seat for what should have been the nose out.

busted!

11:30 PM  
Anonymous old spice. said...

ok now i'm thinking that camera pov is the west side not the north side. but still, checking out the man's eyes he seems to be hearing the sound and looks around but is not able to see what is making the sound.

12:16 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This video is one of the few I trust

Why? Because it supports your POV? I thought all vids and pictures had been photoshopped? How did the Vast Conspiracy miss this one?

10:50 AM  
Blogger Spooked said...

I trusts this one because you can clearly hear the guy being interviewed before the attack starts-- so it is a bona fide soundtrack. This is in contrast some 2nd hit videos where they have clearly dubbed in actors (women screaming) and sounds of jet planes. In some cases they use the same soundtrack for two different videos.

11:06 AM  
Anonymous reno said...

"In some cases they use the same soundtrack for two different videos."

Please provide your proof.

11:35 AM  
Anonymous bullhead city said...

no reno. spooked does not have to provide 1 iota of proof for you.
you have already proven yourself to be either just another distractor or simply a moron.
just beat it.

3:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now there's a professor with a webpage called Nutty 911 Physics

Shout it out! Maybe it's Professor Reno!

4:52 PM  
Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

"no reno. spooked does not have to provide 1 iota of proof for you."

Translation - there is no proof. No facts no evidence that you conspiracy clowns actually have.

Spooked said "In some cases they use the same soundtrack for two different videos."

He either puts up - or shuts up. And that goes the same for you conspiradroid...

4:55 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

I would bother to look up the videos (I don't have that info at easy recall but I know I've seen it) if I thought it might actually change your minds about anything regarding 9/11.

As it is, I know it is a waste of time since you guys never acknowledge anything unusual about 9/11, for whatever reason.

5:25 PM  
Blogger Conspiracy Smasher said...

"As it is, I know it is a waste of time since you guys never acknowledge anything unusual about 9/11, for whatever reason."

Translation: "I don't actually have any evidence, I do have a model of the WTC made with chicken wire tho - does that count?"


You conspiracy liars never cease to amaze me. Spooked, either put up the evidence, or retract your statement.

6:17 PM  
Anonymous reno said...

Good catch smasher!

6:50 PM  
Anonymous i heart conspiracy smasher's wife! said...

conspiracy smasher said:
"Translation - there is no proof. No facts no evidence that you conspiracy clowns actually have."

right back atcha tards!
spooked does not have to prove anything to you tards.

conspiracy smasher said:
"Translation - there is no proof. No facts no evidence that you conspiracy clowns actually have."

the NIST/911commission report's explanation for the "collapse" of both wtcs is not physically possible. that is all that we need to say.
the onus of proof lies with them where it has been since 9/11/01. they have failed.
or perhaps their sole purpose was in perpetuating a cover-up in which case they have succeeded.
whatever.
conspiracy smasher and reno are full of shit and i will never let anyone forget it.

7:26 PM  
Anonymous reno said...

"In some cases they use the same soundtrack for two different videos."

Liar!

8:08 PM  
Anonymous boxcutter of truth said...

In some cases they use the same soundtrack for two different videos.

oh really?

hey! look what i found!

CGI soundtrack dupe contradictions

9:05 PM  
Anonymous jim said...

Very simple. He saw/heard the explosion. Period.

9:11 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

boxcutter of truth-- that is actually not a good example, those clips aren't right-- although I think they did use the same woman screaming in two clips. I just don't have time to track them down.

There are THESE videos, which is clearly the same audio but different video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8EomY8jcjw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1umznssiZU

The audio in the 1st is the same as the second at about 3 minutes into the first.

9:27 PM  
Blogger Spooked said...

Here's one where I am convinced they dubbed in the jet noise and the woman's scream:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcLsH_bhh8Y

Someone said this same woman's scream was in another 2nd hit video, but I'm not sure which one.

9:41 PM  
Anonymous S. King said...

There is a very simple explanation, Spooked.

Spooked wrote,

"Where is roaring noise from huge jet engines?"

Easily heard.

"Where is the gigantic bang or explosion one would expect for a huge Boeing 767 slamming into a building and tearing apart?"

It was heard easily by everyone around. But as anyone who has inexpensive video or sound recording equipment know, there is the small little thing known as AGC for Automatic Gain Control. This should help you, Spooked:

http://www.videomaker.com/article/8669/

by Hal Robertson
January 2002

This fledgling video producer bought the best equipment his meager budget would allow, and, fueled by his creative drive, flew headlong into his first production shoot. Back home in his edit suite/living room, the images he captured were stunning - but what was that awful whirring in the audio? He tried everything, but alas, the noise would not go away. He would have to either re-shoot the segment or live with the poor audio - neither of which would make his client happy. What to do? Our young friend had fallen prey to the evils of AGC, also known as automatic gain control.

Actually, this story is played out all over the world as more and more people discover desktop video production. Most beginners and hobbyists can't afford a $5,000-plus professional video camera with all the bells and whistles, so they buy something that better suits their budget, usually a Mini DV or Digital8 consumer-grade camcorder. These cams have excellent images and digital video effects. They represent a complete production studio in the palm of your hand except for the audio features. Specifically, the inclusion of AGC instead of an adjustable audio input.

How Does it Work?
The automatic gain control circuit in your camcorder "listens" to the incoming audio and keeps the loud sounds from getting too loud and the soft sounds from getting too soft. It's a great idea on paper but, in application, the results are often unpredictable, even under the best of circumstances.

When the AGC hears a loud sound, it turns the audio input down to keep from overloading the recorded signal. Of course, a simple electronic circuit can't make a distinction between a voice that you want to record and the loud truck driving by that you don't want to record. It only measures the loudest sound and adjusts to compensate for it.

In contrast, AGC treats soft sounds in the opposite manner, turning up the input until it hears "enough" signal. This can work to your advantage in a quiet environment, but those locations are very difficult to find. It seems everywhere we go, there are noises in the background: air-conditioning systems, traffic rumble, even crickets, which all seem loud when assaulted by an AGC.

How Do I Make it Stop?
You don't. More accurately, unless you spent more than $2,500 for your camcorder, you can't. Those who can afford a Canon XL1S, Sony VX-2000 or other high-end camcorder, have access to manual volume control.
---

If you listen to lots of videos or audio tapes done on consumer equipment you will rarely, if ever, hear loud noises. AGC is why.

In contrast, professional equipment will be better at recording that noise, as the Naudet film of AA 11 hitting the North Tower clearly demonstrates and that was from a few miles away: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6B7g6mt4Gk

And Tower 2, again at a distance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDNcjxFoAkk

If you have any questions, Spooked, speak up. Otherwise we can put this to rest, ok?

1:19 PM  
Blogger Democrat said...

No evidence guy usually blindly trust their much appreciated mass media.

Well, 'nuff said..

2:57 PM  
Anonymous reno said...

Translation from democrat-speak into English:

"I can't refute the facts, so I will once again rely on THE MASS MEDIA IS CONTROLLED BY THE JEWS rubrick.

4:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

manipulation of film/audio clips of Flight 175 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a7VsuZ2E5U

4:52 PM  
Anonymous i heart conspiracy smasher's wife! said...

skyking@!
it's about time you came out of hiding!
"Where is roaring noise from huge jet engines?"

Easily heard.

sounds more like a single smaller jet engine.

If you have any questions, Spooked, speak up. Otherwise we can put this to rest, ok?

i have a question for you skyking@:

what was the cause for the roasting and toasting of the many dozens of cars some of which were a good mile away from the wtc on 9/11?
is that speaking up loudly enough for you?

5:31 PM  
Anonymous s. king said...

Looks like another anon woke up on the wrong side of the rock.

It pisses you off that another simple and straightforward explanation, this time about AGC controls, ruins your despearte desire for the conclusion you want.

It didn't work.

You'll note that the engines are easily heard by those there and on the video. I hear them easily. And those explosions.... the examples speak for themselves.

Another day, another debunking of the 9/11 Denial Movement.

7:11 AM  
Anonymous yellow jacket guy #3 said...

oh another debunking by s. king? that'll be the day!

hey why were 1400 automobiles some up to a mile away from the wtc toasted and burnt? why were only some parts of these autos burnt and not other parts? and why were thease autos burnt but simple sheets of paper not burnt?

1:15 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger