Debunked: "WTC7 Sound Evidence of Explosions" by Chandler/AE911T

[ParadoxicalKat]

I found another nice piece of evidence against Chandler's claims in an old JREF thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7619027#post7619027

Chandler claims early in his video, at 2:14: "The mike was set up to pick up speech a few inches away". But is this claim true?
Poster "El Jefe" says the microphone used by Banfield is probably a "Electro-Voice RE50", which is omnidirectional, and "has a reasonably flat response from 80 Hz to 13,000 Hz. This would pick up the "BANG" of an explosion quite well". It is the same microphone used by a CBS reporter in an interview taken at the same time:



I had not seen this video before! The mike obviously picks up lots of sounds from various directions, distances, and in different frequencies: The low bus engine, high sirens, speech of people several feet away - but again no explosions. The location is also about 2000 ft from WTC7, that's 2 seconds for sound propagation. The EPH goes down at 0:39, so any explosion should have beem picked up no later than 0:41. The exterior starts going down at 0:46, but no explosions at or before 0:48. The woman reacts at 0:49 - not clear to what exactly, possibly the reaction of other people.

Anyway, the point is: Those mikes are NOT set up to pick up only speech a few inches away, they pick up a range of sounds from a larger distance.

NISTs own Shyam Sunder even stated that there were no recordings of explosions capable of taking out the critical columns.

Source: https://streamable.com/9vw99f

our analysis shows that even the smallest explosive charge that was capable of bringing down the critical column in the building; had it occurred we would have seen sound levels of 120 to 130 decibels about half a mile away. That would have been an incredibly loud sound and that sound was not picked up by any of the videos or witnesses that we have talked to.

Truthers have consistently denied science from the very begining

 

[Montauk]

Here's another "explosion" clip from Koenig:


Source: https://youtu.be/wI8CNWf6lr0


Here's what they had to say about it:

0:53 - Explosion sound captured at Liberty/William Streets around the collapse time of WTC7 (5:20pm), about six blocks away from WTC7 to the southeastUnfortunately, the intensity of that sound was dwarfed by the blaring sirens of an ambulance. The lady of the Connecticut Post did shook obviously.Listen to the NYPD (?) radio traffic at 1:41, less than one minute later. There is no break in the video.I strongly believe, that it is the same bang/boom as recorded by the fixed CBS News' West Street camera: https://youtu.be/4xN8lzBo9zY. So the sound is most definitely not just a wind blow against the camera microphone in the CBS Video, as claimed by some "9/11 Debunkers".

And some commenters' thoughts on the sound source of the "explosion"

I think these explosions were from vehicles on fire having their gas tanks explode or tires popping, approximately 1,400 vehicles mostly privately owned vehicles were destroyed and the nyfd lost 54 fire trucks and 57 other vehicles and the nypd lost 200 vehicles, the rest were privately owned.

Could it have been a military jet above? It seemed like she reacted by looking up.

steel columns buckling maybe? Was this video taken as the building collapsed?

it sounds like it could be one of the scrambled fighter jets overhead.

 

[Montauk]

I haven't seen MrKoenig active for some time. His last post on The911Forum was 3 Sept 2020 - which is the forum where I have had occasional discussions with him. I cannot recall any activity of his on other forums..

He seems to post more frequently on his Youtube channel. His last video was uploaded 4 months ago.

 

[Oystein]

For orientation, here is where that interview took place on Google Maps Streetview:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/CMi3iRpY8J6sMPeJ8

That corner of Liberty and William St is roughly 640 m / 0.4 miles from the nearest corner of the old WTC7 away, but quite diagonal across the street grid, going 4 blocks South and 4 blocks East.

I find it difficult to ascertain that two recordings of an "explosions" heard on videos taken more than half a mile apart are the same event. Is there a way to figure out the time on the clock for the interview?

At 1:41, I cannot hear anyone say "seven". The man near the camera say "World Trade Center", but not "seven". The voice on the radio is essentially incomprehensible. I'd sooner be convinced it says "Lord Satan" than "WTC7".

At the very end of the video, a caption says "Radio: 7 is gone, 7 is gone".
Maybe that is being said. BUT I would doubt that anyone on that day would have refered to the Solomon Bothers Building (that's what is was generally known as by the few who knew it at all) as simply "7". That's Truther-speak subsequent to 2007ish.

 

[veesweet]

I found another nice piece of evidence against Chandler's claims in an old JREF thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7619027#post7619027

Chandler claims early in his video, at 2:14: "The mike was set up to pick up speech a few inches away". But is this claim true?
Poster "El Jefe" says the microphone used by Banfield is probably a "Electro-Voice RE50", which is omnidirectional, and "has a reasonably flat response from 80 Hz to 13,000 Hz. This would pick up the "BANG" of an explosion quite well". It is the same microphone used by a CBS reporter in an interview taken at the same time:



I had not seen this video before! The mike obviously picks up lots of sounds from various directions, distances, and in different frequencies: The low bus engine, high sirens, speech of people several feet away - but again no explosions. The location is also about 2000 ft from WTC7, that's 2 seconds for sound propagation. The EPH goes down at 0:39, so any explosion should have beem picked up no later than 0:41. The exterior starts going down at 0:46, but no explosions at or before 0:48. The woman reacts at 0:49 - not clear to what exactly, possibly the reaction of other people.

Anyway, the point is: Those mikes are NOT set up to pick up only speech a few inches away, they pick up a range of sounds from a larger distance.

Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/JeMnuXOhAS8Q
. here's a video of clear visual and audio explosions on wtc7 . Filmed on 2001 sept 11th

Time stamps @0:32 seconds.

 

[Mendel]

here's a video of clear visual and audio explosions on wtc7

I see video of windows shattering and reflecting the sun

first the window shatters, then the flash appears as some broken shards align to reflect the sun

I do not hear explosions

what is the source of the video, and what position was it taken from?

 

[mjl]

I see video of windows shattering and reflecting the sun

first the window shatters, then the flash appears as some broken shards align to reflect the sun

I do not hear explosions

what is the source of the video, and what position was it taken from?

Don't waste your time on this. It's an old prank from Ed Current to fool conspiracy believers.


Source: https://youtu.be/k8VAsoVuShM

 

[econ41]

. here's a video of clear visual and audio explosions on wtc7 . Filmed on 2001 sept 11th

Time stamps @0:32 seconds.

Take care to not "fall" for Ed Current's spoof prank. Discussed in other threads. Your final video clip and two screen shots are left<>right reversed - one aspect of the spoof.

So, back to the thread topic, what are you trying to assert?

I see 'proof' (AKA 'evidence') that there were explosions in WTC7 on 9/11.

That reality is not in contention. Additional 'proof' should be redundant.

oops:
Crossed in posting.//

Don't waste your time on this. It's an old prank from Ed Current to fool conspiracy believers.

Beat me to it.

 

[Mendel]

It's an old prank from Ed Current to fool conspiracy believers.

@Edward Current?

asking for the source was the right move, then (it always is)

 

[Oystein]

Hi @veesweet !

Others have alerted you to the fact that video that you posted and presented as containing "clear visual and audio explosions on wtc7" is in fact doctored, manipulated - a SPOOF made 14 (FOURTEEN!!!!!) years ago. Made by Metabunk-mamber @Edward Current even, with the explicit purpose of demonstrating that "Truthers" will believe any nonsense, even the most obvious one.

Your post has embedded a copy of this video on Bitchute, where it was uploaded by a channel named "Dani Paso" three years ago, and has 376 views as of today; 11 upvotes, 0 downvotes.
"Dani Paso" has 4480 subscribers, and has uploaded almost 20,000 videos thus far. 74 in the last 10 days alone. Extrapolating from there, this WTC7 video has to be hidden behind thousands of other, newer videos in this channel - I find it highly incredible that you found it browsing that "Dani Paso" channel.

And so, I have a few questions for you, veesweet:

1.: When and where did you originally find this video? How was it presented there, and by whom? Have you noticed that the video is flipped horizontally? Did you entertain any doubt before believing the explosions are original and genuine? What, exactly, convinced you they are genuine?

2.: Do you accept now that the video is manipulated, doctored, a spoof? Do you agree with us that this is NOT evidence for "explosions on wtc7", because the "clear visual and audio" thereof has been doctored into the CBS video by Edward?

(It is okay to sometimes be mistaken about the veracity of supposed evidence, we all will fall for such from time to time. As a matter of fact, just in this very thread, in post #4, I felled compelled to "retract, or correct, my analysis", because I had made wrong assumptions about the timing of events in a particular video.)

3.: Have you posted this video elsewhere before? If yes, where, or what kinds of pages? Did people there alert you to the tell-tale signs of manipulation and deceit? If so, how did you respond, how did that influence your own perception of the video?

4.: Now that you know you presented a spoof that, presumably, you had fallen for yourself, how will you respond? Here - admit you fell for a spoof? If you posted this elsewhere, will you go there and retract the video, explaining that it is a spoof and should no longer be used, except as an educational tool to show "Truthers" easily fall for lies?

-----------------

Again, as I said in parentheses, it is okay to be mistaken about some real or doctored piece of evidence - as long as you adapt your conclusions accordingly, and stop using the wrong evidence or wrong interpretation thereof.
That is an important part of the Scientific Method: That your conclusion follow the evidence, not vice versa. That you retract and modify or replace your hypotheses the moment your verified evidence changes, and it challenges those hypotheses.

It appears that "Truthers" demonstrably FAIL to apply the Scientific Method. The continued use of Edward's spoof is a clear demonstration of this, as are the continued use by Truthers of nonsense such as their "pull-it" interpretation, the 2009 "nanothermite" paper by Harrit et al, the failed Hulsey study, etc etc etc.

 

[GM4AJK]

Have you noticed that the video is flipped horizontally? Did you entertain any doubt before believing the explosions are original and genuine? What, exactly, convinced you they are genuine?

Did anyone notice that @Edward Current added a UFO into the hoax, too?

 

[JMartJr]

This may be a good illustration of te drawbacks of making fake evidence to show that conspiracy theorists will readily accept fake evidence -- they do, in fact, readily accept it, and it just adds to the strength of the wrong convictions that conspiracy theorists revel in and gives them a another piece of "evidence" to share to drag more people into the irrational rabbit hole. And then it becomes one more piece of bunk that has to be addressed, repeatedly, forever.

Edit to correct a sentence that fell apart on me...

 

[Mendel]

and it just adds to the strength of the wrong convictions that conspiracy theorists revel in and gives them a another piece of "evidence" to share to drag more people into the irrational rabbit hole.

I don't think that's true?
I think there's benefit in being able to say, "look, you fell for a hoax—what else did you trust that isn't trustworthy?"

 

[deirdre]

I don't think that's true?
I think there's benefit in being able to say, "look, you fell for a hoax—what else did you trust that isn't trustworthy?"

i think dragging 200 million ufos believers over to the [relatively small] 911 conspiracy crowd is not a good idea.

 

[JMartJr]

I don't think that's true?
I think there's benefit in being able to say, "look, you fell for a hoax—what else did you trust that isn't trustworthy?"

I'd agree there are benefits. But there is also a downside. The downside may outweigh the benefits... I'm not sure how one would prove which is greater -- I'm not even sure how your quantify such a thing! But the downside ought to be born in mind,ought to be born in mind I think.

 

[Ann K]

I think there's benefit in being able to say, "look, you fell for a hoax—what else did you trust that isn't trustworthy?"

Sounds reasonable ...except for the sad fact that the counterarguments and debunks reach far fewer people than the original video.

 

[Mendel]

Sounds reasonable ...except for the sad fact that the counterarguments and debunks reach far fewer people than the original video.

yeah, but most people watching it are already down the rabbithole anyway

 

[JMartJr]

yeah, but most people watching it are already down the rabbithole anyway

I suspect that this was more true back when we had to go looking for stuff -- it may not be as true now that algorithms are feeding us stuff?