+- ConCen (http://concen.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Main (/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Velvet Glove (/forum-11.html)
+--- Thread: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes (/thread-35533.html)
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - rsol - 02-05-2011 09:27 AM
History is written by the winners in CGI aswell, the losers dont bother to publish.
You dont know what they have. I know what could be possible with the technology around at the time.
The problem many conspiracy theorists have is, they think government has infinite budgets and infinite technology. this is not the case. they are subject to production technique and supply. thats just the hardware but the software is also subject to evolution.
There are military grade electronics for computer parts. but this only makes it capable of surviving EMP.
Software needs to be written. I dont care how much they pay the government wont have 200 guys at the very tip top of CGI. Those sorts of people will be doing movies/games.
With the no-plane theory, the net is cast WAY too wide and includes almost everyone who ever saw a plane hitting those towers. Its folly to assume from saying that you "dont know" that it must be a multi million dollar award winning software package made inhouse 10 years ahead of its time with people proficient in techniques barely being developed by CGI scientists in the commercial world.
What was the computer program used? what was the camera tracking plug in? what rendering engine did they use? IF it were computer generated, almost anyone who renders on multiple platforms could probably tell you what most effects or renders are from just by looking.
Do government PCs run on windows?OSX?LINUX? or some inhouse operating system? If they have a huge software house surely they would be able to come up with an OS....
You only look clever pointing out what is but noone will listen to the guy repeating what isnt.
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - icosaface - 02-05-2011 04:16 PM
We don't know all the technology the military/industrial complex does or does not have.
On Sept 10, 2001, Rumsfeld announced that the armed forces were unable to account for 2.3 trillion dollars . You can buy a lot of research and design with 2.3 trillion dollars. The armed forces accounting records were stored in building 7 (World Trade 7). There were 300 to 400 Enron sized fraud case prosecutions files stored in building 7. Bye bye building 7. The auditors who were looking for the missing funds were working in the pentagon in the area where whatever it was that hit it hit it. Bye bye auditors.
So don't presume to be the authority on what technology was available because you aren't privy to that information. What the military/industrial complex shows us is what they want us to see.
The case for the world trade center being demolished does not hinge on planes hitting or not hitting the two towers. Even if it could be proven that all the video footage was doctored, it would not prove that planes or flying objects of some sort did not hit the towers. This is one small part of the case for demolition, fixating on it as though it was the whole case is a mistake.
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - Infinite - 02-05-2011 05:49 PM
No, if there's credible evidence that the footage was altered it's more strong evidence that 9/11 was a false flag operation. Ignoring other evidence so that we focus on the demolition evidence exclusively is not what a seeker of truth does.
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - icosaface - 02-05-2011 08:03 PM
I didn't say that evidence should be ignored. A part of a whole event should not be mistaken for the whole event.
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - rsol - 02-06-2011 03:48 PM
"No, if there's credible evidence that the footage was altered it's more strong evidence that 9/11 was a false flag operation."
Thats right, IF....
however there is not credible evidence. I have looked into this too you know, we dont just pass things off hand. I've been looking into this and have found the evidence lacking. I would not support something that i consider bad science. The Idea of altered video has very little credibility with me just from experience. You can put me on your list for when the revolution comes.
I've heard the use of the phrase "we dont know". this is an excellent indication of how outlandish theories come about. the god of gaps.
But if you dont know there is also the assumption no one else does.
Each and every video ive seen that no-planers consider absolute proof can be easily explained away through logic. nose-outs to flight angles and speeds. all impossible to the untrained eye. nukes and death rays ect ect do not serve as a realistic point of view. but they dont half sound exciting!!
The reason many in the 911 community dont consider the no-plane theory to be correct could just be because it isnt. It also makes for incredible stories and compelling websites installing ever more outlandish theories to cope with containing this in its bubble. It does not serve the interests the 911 community to back something without any credible evidence. It does serve the interests of the powers that be as it turns a small group of megalomaniacs into a control grid spanning every single member of the press and all prominent people, every tier of government, every website, every poster...including me... BIG brother. exactly how big?
I repeat. its counter productive. The evidence is based on belief and speculation over facts and happenings. No-planers tend to tout the energy weapon hypothesis just as the mini-nuke junk science for the very same reason the 911 community considers it horse shit. Because it "helps" with the no-plane idea. They could of used the CD excuse but as they have no credibility with such folk they dont get invited to those parties.
They have sided with those willing to believe them. this is a sub-culture of the 911 groups dedicated to heightening their own paranoia. Easy prey for cointelpro. this is baseless and for believers who say things like "well, you dont know for sure.." as an excuse to paint the world as some secret buck rogers episode. imagination and ego always trumps common sense.
You have no evidence to prove me wrong, so i must be right!!! OK.........i can make up anything i like with that logic.
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - Negentropic - 02-07-2011 10:26 AM
Quote:This is a distraction and an insult to the intelligence of most thinking people. Thats why its attacked. the paranoia associated with this has led believers to assume that the rest of the movement are gate keepers. if i was going to try and undermine a movement this no-plane thing is just the thing. its got barbs attached. plausable for the gullable. causes rifts and doesnt cost anything. genius!
Wrong, the so-called Live Videos from the choppers have PROVEN fakery in them; there is no actual impact shown, only the plane going behind the building and then the nose comes out the other end of the friggin building for chrissakes! Shack did not advance the compositing theory. As far as I know Shack thinks the whole video was faked from scratch & then aired as live. Collin Alexander aka Ace Baker differs and that's why they hate each other and call each other agents and controlled opposition blah blah, instead of coming together. Ace believes the underlying video of the building is live & real time compositing was done to insert that bleep of a plane that goes behind the buildings in the Live Videos. Then when the live video was shown again only once more the station logo covers the entire impact to cover the shoddy job. All the other videos aired that show actual impact are the various so-called amateur videos, the Naudet, the Herzekhami, Fairbanks, Spell, Courchesne, Speigel TV.
Go watch September clues analysis of the 2 live videos that were only shown once or twice precisely for that reason: the fakery was too obvious. Then go to Ace Baker Blogspot and read his thesis on compositing.
http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
He explains in detail what sort of compositing was possible in 2001 and how it was done. If you don't agree then you'll be in the Shack and Killtown camp but there's NO SAYING THAT THERE WERE PLANES UNTIL YOU PRODUCE PLANE PARTS that match the planes that supposedly flew into those buildings & A SINGLE VIDEO THAT IS AUTHENTIC, low or high quality. Shit, you can collect 100,000 dollars from Collin Alexander if you produce it. He has an open offer on his website. The No-Planers are not gatekeeping, Alex Jones, Jeff Rense and Loose Change are. You guys here might be self-deluded for the 'non-loony' agenda (the same old Alex Jones line of No-Planers are deliberately here to make the whole so-called 'legitimate' troof movement look like loonies which may have stuck in 2006 but no longer sticks) but at least you do not ban threads like these, therefore you are not gatekeepers because you at least allow readers (however few they are right now, Concen used to be huge at one time but now seems to have run its course) of this forum to be exposed to opposing viewpoints and make up their own minds, something Alex Jones, Jeff Rense and many others have not done. I like both Alex 'Arabs Own Hollywood' Jones and Jeff 'Sasquatch' Rense and though they both need to be ridiculed 100% when they're wrong & have their asses nailed to the waill to keep them straight, being gatekeepers on this issue, however important, does not make all their other 80% positive work worthless, it is just sad to see and sometimes downright absurd, especially in the case of Rense who has enough goofball theories floating around his website like Benjamin Fulford's Ninjas, endless UFO abductions and Sasquatch. Sooner or later they'll have to deal with it though because that's where the truth leads. Maybe 10 years from now, AJ will finally admit that he knew No-Planers were right but purposely gatekept the issue to keep his Libertarian agenda from being ridiculed even more by the same bufoons who were already ridiculling it.
"They probably know but they don't want to know that they know."
Dr. Judy Wood.
"A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer " Bruce Lee
Quote:I repeat. its counter productive. The evidence is based on belief and speculation over facts and happenings.
FACTS? On what basis? On the basis of a bunch of doctored videos, EVERY LAST ONE? On the basis of completely CONTRADICTORY eyewitness testimony, some seeing a big plane, some a small plane, some missile, some nothing, etc. ? Since when, outside of lynchings, has eyewitness testimony alone been enough to say an event happened and is a 'fact." ? Eyewitness testimony, even if NON-CONTRADICTORY plus NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (no plane parts recovered, no videos that are not doctored) equals NO CASE. You already know the media was complicit 100% from the beginning or there wouldn't be that BBC Video of the reporter announcing the collapse of building 7 with it still standing behind her, right? You know that ALL THE SHOWN VIDEOS, live and amateur have proven fakery & ZERO DECELERATION on impact but you deny all this because of so-called 'low quality' and DEMAND higher quality video which does not exist. The non-existence of a single plane part out of hundreds of thousands of individually numbered parts that match any of the planes does not convince you either that no such video can possibly exist shot in September 11, 2001, after 10 years. You completely & conveniently ignore all you want to ignore and declare THE FACTS as ON YOUR SIDE based on WHAT? The same old videos shown a million times on the whore mass media that lies to you about everything (but apparently not on on this all-important 'planes' issue) and some suspicion you have that this same whore media will one day be given PROOF of your so-called facts by the all powerful big shot honchos in government that does not exist today? IF IT DOES NOT EXIST TODAY then you cannot have the 'FACTS' until you provide the video. Until then you cannot just ASSUME that you have the 'FACTS.' Until then the facts are on the No-Planer side and the burden of proof is squarely on the plane-huggers such as yourself. But then that's all you want isn't it? To postpone the 'facts' into as far away an indefinite future as possible?
Keep using the 'Creationist' Method
![[Image: the-scientific-method.jpg]](http://www.dbskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/the-scientific-method.jpg)
Actually even with the 'Creationist Method" you still don't have facts to fit your forgone conclusion, do you? Except the 'plane-shaped' hole in the building which Shack completely dismantles in the video that started this thread. All you have is a bunch of people telling you they saw something happened 'with their own eyes' and just as many people saying they saw missiles or nothing but explosions 'with their own eyes." Some guy JFK talked on the phone to saying they found plane parts that have never been produced. Sorry but no cigar, even with the 'Creationist Method.'
For a scholarly treatise on the 9/11 video compositing, please visit:
http://911composites.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
"Well, what you're telling me that this is a group created to manage research on 9/11, not to pursue it. The objective of disinformation is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is believable and nothing is knowable. " -- Jim Fetzer
"The societal function of artists is to challenge the perceptions, to stimulate thoughts and emotions within audience members that might not otherwise occur." Alexander 'Ace' Baker
"The saddest day of your life isn't when you sell out, the saddest day of your life is when you sell out and no one wants to buy." --- Norman Spinard
"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." -Voltaire
http://www.septemberclues.info/
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - rsol - 02-07-2011 06:25 PM
Quote:Wrong, the so-called Live Videos from the choppers have PROVEN fakery in themthere is no arguing with you. you have already made your mind up. any proof against your belief falls on deaf ears.
I have debunked September clues on THIS FORUM. It is utter junk science. it is deceptive in occluding information that would destroy their argument and are just like you. 100% no doubt absolutely proven without a shadow of a doubt. rarara.
you keep repeating the same stuff over and over.
please dont consider me in the creationist circles or in that ethic of thought. however i take your point its always best to check stuff before you sign on, like i did with the no-plane theory. yes ive looked, i looked and looked again. my conclusion? horseshit. and i stand by that. give me any scrap of "evidence" you consider to be without question give me a few minutes and im sure ive come across it before. try me. however when a real and simple explanation springs up i expect you to deny me instantly and continue your assault.
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - Negentropic - 02-08-2011 01:08 PM
Quote:"None of the live videos from 9/11 showed the plane hitting the tower. I REPEAT. None of them showed the plane hitting the tower. All of them showed the plane crossing the screen and disappearing behind the edge of a tower. There are a good number of videos that emerged later on but of the live videos none of them showed the plane hitting the tower. And simply having a plane cross a screen and disappear behind an edge is just a very simple kind of an effect to do. You don't need to show anything breaking or twisting or anything, it's just basically overlaying a video and then creating a layer mask which is you describe an area of the screen where one of the video elements is going to disappear. That's just a standard tool in any of the video manipulation programs like After-effects and many, many others.
So we notice that we don't actually see the plane hit the tower, we see it disappear and then it sure looks to me that we see the nose of the airplane coming out the other side for about 6 or 7 frames worth of video, for about a third of a second or something and then very quickly we see a fade to black.
... now the official explanation is that what appears to be the nose of the plane was some sort of 'dust explosion.' Because there's no exit wound. We can look at the photos and videos of that area of the tower, of which there are many, there are no broken columns there, there's no hole for anything solid to have come out so it has to be something like dust or debris or something. I have great difficulty understanding how an exploding anything forms the shape of a cone but I'm open the explanations.
Now I read Lawson's paper and what he's saying is that the nose of the airplane should be exactly the same from frame to frame. He's alleging that I'm alleging that an unmoving picture of an airplane was inserted from frame to frame to frame which, of course, they would never do, that's Monty Python / Terry Gilliam style animation and they would never do that. They inserted a video.
Lawson makes a few arguments in his paper, one of which is that in 'September Clues' it is argued that the layer mask was stationary, unmoving and that the helicopter drifted to the left so that the mask was sitting in the wrong place and that is what allowed the nose to come out. What Anthony says in his paper is that if the picture drifted away to where the layer mask was in the wrong place, yes the exit would be revealed but the entrance of the plane would also be messed up. In fact, I agree with Anthony Lawson and I disagree with September Clues. I don't think that they used a stationary mask to do this, I don't think they would have done it that way. Rather I believe they identified where the towers were by use of what's called Chroma key and Luminance key which basically can identify the difference between colors and between something that's bright or dark and could create that mask in real time frame by frame by frame and they would never use just a stationary mask. So I guess I disagree with September Clues and with Lawson.
The second point Lawson makes is he thinks the nose of the plane would look exactly the same, those are his words 'exactly the same' from one frame to the next and because they don't look exactly the same before they hit the tower as they do coming out of the tower, therefore it's not the nose of the airplane. Well, in fact, the nose of the airplane does not look the same from frame to frame, nor should it ever. There's no reason to think that it would. The viewing angle, first of all, changes from frame to frame, and also we're dealing with and analyzing a VHS copy which reduces horizontal resolution, so in some cases the nose of that airplane might make it to the next unit of resolution, the next dot of resolution, in other frames it might fall just a little short. That would make it look pointed in some frames and flat in other frames. And if he would just go and take his screen-cap of the nose of the airplane in every frame, he would notice that it's not going to look exactly the same in any two frames. "
---- Collin Alexander aka Ace Baker - The Dynamic Duo with Jim Fetzer, September 27, 2007
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/index.php?dir=&sort=name&order=asc
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - rsol - 02-08-2011 05:55 PM
Quote:Lawson makes a few arguments in his paper, one of which is that in 'September Clues' it is argued that the layer mask was stationary, unmoving and that the helicopter drifted to the left so that the mask was sitting in the wrong place and that is what allowed the nose to come out. ect etcchroma wont work just like any blue screening as it has aliasing errors. that little blue glow around it. you would see pixels just popping up out of nowhere. camera noise would be masked aswell. its not just point and click. picking out 1 colour as a mask will provide you with gritty inconsistancies. and if you are masking this on a frame by frame nature how come the "mistake"? have you ever tried to mask live video in real time? even green screening has its issues.
The "nose" comes out conveniently when the engine comes out on other videos..coincedence?
nose-out utterly ridiculous, conclusive evidence of video compression.... next!
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - Negentropic - 02-09-2011 10:54 AM
Quote:Fetzer: I was kind of disturbed that he (Lawson) was suggesting that the videos had to be faked as though they were being done right at the time. He had a misunderstanding or gives a false claim about when this preparation would have been done to introduce this fake video as though it had to be done right on the spot !http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/index.php?dir=&sort=name&order=asc
Ace: He makes that point and Nick Irving makes that same point, they call it 'split second timing.' And I want to stress this, I've said this over and over but I want to say it again: NONE OF THE VIDEOS THAT WERE SHOWN LIVE OR CLOSE-TO-LIVE SHOW A PLANE HITTING A TOWER. They show a plane crossing the screen and disappearing behind the edge of a tower. The ones that appear to show the plane melting into the tower, those came out much, much later. So they would have had the airplane image ready to go, prepared long ahead of time, sitting on a transparent channel called an Alpha Channel that could be overlaid. The timing would have to be good, you'd want the plane to disappear behind the edge of the tower and then have the explosion happen but they could easily record the explosion, then overlay the plane, then play the thing back within 15 to 20 seconds and call it 'Live.'
Collin Alexander aka Ace Baker on Dynamic Duo with Jim Fetzer, November 7, 2007
![[Image: noplane3.gif]](http://wtcdemolition.com/noplane3.gif)
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - rsol - 02-09-2011 04:34 PM
ok so you are saying that all the video, including the videos taken by individuals and not just the press were all faked?
Is there any actual proof for this or is it just so as to curcumvent the obvious difficulties and questions raised? not caring that this then brings up new questions?
Do you know anything about camera tracking at all? do you know of the concurrent problems with trying to overlay 2 live feeds with different cameras taking the video? Do you understand the time delay from a feed in a chopper to a central desk? This also presents problems in "live action" whether its recorded or transmitted live.
"NONE OF THE VIDEOS THAT WERE SHOWN LIVE OR CLOSE-TO-LIVE SHOW A PLANE HITTING A TOWER."
This is a lie, a denial of facts, a deception, incorrect. ill go with horseshit.
Why, if the explosion was created, was it consistent with a large object filled with fuel with delays in ejection describing this?
How do you consider that no other video recordings of the event have surfaced? Are you saying every single video was just another government agent? exactly how many people do you involve in this treason? Why can you not account for the elements in life that one cannot predict. millions of people but only "the man" had a video camera? greta plan. aparently these guys know what they are doing. but they are going to risk 1 guy in possibly millions of people having a camcorder to hand.
name what ever price you like, i aint buying it.
Your problem is pride. now you are in this ditch you are determined to dig yourself out. you now have to flail madly at innocents, undermine those that are fighting the same fight and annoying anyone with even a college level understanding of A/V. This isnt about being bullshitted over converting water or free energy. This is about standards and what can and cant be done with accuracy. If you had experience in this field for just a week, you would not cling onto this so tightly.
The other element you share with the nuke911/death ray people AND the chemtrail folks out there, is you seem to think the government so big its infinite in its scope and resources. You are led by fear. this fear makes the government so scary to the point of almost pushing a listener to believe it is way too big for anyone to overcome and one should simply give up. I dont think it is intentional but it does give the impression. Alex jones also has this complex too.... you would be mindful to remember the wizard of OZ and what the man behind the curtain really is.
being wrong is only bad when you cant admit it to yourself.
also any video is done at 25fps ish depending. when you photoshop a static picture you could, with a bit of skill and expertise, "almost" perfect such a meld of images to reasonable degree. then do that again for the next frame and the next and the next and the next and so on. do it on video editing software and such tools are not the same in execution or in accuracy. video noise always ruins a good edit. do it with 2 and you have 2 levels of noise to not only align but to also bring into sync. you cant do that even with 2 cameras of the same make next to each other. you just dont know....from a guy who was making animations pixel by pixel in his youth.
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - Negentropic - 02-14-2011 06:51 AM
Killtown: Air vs. Skyscraper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJhGlohdWhY
Killtown: How NOT to Fake Plane Crash Videos - TinaCart1 Analyzes the 'TinaCart1' video of Flight 175 allegedly crashing into the World Trade Center on 9/11.
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - JazzRoc - 02-14-2011 01:51 PM
@negentropic.
Very ironic.
You point out "mistakes" - when ALL the "mistakes" are in YOUR perception. The GAPS are in YOUR perception.
I've seen three deceleration calculations. all of which showed a 100mph velocity reduction between the first impact on the outside face and the second impact with the far inside face of tower2. YOUR video cut short its frame count BEFORE the tail finished entering the tower. Way to go...
"Odd" shapes in the smoke are VORTICES. The aircraft WAVE VORTICES attached to and remained stuck to the towers for a minute AFTER the planes struck each tower, which I have shown on another thread. I'll be happy to C&P it here. YOU don't know about vortices, but some of the rest of us DO.
"Odd" effects in the videos are due to in-built compression algorithms and variations in settings between entirely different broadcast studios. YOU don't know about compression algorithms and video settings, but some of the rest of us DO.
"Odd" phenomena are characteristic of the natural world: "perfection" isn't. You don't know this, but some of the rest of us DO.
YOU are natural, for instance...
"No-planers" are intensely disliked by other truthers because they exemplify their own behavior, showing it up for what it is, which is based not upon physical evidence and reasoned logic, but on an unreasoning paranoia and fear.
So, more power to your elbow...
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - Dunamis - 02-14-2011 05:01 PM
(02-14-2011 01:51 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: @negentropic...
YOU are natural, for instance...
"No-planers" are intensely disliked by other truthers because they exemplify their own behavior, showing it up for what it is, which is based not upon physical evidence and reasoned logic, but on an unreasoning paranoia and fear.
So, more power to your elbow...
Untrue, and since when do you answer for a vast and varied group of people. Who are you to say who other like or dislike.
I'd personally say they are quite unhelpful, but that has NO bearing upon whether I like them or not. Such a suggestion is immature at best.
RE: 100% Conclusive Proof of No-Planes & TV-Fakery on 9/11 in under 8 minutes - rsol - 02-14-2011 06:01 PM
like or dislike in the realms of debate are irrelevent.
"liking" someone because you agree with them is folly the same can be said for disliking someone who disagrees with you. it wont make them any more right or wrong.
Nice twist in there jazz but your logic lacks. if a "truther" can see that someone has researched their position poorly, states it and offers explanation, exactly how are these "no planers" echoing what 9/11 truthers are?
I think you have a distaste for 9/11 truth people but have only been able to easily destroy the no-plane argument and have decided to tar the rest of the 9/11 movement. perhaps you should lump us with the chemtrail folks out there? ufo hunters? anything else daft so that no one is without doubt that 9/11 truth is for wack jobs? bad form jazz and badly researched.
back to the debate.....
the first video described about the plane taking 11 frames to fly through a building and 11 frames to fly through the air. well... on word answer "inaccurate" nothing more needs to be said.
The second video was made by someone who has obviously never operated a camera before with his "blue screen" idea. he is unaware of something called "fuzzy logic" although it sounds like what i would describe Negentropic's idea of evidence. its actually about finding the "goldilocks zone" with automatic camcorders. btw jazz love that phrase
This is used in order to find correct brightness/colour settings and automate focus. the fact is IF it WERE a blue screen it would most defiantly look like this.
![[Image: kino-flo-blue-screen-1963-550w.jpg]](http://www.kinoflo-lighting.com/images/kino-flo-blue-screen-1963-550w.jpg)
then there is the idea that multiple version of the same video were "put out". this can easily be attributed to compression and re-compression with a user deciding to fit the colours "correctly" to whoever's tastes. It seems a bit silly to offer this as proof without considering possibilities...
Then we get onto the reactions. well. is this really something that you consider evidence at all? is there really a measurement for an authentic reaction? so very loose. ive heard people react more to a spider. these people are hysterical. would a measured silence not arouse more suspicion?
And where's the mystery explosion answer then? why hasnt he answered that one eh??
sorry to disappoint you but having analysed this a little deeper you will notice that it is consistent with when he is saying the word "holy.." this has introduced some distortions to the mike along with anything else said. you can hear something similar when she screams "oh my god" in the quiet bit at about 7seconds in. in her high pitched voice its easier to detect. his voice introduces the distortion at a lower frequency. very difficult to detect when not looking hard enough but without the understanding of what you are hearing, anything could spring to the untrained mind and it does. i could sound like an explosion but not from miles away........ and i dont mean the delay. its a mix of mic compression and "scrunch" from the sound of the mic's diaphragm moving. cheap mics have this problem. it introduces a scratch to low sounds and a active distortion in high frequencies. less so with the bass sounds more so with the high sounds. this is because high frequencies "sound louder" due to more agitation.
If you would like to simulate something similar you can get your loudest tunes, set your stereo to 10 and leave the room for about an hour. then just play anything you like at the volume you like. your speakers should have suffered enough if they simply didn't rip apart. should sound a bit like that...
check a sound at about 14-15 seconds in. thats an explosion. and leading up to that you can hear the sound of the plane as it hits.
What you have to remember is. once all that crap is fed into a computer. it takes the sound and kills really high and really low frequencies to make it easier to process. then makes a compressed "idea" of the sound you eventually hear. yes its been altered. compression sucks.
Anything else?