What We Saw - Bob & Bri (Not what we heard)

[Moving On]

I was very excited when I originally started watching this video. The proximity and sound quality was finally going to answer the sound of explosions issue.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903&q=bob+bri&hl=en

But then when I got to 14:07 and realized it had been fast forwarded through to the collapse I was a little disappointed. Then I thought maybe they got the second collapse. But when I got to 19:40 I was disappointed again. They started to respond to something with the tower still standing and then one of her "oh my god's" is cut off. Then by the time you see the tower again they have zoomed in and the building is well into its collapse.

Has anybody looked into this? Can somebody contact them and get the continuous footage prior to and up through the collapse?

It certainly seems like a good opportunity to put the sound of explosions issue to rest.

Let me know what you find!

 

[Blutarsky]

Something tells me nothing will every put these things "to rest" no matter how concrete the evidence. People are positing starwars deathrays and nuclear devices as possible variables in the explainations for 9/11. I don't have much (any) hope for putting any of this garbage "to rest."

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There's a thread around here somewhere where this video is discussed. Can't find it through my cursory searching this morning though.

 

[W6102LA]

Something tells me nothing will every put these things "to rest" no matter how concrete the evidence. People are positing starwars deathrays and nuclear devices as possible variables in the explainations for 9/11. I don't have much (any) hope for putting any of this garbage "to rest."

I agree, just like the Moon Landing, JFK etc etc, 5 years allready gone by since 9/11

 

[firecoins]

I agree, just like the Moon Landing, JFK etc etc, 5 years allready gone by since 9/11

Most of this stuff has been marginalized. However 9/11 was a much bigger event. An event that unfolded on national television in the internet and cell phone age.

 

[W6102LA]

Most of this stuff has been marginalized. However 9/11 was a much bigger event. An event that unfolded on national television in the internet and cell phone age.

Yes, the internet has certainly added a new dimension

 

[Moving On]

There's a thread around here somewhere where this video is discussed. Can't find it through my cursory searching this morning though.

I searched Bob and Bri prior to posting this thread. I did not mean to double up if it has already been discussed.

 

[Moving On]

I have been reading Google comments on this now. At 7:53 there is a white flash with a pop above the top dark band on the left face of the building followed by another bright flash a little lower with no subsequent sound that I can detect.

 

[bob_kark]

I agree, just like the Moon Landing, JFK etc etc, 5 years allready gone by since 9/11

5 years "allegedly" gone by, you mean. Something sounds really fishy about that figure. There really should be an independent investigation.

 

[gorgg]

They appear to have a blog:
wtcbpc.blogspot.com/index.html

From the FAQ: (They used it as an autoreply message as well)

Q. Isn't this video missing important scenes?
A. We did not capture the impact of either plane or the start of either building's collapse. As many have surmised, the impacts of the airplanes and collapses of both buildings did catch us by surprise.

Q. Why did you edit this video?
A. The version we released on 9-11-2006 was intentionally and obviously (using dissolves) edited for length and size only. About 10 minutes of mostly redundant video was removed. None of the media services could host the unedited file at sufficiently high resolution.

Q. Will you release the unedited version?
A. Because of interest in this video, we intend to make the unedited version available via bittorrent (Revver has offered to seed the torrent). This will take several days due to the size of the file. Please do not request a copy of the original file.

In the comments:

what we saw said...

Neither of us heard any explosions other than the planes crashing into the towers. The collapse of each tower was accompanied by a loud rumble which sounded and felt like an earthquake.

10/15/2006 1:43 PM

 

[Moving On]

At 12:15 they say it was a military plane that came into the South Tower. Obviously they are not aircraft ID experts.

But coupled with Marc Birnbach's testimony it is of note.

"On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach who said he saw the plane 'crash into the South Tower.' 'It definitely did not look like a commercial plane,' Birnbach said on air. 'I didn't see any windows on the sides.'"

I know PM debunked portions of this.

FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

I notice that they did not say (despite how far away he was) if he stuck to his window story or not.

I am not a fan of In Plane Site and windows are very hard to see at that speed and at a distance. I would be inclined to associate the pieces of fuselage with windows in them as evidence for a commercial aircraft.

Just interesting to note the perceptions of different people.

 

[alexg]

They appear to have a blog:
wtcbpc.blogspot.com/index.html

From the FAQ: (They used it as an autoreply message as well)
In the comments:

I wondered about this too Russell. But this makes perfect sense. They didn't film the whole thing but after each collision they grabbed up the camersa and started shooting. Unless I am missing something.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes this video was discussed about a month ago. The thing that this video shows me, more than anything else, is how much debris from the north tower actually came down and struck the SOUTH SIDE of WTC 7.

TAM

 

[alexg]

'Military plane' explained:

here's a common sense explanation - everyone was wondering after the first collision if it was intentional or an accident, the second collision answered this question, thus the second plane was likely either a hijacked airliner or a military plane. It came in fast and deliberately smashed the WTC. Quick, what was it? She said military which was a good guess. Her point may simply have been 'that's no accident, this is clearly an act of war'.

ETA She might have meant that it didn't look like an airliner, it looked like a military plane (in the sense of it's shape and or markings) but there is no reason to assume this. She could easily have meant it's actions implied military intent.

 

[T.A.M.]

At 12:15 they say it was a military plane that came into the South Tower. Obviously they are not aircraft ID experts.

But coupled with Marc Birnbach's testimony it is of note.

"On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach who said he saw the plane 'crash into the South Tower.' 'It definitely did not look like a commercial plane,' Birnbach said on air. 'I didn't see any windows on the sides.'"

I know PM debunked portions of this.

FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

I notice that they did not say (despite how far away he was) if he stuck to his window story or not.

I am not a fan of In Plane Site and windows are very hard to see at that speed and at a distance. I would be inclined to associate the pieces of fuselage with windows in them as evidence for a commercial aircraft.

Just interesting to note the perceptions of different people.

Honest answer Russ. Once again, it is refreshing to see someone see through the cherry picking, and realize that what we have are testimonies of two witnesses, both caught off guard, both from a fair distance, who said they saw a "military plane". Personally, I think that would be the first guess most would make, as most would not expect a commercial airliner to be flying so low, and from that distance it would be very hard to see "windows". especially this woman's account, which was about the 2nd plane, and from her angle, at the time, the airspace around both towers was full of smoke from the first impact. As well, there is forensic evidence, plane debris, found on site, that has a section of the main part of the plane, with windows in it.

TAM

 

[Moving On]

Q. Isn't this video missing important scenes?
A. We did not capture the impact of either plane or the start of either building's collapse. As many have surmised, the impacts of the airplanes and collapses of both buildings did catch us by surprise.

They did partially capture the second impact fireball.

I have to disagree on catching the building collapses. 14:07 appears to be sped up as in other sections.

19:40 CLEARLY indicates they were responding to something then her "Oh my god" was cut off, the camera is zoomed in and we continue with the collapse in progress. Something was skipped.

"Please do not request a copy of the original file."

Why no original file release? Sorry but I have to put a serious case of "reserved opinion" on this one.

 

[DavidJames]

Why no original file release? Sorry but I have to put a serious case of "reserved opinion" on this one.

What am I missing, here is their full answer (bolding mine).

Because of interest in this video, we intend to make the unedited version available via bittorrent (Revver has offered to seed the torrent). This will take several days due to the size of the file. Please do not request a copy of the original file.

Isn't that a copy of the orginal file?

 

[Blutarsky]

Speaking of eyewitness evidence reminds me of my second year Evidence class in law school. My professor always said that the problem with eyewitness evidence is that three people "witness" the same accident. Witness 1 sees A. Witness 2 sees B. Witness 3 doesn't see a d@mned thing.

 

[firecoins]

look, there were millions of witnesses in lower Manhattan/Brooklyn/Jersey City that saw the second plane. 2 witnesses guessed they saw a military plane. It does not really matter because the second plane is widely vidoetaped. Amateur and professional vidoegraphers filmed the plane from every angle.

 

[LashL]

They actually addressed the "military" plane question on their blog as follows:

Q. Does Bri believe she saw a military plane?

A. Bri's comment regarding the "military" plane was due to her seeing a silhouette of the plane and therefore assuming black coloration. Her initial thought was that the plane was approaching the south tower to help fight the fire. There is nothing in our recollection to suggest that events of the day occurred in any way other than seen on the video.

And, in any event, firecoins is correct - the second plane was caught on film and it is beyond dispute that it was a commercial airliner.