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

[Moving On]

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.

LashL,

I agree with that.

BUT they also claim to have been caught by surprise by the collapses which I strongly believe is not the case.

1) At 14:07 does it appear that they fast forward?

2) At 19:40 what did we miss from when they started to respond to a stimuli, her "oh my god" was cut off, the camera was zoomed and the collapse is in progress?

We have many reports of sounds like explosions from the firefighters themselves. Yes - the sounds may have different interpretations, but something was still heard.

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."

So are all of the firefighter accounts invalid now? Is it just another 9/11 coincidence that the sections of an essentially otherwise continuous video that could answer these questions is "skipped" over?

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.

Huh??? But they can now? There are many films longer than this all over the internet.

These are good questions. The only way to handle this in my opinion now is 100% full disclosure on their part.

Russell

 

[Moving On]

What am I missing, here is their full answer (bolding mine).Isn't that a copy of the orginal file?

I can post a photo on the Internet and yes - it is a copy of the original (perhaps with the dpi and size changed).

But it is not an exact duplicate of the unaltered original file.

This is what these people need to release now. If they don't it will only fuel conspiracy.

They could sell it and donate it to a charity of their choice.

 

[LashL]

LashL,

I agree with that.

BUT they also claim to have been caught by surprise by the collapses which I strongly believe is not the case.

That sounds like an accusation. What exactly are you accusing them of? Why should they not be surprised by the collapses, just like most of the rest of the world was?

1) At 14:07 does it appear that they fast forward?

I see the part that you are referring to. Perhaps the original will look different; perhaps it's a result of their copying the video to dvd; perhaps it's the result of someone hitting the wrong button whilst grabbing the camera, for all I know. They have graciously provided their email address, so you could just ask them.

2) At 19:40 what did we miss from when they started to respond to a stimuli, her "oh my god" was cut off, the camera was zoomed and the collapse is in progress?

I'll have to watch it again for this pinpoint reference, which I am going to do now - I only got up to the 15 minute mark last night - but see below for my response, generally, to the issue of their filming.

We have many reports of sounds like explosions from the firefighters themselves. Yes - the sounds may have different interpretations, but something was still heard. So are all of the firefighter accounts invalid now?

Of course not. Why would you expect these people in their apartment building to hear the same things as firefighters who were in the towers?

Is it just another 9/11 coincidence that the sections of an essentially otherwise continuous video that could answer these questions is "skipped" over?

You're leaping there, Russell, when you assume that they "skipped over" anything as that implies intent. Think about it. These people were filming from their apartment. They were not filming continuously for the hour and three quarters that the events took place, obviously, given the length of the video and the known length of time that lapsed between events. It appears to me that they were responding to events and turned the camera back on when subsequent things occurred, such as the sound of the second plane, the sound of the first collapse beginning, the sound of the second collapse beginning.

Huh??? But they can now?

I don't know anything about hosting videos online, sorry.

These are good questions. The only way to handle this in my opinion now is 100% full disclosure on their part.

As mentioned above, their email address is available. I do not envy these people. I'm sure they've been bombarded by CTers accusing them of all manner of nefarious things. It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that CTers expect perfection from a couple of innocent people caught up in the horror of the events and are quick to infer malice where none is likely present.

That said, you have shown yourself to be respectful and I trust that when you do contact these people, you will do so with your usual courtesy. Please let the rest of know what they have to say in response to your questions.

 

[realitybites]

I can post a photo on the Internet and yes - it is a copy of the original (perhaps with the dpi and size changed).

But it is not an exact duplicate of the unaltered original file.

This is what these people need to release now. If they don't it will only fuel conspiracy.

They could sell it and donate it to a charity of their choice.

I can see your point Russ, but they're under no obligation to do anything. They didn't even have to release what they originally did. I'm sure they're kicking themselves right now for having done so, thanks in part to the how the truth movement started questioning every last pixel.

They stated that they will host the full unedited version through a torrent site. I don't see why that isn't satisfactory for you.

(Let me also say, however, that from what little I've seen of your conduct here at JREF, you're an extremely fresh breath of air and I'm happy to see a civilized, thoughtful debate take place.)

 

[Skibum]

FYI

Original thread...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63660

link to original release of video...

http://www.revver.com/view.php?id=59686
much better quality

 

[Pardalis]

These are good questions. The only way to handle this in my opinion now is 100% full disclosure on their part.

Wow, you're really trying hard to see foul play where there is none. I got to give it to you.

 

[LashL]

Russell,

I have watched again the portions that you mentioned. I'm not convinced that the first one is "fast forwarding" but could simply be the result of someone quickly moving the camera upward in reaction to the beginning of the first collapse.

At the 19 minute mark - and I'm sure this was discussed on another thread back around September 11 when the video was first released - the quick on/off/on could easily be the result of someone grabbing the camera to pan upward in response to the beginning of the second collapse and accidentally hitting the record or pause button.

Again, bear in mind that these people were in the middle of horrific events, and there is no reason to expect perfection from them. Moreover, there is nothing in it for them in releasing the video. They were clearly affected by the events and I have no reason to suspect them of anything nefarious.

Of course, I have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty what actually happened at those two spots in the video that you are concerned about and I am only surmising what might have happened. Moreover, I do not possess any particular expertise in video analysis, so again, I am only speculating. Perhaps Bob and Bri can answer your questions to your satisfaction, and I do hope that you'll share them with us here.

 

[Moving On]

LashL,

That sounds like an accusation. What exactly are you accusing them of? Why should they not be surprised by the collapses, just like most of the rest of the world was?

Watch the segments I mention. I said, "which I strongly believe is not the case". You said, "That sounds like an accusation." I thought we had agreed here that what things look like and sound like are irrelevant!

In their intro they say, ".....and the potential for misuse." and ".....without soundtracks and hype often seen in other accounts." This indicates to me they had some concerns about content. Truly, what would there be to be misused if everything was 100% straightforward? They have also obviously seen other interpretations that they disagree with. That to me allows for the possibility of them skipping over something if they perceived it as contributing to a position they disagree with.

The size explanation for editing makes no sense. There was already plenty of redundancy in the video and if that was the case it should have been edited down to 15 minutes. Again, looking at this without any intent to accuse, it just seems to be less than full disclosure. The Internet is full of files much larger. They didn't just invent technology since the release of this that suddenly allowed for the unedited video to be stored and played.

I do empathise with them and the can of worms that has been unleashed. I imagine they do regret it. I too disagree with the methods of some of the other CTers.

Of course not. Why would you expect these people in their apartment building to hear the same things as firefighters who were in the towers?

The sound quality is great in general, as well as their proximity. I also believe some of those firefighter accounts were from outside the structure.

They were not filming continuously for the hour and three quarters that the events took place, obviously, given the length of the video and the known length of time that lapsed between events.

This could only be determined from the original file with the associated embedded data. It may be the case but now I believe it should be disclosed in full.

That said, you have shown yourself to be respectful and I trust that when you do contact these people, you will do so with your usual courtesy. Please let the rest of know what they have to say in response to your questions.

Thank you. I have attempted to post on their blog. I will refrain from bothering them via email for now. I will wait and see how this unfolds and get more information before adding to their problems.

Russell

 

[Pardalis]

This indicates to me they had some concerns about content.

Content? Well you know.. maybe 3000 people dying is enough concern right?

This is a mass murder we are witnessing, remember?

The size explanation for editing makes no sense. There was already plenty of redundancy in the video and if that was the case it should have been edited down to 15 minutes. Again, looking at this without any intent to accuse, it just seems to be less than full disclosure.

As Lashl said, ASK THEM.

 

[Moving On]

I can see your point Russ, but they're under no obligation to do anything. They didn't even have to release what they originally did. I'm sure they're kicking themselves right now for having done so, thanks in part to the how the truth movement started questioning every last pixel.

They stated that they will host the full unedited version through a torrent site. I don't see why that isn't satisfactory for you.

(Let me also say, however, that from what little I've seen of your conduct here at JREF, you're an extremely fresh breath of air and I'm happy to see a civilized, thoughtful debate take place.)

reality,

Thank you.

I realize they owe us nothing. I believe now the most expeditious way for them to quell any theories for the benefit of all is full disclosure. This is sadly going to affect them more than they probably imagined in their wildest projections.

If the new unedited version is released and it fills in all the gaps - then it is over.

Russell

 

[Moving On]

Content? Well you know.. maybe 3000 people dying is enough concern right?

This is a mass murder we are witnessing, remember?



As Lashl said, ASK THEM.

They specifically differentiated between the "emotional and personal nature" of the content and the "potential for misuse".

 

[LashL]

LashL,

Watch the segments I mention. I said, "which I strongly believe is not the case". You said, "That sounds like an accusation." I thought we had agreed here that what things look like and sound like are irrelevant!

I did watch the segments you mentioned, and responded in another post about that. Please explain why you "strongly believe" that they were not surprised by the collapse, though, particularly the first one.

In their intro they say, ".....and the potential for misuse." and ".....without soundtracks and hype often seen in other accounts." This indicates to me they had some concerns about content. Truly, what would there be to be misused if everything was 100% straightforward? They have also obviously seen other interpretations that they disagree with. That to me allows for the possibility of them skipping over something if they perceived it as contributing to a position they disagree with.

They are probably referring to the potential for misuse by CTers, such as that which has, in fact, occurred; that is, the CTer propensity for taking things apart pixel by pixel to find "anomolies" in order to fuel their CTs. What possible motive could they have for "skipping over" something? They were there, up close and personal, and were clearly affected by the events. Don't you think that if they were going to "skip over" things, they would have edited out the "military plane" quotes and the part that says the second plane went into the same building as the first, for instance?

The size explanation for editing makes no sense. There was already plenty of redundancy in the video and if that was the case it should have been edited down to 15 minutes. Again, looking at this without any intent to accuse, it just seems to be less than full disclosure. The Internet is full of files much larger. They didn't just invent technology since the release of this that suddenly allowed for the unedited video to be stored and played.

As I said above, I do not know anything about internet video hosting. I take it that they aren't too savvy about it either.

The sound quality is great in general, as well as their proximity. I also believe some of those firefighter accounts were from outside the structure.

Sure, the sound quality is good, but obviously it is picking up the sounds from within their apartment louder than anything else, which is normal. It also picks up the sirens throughout while their window is open. I would not expect them to hear the same things as the firefighters inside the buildings, nor would I expect them to hear the same things as people on the ground.

This could only be determined from the original file with the associated embedded data. It may be the case but now I believe it should be disclosed in full.

They say on their blog that they edited out 10 minutes. The video as presented is 26 minutes long. Unless you think they are lying, this means that the original was approximately 36 minutes long, which is clearly not continuous filming of the events over the time span it obviously covers. It begins after the first plane hit and ends a minimum of several minutes after the second collapse, a time span that is inarguably a minimum of close to two hours.

They owe nothing to anyone, but they have indicated that they will, in fact, release the unedited version.

Thank you. I have attempted to post on their blog. I will refrain from bothering them via email for now. I will wait and see how this unfolds and get more information before adding to their problems.

Fair enough.

 

[Blutarsky]

I believe now the most expeditious way for them to quell any theories for the benefit of all is full disclosure.

It will do nothing of the sort. As I stated before, nothing will be good enough; no evidence conclusive enough, to keep someone from fabricating a story or "just asking more questions." People are too entrenched, have too much of their time and self-identity wrapped up in this nonsense to just let it go.

 

[LashL]

If the new unedited version is released and it fills in all the gaps - then it is over.

Since they have said specifically that they did not capture the impact of either plane or the start of either building's collapse, what gaps would you expect the unedited version to fill?

 

[Moving On]

At 12:47-12:49 they show the base of the North Tower shortly after the second impact and there is no smoke. Then there appears to be two fast forwards.

Then at 14:02 they begin to zoom in on smoke at the base of the North tower. It appears to be rolling from the direction of the South Tower prior to the collapse in the same location there had previously been none. The smoke appears to be pretty active and in motion. Then it appears the collapse begins.

Then we zoom through the rest of the collapse with the same sound associated with it as in the earlier obvious fast forwards.

My question - is there other footage or photos of the time in between the second impact and collapse that shows if this smoke was there the whole time?

 

[Moving On]

Since they have said specifically that they did not capture the impact of either plane or the start of either building's collapse, what gaps would you expect the unedited version to fill?

LashL,

That is why I am waiting. I don't know.

OK - in fairness, if it was just continuous video and there were no unusual events, what could anybody misuse? The two bright flashes and "pop" sound with the first one?

Your case is well presented in terms of them not editing out the military plane comment. The same could be said about the flashes. If they were trying to "hide" something those two events would be good candidates for editing.

The appearance of the first collapse being fast forwarded through with the same sound as earlier segments that were fast forwards is going to raise questions.

Then when they are startled by something prior to the second collapse and the audio is interrupted, the camera zoomed and the collapse is well into progress for the finish is also going to raise questions.

It may just be bad timing that the two audio sequences that are most in question are missing, forwarded through or whatever is unfortunate.

My point is that they had obviously seen accounts they disagreed with and they were concerned about "misuse". So if there was something they were concerned about it may have been avoided by them. This is reasonable and not accusatory as to their intent. Maybe they just wanted to prevent further controversy but instead inadvertently caused it.

Who knows? We will have to wait and see.

Russell

 

[GlennB]

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

A bit like this ?

 

[Moving On]

QUESTION:

Has this segment of Rick Siegel's 9/11 Eyewitness video been debunked here?

Assuming the sound was correctly synchronized for the distance, is this not considered evidence of prior explosions?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7152476643487115997&q=eyewitness&hl=en

 

[CurtC]

We've had experienced sound people who say that the pops on Siegel's video sound just like wind noise on a small microphone, like the one built into a video cam.

But the main evidence against it is the fact that cameras right there in Manhattan didn't hear those same sounds. I've seen lots of videos of the collapses taken in Manhattan, with no pre-collapse booms; why is the Bob & Bri video special in telling us whether they were heard?

 

[Pardalis]

QUESTION:

Has this segment of Rick Siegel's 9/11 Eyewitness video been debunked here?

ANSWER:

Yes. There's a search engine on this board, you might want to use it.