• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Russell Pickering said:
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.
Click to expand...

Point of clarification... The smoke in those frames is not at the base of the North tower, it's quite a ways down the street.

To further deal with the smoke issue, watch this CT video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=9/11+eye+witness&hl=en

It is from roughly the same angle, albeit, farther away.

Ignore the annotations and focus on the bottom left portion of the north tower (which is in the foreground). There is, from the beginning of the video, until the collapse of the south tower, a white smoke coming from the ground, behind the north tower (from the same area as the smoke in the b&b video). The CTist who made this waits for a "bang" and then claims a "dust cloud" rose from that area. He ignores the fact that it was there the entire time.
 
Last edited:
CurtC said:
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?
Click to expand...

CurtC,

I have two requests:

1) Can somebody specifically explain and demonstrate other places in Rick's video where wind creates the type and resonance of sound heard in correlation to the building collapses?

2) Can somebody link me to footage with clear sound that corresponds directly to the same time frame as Rick's recording for comparison?

Just watch and listen to the video yourself.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness&hl=en

Go to about 38 minutes in and just listen. You don't have wind before? Then the wind also just happens to correspond the the actual rumble of the towers collapsing? Then it appears there are no significant wind conditions on the water? The various sounds in the environment sound pretty clear to me.

I presume if the camera shown in his interview is the same camera he used on that day that the microphone is built in. Even when he pans all around the pier, I don't hear wind rumble.

I am going to attempt to find time keys in the new What We Saw video and Rick's video to see what corresponds.

Ignore the helicopter conspiracy and all that crap but just go listen to it for yourself.

I definitely need some education on this one. I am open.

Russell
 
Russell Pickering said:
CurtC,

I have two requests:

1) Can somebody specifically explain and demonstrate other places in Rick's video where wind creates the type and resonance of sound heard in correlation to the building collapses?

2) Can somebody link me to footage with clear sound that corresponds directly to the same time frame as Rick's recording for comparison?

Just watch and listen to the video yourself.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness&hl=en

Go to about 38 minutes in and just listen. You don't have wind before? Then the wind also just happens to correspond the the actual rumble of the towers collapsing? Then it appears there are no significant wind conditions on the water? The various sounds in the environment sound pretty clear to me.

I presume if the camera shown in his interview is the same camera he used on that day that the microphone is built in. Even when he pans all around the pier, I don't hear wind rumble.

I am going to attempt to find time keys in the new What We Saw video and Rick's video to see what corresponds.

Ignore the helicopter conspiracy and all that crap but just go listen to it for yourself.

I definitely need some education on this one. I am open.

Russell
Click to expand...
Russell, what's your explanation for massive "explosions" that are heard miles away but that are not heard or recorded by any means where they supposedly happened?

Also, you still haven't answered my questions in the other thread.
 
Gumboot,

I am working with you here on this one.

My best guess is this is because while the very top of the building is initiating collapse, there is nothing worth seeing at the bottom, which is what they filmed.
Click to expand...

I sat through panning across parking lots and other boring portions. To me any portion of the collapse if it was the base or not is history.

Parking lots versus the building collapse?

I can't imagine any logic to dissolve through any portion of the collapse. Especially "for length and size only." because "None of the media services could host the unedited file at sufficiently high resolution."

How much size would they save from that dissolve?

Russell
 
Is this the video taken from the park across the water or whatever?

In that video, if this is the one in question, there's a lot of atmospheric noise - there's clearly other people nearby etc. The sounds we hear prior to collapse do not originate at the WTC - we know this from collaborating footage from beneath the towers, and inside them.

The range of explanations are myriad. Someone could have bumped the tripod. It could be a car door opening or closing. Someone could have kicked a soda can down the road.

The range are explanations are so myriad that this video, on its own, is evidence of nothing.

-Gumboot
 
Russell Pickering said:
I sat through panning across parking lots and other boring portions.
Click to expand...

Sorry the video wasn't entertaining enough for you.

I can't imagine any logic to dissolve through any portion of the collapse. Especially "for length and size only." because "None of the media services could host the unedited file at sufficiently high resolution."
Click to expand...

Maybe you could ask them.
 
Russell Pickering said:
Gumboot,

Parking lots versus the building collapse?

I can't imagine any logic to dissolve through any portion of the collapse. Especially "for length and size only." because "None of the media services could host the unedited file at sufficiently high resolution."

How much size would they save from that dissolve?

Russell
Click to expand...


I agree with you that is was a poor selection. However, in regards to their footage, the bit they cut out didn't show the collapse. You didn't see any signs of collapse until after they zoomed out.

How much size was saved? We don't know. We have no idea how much time was skipped there. Maybe they left the camera looking at the base of the building and went off to have a shower, and it was left running for a while.

Bear in mind they are not looking at the footage in the way you or I would. What they consider "interesting" isn't what you consider interesting. For example, "parking lots" was showing rescue operations and surrounding collateral damage, in relatively good detail. In contrast the bottom of the towers was showing nothing interesting, and was very poor detail.

In any event, it will be interesting to see their full footage without the dissolves.

-Gumboot
 
gumboot said:
Is this the video taken from the park across the water or whatever?

In that video, if this is the one in question, there's a lot of atmospheric noise - there's clearly other people nearby etc. The sounds we hear prior to collapse do not originate at the WTC - we know this from collaborating footage from beneath the towers, and inside them.

The range of explanations are myriad. Someone could have bumped the tripod. It could be a car door opening or closing. Someone could have kicked a soda can down the road.

The range are explanations are so myriad that this video, on its own, is evidence of nothing.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Gumboot,

I challenge anybody to watch it starting at 38 minutes in and explain it to me as a tripod bump or a car door. I am not being rude here I am willing to see it differently.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness&hl=en

Can you link me to footage with good sound closer to the towers that is recorded in the exact same time frame?

Russell
 
Gravy,

Russell, what's your explanation for massive "explosions" that are heard miles away but that are not heard or recorded by any means where they supposedly happened?

Also, you still haven't answered my questions in the other thread.
Click to expand...

I am seeking that explanation now as we speak.

Can you link me to closer footage with good sound that covers that exact time frame?

Since you wish to make it look like I haven't explained my position to you on the last thread I will post the PM here that I sent to you today.

"Gravy,

When I am done with something I am done with it.

That thread degenerated to the point of no return.

I plan on starting another thread with questions I have about the towers that will primarily be for you. I realized much of what I know about the towers has not been from direct research and thus contains assumptions.

I have some questions and things to catch up on before I can even speak about it further. In the new thread I start I will finish my analysis of Silverstein's comments with some questions as well.

I hope the new thread will maintain a civil spirit. I am here to learn, question and progress in formulating my beliefs.

Russell"

Why don't you share your reply with us?

Russell
 
This video is in Hoboken and somehow has sound-sync'd video... you can't do any analysis from this, at all. Trying to explain something that's been obviously editted is pretty much impossible.
 
Anti-sophist said:
This video is in Hoboken and somehow has sound-sync'd video... you can't do any analysis from this, at all. Trying to explain something that's been obviously editted is pretty much impossible.
Click to expand...

Anti,

It is played as it was originally recorded and then they calculated the travel distance of the sound and adjusted it so that the sound and the visuals were "real time" in relation to each other. The collapse rumble corresponds - does it not?

I am just asking questions here.

Russell
 
Russell Pickering said:
Gumboot,

I challenge anybody to watch it starting at 38 minutes in and explain it to me as a tripod bump or a car door. I am not being rude here I am willing to see it differently.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness&hl=en

Can you link me to footage with good sound closer to the towers that is recorded in the exact same time frame?

Russell
Click to expand...

And you were doing reasonably well up until then.

"Challenging" people to "explain" to you that which you do not understand yourself, and that which you have no expertise in, and that which you have clearly pre-determined to be something else illustrates someone in full CTer form, not objective observation.

Add to that your apparent expectation that others should provide you with evidence to disprove CTer BS, rather than finding evidence yourself to support CTer BS...

Tsk tsk.

Let me reverse it for you. I challenge you or anyone else to provide footage with good sound close to the towers that is recorded in the exact same time frame that illustrates that this was anything other than what the "official story" (to use the CT vernacular) denotes.

Oh, I almost forgot to add, hey, I'm just asking questions here.
 
Last edited:
I watched 4 minutes of that video. It is the same footage I have previously seen, except it has been modified.

The explosions in the first 5 minutes are fake. I have previously seen the footage and the sounds were not the same.

It is very OBVIOUS they have been faked as well. The sound on the recording has clearly been fiddled with - as evident by the corresponding change in the radio voices.

Ironically this is the same footage that a CTer previously brought to this site to argue the explosive angle (except his version did not have the fake enhanced explosion noises). The one good thing about this video is it provides an excellent view of the building core remaining standing well after the rest of the building collapsed - it was this video that produced estimated collapse times of 30 seconds +.

I will again refer you to the Naudet footage, which does not capture any explosions whatsoever.

-Gumboot
 
LashL said:
And you were doing so well up until then.

"Challenging" people to "explain" to you that which you do not understand yourself, and that which you have no expertise in, and that which you have clearly pre-determined to be something else is true CTer form.

Along with expecting others to provide you with evidence to disprove CTer BS, rather than finding evidence yourself to support CTer BS.

Tsk tsk.

Let me reverse it for you. I challenge you or anyone else to provide footage with good sound close to the towers that is recorded in the exact same time frame that illustrates that this was anything other than what the "official story" (to use the CT vernacular) denotes.
Click to expand...

LashL,

I have been challenged here and always do my best to respond.

I do not have a significant direct knowledge base on the towers. So then, this is not a place where one can learn? It seems if the "solution" to me being a CT is to learn - I am trying. Correct?

I would be glad to provide clear sound footage to correspond to Rick's video. That was my hope in this new video - but it was missed, dissolved or editied during the critical times.

What I am saying is that in all of the footage I am aware of regarding the tower collapses I have not seen one that had good sound for the same time frames. I was wondering if anybody could link me to one.

In the absence of such footage I would have to defer to eyewitness acounts which as we both know support Rick's video more than not.

Russell
 
gumboot said:
I watched 4 minutes of that video. It is the same footage I have previously seen, except it has been modified.

The explosions in the first 5 minutes are fake. I have previously seen the footage and the sounds were not the same.

It is very OBVIOUS they have been faked as well. The sound on the recording has clearly been fiddled with - as evident by the corresponding change in the radio voices.

Ironically this is the same footage that a CTer previously brought to this site to argue the explosive angle (except his version did not have the fake enhanced explosion noises). The one good thing about this video is it provides an excellent view of the building core remaining standing well after the rest of the building collapsed - it was this video that produced estimated collapse times of 30 seconds +.

I will again refer you to the Naudet footage, which does not capture any explosions whatsoever.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Gumboot,

So it is OK to accuse Rick Siegel or somebody of faking that video but not for me to inquire of the new video?

What evidence is there for the faking of that video?

Russell
 
I'm just saying whatever we say, you keep holding on to your beliefs, even though you say that you want to learn.
 
Pardalis said:
Q: Did the tree fall in the forest?

A: Well, if nobody heard it, then it didn't

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Here we go again.

Did we hit a sore spot?

All the heavyweights show up and distract a thread again?

I do pay attention to what subjects push buttons.

Hmmmmmmmmmm...........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom