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

[Mancman]

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!

With regard to the 'edit' at 19:40, we can hear live CNN coverage in the background.

Here is that CNN footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5bVVc8bhac

The tower begins to collapse as the presenter says "in washington there is a large fire", at 8:23 in.

In 'what we saw', at 19:40 the man says 'Oh my god' as the CNN presenter says the exact same sentence.


Something that strikes me about this footage is the massive growth in fire spread that can be seen in WTC1. We all know how bunk the CT pet favourite 'small, diminishing fires' stuff is, but this comparison is still shocking:

 

[Moving On]

With regard to the 'edit' at 19:40, we can hear live CNN coverage in the background.

Here is that CNN footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5bVVc8bhac

The tower begins to collapse as the presenter says "in washington there is a large fire", at 8:23 in.

In 'what we saw', at 19:40 the man says 'Oh my god' as the CNN presenter says the exact same sentence.

Mancman,

You get the award for the most useful post yet.

First observation:

The flashes in the Bob & Bri video at 7:53 are simply falling glass. If you watch carefully it is two flashes from the same piece falling. To confirm this, go to the 7:56 area to see it continue its fall in between the bands. Also watch closely around the 7:44 area and you can see another one there above the top band briefly. I don't know what the "pop" is but it is not related to the glass in my opinion.

Thank you for the CNN soundtrack. It was painstaking but I was able to create a timeline from it. It answered a couple of questions. I won't force you through the details - a summary should suffice.

Second Observation:

In the What We Saw video after the last dissolve ends at 19:22 they shoot continuous footage from 19:23 to 19:41 when the video is cut. It is at the 19:30-32 second mark in this video we should hear the first explosion that the Siegel video associates with the North tower collapse. It is not there.

I have gone back and found the original release of his video and compared it to the new one. The sound quality is better now but there has been no manipulated sound alteration in my opinion. I don't know what would account for the sound in his video at that point. Wind is a possibility since I found this recording where somebody was talking about the collapse of WTC7 meaning that obviously all collapses were over. In the background at about 2:08 into it you hear most likely wind that sounds similar to Siegel's "explosion sounds" prior to the North tower collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVdnFFNbPK8

I have to admit in Siegel's video the fact that the sound occurs there is anomalous. I believe that in the first and second tower collapses the rumbles of the collapses are accurate though. It is just the sounds preceding the North tower collapse in question. I will look at the South Tower sounds later as time allows.

Now for Bob and Bri. Bob and Bri both say "oh my god" during the 19:40-41 time frame which would correspond to the visual recognition of the collapse. This is matched to a visual link between their video and Siegels. Bri's "oh my god" is obviously cut off at 19:41. Then using the CNN audio it is indicated very clearly that 5 seconds of their recording is missing. It is not dissolved - just cut or not recorded. We won't know until the unedited version is released.

Bob and Bri would be subject to an approximately 1.5 second sound delay. So you have to figure that to the five seconds missing which means for 5 seconds starting 1.5 seconds before Bri is cut off we have no audio record. We don't hear any sound before Bob says "oh my god" at 19:40 to when Bri's is cut off at 19:41. Bri's cut off would have occurred about the time the sound from whatever made Bob say "oh my god" arrived.

When you go back to Siegel's video and listen to the sound associated with the collapse, forgetting the anomalous spikes preceding that time frame, there is loud sound in the 5 seconds missing from Bob and Bri's account that can be associated with the collapse. But in the radio audio of Siegel's account you can hear a reporter, Joan Fleischer (sp?) saying there were no explosions prior to the collapse between 39:37 and 40:05. This was not highlighted by text as the reports of explosions had been, so I have to agree opinion manipulation was in effect.

So it seems there were no explosions preceding the North Tower collapse by any significant time separation. The sounds appear to have been consolidated within the event. When time allows I will look for explosion quotes regarding the North Tower collapse to asses proximity to the event for those.

Because of the 5 seconds of audio/video missing from Bob and Bri's account we don't know if there were distinct explosions embedded into the collapse event. Even if there were, they would obviously be open to interpretation given the general sound of the collapse.

I have an email in to Rick Siegel alerting him of this and requesting a response.

Here are the raw materials to confirm this:

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

What We Saw - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903&q=what+we+saw&hl=en

CNN - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5bVVc8bhac

Russell

 

[Pardalis]

Here, at about 3:50 in the video, we can clearly hear the reporter say that there was not an explosion.

 

[Moving On]

Here, at about 3:50 in the video, we can clearly hear the reporter say that there was not an explosion.

Pardalis,

I don't know if you were referring to the above post or not. The above post was in regards to the North Tower. Aaron Brown here is referring to the South Tower. In the reference you made it seems he is clarifying his terminology. With things moving so fast I don't think he had any time to specifically define anything at that point.

".....and then just in the last several minutes there has been a second explosion, or at least, perhaps not an explosion, perhaps part of the building simply collapsed, and that's what we saw and that's what were looking at....."

I am looking at The South Tower collapse now compared in the videos.

Russell

 

[gumboot]

Pardalis,

I don't know if you were referring to the above post or not. The above post was in regards to the North Tower. Aaron Brown here is referring to the South Tower. In the reference you made it seems he is clarifying his terminology. With things moving so fast I don't think he had any time to specifically define anything at that point.

".....and then just in the last several minutes there has been a second explosion, or at least, perhaps not an explosion, perhaps part of the building simply collapsed, and that's what we saw and that's what were looking at....."

I am looking at The South Tower collapse now compared in the videos.

Russell

Interestingly, virtually every account of explosions I have heard from New York is referring to either the impact of the two aircraft, or the collapse itself.

-Gumboot

 

[Moving On]

Interestingly, virtually every account of explosions I have heard from New York is referring to either the impact of the two aircraft, or the collapse itself.

-Gumboot

Gumboot,

Please take the time to read my post on the North Tower collapse analysis from the two videos and the CNN audio. I came to that conclusion as well.

I work on this stuff and it just appears people skip it over it and make comments without information sometimes.

Russell

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot,

Please take the time to read my post on the North Tower collapse analysis from the two videos and the CNN audio. I came to that conclusion as well.

I work on this stuff and it just appears people skip it over it and make comments without information sometimes.

Russell

Sorry,

My comment wasn't directed specifically at you or your post. It was more of a general musing. You have come to this conclusion in regard to specific comments. I am merely musing that ALL the accounts I have come across are of the same nature.

-Gumboot

 

[Pardalis]

The above post was in regards to the North Tower. Aaron Brown here is referring to the South Tower.

Man, you really are playing dumb.

Who f*ing cares what tower it was?

There were no explosions before, during or after they fell.

I am looking at The South Tower collapse now compared in the videos.

Keep looking. You'll never find it.

 

[alexg]

Sorry, I'm coming in the middle of your discussion. I take it we are agreed that A. Brown used the term explosion because he heard the collapse and saw the smoke but was yet aware of exactly what had happened?

ETA re: the south tower, first collapse.

 

[Moving On]

Man, you really are playing dumb.

Who f*ing cares what tower it was?

There were no explosions before, during or after they fell.



Keep looking. You'll never find it.

Pardalis,

Since this discussion seems to upset you so - is there any way you could just avoid reading my posts?

Or if you just must - is there any way you could refrain from posting angry replies?

Russell

 

[Moving On]

Sorry, I'm coming in the middle of your discussion. I take it we are agreed that A. Brown used the term explosion because he heard the collapse and saw the smoke but was yet aware of exactly what had happened?

ETA re: the south tower, first collapse.

alexg,

Just for that quote it appears that way - yes.

But in the following post there was a reporter with a clear vantage point who definitively states there was no explosion prior to the North Tower collapse right after it happened (paragraph that starts with "When you go back to Siegel's video.....")

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2038937&postcount=122

The conclusion I made was that there were no prior explosions separate from the sound of the collapse at the North Tower for at least the 18 seconds prior to the collapse.

The 5 seconds of the collapse itself was not recorded in What We Saw.

Russell

 

[Moving On]

The South Tower collapse is useless to evaluate from the What We Saw video.

From the second impact to the first collapse was 56 minutes. Bob and Bri only released 2 minutes and 22 seconds of that time frame. They had one cut and 4 dissolves in between. There is also no continuous audio in the background to even assess that as a timeline.

During that time there were no explosions recorded. It is impossible to compare it to Siegel's video for the above reasons.

At least a portion of the collapse of the South Tower was also dissolved.

We will have to wait for the unedited version to come out.

 

[Pardalis]

OK Russell, sorry if my reply seemed angry.

I just don't know what you want. There are plenty of videos out there, many of which you and other people have posted here. Why are you focusing on this one. What do you think you will find that the other videos don't show?

It all seems quite a useless endeavour, and especially insulting for the people who took the footage in the OP.

By the way, have you contacted them yet?

 

[gumboot]

The South Tower collapse is useless to evaluate from the What We Saw video.

From the second impact to the first collapse was 56 minutes. Bob and Bri only released 2 minutes and 22 seconds of that time frame. They had one cut and 4 dissolves in between. There is also no continuous audio in the background to even assess that as a timeline.

During that time there were no explosions recorded. It is impossible to compare it to Siegel's video for the above reasons.

At least a portion of the collapse of the South Tower was also dissolved.

We will have to wait for the unedited version to come out.

Russell,

Yet again, I strongly suggest you watch the Naudet footage. As far as I am aware, no-one captured video prior to and during either collapse that was closer than their footage.

-Gumboot

 

[Moving On]

OK Russell, sorry if my reply seemed angry.

I just don't know what you want. There are plenty of videos out there, many of which you and other people have posted here. Why are you focusing on this one. What do you think you will find that the other videos don't show?

It all seems quite a useless endeavour, and especially insulting for the people who took the footage in the OP.

By the way, have you contacted them yet?

Pardalis,

It is new to me is all I can say. A study of the two videos side by side timelined to the CNN audio did reveal some new information and a conclusion that is solid though.

I don't intend to insult anybody. If my brother took the video I would look at it the same way. All of the Pentagon witnesses I have interviewed appreciated the fact I did not treat them poorly as had been the case in past experiences for them. I respect humanity!

I have NO intention of bothering them. I will wait for the unedited version to see what is left after that.

I answered my questions about the North Tower. If there is anything left after the release of the unedited version I may politely contact them.

Russell

 

[Pardalis]

Point taken Russell.

A study of the two videos side by side timelined to the CNN audio did reveal some new information and a conclusion that is solid though.

What new information have you discovered?

 

[Moving On]

Russell,

Yet again, I strongly suggest you watch the Naudet footage. As far as I am aware, no-one captured video prior to and during either collapse that was closer than their footage.

-Gumboot

Do I have to order it? Will their footage help with the South Tower?

The North Tower is answered for me - there were no audible explosions separate from the sounds of the collapse for at least the 18 seconds prior to the collapse.

I know there was at least one powerful explosion at WTC7 prior to the collapse. I listened to two different videos of it and will look at that later.

Russell

 

[LashL]

With things moving so fast I don't think he had any time to specifically define anything at that point.

Just saving this for future reference. Most CTers seem to think that every word anyone spoke while in the midst of the largest, most unprecedented, hellacious disaster of their lives should be taken to mean only what the CTers interpret it to mean. E.g. "explosion" = explosives; "explosions" = bombs; "it blew up" = explosives; "pull" = controlled demolition; "it was as if a bomb went off" = a bomb really did go off; etc., that this just struck me as worth keeping.

As an aside, could you please remind me, Russell, did you argue earlier that it was somehow odd that the firefighters pulled people away from WTC7 before it collapsed? I am just asking because I don't really want to have to go back and read the last several hundred posts and I don't recall your position on that particular issue.

 

[LashL]

Do I have to order it?

I have it on video, and I have a machine that will apparently copy/convert it to numerous other formats (as noted earlier, I'm no videophile but I can probably figure out how to convert it to dvd at least). If you want a copy, I'd be happy to try, or at the very least just copy the video and send it to you.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy,

Maybe it's just because I'm 45 and stuff like that but the name calling thing is just not becoming.

If you perceive me as having run away from anything then I would have to say you are entitled to your viewpoint.

That thread dipped so far below my standards for communication, that I opted to not be a part of it any more. I truly did not expect that kind of behavior from the people here.

I promise you I have not one shred of fear. If the official story is true then I will be relieved to have finally resolved all of this. Then my website will reflect what I believe. It's that simple. My conversion from no plane to a plane at the Pentagon has left me an "agent" and an outsider - who cares? I am not attached to the outcome.

Sometimes projecting fear onto another is indicitive of a need for a look inside oneself. What if for instance you came accross something that changed your mind, would you be able to withstand the loss of your position of being the skeptic guru? Think about it.

Even once, has the expectation of other people caused you to look too quickly passed something? Have you ever had to put something out of your mind since you're not allowed to think it?

I can play mind games all day. If this thread degrades into the same classless communication as the last one I will move on by preference as well.

Russell

Russell, your assumption that I have not changed my mind about anything in response to new facts, is unfounded.

You made a similar post to this in the "Gravy Appreciation Thread," suggesting that I may be blinded by...something. To correct your misconception, I do not identify myself as a "skeptic guru." For the past few months, I have been correcting factual and logical errors about the events of 9/11 when I see them. That is just one of many things I do. It's not a subject that interests me greatly, and I don't enjoy it, but I think it's important. Most of my friends have no idea that I do this, and these issues have never come up in conversations with anyone I know.

Russell, my statements about 9/11 are available for all to read. 3800 posts here, hundreds of pages of material on the internet. If you care to point out my errors, I'll gladly correct them. You can speculate all you want about if I might be wrong. That's not helpful. You'll need to show me why my methods are poor or my facts wrong.

The questions aren't going away. I don't care to speculate about why you won't answer them, but the fact that you won't doesn't speak well for your search for the "truth." You've come to the wrong place if you can't face tough questions.