The "911 Eyewitness" explosion audio

Joined: September 27th, 2008, 6:07 pm

March 5th, 2010, 10:17 pm #1

Are the "911 Eyewitness" explosions real?

Richard A. Siegel videotaped all 3 collapses from across the Hudson, WTC7 only for 2 seconds during its descent. Explosions are heard during each "collapse." Since there are more than 70 known videos of the WTC 2 collapse (there are more), and who knows how many of the WTC 1 event, it would seem the answer to the above question is obvious. Fake audio. Really?

One of the dozens of collapse videos should have corroborated Siegel's audio evidence, right?

The answer does not come that easily. Search this playlist. Now watch Siegel's video.
(download 679.13MB divx avi)

WTC 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnM_crUWBiw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnM_crUWBiw


WTC 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyJO2EkjZrs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyJO2EkjZrs


__________________________________________________________________


Camera Position - a correction

Siegel provides his location for both the WTC 2 and WTC 1 events. Position 1 represents his 9:59 am location and number 2 represents 10:28. (He was asked to move by the authorities, according to his video.)



Siegel calls number 1 "Hoboken Pier" and 2 "Frank Sinatra Pier," but that needs clarification. Here's his view 1:


Notice the circular stair on the right and the text on the Lackawanna Terminal nearby.

Here's a comparison between a Sept. 12, 2001 satellite image from the Google Earth historical image database (first) and a 2009-10 image (below):





Notice Siegel's "Sinatra Pier" is gone! But wait, that wasn't an active pier even in 2001. Here's Siegel's view 2, zoomed out:



And here's a 9/12/2001 satellite image composite comparison:



That places Siegel's position 2 here (2001 then 2010):




Also 2010, regular map view:



This becomes very important when considering the sound delay. A portion of the film revolves around this calculation, with an adjusted audio track and everything. Here are Siegel's measurements for position 2:


Siegel then proceeds to use his measurement in feet to come up with an average of 9.2 seconds.

When in fact the numbers should look like this:

3,370 meters/342.5 = 9.84 seconds ... which should sound like this.

We could argue about the temperature that day. Note that for every degree (C.) change, the difference in sound speed is 60 cm/sec... the colder the slower. I think 65 is accurate, considering the WPIX thermometer at 10:01 read 64. (The exact temp. at 10:28 over the Hudson River, anyone?).

One example of extended audio near the scene of the North Tower "collapse" is with BBC correspondent Steve Evans (when, incidentally, he describes an explosion low on one of the WTC towers).

South Tower examination forthcoming.

Do you perspectivists out there concur?

Opinions?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 27th, 2008, 6:07 pm

March 6th, 2010, 3:15 am #2

Here's a link with thoughts on the footage: http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio02.html
A sound engineer analysis. (Sound engineer. Analysis?)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 30th, 2009, 9:45 pm

March 6th, 2010, 3:36 am #3

Matt~
Here’s what I come up with:
Using the scenes from your video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiDH_5nf8zI

Rick Siegel, Sinatra Park, Hoboken, NJ
Along the eastern shore walkway by the light pole

Distance to SW corner of WTC7 is 2.08 miles
40d 44m 29.90s N 74d 01m 30.90s W
40.741650N -74.025250W
Ground elevation is 2 feet

Rick_Siegel_2.jpg
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 27th, 2008, 6:07 pm

March 6th, 2010, 8:04 am #4

Thanks for the input. Did you use the WTC7 video, then?
...

So, another question that arises out of this is: If the audio is genuine, what does that say about the possibility of the conspirators controlling all 49 of the airplane videos?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 30th, 2009, 9:45 pm

March 6th, 2010, 8:49 am #5

Matt~
I used the WTC7 footage because of the better lit shore line.

About those '49 airplane videos'

I'm partial to the Desk Top View Theory; it could only be one video, duplicated to represent 49 separate perspectives; or as many/any perspective as needed. That's one reason why I do camera positions: in the off chance of finding credible evidence to support the theory. So far, not so much evidence available (or, current evidence is being wrongly interpreted). [And I don't want to hijack your thread.] Just saying.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 8:18 pm

March 6th, 2010, 5:48 pm #6

i mailed siegl a while ago to see if there was any way of getting raw footage from him.
no answer.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 27th, 2008, 6:07 pm

March 6th, 2010, 8:07 pm #7

No problem, Debs. It is relevant. I brought it up.

Good initiative, there, Sticks. I will try also.

Another correction I can make: One part of his film that is inaccurate, when he talks about the "TRIPOD II" wargame exercise, he quotes a mistake. See http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... _fema.html

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: October 26th, 2008, 4:39 pm

March 7th, 2010, 12:21 pm #8

delete!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 27th, 2008, 6:07 pm

March 9th, 2010, 1:26 am #9

Does the Sauret shake correspond with the Siegel explosion? Seems to me the shake is a bit excessive, and a bit late. But I don't know, really. Maybe Sauret's camera was bumped? That seems unlikely to me, him being a professional.

Here's a video where I took out the sound delay to match the images real time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yg9GyQvxf0
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 3rd, 2009, 8:18 pm

March 10th, 2010, 12:27 am #10

hey matt, couple of thoughts (good thread btw)
if a sound is coming from 700ft up the tower, then (using pythagoras) you'd have to add 6.5metres to the distance to siegel's camera (edit. you might have taken this into account already)

also, if the camera in sauret was shaking due to explosions in the towers, then the reverberation from the explosion wouldn't reach the camera instantaneously. this theoretical shockwave would also have a delay that would need to be accounted for. i think shockwaves travel at the speed of sound, but i don't know for certain.
Quote
Like
Share