Thanks for that, BH. Your friend expressed very eloquently what many of us think.
I received a U2U from a much-respected member raising a few excellent questions and issues with the footage which I'd like to address here:
The manner of presentation seems to be a little simplistic, almost to the point that it comes across as a bit patronizing.
Firstly anyone who's ever dabbled in video production knows that producing a professional end product is no easy task, nor is it cheap. If after all
the recording is done, you realize that the narrator speaks a little slowly, etc, the option of going back and re-recording is going to be an
unnecessary expense. But in the end what matters here is the message, not how it is delivered IMHO.
Secondly, I think it's easy to forget that many of us here have been studying the events of 9-11 for quite some time now, whereas the majority of
people, which group comprises the target audience for this video, have never considered the possibility of the towers being demolished. If you
bludgeon them with too much information too fast, or clutter it with endless minutiae, many won't have the the patience to think through it; the
message becomes diluted and the effect is lost. We 9-11 enthusiasts revel in the details, but I think for the purposes of mass consumption by the
couch potato public, the presentation style is perfect.
Could the explosion sounds have been enhanced?
The makers of the DVD have stated that they did not alter the sound of the original footage in any way other than standard adjustments required when
transferring footage to DVD format, such as reducing hiss and clipping. Whether you believe them or not is up to you. Rick Siegel has a forum set up
on their site where if you want you can post and directly ask him questions about the DVD:
In the Naudet DVD you don't hear the explosions. If they were as loud as they are in this footage, then they should be deafening in the Naudet
Watch the Naudet video again [which BTW was produced under contract by CBS
], you'll see that it is edited to bits. There is no continuous,
unbroken, unnarrated, clean-sound footage shown of or in the buildings in the time frame where the explosions were picked up by Rick's camera, i.e.
between 60 and 17 seconds before the collapses initiated, with delay accounted for.
At some points in the footage, you can hear the wind blowing across the microphone which causes rumbling sounds similar to what are cited as
explosion sounds. Could this have been the cause of all the sounds?
The footage plays for an extremely lengthy period before the collapses of WTC1 and 2, with no rumbling sounds at all from wind or anything else. Then,
shortly before each collapse, the booms and rumbles are very distinct, with a definite THUMP at the peak of the larger pulses. Also some of the pulses
occur in a rhythmic, rapid succession of four like a drum beat. Then after the collapse of each tower, there are no further booms or rumbles. Later
again, right before the collapse of WTC7, a distinct, peaked boom can be heard. To assume that wind disturbing the microphone would, by a one in a
million chance, restrict itself to only occur just before the collapse of each building on all three separate occasions and in such a rhythmic manner,
would seem to be stretching the reasonable limits of coincidence by a very, very long way.
There are only two instances where I can hear rumbling sounds which appear similar in any way to the pre-collapse sounds, and these are in the
afternoon, a while after the collapse of WTC7. The two sounds can be heard at approximately the 1:02:30 mark, where a sharp sound is heard, and at the
1:03:20~30 mark where a low rumbling can be heard. If you look at the edge of the frame as the sounds occur, you can distinctly see that the camera
shakes quite noticeably at exactly the same time. On one of the instances, a leaf can be seen blowing by the camera as if in a strong gust of wind.
Returning to the earlier, pre-collapse sounds for comparison, the camera is quite steady throughout each pulse, with no wind-shaking evident
Furthermore, comparing the sound of the cited explosions with the wind affecting the microphone, the quality of the sounds are different. The sharp
sound at 1:02:30 is absent the peak thump and intensity of the pre-collapse sounds, nor does it contain the rumbling build-up. The reason for a
build-up to a sound caused by explosion is because the pulse traveling through the Earth travels faster than the speed of sound. You hear a slight
rumble as the ground pulse reaches the listener first, causing vibrations in the air above, ie. sound, and then the direct sound of the event
traveling through the air reaches you an instant later. This phenomenon is not present in the wind on the microphone effect.
There is another forum where Rick Spiegel posted in response to questions about the footage, under the member name "911eyewitness":
I heard the explosions and felt them across the river.
What I know is that the explosions sounded like boom boom boom and on, and that while I remember them coming across the water in a staccato.
I felt those blasts as a staccato beating on the chest across the river. Not like sitting in front of the Bass guitar at a Who concert, but enough to
know there were concussions.
He states quite clearly that the explosion sounds are coming across the river. As such, it basically comes down to what we each personally believe,
perhaps some imagining that this man is simply a huge liar and an elaborate con artist. To each his own, I guess, but there comes a point when healthy
skepticism crosses way over the line into simple pathological denial.
Also keep in mind that a video microphone picks up and records sound differently and not as distinctly as the human ear of someone who is there, and
is further muddied by the compression of the .avi format video file that we are assessing here.
A few other points of note:
* The explosions heard in this footage correspond with and validate all of those witness reports of explosions which we have read, yet have been
suspiciously absent from ALL mainstream media since not long after the events, and have been constantly denied and discredited by debunkers.
Explosions were also mentioned by reporters on the ground on the day, reports which have also since disappeared into the memory hole.
* Smoke can be seen rising from the bases of each tower immediately following the explosions. There is some smoke present near the base of WTC2 before
the explosions, but a sudden and sharp increase in smoke immediately following one of the explosion pulses is most noticeable at the base of WTC1, to
which the camera has a direct line of sight. Pure, amazing coincidence? You be the judge.
* Sound is a funny thing, particularly when recorded by microphones, and also when affected by structures, water, and other things. There is a 9-11
video called "The First 24 Hours". One stage of the video was filmed from a location closer to the WTC complex than Rick's camera. The microphone
captures very clearly the sound of the plane impacting and exploding into WTC2, like a heavy clap. Yet when the building collapses, it does not pick
up any rumbling from the collapse, nor any sound of the debris hitting the ground at all like it should. Listening to it, it's as if the building
were made of fluff. This is a prime example of how different sound equipment, different video compression methods, and different locations can all
affect and pick up sound in dofferent ways.
* Recorded in real-time as the events were transpiring, Rick's camera picked up an ongoing radio news broadcast. On it there are many telling
interviews and statements by reporters. One of them is an interview with an emergency worker on-site, conducted just after the collapse of WTC7. Here
is a partial transcription:
"I was just standing there...you know we were watching the building actually because it was on fire, the bottom floors of the building were on
fire. And we heard this sound that sounded like a clap of thunder, turned around we were shocked to see that the building was...well it
looked like there was a shock wave ripping through the building and the windows all busted out...you know it was horrifying. Then about a
second later the bottom floor caved out and the building followed after that."
Again, the above testimony recorded live and never heard again, directly corresponds with and validates the explosion boom picked up just before the
collapse of WTC7.
While we can raise questions, saying it could have been this or could it have been that, I think the footage, the sound, and the relation of the
events and all the evidence put together, pretty much speaks for itself. It's simply a matter of what each of us personally believe. => There will
never be footage come out of a helicopter firing missiles at the towers, or some guy depressing a Wile. E. Coyote plunger with an Acme wire running
into WTC7 just before it implodes. But the question that really matters is, have enough evidences come out and enough disturbing questions
consistently gone unanswered that an independent, real investigation should be opened into the events of 9-11? And the answer is a
[edit on 2005-12-11 by wecomeinpeace]