reply to post by jthomas
The "sounds" were never determined to be from "low frequency bomb signatures" and never recorded by any of the other hundreds of
microphones recording the events near and far. Since explosions produce sounds in a wide frequency range, it would have been both possible to hear
them close up (never reported) and correlation of sounds from different microphones could have easily resolved the matter within days of
Then consider the following five points :
1. Rick Siegel came out years later with his material, due to confiscating of his original footage by the FBI, so there was no case to ""easily
resolve the matter within days of 9/11.""
2. I am convinced the bulk of the microphones you have in mind, have indeed recorded those sounds. They however drowned in them.
That's a new thought for most of you, I'm sure.
Have you EVER seen a 9/11 video, taken from within a radius of half a mile of the events, not spitting out the deafening sounds of hundreds of sirens
of NYFD, NYPD and various other departments? And multiple other very loud noises, passing cars, yelling people, loud radio footage, shouting
firefighters, motors running, horns blowing, and so on and on.
There was literally no quiet recording possible until late in the evening. And even then, you still have the well known New York sound concert
waltzing over you, as usual, and of course during that evening a tad bit more.
So how on earth would you ever recognize the faint low frequency sounds as in Rick Siegel's video in all those very loud video material shot from
Have a good look at Rick Siegel's recordings, taken from two reasonable quiet spots, first at a pier a bit nearer to the Twin Towers, then after
being whisked away, from a bit further pier, but both at the other side of the Hudson River bank. And pay attention to the radio broadcast playing
from his transistor radio, in the background, which delivered a perfect atomic clock reading of all Rick's recordings, since you can hear the hourly
sound signals from that broadcast loud and clear through all his footage.
His video recorder had a directional microphone, so he picked up most of his audio package from the direction he pointed his microphone to.
You can certainly notion, that he was one of the very few, if not the only one, who is coming out of the woodwork with 9/11 footage from a quiet
It is also noteworthy, that Rick has told us, that the FBI raided his office and confiscated all his original audio/video from 9/11, after he started
broadcasting his footage over his radio station. Luckily he had saved a copy in another place.
He has tried to get his original material back from the FBI, without result.
It has never been mentioned as in the possession of the FBI, or NIST. They effectively "buried" it.
What other reason for such erronic official behaviour than trying to dump revolutionary footage, contradicting all the aired Media footage-audio
3. Do not neglect the two videos posted at this forum, from camera's mounted on professional tripods, where damn clear shaking of that tripod can be
observed, within seconds only from collapse initiation of both towers.
4. Ever heard from Moire-pattern comparison of video footage which includes reflections in stationary window glass?
Such as the technique to proof with that Moire-pattern change, just before initiation of tower collapses, the seismic effects of ground shaking on
those window panes in video footage.
Something not one 9/11 researcher ever thought about. I did. You need high resolution footage. Many of us, conscious citizens, have that saved,
5. Low frequency sound emanating from the soil will be difficult to hear or feel nearer to the source, but better from a greater distance, especially
if it travelled first through a massive body of water. Like the Hudson river.
VLF, very low frequency, rings a bell? Very long wave pattern. You feel it in your stomach, when you don't hear it anymore. Look up the hearing range
of adults, in what frequency range it is embedded.
VLF lays NOT in that range!
Again, still nothing to say about my seismic proof of 911 being an inside job?
reply to post by NIcon
NIcon, cleverly paying attention to my sermon there!
There are many controversial remarks, like those, all over the NIST reports.
I will go over them one by one, the seismic evidence is the best example to address now, anyone with basic calculus skills can follow my argumentation
for an inside job.
Even an US Representative or Senator.
NIcon and others, read ""The Seismic Records as Evidence of Controlled Demolition"" at the bottom of this essay by Jim Hoffmann :
That whole essay is very worth reading, and his end conclusion too.