It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


"9/11 Eyewitness" video, additional important data.

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 04:33 PM
I have some important considerations for Rick Siegel, the maker of the video from the Hudson River pier, taken from across the river, on 9/11.

The name of his video is " 911 Eyewitness ":
Look at the "Scientific review of the WTC Collapses".

Rick, have you and your co-producers ever considered that the speed of sound in fresh water is about 4 times faster than in air, and will be even faster in salt water.
(I think the Hudson River near Manhattan is salty seawater, which is a tad bit denser than fresh water, that's about 1500 m/s then).

That means that you and I have to consider two audio-signals for every audio-event, arriving at your video recorder’s microphone on 9/11, when you were filming the events in Manhattan from that pier.
The first one arriving through water 4x faster than the second one arriving by air, just a few seconds later.

But, we also have to consider the very strong possibility of muffling effects of the audio through air, due to wind shear.
The speed of sound varies with temperature. Since temperature and sound velocity normally decrease with increasing altitude, sound is refracted upward, away from listeners on the ground, creating an acoustic shadow (no sound) at some distance from the source.
There will be no sound heard by spectators in those spots, in spite of seeing the event from a far distance.

Wind shear of 4 m/s/km can produce refraction equal to a typical temperature lapse rate of 7.5 °C/km. Higher values of wind gradient will refract sound downward toward the surface in the downwind direction, eliminating the acoustic shadow on the downwind side. This will increase the audibility of sounds downwind. This downwind refraction effect occurs because there is a wind gradient; the sound is not being carried along by the wind. Thus downwind from the Twin towers there was a better possibility to hear sounds from collapses and the moments just before them.

Sadly enough, Rick Siegel was positioned up wind from the Twin Towers, his camera view was aimed south, and the wind was blowing from north to south, roughly.

These bits of data give food to some interesting possibilities.
It was fairly possible that Rick’s camera microphone recorded sounds propagated through the water of the river, but didn’t pick up sounds arriving through the air, since he could have stood in an acoustic shadow.

In that case, Rick and his fellow video editors perhaps came to the wrong conclusions regarding the amount of time the video of the events had to be shifted to show the audio simultaneous with the actual view of what happened far across the Hudson River.

In case the microphone solely picked up sounds traveling through water, the camera view and its audio are about 4 times further out of synchronization as they think.
They recalculated and recombined the pictures with the audio as if the viewer now is situated at the Twin Towers, using the speed of sound in air and the calculated distance from the pier to the towers across the river, but I am quite sure, those low frequency sounds were picked up from the water, when those sounds collided with the steel from the pier Rick was standing on.

I would like to see a few of my fellow "scientists" bow themselves over this interesting new theory of mine, to see if the 9/11 Eyewitness events can now be lined up with my thesis about the huge energy events recorded by LDEO on 9/11, 6 seconds before the first visual signs of initiation of global collapses of all three towers.

Take note again:
Since temperature and thus the speed of sound normally decrease with increasing altitude, sound is refracted upward, away from listeners on the ground, creating an acoustic shadow at some distance from the source. The decrease of the sound speed with height is referred to as a negative sound speed gradient.

The speed of sound in steel is about 5100 to 6100 m/s (about 16000 to 19000 ft/s), the differences in the medium depending on density and stiffness.

Speed of sound in:
Air (sea level standard conditions): from 340 m/s to 343 m/s, at 0°C it's 331.3 m/s.
Water (fresh water): 1435 m/s to 1433 m/s, depending also on eventual temperature gradients.
Sub marines behind the sonar screen will know the strange behavior of sound in waters with temperature gradients, layers of cooler and warmer sea water.
In salt water that is free of air bubbles or suspended sediment, sound travels at about 1500 m/s.
I’ll offer some more excerpts from this link to chew on:
In a non-dispersive medium sound speed is independent of sound frequency, so the speeds of energy transport and sound propagation are the same. For audible sounds air is a non-dispersive medium.
In a dispersive medium sound speed is a function of sound frequency. The spatial and temporal distribution of a propagating disturbance will continually change. Each frequency component propagates at its own phase velocity, while the energy of the disturbance propagates at the group velocity. The same phenomenon occurs with light waves.

In general, solids will have a higher speed of sound than liquids, and liquids will have a higher speed of sound than gases.

[edit on 3/8/08 by LaBTop]

posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 08:35 PM
Whoa... there goes another weekend!
I'm still trying to find time to read your other information on Flight 93 etc..

I see exactly where you're going with this, and I hope to be able to help you out with it!

EDIT TO ADD: Have you tried contacting him here?

Would be good to get him over here, to give his input.

[edit on 3-8-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 10:44 PM

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Would be good to get him over here, to give his input.

Actually, he's been here. I'm not sure what exactly happened but he got himself banned.

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 02:19 AM
Yes, people who know deep down inside that they are right, and have the evidence to show they are right, can get VERY upset when confronted with intentional liars and their obfuscating techniques.

This board management should reconsider his membership.
Or he should sent a representative, with more patience and a thick skin, to aid us with this new theory.

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 12:27 PM

Originally posted by LaBTop
Yes, people who know deep down inside that they are right, and have the evidence to show they are right, can get VERY upset when confronted with intentional liars and their obfuscating techniques.

I agree. I believe those individuals are here only to do just that. Piss us off enough that we make a mistake and get ourselves banned. I've almost fallen for this technique and still get trapped in it every once in a while.

Keep up the good work LaBTop.

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 05:14 PM
Geez talk about twisting the facts to prove your theory

First weather was clear, temps high 70's, low 80's. winds were calm
mostly under 10mph from west/northwest. How do I know ? Because
I LIVE here! about 10 miles west of NYC.

Here is weather map from that day

Notice high pressure over Ohio - which means light winds and warm
sunny temps

Second - water transmitting the sound? Wtc buildings were in center
of Manhattan , about 1/2 mile from closest water. Don't you think
you are reaching?

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 06:30 PM
No, because sound waves would travel thorugh the ground, to the interface between the gruond and the water, then through the pier, up through the legs of the tripod to the video recorder.

Depending on how shallow the water is, and how deep the foundations of the pier go, it could even be transmitted through the bedrock directly to the pier.

You may not necessarily hear it, being stood there, but because the camera is directly touching the surface, the microphone can pick up sound transmitted through the ground.

posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 07:56 PM

Originally posted by thedman
Second - water transmitting the sound? Wtc buildings were in center
of Manhattan , about 1/2 mile from closest water. Don't you think
you are reaching?

Actually, since the WTC basin is 60 or so feet under the water table, I think he is not reaching at all. Unless I'm incorrect in that statement?

Do you know how they constructed the basin? How deep the water table is there?

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 10:51 AM
To thedman, the angry skeptic:
There exists an immense lack of reading and subsequent comprehension skill at this forum.
Before jumping in, take the time to try to really understand what I am hinting at, and what possible scenarios I already touched upon in my text.
You only see and choose one, and hurry to use the so well-known, by now, disdain, to impulsively react, without taking the time to let it sink in and analyze what I offer.
I have seen you offer good solid factual information at first, but lately you tend to show a lot of anger and disdain to people with a different perspective.
Take my advice, calmly analyze what gets posted, and try to keep a neutral stance on skepticism.
I had the same reaction aimed at opponents, but later learned from many of them, that there are many instances where I had to admit that there were two different sides on that specific dime.

And on a side note, knowing you said to be a firefighter, one of my main reasons to stay focused on what I know to be true, are the transcripts and the voices of all these BRAVE firefighters, policemen and other rescue personnel who died on that day, giving their lives for an already lost case.
And I am still, after all these years, getting VERY emotional and ANGRY when remembering the despair in their voices, and the sudden understanding just before collapse began.
Don’t give in to emotional prejudice; keep using cold logic in your analysis.

For your info, I have edited the following text about 200 times, before posting it, to be as precise as can be to leave no room for misunderstanding, even for the less schooled readers here.
It took many hours to compose, just this one post.
If you re-read all my nearly 1000 posts on this board, you will find the same aspiration in the research ones.
I hope the skeptics show me the same courtesy from now on.

There are three possible sound paths and arrivals of a WTC-specific sound signal, picked up by Richard's microphone, and one visual real-time WTC-event belonging to that WTC-specific sound signal picked up by the CCD chip of the camera at light speed:

1. One sound path solely by water, and its arrival “?” seconds later at the mike:
This is the acoustic shadow option, uncertain, but possible.

2. One sound path solely by air, and its arrival “? + x” seconds later at the mike:
This is Rick’s sound-and-view synchronization option, uncertain, but possible.

3. One sound path by water, followed by one sound path by air, and thus 2 seemingly different, but in fact event-identical signals were arriving at the mike with a fixed interval of “x” seconds:
This is my, LT’s option, quite certain, but proof must be provided by observing Rick’s tape data.

The impression on the listener of an event-identical sound signal can be different, for a sound passed through water and one through air, since water is a dispersive medium and in such, sound speed is a function of sound frequency.
The spatial and temporal distribution of a propagating disturbance will continually change.
Each frequency component propagates at its own phase velocity, while the energy of the disturbance propagates at the group velocity.
The same phenomenon occurs with light waves.
And since the sounds picked up by Rick’s microphone were low frequency, these can be dispersed differently through salt water, for different frequencies, all still originating from the same event-identical sound.
This is the most complicated form of my, LT’s option; seismic signals and water carried sound signals were arriving as a train of signals, followed substantially later by the air carried signals.
Most certain, but needs further proof.

In other words, you could feel the total seismic energy of the same event-identical sound arrive through the bedrock at circa 2.0 km/s via the pressure receptors in your feet’s soles standing firm on Rick’s pier, then you heard and still felt the arrival of the water-carried signals at 1500 m/s (1.5 km/s), and then you heard the arrival of the air-carried signals at 341.5 m/s (0.34 km/s).

How far apart expressed in seconds, these three arrivals were, will be your next task.
Seismic energy arrival = 0
Sound by water arrival = + ?
Sound by air arrival = + ??
To solve the unknowns, we have to go to Rick’s 911 Eyewitness video to look-up their calculations for the distance to the Towers from the first pier he filmed off, and the second pier he filmed off, after being whisked away from the first pier by security officers.

Have a look at the following data first, which can also assist you in your own calculations for the aforementioned factors “?” and “x” in the 3 possible sound paths:

A. The acceleration of falling debris due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2.
B. The approximate speed of seismic signals was 2 km/s for New York STATE bedrock from Manhattan to LDEO’s Palisades station; how fast it was, exactly, between the Twin Towers and WTC 7, and the 2 piers at Hoboken from where Richard Siegel was filming, is unknown to me, it can be different from the LDEO calculated speed of 2 km/s, but it won’t be substantially much less or more, in my opinion.
C. Rick’s tape showed these 9 time stamps for the first, WTC 2 (South Tower) pre-collapse sounds:

#1. 09:55:??
Interval unknown
#2. ,,,,:56:05
interval 5 sec.
#3. ,,,,:,,,,:10
interval 11 sec.
#4. ,,,,:,,,,:21
interval 30 sec.
#5. ,,,,:,,,,:51
interval 3 sec.
#6. ,,,,:,,,,:54
interval 2 sec.
#7. ,,,,:,,,,:56
interval 1 sec.
#8. ,,,,:,,,,:57
interval 15 sec.
#9. ,,,,:58:12

Intervals: ?? – 5 – 11 – 30 – 3 – 2 – 1 – 15 seconds.

Start the 11:04 long embedded video, pause at 00:31.

You and I need the raw data from the Research Edition, to make an educated guess about this theory.


"911 Raw The Research Edition" is the complete recording of the destruction of the North and South Towers. The sound is not enhanced, the video not altered. It is captured in its raw original data state and duplicated on this DVD as an encyclopedic work for research into the real causes of the three cement and steel skyscrapers destroyed in New York City that day.

"911 Raw The Research Edition" DVD Plus EXTRAS!

* Raw South and North Tower destruction recordings
* Raw Time-lapse of WTC 7 Implosion.
* Raw video from the night of September 11, 2001
* Raw video from the day of September 12, 2001
* Special Video interview with Richard A. Siegel

It is very instructive to listen to his embedded videos in this post and thread by Insolubrious:

This is quite fascinating in my opinion. It’s a time lapse of Siegel’s footage with enhanced audio to emphasis the explosions.

Firstly, the recording has been sped up to approx 600%; this allows us to make new visual observations in terms of the progress of collapse. What is more revealing though is the audio. When you speed up the audio the very low bass frequencies that are often not picked up by laptop or low quality hi-fi speakers becomes audible, since your shifting the lower harmonics into a higher frequency range, although the sounds become shorter in length the audio details are still there.

Secondly, I filtered the audio dampening all frequencies above 200-300 Hz allowing for the bass (just the explosions) to pass through. You may notice people talking like chipmunks in the background which is the wins 10-10 News broadcast on fast forward.

Read much more from that Opening Post, and I hope you’ll be interested to read the whole thread, which is in my opinion a very important one.

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link :

Insolubrious: Anyone next to the site is going to be hearing much different things to anyone at Hoboken. Remember bass travels much further than treble or mid range frequencies. Also a standing low frequency wave takes a large distance to form correctly. Anyone at the site would be overwhelmed with mid to high range frequencies along with significant earth shaking and noise but may not notice the lower frequency things happening so much. At least to the untrained ear. Where as over at Hoboken the higher frequencies don't have enough energy to travel the distance but the bass certainly does, in fact it is an ideal location since there is a large open area of water to carry the sound and to allow the bass to form. Additionally sound travels further and faster through water because it is denser than air.

Insolubrious : “”Gottago - yes I could do a version at normal speed however it would be 600% longer.””
That’s a clear misunderstanding between you and him. Gottago asked for appliance of the same technique for the time span in those SECONDS where we can hear only the pre-collapse sounds, for all three towers. Not doing the WHOLE video at normal speed, only pieces of for ex. 1 MINUTE before the collapses of WTC 2, 1 and 7.
That’s working over 3 minutes at normal speed, times 600% longer, that’s 600 minutes for pre-collapse sounds of each tower. That’s 10 hours work?

I am VERY, VERY much interested to see you put the effort into those 60 seconds pre-collapse for especially tower 1 and 7. Not that I am not interested in tower 2, but I heard those sounds pretty good already. Not so for 1 and 7. Pretty please react and tell me it’s possible ?

Insolubrious: North tower collapse is very interesting too, you can hear it coming, growing in amplitude long before the final big boom kicks in, almost like a reverse echo effect. There are two big swells then the big boom, then the collapse with a massive series of explosions. Very scary stuff. Sounds almost identical to WTC7 coming down.

A note on the first line of this poster in Insolubrious thread, Guesswhotoo6 :

One should also observe that the explosion(s) noise recorded here (LT: Hoboken!) in this clip would have been deafening across the river in Manhattan. There is no MSM footage which corresponds to the sound events recorded in sync with this clip. That is suspicious as evidence of a cover-up by itself. The MSM clips of the WTC1 and 2 collapses are muted at best and do not contain loud events just prior. These events must have been extremely loud for people near Ground Zero. Witness testimony does agree with the audio track as far as the general number (many) of explosions and the fact that they were loud. During the WTC1 and 2 fall sequencing the explosions up high may well have been less audible at street level. In addition, the demolition "wave" roughly progressed (accelerated) at 9.8m/S^2, thus very quickly the rate was on the order of milliseconds between detonations.

His text has some good ideas, but is a bit difficult to understand at first.
He does not see the other possibility, that all those sounds were low frequency sounds, which can be felt, but nearly not heard, even in Manhattan.
After careful contemplating all the points he bring to the table, it’s clear that in his opinion the main networks filtered all the loud events out from their footage shot by their camera men very near to Ground Zero at the moments of collapse for all three towers.
As I said before, there are reports of military propaganda personnel in charge of the editing rooms at the main networks, who channeled all this 9/11 footage through to all the minor networks. :
Read this post and play this video :

Insolubrious: found the approx. resonant frequency of the explosives and emphasized it (around 86hz it seems), then added a expander to change the dynamics of the amplitude (this makes loud sounds louder and quiet sounds quieter).

p.s the resonant frequency of the explosives may actually be a signature of the type explosive devices used and could contribute to identifying them. They are very low frequency and produce ground shaking which suggests extremely powerful type of explosives. :

Insolubrious: As i mentioned I identified a particularly strong resonant frequency at around 86 Hz but a visual graph could also be generated to represent the audio. The majority of the blasts amplitude was sub 120 Hz. Some of which is expressed in ground shaking which is a very low frequency oscillation that pushes air pressure itself. But isn't necessarily audible, you just feel it and may even become disorientated by it.

He identified the majority of the blast sounds as under 120 Hz frequencies.
More and more the suspicion rises that at least a big part of the demolition of the 3 WTC towers has to have been coming from the use of thermo baric ordinance.
See all or most of my thermobaric post-links on this page:

posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 07:32 PM
Any progress on this?

Could I ask the Admin to reconsider Ricks membership here? I don't know what happened in the past, but given his evidence, I think he could be a great asset.

posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 07:47 PM
I second that notion.
I think it would be better if one guy with a scientific background from his original team who made his video, would register here as a member, and tune in here.
Rick seems to have a short fuse, when opposed.

I'll cross link another very interesting thread about the collapse of WTC 7 and the discrepancies between NIST and the seismological LDEO institute.
If you want, you can read my posts at page 14 of that thread first, it makes my arguments very clear.
Title: Need Unequivocal Evidence of WTC7 Demolition

and another thread with comparable info, read my posts at page 9 :
Title: Seismic Data, explosives and 911 revisited.

And another one, my challenge to NIST:
Title: I challenge NIST Answers to FAQ - Supplement (December 14, 2007)

PS: Mirage, I can't find anywhere in his pages, an email address for Rick or anyone from his team.
Anybody knows? Please inform him then of this thread!

posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 10:57 PM
There is no progress on this, an I see it as a very important subject.
I really would like to hear from somebody who ever bought this DVD from Rick Siegel :
"911 Raw The Research Edition" DVD Plus EXTRAS!

I am very interested to get my hands on this part of it :

* Raw South and North Tower destruction recordings.

Because then we could calculate the sound paths for water and air, and see if we can find overlapping identical sources, which arrived at his microphone at different intervals, but were in fact originating from the same source in time.

new topics

top topics


log in