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

[Russell Pickering]

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!

[Blutarsky]

Something tells me nothing will every put these things "to rest" no matter how concrete the evidence. People are positing starwars deathrays and nuclear devices as possible variables in the explainations for 9/11. I don't have much (any) hope for putting any of this garbage "to rest."

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There's a thread around here somewhere where this video is discussed. Can't find it through my cursory searching this morning though.

[W6102LA]

Something tells me nothing will every put these things "to rest" no matter how concrete the evidence. People are positing starwars deathrays and nuclear devices as possible variables in the explainations for 9/11. I don't have much (any) hope for putting any of this garbage "to rest."

I agree, just like the Moon Landing, JFK etc etc, 5 years allready gone by since 9/11

[firecoins]

I agree, just like the Moon Landing, JFK etc etc, 5 years allready gone by since 9/11
Most of this stuff has been marginalized. However 9/11 was a much bigger event. An event that unfolded on national television in the internet and cell phone age.

[W6102LA]

Most of this stuff has been marginalized. However 9/11 was a much bigger event. An event that unfolded on national television in the internet and cell phone age.
Yes, the internet has certainly added a new dimension

[Russell Pickering]

There's a thread around here somewhere where this video is discussed. Can't find it through my cursory searching this morning though.

I searched Bob and Bri prior to posting this thread. I did not mean to double up if it has already been discussed.

[Russell Pickering]

I have been reading Google comments on this now. At 7:53 there is a white flash with a pop above the top dark band on the left face of the building followed by another bright flash a little lower with no subsequent sound that I can detect.

[bob_kark]

I agree, just like the Moon Landing, JFK etc etc, 5 years allready gone by since 9/11
5 years "allegedly" gone by, you mean. Something sounds really fishy about that figure. There really should be an independent investigation.

[gorgg]

They appear to have a blog:
wtcbpc.blogspot.com/index.html

From the FAQ: (They used it as an autoreply message as well)

Q. Isn't this video missing important scenes?
A. We did not capture the impact of either plane or the start of either building's collapse. As many have surmised, the impacts of the airplanes and collapses of both buildings did catch us by surprise.

Q. Why did you edit this video?
A. The version we released on 9-11-2006 was intentionally and obviously (using dissolves) edited for length and size only. About 10 minutes of mostly redundant video was removed. None of the media services could host the unedited file at sufficiently high resolution.

Q. Will you release the unedited version?
A. Because of interest in this video, we intend to make the unedited version available via bittorrent (Revver has offered to seed the torrent). This will take several days due to the size of the file. Please do not request a copy of the original file.
In the comments:

what we saw said...

Neither of us heard any explosions other than the planes crashing into the towers. The collapse of each tower was accompanied by a loud rumble which sounded and felt like an earthquake.

10/15/2006 1:43 PM

[Russell Pickering]

At 12:15 they say it was a military plane that came into the South Tower. Obviously they are not aircraft ID experts.

But coupled with Marc Birnbach's testimony it is of note.

"On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach who said he saw the plane 'crash into the South Tower.' 'It definitely did not look like a commercial plane,' Birnbach said on air. 'I didn't see any windows on the sides.'"

I know PM debunked portions of this.

FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

I notice that they did not say (despite how far away he was) if he stuck to his window story or not.

I am not a fan of In Plane Site and windows are very hard to see at that speed and at a distance. I would be inclined to associate the pieces of fuselage with windows in them as evidence for a commercial aircraft.

Just interesting to note the perceptions of different people.

[alexg]

They appear to have a blog:
wtcbpc.blogspot.com/index.html

From the FAQ: (They used it as an autoreply message as well)
In the comments:
I wondered about this too Russell. But this makes perfect sense. They didn't film the whole thing but after each collision they grabbed up the camersa and started shooting. Unless I am missing something.

[T.A.M.]

Yes this video was discussed about a month ago. The thing that this video shows me, more than anything else, is how much debris from the north tower actually came down and struck the SOUTH SIDE of WTC 7.

TAM

[alexg]

'Military plane' explained:

here's a common sense explanation - everyone was wondering after the first collision if it was intentional or an accident, the second collision answered this question, thus the second plane was likely either a hijacked airliner or a military plane. It came in fast and deliberately smashed the WTC. Quick, what was it? She said military which was a good guess. Her point may simply have been 'that's no accident, this is clearly an act of war'.

ETA She might have meant that it didn't look like an airliner, it looked like a military plane (in the sense of it's shape and or markings) but there is no reason to assume this. She could easily have meant it's actions implied military intent.

[T.A.M.]

At 12:15 they say it was a military plane that came into the South Tower. Obviously they are not aircraft ID experts.

But coupled with Marc Birnbach's testimony it is of note.

"On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach who said he saw the plane 'crash into the South Tower.' 'It definitely did not look like a commercial plane,' Birnbach said on air. 'I didn't see any windows on the sides.'"

I know PM debunked portions of this.

FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

I notice that they did not say (despite how far away he was) if he stuck to his window story or not.

I am not a fan of In Plane Site and windows are very hard to see at that speed and at a distance. I would be inclined to associate the pieces of fuselage with windows in them as evidence for a commercial aircraft.

Just interesting to note the perceptions of different people.

Honest answer Russ. Once again, it is refreshing to see someone see through the cherry picking, and realize that what we have are testimonies of two witnesses, both caught off guard, both from a fair distance, who said they saw a "military plane". Personally, I think that would be the first guess most would make, as most would not expect a commercial airliner to be flying so low, and from that distance it would be very hard to see "windows". especially this woman's account, which was about the 2nd plane, and from her angle, at the time, the airspace around both towers was full of smoke from the first impact. As well, there is forensic evidence, plane debris, found on site, that has a section of the main part of the plane, with windows in it.

TAM

[Russell Pickering]

Q. Isn't this video missing important scenes?
A. We did not capture the impact of either plane or the start of either building's collapse. As many have surmised, the impacts of the airplanes and collapses of both buildings did catch us by surprise.



They did partially capture the second impact fireball.

I have to disagree on catching the building collapses. 14:07 appears to be sped up as in other sections.

19:40 CLEARLY indicates they were responding to something then her "Oh my god" was cut off, the camera is zoomed in and we continue with the collapse in progress. Something was skipped.

"Please do not request a copy of the original file."

Why no original file release? Sorry but I have to put a serious case of "reserved opinion" on this one.

[DavidJames]

Why no original file release? Sorry but I have to put a serious case of "reserved opinion" on this one.What am I missing, here is their full answer (bolding mine).Because of interest in this video, we intend to make the unedited version available via bittorrent (Revver has offered to seed the torrent). This will take several days due to the size of the file. Please do not request a copy of the original file. Isn't that a copy of the orginal file?

[Blutarsky]

Speaking of eyewitness evidence reminds me of my second year Evidence class in law school. My professor always said that the problem with eyewitness evidence is that three people "witness" the same accident. Witness 1 sees A. Witness 2 sees B. Witness 3 doesn't see a d@mned thing.

[firecoins]

look, there were millions of witnesses in lower Manhattan/Brooklyn/Jersey City that saw the second plane. 2 witnesses guessed they saw a military plane. It does not really matter because the second plane is widely vidoetaped. Amateur and professional vidoegraphers filmed the plane from every angle.

[LashL]

They actually addressed the "military" plane question on their blog as follows:

Q. Does Bri believe she saw a military plane?

A. Bri's comment regarding the "military" plane was due to her seeing a silhouette of the plane and therefore assuming black coloration. Her initial thought was that the plane was approaching the south tower to help fight the fire. There is nothing in our recollection to suggest that events of the day occurred in any way other than seen on the video.

And, in any event, firecoins is correct - the second plane was caught on film and it is beyond dispute that it was a commercial airliner.

[Russell Pickering]

They actually addressed the "military" plane question on their blog as follows:

Q. Does Bri believe she saw a military plane?

A. Bri's comment regarding the "military" plane was due to her seeing a silhouette of the plane and therefore assuming black coloration. Her initial thought was that the plane was approaching the south tower to help fight the fire. There is nothing in our recollection to suggest that events of the day occurred in any way other than seen on the video.

And, in any event, firecoins is correct - the second plane was caught on film and it is beyond dispute that it was a commercial airliner.

LashL,

I agree with that.

BUT they also claim to have been caught by surprise by the collapses which I strongly believe is not the case.

1) At 14:07 does it appear that they fast forward?

2) At 19:40 what did we miss from when they started to respond to a stimuli, her "oh my god" was cut off, the camera was zoomed and the collapse is in progress?

We have many reports of sounds like explosions from the firefighters themselves. Yes - the sounds may have different interpretations, but something was still heard.


what we saw said........"Neither of us heard any explosions other than the planes crashing into the towers. The collapse of each tower was accompanied by a loud rumble which sounded and felt like an earthquake."


So are all of the firefighter accounts invalid now? Is it just another 9/11 coincidence that the sections of an essentially otherwise continuous video that could answer these questions is "skipped" over?


The version we released on 9-11-2006 was intentionally and obviously (using dissolves) edited for length and size only. About 10 minutes of mostly redundant video was removed. None of the media services could host the unedited file at sufficiently high resolution.


Huh??? But they can now? There are many films longer than this all over the internet.

These are good questions. The only way to handle this in my opinion now is 100% full disclosure on their part.

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

What am I missing, here is their full answer (bolding mine).Isn't that a copy of the orginal file?

I can post a photo on the Internet and yes - it is a copy of the original (perhaps with the dpi and size changed).

But it is not an exact duplicate of the unaltered original file.

This is what these people need to release now. If they don't it will only fuel conspiracy.

They could sell it and donate it to a charity of their choice.

[LashL]

LashL,

I agree with that.

BUT they also claim to have been caught by surprise by the collapses which I strongly believe is not the case.

That sounds like an accusation. What exactly are you accusing them of? Why should they not be surprised by the collapses, just like most of the rest of the world was?

1) At 14:07 does it appear that they fast forward?
I see the part that you are referring to. Perhaps the original will look different; perhaps it's a result of their copying the video to dvd; perhaps it's the result of someone hitting the wrong button whilst grabbing the camera, for all I know. They have graciously provided their email address, so you could just ask them.

2) At 19:40 what did we miss from when they started to respond to a stimuli, her "oh my god" was cut off, the camera was zoomed and the collapse is in progress?
I'll have to watch it again for this pinpoint reference, which I am going to do now - I only got up to the 15 minute mark last night - but see below for my response, generally, to the issue of their filming.

We have many reports of sounds like explosions from the firefighters themselves. Yes - the sounds may have different interpretations, but something was still heard. So are all of the firefighter accounts invalid now?

Of course not. Why would you expect these people in their apartment building to hear the same things as firefighters who were in the towers?

Is it just another 9/11 coincidence that the sections of an essentially otherwise continuous video that could answer these questions is "skipped" over?


You're leaping there, Russell, when you assume that they "skipped over" anything as that implies intent. Think about it. These people were filming from their apartment. They were not filming continuously for the hour and three quarters that the events took place, obviously, given the length of the video and the known length of time that lapsed between events. It appears to me that they were responding to events and turned the camera back on when subsequent things occurred, such as the sound of the second plane, the sound of the first collapse beginning, the sound of the second collapse beginning.

Huh??? But they can now?

I don't know anything about hosting videos online, sorry.

These are good questions. The only way to handle this in my opinion now is 100% full disclosure on their part.


As mentioned above, their email address is available. I do not envy these people. I'm sure they've been bombarded by CTers accusing them of all manner of nefarious things. It's unfortunate, in my opinion, that CTers expect perfection from a couple of innocent people caught up in the horror of the events and are quick to infer malice where none is likely present.

That said, you have shown yourself to be respectful and I trust that when you do contact these people, you will do so with your usual courtesy. Please let the rest of know what they have to say in response to your questions.

[realitybites]

I can post a photo on the Internet and yes - it is a copy of the original (perhaps with the dpi and size changed).

But it is not an exact duplicate of the unaltered original file.

This is what these people need to release now. If they don't it will only fuel conspiracy.

They could sell it and donate it to a charity of their choice.
I can see your point Russ, but they're under no obligation to do anything. They didn't even have to release what they originally did. I'm sure they're kicking themselves right now for having done so, thanks in part to the how the truth movement started questioning every last pixel.

They stated that they will host the full unedited version through a torrent site. I don't see why that isn't satisfactory for you.

(Let me also say, however, that from what little I've seen of your conduct here at JREF, you're an extremely fresh breath of air and I'm happy to see a civilized, thoughtful debate take place.)

[Skibum]

FYI

Original thread...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63660

link to original release of video...

http://www.revver.com/view.php?id=59686
much better quality

[Pardalis]

These are good questions. The only way to handle this in my opinion now is 100% full disclosure on their part.

Wow, you're really trying hard to see foul play where there is none. I got to give it to you.

[LashL]

Russell,

I have watched again the portions that you mentioned. I'm not convinced that the first one is "fast forwarding" but could simply be the result of someone quickly moving the camera upward in reaction to the beginning of the first collapse.

At the 19 minute mark - and I'm sure this was discussed on another thread back around September 11 when the video was first released - the quick on/off/on could easily be the result of someone grabbing the camera to pan upward in response to the beginning of the second collapse and accidentally hitting the record or pause button.

Again, bear in mind that these people were in the middle of horrific events, and there is no reason to expect perfection from them. Moreover, there is nothing in it for them in releasing the video. They were clearly affected by the events and I have no reason to suspect them of anything nefarious.

Of course, I have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty what actually happened at those two spots in the video that you are concerned about and I am only surmising what might have happened. Moreover, I do not possess any particular expertise in video analysis, so again, I am only speculating. Perhaps Bob and Bri can answer your questions to your satisfaction, and I do hope that you'll share them with us here.

[Russell Pickering]

LashL,


That sounds like an accusation. What exactly are you accusing them of? Why should they not be surprised by the collapses, just like most of the rest of the world was?



Watch the segments I mention. I said, "which I strongly believe is not the case". You said, "That sounds like an accusation." I thought we had agreed here that what things look like and sound like are irrelevant! :)

In their intro they say, ".....and the potential for misuse." and ".....without soundtracks and hype often seen in other accounts." This indicates to me they had some concerns about content. Truly, what would there be to be misused if everything was 100% straightforward? They have also obviously seen other interpretations that they disagree with. That to me allows for the possibility of them skipping over something if they perceived it as contributing to a position they disagree with.

The size explanation for editing makes no sense. There was already plenty of redundancy in the video and if that was the case it should have been edited down to 15 minutes. Again, looking at this without any intent to accuse, it just seems to be less than full disclosure. The Internet is full of files much larger. They didn't just invent technology since the release of this that suddenly allowed for the unedited video to be stored and played.

I do empathise with them and the can of worms that has been unleashed. I imagine they do regret it. I too disagree with the methods of some of the other CTers.


Of course not. Why would you expect these people in their apartment building to hear the same things as firefighters who were in the towers?


The sound quality is great in general, as well as their proximity. I also believe some of those firefighter accounts were from outside the structure.


They were not filming continuously for the hour and three quarters that the events took place, obviously, given the length of the video and the known length of time that lapsed between events.


This could only be determined from the original file with the associated embedded data. It may be the case but now I believe it should be disclosed in full.


That said, you have shown yourself to be respectful and I trust that when you do contact these people, you will do so with your usual courtesy. Please let the rest of know what they have to say in response to your questions.


Thank you. I have attempted to post on their blog. I will refrain from bothering them via email for now. I will wait and see how this unfolds and get more information before adding to their problems.

Russell

[Pardalis]

This indicates to me they had some concerns about content.

Content? Well you know.. maybe 3000 people dying is enough concern right?

This is a mass murder we are witnessing, remember?

The size explanation for editing makes no sense. There was already plenty of redundancy in the video and if that was the case it should have been edited down to 15 minutes. Again, looking at this without any intent to accuse, it just seems to be less than full disclosure.

As Lashl said, ASK THEM.

[Russell Pickering]

I can see your point Russ, but they're under no obligation to do anything. They didn't even have to release what they originally did. I'm sure they're kicking themselves right now for having done so, thanks in part to the how the truth movement started questioning every last pixel.

They stated that they will host the full unedited version through a torrent site. I don't see why that isn't satisfactory for you.

(Let me also say, however, that from what little I've seen of your conduct here at JREF, you're an extremely fresh breath of air and I'm happy to see a civilized, thoughtful debate take place.)

reality,

Thank you.

I realize they owe us nothing. I believe now the most expeditious way for them to quell any theories for the benefit of all is full disclosure. This is sadly going to affect them more than they probably imagined in their wildest projections.

If the new unedited version is released and it fills in all the gaps - then it is over.

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

Content? Well you know.. maybe 3000 people dying is enough concern right?

This is a mass murder we are witnessing, remember?



As Lashl said, ASK THEM.

They specifically differentiated between the "emotional and personal nature" of the content and the "potential for misuse".

[LashL]

LashL,

Watch the segments I mention. I said, "which I strongly believe is not the case". You said, "That sounds like an accusation." I thought we had agreed here that what things look like and sound like are irrelevant! :)

I did watch the segments you mentioned, and responded in another post about that. Please explain why you "strongly believe" that they were not surprised by the collapse, though, particularly the first one.

In their intro they say, ".....and the potential for misuse." and ".....without soundtracks and hype often seen in other accounts." This indicates to me they had some concerns about content. Truly, what would there be to be misused if everything was 100% straightforward? They have also obviously seen other interpretations that they disagree with. That to me allows for the possibility of them skipping over something if they perceived it as contributing to a position they disagree with.

They are probably referring to the potential for misuse by CTers, such as that which has, in fact, occurred; that is, the CTer propensity for taking things apart pixel by pixel to find "anomolies" in order to fuel their CTs. What possible motive could they have for "skipping over" something? They were there, up close and personal, and were clearly affected by the events. Don't you think that if they were going to "skip over" things, they would have edited out the "military plane" quotes and the part that says the second plane went into the same building as the first, for instance?

The size explanation for editing makes no sense. There was already plenty of redundancy in the video and if that was the case it should have been edited down to 15 minutes. Again, looking at this without any intent to accuse, it just seems to be less than full disclosure. The Internet is full of files much larger. They didn't just invent technology since the release of this that suddenly allowed for the unedited video to be stored and played.

As I said above, I do not know anything about internet video hosting. I take it that they aren't too savvy about it either.

The sound quality is great in general, as well as their proximity. I also believe some of those firefighter accounts were from outside the structure.


Sure, the sound quality is good, but obviously it is picking up the sounds from within their apartment louder than anything else, which is normal. It also picks up the sirens throughout while their window is open. I would not expect them to hear the same things as the firefighters inside the buildings, nor would I expect them to hear the same things as people on the ground.

This could only be determined from the original file with the associated embedded data. It may be the case but now I believe it should be disclosed in full.

They say on their blog that they edited out 10 minutes. The video as presented is 26 minutes long. Unless you think they are lying, this means that the original was approximately 36 minutes long, which is clearly not continuous filming of the events over the time span it obviously covers. It begins after the first plane hit and ends a minimum of several minutes after the second collapse, a time span that is inarguably a minimum of close to two hours.

They owe nothing to anyone, but they have indicated that they will, in fact, release the unedited version.

Thank you. I have attempted to post on their blog. I will refrain from bothering them via email for now. I will wait and see how this unfolds and get more information before adding to their problems.


Fair enough.

[Blutarsky]

I believe now the most expeditious way for them to quell any theories for the benefit of all is full disclosure.

It will do nothing of the sort. As I stated before, nothing will be good enough; no evidence conclusive enough, to keep someone from fabricating a story or "just asking more questions." People are too entrenched, have too much of their time and self-identity wrapped up in this nonsense to just let it go.

[LashL]

If the new unedited version is released and it fills in all the gaps - then it is over.


Since they have said specifically that they did not capture the impact of either plane or the start of either building's collapse, what gaps would you expect the unedited version to fill?

[Russell Pickering]

At 12:47-12:49 they show the base of the North Tower shortly after the second impact and there is no smoke. Then there appears to be two fast forwards.

Then at 14:02 they begin to zoom in on smoke at the base of the North tower. It appears to be rolling from the direction of the South Tower prior to the collapse in the same location there had previously been none. The smoke appears to be pretty active and in motion. Then it appears the collapse begins.

Then we zoom through the rest of the collapse with the same sound associated with it as in the earlier obvious fast forwards.

My question - is there other footage or photos of the time in between the second impact and collapse that shows if this smoke was there the whole time?

[Russell Pickering]

Since they have said specifically that they did not capture the impact of either plane or the start of either building's collapse, what gaps would you expect the unedited version to fill?

LashL,

That is why I am waiting. I don't know.

OK - in fairness, if it was just continuous video and there were no unusual events, what could anybody misuse? The two bright flashes and "pop" sound with the first one?

Your case is well presented in terms of them not editing out the military plane comment. The same could be said about the flashes. If they were trying to "hide" something those two events would be good candidates for editing.

The appearance of the first collapse being fast forwarded through with the same sound as earlier segments that were fast forwards is going to raise questions.

Then when they are startled by something prior to the second collapse and the audio is interrupted, the camera zoomed and the collapse is well into progress for the finish is also going to raise questions.

It may just be bad timing that the two audio sequences that are most in question are missing, forwarded through or whatever is unfortunate.

My point is that they had obviously seen accounts they disagreed with and they were concerned about "misuse". So if there was something they were concerned about it may have been avoided by them. This is reasonable and not accusatory as to their intent. Maybe they just wanted to prevent further controversy but instead inadvertently caused it.

Who knows? We will have to wait and see.

Russell

[GlennB]

Yes this video was discussed about a month ago. The thing that this video shows me, more than anything else, is how much debris from the north tower actually came down and struck the SOUTH SIDE of WTC 7.

TAM

A bit like this ?

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/wtc7gettinghit.jpg

[Russell Pickering]

QUESTION:

Has this segment of Rick Siegel's 9/11 Eyewitness video been debunked here?

Assuming the sound was correctly synchronized for the distance, is this not considered evidence of prior explosions?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7152476643487115997&q=eyewitness&hl=en

[CurtC]

We've had experienced sound people who say that the pops on Siegel's video sound just like wind noise on a small microphone, like the one built into a video cam.

But the main evidence against it is the fact that cameras right there in Manhattan didn't hear those same sounds. I've seen lots of videos of the collapses taken in Manhattan, with no pre-collapse booms; why is the Bob & Bri video special in telling us whether they were heard?

[Pardalis]

QUESTION:

Has this segment of Rick Siegel's 9/11 Eyewitness video been debunked here?


ANSWER:

Yes. There's a search engine on this board, you might want to use it.

[Pardalis]

They specifically differentiated between the "emotional and personal nature" of the content and the "potential for misuse".

What they lived through is emotional and personal, like every living soul who witnessed these events. These pictures they took are therefore PERSONNAL.

You even suggesting them of foul play really makes me sick.

[DavidJames]

But the main evidence against it is the fact that cameras right there in Manhattan didn't hear those same sounds. I've seen lots of videos of the collapses taken in Manhattan, with no pre-collapse booms; why is the Bob & Bri video special in telling us whether they were heard?CTists only need one straw upon which to grasp to hold onto their belief.

Could be the one lady in Shanksville who saw a "military" plane.
Could be the guy at the Citco in DC who saw the plane come from a different angle.
Could be the janitor in the WTC who heard an explosion below him.
Could be one video in 50 that seems to sound like an explosion.

That's all it takes, one in thousand, the others don't count.

[Pardalis]

Your case is well presented in terms of them not editing out the military plane comment. The same could be said about the flashes. If they were trying to "hide" something those two events would be good candidates for editing.

Maybe what you perceive is editing is just that they didn't film everything in one continuous recording. What you see as cuts could just be these instances where they shut the camera off.

Why don't you ask them?

The appearance of the first collapse being fast forwarded through with the same sound as earlier segments that were fast forwards is going to raise questions.

How can you say it was "fast-forwarded"? Do you have expertise in video editing? Hav you asked someone who is?.

Then when they are startled by something prior to the second collapse and the audio is interrupted, the camera zoomed and the collapse is well into progress for the finish is also going to raise questions.

Stop insinutating. What are your questions about it?

ARE YOU ACCUSING THEM OF SOMETHING?

My point is that they had obviously seen accounts they disagreed with and they were concerned about "misuse".

ASK THEM.

So if there was something they were concerned about it may have been avoided by them. This is reasonable and not accusatory as to their intent. Maybe they just wanted to prevent further controversy but instead inadvertently caused it.

I see nothing controversial about it.

ASK THEM.

[gumboot]

Some valuable points....

This piece of video is not the "holy grail" of WTC video as far as capturing potential explosions. This video is taken some distance away. There is ample video much closer to the scene - including video recorded by the Naudet brothers INSIDE the lobby of WTC1 when WTC2 collapsed.

There are numerous videos taken on the streets directly outside the towers as they collapse. We have all seen them.

NONE of these videos captures a single pre-collapse explosion.

Let me repeat that.

NONE.

Of course, their account does not discredit the reports by firemen. No one hear disputes the claims by firemen that they heard explosions in the buildings. Indeeds, most of us find that highly likely. What we dispute is the determination by CTers that these indicate CD. The firemen don't think so, and neither do we.

The fact that firemen in the buildings heard explosions and eyewitnesses half a mile away didn't supports the theory that these explosions were elements inside the building exploding due to heat and stress.

As far as the "releasing the original file" aspect... this video appears to have been recorded on video tape. There is no original "file". The original is magnetic tape. If I had to guess I'd say MiniDV.

-Gumboot

[LashL]

As far as the "releasing the original file" aspect... this video appears to have been recorded on video tape. There is no original "file". The original is magnetic tape. If I had to guess I'd say MiniDV.


You don't even have to guess ;) - here is what they say about it:

Q. Who shot the video?
A. Video was shot by Bri and Bob on a Sony DCR-TRV11 Camcorder. A few days after the tape was shot, we transferred the video to DVD using Apple iMovie and iDVD. The tape and DVD have never left our possession. The released video was transcoded from the DVD. The unedited version was re-transferred from the original tape.

[gumboot]

You don't even have to guess ;) - here is what they say about it:


Cool, that confirms it. The DCR-TRV11 uses miniDV.

-Gumboot

[WildCat]

QUESTION:

Has this segment of Rick Siegel's 9/11 Eyewitness video been debunked here?

Assuming the sound was correctly synchronized for the distance, is this not considered evidence of prior explosions?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7152476643487115997&q=eyewitness&hl=en
I have some experience in audio recording outdoors in wind w/ insufficient windscreens, and that is exactly what wind noise sounds like. I solved the problem by buying better windscreens, and they're quite expensive! Safe to say consumer camcorders don't come w/ expensive windscreens.

[Russell Pickering]

Pardalis,


"Maybe what you perceive is editing is just that they didn't film everything in one continuous recording. What you see as cuts could just be these instances where they shut the camera off."



At 13:16 and 13:21 there appears to be fast forward events. The one at 14:07 appears to be the same and is accompanied by the same sound.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903&q=bob+bri&hl=en


How can you say it was "fast-forwarded"? Do you have expertise in video editing? Hav you asked someone who is?.



I have zero expertise in video technology. I do have a resource but can not contact them for a while.


Stop insinutating. What are your questions about it? ARE YOU ACCUSING THEM OF SOMETHING?



This is an argument used frequently on this site. I have to say that I don't agree with it. There were so many people involved that day at various levels and so many reports and quotes later that it just has to be looked at dispassionately sometimes. It is what it is. I don't presume to be anybodies judge and/or jury. I just observe, question and learn. It also appears there are double standards. I have directly experienced false accusations here myself. So let's try and pick one standard and stick to it - OK?

I see nothing controversial about it.

I understand that.

Russell

[gumboot]

Pardalis,
At 13:16 and 13:21 there appears to be fast forward events. The one at 14:07 appears to be the same and is accompanied by the same sound.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5370762387415552903&q=bob+bri&hl=en

I have zero expertise in video technology. I do have a resource but can not contact them for a while.


I trust you will take my opinion, as someone with expertise in these matters. The answer has already been provided for you, by gorgg, in this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2033105&postcount=10) post:

They appear to have a blog:
wtcbpc.blogspot.com/index.html

From the FAQ: (They used it as an autoreply message as well)

Q. Isn't this video missing important scenes?
A. We did not capture the impact of either plane or the start of either building's collapse. As many have surmised, the impacts of the airplanes and collapses of both buildings did catch us by surprise.

Q. Why did you edit this video?
A. The version we released on 9-11-2006 was intentionally and obviously (using dissolves) edited for length and size only. About 10 minutes of mostly redundant video was removed. None of the media services could host the unedited file at sufficiently high resolution.

Q. Will you release the unedited version?
A. Because of interest in this video, we intend to make the unedited version available via bittorrent (Revver has offered to seed the torrent). This will take several days due to the size of the file. Please do not request a copy of the original file.

They are not "fast forwarded" bits. They are sections where they have used dissolves to cut out long portions of boring footage. They have been very honest about the fact.

You can choose to believe them, or not, but there is certainly nothing suspicious about it.

I can confirm, as someone with expertise in these matters, that the "sped up bits" you refer to are dissolves.

-Gumboot

[Russell Pickering]

Gumboot,


I trust you will take my opinion, as someone with expertise in these matters.

They are not "fast forwarded" bits. They are sections where they have used dissolves to cut out long portions of boring footage. They have been very honest about the fact.

You can choose to believe them, or not, but there is certainly nothing suspicious about it.

I can confirm, as someone with expertise in these matters, that the "sped up bits" you refer to are dissolves.


Of course I will take your opinion.

Does that mean they used dissolve through the 14:07 time frame which is the South Tower collapse?

It seems to have the same appearance and sound as the 13:16 and 13:21 dissolves.

Russell

[Pardalis]

Have you contacted them yet Russell?

[Russell Pickering]

Have you contacted them yet Russell?

Pardalis,

As I stated earlier - no. I have no intention of bothering them. I am going to wait until the full video is released and see if my questions are resolved then.

Russell

[gumboot]

Does that mean they used dissolve through the 14:07 time frame which is the South Tower collapse?

It seems to have the same appearance and sound as the 13:16 and 13:21 dissolves.


Yes,

It appears that they were filming around the base of the towers for a very long time, and were still filming there when the collapse occured, so dissolved through random looking-at-base-of-buildings footage to the first sign of collapse. Of course as soon as they realised something was going on they zoomed out, hence you get a very messy piece of footage.

However if you watch closely you will notice the "zoomed in basement footage" does dissolve to new "zoomed in basement at time of collapse footage" immediately before the rapid zoom out.

It is very messy and random, as one would expect of an amateur cutting up amateur footage of an unexpected event.

The Naudet footage of the 2nd plane hit has similar traits.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Pardalis,

As I stated earlier - no. I have no intention of bothering them. I am going to wait until the full video is released and see if my questions are resolved then.

Russell

Maybe i missed it within the thread, Russel:

Why do you think this isn´t the full movie? Maybe they didn´t film all the time but recorded everytime when something happend.

[Russell Pickering]

Yes,

It appears that they were filming around the base of the towers for a very long time, and were still filming there when the collapse occured, so dissolved through random looking-at-base-of-buildings footage to the first sign of collapse. Of course as soon as they realised something was going on they zoomed out, hence you get a very messy piece of footage.

However if you watch closely you will notice the "zoomed in basement footage" does dissolve to new "zoomed in basement at time of collapse footage" immediately before the rapid zoom out.

It is very messy and random, as one would expect of an amateur cutting up amateur footage of an unexpected event.

The Naudet footage of the 2nd plane hit has similar traits.

-Gumboot

Gumboot,

If you are open to discussing this with me, I would like to learn.

Dissolve is something you use after the recording is made.

Is it your opinion then that they dissolved through the collapse? Even if they were focused at the base? Does that dissolve appear to account for the time of the collapse?

No matter where I was were focused I would not consider the collapse redundant and therefore dissolve through it.

Do you agree?

Russell

[LashL]

Maybe i missed it within the thread, Russel:

Why do you think this isn´t the full movie? Maybe they didn´t film all the time but recorded everytime when something happend.

Oliver, the couple who shot the video said that they cut out about 10 minutes of redundant footage and that they intend to publish the uncut version.

Russell is wrong about some of his other assertions, such as the "continual filming" bit, which is obviously not the case, but according to the source of this video, there is another 10 minutes worth of footage, so he is quite right that this isn't the full version.

That said, given the description of the footage by the makers of it, it is unlikely to satisfy CTers even when it is published in its entirety, since CTers seem to expect perfection and non-stop video from innocent bystanders who were simply trying to deal with events - and their own lives, their own fears, and their own emotions - as best they could as these unprecedented events unfolded.

[Russell Pickering]

Maybe i missed it within the thread, Russel:

Why do you think this isn´t the full movie? Maybe they didn´t film all the time but recorded everytime when something happend.

Oliver,

They said they edited about 10 minutes of redundant material.

Q. Isn't this video missing important scenes?
A. We did not capture the impact of either plane or the start of either building's collapse. As many have surmised, the impacts of the airplanes and collapses of both buildings did catch us by surprise.

Q. Why did you edit this video?
A. The version we released on 9-11-2006 was intentionally and obviously (using dissolves) edited for length and size only. About 10 minutes of mostly redundant video was removed. None of the media services could host the unedited file at sufficiently high resolution.

Q. Will you release the unedited version?
A. Because of interest in this video, we intend to make the unedited version available via bittorrent (Revver has offered to seed the torrent). This will take several days due to the size of the file. Please do not request a copy of the original file.


Russell

[Oliver]

Thank you, Russel and LashL.

I don´t think it will reveal any new aspects but let´s see. Did they say something about the release date - or how old is this interview?

[gumboot]

Gumboot,

If you are open to discussing this with me, I would like to learn.

Dissolve is something you use after the recording is made.

Is it your opinion then that they dissolved through the collapse? Even if they were focused at the base? Does that dissolve appear to account for the time of the collapse?


The dissolve seems to be very rapid - its about a second or less. My hypothesis is they selected their dissolve point at immediately before the zoom out (which was after the collapse had started).

My best guess is this is because while the very top of the building is initiating collapse, there is nothing worth seeing at the bottom, which is what they filmed.

Having said that, much like with the Naudet footage, I think it is bad editing. It leads to a double-up of reframing, which jars the watcher (first the reader has to adjust to a dissolve, then immediately they get a zoom out). It would have been better to leave a "lead-in" of a few seconds of boring bottom-of-tower footage BEFORE the zoom out, so this segment ran smoothly. This would mean the audience would get the dissolve, have a few seconds to adjust, before being hit with the zoom out.

Why did they choose to dissolve there? I don't know. Could they be hiding something? Certainly. But I find it unlikely, and other collaborating footage overlaps this gap in their footage, so anything they were hiding would show up on other segments. Unless it was something that was ONLY captured by their camera. I can't think of what that might be.

-Gumboot

[W6102LA]

New 9/11 Eyewitness Video

September 12 2006

This video was released yesterday on the fifth anniversary of the attacks. Not much information is known about it at present but it obviously documents the World Trade Center attack from a nearby building. The second plane hitting the tower and the first collapse is edited out but the north tower collapse is included. Rescue efforts, including footage of a rescue helicopter is also shown.

The shocked onlookers remark their surprise that fighter jets are not in the air defending the area.

The second plane is described as a "military plane" - something the CGI theorists will enjoy - but my first reaction upon seeing the second plane video on 9/11 was also that it was a military plane - because the sight of a commercial airliner crashing into a building was unprecedented and the first presumption was that the plane was in the sky to observe the fire in the north tower and/or conduct rescue efforts.

Size: 71.53 MBThis is from a torrent site

ETA: the footage is 26 and a 1/2 minutes long and doesn't show the 2nd plane hitting the tower

[Anti-sophist]

At 12:47-12:49 they show the base of the North Tower shortly after the second impact and there is no smoke. Then there appears to be two fast forwards.

Then at 14:02 they begin to zoom in on smoke at the base of the North tower. It appears to be rolling from the direction of the South Tower prior to the collapse in the same location there had previously been none. The smoke appears to be pretty active and in motion. Then it appears the collapse begins.


Point of clarification... The smoke in those frames is not at the base of the North tower, it's quite a ways down the street.

To further deal with the smoke issue, watch this CT video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=9%2F11+eye+witness&hl=en

It is from roughly the same angle, albeit, farther away.

Ignore the annotations and focus on the bottom left portion of the north tower (which is in the foreground). There is, from the beginning of the video, until the collapse of the south tower, a white smoke coming from the ground, behind the north tower (from the same area as the smoke in the b&b video). The CTist who made this waits for a "bang" and then claims a "dust cloud" rose from that area. He ignores the fact that it was there the entire time.

[Russell Pickering]

We've had experienced sound people who say that the pops on Siegel's video sound just like wind noise on a small microphone, like the one built into a video cam.

But the main evidence against it is the fact that cameras right there in Manhattan didn't hear those same sounds. I've seen lots of videos of the collapses taken in Manhattan, with no pre-collapse booms; why is the Bob & Bri video special in telling us whether they were heard?

CurtC,

I have two requests:

1) Can somebody specifically explain and demonstrate other places in Rick's video where wind creates the type and resonance of sound heard in correlation to the building collapses?

2) Can somebody link me to footage with clear sound that corresponds directly to the same time frame as Rick's recording for comparison?

Just watch and listen to the video yourself.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness&hl=en

Go to about 38 minutes in and just listen. You don't have wind before? Then the wind also just happens to correspond the the actual rumble of the towers collapsing? Then it appears there are no significant wind conditions on the water? The various sounds in the environment sound pretty clear to me.

I presume if the camera shown in his interview is the same camera he used on that day that the microphone is built in. Even when he pans all around the pier, I don't hear wind rumble.

I am going to attempt to find time keys in the new What We Saw video and Rick's video to see what corresponds.

Ignore the helicopter conspiracy and all that crap but just go listen to it for yourself.

I definitely need some education on this one. I am open.

Russell

[Gravy]

CurtC,

I have two requests:

1) Can somebody specifically explain and demonstrate other places in Rick's video where wind creates the type and resonance of sound heard in correlation to the building collapses?

2) Can somebody link me to footage with clear sound that corresponds directly to the same time frame as Rick's recording for comparison?

Just watch and listen to the video yourself.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness&hl=en

Go to about 38 minutes in and just listen. You don't have wind before? Then the wind also just happens to correspond the the actual rumble of the towers collapsing? Then it appears there are no significant wind conditions on the water? The various sounds in the environment sound pretty clear to me.

I presume if the camera shown in his interview is the same camera he used on that day that the microphone is built in. Even when he pans all around the pier, I don't hear wind rumble.

I am going to attempt to find time keys in the new What We Saw video and Rick's video to see what corresponds.

Ignore the helicopter conspiracy and all that crap but just go listen to it for yourself.

I definitely need some education on this one. I am open.

RussellRussell, what's your explanation for massive "explosions" that are heard miles away but that are not heard or recorded by any means where they supposedly happened?

Also, you still haven't answered my questions in the other thread.

[Russell Pickering]

Gumboot,

I am working with you here on this one.


My best guess is this is because while the very top of the building is initiating collapse, there is nothing worth seeing at the bottom, which is what they filmed.



I sat through panning across parking lots and other boring portions. To me any portion of the collapse if it was the base or not is history.

Parking lots versus the building collapse?

I can't imagine any logic to dissolve through any portion of the collapse. Especially "for length and size only." because "None of the media services could host the unedited file at sufficiently high resolution."

How much size would they save from that dissolve?

Russell

[gumboot]

Is this the video taken from the park across the water or whatever?

In that video, if this is the one in question, there's a lot of atmospheric noise - there's clearly other people nearby etc. The sounds we hear prior to collapse do not originate at the WTC - we know this from collaborating footage from beneath the towers, and inside them.

The range of explanations are myriad. Someone could have bumped the tripod. It could be a car door opening or closing. Someone could have kicked a soda can down the road.

The range are explanations are so myriad that this video, on its own, is evidence of nothing.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

I sat through panning across parking lots and other boring portions.

Sorry the video wasn't entertaining enough for you.

I can't imagine any logic to dissolve through any portion of the collapse. Especially "for length and size only." because "None of the media services could host the unedited file at sufficiently high resolution."

Maybe you could ask them.

[gumboot]

Gumboot,

Parking lots versus the building collapse?

I can't imagine any logic to dissolve through any portion of the collapse. Especially "for length and size only." because "None of the media services could host the unedited file at sufficiently high resolution."

How much size would they save from that dissolve?

Russell


I agree with you that is was a poor selection. However, in regards to their footage, the bit they cut out didn't show the collapse. You didn't see any signs of collapse until after they zoomed out.

How much size was saved? We don't know. We have no idea how much time was skipped there. Maybe they left the camera looking at the base of the building and went off to have a shower, and it was left running for a while.

Bear in mind they are not looking at the footage in the way you or I would. What they consider "interesting" isn't what you consider interesting. For example, "parking lots" was showing rescue operations and surrounding collateral damage, in relatively good detail. In contrast the bottom of the towers was showing nothing interesting, and was very poor detail.

In any event, it will be interesting to see their full footage without the dissolves.

-Gumboot

[Russell Pickering]

Is this the video taken from the park across the water or whatever?

In that video, if this is the one in question, there's a lot of atmospheric noise - there's clearly other people nearby etc. The sounds we hear prior to collapse do not originate at the WTC - we know this from collaborating footage from beneath the towers, and inside them.

The range of explanations are myriad. Someone could have bumped the tripod. It could be a car door opening or closing. Someone could have kicked a soda can down the road.

The range are explanations are so myriad that this video, on its own, is evidence of nothing.

-Gumboot

Gumboot,

I challenge anybody to watch it starting at 38 minutes in and explain it to me as a tripod bump or a car door. I am not being rude here I am willing to see it differently.

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

Can you link me to footage with good sound closer to the towers that is recorded in the exact same time frame?

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

Gravy,

Russell, what's your explanation for massive "explosions" that are heard miles away but that are not heard or recorded by any means where they supposedly happened?

Also, you still haven't answered my questions in the other thread.

I am seeking that explanation now as we speak.

Can you link me to closer footage with good sound that covers that exact time frame?

Since you wish to make it look like I haven't explained my position to you on the last thread I will post the PM here that I sent to you today.

"Gravy,

When I am done with something I am done with it.

That thread degenerated to the point of no return.

I plan on starting another thread with questions I have about the towers that will primarily be for you. I realized much of what I know about the towers has not been from direct research and thus contains assumptions.

I have some questions and things to catch up on before I can even speak about it further. In the new thread I start I will finish my analysis of Silverstein's comments with some questions as well.

I hope the new thread will maintain a civil spirit. I am here to learn, question and progress in formulating my beliefs.

Russell"

Why don't you share your reply with us?

Russell

[Anti-sophist]

This video is in Hoboken and somehow has sound-sync'd video... you can't do any analysis from this, at all. Trying to explain something that's been obviously editted is pretty much impossible.

[Russell Pickering]

This video is in Hoboken and somehow has sound-sync'd video... you can't do any analysis from this, at all. Trying to explain something that's been obviously editted is pretty much impossible.

Anti,

It is played as it was originally recorded and then they calculated the travel distance of the sound and adjusted it so that the sound and the visuals were "real time" in relation to each other. The collapse rumble corresponds - does it not?

I am just asking questions here.

Russell

[LashL]

Gumboot,

I challenge anybody to watch it starting at 38 minutes in and explain it to me as a tripod bump or a car door. I am not being rude here I am willing to see it differently.

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

Can you link me to footage with good sound closer to the towers that is recorded in the exact same time frame?

Russell

And you were doing reasonably well up until then.

"Challenging" people to "explain" to you that which you do not understand yourself, and that which you have no expertise in, and that which you have clearly pre-determined to be something else illustrates someone in full CTer form, not objective observation.

Add to that your apparent expectation that others should provide you with evidence to disprove CTer BS, rather than finding evidence yourself to support CTer BS...

Tsk tsk.

Let me reverse it for you. I challenge you or anyone else to provide footage with good sound close to the towers that is recorded in the exact same time frame that illustrates that this was anything other than what the "official story" (to use the CT vernacular) denotes.

Oh, I almost forgot to add, hey, I'm just asking questions here.

[gumboot]

I watched 4 minutes of that video. It is the same footage I have previously seen, except it has been modified.

The explosions in the first 5 minutes are fake. I have previously seen the footage and the sounds were not the same.

It is very OBVIOUS they have been faked as well. The sound on the recording has clearly been fiddled with - as evident by the corresponding change in the radio voices.

Ironically this is the same footage that a CTer previously brought to this site to argue the explosive angle (except his version did not have the fake enhanced explosion noises). The one good thing about this video is it provides an excellent view of the building core remaining standing well after the rest of the building collapsed - it was this video that produced estimated collapse times of 30 seconds +.

I will again refer you to the Naudet footage, which does not capture any explosions whatsoever.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

I am just asking questions here.

How familiar...

You don't seem to be interested in our answers tho.

[Russell Pickering]

And you were doing so well up until then.

"Challenging" people to "explain" to you that which you do not understand yourself, and that which you have no expertise in, and that which you have clearly pre-determined to be something else is true CTer form.

Along with expecting others to provide you with evidence to disprove CTer BS, rather than finding evidence yourself to support CTer BS.

Tsk tsk.

Let me reverse it for you. I challenge you or anyone else to provide footage with good sound close to the towers that is recorded in the exact same time frame that illustrates that this was anything other than what the "official story" (to use the CT vernacular) denotes.

LashL,

I have been challenged here and always do my best to respond.

I do not have a significant direct knowledge base on the towers. So then, this is not a place where one can learn? It seems if the "solution" to me being a CT is to learn - I am trying. Correct?

I would be glad to provide clear sound footage to correspond to Rick's video. That was my hope in this new video - but it was missed, dissolved or editied during the critical times.

What I am saying is that in all of the footage I am aware of regarding the tower collapses I have not seen one that had good sound for the same time frames. I was wondering if anybody could link me to one.

In the absence of such footage I would have to defer to eyewitness acounts which as we both know support Rick's video more than not.

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

I watched 4 minutes of that video. It is the same footage I have previously seen, except it has been modified.

The explosions in the first 5 minutes are fake. I have previously seen the footage and the sounds were not the same.

It is very OBVIOUS they have been faked as well. The sound on the recording has clearly been fiddled with - as evident by the corresponding change in the radio voices.

Ironically this is the same footage that a CTer previously brought to this site to argue the explosive angle (except his version did not have the fake enhanced explosion noises). The one good thing about this video is it provides an excellent view of the building core remaining standing well after the rest of the building collapsed - it was this video that produced estimated collapse times of 30 seconds +.

I will again refer you to the Naudet footage, which does not capture any explosions whatsoever.

-Gumboot

Gumboot,

So it is OK to accuse Rick Siegel or somebody of faking that video but not for me to inquire of the new video?

What evidence is there for the faking of that video?

Russell

[Pardalis]

Q: Did the tree fall in the forest?

A: Well, if nobody heard it, then it didn't

:rolleyes:

[Russell Pickering]

How familiar...

You don't seem to be interested in our answers tho.

Pardalis,

Answers will be embraced under the same terms of which they are demanded of me.

Russell

[Pardalis]

I'm just saying whatever we say, you keep holding on to your beliefs, even though you say that you want to learn.

[Russell Pickering]

Q: Did the tree fall in the forest?

A: Well, if nobody heard it, then it didn't

:rolleyes:

Here we go again.

Did we hit a sore spot?

All the heavyweights show up and distract a thread again?

I do pay attention to what subjects push buttons.

Hmmmmmmmmmm...........

[Pardalis]

What do you mean?

[LashL]

LashL,

I have been challenged here and always do my best to respond.

Fair enough, and I have consistently given you the benefit of the doubt because I think that you are a cut above most of the CTers, but some of your responses here have been rather, well, lame, sorry to say. I'm perfectly willing to hear you out if you wish to expand upon them, but some of them have been so knee-jerk that I've been surprised. (The recent ones on this thread are good examples. Your responses on other threads were, in my view, much better, much more openminded and not knee-jerk CT responses. I'm surprised, though, at your posts in this paticular thread and the thinly veiled accusations that you've made without justification.)

I do not have a significant direct knowledge base on the towers. So then, this is not a place where one can learn? It seems if the "solution" to me being a CT is to learn - I am trying. Correct?

I'm not sure that you are trying hard enough. It seems that you are more often reverting to the CT mindset rather than try to think for yourself, and rather than assessing the facts and evidence, unfortunately. Perhaps this topic is a sticking point for you, I don't know, but your posts here seem to be out of sync with looking for actual facts and evidence, and more in line with suspecting everyone and anyone of wrongdoing without any evidence that they have done so.[/QUOTE]

I would be glad to provide clear sound footage to correspond to Rick's video. That was my hope in this new video - but it was missed, dissolved or editied during the critical times.

I would be equally glad to see you provide clear footage to correspond to "Rick's video" or otherwise, but I don't view the the fact that you cannot as evidence of a vast conspiracy. See the difference? In the real world, not everything is caught on tape, not everything is presented in Perry Mason or CSI fashion, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In the real world, we have to deal with .. um... reality.

What I am saying is that in all of the footage I am aware of regarding the tower collapses I have not seen one that had good sound for the same time frames. I was wondering if anybody could link me to one.

See above.

In the absence of such footage I would have to defer to eyewitness acounts which as we both know support Rick's video more than not.

Please, do not include me in your view of what amounts to proper or sufficient evidence unless and until I explicitly agree with you, which, in this case, I have not. If you think that "Rick's video" is the best source of eyewitness accounts and that you therefore rely upon it, I have to say that you haven't done near enough research.

[gumboot]

Gumboot,

So it is OK to accuse Rick Siegel or somebody of faking that video but not for me to inquire of the new video?

What evidence is there for the faking of that video?

Russell



I don't know who played with the sound on that video. Someone did though. I can tell they did. They didn't do a very good job.

I believe I've said it is possible that this new video was purposefully edited with dissolves to hide footage. I merely don't see what this video alone could reveal that would make any difference.

It's worth pointing out that this new video does not include messages written on the screen which

A) Distort the truth and mislead audiences
B) Push a particular agenda

-Gumboot

[Russell Pickering]

Gumboot,


It is very OBVIOUS they have been faked as well. The sound on the recording has clearly been fiddled with - as evident by the corresponding change in the radio voices.



I just listened to this again and don't hear any change in the radio sound.

Is the radio live or overlayed?

Russell

[Pardalis]

Here we go again.

Did we hit a sore spot?

All the heavyweights show up and distract a thread again?

I do pay attention to what subjects push buttons.

Hmmmmmmmmmm...........

What did you mean by that?

[gumboot]

Gumboot,



I just listened to this again and don't hear any change in the radio sound.

Is the radio live or overlayed?

Russell


According to the blurb the radio is live. They certainly increase the volume on the lower end. I would need to drop the track into Audition to determine exactly what was done to it, and frankly I don't care enough. I know it has been played with. Even if I couldn't tell from just hearing this version (I can) I would know anyway because I have heard it previously without the sound fiddling.

It's fake.

-Gumboot

[Russell Pickering]

I have just looked through a couple of fairly exhaustive collections of WTC videos. I have not found any footage that starts 9 seconds prior to the collapses that includes the same time frame as Rick's video with sound.

Am I missing something?

[Pardalis]

I have just looked through a couple of fairly exhaustive collections of WTC videos. I have not found any footage that starts 9 seconds prior to the collapses that includes the same time frame as Rick's video with sound.

Am I missing something?

Apparently 9 seconds.

[Russell Pickering]

I don't know who played with the sound on that video. Someone did though. I can tell they did. They didn't do a very good job.

I believe I've said it is possible that this new video was purposefully edited with dissolves to hide footage. I merely don't see what this video alone could reveal that would make any difference.

It's worth pointing out that this new video does not include messages written on the screen which

A) Distort the truth and mislead audiences
B) Push a particular agenda

-Gumboot

The new video alone, had it covered the critical time frames, could have had audio to confirm the presence or absence of explosions.

The new video in conjunction with Rick's video could give us a ton of information.

It appears right now just from estimated time references in each video that some of Rick's other recording of loud sounds may also correspond to dissolves in the new video. For this to be properly documented it will take the full release of the new video.

"You can tell it was faked" is not something you would accept from me.

I agree with you 100% that the helicopter conspiracies, the narration and imposition of ideas in Rick's video is detracting from the raw undissolved footage.

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

What did you mean by that?

Oh - it is my observation that when people use distraction, name calling or anything along those lines it usually indicates an area of weakness in their beliefs.

[gumboot]

"You can tell it was faked" is not something you would accept from me.


I would if you had expertise in the matter at hand.

Others on this site have even more expertise than me in this field. Hopefully they will drop by and have a listen.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

Russell, do you hear any explosions here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZUgKNsc4CM

[Pardalis]

Oh - it is my observation that when people use distraction, name calling or anything along those lines it usually indicates an area of weakness in their beliefs.

What distracting, name calling or anything along those lines have I done?

What is my weakness?

[Russell Pickering]

Pardalis,

No I don't hear any explosions in that one.

The camera does shake though about 10 seconds before the collapse.

Now I have to say the sound in that one is weird. Listen to the very end of it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZUgKNsc4CM

How far away was that taken?

Russell

P.S. I was referring to the old tree in the woods story.

[Gravy]

Gravy,

Why don't you share your reply with us?

RussellI think you are a coward.

You ran from my questions, which were raised by your statements, are not trick questions, do not require further delibration, and are not going away. You are still running. Clear enough?

Was I uncivil to you in that thread? Did I not take the time to answer your questions and back my statements with evidence?

What are you afraid of, Russell? Any search for truth requires facing tough questions. They aren't going away.

[Pardalis]

No I don't hear any explosions in that one.

So what does that tell you?

The camera does shake though about 10 seconds before the collapse.

Could be anything, someone bumped the tripod, the camera... anything.

Now I have to say the sound in that one is weird. Listen to the very end of it?

Explain "weird"

I think we hear helicopters.

How far away was that taken?

How should I know. It's shot with a telephoto lens, so it could be from quite a distance, but it's clearly shot closer than your other viveo from across the river.

So what does that tell you?

[Pardalis]

What distracting, name calling or anything along those lines have I done?

What is my weakness?

So?

[Russell Pickering]

LashL,

Do you have a specific example of a knee jerk reaction or the appearance of me not seeking information from this thread? You can just link me to the post.

I feel very relaxed and open.

Russell

[LashL]

LashL,

Do you have a specific example of a knee jerk reaction or the appearance of me not seeking information from this thread? You can just link me to the post.


Yes, see your posts between #1 and #80 on this thread for examples.

[Pardalis]

Russell, in the video I linked, you recognized not hearing explosions. What does that tell you?

[Russell Pickering]

I think you are a coward.

You ran from my questions, which were raised by your statements, are not trick questions, do not require further delibration, and are not going away. You are still running. Clear enough?

Was I uncivil to you in that thread? Did I not take the time to answer your questions and back my statements with evidence?

What are you afraid of, Russell? Any search for truth requires facing tough questions. They aren't going away.

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 Pickering]

Yes, see your posts between #1 and #80 on this thread for examples.

Wow. Tough crowd.

[LashL]

Wow. Tough crowd.

Honest crowd.

You're playing dumb, Russell, and I half believed that was beneath you. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that.

I have to get some sleep now, and will not be able to engage further here tonight, but do stop playing stupid. It really does not become you, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong about you.

[Oliver]

Gentlemen...

[Pardalis]

Russell, in the video I linked, you recognized not hearing explosions. What does that tell you?

Russell?

[Russell Pickering]

Russell, in the video I linked, you recognized not hearing explosions. What does that tell you?

Pardalis,

It tells me I need to know from how far away it was taken.

Here is another one with no explosions. But at the very end (:49) there is a boom. Is that the same boom that Rick recorded at the start?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=wtc+1+collapse&hl=en

Ground vibrations travel up to 18 times the speed of sound as I understand it. They can be perceived as a rumble.

Both of those videos end right after the visual collapse ends.

How far away are they?

Russell

[Pardalis]

It tells me I need to know from how far away it was taken.

Why?

It's clearly closer than your video from across the river, Russell, believe me.

Here is another one with no explosions. But at the very end (:49) there is a boom. Is that the same boom that Rick recorded at the start?

I hear a rumble, and screams, no "boom".

If I can hear screams, why can't I hear explosions?

[Russell Pickering]

Honest crowd.

You're playing dumb, Russell, and I half believed that was beneath you. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that.

I have to get some sleep now, and will not be able to engage further here tonight, but do stop playing stupid. It really does not become you, regardless of whether I'm right or wrong about you.

LashL,

I am not sure why you are taking this specific angle.

But nothing has changed about me and I am here looking at things as usual and taking it all in to consideration.

Goodnight

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

Why?

It's clearly closer than your video from across the river, Russell, believe me.



I hear a rumble, and screams, no "boom".

If I can hear screams, why can't I hear explosions?

Pardalis,

As a photographer I know very well the lens foreshortening potential.

I seriously would like to know where that was taken from.

Screams would be recorded based on how close the people were to the camera not on how close the camera was to the building. The crowd response would be based on the speed of light or their visual experience.

If we had a video with ten seconds before and ten seconds after the collapse of sound recording within two miles of the building then we could know. We have one which is claimed to be fake and one that is not continuous so far.

I am going to sleep now too.

Russell

[Pardalis]

If we had a video with ten seconds before and ten seconds after the collapse of sound recording within two miles of the building then we could know. We have one which is claimed to be fake and one that is not continuous so far.

That's not going to happen Russell, you're asking for a perfect piece of footage.

That's just never going to happen.

So basically, in this absence of a "perfect proof", you are willing to discredit the entire Official Story?

Come on Russell...

[gumboot]

If we had a video with ten seconds before and ten seconds after the collapse of sound recording within two miles of the building then we could know. We have one which is claimed to be fake and one that is not continuous so far.


Russell, with all due respect there are numerous videos which show exactly this. The fact that you have not found them suggests to me that you have not put much effort into looking.

I have mentioned the Naudet footage several times now. They had video footage taken prior to, during, and after, both tower collapses. Both pieces of footage are continuous. One is easily within 2 miles of the buildings, and of course the other is actually physically INSIDE one of the towers.

Neither of these pieces of footage catch explosions.

In addition, the Naudets captured a great deal of footage throughout the day of 9/11 in and around the buildings. I have watched their documentary extensively in relation to a different 9/11 discussion. I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence from any of their footage that indicates explosives were involved in 9/11. If any cameras on 9/11 were going to capture explosions, it would be the cameras in the Naudets' hands.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

I think Russell wants a perfect, unedited, continuous shot with crystal clear image and sound of the entire sequence of the collapse, with ten seconds before and after.

Is that what you want Russell?

If so, that's just impossible. Ridley Scott wasn't there to film this...

[gumboot]

If so, that's just impossible. Ridley Scott wasn't there to film this...


Ridley Scott doesn't often go for long continuous shots. You're better off getting Orson Welles or Alfred Hitchcock to film it. Akira Kurosawa would be another excellent choice.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

Ridley Scott doesn't often go for long continuous shots. You're better off getting Orson Welles or Alfred Hitchcock to film it. Akira Kurosawa would be another excellent choice.

-Gumboot

Yeah you're right, I guess I chose Scott because I have a bias (I'm a huge fan :D )

Also Tarkowsky and Angelopoulos would also be better examples. :)

[gumboot]

Yeah you're right, I guess I chose Scott because I have a bias (I'm a huge fan :D )


:D

So am I.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

I can't wait for "A Good Year"

:j1:

[Oliver]

I can't wait for "A Good Year"

:j1:

What is it about? Never heard of it.

[Pardalis]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/agoodyear/

[Oliver]

Must be another Ridley Scott. :D

[Skibum]

I can't wait for "A Good Year"

:j1:

It looks like a good flick, I saw the trailer for it this weekend when we went to see The Departed.

[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:
http://i14.tinypic.com/2z5ue08.jpg

[Russell Pickering]

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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnPunZkzFu0), at about 3:50 in the video, we can clearly hear the reporter say that there was not an explosion.

[Russell Pickering]

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnPunZkzFu0), 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

[Russell Pickering]

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.

[Russell Pickering]

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

[Russell Pickering]

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://forums.randi.org/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

[Russell Pickering]

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

[Russell Pickering]

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?

[Russell Pickering]

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.

RussellRussell, 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.

[Russell Pickering]

Point taken Russell.



What new information have you discovered?

Pardalis,

Well most of it regarding any detail on the towers is new to me.

But one thing now is that there is documentation of the sounds preceding the collapse in the Siegel video requiring another explanation. I know you believed that but the What We Saw video confirms it.

As I said, I am here to learn about WTC now.

I have been myopic about the Pentagon. Already in a short time I have found out a lot of what I believed has already been debunked.

Russell

[Gravy]

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.How do you know it was an explosion, and how do you know it was from WTC 7?

[Pardalis]

But one thing now is that there is documentation of the sounds preceding the collapse in the Siegel video requiring another explanation. I know you believed that but the What We Saw video confirms it.

Really? I must have missed that.

What "documentation"?

As I said, I am here to learn about WTC now.

Quite frankly, I think you're here to validate your own theory.

[Russell Pickering]

Gravy,

I respect what you do.

It would be easier if you quit using words like "coward" and "ignorant" in reference to me.

I too have spent much time alone at this computer and written many articles etc. to debunk the myths surrounding the Pentagon irregardless of my overall beliefs about 9/11.

I don't recall a specific incident where I said you were personally wrong. Perhaps I have but I don't recall it.

I would rate your knowledge of the WTC as very far superior to my own. Just reality. I imagine there might be a couple of things I know about the Pentagon that you are not aware of too.

I am slowly becoming aware of your work bit by bit. I went out of my range in the last thread by discussing the WTC. Now I want to learn more to see what of my beliefs still stand. I am not a person who responds to "it is so". I need to figure it out for myself.

The "skeptic guru" comment was unnecessary and I apologize. I know you believe what you do with your heart as do I.

I am not a right or wrong person usually. Sometimes ego creeps in and I succumb. I am not trying to prove YOU wrong. I may challenge certain ideas but if the facts fall in any court, I will align myself with them. I don't find your methods poor at all. I find your work thorough and well thought out.

Some CTists hate you and some fear you. I am just one that respects and learns. Do you think I believe I am intentionally misleading anybody? Do you think I want my beliefs aligned with something that is not real?

Since we are diametrically opposed, one of us is in fact promoting something that is generally false. I don't want it to be me as I am sure you don't want it to be you.

So instead of making you a demon I am trying to find out if it is me that is mostly falling on the false side of things.

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

Really? I must have missed that.

What "documentation"?



Quite frankly, I think you're here to validate your own theory.

Pardalis,

Please read this post.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2038937&postcount=122

I spent at least 8 hours understanding why I now believe there were no explosions separate from the sounds of the collapse at the North Tower for at least 18 seconds prior.

OK? Now when I talk with people that will be explained and it will contribute to the truth.

Russell

[gumboot]

Russell,

The Naudet documentary can probably be purchased at most DVD stores. Alternatively, it is available at many places online (I downloaded it because it is not currently available in NZ).

I expect you will find their footage from the South Tower collapse relatively useful - it is taken from inside the WTC1 lobby. It is important to take note of more than just the sounds on the tape, as well. Take not of the attitudes of the firemen. Do they act like they are hearing explosions? Or that they might have earlier? Or is there a sense of bewilderment in their eyes as they first hear the increasing roar as WTC2 crashes to the ground?

I have been an actor, and have worked around actors, my entire life. The look on Chief Pfeifer's face in that moment is not acting. It is genuine.

Bear in mind he send his brother up into WTC1 that day. His brother died.

(I don't mean to imply you think FDNY were in on it, but I am anticipating that as the only realistic come-back to my "notice reaction of firemen" claim)

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

Gravy,

I respect what you do.

It would be easier if you quit using words like "coward" and "ignorant" in reference to me.

I too have spent much time alone at this computer and written many articles etc. to debunk the myths surrounding the Pentagon irregardless of my overall beliefs about 9/11.

I don't recall a specific incident where I said you were personally wrong. Perhaps I have but I don't recall it.

I would rate your knowledge of the WTC as very far superior to my own. Just reality. I imagine there might be a couple of things I know about the Pentagon that you are not aware of too.

I am slowly becoming aware of your work bit by bit. I went out of my range in the last thread by discussing the WTC. Now I want to learn more to see what of my beliefs still stand. I am not a person who responds to "it is so". I need to figure it out for myself.

The "skeptic guru" comment was unnecessary and I apologize. I know you believe what you do with your heart as do I.

I am not a right or wrong person usually. Sometimes ego creeps in and I succumb. I am not trying to prove YOU wrong. I may challenge certain ideas but if the facts fall in any court, I will align myself with them. I don't find your methods poor at all. I find your work thorough and well thought out.

Some CTists hate you and some fear you. I am just one that respects and learns. Do you think I believe I am intentionally misleading anybody? Do you think I want my beliefs aligned with something that is not real?

Since we are diametrically opposed, one of us is in fact promoting something that is generally false. I don't want it to be me as I am sure you don't want it to be you.

So instead of making you a demon I am trying to find out if it is me that is mostly falling on the false side of things.

RussellThank you, Russell. That was well said. I apologize for my coward remark, and I'll try to avoid these derails in the future.

[Russell Pickering]

Russell,

The Naudet documentary can probably be purchased at most DVD stores. Alternatively, it is available at many places online (I downloaded it because it is not currently available in NZ).

I expect you will find their footage from the South Tower collapse relatively useful - it is taken from inside the WTC1 lobby. It is important to take note of more than just the sounds on the tape, as well. Take not of the attitudes of the firemen. Do they act like they are hearing explosions? Or that they might have earlier? Or is there a sense of bewilderment in their eyes as they first hear the increasing roar as WTC2 crashes to the ground?

I have been an actor, and have worked around actors, my entire life. The look on Chief Pfeifer's face in that moment is not acting. It is genuine.

Bear in mind he send his brother up into WTC1 that day. His brother died.

(I don't mean to imply you think FDNY were in on it, but I am anticipating that as the only realistic come-back to my "notice reaction of firemen" claim)

-Gumboot

Firefighter actors are not an option for me.

[gumboot]

Firefighter actors are not an option for me.


:) I had a strong feeling you would feel that way.

-Gumboot

[Russell Pickering]

Thank you, Russell. That was well said. I apologize for my coward remark, and I'll try to avoid these derails in the future.

Peace.

[Russell Pickering]

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,

I wouldn't think it odd at all that firefighters would have a normal collapse or debris zone around any high rise fire. Let alone WTC7.

Given the events of the day I would not think it odd to have a high degree of concern for building collapse especially in light of the physical damage to the building.

The things I do want to inquire about remain, but I want to start a specific Q&A thread on that when I have the time to dedicate to it.

I will find a way to get the Naudet footage - thank you though!

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

How do you know it was an explosion, and how do you know it was from WTC 7?

Gravy,

I will get back to you on this. I don't have access to the clips right now. Server down.

Russell

[beachnut]

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!

The final tower falling took 30 seconds to finish, part of the core was standing by itself up to 70 stories or more. 19:40 to 20:10

Wallboard makes a lot of dust, when we tore up our house the wall board messes up everything, they had to close their window at 20:01.

You could hear the collapse. If there had been RDX and dynamite you would have heard it, it travels for miles and is very distinctive. But you can hear the rumble, which i have not heard on home videos of other CD projects from a distance, but did hear the reports from the RDX.

What a mess. good find on the video

[Pardalis]

I spent at least 8 hours understanding why I now believe there were no explosions separate from the sounds of the collapse at the North Tower for at least 18 seconds prior.

What makes you think there would be for the other tower?

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.

So? What is your expertise in this field? These pop sounds could be just inherent to the recording itself, you can't expect perfect quality of sound and image from a home video camera.

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.

So?

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.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

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

Why are you posting this video?

There is no live sound.

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

These videos are of extremely low quality, some I would even say are of abysmal quality. I really don't know what you expect to find in these web based, compressed bits of data.

If you're really trying to investigate this properly, why don't you try and find the source material, the original tapes?

[Russell Pickering]

What makes you think there would be for the other tower?



So? What is your expertise in this field? These pop sounds could be just inherent to the recording itself, you can't expect perfect quality of sound and image from a home video camera.



So?



I have no idea what you are talking about here.



Why are you posting this video?

There is no live sound.



These videos are of extremely low quality, some I would even say are of abysmal quality. I really don't know what you expect to find in these web based, compressed bits of data.

If you're really trying to investigate this properly, why don't you try and find the source material, the original tapes?

Pardalis,

Thank you for your time. But it seems you missed what I said. The bottom line is that I now have my own personal conclusion as to what I believe and why.

Russell

[LashL]

LashL,

I wouldn't think it odd at all that firefighters would have a normal collapse or debris zone around any high rise fire. Let alone WTC7.

Given the events of the day I would not think it odd to have a high degree of concern for building collapse especially in light of the physical damage to the building.


Thanks. That's what I was hoping your position was, but, like I said, I really didn't want to go back through hundreds of posts on other threads to ascertain your position on the point, so I appreciate your response here.

The things I do want to inquire about remain, but I want to start a specific Q&A thread on that when I have the time to dedicate to it.


Fair enough.

I will find a way to get the Naudet footage - thank you though!


You're welcome. (As an aside, be sure to get the updated version that was aired on/around the 5th anniversary last month as well as the original.)

[Russell Pickering]

LashL,


Thanks. That's what I was hoping your position was.....


I'm glad you're pullin' for me!

Russell

[LashL]

LashL,

I'm glad you're pullin' for me!

Russell

Oh, you just HAD to use a form of the word "pull" there, didn't you? ;)

...
...
...
insert tiny letter code here (pretend, okay?)

Better me and other skeptics than CTers. By CTer interpretation of the word and the timing, you'd be dead by now.

...
...
...
...
...

(insert more tiny letter code here and don tinfoil hat)

(Note to self: call FDNY and Larry Silverstein in the morning and make sure they get the memo NOT to wire up and implode Russell; repeat: the mission has been cancelled.)

,,,
,,,
,,,

Whew!

All is well. It is now safe to remove the tinfoil hat and rejoin the intelligent segment of society.


/derail

[Russell Pickering]

LashL,

I got a message via my dental fillings you had posted.

One of the most important things in firefighting is that once you're inside you need people "pulling" or feeding hose to you once it gets too heavy for you and your back up to advance.

That was a good conspiracy though.

Russell

[jujigatami]

Russell,

I was at the WTC on 9/11.

I witnessed the entire chain of events.

I wrote a summary of what I saw for Gravy's WTC7 paper. I'll post it here (its a little long though):

I saw both planes hit. I would commute from NJ. Sometimes I'd take the PATH train from Hoboken, on nice days I'd take the ferry. 9/11 was a beautiful morning, and I took the ferry. I got off the ferry at the World financial center and began walking to my office on 45 Broadway. To do this, you have to walk DIRECTLY toward WTC1 As I was walking I heard a jets roar. I looked up. Now [feel free to delete this if it will make CT’ers take it out of context] I expected it to me some sort of military plane since every now and then military jets do fly down the Hudson river. IT WAS NOT. I saw a huge jetliner fly over me and SLAM IN TO THE TOWER!!! I had a PERFECT vantage point. Even then, I couldn’t actually process what I had seen. I kept thinking it couldn’t have been an American Airlines plane, sure that’s what I saw, but it just couldn’t have been. It had to be something else.

I didn't know what to do. Should I get back on the ferry and go home or should I go to my office? I went to my office. I found a group of co-workers standing behind our building on Greenwich and Rector street looking at the burning building, and we started talking about what happened. Some saw the crash, and some just saw the fire. The ones that didn't see the crash didn't believe me and those of us that did see it that it was a jetliner. They assumed, as I did before I saw the plane, that it was a private or military plane. They couldn't imagine it was a jetliner. Of course, they didn't actually see what I and the others did.

We all thought it had to be an accident. I was talking about how the buildings are designed to survive a hit like this and how it would be OK.

Smoke was pouring out, debris was flying everywhere, we were joking around saying its like Godzilla has attacked. We were all looking up at the towers. From our vantage point we had a perfect view of both towers (google map 45 Broadway and you'll see where I was).

It was then when the second plane flew over us and slammed in to the south tower. The force of the blast knocked a couple of people standing with to the ground.

That’s when we all realized we were under attack.

My coworker looked at me and said "was that another airliner?" I said yeah, I thought it was a US Airways plane, but another coworker said it was a United plane.

For the next few minutes, we were standing there basically saying "Holy ****!" over and over again, trying to decide what to do now. That’s when we heard another jet. Me and one of my coworkers went to hit the deck, but another coworker (who had been in the Israeli Air Force) said NO, that’s an F-16. Sure enough an F-16 flew by.

After that I went with my colleague closer to the towers, we walked up to Church and Liberty Streets. I've seen some awful things in my life, but this was by far the worst. There was debris and rubble everywhere (and the towers were still standing. Stuff was falling out of the sky like rain. And my colleague said look at that, pointing at a lot of shoes lying on the ground, not in a pile or anything, just scattered around. I thought that it must be from one of the shoe stores in the mall, or from Century 21 somehow, until he pointed out that the shoes still have feet in them.

That’s when I had to leave and go back to my office and call my pregnant wife, if for no other reason to tell her I love her.

I went up in to my office and called my wife who worked in Brooklyn. We couldn’t call out of the 5 boroughs, our long distance was down. So after talking to my wife and telling her I was OK, I went back down to the back of the building (where we had the best view.) The flames were intense coming out of the south tower (2wtc) and even being blocks away and much lower, I could feel the heat on my face and it was hot. It was like being in front of a roaring fireplace. I remember thinking “how the hell are they going to repair this?” It was then when I commented to another coworker about all of the debris still falling out (it had been a while now, almost an hour) and he said “Mike, those are people!” I said “No way!” He said, “Look that one has arms and legs!” And then I saw that the debris I was looking at was actually people falling or jumping out of the building.

That’s when I needed to go inside.

About 15 minutes later, we felt the earth shake. No one knew what was happening. At first we thought another plane had hit the stock exchange, or our building, or something else. So we all evacuated our office and went down the stairs to the lobby. When we got to the lobby, it was dark. You see, 45 Broadway’s lobby is almost all glass, probably 5 stories high, with a waterfall fountain in the middle. It was one of the strangest things I’ve ever seen. The glass was black. I mean 100% totally dark. The only thing I was thinking was “what the hell” and that’s when people started realizing that one of the towers fell. Then occasionally we’d see a shadow up against the glass, a person stuck in the dust. We’d pull them in and clean them up in the fountain.

After a while I decided to go back upstairs to our office. Power in our building was fine, and there was no damage to our building. The lobby was like a refugee center. So I took my team back upstairs. A little while later the dust settled and we could see outside. It was crazy, it looked like a snowstorm had hit. 6-8 inches of grayish white dust everywhere. It was eerie. No one knew what to do. I decided that I was going to stay put and listen to the news.

A little while later the second building came down, and the dust hit and made all of the windows black again. This time it wasn’t so bad since we knew what was happening.

I don’t really remember much of what we did between the time the second tower came down and when a cop finally came in to our office and said we had to evacuate the building since all of downtown was being shutdown, and cleared out. That was around 2:30 IIRC.

All I knew was that I had to somehow get to my wife in Brooklyn. So we started walking up Broadway when a cop told us it was closed and we had to go east. So we went over to Nassau St. When I hit the area near Cedar St, I could start to see the devastation. There was giant beams and junk everywhere. When I hit Fulton St. (I think) I could finally get over to Broadway to see the damage. There was rubble 20 stories high. It’s a sight I can’t even explain. It was a complete disaster. I was in total shock. That’s when I saw WTC7 on fire. I didn’t even notice it at first. There was hot dust and debris raining down, thick smoke billowing overhead. Building 7 wasn’t even a blip on my radar. But then I noticed it. It was on fire like the towering inferno. I mean flames were everywhere. I thought there were flames coming out on all floors, but I guess that’s because of all of the smoke. I kept looking at the building. It had so much debris up against it, and I mean big huge chucks of debris. Without you actually being there, you just can’t get the enormous scale of the disaster. The twisted steel and chunks of concrete were just so huge that my mind couldn’t comprehend it. And these were piled up against the building and sticking out of it at some levels. I can’t stress enough how enormous these beams and debris were. All of the pictures show the pile, but without actually seeing it, it is truly indescribable. WTC7 had granite of marble façade and there were HUGE cracks going up and down the façade too.

Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did.

I walked down Fulton to try to get on to the Brooklyn Bridge. Cops told me it was closed, even though there were people walking on it. So I had to then walk uptown to the Manhattan Bridge. There were literally thousands of people walking across the bridge. It looked like refugees. As I was walking over the bridge, we all heard a Jet screaming. This is absolutely the worst part of the whole day for me. Time stopped. No one made a sound. It was the scariest thing I have ever felt. I thought, “It’s another plane, that’s what I’d do if I were a terrorist. Wait until everyone is evacuating and hit the bridges.” I truly thought my life was over. You know how they say your life flashes before your eyes? Well it’s true. I saw every victory and every tragedy I’d ever experienced. And I thought to myself, “well, I’ve had a good life, I only wish I’d have been able to see my child born (my wife was 4.5 months pregnant). Then I saw it was an F-15 and all of a sudden, all was well. I truly felt like I had been given a new life.

That’s about it, I got to my wife’s office, and we rented a car, and drove home to NJ. Then for the next couple of weeks I watched the news and cried a lot.

You are welcome to ask me any questions you may have.

[kookbreaker]

Russell,

I was at the WTC on 9/11.

I witnessed the entire chain of events.
<snip>



Nominated.

[realitybites]

Nominated.
Damn right....

[DavidJames]

Amazing story - Thanks for sharing.

[jujigatami]

Thanks for the nominations!

David, It is my pleasure to share my story.

9/11 was a day that messed me up emotionally, mentally, for a long long time. And while my story is a little compelling, its NOTHING compared to what many many others went through.

This forum, SLC, and a few others are really great for me. At least I can confront the whackos on-line. I couldn't do it in person. I'm not strong enough to do it in person. I'd lose it and end up beating the pooh out of them, and what good would I do anyone in jail.

[Russell Pickering]

You are welcome to ask me any questions you may have.


jujigatami,

Thank you very much for being so open.

Obviously there is no "canned" response for this so I will say it the best I can. I am very sorry about what you had to experience and the memories of it.

I don't have any questions.

Russell

[Gravy]

...and what good would I do anyone in jail....Quite a lot of good, if you wore that Borat thong. :D
I only used a portion of your account for my WTC 7 paper. I'd like to use more of it for my LC Guide, if that's okay. Thanks for sharing it with everyone.

[jujigatami]

Gravy,

Of course its OK.

ANYTHING I can do to help the cause!

One day I will be able to confront the nutters in person. I was a debater in HS, and a pretty darn good one too.

But alas, I know myself, and its still just too soon.

Russell,
I really was hoping you had some questions. I saw both planes hit. I can give you firsthand account that I heard absolutely no explosions before the towers come down. I saw WTC7 Leaning over, hours before it fell.

Oh and Gravy, I only wear the borat thong for my wife, but even she doesn't like it.

[Russell Pickering]

Gravy,

Of course its OK.

ANYTHING I can do to help the cause!

One day I will be able to confront the nutters in person. I was a debater in HS, and a pretty darn good one too.

But alas, I know myself, and its still just too soon.

Russell,
I really was hoping you had some questions. I saw both planes hit. I can give you firsthand account that I heard absolutely no explosions before the towers come down. I saw WTC7 Leaning over, hours before it fell.

Oh and Gravy, I only wear the borat thong for my wife, but even she doesn't like it.

jujigatimi,

I believe both planes hit. I am convinced now the North Tower had no prior explosions other than the collapse sounds for at least 18 seconds. I am waiting for the final WTC7 report to come out before I speculate too much more on that.

If you didn't hear any explosions in the area I take your word. I also have read many accounts of explosions in the area from the firefighters inside and outside the building as well as others. Did you hear any explosions throughout the morning at any point?

I just posted a thread on what sounds like an explosion possibly near WTC7. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=67149

I would not presume to challenge any aspect of your account as I was not there. I do have to balance everything including other accounts however.

Russell

[jujigatami]

Russell,

Now you've hit the nail directly on the head.

Something I've been afraid to write for fear of it being taken out of context.

There were LOTS of explosions throughout the mornong. While I was watching the towers fireballs would shoot out of the holes in the buildings and there would be an enormous "whoosh" like if you would light a gas grill, but a million times bigger.

When the fireballs would fly out, I felt the heat on my face and it was intense.

There were all knids of pops and cracks that I'm sure were alot louder if you were inside the towers, but no one, and I mean no one there had even the slightest feeling that these sounds were bombs! No one.

Look, I've seen other big building fires (when you live in the city, you see these things) and those other fires were almost identical to this, but just on a much smaller scale. I remember watching a Brownstone fire years ago where the windows blew out knocking a fireman off of a ladder. No explosives there either.

I also worked very close to the WTC in '93 (130 Cedar st. to be exact) and I heard and felt that blast. The 93 blast was HUGE. A HUGE BOOM!! There was NOTHING like that on 9/11, and the 93 blast didn't even take the towers down.

9/11 was totally different. There were no explosions like bomb explosions (like the 93 bombing or even like loud fireworks) but there were lots of other exlplosions like when you light a gas grill.

I'm far from an explosive expert, so I don't think I'm describing this accurately. Fire was blowing out windows, there were lots of loud sounds, many of which I would characterize as explosions, but there were none with any concussive force. Like I said, there weren't any even as strong as fireworks.

[Horatius]

After a while I decided to go back upstairs to our office. Power in our building was fine, and there was no damage to our building. The lobby was like a refugee center. So I took my team back upstairs. A little while later the dust settled and we could see outside. It was crazy, it looked like a snowstorm had hit. 6-8 inches of grayish white dust everywhere. It was eerie. No one knew what to do. I decided that I was going to stay put and listen to the news.

...

You are welcome to ask me any questions you may have.

I'd like to get some more info on the amount of dust you saw that day. The 6-8 inches you mention is deeper than other reports I've seen, and I was wondering if that was just a local effect, perhaps because of drifting, or if the layer was that deep over a larger area.

Since you seem to have walked over a lot of area on the day, what was your impression of the amount of dust in general?

Thanks in advance!

[T.A.M.]

Jujigatami:

Thank you for sharing the tale of what has to be one of the most terrifying days of your life. It took alot of courage to be so open and forthright with your account.

The account you give is so inspiring, I cannot even begin to tell you. It has re-energized me with regards to researching and discussing the 9/11 attacks. The last few days, I have been kind of pulled away from the whole thing, half by other activities, half by shear exhaustion from dealing with the repetitive, non-stop theories and whacko comments we see here all the time. Your account, with perfect timing, has reminded me once again, the reason I come here and post/discuss/debate.

I Think if we do not already have such a thread, that we should create a "9/11 stories" thread, and post this there.

TAM

[jujigatami]

It was about 6-8 inches everywhere, but I sure didn't measure it, so I could be off a little. It looked like a major snowstorm had hit. Since I was south of the site, we got more of it when the south tower fell than when the north fell.

My guesstimate is that there was about a average of 8 inches on Broadway. More in some places, less in others.

There were drifts of dust just like snowdrifts, and buildings facing the towers had a large buildup on one side and less on the other side.

When I said I looked out, I was looking out on Broadway, in front of my building. That is actually a good distance away from the WTC. The way our building is, you didn't have a really good view of the street in the back. Its blocked by shorter buildings. To get an idea of the depth of the powder, you needed to see the street. So I had to go to the front of the building (our office went through the floor).

As for my impression of the amount of dust... there was a S**t ton of it. It was everywhere, for blocks and blocks, and it was deep. I had to walk through it, and even several blocks east and south of the towers, it was well over my ankles.

It seriously looked like a blizzard had hit.

[Horatius]

It was about 6-8 inches everywhere, but I sure didn't measure it, so I could be off a little. It looked like a major snowstorm had hit. Since I was south of the site, we got more of it when the south tower fell than when the north fell.

My guesstimate is that there was about a average of 8 inches on Broadway. More in some places, less in others.

There were drifts of dust just like snowdrifts, and buildings facing the towers had a large buildup on one side and less on the other side.

When I said I looked out, I was looking out on Broadway, in front of my building. That is actually a good distance away from the WTC. The way our building is, you didn't have a really good view of the street in the back. Its blocked by shorter buildings. To get an idea of the depth of the powder, you needed to see the street. So I had to go to the front of the building (our office went through the floor).

As for my impression of the amount of dust... there was a S**t ton of it. It was everywhere, for blocks and blocks, and it was deep. I had to walk through it, and even several blocks east and south of the towers, it was well over my ankles.

It seriously looked like a blizzard had hit.

Okay, thanks! It looks like I'll have to re-adjust my calculations (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65850). I guess I need a good map now, too :)

[jujigatami]

I don't know how you can ever get any accuracy out of calculations like that.

You need to know how far the dust settled. I can tell you it went pretty far east down Fulton st. But how far, I really don't remember. By the time I got to the Brooklyn Bridge, South Street Seaport area, the dust was very very light, but still noticable on windows and cars. You really couldn't see it on the street any more than the usual city grime.

I have no idea how far north or south it went and how heavy it was there. But it did go far. Plus you need to take in to account the roofs of buildings and their various heights, and open buildings like parking lots, one that I know had several inches on all of its levels. And like I said, there were drifts of dust all over the place, and some were pretty big.

Good luck calculating how many square feet the dust covered. I can't imagine where to start.

[jujigatami]

Jujigatami:

Thank you for sharing the tale of what has to be one of the most terrifying days of your life. It took alot of courage to be so open and forthright with your account.

The account you give is so inspiring, I cannot even begin to tell you. It has re-energized me with regards to researching and discussing the 9/11 attacks. The last few days, I have been kind of pulled away from the whole thing, half by other activities, half by shear exhaustion from dealing with the repetitive, non-stop theories and whacko comments we see here all the time. Your account, with perfect timing, has reminded me once again, the reason I come here and post/discuss/debate.

I Think if we do not already have such a thread, that we should create a "9/11 stories" thread, and post this there.

TAM

TAM,

You're welcome. It was by far the worst day of my life. Like I said in my post, the absolute worst part was when I was on the bridge. I really thought I was going to die. Your life really does flash before your eyes. And while I try to live a good life, it isn't a pretty picture. I don't think it ever will be. I saw all of the things I wish I could have done differently, I saw my unborn baby, I saw my wife in her wedding dress. It was truly awful.

I feel selfish even saying that was the worst part. With all of the horror I saw, all of the suffering, and for me, the worst part was thinking I was going to die... when 3000 other people just ACTUALLY died. It sounds silly.

Anyway, Hang in there and keep fighting the good fight. One day, there should be a debunker convention. I'd like to buy you all a drink.

ETA: My wife in her wedding dress was a VERY pretty picture, so was my son. I mean that overall, I don't think anyone's life flashing before them will be pretty.

[T.A.M.]

I remember when I was in a car accident. I lost control of my car coming home from a pediatric rotation. I was going about 100kph (60 mph) and took the turn too fast. My car shot off the road, and flipped about 8 or 9 times, landing on its side. I remember it like yesterday. I didnt see too much in terms of "life before my eyes" visions, but I remember how long it took for the car to stop, and I remember thinking, as the car rolled over,

"When is the top going to cave in and crack my neck to pieces"

Luckily it never did, but let me tell you, terrifying is not the word.

TAM

[Russell Pickering]

jujigatami,

I have the ultimate respect for your experience.

Do you want to discuss this? If so, I am willing but I have no desire to drag your emotions around in the process. I would also prefer not to be the CT that gets the brunt of your justified emotions.

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

In regards to the dissolve through the South Tower collapse in Bob and Bri's video I found this clip that did capture it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch44AzFpmW4

It matches this description very well:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2032865563019209801&q=wtc+firefighters

[Pardalis]

Yeah, another low quality compressed piece of video, stunning.

[Horatius]

I don't know how you can ever get any accuracy out of calculations like that.

...

Good luck calculating how many square feet the dust covered. I can't imagine where to start.

Well, I'm mostly trying to get a rough estimate at best. As you said, noone was running around measuring the stuff.

I'm interested in showing the "99.9% of the WTC turned to dust" guys that they're completely out to lunch. Even just assuming a uniform layer of dust, we get percentages much lower than what they claim. I haven't yet re-done my calcs, but even with 6-8 inches, we'd still have less than 20% of the mass as dust.

I'm mostly interested in getting the best estimates I can, so as to provide them with the fewest opportunities to attack my estimates.

Once again, thanks for your input.

[Russell Pickering]

Russell,

Now you've hit the nail directly on the head.

Something I've been afraid to write for fear of it being taken out of context.

There were LOTS of explosions throughout the mornong. While I was watching the towers fireballs would shoot out of the holes in the buildings and there would be an enormous "whoosh" like if you would light a gas grill, but a million times bigger.

jujigatami,

I understand and do not intend to take you out of context. You also have not provided any specifics about any explosion for me to do so.

There are just too many accounts of them from various sources to ignore. Since we do not have specific times or locations, the nature of the multiple explosions throughout the morning will probably always be contested/misunderstood.

We already found out that one Rick Siegel claimed was related to the North Tower collapse was in fact not. I assume others may follow the same fate and yet others will remain unknown.

Russell

[GlennB]

I hope you don't mind that I've copied your account over to the UK 9/11 CT forum.
Regrettably, they will class it as the work of a "shill", which is a crying shame :(

A very moving story. Thank you, and all the best.

[T.A.M.]

jujigatami,

I understand and do not intend to take you out of context. You also have not provided any specifics about any explosion for me to do so.

There are just too many accounts of them from various sources to ignore. Since we do not have specific times or locations, the nature of the multiple explosions throughout the morning will probably always be contested/misunderstood.

We already found out that one Rick Siegel claimed was related to the North Tower collapse was in fact not. I assume others may follow the same fate and yet others will remain unknown.

Russell

Russ;

Can I ask you why, as a fireman, you think that multiple accounts of "explosions" must equal "Explosives".

Step back, forget 9/11, and the circumstances, and answer me this,

If a 110 storey skysraper had been hit by a huge jetliner, was about to, and then did collapse, and had 8-10 storeys worth of fire, would you not EXPECT multiple explosions.

It just seems odd to me, that with your experience, and from what I have heard from other firemen, that you would not accept explosions for what they likely were, things exploding within the building, and in many cases the onset of the collapse itself.

TAM

[stateofgrace]

jujigatami,

Thank you for sharing your story.

stateofgrace

[Gravy]

jujigatami,

I understand and do not intend to take you out of context. You also have not provided any specifics about any explosion for me to do so.

There are just too many accounts of them from various sources to ignore. Since we do not have specific times or locations, the nature of the multiple explosions throughout the morning will probably always be contested/misunderstood.

We already found out that one Rick Siegel claimed was related to the North Tower collapse was in fact not. I assume others may follow the same fate and yet others will remain unknown.

RussellThere are many accounts of explosions that the CTs claim are suspicious or mysterious, but when put in context, aren't. I took a look at the "bomb" statements in a recent post. From the intro:

In this thread TS1234 posted a link to this "peer-reviewed" paper in the Journal for 9/11 Studies. The paper lists various first-person accounts of things that sounded or looked like explosions at the WTC on 9/11. I took a look at the most provocative category, which is people who said they heard or saw what they described as "like bombs going off" or "like secondary devices." The paper lists 31 FDNY members who described such events. Here's my breakdown of what they heard and saw (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65980).

[Russell Pickering]

Gravy,

The paper lists 31 FDNY members who described such events. Here's my breakdown of what they heard and saw (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65980).

I know things can be reinterpreted. The initial response is always interesting to me in a subjective account. I even notice in some of the ones below they try and interpret it in light of what they later believed or were told had happened. There were a few that reported 3 explosions too. Some of these were high ranking guys.

The following are a couple of names I didn't see on your list (If I did duplicate I didn't mean to):

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22] We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) [Battalion 6] We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
...
We were standing in a circle in the middle of West Street. They were talking about what was going on. At that time, when I heard the 3 loud explosions, I started running west on Vesey Street towards the water. At that time, I couldn't run fast enough. The debris caught up with me, knocked my helmet off.

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53] It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.

Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 11] There was nobody in the intersection, nobody in the streets in general, everyone just saying come on, keeping coming, keep coming. That's when [the North Tower] went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was scattering. From there I don't know who was who. I don't even know where my guys went. None of us knew where each other were at at that point in time.

Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8] I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
...
You did hear the explosions [when the North Tower came down]. Of course after the first one -- the first one was pretty much looking at in like in awe. You didn't realize that this was really happening because you kind of just stood there and you didn't react as fast as you thought you were going to. The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now you're very familiar with it.

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) I grabbed her and the Lieutenant picked her up by the legs and we start walking over slowly to the curb, and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
...
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.

Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander] And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.

James Curran -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) A guy started scremaing to run. When I got underneath the north bridge I looked back and you heard it, I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu. Looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of the floors before it actually collapsed.

Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.) I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.
Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8] After a while we were looking up at the tower, and all of a sudden someone said it's starting to come down.
...
This would be the first one.
...
This one here. It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.) Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out. The realization hit that it's going to fall down, the top's coming off. I was still thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole thing is coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting to fly down. The top is going to topple off there.

Thomas Fitzpatrick -- Deputy Commissioner for Administration (F.D.N.Y.) We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing it, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV. I would have to say for three or four seconds anyway, maybe longer. I was just watching. It was interesting to watch, but the thing that woke everybody up was the cloud of black material. It reminded me of the 10 commandments when the green clouds come down on the street. The black cloud was coming down faster than the building, so whatever was coming down was going to hit the street and it was pretty far out. You knew it wasn't coming right down. Judging from where people were jumping before that, this cloud was much further.

Gary Gates -- Lieutenant (F.D.N.Y.) I looked up, and the building exploded, the building that we were very close to, which was one tower. The whole top came off like a volcano.
...
So now both towers have been hit by a plane. The north tower was burning. So the explosion, what I realized later, had to be the start of the collapse. It was the way the building appeared to blowout from both sides. I'm looking at the face of it, and all we see is the two sides of the building just blowing out and coming apart like this, as I said, like the top of a volcano.

Kevin Gorman -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22] North Tower:
John Malley, who was right behind me, I turned around for him, because he was doing something, either putting his coat on or something, and as I was looking at him I heard the explosion, looked up, and saw like three floors explode, saw the antenna coming down, and turned around and ran north.

Stephen Gregory -- Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
...
[It was at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.
...
He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them too.
...
I know about the explosion on the upper floors. This was like at eye level. I didn't have to go like this. Because I was looking this way. I'm not going to say it was on the first floor or the second floor, but somewhere in that area I saw to me what appeared to be flashes.

__________________________________________________ ______________

The list is alphabetical. I'll stop here. No need to debunk each quote. I am aware of some of their attempts to explain what they saw in retrospect. It is the first impression I find interesting. These are 16 quotes from the firefighter oral histories. If you want to read the other 27 I didn't post you can go to Jim Hoffman's site here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html

I personally can not write off and ignore all of these first impressions from firefighters. In many of these accounts in regards to Bob and Bri's video they would have taken place during the South Tower collapse dissolve or the 5 seconds either not recorded or cut from the North Tower collapse. Maybe that's why they don't want people asking for the original file.

Whenever I look at the towers I have to remember to multiply x2. They are saying the variables of jet fuel and damage occurred twice in the same spot to result in an identical phenomenon that had an identical visual appearance.

In light of the drum beat type sound in the following video, I have to keep my mind open.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch44AzFpmW4

These firefighters describe the above video very well.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2032865563019209801&q=wtc+firefighters

Russell

[Gravy]

Russell, my post was only in response to the 31 "bomb" accounts in the "Journal" paper.

I have read and taken notes on over 14,000 pages of first responder accounts, including all of the FDNY oral histories, so I think I have a good grasp on who said and heard what and when. Thanks for these accounts, though. I'll make sure I have them all.

ETA: I'm glad that, like me, you do not write off or ignore these first impressions. What I do is make sure they are in context with the other statements and with the events of the day.

Your speculation about possible nefarious motives of Bob and Bri is unwarranted. Please stop.

[LashL]

In many of these accounts in regards to Bob and Bri's video they would have taken place during the South Tower collapse dissolve or the 5 seconds either not recorded or cut from the North Tower collapse. Maybe that's why they don't want people asking for the original file.


Russell,

You are yet again insinuating that these people have done something nefarious, even though you have not made any attempts to contact them.

That's just wrong.

Any honorable researcher would either contact these people and ask his questions directly or, alternatively, refrain from insinuating that these people are guilty of some kind of wrongdoing unless and until he has done so.

You can't have it both ways. An honorable researcher would either get on with it or stop making such insinuations about them.

[DavidJames]

Maybe that's why they don't want people asking for the original file.This is the second time now that you've made this error, it now appears you are being blatantly dishonest. They said, in the sentence before they made that comment that they would release the unedited file. Why are you omitting and/or ignoring that. I can think of no reason other then intellectual dishonesty on your part.
I have to keep my mind open.As the saying goes, but not so much that your brain falls out.

[Russell Pickering]

Gravy, LashL and David,

Your admonitions are well received.

Let me explain. I do not feel they are being "nefarious". I believe they are like many witnesses in that they are afraid to show or say some things. Bob and Bri expressed the concern for "misuse".

They are justified by the actions of some Cters.

In the end, facts do get diminished though if something is withheld.

Even if they release the "unedited" version they have made it clear that the original file is not available. What's the difference? The difference is that the original file has all of the data to determine the details of edits that couldn't be proved by the "unedited" version.

The South Tower dissolve and the 5 seconds cut/not recorded at the North Tower collapse could potentially contain important data. The reason they gave for the dissolves of being redundant and to save space are just questionable. That is all I will say about it.

I will restrain my comments and observations for now. I apologize.

On the other side of the coin, I have not received a reply from Rick Siegel on his mistaken explosions prior to the North Tower collapse. I gave him all the evidence so we will see what happens. I look at both sides.

Russell

[uk_dave]

I have mentioned the Naudet footage several times now. They had video footage taken prior to, during, and after, both tower collapses. Both pieces of footage are continuous. One is easily within 2 miles of the buildings, and of course the other is actually physically INSIDE one of the towers.

Neither of these pieces of footage catch explosions.


-Gumboot

I totally agree.

The CT'ers are very fond of ignoring the naudet film, except to suggest that they were part of the conspiracy.

The second tower collapse was filmed within the shadow of the building. The Naudet brother (can't remember which) had to run for his life and ended up sheltering behind a parked vehicle while the 'pyroclastic flow' :D surged around him.

But of course, it's much more satisfying to have videos shot from may hundreds of metres away with poor sound and no context.

[Russell Pickering]

POSSIBLE CORRECTION/EXAGGERATION:

I had posted this video I found on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch44AzFpmW4

I just found another version of it on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PlCUrUbYgE

The sound is very different.

I am looking into the source of the original file.

Russell

[gumboot]

POSSIBLE CORRECTION/EXAGGERATION:

I had posted this video I found on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch44AzFpmW4

I just found another version of it on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PlCUrUbYgE

The sound is very different.

I am looking into the source of the original file.

Russell



Russell I admire your honesty and integrity in your quest. I hope you now can appreciate the lack of "precision" I had in claiming the other video you posted had "fake" or "altered" sound.

Sound is a difficult medium to describe, especially nuances.

The other video has "different" sound to the other I saw in much the same way that these two have "different" sound.

-Gumboot

[DavidJames]

Even if they release the "unedited" version they have made it clear that the original file is not available.So you want them to send you the physical media which contains the original file? What's the difference? The difference is that the original file has all of the data to determine the details of edits that couldn't be proved by the "unedited" version. Unless I misread this, you are saying they are lying and will not provide an unedited copy of the original.

[realitybites]

Russell, I'm not sure I'm picking up on your difference between "original" and "unedited". It appears you feel there's a some significant disparity between the two.

[Pythra]

I take "Please do not request a copy of the original file" to mean "Please stop bothering us about this because we are in the process of making it available." This is not an unreasonable request.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Russell,

The Naudet documentary can probably be purchased at most DVD stores. Alternatively, it is available at many places online (I downloaded it because it is not currently available in NZ).

I expect you will find their footage from the South Tower collapse relatively useful - it is taken from inside the WTC1 lobby. It is important to take note of more than just the sounds on the tape, as well. Take not of the attitudes of the firemen. Do they act like they are hearing explosions? Or that they might have earlier? Or is there a sense of bewilderment in their eyes as they first hear the increasing roar as WTC2 crashes to the ground?

I have been an actor, and have worked around actors, my entire life. The look on Chief Pfeifer's face in that moment is not acting. It is genuine.

Bear in mind he send his brother up into WTC1 that day. His brother died.

(I don't mean to imply you think FDNY were in on it, but I am anticipating that as the only realistic come-back to my "notice reaction of firemen" claim)

-Gumboot

Also available for rent from Blockbuster in the Chicagoland area.

[Skibum]

My bad, wasn't paying attention.

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Gravy, LashL and David,

Your admonitions are well received.

Let me explain. I do not feel they are being "nefarious". I believe they are like many witnesses in that they are afraid to show or say some things. Bob and Bri expressed the concern for "misuse".

They are justified by the actions of some Cters.

In the end, facts do get diminished though if something is withheld.

Even if they release the "unedited" version they have made it clear that the original file is not available. What's the difference? The difference is that the original file has all of the data to determine the details of edits that couldn't be proved by the "unedited" version.

The South Tower dissolve and the 5 seconds cut/not recorded at the North Tower collapse could potentially contain important data. The reason they gave for the dissolves of being redundant and to save space are just questionable. That is all I will say about it.

I will restrain my comments and observations for now. I apologize.

On the other side of the coin, I have not received a reply from Rick Siegel on his mistaken explosions prior to the North Tower collapse. I gave him all the evidence so we will see what happens. I look at both sides.

Russell
I'm finding this thread very interesting to read, and though I'm sure I can't offer anything of much use to the conversation, only one observation:

It's quite a leap of faith to believe that anyone would fear 'show[ing] or say[ing] some things'. Why do you think that is the case? It's evidence! It's reality!

If I took a video of a guy pushing down a plunger connected to a box leading to the WTC, and the building immediately exploding, I'd be the first to post it; everywhere. Why? Because it would be evidence!

The piles and piles of evidence support the official story of the collapse of the towers. If good and irrefutable evidence came out supporting a controlled demolition, many people here would be the first in line to support it... But they haven't. Why?

The key is to be able to look at all of the evidence, and evaluate it without a prior bias. Many posters here do not support the war or George Bush in any way, yet still don't believe that the government was behind 9/11. Why do you think this is?

[DavidJames]

Let me editorialize for a minute. Some CTist fashion themselves as current day "Columbo's". They are the rogue detective who will recreate the crime, interview the suspects and in a "gotcha" moment, only found in 60 minute TV shows, will uncover the criminals using only wit and guile. No fancy degree, or expertise in various technologies needed.

We've all seen the shows, all the evidence is pointing in one direction, but in walks our hero and with some clever questioning or observation gets the criminal to unwittingly reveal his guilt.

Criminal: "I think it's horrible the way she was repeatedly stabbed"
Our Hero: "I never said anything about her being stabbed:"
GOTCHA (think Larry's pull it, or Rummy's missile comment).

Or
Criminal: "She was murdered in the afternoon, I was there at breakfast, here is a photograph as proof"
Our Hero: "Let me see the photograph one more time". "AH-Ha, Do you see the shadow, clearly that shadow is from an afternoon sun."
GOTCHA (think of all the video's and pictures)

[rwguinn]

I wish (and, yes, wishing is a useless, unfulfilling exercise) that people--Ct'ers and "Septics" alike would quit referring to CD as something akin to magic.It ain't.
you damage a building past its ability to stand up by itself, it falls down.
It will fall down according to the laws of motion regardless of the method used to damage it: Shaped charges, dynamite,C4, 100 ton airplane, burning gasoline, burning kerosine, or evan a hacksaw and lots of time.
believe it or not, any of those methods are going to look like Controlled Demolition in the end because that's the way physics works.
There are no separate laws for "natural", accidental, and intentional.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.

[gumboot]

Russell,

I was at the WTC on 9/11.

I witnessed the entire chain of events.



jujigatami,

Thank you dearly for your account. I read it last night, but refrained from responding immediately, as your words had a rather profound impact on me. I cannot express enough the gratitude I have that you would recount such a terrible experience for the soul purpose of allowing others to know more about that day.

I especially admire the amount of detail you were willing to go into. Few accounts, even the most comprehensive ones, manage to truely place the reader in the moment, as it were. You did this.

A number of details you recounted struck me as especially compelling. The mention of heat, for one. I have never before heard anyone mention the heat coming off the buildings in this light (the only other reference I have seen is from the crew of the NYPD helicopter). My mind truely shudders at imagining such an inferno. You have perfectly illustrated the truth that many of us have always maintained, looking at the photographs.

The WTC was not experiencing small fires, slowly dying out. It was an inferno, in the most absolute sense of the word.

In addition, your account of seeing the debris around WTC7 was another of this moments of detail. You spent a great deal of time emphasising the staggering scale of the destruction, the size of the pieces, etc. In my mind, you would not do this unless these things had an utterly enormous impact on you.

For the first time, I think maybe I DO have a vague understanding of the scale of destruction, and it is because of your words. Thank you.

If you don't mind answering one brief question, I would be curious what damage to WTC7 itself you personally witnessed that day.

Thank you again for sharing your experience, and I firmly hope the scars you suffered that day will fade.

-Gumboot

[Russell Pickering]

Russell I admire your honesty and integrity in your quest. I hope you now can appreciate the lack of "precision" I had in claiming the other video you posted had "fake" or "altered" sound.

Sound is a difficult medium to describe, especially nuances.

The other video has "different" sound to the other I saw in much the same way that these two have "different" sound.

-Gumboot

Gumboot,

I have received one original file so far and the sound is distinct. I am waiting for the second one and a history on both.

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

So you want them to send you the physical media which contains the original file? Unless I misread this, you are saying they are lying and will not provide an unedited copy of the original.

David,

I am going to refrain from judgement as I said I would.

I do believe that an exact duplicate of the original medium is the most expeditious way to resolve this.

They said it would be a "few days" for the unedited version and to my knowledge that was some time ago and it is not here yet. I just Googled it and nothing. The last comment I can locate from them pertaining to another question was on 10-15-06.
http://wtcbpc.blogspot.com/index.html

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

Russell, I'm not sure I'm picking up on your difference between "original" and "unedited". It appears you feel there's a some significant disparity between the two.

realitybites,

I did not create that distinction.

They said they would release the unedited version but not to request the original. There is a difference in their mind obviously.

I do not know video and can only speak of photography. I can give you an unedited version or copy of a photo. But if I give you the original it will contain the EXIF data which contains all of the camera parameters and times etc.

Maybe somebody could elaborate on this type of feature in video?

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

I take "Please do not request a copy of the original file" to mean "Please stop bothering us about this because we are in the process of making it available." This is not an unreasonable request.

That is reasonable and may be the case.

[Russell Pickering]

[1] It's quite a leap of faith to believe that anyone would fear 'show[ing] or say[ing] some things'. Why do you think that is the case? It's evidence! It's reality!

[2] The key is to be able to look at all of the evidence, and evaluate it without a prior bias. Many posters here do not support the war or George Bush in any way, yet still don't believe that the government was behind 9/11. Why do you think this is?

Ripley Twenty Nine,

One poster who was an eyewitness, who I respect very much for their honesty and openness expressed their concern about this earlier in this thread.

Bob and Bri expressed a concern about "misuse".

Sadly, because of the behavior of CTs they are very justified in this fear.

My bias is the only one I can explain. The very actions that we are seeing in the Middle East today was expressed in writing prior to 9/11. They said:

"Further, the process of transformation [In Middle East policy], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (page 51)

Then nearly one year later to the day they had 9/11 and 27 days after that began the invasion/occupation of a sovereign Middle East country. We are still there today.

That is why I link the two and have a bias.

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

Let me editorialize for a minute. Some CTist fashion themselves as current day "Columbo's". They are the rogue detective who will recreate the crime, interview the suspects and in a "gotcha" moment, only found in 60 minute TV shows, will uncover the criminals using only wit and guile. No fancy degree, or expertise in various technologies needed.

We've all seen the shows, all the evidence is pointing in one direction, but in walks our hero and with some clever questioning or observation gets the criminal to unwittingly reveal his guilt.

Criminal: "I think it's horrible the way she was repeatedly stabbed"
Our Hero: "I never said anything about her being stabbed:"
GOTCHA (think Larry's pull it, or Rummy's missile comment).

Or
Criminal: "She was murdered in the afternoon, I was there at breakfast, here is a photograph as proof"
Our Hero: "Let me see the photograph one more time". "AH-Ha, Do you see the shadow, clearly that shadow is from an afternoon sun."
GOTCHA (think of all the video's and pictures)

In the absence of full and total disclosure from the USG this is the best some of us can do to resolve the unanswered questions.

[Russell Pickering]

I wish (and, yes, wishing is a useless, unfulfilling exercise) that people--Ct'ers and "Septics" alike would quit referring to CD as something akin to magic.It ain't.
you damage a building past its ability to stand up by itself, it falls down.
It will fall down according to the laws of motion regardless of the method used to damage it: Shaped charges, dynamite,C4, 100 ton airplane, burning gasoline, burning kerosine, or evan a hacksaw and lots of time.
believe it or not, any of those methods are going to look like Controlled Demolition in the end because that's the way physics works.
There are no separate laws for "natural", accidental, and intentional.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Then the art and years of science behind CD is redundant? You can just bring three buildings straight down any old way?

[DavidJames]

In the absence of full and total disclosure from the USG this is the best some of us can do to resolve the unanswered questions.You have access to the full NIST reports of the collapse of WTC1 & 2, along with the authors names. They include analysis from the qualified experts who analyzed the event. Can you tell us specifically what within the report you object to and why.

[gumboot]

realitybites,

I did not create that distinction.

They said they would release the unedited version but not to request the original. There is a difference in their mind obviously.

I do not know video and can only speak of photography. I can give you an unedited version or copy of a photo. But if I give you the original it will contain the EXIF data which contains all of the camera parameters and times etc.

Maybe somebody could elaborate on this type of feature in video?

Russell


The video was originated on MiniDV format. This is a magnetic tape format, and as such is PHYSICAL media, not recorded as a data file.

The tape has a control track from which you can determine if it has been edited however this requires specialist machinery to do it - the control track of a magnetic tape is not visible via a standard consumer VCR and monitor. In addition, very few consumer digital cameras record true timecode, which is the primary method of determining the sort of thing you are after. A format recording true timecode would be much easier to determine as broken timecode is very easy to identify. However consumer products that claim "timecode" are simply mimicking timecode; it is not REAL timecode (for example a VCR playing true timecode will stop playing/fast-forwarding, etc if it hits a break in the timecode)

Using a firewire connection the footage can be digitised - that is the magnetic data is read off the tape, converted to a bitstream, sent to a computer, and recoded in a media format (avi, etc).

Assuming a typical digital file, this new piece of media will have incorporated data (resolution, frame rate, date, etc) however it will not capture data of this sort off the tape.

It is much like scanning a print of a 35mm celluloid photograph.

In and out points can be allocated to the digitising process, so it is impossible to determine if footage has been cut out or not (assuming the original footage is not one continuous take).

Even getting hold of the tape is troublesome, because they could digitise the footage, edit it, and send it back to the camera, recording it onto a new magnetic tape. This new magnetic tape would still have an authentic control track, so you won't be able to determine it is not the original (assuming their computer and editing software could output at sufficient resolution).

Essentially, if you commence from a stand-point that the people providing this footage MIGHT be lying about what they recorded and hiding some footage, there is no way, using anything they provide, of determining authenticity.

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

My bias is the only one I can explain. The very actions that we are seeing in the Middle East today was expressed in writing prior to 9/11. They said:

"Further, the process of transformation [In Middle East policy], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (page 51)


From http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html

"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies,in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence".

So "transformation" refers to the process of introducing more information technologies into the military. What does 9/11 have to do with that? Nothing at all. In fact, the attacks demonstrated that one of the PNAC's pet schemes, a global missile shield, is entirely useless when planes can become bombs.

So "transformation" has nothing to do with your alledged "Middle East policy".

Read pages 50-51 of the PNAC.

[Gravy]

.

My bias is the only one I can explain. The very actions that we are seeing in the Middle East today was expressed in writing prior to 9/11. They said:

"Further, the process of transformation [In Middle East policy], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."You spoke of your bias, and you certainly show it here. Now you're not just taking a quote out of context, you're adding a meaning "" that does not exist in the original. Here is more of the PNAC document. You can read more of my analysis in my Loose Change Viewer Guide. (http://www.loosechangeguide.com)

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence. The United States enjoys every prospect of leading this transformation. Indeed, it was the improvements in capabilities acquired during the American defense buildup of the 1980s that hinted at and then confirmed, during Operation Desert Storm, that a revolution in military affairs was at hand. At the same time, the process of military transformation will present opportunities for America's adversaries to develop new capabilities that in turn will create new challenges for U.S. military preeminence.

Moreover, the Pentagon, constrained by limited budgets and pressing current missions, has seen funding for experimentation and transformation crowded out in recent years. Spending on military research and development has been reduced dramatically over the past decade. Indeed, during the mid-1980's, when the Defense Department was in the midst of the Reagan buildup which was primarily an effort to expand existing forces and field traditional weapons systems, research spending represented 20 percent of total Pentagon budgets. By contrast, today's research and development accounts total only 8 percent of defense spending. And even this reduced total is primarily for upgrades of current weapons. Without increased spending on basic research and development the United States will be unable to exploit the RMA and preserve its technological edge onfuture battlefields.

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a "strategic pause" while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades.Eta: bolding mine.

Russell, the 2000 PNAC document – [I]a publicly published and promoted document – is a recommendation for how the military should be transformed in the absence of a event like a Pearl Harbor. It is not a public call for a new Pearl Harbor.

Surely you see the difference?

[gumboot]

My bias is the only one I can explain. The very actions that we are seeing in the Middle East today was expressed in writing prior to 9/11. They said:

"Further, the process of transformation [In Middle East policy], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (page 51)

Then nearly one year later to the day they had 9/11 and 27 days after that began the invasion/occupation of a sovereign Middle East country. We are still there today.



Russell I think I know where the problem lies... it is here:

"Further, the process of transformation [In Middle East policy], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

Note the bolding.

May I ask, have you read PNAC?

The "process of transformation" is not in reference to Mid-east Policy. From reading that section of PNAC it is abundantly clear that the process of transformation being referred to is Defense Spending - specifically a reinjection of funds into developing new technologies - an area of defense funding that had been seriously depleted since the years of Reagan.

Essentially, the PNAC was saying "Unless we spend more money of developing new defense technologies, some day soon other countries will have superior military technology to us"

Now you can argue if that's actually a bad thing or not, but it is clear that is what they are talking about.

Indeed, a closer read of PNAC will swiftly reveal that the very situation in Afghanistan and Iraq is EXACTLY what the PNAC doctrine expressed must be AVOIDED.

Lastly, a quibble, nothing more. Taliban-ruled Afghanistan was not a sovereign country. Pakistan is the only country which ever recognised the Taliban. Specifically, the United Nations did not recognise the Taliban, and had identified them as a significant threat to global peace and security well before 9/11.

The recognised government of Afghanistan was the so-called "Northern Alliance" (or more accurately, they were the remnants of the government) which, you may recall, is allied with the coalition forces.

You will notice a similar thing happened with the revolution in China, however the United Nations subsequently recognised Mao's communist party as the legitimate government of China. This did not happen with Afghanistan.

-Gumboot

ETA.

Beaten to it! By Gravy AND Pardalis, nonetheless!

So what's the prize for third place?

[Russell Pickering]

Gravy and others,

"A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Why do you guys argue so hard against the obvious?

Gravy you said it, "is a recommendation for how the military should be transformed in the absence of a event like a Pearl Harbor."

What they said is, "A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

So if this transformation can not be successful from solely projecting force from the U.S., where is it they want the forward bases and what is their disposition in general toward the Middle East?

Let's put the statements in context of the document OK?

"Forward basing and presence + new Pearl Harbor + Transformation (two paragraphs)" = Middle East.

"America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests [1]. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge [2], and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of the past century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.” (ABOUT THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY page)

Question [1] - What are their fundamental interests?

Answer [1] - It is their mission statement, ".....that American leadership is good both for America and for the world.....".

Question [2] - What is one way to "shape circumstances" before a real crisis occurs?

Answer [2] - It is to create false pretexts for war such as WMD and 9/11 (new Pearl Harbor).

"The military's job during the Cold War was to deter Soviet expansionism. Today its task is to secure and expand the “zones of democratic peace;” to deter the rise of a new great power competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence through the coming transformation of war made possible by new technologies." (page 3)

Commentary - They see the job of the military to expand to the Middle east in part through the transformation of war which was likely to be long without a new Pearl Harbor. Turned out they only had to wait a year for 9/11 and 27 days after that to begin the transformation.

"America’s global leadership, and its role as the guarantor of the current great-power peace, relies upon the safety of the American homeland; the preservation of a favorable balance of power in Europe, the Middle East and surrounding energy producing region....." (page 5)

Commentary - This is obvious. I believe the motivation behind 9/11 was "ideological" if you'll pardon the use of the term. But when the vice president is an original member of the PNAC and gets paid via Hiliburton to destroy it and then in turn rebuild it and the president's family empire is built on oil I might suggest some sub-motives. I mean most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia but it was only the Saudi Arabians who were allowed to fly after 9/11?

"While maintaining its combat role, the U.S. Army has acquired new missions in the past decade – most immediately, missions associated with completing the task of creating a Europe “whole and free” and defending American interests in the Persian Gulf and Middle East." (page 22)

"Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." (page 14)

Commentary - Using words like "justification" is interesting. They acknowledge they have "immediate justification" in their minds. The real problem is would their opinion have satisfied the American people? They needed justification sufficient for the American public to get behind behind their pre-planned transformation of military power in the Middle East. They got it. You can also see here that it really had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

"Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region." (page 17)

Commentary - Very prophetic document! We have already determined the U.S. interests in the Gulf. After Iraq they expect Iran to become a problem. Wow! After the original lies to invade Iraq were forgotten which transcended even the regime of Saddam, the exact same posturing is now taking place towards Iran. Here they even blatanty state that even if "U.S.-Iranian relations improve" they still want "forward-based forces in the region". So if Saddam wasn't the reason for Iraq and good relations aren't the reason for Iran, what is the reason?

FORWARD-BASED FORCES IN THE GULF. That is the KEY to the military transformation of which they speak. It is not solely effective unless the Middle East is transformed.

Remember now we have not quoted anything beyond page 22 since we started our full context evaluation. So when we get to page 51 and they are talking about a new Pearl Harbor be very aware of what they are talking about and the fact that Iraq and Iran were their goals from the start. Did you think they meant a new Pearl Harbor would give them a chance to test new weapons? No - it would give them the "justification" in the minds of the American people for the military to transform the Middle East by having forward bases there to protect our interests in the Gulf!

Why didn't they say a new Viet Nam? A new Korea? A new European theatre? Because Pearl harbor was the reason the U.S. entered into a world war. Or as we call it today a global war. And then the similarity of it being an early morning airborne attack on US soil/territory? In the days following 9/11 politicians and commentators were using the term regularly and still today frequent comparisons are drawn between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. They chose Pearl Harbor for a reason.

Rather than go on and bore you, I believe you can see your attempt to context the comment to a couple of paragraphs does not show an understanding of the document or the PNAC as a whole. I didn't go into all of this detail then but felt it was required now.

Their plan was simple. To put America in a position to govern the world they had to have a military transformation of the Middle east to include forward military bases. The only problem is they couldn't do it without the support of the American people and get away with it.

There is further proof of their intent in recent policy battles.


Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on June 9.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...1358&C=mideast


Congress has recently denied that option but in effect it is already too late. They will now quibble over the definition of "permanent".


A major sticking point will be 14 "enduring" bases under construction for U.S. troops. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insists these facilities aren't permanent......

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/31660.html


They got their wish folks. The Middle East is theirs permanent bases and all.

Russell

[twinstead]

They got their wish folks. The Middle East is theirs permanent bases and all.


As a rhetorical exorcise, exactly how would YOU pursue the war on terror if the official story were true?

Tell me, if 'hypothetically' there really was an Islamic movement in the world bent on destroying the US and Western culture in general, why establishing and maintaining a base or two smack dab in the belly of the beast would be a bad idea?

If indeed, hypothetically of course, the threat was exactly what the official story describes, how would YOU deal with it?

[Russell Pickering]

Now, since the cat's out of the bag I'll finish up. If you ever want to discuss the philosophy of Leo Strauss, the neo cons or the politics of all of this, let me know. The reason I poke around in the forensics of 9/11 is to look for incriminating evidence for what I know very clearly is happening in the big picture. You CAN NOT understand 9/11 unless you understand the PNAC.

If you don't do it now you will later. Their next plans will affect you as much as 9/11 did. From the same document that brought you Middle East occupation:

"Cyberspace, or ‘Net-War’- If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace,” and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new 'global commons'". (page 57)

"'It is not an optional extra.' For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element of our military strategy. If America cannot maintain that control, its ability to conduct global military operations will be severely complicated, far more costly, and potentially fatally compromised". (page 55)

The Internet and the space around the planet are next. I wonder what they will do to justify this? Who are a few of the members?

Dick Cheney - In 1997 was the CEO of Halliburton. He still profits from sending our troops to war and then again rebuilding the destruction. The alleged outing of a CIA agent in retaliation for telling the truth about WMD will give you some idea how important going to war was to these people.

Donald Rumsfeld - In 1997 was the Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences the developer of Tamiflu. That's interesting in light of the whole Avian Flu scare. He was roommates with Frank Carlucci of the Carlyle group in 1989. He was also caught signing soldiers death certificates with an auto-pen instead of doing it in person.

Richard Perle - His nickname in Washington D.C. is the Prince of Darkness (by both friends and enemies). He almost came to blows with author Tom Clancy when he said to Clancy, "Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops". (Dubuque Telegraph Herald, June 13, 2004. Associated Press)

Bill Kristol - A FOX News contributor and the son of Irving Kristol, "The Father of Modern Neo-Conservatism" - Straussian style.

Paul Wolfowitz - I can't find where he was doing anything significant in 1997. But now he is probably the only person to run the World Bank with a bachelor's degree in math and one college internship at a financial institution. Everybody in this plan has been jockeyed into position no matter what.

Jeb Bush - He was doing "business, civic and charitable activities" in 1997. One year later he was elected governor of Florida, a key electoral state. In fact, it was the state that later helped his brother via his dad's Supreme Court cause America to have its first appointed president. The votes of 543,895 Americans didn't count that day. Remember they will stop at nothing to accomplish this plan.

John Bolton - He worked at the American Enterprise Institute in 1997. Today he is ambassador to the United Nations on a recess appointment in spite of what the officials elected by the American people thought. Can you see the theme here?

Lewis Libby - Paul Wolfowitz was his professor in college. He is one of the actual authors who may have penned the words "NEW PEARL HARBOR". He is also the only one who fell for the outing of a CIA agent which is treason.

Dov Zakheim - Pentagon CFO who was in charge when Rumsfeld announved $2.3 trillion dollars missing the night before 9/11. Was also an executive in a company whose products included remote control aircraft technology, flight termination systems and radar emulation technology.

DO NOT underestimate these people or their resources.

Russell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/who.html

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/laws.html

Other members (positions may be outdated):

Douglas J. Feith (former) Undersecretary of DefenseI, Aaron Friedberg Vice President Cheney’s deputy National Security advisor,Robert Zoelick US Deputy Secretary of State, Paula Dobriansky Undersecretary of State. Elliott Abrams Deputy National Security Adviser, Frank Gaffney Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Fred C. Ikle Pentagon's Defense Policy Board,Eliot A. Cohen Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Henry S. Rowen Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, William J. Bennett Presidential speech writer, Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. ambassador to Iraq

[T.A.M.]

And when the DEMs get in in 2008 (and in congress in 2006) will you then have a pile of new names and who they worked for, and why they are also part of the big NWO?

up until now, I was convinced your motives were simply to get to the truth, but now I begin to see your motives are political. AM I wrong?

TAM

[Russell Pickering]

After you digest that for a while, realize that the "official story" you defend is OK for the 98% of the government that has been hijacked along with us.

You are missing the 2%. The real hijackers.

It is an offensive and frightening idea but mark these words and watch history recapitulate itself right in front of your eyes.

[Russell Pickering]

And when the DEMs get in in 2008 (and in congress in 2006) will you then have a pile of new names and who they worked for, and why they are also part of the big NWO?

up until now, I was convinced your motives were simply to get to the truth, but now I begin to see your motives are political. AM I wrong?

TAM

TAM,

I don't say this often.

YES YOU ARE WRONG.

My motives in 9/11 investigation are to get to the truth of that day.

You can not separate a day from the day before and the day after in the real world. It is not a petri dish.

Because people were involved that had positions in politics does not make my goals political.

Russell

P.S. I have never cast a vote for a Democrat.

[gumboot]

Russell,

I must say I am disappointed. I made efforts to provide you with information regarding your video interpretation, because you seemed to legitimately want to find the truth. As such I provided my expertise in this regard.

Even though you often ignored or brushed over my professional opinion (and yes, it IS professional, I am not inflating my trumpet here!) I continued, because I wanted to help you.

However this latest PNAC angle changes all of that. Russell, I am also a writer, and my language skills are exceptional, as you might expect. Your basic reading comprehension skills are appalling. This is based on your previously posted reading of PNAC. I do not mean that as an insult, but as a statement of fact.

Your post reflects a total failure to understand the PNAC document. As such, I must assume your investigations are indeed guided by political bias, and not by a desire to find the truth.

As such I will no longer make any effort to offer my expertise in aiding you.

-Gumboot

[beachnut]

9/11 and Pearl Harbor list of things.

planes, buildings, terrorists, cell phones; VS planes, ships, bombs, guns, cannons, torpedoes, battleships, soldiers, cell phones

yes out of some simple variables there are only TWO things the same; planes and cell phones; who knew Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were connected!

FDR did Pearl harbor???? Bush did 9/11 --- sounds --- good to CT… (connected)

all from a thread on sound, one sound two videos

The poor kids reading the internet know FDR could have warned Pearl Harbor commanders on his cell phone but he did not! The CT is, why he did not use his cell phone!!!!

Once a CT truth monger, always a truthful CT guy. RP will never think a poor pilot can be a poor pilot and crash on purpose into a building.

His web site could win a Pulitzer Prize if he only had a fact. Which OZ character needed a fact?

[Russell Pickering]

Russell,

I must say I am disappointed. I made efforts to provide you with information regarding your video interpretation, because you seemed to legitimately want to find the truth. As such I provided my expertise in this regard.

Even though you often ignored or brushed over my professional opinion (and yes, it IS professional, I am not inflating my trumpet here!) I continued, because I wanted to help you.

However this latest PNAC angle changes all of that. Russell, I am also a writer, and my language skills are exceptional, as you might expect. Your basic reading comprehension skills are appalling. This is based on your previously posted reading of PNAC. I do not mean that as an insult, but as a statement of fact.

Your post reflects a total failure to understand the PNAC document. As such, I must assume your investigations are indeed guided by political bias, and not by a desire to find the truth.

As such I will no longer make any effort to offer my expertise in aiding you.

-Gumboot

Gumboot,

I am sorry I missed your video post. I just went and read it. Thank you very much as it did answer all of my questions!

The rest of it is your decision.

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

The thing that is escaping you is that I understand your relentless attempts to discredit.

Doubt I was a firefighter and I prove it.

Criticize my site and I fix it.

See I am wrong and admit it.

But every time it is a new angle.

Who do you think is buying it?

From the few emails I am receiving from "lurkers" it is pretty obvious to them what you are up to and the lack of real discussion. But I admire determination - so keep trying.

Russell

[Pardalis]

Russell, where is your evidence that the US government was behind 9/11?

[DavidJames]

You have access to the full NIST reports of the collapse of WTC1 & 2, along with the authors names. They include analysis from the qualified experts who analyzed the event. Can you tell us specifically what within the report you object to and why.
Russell; I"m bumping this because I would like to see your response. You continually claim to be searching for the truth. I think we all share that pursuit. The NIST report was prepared by a myriad of individuals employed in dozens of private profession organizations. They are professionals with the education and experience to research and analyze the events on 9/11. The have placed their names and reputations on the line with the reports.

Tell us about your review and analysis of the reports and please document your evidence proving the report is wrong. It's that simple Russell. For you to be right, the report must be wrong.

I see two options.
1. You can produce your analysis.
2. You can dodge the challenge.

The balls in your court Russell.

[Gravy]

After you digest that for a while, realize that the "official story" you defend is OK for the 98% of the government that has been hijacked along with us.

You are missing the 2%. The real hijackers.
We believe evidence. Please name one of these "real" hijackers and present the evidence you have against them.

Just one. With your evidence. Thanks.

Russell,

(snip) Your post reflects a total failure to understand the PNAC document. As such, I must assume your investigations are indeed guided by political bias, and not by a desire to find the truth.

As such I will no longer make any effort to offer my expertise in aiding you.

-Gumboot
I couldn't agree more, Andrew. Russell, you inject unfounded beliefs into each discussion. That can't be any more obvious than your injection of the "Middle East" into the "Pearl Harbor" statement.

I don't despair of your developing better critical thinking skills, because you've shown that you can change strongly-held opinions. But I have no idea how to encourage you to change your default position from one of relying on beliefs that are not supported by facts, to an evidence-based approach. I think this is a good primer on the subject: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking. (http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html)

[Russell Pickering]

We believe evidence. Please name one of these "real" hijackers and present the evidence you have against them.

Just one. With your evidence. Thanks.


I couldn't agree more, Andrew. Russell, you inject unfounded beliefs into each discussion. That can't be any more obvious than your injection of the "Middle East" into the "Pearl Harbor" statement.

I don't despair of your developing better critical thinking skills, because you've shown that you can change strongly-held opinions. But I have no idea how to encourage you to change your default position from one of relying on beliefs that are not supported by facts, to an evidence-based approach. I think this is a good primer on the subject: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking. (http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html)

Gravy,

You provide evidence Osama was behind it. Be sure to use the standards of the FBI who can't find enough to list him as wanted for it on their site.

Gravy - it was an obvious injection - thus the brackets around it. That was to summarize what I later elaborated on.

If we can't execute our plan without forward bases in the Gulf and that issue transcends Saddam Hussein and we don't care if relations improve with Iran we're gonna do it anyways is not enough for you then I would have to say you don't understand the document.

Then they prophetically mention 1 year in advance how long the "transformation" may take without a "new pearl Harbor" and we just happen to get one and execute the beginning of the plan to have permanent bases in the Gulf 27 days later, and now we have 14 "enduring" bases? I really wonder if you read my posts.

Maybe you'll read more about the PNAC when they start domination of the Internet and ownership of the space around the planet.

But don't try and portray me as not understanding the big picture. OK? You have detailed WTC knowledge and that is fine. But I actually have spent more time researching the PNAC, Leo Strauss, Neo-Conservatism and how free countries are converted to fascism than I have 9/11 specifically.

Look at their membership one more time. Then look at our administration. Then realize it all started in 1997.

PART ONE: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2046238&postcount=215

PART TWO: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2046252&postcount=217

Thank you for the critical thinking guide!

Russell

[Kent1]

Gravy,

You provide evidence Osama was behind it. Be sure to use the standards of the FBI who can't find enough to list him as wanted for it on their site.



Russell
Small quick note.... according to Rex Tomb, "They COULD add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

[Russell Pickering]

Small quick note.... according to Rex Tomb, "They COULD add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

"On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

I guess old Rex changed his tune for the MSM between June and August after the story got around!

Russell

[Kent1]

"On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

I guess old Rex changed his tune for the MSM between June and August after the story got around!

Russell
Yes now he must be lieing right.....actually he "changed his tune" a while back.

E-mail him rex.tomb@ic.fbi.gov

[Russell Pickering]

Yes now he must be lieing right.....actually he "changed his tune" a while back.

E-mail him rex.tomb@ic.fbi.gov

Scott,

His statement in June is recorded.

He changed between June and August.

It is after August and there is no reason to email him now.

I can see his new story already in the paper. It was mentioned in the article about CT's and thus indicates to me the spreading of his original story by CT's had something to do with his change 60 days later after approximately 5 years of Osama not being wanted by the FBI.

Russell

[T.A.M.]

Now, since the cat's out of the bag I'll finish up. If you ever want to discuss the philosophy of Leo Strauss, the neo cons or the politics of all of this, let me know. The reason I poke around in the forensics of 9/11 is to look for incriminating evidence for what I know very clearly is happening in the big picture. You CAN NOT understand 9/11 unless you understand the PNAC.

If you don't do it now you will later. Their next plans will affect you as much as 9/11 did. From the same document that brought you Middle East occupation:

"Cyberspace, or ‘Net-War’- If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace,” and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new 'global commons'". (page 57)

"'It is not an optional extra.' For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element of our military strategy. If America cannot maintain that control, its ability to conduct global military operations will be severely complicated, far more costly, and potentially fatally compromised". (page 55)

The Internet and the space around the planet are next. I wonder what they will do to justify this? Who are a few of the members?

Dick Cheney - In 1997 was the CEO of Halliburton. He still profits from sending our troops to war and then again rebuilding the destruction. The alleged outing of a CIA agent in retaliation for telling the truth about WMD will give you some idea how important going to war was to these people.

Donald Rumsfeld - In 1997 was the Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences the developer of Tamiflu. That's interesting in light of the whole Avian Flu scare. He was roommates with Frank Carlucci of the Carlyle group in 1989. He was also caught signing soldiers death certificates with an auto-pen instead of doing it in person.

Richard Perle - His nickname in Washington D.C. is the Prince of Darkness (by both friends and enemies). He almost came to blows with author Tom Clancy when he said to Clancy, "Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops". (Dubuque Telegraph Herald, June 13, 2004. Associated Press)

Bill Kristol - A FOX News contributor and the son of Irving Kristol, "The Father of Modern Neo-Conservatism" - Straussian style.

Paul Wolfowitz - I can't find where he was doing anything significant in 1997. But now he is probably the only person to run the World Bank with a bachelor's degree in math and one college internship at a financial institution. Everybody in this plan has been jockeyed into position no matter what.

Jeb Bush - He was doing "business, civic and charitable activities" in 1997. One year later he was elected governor of Florida, a key electoral state. In fact, it was the state that later helped his brother via his dad's Supreme Court cause America to have its first appointed president. The votes of 543,895 Americans didn't count that day. Remember they will stop at nothing to accomplish this plan.

John Bolton - He worked at the American Enterprise Institute in 1997. Today he is ambassador to the United Nations on a recess appointment in spite of what the officials elected by the American people thought. Can you see the theme here?

Lewis Libby - Paul Wolfowitz was his professor in college. He is one of the actual authors who may have penned the words "NEW PEARL HARBOR". He is also the only one who fell for the outing of a CIA agent which is treason.

Dov Zakheim - Pentagon CFO who was in charge when Rumsfeld announved $2.3 trillion dollars missing the night before 9/11. Was also an executive in a company whose products included remote control aircraft technology, flight termination systems and radar emulation technology.

DO NOT underestimate these people or their resources.

Russell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/who.html

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/laws.html

Other members (positions may be outdated):

Douglas J. Feith (former) Undersecretary of DefenseI, Aaron Friedberg Vice President Cheney’s deputy National Security advisor,Robert Zoelick US Deputy Secretary of State, Paula Dobriansky Undersecretary of State. Elliott Abrams Deputy National Security Adviser, Frank Gaffney Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Fred C. Ikle Pentagon's Defense Policy Board,Eliot A. Cohen Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, Henry S. Rowen Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, William J. Bennett Presidential speech writer, Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. ambassador to Iraq

Russ:
Thanks for your frank answer.

The above quote, Russ, is the reason I suspected your motivations were political. So if they are not, but they are connected to the above list/organization/individuals, than on what basis...if not political than, what?

TAM

[Kent1]

Scott,

His statement in June is recorded.

He changed between June and August.

It is after August and there is no reason to email him now.

I can see his new story already in the paper. It was mentioned in the article about CT's and thus indicates to me the spreading of his original story by CT's had something to do with his change 60 days later after approximately 5 years of Osama not being wanted by the FBI.

Russell
What I'm saying is that even before the link I gave he didn't continue supporting the quote from Ed's article. Ed or Rex will conferm this if you ask them.

I suspect either A. Ed was originally incorrect or B. Rex was. Especially considering the state dept's website.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-610042.html
No doubt Rex knew about the CT article. He was contacted by multible people not long after the Muckracker's article.

As I believe I told Ed this has always been one of the more shallow CT's.

[DavidJames]

You have access to the full NIST reports of the collapse of WTC1 & 2, along with the authors names. They include analysis from the qualified experts who analyzed the event. Can you tell us specifically what within the report you object to and why.Russell; I"m bumping this because I would like to see your response. You continually claim to be searching for the truth. I think we all share that pursuit. The NIST report was prepared by a myriad of individuals employed in dozens of private profession organizations. They are professionals with the education and experience to research and analyze the events on 9/11. The have placed their names and reputations on the line with the reports.

Tell us about your review and analysis of the reports and please document your evidence proving the report is wrong. It's that simple Russell. For you to be right, the report must be wrong.

I see two options.
1. You can produce your analysis.
2. You can dodge the challenge.

The balls in your court Russell.

Third time Russell - No politics, just facts. Show us your analysis proving the NIST report wrong. Bonus points if you can then prove why, incompetence or paid off or....

You get to choose based on your evidence.

[Matilda]

Russell, I read PNAC's defence report some time ago. I think I have the same high opinion of the neo conservatives as you do.

But.

Why, if your interpretation of the quote is correct, and if these people were secretly involved in a conspiracy to create a new Pearl Harbour, would they make this public? And put it on the net for the world to see? Of course a catalysing event like a new pearl harbour would increase defence expenditure, but why does that mean they are responsible for 9/11?

You're interpretation of what was written in that report is just that - an interpretation. That's not evidence for a conspiracy on the part of the government.

Don't look for a government conspiracy. Look at what the evidence 9/11 suggests happened. Everyone is biased in some way; what's important is how you approach something. Put that bias to one side for now. Keep looking at the evidence.

[pgwenthold]

jujigatami

I have seen a lot about the events on 9/11, but just want to note that your description was probably the one that affected me the most, and really hit home what went on that day. We don't see too many of such lucid assessments. Thanks.

I want to highlight this part:
When I hit the area near Cedar St, I could start to see the devastation. There was giant beams and junk everywhere. When I hit Fulton St. (I think) I could finally get over to Broadway to see the damage. There was rubble 20 stories high. It’s a sight I can’t even explain. It was a complete disaster. I was in total shock. That’s when I saw WTC7 on fire. I didn’t even notice it at first. There was hot dust and debris raining down, thick smoke billowing overhead. Building 7 wasn’t even a blip on my radar. But then I noticed it. It was on fire like the towering inferno. I mean flames were everywhere. I thought there were flames coming out on all floors, but I guess that’s because of all of the smoke. I kept looking at the building. It had so much debris up against it, and I mean big huge chucks of debris. Without you actually being there, you just can’t get the enormous scale of the disaster. The twisted steel and chunks of concrete were just so huge that my mind couldn’t comprehend it.

So apparently, not all the concrete was pulverized into dust? Man, who'd a thunk a truther would get that wrong.

Has anyone from the truth movement asked you about whether you saw non-pulverized concrete? (Don't bother to answer - I know very well)

[rwguinn]

Then the art and years of science behind CD is redundant? You can just bring three buildings straight down any old way?
Got in in One go! Very, good!
Yes--all the art and science behind CD is chosing which supports to weaken to make natural forces yield the result you want!

ETA--Ithink this thread needs to split to politics--that's the driving force behind Russell's entire argument, anyway--not any science--just pure hatred.

[Russell Pickering]

Third time Russell - No politics, just facts. Show us your analysis proving the NIST report wrong. Bonus points if you can then prove why, incompetence or paid off or....

You get to choose based on your evidence.

D.J.,

The reason I have not responded was that I thought it an obvious answer.

I have no ability or expertise to prove the NIST report(s) wrong.

In fact, as time allows I am just reading the various reports regarding the towers for the first time ever.

My general thoughts are that:

1) They had limited access to the first hand direct evidence.

2) They did not test for explosives even though the use of a secondary device was a possibility. http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2046705&postcount=154

3) ALL reports were minimized in my opinion and reviewed if not edited by the FBI.
a. The NTSB told me this themselves in regards to Flight 77.
b. The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission Report told their story.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14191255/
c. The Pentagon Building Performance Report was severely limited.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/bps.html (I also talked to an engineer who provided photos for this)

I do not feel that the average individual involved in these reports was deceptive. I feel they had immense pressure on them. I Know in the case of the NTSB what was released was at least reviewed by the FBI if not edited. Unprovable of course except for what an NTSB agent told me as well as their spokesperson.

The best overall evidence for my opinion is that the administration tried to prevent a 9/11 investigation which is 100% questionable in light of the magnitude of the event, and that both the president and vice president refused to testify under oath, individually or with any verbatim account of their testimony.

This undermines my trust in general.

My "politics" will be detailed in a post or two since it is being used an excuse to ignore pertinent data.

Russell

[beachnut]

I wish (and, yes, wishing is a useless, unfulfilling exercise) that people--Ct'ers and "Septics" alike would quit referring to CD as something akin to magic.It ain't.
you damage a building past its ability to stand up by itself, it falls down.
It will fall down according to the laws of motion regardless of the method used to damage it: Shaped charges, dynamite,C4, 100 ton airplane, burning gasoline, burning kerosine, or evan a hacksaw and lots of time.
believe it or not, any of those methods are going to look like Controlled Demolition in the end because that's the way physics works.
There are no separate laws for "natural", accidental, and intentional.
Sorry, but that's the way it is.

How can you let the cat out of the bag?

do not tell CT guys you can not break the laws of Phyics

breaking the laws of physics is their only fantasy point left

stop using logic and reason, and especialy real science

Truth, ok

[Russell Pickering]

Russell, I read PNAC's defence report some time ago. I think I have the same high opinion of the neo conservatives as you do.

But.

Why, if your interpretation of the quote is correct, and if these people were secretly involved in a conspiracy to create a new Pearl Harbour, would they make this public? And put it on the net for the world to see? Of course a catalysing event like a new pearl harbour would increase defence expenditure, but why does that mean they are responsible for 9/11?

You're interpretation of what was written in that report is just that - an interpretation. That's not evidence for a conspiracy on the part of the government.

Don't look for a government conspiracy. Look at what the evidence 9/11 suggests happened. Everyone is biased in some way; what's important is how you approach something. Put that bias to one side for now. Keep looking at the evidence.

Matilda,

I believe a small element within our government have hijacked us. I am not anti-government in any way. I support the individual human beings on the battlefield as well.

To me that document is evidence. I feel satisfied with my understanding of it. I have studied Neo-Conservatism in detail. Perpetual war and a "noble" lie are indicative of a philosophy that is dangerous.

Remember when they tried to rename the "war on terror" to the "long war"?

"A second fundamental belief of Strauss’s ancients has to do with their insistence on the need for secrecy and the necessity of lies. In his book Persecution and the Art of Writing, Strauss outlines why secrecy is necessary. He argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons – to spare the people’s feelings and to protect the elite from possible reprisals."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm

Just my opinion. If you want to try and separate forensic evidence from the context of history go ahead. I have a much more holistic interpretation of things. I know certain people here fancy themselves as "scientific" but science is only one of the studies of life. For the most part I see ridicule and denial much more than I see science here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66868

Russell

[twinstead]

To me that document is evidence. I feel satisfied with my understanding of it.

Russell, the problem is there are people every bit as intelligent and honerable as you, and as interested in getting to the 'truth' as you are, who interpret that document differently and don't consider it evidence of a government plot on 911.

So, now what?

[Russell Pickering]

Russ:
Thanks for your frank answer.

The above quote, Russ, is the reason I suspected your motivations were political. So if they are not, but they are connected to the above list/organization/individuals, than on what basis...if not political than, what?

TAM

TAM,

Lets clarify a couple of things.

I have never cast a vote for a Democrat. I abstained from voting in 2004 since I did not wish to vote for either candidate.

I am not a liberal and have no political agenda. I have honorably served my country. I have 100% support for the individual human beings on the battlefield. I am disgusted by an action such as Rumsfeld signing death certificates with an autopen.

"Then came a revelation that he has not personally signed condolence letters to the families of the more than 1,300 Americans killed in Iraq but had used an autopen."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04356/430022.stm

Another Neo-Conservative, Richard Perle who was extremely involved in policy, ".....almost came to blows with author Tom Clancy when he said to Clancy, 'Colin Powell was being a wuss because he was overly concerned with the lives of the troops'. (Dubuque Telegraph Herald, June 13, 2004. Associated Press)

These are just two examples of the PNAC's disregard for human life. I don't care what party they belong to. I have the same questions in regards to religious crusades and war over resources. Politics is not my agenda.

My first awareness of 9/11 questions came from direct statements from Ground Zero. I have to respect privacy and will not be able to verify this source so feel free to disregard it. But within two weeks of 9/11 very trusted friends of mine who were there working told me about the rumors of explosives being used there. I did not think much of it and assumed it was secondary devices. It never occurred to me again until I heard the official reports. I was a 100% supporter of the official story.

Two years later I stumbled across photos of the Pentagon. I read my first conspiracy article then. I set out to question it and started making calls to fire stations and rescuers since I had been one myself. Everything has moved forward from there to today.

I had NO prior knowledge of the PNAC. I did not know what a Neo-Conservative was. I read a reference to the Pearl Harbor quote one day and tracked it to its source. Plain and simple. I have studied them in detail since.

I believed in only a 9/11 cover up first. The logical assumption if you take a conspiracy position as I do now is that somebody has to be behind it. The physical evidence is not in a test tube. My belief is that the PNAC is the most likely suspect.

If Buddhists had authored that document and their others, I would feel the exact same way.

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

Russell, the problem is there are people every bit as intelligent and honerable as you, and as interested in getting to the 'truth' as you are, who interpret that document differently and don't consider it evidence of a government plot on 911.

So, now what?

Open discussion and tolerance of each other's beliefs.

[realitybites]

Open discussion and tolerance of each other's beliefs.
Beliefs in regards to what? ... 9/11?

If that's the case, move this thread to the religion forum. This forum is not to discuss what we believe, it's to discuss the evidence of that day.

[Russell Pickering]

I just found an article today that is interesting in light of the discussion here yesterday.

I posted this from Rebuilding America's defenses:

"'It is not an optional extra.' For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control of space – defined by Space Command as 'the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space' – must be an essential element of our military strategy. If America cannot maintain that control, its ability to conduct global military operations will be severely complicated, far more costly, and potentially fatally compromised". (page 55)

Then I said this to Gravy:

"Maybe you'll read more about the PNAC when they start domination of the Internet and ownership of the space around the planet."

Here is what I found today:

Bush space policy puts priority on defense: report, Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:00am ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush has signed a newly revised space policy that sets defense as a priority and rejects future negotiations that might limit U.S. flexibility in space, The Washington Post reported on Wednesday.

The document, released earlier this month with no public announcement [Straussian secrecy], emphasizes security issues, the newspaper reported.

Bush's top goals, as stated in the document, are to "strengthen the nation's space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives" and to "enable unhindered U.S. operation in and through space to defend our interest there," the newspaper reported.

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-10-18T060044Z_01_N18306651_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-SPACE.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C3-domesticNews-3

PLEASE understand this is not a conspiracy. This is really happening. Their desire to have forward bases in the Gulf was of high importance to them and had to be accomplished at any cost. The PNAC has global domination as it's only goal. A few thousand people here and there DO NOT matter to them.

".....American leadership is good both for America and for the world....."

Do you remember what was next?


"Cyberspace, or ‘Net-War’- If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace,” and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new 'global commons'". (page 57)


Sometimes waiting for "proof" will leave you sitting around without rights!

Russell

[Russell Pickering]

Beliefs in regards to what? ... 9/11?

If that's the case, move this thread to the religion forum. This forum is not to discuss what we believe, it's to discuss the evidence of that day.

What potential crime evidence is investigated without a who?

The evidence of that day is contingent on a suspect.

I am only responding to questions and accusations that my motives are political.

P.S. MOST of what is discussed here is either a direct belief or the result of a belief on both sides.

[DavidJames]

I have no ability or expertise to prove the NIST report(s) wrong.I understand. Then you should be talking/researching with those that do. How about you hook with with some genuine structural engineers and get the job done. Please let me know how you make out.

1) They had limited access to the first hand direct evidence.Please provide evidence they had insuffiect time to reach the conclusions they did.
2) They did not test for explosives even though the use of a secondary device was a possibility.There were lots of possibilities, but the professionals determined why the towers fell. Prove them wrong!
3) ALL reports were minimized in my opinion and reviewed if not edited by the FBI.Please provide evidence. You are making serious charges without a shred of evidence, do you not have a concience?
a. The NTSB told me this themselves in regards to Flight 77.Evidence
I do not feel that the average individual involved in these reports was deceptive. I feel they had immense pressure on them. I Know in the case of the NTSB what was released was at least reviewed by the FBI if not edited. Unprovable of course except for what an NTSB agent told me as well as their spokesperson.The easter bunny told me you were full of crap. Your comment is useless without supporting evidence.

The best overall evidence for my opinion is that the administration tried to prevent a 9/11 investigation which is 100% questionable in light of the magnitude of the event, and that both the president and vice president refused to testify under oath, individually or with any verbatim account of their testimony.If that's your best evidence I suggest you return to photography full time, because you're embarrasing yourself here. My "politics" will be detailed in a post or two since it is being used an excuse to ignore pertinent data.I dont' give a flying fig about your politics. You might be suprised to know our poltics are probably closer then mine and GWB's. This is about facts and accusing innocent people of murder which I, unlike you, refuse to do.

[DavidJames]

P.S. MOST of what is discussed here is either a direct belief or the result of a belief on both sides.That's utter nonsense. Please stop trying to drag those who disagree with you down to your level. I don't like GWB, I would not shed a tear if he remote controlled the planes into the towers himself. Unlike you, however, I believe justice requires evidence prior to conviction and you've got none, but want to convict anyway. Why? Why is your default position the govt is guilty? Why do you say you care about the facts, when you clearly don't.

The NIST report is out there for you and the other CTist to refute. But no one can, so we see people like you making accusations based on your opinions of how things should look and your selective interpretations of evidence.

[Gravy]

What potential crime evidence is investigated without a who?

The evidence of that day is contingent on a suspect.Can you clarify what you mean here? I genuinely don't understand.