Cameraman Rick Siegel helps debunk "pre-collapse explosions" at WTC

[RKOwens4]

On 9/11, Rick Siegel recorded the collapses of the three buildings (WTC 1, 2, and 7) from a pier in Hoboken. His footage has since been used in the documentaries 9/11 Eyewitness and 9/11 Mysteries to support the claims that there were "pre-collapse explosions" before all three collapses, as well as the claim of explosions going off at the base of the North Tower prior to its collapse. Rick Siegel himself, though, doesn't buy into this. For the past month he's been generous enough to help me with a YouTube video on the issue of pre-collapse explosions (yes, a month... he's not the fastest responder, heh). It also turns out that 9/11 Mysteries completely faked its evidence by replacing his audio with their own sound effects. I just uploaded the video onto YouTube. I also made another one about the "base smoke". Both can be found at:

They're just short YouTube videos that only scratch the surface of the issue. The issue of 9/11 Mysteries and Sophia Shafquat stealing his footage and faking their "audio evidence" is kind of important, though. If any other debunkers here would like to find out more about this from him to include on your websites or whatnot, his email address is rick@ricksiegel.com. It seems that the conspiracy theorists' 9/11 Eyewitness, Rick Siegel, is an eyewitness to the lies and fabrications of the whole bunch.

By the way, this is my first post here. Very awesome forum, though.

[TriskettheKid]

Love your work on YouTube. Interesting music.

Welcome to the Forums.

[Bell]

Welcome RKOwens! Loved what you have put on YouTube sofar!

[jhunter1163]

Welcome to the forum, RKOwens. Your reputation precedes you.

[RKOwens4]

For some reason I can't seem to post URL's. The videos can be found on YouTube though, under my YouTube name RKOwens4.

[jhunter1163]

You need 15 posts before you can post links. You can post them without the http: and someone will embed it for you.

[PhantomWolf]

or you can do them as a youtube embed with

file code

[OldTigerCub]

Welcome to JREF RKOwens4! :D
It's good to see you decided to join the community. I think you will find quite a few people here who appreciate your efforts at debunking with some very good videos (some of which have been used here to prove the silliness of troother claims).

[Unsecured Coins]

i greatly enjoy your work

[Brainster]

Welcome to the Forum, RK. Rick's a member here as well, although I can never quite figure out where he fits on the CT spectrum.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Here's the video:

jir7yWTroN8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jir7yWTroN8

[USAFMXOfficer]

RKOwens , great to see you here, and great work on Youtube!!

[Unfit4Command]

Welcome to the forums, RKOwens! Your work on youtube is great.

[MetalliSociety]

Good stuff on Youtube RK! Keep debunking them conspiracies one theory at a time:)

[Garb]

Gotta love that ending part.

"SCREEECH!!!


Ah, no"

[Mangoose]

Good to see you too, RKOwens, and good work!

[Jonnyclueless]

Clunkity Klunk...

[Totovader]

Welcome to the forums, I am a very big fan of your work on YouTube.

[ktesibios]

Welcome to the forum, RKOwens!

While Sophia's duplicity is old news around here, it's a good thing that you're carrying the news to YouTube, since the argumentum ad YouTubium is so popular with CTers.

As for the rumbling noises on Rick Seigel's original video, I've had some experience with the effects of wind on inadequately screened microphones and with subway noises intruding into a recording. The Red Line trains pass directly under one of the recording studios where I work on their way from North Hollywood to Universal City; after the line was completed we discovered that the trains made audible and recordable noises in one of our studios.

I've listened to, recorded and done spectral analysis on the subway noises for my boss' lawsuit against the MTA (they settled); my vote would be that the sounds on Rick Seigel's video are probably wind noises.

This is, of course, a purely subjective opinion. I can't think of an objective test that would settle the question (although correlating the times when we recorded the noises in studio 2 with the published subway schedule provided us with good evidence that the trains were the source of the noise).

[WildCat]

Great work, RKOwens4! And welcome.

[Redtail]

Welcome to the forums and for the lunatic rantings in you comments sections alone I cannot thank you enough.

[OldTigerCub]

Welcome to the forums and for the lunatic rantings in you comments sections alone I cannot thank you enough.

Ah, yes....RKOwens4, there is a thread here at jref called the "Stundies", for listing and voting on the funniest, strangest, or just plain most idiotic statements found regarding CTs.Some of the idiocy that gets spewed in your comments section would be perfect candidates!:D:D:D

[Foolmewunz]

Shows how great my investigative instincts are... I always figured RKOwens was one of the regulars here under a different name!

So, welcome indeed!

Us 'search-and-destroy' debunkers can more and more take a backseat. There are a lot of battled-scarred veterans here, now! As I've mentioned previously, because I'm on the flipside of the clock from the USA, I wake up to the 'morning-after-the-nightly-follies' so often to find that all the good points have been mentioned already that I find myself on this sub-forum less and less. (While that's been great for my sanity, it ain't doing much for my self-esteem....)

I agree with the poster above. The battleground is the TellyYouTubbies, although it's harder to communicate with them, what with the four hundred posts starting with, "Whoa, that was awesome. Wake up sheeple! Your government is caching all the Peanut Butter Cups!"

[niloroth]

RKOwens4:

Great to see you here, i have only recently found your work, but i have to say i am very impressed, and have added you to my bag of tricks when getting into debates with truthers. Thank you for your work.

[GwionX]

RKOWENS, Big fan of your work! I like your debunking 9/11 C.T.'s One at a time angle. These "Truthers" don't seem to have the longest attention spans.

Short, sweet, and filled with reason....it's good stuff.

[leftysergeant]

Great to see you joining us, RKO. I have already used links to about five of your videos here and on other boards. Love your style and your sense of humor, even the harshly "inappropriate" choices of music. Maybe it just makes more sense to someone with a fire fighter's sense of humor.

Keep up the good work.

[LashL]

Welcome aboard, RKOwens.

I, too, have enjoyed your videos. Nice work.


:welcome4

[Arus808]

welcome rkowens. rick siegels videos are very much used as evidence here, so its good to see someone put out his unaltered work out ther.e

what's nice is that his videos also show how much debris were falling onto WTC 7 as well, which proves the damage that the building suffered.

good work. and keep up the fight

[deep]

Great video. At first, I was also thinking, "hmm, that could be wind", but then I remembered all of the eyewitnesses who heard the same explosions just prior to the collapse. It's great to see some solid evidence that corroborates the observations of those eyewitnesses.

Thanks again - I'm looking forward to your next release!

[Arus808]

Great video. At first, I was also thinking, "hmm, that could be wind", but then I remembered all of the eyewitnesses who heard the same explosions just prior to the collapse. It's great to see some solid evidence that corroborates the observations of those eyewitnesses.

this is a demonstration of confirmation bias. no where did his video confirm anything from the eyewitnesses (let alone the many footages of video done by media of cameramen who were A LOT closer to both towers that didn't capture any "explosions" just before collapse). You might want to watch the Naudet bros documentary; they have the collapse of South Tower first hand, they were right in the middle of it...and explain quite clearly what those 'explosions" were.

[Hokulele]

Too bad none of those eyewitnesses saw any explosions. :rolleyes:


ETA: Addressed to deep. Darn you Arus, you are just too fast!

[Redtail]

Great video. At first, I was also thinking, "hmm, that could be wind", but then I remembered all of the eyewitnesses who heard the same explosions just prior to the collapse. It's great to see some solid evidence that corroborates the observations of those eyewitnesses.

Thanks again - I'm looking forward to your next release!

So a camera about two miles away "corroborates the observations of those witnesses" but the cameras that were within two miles all the way to inside one of the buildings don't... I had no idea that every other person with a camera (and mic) within a two mile radius was in on the CD!

[deep]

this is a demonstration of confirmation bias. no where did his video confirm anything from the eyewitnesses (let alone the many footages of video done by media of cameramen who were A LOT closer to both towers that didn't capture any "explosions" just before collapse). You might want to watch the Naudet bros documentary; they have the collapse of South Tower first hand, they were right in the middle of it...and explain quite clearly what those 'explosions" were.


Confirmation bias? There isn't much room for bias here - there were sounds on the video that sounded like explosions (as noted by the narrator, not by me). There were eyewitnesses who reported "big explosions" (direct quote) just prior to the collapse.

Is confirmation bias possible in a game of "connect the dots"?

PS - I'm not making any claims as to cause of the explosions.

[deep]

So a camera about two miles away "corroborates the observations of those witnesses" but the cameras that were within two miles all the way to inside one of the buildings don't... I had no idea that every other person with a camera (and mic) within a two mile radius was in on the CD!


Are you suggesting that the eyewitnesses are all wrong and this man's camera is recording sounds that weren't really there? Or is it more likely that the other camera(s) was using a cheap consumer-grade microphone that didn't pickup the low-frequency explosion-like sound?

[Hokulele]

Is confirmation bias possible in a game of "connect the dots"?


Heh.

[beachnut]

Are you suggesting that the eyewitnesses are all wrong and this man's camera is recording sounds that weren't really there? Or is it more likely that the other camera(s) was using a cheap consumer-grade microphone that didn't pickup the low-frequency explosion-like sound?
No CD. Sorry, you failed to watch the video and understand the 9/11 truth people lied. Simple stuff even a kid can understand. Fraud is 9/11 truth.

Plus! you do not understand the speed of light, and the speed of sound! Sad you are unable to understand the real world and how things work. Why?

[Redtail]

Are you suggesting that the eyewitnesses are all wrong and this man's camera is recording sounds that weren't really there? Or is it more likely that the other camera(s) was using a cheap consumer-grade microphone that didn't pickup the low-frequency explosion-like sound?

No I'm suggesting that the eyewitnesses were using similes. Are you suggesting that every major news agency in the world that had a camera and mic in the largest city in America, during the most brutal attack on America and the city in question was "using cheap consumer-grade microphones"?

[gumboot]

Are you suggesting that the eyewitnesses are all wrong and this man's camera is recording sounds that weren't really there? Or is it more likely that the other camera(s) was using a cheap consumer-grade microphone that didn't pickup the low-frequency explosion-like sound?


There are dozens of videos taken from very close to the towers. I don't care how cheap and nasty your mic is, if you were that close to explosives of the size we're talking, there's no way you'd miss it.

(Actually low quality microphones tend to pick up more while more expensive microphones tend to be more selective about what they pick up).

-Gumboot

[Brainache]

There are dozens of videos taken from very close to the towers. I don't care how cheap and nasty your mic is, if you were that close to explosives of the size we're talking, there's no way you'd miss it.

(Actually low quality microphones tend to pick up more while more expensive microphones tend to be more selective about what they pick up).

-Gumboot

Absolutely. And let's not forget the value of a good wind sock.

[WildCat]

Absolutely. And let's not forget the value of a good wind sock.
Which I'm guessing Siegel didn't have. Wind noise is the most likely culprit for me.

[BillyRayValentine]

Welcome to the forum, RKOwens!

While Sophia's duplicity is old news around here, it's a good thing that you're carrying the news to YouTube, since the argumentum ad YouTubium is so popular with CTers.

As for the rumbling noises on Rick Seigel's original video, I've had some experience with the effects of wind on inadequately screened microphones and with subway noises intruding into a recording. The Red Line trains pass directly under one of the recording studios where I work on their way from North Hollywood to Universal City; after the line was completed we discovered that the trains made audible and recordable noises in one of our studios.

I've listened to, recorded and done spectral analysis on the subway noises for my boss' lawsuit against the MTA (they settled); my vote would be that the sounds on Rick Seigel's video are probably wind noises.

This is, of course, a purely subjective opinion. I can't think of an objective test that would settle the question (although correlating the times when we recorded the noises in studio 2 with the published subway schedule provided us with good evidence that the trains were the source of the noise).

If you listen closely, the radio reception (1010WINS) gets tinnier during the rumblings. Does that favor one explanation over another?

[BillyRayValentine]

Are you suggesting that the eyewitnesses are all wrong and this man's camera is recording sounds that weren't really there? Or is it more likely that the other camera(s) was using a cheap consumer-grade microphone that didn't pickup the low-frequency explosion-like sound?

Surprise, surprise...a pack of lies. No eyewitnesses reported a series of massive explosions of the sort allegedly captured in Siegel's video, "explosions" which started long before the collapse. They would have been quite unmistakable in Manhattan, genius, if they were loud enough to register on a home-video cam in Hoboken.

Hmm...your last effort was in defense of Scott Forbes, and now this. You seem to be drawn to the silliest claims, and are willing to blatantly lie to defend them. Why is that? People like you really do baffle me.

[T.A.M.]

RKOwens4:

Welcome to the forum. I admire your attempts to debunk the foolishness that is 9/11 truth.

Concerning your video on the doubletree footage, we had a discussion here about it. I think if you look up the high resolution version of the video, you will see that many objects pass through the visual "window" you mention in your video, prior to the object you think "could" be the plane. While it is possible it could have been the plane, I just wanted to point out to you that there were other objects moving through that "window" besides the alleged plane "object".

If anyone has a link to our discussion of his videos, it would be appreciated.

TAM:)

[JAStewart]

Glad you came RKOwens4, Your work is magnificent and seems to take all the debunking work we've ever done and summarize it into easily digestible bits! Bravo!

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, RKOwens4. That's an impressive body of work. Way to hit 'em on where they live: on YouTube!

[Mangoose]

T.A.M.: Here is the link for RKOwens: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96597

As I stated in that thread, the Doubletree video cannot show Flight 77 through the gaps beneath the interstate because of the rise on the opposite side of the raised interstate.

I agree with RKOwens' identification of Flight 77 in the security video, although I think the image of the plane isn't demarcated as clearly as implied in the video.

RKOwens should also check out the thread on Scott Forbes, with additional evidence on the matter.

[Garb]

Are you suggesting that the eyewitnesses are all wrong and this man's camera is recording sounds that weren't really there? Or is it more likely that the other camera(s) was using a cheap consumer-grade microphone that didn't pickup the low-frequency explosion-like sound?
If it was such a low frequency how was a camera two miles away able to pick it up?

[ktesibios]

If it was such a low frequency how was a camera two miles away able to pick it up?

Air isn't just a transmission medium for sound, it's also an absorber. As sound waves propagate through the air, energy is lost to viscous effects; the greater the propagation distance, the greater the loss. Sound system designers often call this air absorption "excess attenuation" because the drop in sound pressure with distance is greater than predicted by the inverse-square law due to these losses.

Air absorption varies with temperature and relative humidity (it's greatest at about 20% R.H.), but it always increases with increasing frequency.

Here's (http://www.doctorproaudio.com/doctor/calculadores_en.htm) a Web-based calculator for predicting air absorption per unit distance when temperature, relative humidity and frequency are known (scroll down a ways to find it).

Sound can also propagate surprisingly well over water. Since a body of water is usually colder than the air, a temperature gradient is produced in the air immediately above the water, with the air closest to the water being colder and the temperature increasing at higher elevations. Because the velocity of sound increases with increasing temperature, this produces an effect where the sound is refracted towards the surface of the water, where it's reflected upwards, refracted downwards again, and so on, to produce a sort of "channeling" effect. Wind can also produce refraction effects which can either produce acoustic shadowing or enhance propagation- usually the better hearing is downwind from the source.

In the part of the video where the South Tower is falling, the long, low-pitched rumbling noise is very reminiscent of the sounds captured on the Evan Fairbanks video shot from near Trinity Church. I don't think the possibility that Siegel captured the noise of the collapse should be rejected out of hand.

The reason that explosions can be ruled out as the source of the booming noises on the Siegel video before the tower's collapse is that if these sounds were loud enough to be recorded a couple of miles away, they would be even louder at shorter distances and should therefore appear in other recordings made at the same time in Manhattan, such as the Fairbanks video. Since they do not appear in any other recording their source has to be something unique to Siegel's gear and location, such as wind blowing on a poorly screened microphone.

BTW, here's a little tid-bit for Deep44: a link to the spec sheet (http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/components/pdf/ABA5000CE10.pdf) for a small Panasonic electret condenser mic capsule. Note that the frequency response plot is ruler-flat down to 20 Hz. These little guys and their relatives are cheap- only a few dollars apiece- and they are found everywhere- in cell phones, dictating machines, portable tape recorders- anywhere a consumer product needs a built-in microphone.

I don't know what kind of mic Siegel was using, but one thing I do know is that you don't need big bucks to get extended low frequency response from a mic.

[Hokulele]

The reason that explosions can be ruled out as the source of the booming noises on the Siegel video before the tower's collapse is that if these sounds were loud enough to be recorded a couple of miles away, they would be even louder at shorter distances and should therefore appear in other recordings made at the same time in Manhattan, such as the Fairbanks video. Since they do not appear in any other recording their source has to be something unique to Siegel's gear and location, such as wind blowing on a poorly screened microphone.


In addition (as beachnut pointed out), a two mile distance would also create a large time lag between the visual and audible recordings of an explosion, sound traveling at roughly 1100 feet per second and light at roughly 186,000 miles per second (someone else can work out the metric equivalents).

[Bell]

*bump* for RKO!

RKO, did you see the thread Mangoose linked to? What are your thoughts on it? Thanks!

[Garb]

The reason that explosions can be ruled out as the source of the booming noises on the Siegel video before the tower's collapse is that if these sounds were loud enough to be recorded a couple of miles away, they would be even louder at shorter distances and should therefore appear in other recordings made at the same time in Manhattan, such as the Fairbanks video. Since they do not appear in any other recording their source has to be something unique to Siegel's gear and location, such as wind blowing on a poorly screened microphone.

That was the meaning of my post. He claims it is low frequency so close cameras can't pick it up, but he assumes the camera even further has a better chance of getting the sound picked up.

[ktesibios]

That was the meaning of my post. He claims it is low frequency so close cameras can't pick it up, but he assumes the camera even further has a better chance of getting the sound picked up.

What a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. It's common practice for techs who are measuring the frequency response of a speaker to take low-frequency measurements with the measuring microphone only inches from the speaker cone.

Also, the Fairbanks video was shot at a distance of 400-450 meters. Even down at 20 Hz, that's well over 20 wavelengths- at that distance you're definitely in the free field.

[einsteen]

Wonders will never cease, Rick "Chopper Accomplished Mission" Siegel helps debunking 911.

Is this the same Rick Siegel who posted this BBC clip (is it really BBC ?)

http://www.ricksiegel.com/web/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=119

quote:

" On September 7, 2006 the BBC showed a special anniversary program for the anniversary of 911 events. The show was called "911: The TwinTowers". The video is of great significance as you can see and hear the Tower being demolished and hear the sequence of charges.

The sound allegedly has not been enhanced in any way and is even distorted by the Google encoding yet sets itself in accord with the testimony of most eyewitness testimony. That includes testimony from the FDNY firefighters.
etc...

[WildCat]

" On September 7, 2006 the BBC showed a special anniversary program for the anniversary of 911 events. The show was called "911: The TwinTowers". The video is of great significance as you can see and hear the Tower being demolished and hear the sequence of charges.

The sound allegedly has not been enhanced in any way and is even distorted by the Google encoding yet sets itself in accord with the testimony of most eyewitness testimony. That includes testimony from the FDNY firefighters.
etc...
The sound in that video wasn't enhance - it was faked completely. This has been discussed and proven here many times before Einsteen... :rolleyes:

[einsteen]

That's what I mean, he helps to debunk and posts fake videos.

[defaultdotxbe]

That's what I mean, he helps to debunk and posts fake videos.
does that make him better or worse than someone who supports the "truth" and posts fake videos? because theres plenty of those

personally i say leave seigel alone, he says 90% of the truth movement is disinfo, and 90% of the truth movement says hes disinfo, they can have eachother for all i care

[Gravy]

Wonders will never cease, Rick "Chopper Accomplished Mission" Siegel helps debunking 911.Even a broken kook can be right twice a day.

:duck:

[Mangoose]

Could we see a longer section of the video? If it is wind blowing on the microphone, it may be reasonable to expect similar sounds some time before and some time after the collapse itself.

[gumboot]

That was the meaning of my post. He claims it is low frequency so close cameras can't pick it up, but he assumes the camera even further has a better chance of getting the sound picked up.


Is he on drugs? Since when did explosions only produce low frequencies? The low frequency is all you hear from a long distance away, because it carries further. But I'd love to see this mysterious explosion which is low frequency at short range.

-Gumboot

[negativ]

Are you suggesting that the eyewitnesses are all wrong and this man's camera is recording sounds that weren't really there? Or is it more likely that the other camera(s) was using a cheap consumer-grade microphone that didn't pickup the low-frequency explosion-like sound?

Many shots of an admitted(!!) controlled demolition (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=landmark+tower+implosion), from various angles and distances. Notice how subtle and hard-to-distinguish the sounds of the charges are.

Massive evidence.

[PhantomWolf]

Even a broken kook can be right twice a day.

:duck:

I don't know, many of them have trouble getting things right twice a year... I did use to believe that they at least knew the dates of the attack, that was until someone here posted that it was in 1997 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3028897#post3028897)....:jaw-dropp

[Bell]

I don't know, many of them have trouble getting things right twice a year... I did use to believe that they at least knew the dates of the attack, that was until someone here posted that it was in 1997 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3028897#post3028897)....:jaw-dropp

Terral is on my ignore list, but I did view that post just now. All I can say is...

FLIPPIN' HELL :eek:

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don't know, many of them have trouble getting things right twice a year... I did use to believe that they at least knew the dates of the attack, that was until someone here posted that it was in 1997 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3028897#post3028897)....:jaw-dropp


Not to start anything, but... that... that right there. You know what that is? That's absolute proof that there is no God.

[Slayhamlet]

Not to start anything, but... that... that right there. You know what that is? That's absolute proof that there is no God.

At this point I am now seriously reconsidering the whole Twoofer position on the existence of disinfo-agents among them. I have no other way of explaining how such an unfortunate creature as Terral could possibly exist.

[Dog Town]

Not to start anything, but... that... that right there. You know what that is? That's absolute proof that there is no God.

"He's a prankster GOD!" Bill Hicks