Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The "911 Eyewitness" explosion audio
Topic Started: Mar 5 2010, 05:17 PM (8,666 Views)
Matt
Member Avatar

Are the "911 Eyewitness" explosions real?

Richard A. Siegel videotaped all 3 collapses from across the Hudson, WTC7 only for 2 seconds during its descent. Explosions are heard during each "collapse." Since there are more than 70 known videos of the WTC 2 collapse (there are more), and who knows how many of the WTC 1 event, it would seem the answer to the above question is obvious. Fake audio. Really?

One of the dozens of collapse videos should have corroborated Siegel's audio evidence, right?

The answer does not come that easily. Search this playlist. Now watch Siegel's video.
(download 679.13MB divx avi)

WTC 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnM_crUWBiw


WTC 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyJO2EkjZrs


__________________________________________________________________


Camera Position - a correction

Siegel provides his location for both the WTC 2 and WTC 1 events. Position 1 represents his 9:59 am location and number 2 represents 10:28. (He was asked to move by the authorities, according to his video.)

Posted Image

Siegel calls number 1 "Hoboken Pier" and 2 "Frank Sinatra Pier," but that needs clarification. Here's his view 1:

Posted Image
Notice the circular stair on the right and the text on the Lackawanna Terminal nearby.

Here's a comparison between a Sept. 12, 2001 satellite image from the Google Earth historical image database (first) and a 2009-10 image (below):

Posted Image

Posted Image

Notice Siegel's "Sinatra Pier" is gone! But wait, that wasn't an active pier even in 2001. Here's Siegel's view 2, zoomed out:

Posted Image

And here's a 9/12/2001 satellite image composite comparison:

Posted Image

That places Siegel's position 2 here (2001 then 2010):

Posted Image

Posted Image
Also 2010, regular map view:
Posted Image


This becomes very important when considering the sound delay. A portion of the film revolves around this calculation, with an adjusted audio track and everything. Here are Siegel's measurements for position 2:

Posted Image
Siegel then proceeds to use his measurement in feet to come up with an average of 9.2 seconds.

When in fact the numbers should look like this:

3,370 meters/342.5 = 9.84 seconds ... which should sound like this.

We could argue about the temperature that day. Note that for every degree (C.) change, the difference in sound speed is 60 cm/sec... the colder the slower. I think 65 is accurate, considering the WPIX thermometer at 10:01 read 64. (The exact temp. at 10:28 over the Hudson River, anyone?).

One example of extended audio near the scene of the North Tower "collapse" is with BBC correspondent Steve Evans (when, incidentally, he describes an explosion low on one of the WTC towers).

South Tower examination forthcoming.

Do you perspectivists out there concur?

Opinions?
Edited by Matt, Mar 5 2010, 05:38 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar

Here's a link with thoughts on the footage: http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio02.html
A sound engineer analysis. (Sound engineer. Analysis?)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YougeneDebs
Member Avatar

Matt~
Here’s what I come up with:
Using the scenes from your video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiDH_5nf8zI

Rick Siegel, Sinatra Park, Hoboken, NJ
Along the eastern shore walkway by the light pole

Distance to SW corner of WTC7 is 2.08 miles
40d 44m 29.90s N 74d 01m 30.90s W
40.741650N -74.025250W
Ground elevation is 2 feet

Posted Image
Attached to this post:
Attachments: Rick_Siegel_2.jpg (72.24 KB)
Edited by YougeneDebs, Mar 5 2010, 10:37 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar

Thanks for the input. Did you use the WTC7 video, then?
...

So, another question that arises out of this is: If the audio is genuine, what does that say about the possibility of the conspirators controlling all 49 of the airplane videos?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YougeneDebs
Member Avatar

Matt~
I used the WTC7 footage because of the better lit shore line.

About those '49 airplane videos'

I'm partial to the Desk Top View Theory; it could only be one video, duplicated to represent 49 separate perspectives; or as many/any perspective as needed. That's one reason why I do camera positions: in the off chance of finding credible evidence to support the theory. So far, not so much evidence available (or, current evidence is being wrongly interpreted). [And I don't want to hijack your thread.] Just saying.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

i mailed siegl a while ago to see if there was any way of getting raw footage from him.
no answer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar

No problem, Debs. It is relevant. I brought it up.

Good initiative, there, Sticks. I will try also.

Another correction I can make: One part of his film that is inaccurate, when he talks about the "TRIPOD II" wargame exercise, he quotes a mistake. See http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
seatnineb

delete!
Edited by seatnineb, Mar 7 2010, 07:24 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar

Does the Sauret shake correspond with the Siegel explosion? Seems to me the shake is a bit excessive, and a bit late. But I don't know, really. Maybe Sauret's camera was bumped? That seems unlikely to me, him being a professional.

Here's a video where I took out the sound delay to match the images real time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Yg9GyQvxf0
Edited by Matt, Mar 16 2010, 01:16 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

hey matt, couple of thoughts (good thread btw)
if a sound is coming from 700ft up the tower, then (using pythagoras) you'd have to add 6.5metres to the distance to siegel's camera (edit. you might have taken this into account already)

also, if the camera in sauret was shaking due to explosions in the towers, then the reverberation from the explosion wouldn't reach the camera instantaneously. this theoretical shockwave would also have a delay that would need to be accounted for. i think shockwaves travel at the speed of sound, but i don't know for certain.
Edited by broken sticks, Mar 9 2010, 07:34 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar

Thanks, Mr. Sticks. I did not take into account the height of the tower! That's good thinkin'.

About the shake speed being like that of sound, the two are comparable. But sound travels through solid fast... granite at 5,000 m/second. Plus we have to take into account the different types of seismic waves... "surface waves" (?) being half as fast as primary waves, or sound waves.

So since Sauret (145 Ave of the Americas) was about 1.54km away from the base of the North Tower ( ;) ), which rested on granite... unlike Sauret .... we can guess the shake would have taken about a second to travel... ruling out the possibility of corroborating the 911 Eyewitness explosion.

Besides all this, the seismic record doesn't agree. ... If we even have a record going back 20 seconds before the collapse(s). I'm unfamiliar there. Of course, that could have been controlled from the beginning by THEM. Hmmm.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

Matt
Mar 9 2010, 10:53 PM
Thanks, Mr. Sticks. I did not take into account the height of the tower! That's good thinkin'.

About the shake speed being like that of sound, the two are comparable. But sound travels through solid fast... granite at 5,000 m/second. Plus we have to take into account the different types of seismic waves... "surface waves" (?) being half as fast as primary waves, or sound waves.

So since Sauret (145 Ave of the Americas) was about 1.54km away from the base of the North Tower ( ;) ), which rested on granite... unlike Sauret .... we can guess the shake would have taken about a second to travel... ruling out the possibility of corroborating the 911 Eyewitness explosion.

Besides all this, the seismic record doesn't agree. ... If we even have a record going back 20 seconds before the collapse(s). I'm unfamiliar there. Of course, that could have been controlled from the beginning by THEM. Hmmm.
yeah, nice work matt.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
shure
Member Avatar
Administrator
Jeff Rick Siegel's Audio was pulled from the Internet a few years back where he complained about the fake explosions in his videos during a call to John Gibson.

I have included it in this email in response to the following topic on your site > http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3012248/1/

I am unable to provide a link as this audio is as taboo as I am on the net right now so don't lose it!!!

I would Rip your posters a new one but of course I am banned for being an asshole to posters like this and no-planers in general.

Thanks
Robert H Poirier
Maplewood, MN

Link to download Mp3 audio Robert wanted me to post:
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/JohnGibson_RickSiegel17Jul2007.mp3



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
broken sticks
Member Avatar

interesting little clip, but unless i'm mistaken we're talking about Rick Siegel's original audio, not the 911 Mysteries audio, right?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar

I reposted a Siegel video I archived last year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdzpMbV6dXw

Relevant "9/11 Mysteries" controversy info:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080306070226/911mysteriesguide.com/

As far as I can tell, there was one part during the collapse of the North Tower that Siegel was protesting. The seconds before the collapse aren't in dispute... other than in general... as is the purpose of this thread.

Siegel's attack on "9/11 Mysteries" was justified, since Sophia and company did edit the audio. But there needs to be clarification here. I have only seen one 5 second clip of added noise. That is the only issue, I believe.

Edited by Matt, Mar 16 2010, 01:11 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · September 11, 2001 · Next Topic »
Add Reply