911 Eyewitness - A Complete Sham

Back in December 2005, a new video suddenly surfaced in the 9/11 research community called 911 Eyewitness. The video was predominantly footage captured from the Frank Sinatra Pier (across the Hudson River from the WTC complex) as the events of 9/11 transpired. There were many arguments presented in the video, much of which were clearly disputable, outright speculation, or had already been known for years. But the single thing that made this video so intriguing was the recorded explosion-like sounds prior to the collapses of all three buildings.

Main arguments presented against the recorded sounds being explosions were:

1) No other video recordings had captured any explosion sounds prior to the collapses.

2) At one point in the video wind can be heard blowing across the microphone which makes a rumbling sound similar to the alleged explosion sounds.

3) Explosions in the basements of the towers would have produced seismic signal, however no publication of seismic records to confirm such existed.


Main arguments presented in favor of the recorded sounds being of actual explosions, or rebuttals of the above arguments, were:

1) No clear, unedited video with sound could be found for comparison that covered the time frame before the collapses when the sounds were recorded

2) The sounds alleged to be explosions were very dissimilar in intensity and waveform to the wind across the microphone sounds. The creators of the video maintained that the only equalization that had been performed on the sound was to reduce hiss and to slightly enhance the volume of the sounds.

3) If 9/11 was an inside job, seismic records showing explosions would obviously be suppressed. Seismic records for the period in question were unavailable for examination.

4) The recordings appeared to corroborate the numerous and independent eye-witness reports of explosions before the collapses.


The person who recorded the footage that day, Rick Siegel, exhibited some suspicious behavior when confronted online (including one or two times by myself) regarding the wind across the microphone question. He would constantly urge questioners - the majority of whom had downloaded the compressed version free of charge via Torrent - to buy the DVD which retailed for $19.95 or so. With the superior quality of the DVD sound compared to the compressed file, he maintained, one could easily distinguish that the "explosion" sounds and the wind across the microphone sounds were completely unalike in any way.

Rick claimed that the original footage had been stored online years ago in the database of the ISP which served his former company (the name escapes me at the moment, it may have been "OnlineTV") but was subsequently deleted/disappeared, and then later he was approached by some "folks in Europe" who had copies and suggested he go public with it. Thus we got 911 Eyewitness.

After searching around for some time, I have found a short, compressed online version of the original footage before the collapse of WTC1 without sound enhancements. You can clearly hear in this unaltered version that the sounds are indeed wind blowing across the microphone. There is no question in my mind. The video is located here:

www.terrorize.dk...

This fact, combined with Rick's bizarre and dishonorable behavior online, such as his accusing anyone who challenged his video of being "COINTELPRO", his constant urgings to "buy the DVD", the bogus arguments in the rest of the video, his attacks on other members of the truth movement, his creation of several different accounts on 9/11 websites where he "talked to himself", and his new video coming out (which you will have to pay to see in the cinema or buy the DVD) which includes claims of "mini-nukes" being used to take down the towers, have led me to believe that Rick is a scam artist out to either make money, or perhaps even to poison the well in regards to 9/11 research.

The bogus arguments presented in his original video include:

"Pyroclastic Clouds from the collapses prove explosives":



The clouds may have flowed and behaved somewhat like pyroclastic clouds, but they were clearly not, since pryoclastic clouds will destroy most anything in their path due to internal temperatures of up to 800ºC. People having survived immersion in the dust clouds from the collapses of the towers proves outright that they were not pyroclastic flows. However, the mystery still remains of the hundreds of completely burnt out vehicles surrounding the towers, and of the complete pulverization of the concrete, carpet, office equipment, and everything else into micro-dust.

"Mysterious flashes from helicopters just prior to the collapse of WTC2 suggest advanced technology used to trigger the collapse":



Even if you believe that some sort of "black" technology was used to bring down the towers, it is unlikely that such would take the form of lights being emitted from helicopters. The likely explanation is that the helicopter pilot turned on the flashing lights on the exterior of the helicopter when it entered the dark smoke cloud in order to make it visible to other aircraft.

"Positive trajectory ejections of debris prove explosives rather than gravity took the towers down":



AgentSmith showed that in still pictures the trajectories appear to be vertical, but when watching the actual footage it can be seen that this is an illusion created by the collapse sucking the dust trails downward somewhat, so that the origin of the debris dust trails appear to be lower than the pinnacle.


The content in the video which does hold debatable merit is:

1. The measurement of the speed of WTC7's collapse and it's comparison to free fall acceleration.

2. The eye-witness accounts, recorded from the radio playing nearby in real time, telling of explosions prior to the collapse of WTC1 and 2, and explosions and demolition characteristics in the collapse of WTC7.

3. Sudden appearance of white smoke clouds near the base of the towers before their collapses.


When the new 911 Eyewitness video comes out, I would be thoughtful about how you spend (or not spend ) your hard-earned cash. The truth is out there, Scully...but so are liars, con artists, and deliberate purveyors of disinfo... *Whistles X-Files tune*






[edit on 2006-6-19 by wecomeinpeace]

What dribble.

All of that "Agent Smith" junk is debunked on their site and the new version even has the arch in the cannon move along to show how it is consistant. AMAZING I would say.

The only thing suspicious is you little boy has to mispell names. Don't you know that is not an insult to the person intended it is a defining of your personality in doing it.

Rick Siegel suspicious?

So you may find him the only man to make the drive to stand up to the government

Video of this "suspicious" man.

Or you can read something more suspicious?
More suspicious stuff

You are very spiteful and encouraging theft and stealing the funds that these people need to get more evidence is pretty low. How low will they go to stop this guy?

Originally posted by ChapaevII
All of that "Agent Smith" junk is debunked on their site and the new version even has the arch in the cannon move along to show how it is consistant. AMAZING I would say.

Perhaps you can reproduce it here then. I'd be interested to see it.

mispell names.

Thank you for pointing out my error. I can assure you it wasn't intentional. I have corrected the mistake.

The only thing suspicious is you little boy

I'll let that slide.

You are very spiteful and encouraging theft and stealing the funds that these people need to get more evidence is pretty low. How low will they go to stop this guy?

I am not encouraging theft. I am discouraging people from spending money on something that appears to be a sham. If it isn't, then please present evidence to refute my suspicions.

If you click the link I provided in the beginning of the post, you will see that it was indeed I who presented this video to ATS and was among those who argued in favor of the sounds possibly being related to explosions. I am only after the truth, but I notice you haven't addressed any of the points I put forth. I would honestly like to read your rebuttal, so please present it and cease with the ranting.




[edit on 2006-6-19 by wecomeinpeace]

Rick Siegel did not debunk what I said because it's frankly not possible. What he did do is spin some more yarn and rhetoric in a desperate attempt to re-ensnare anyone that fell from his grasp.
It's not a matter that's open to opinion, the overlay of the trajectory he used creates a completely false impression and more to the point, his own technique when used correctly actually proves that the debris fell away as one would expect.
It still strikes me as ironic how so many people who consider them astute to the ways of deception can so easily be fooled by someone who only even bothers to make a vague attempt at wearing a very poor sheep costume.
I certainly do not think that WCIP deserves your insults, he puts in a huge amount of time and effort for the truth movement, all freely and with no wares to sell or any means of accepting donations even if he wanted to, which is a lot less than can be said for some people.....
Hell, we hardly ever even agree on anything, you're basically shooting a true comrade in the back, nice one...

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Rick Siegel did not debunk what I said because it's frankly not possible.

spin some more yarn and rhetoric in a desperate attempt

He absolutely *unless you are blind* did so. Even more so in the new one. You delude yourself if you think you were not trashed. You even tried to pass some crap you whipped up yourself with me from some spurious download you had. You don't even go to get authentic evidence to start with and then you change it! :

Come on you were a loser in that one. Lick the wounds and head home.

All you are doing is spinning more rhetoric hacking here with your bud on some personal level against Rick Siegel instead of with any evidence or actual fact in your hand.

Are you going to hack up some second hand piece of garbage again to prove your malignant points?

You all both admit to not even seeing the new one, never saw the first one in any original format and are already pounding it and encouraging illegal downloading. Nice try.

Why not head with him to DC and make sure your points are well taken? Or are you accepting the offical story of 15 crazed box cutter wielding wise guys took over the country for 2 and a half hours, while your military was taking the piss, took down 3 buildings in NYC and the Pentagon and no one had a clue?

What a joker

The only thing I would add is that the point of comparing the dust clouds to pyroclastic flows is the amount of heat that was contained in them, and how rapidly they expanded to cover such an enormous area so thoroughly. Proper pyroclastic flows from volcanoes are bigger and hotter, of course, and the heat from the clouds would go much farther, but the the clouds from the WTC collapses fall firmly between those flows and anything one would actually expect (or has ever been seen) from steel and concrete collapsing upon itself naturally.

And I fail to see how the fire remaining in the towers at their collapses could have resulted in what was observed, since I know someone would suggest this, considering mainly the size of the fires and their heat output (imagine taking the heat from one of the fires just before collapse and spreading it across those expanding clouds -- would the air be hot enough to scorch parking lots of cars?), but also the fact that fires tend not to burn so well while they're falling through the air.

Originally posted by ChapaevII
He absolutely *unless you are blind* did so. Even more so in the new one.

Wrong, you won't find any genuine (and intelligent) truth seeker that agrees with you I'm afraid, at most you'll find people that won't say either way because I'm too much of an arrogant git to be agreed with, though I assure you several people have confirmed what I have said in private and WCIP has now done so publically.

You delude yourself if you think you were not trashed. You even tried to pass some crap you whipped up yourself with me from some spurious download you had.

Incorrect, the remarks in question were in regards to footage from a segment 911Eyewitness in which he was using clips from a 3rd Party, CNN I believe. I noticed when you brought it up on his site he (sorry, they) remained strangely silent, obviously not wanting to point out your error and effectively back me up.
I demonstrated this in the thread in question by providing time stamps in which you strangely went silent. I'm afraid the only thing you proved was your ignorance in your knowledge of the source material in question.

Can you outline any of the arching trajectories you're seeing and post them?

Realize that dust and smoke were being pulled downward as both collapses progressed. Thus you're seeing what look like arching trajectories, but I haven't seen anyone yet show conclusively that they are. Rather, I've only seen the opposite, ie AgentSmith show that the trajectories themselves aren't actually arching.

Good job WCIP.

To be honest I don't know what to believe, but it does strike me as suspicious that he does not allow his video to be distributed on the Internet (he complained to conspiracy central when they seeded it.)

If the sound is fake, for all we know the clouds of smoke rising from the basement could also be fake.

Although I have seen footage of it in a 9/11 documentary... I forget which one, it was something else apart from all those conspiracy documentaries. And it didn't look like it was from WTC 1993 bombing.

You can find a picture of smoke rising from the basement from my website:
911physics.co.nr... down the very bottom of the WTC 1 & 2 section.

Rick Siegel seems to be very passionate about this whole thing...so I ...don't know what to believe.

My boss is very passionate in our line of work when talking to customers, though I've noticed a direct correlation between his enthusiasm and the amount of money he stands to make both at the time and in the long run.

a "COMPLETE" sham?

sham on you, WCIP.

you have based your analysis on a very questionable premise.

that being, that the sound IS the sound of wind. this is not a given, nor a proven.

because i respect you, i will analyse for myself the sound recording. i will get back. i may need to do some wind recordings myself.

my thinking, to get to the quick, is that wind pushes directly on the microphone diaphram, and wind would move it much more than even very loud sounds. and, IF the diaphram is being pushed physically by moving air, as opposed to vibrating air, then the effects of vibrating air on the diaphram will be overwhelmed by the scale of force of moving air.
in other words, IF it IS wind, then ambient sounds (like the radio) should 'duck' in volume as the much more violent, and much closer in proximity(touching is pretty close) wind dominates the bandwidth of the signal, effectively drowning out any nearby ambience.
if this effect is absent, i will have convinced myself, anyway, that the sounds are:
a. real
b. dubbed in

given that i agree with jones and siegel, i will go with a. until someone evidences that b. is more likely.

the 'pyroclastic' cloud CAN be pyroclastic without being as hot as a volcano. as bsbray points out, there is definitely rapid expansion. it is known that there was a HUGE amount of residual heat post-collapse, as evidenced by the molten steel 'running', and the extreme heat of the debris pile.

in light of the fact that prof. jones has detected thermate residue on the scrap steel, the molten steel, it is unlikely that the towers were NOT demolished with explosives and erosives. why should we be 'surprised' when we hear them?

if it was wind, how did rick get it to blow in sync with collapse?

the one particular trajectory that rick chose is not PROVEN to be what smitty says it is. and, in fact, we can see other 'comets' streaming UPWARDS in videos. we know that beams which weigh tons were hurled like spears hundreds of feet through the air, sticking into other towers, tens of storeys in the air.

why does the helicopter fly through the sticky, toxic smoke plume on a blue sky day(and i mean the flight path, not the hovering)?

frankly, i'm completely bewildered that you, of all people, WCIP would post such and inflammatory thread title. it's almost like you've 'switched sides'.

in order for 911eyewitness to be a "COMPLETE SHAM", the helicopter flashes would be CGI, the explosions dubbed in, the laws of gravity rewritten to suit a controlled demo theory of tower seven, the live radio broadcast from 1010wins fabricated, etc., etc.

INFLAMMATORY BEHAVIOUR FROM wcip!!! ???? EEEEEEEEEK!?!?!?!?!?!

WCIP also says that there are no seismic records of the underground explosions which is totally false, please read this link which has the seismic data half way down the page.

100777.com...

Originally posted by mclarenmp4
WCIP also says that there are no seismic records of the underground explosions which is totally false, please read this link which has the seismic data half way down the page.

100777.com...

To the contrary, WCIP is totally correct when he states that there is no seismic evidence indicating that explosions preceded the collapses. Bollyn’s article is wrong. Even this conspiracy site readily admits that.

The “large spikes” that Bollyn talks about are actually the signals from the collapses themselves.

Originally posted by billybob
because i respect you, i will analyse for myself the sound recording. i will get back. i may need to do some wind recordings myself.

I missed the clip posted before, but now I've listened to it and I don't think it's really that clear, either. If I had to form an opinion, I'd say it sounds much too deep to be wind, but then again maybe I'm just biased. I've heard wind on numerous recordings and it's never struck me as deep, but just static-y. I'll be interested in what you come up with, Billybob.

Wow I am very surprised at this post from you WCIP...

I really don't understand why you would do this. Seems we can't trust anyone on ATS anymore. You used to be one of my favourite posters.
I guess the position of moderater must entail a program of brain washing you have to go through?

Sry if you take this as OT or a personal attack, but I'm just dumfounded by your turn around.

Don't you think if Rick was just out to make a buck he would do much better with a video supporting the official story?

Originally posted by ANOK
I guess the position of moderater must entail a program of brain washing you have to go through?

[vader]You do not know the power of the dark side[/vader]

ANOK.....iiiiii ammmmm yooorrrrrr faaahh-therrrrrrrr (and howards)

quality post wcip, youre not brain washed

Originally posted by blatantblue
ANOK.....iiiiii ammmmm yooorrrrrr faaahh-therrrrrrrr (and howards)

WTF is that supposed to mean?

The only people brainwashed here are those that buy the official story...
The government has been conditioning you since the day you entered their school system. Think for yourself and you won't need anyone like Rick to show you the truth, you will see it for yourself. Rick doesn't tell me what to believe, only adds to what I already believe...

Well done WCIP.

I never much cared for the 9-11 eyewitness video, especially after Rick came on here trying as hard as he could to make us buy his video.

Though we have often disagreed, I have always respected you WCIP, after this I respect you even more.


Btw, where's that debunk I thought was coming. I'd like to see how Rick debunks something that is obvious to just about everyone.

And shame on all of you "truth" movementeers attacking WCIP. It is possible to believe the Government was somehow involved or planned it, without swallowing whole every tidbit that backs it up. WCIP shows great integrity by actually having standards of evidence and the honesty to call BS on something even though it supports his ideas.