Saturday, May 20, 2006

9-11 Eyewitness Review Part 1

(Note important correction at the bottom.)

Our guest poster, BG, suggested that we all watch 9-11 Eyewitness.

I watched the first thirty minutes this morning. The first 16 minutes or so is pretty much historical footage that the filmmaker, Rick Siegel, shot with a video camera from across the Hudson River, in Hoboken, New Jersey. He also had the radio tuned to 1010 WINS, so you get the live news at the same time as the video footage. This is extremely effective and as history it's pretty good. Unfortunately he's on the wrong side to view the collapse of the south tower, and he gets chased from his spot by a cop so he missed the collapse of the north tower.

And it's not long before we wander into tinfoil hat land. Siegel (obviously in the editing room after filming) highlights every helicopter that flies into the area (see correction at bottom). Chopper #4 comes in for special attention at 5:49:



Mission accomplished, eh? Well, you can guess what happens next, the South Tower collapses.

Later we hear about "flashes" of light apparently where the helicopter is flying, although there's an obvious problem; you can't see the helicopter, and what is described as flashes looks a little phony to me.

At 22:30 he goes into how the helicopter was black, and I'm starting to think we've got a live one here. At 24:30 he remarks on how the building started to topple, but somehow it did not fall over, but instead crumbled to pieces. This is occasionally brought up by the CT crowd, as if controlled demolition could somehow have prevented the building from falling over once it started.

The film does highlight what certainly appear to be periodic explosions. This constitutes evidence (not necessarily evidence of controlled demolition, of course). But the focus on the helicopters seems bizarre. At 29:55, the film gets into some weird stuff:



Narrator: As chopper four emerges from the smoke above the north tower its white belly becomes visible from another camera angle near the church on the other side of the building. Is this a genuine New York Police Department Air/Sea Rescue chopper that simply decided not to rescue anyone? Or is it participating in the Tripod emergency war game exercise FEMA started running September 10th at the World Trade Center from the Port Authority headquarters Pier 92 and being ordered not to rescue anybody?


I'll take Door Number 3, Monty, that the helicopters couldn't get close enough to the building to rescue anybody. Note as well that now this is a black helicopter with a white belly.

I stopped the movie there; I may watch the rest of it at some later point. One thing with these 9-11 films is that you can appreciate the historical nature of the footage they provide while finding the conspiracy theory they propose completely loopy. That's definitely how I feel about 9-11 Eyewitness. The historical value of the first 16 minutes I'd rate a B plus. It's not the best angle but it's still memorable footage. I haven't figured out his conspiracy theory, but it seems pretty flaky from what I've seen so far. On the Screw Loose Change Nutbar-o-Meter I give it a:



Important Correction: I have been advised by Rick Siegel that his only involvement with this film was taping the initial historical footage and the brief interview bits which were filmed much later. Rick did not do the analysis that accompanies his historical footage. My apologies for assuming otherwise.

Labels: ,

27 Comments:

At 20 May, 2006 12:15, Blogger shawn said...

Hey, the helicopters angle is new. And I think it raises it to the level of "psycho".

I love how these people cross the threshold from skepticism (something I hold near and dear) to psuedoskepticism.

 
At 20 May, 2006 13:30, Blogger nesNYC said...

Great! At least you gave a mention to the explosions and that is the most important part of this video. I also don't understand why he concludes the helicopters had something to do with the explosions because they could have easily been discharged from WTC 7 where many believe the control center to the demolition was.

But again, looking at this film with a clear mind, you can reach no other conclusion that the towers were taken down systematically during the time frame shown in the video. It also corroborates what many eyewitnesses and firefighter transmissions all make evident.

 
At 20 May, 2006 14:06, Blogger shawn said...

"But again, looking at this film with a clear mind, you can reach no other conclusion that the towers were taken down systematically during the time frame shown in the video."

No, when you look at it with a clear mind you realize the fucking buildings collapsed BECAUSE PLANES HIT THEM AND THEY WERE ON FIRE FOR HOURS.

" they could have easily been discharged from WTC 7 where many believe the control center to the demolition was."

Uh you can't "discharge" explosions from another building, dumbass. The charges had to be in the towers BEFORE the planes hit them.

 
At 20 May, 2006 14:29, Blogger dman said...

Ok! Ok! I confess! I did it! I'm
sorry! I was staring at the
building when these lightning
bolts discharged from my eyes
and the building fell down!

 
At 20 May, 2006 14:37, Blogger dman said...

But really - a black helicopter?
If these tin foil nutbars did any
research would have found out a
book called

"ABOVE HALLOWED GROUND:
A Photgraphic Record September 11,
2001"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670031712/sr=8-1/qid=1148160618/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6848037-7783322?%5Fencoding=UTF8

A collections of phots taked by
NYPD from one of their helicopters

It was a warning that the South
Tower was leaning to one side which
prompted the evacuation order -
sadly the FDNY was on different
channel and unable to clear the
building.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:00, Blogger nesNYC said...

BECAUSE PLANES HIT THEM AND THEY WERE ON FIRE FOR HOURS.

False. The buildings were not on fire for hours.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:06, Blogger shawn said...

'False. The buildings were not on fire for hours.'

102 minutes is "hours" as it is over an hour.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:08, Blogger nesNYC said...

Uh you can't "discharge" explosions from another building, dumbass. The charges had to be in the towers BEFORE the planes hit them.

Oh, so you think they had a wick and somebody would light it and collapse the towers that way? LOL!

The most logical conclusion is the WTC demolition control room was in WTC 7 and the [Radio controlled charges] could have been set off from there and is why WTC 7 had to be destroyed completely as well.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:12, Blogger nesNYC said...

102 minutes is "hours" as it is over an hour.

Just barely. The Windsor Tower in Madrid Spain burned for 24 hour(s) and DID NOT COLLAPSE. The other WTC tower only burned for 58 minutes so that doesn't even qualify for your definition of "hours."

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:21, Blogger shawn said...

NESNYC YOU IDIOT I SAID THEY WERE HIT BY PLANES.

You and the other conspiracy idiots continually ignore that a fucking airliner hit each building!

And then you continually cite the same buildings that Loose Change does, that have nothing to do with WTC.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:45, Blogger BG said...

Glad to see everyone respectfully and intelligently discussing the video.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:47, Blogger BG said...

Pat,

I do appreciate you taking a looking and posting about it.

 
At 20 May, 2006 15:48, Blogger shawn said...

"Glad to see everyone respectfully and intelligently discussing the video."

Not everything deserves respect. I should respect every idiot or every unsubstantiated claim in the world? Nor can you intelligently discuss something that isn't itself intelligent. This moron thinks helicopters either started the collapse or had at least something to do with them. There's no evidence for this. No skeptic would ever make such claims. A skeptic doesn't make fanciful claims, they see the evidence and then make their conclusion. Conspiracy idiots, to a person, have a conclusion and then cherry-pick images, quotes, etc in order to support the already-held belief.

 
At 20 May, 2006 16:02, Blogger BobAlienson said...

BLACK HELICOPTERS WITH SCALAR WEAPONS (WE USED THEM IN IRAQ TO MELT TANKS AND BUSES) AND HOLOGRAPHIC PROJECTORS.

 
At 20 May, 2006 16:48, Blogger nesNYC said...

NESNYC YOU IDIOT I SAID THEY WERE HIT BY PLANES.

The building were designed to be hit by planes.

 
At 20 May, 2006 16:48, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

I'll gladly admit that I'm am entrenched in my position on these subjects as you seem to be.

My purpose here isn't primary to change your mind. I think the 911 eyewitness video is interesting and reasonable for everyone to review and make their own call.

If you don't want to take that time to review it yourself, I think I understand that. I would even say your viewpoint is in the "mainstream".

Honestly my idea with my comments here is to get thru to people who are more open to the truth than you seem to be.

If you want to keep on saying that I and others are nutty, that's your right.

If you think you are making any headway with changing our minds, helping us say "reason" I think it's safe to say most of us have invested ten times more time looking at this than you have, and we aren't about to be bullied into submission.

 
At 20 May, 2006 16:50, Blogger nesNYC said...

Glad to see everyone respectfully and intelligently discussing the video.

Correct. It's a shame the more insecure among us need to resort to hysterical outbursts.

 
At 20 May, 2006 16:56, Blogger nesNYC said...

BLACK HELICOPTERS WITH SCALAR WEAPONS (WE USED THEM IN IRAQ TO MELT TANKS AND BUSES) AND HOLOGRAPHIC PROJECTORS.

I thought the US was trying to deny using white phosphorus on civilians? But wow! Little did I know they had use of scalar weapons! Quick, call the X-files! :D

 
At 20 May, 2006 17:20, Blogger Alex said...

From the white phosphorous article:

"But Professor Paul Rogers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, said white phosphorus could be considered a chemical weapon if deliberately aimed at civilians."

Hehe. I love it when totaly unqualified assholes get quoted as "experts". Yeah, it gives civilians the wrong impression, but you just can't beat it for humour value.

Oh, and non-sync, you're jumping topics again. Not that anyone's surprised at this point. You'd give a kangaroo a run for it's money.

 
At 20 May, 2006 17:55, Blogger nesNYC said...

Hehe. I love it when totaly unqualified assholes get quoted as "experts".

You can count NIST, FEMA and other alphabet soup agencies in that group.

 
At 20 May, 2006 21:31, Blogger shawn said...

"If you don't want to take that time to review it yourself, I think I understand that. I would even say your viewpoint is in the "mainstream"."

Ah, so if it's mainstream it must be wrong? That's an absolutely retarded thing to say. It's not right or wrong based on how many think it. I HAVE reviewed the evidence, even the supposed evidence coming from your end of the debate. The problem is the other guy's evidence has trumped yours at every turn. Theirs doesn't require logical leaps to make sense.

"Honestly my idea with my comments here is to get thru to people who are more open to the truth than you seem to be."

I'm open to the truth. You aren't. When are you guys going to stop speaking backwards? What's funny is you guys have shit thrown at you nonstop that completely destroys your viewpoint, yet you just keep parroting the same links/info. You have yet to send us anything to refutes the evidence already on record. When you go that, I'll believe you guys. As a skeptic, I can't believe in anything that doesn't pass scientific rigor. A helicopter being near a tower before it collapses isn't evidence that it caused the collapse. If you brought that kind of evidence up in a court proceeding, you'd be laughed right out.

The helicopter falls under the extreme complication fallacy of conspiracy theories. Things are done the easiest way and for the cheapest amount. Mounting some kind of magic collapsing devide on the helicopter is neither of those. It's logical that the towers would fall naturally, so if the government had staged the attacks, they'd allow nature to take its course instead of using all these extraneous devices that would make it easier to screw up or be found out.

"Correct. It's a shame the more insecure among us need to resort to hysterical outbursts."

Actually, I become so angry because I know I'm right. It's more frustrating that we have a ridiculous amount of evidence for our side and you guys have nil. My rage comes from the fact that you can just ignore IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE and blame it all on those wily Jews.

 
At 21 May, 2006 06:25, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 21 May, 2006 06:32, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

You are free to continue to post, of course.

As far as me responding to you here, and as far as me trying trying to find any value in your responses to me, I've had it. The quality of this discussion is the worse I've ever experienced online (expect perhaps on hannity.com).

You aren't understanding the context of my comments, and I'm not understanding how your comments represent any connection to reality.

 
At 21 May, 2006 08:13, Blogger BG said...

Additional Evidence:
Elevated Tritium Levels at the WTC
By: the U.S. Government,5-14-2

 
At 21 May, 2006 10:26, Blogger shawn said...

As far as me responding to you here, and as far as me trying trying to find any value in your responses to me, I've had it. The quality of this discussion is the worse I've ever experienced online (expect perhaps on hannity.com).

Ah, I'm sorry for hurting your feelings. I only dicuss things civilly with folks who don't ignore evidence and have at least an iota of critical thinking.

and I'm not understanding how your comments represent any connection to reality.

Then you're an idiot, simple as that. I'm sorry nobody brings up logical fallacies with you, so that's your seeing them from ignorance. I just find it hilarious that someone who isn't arguing from reality would accuse me of this fault.


bg, so now there was a mini-nuke on one of the "theatre props" (term from your link)at the WTC? Sucks those explosions didn't match that of any kind of nuke.

 
At 21 May, 2006 10:50, Blogger MarkyX said...


The building were designed to be hit by planes.


Low on fuel and at cruising speeds trying to land. Not 500 MPH with 10k gallons of fuel. The kinetic energy and shockwave is a wee bit different then the two.

But fuck science, eh?

 
At 24 June, 2008 00:16, Blogger Porkey said...

hey shawn and other idiots fake ass official 911 story defender here!

http://www.gallerize.com/9-11/911_Science_Report_App_A.pdf

Give me a similar research paper with scientific proof and counter evidences to invalidate every evidences pointed in above mentioned scientific research paper. And then I'll believe your brainless so called official theories.

seriously, are you a victim of Monarch project? Sorry if you are.

Well if you or anyone of you cannot release similar research paper to defend official story then do one simple thing for me.

Please explain why Bush lied in these videos and acted weird:
(youtube)watch?v=7Ur-pzbUkVg and (youtube)watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home