Monday, February 13, 2006

[911InsideJobbers] next message from Rick Siegel

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Apologies Re: SHOULD 9/11 RESEARCH BE LIMITED?
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 23:19:26 +0100
From: Rick Siegel <>

Thank you for kind words.

OK, I see many of the anomalies you are talking about (I think)

1 there are two projectiles that are coming out of the right hand side of
the video well after the explosion. The timing of which is really not right
for the speed of the "airplane" on entry to eject such objects. I guess that
is your "what’s it"? It certainly qualifies for that and I would give it a
"what the hell is that and where is it now?"

The animation is what we in that business would call cheesy and really badly
done. Some of you may know I spent a year as Director of Online Interactive
at MTI Image Group the stage and special effects company for Viacom in NYC.
We did most of Stephen King’s films, Judge Dredd, SciFi Channel, Fox, MTV,
Riki Lake, as well as the famous bubble bath cleaner commercials. We had
rooms filled with SGI super computers, farms to render full frame for the
film industry and the artists that did that work. It would be easy to do
that piece in real-time much less the 7 minute delay the media was under
that day. That also may explain the sloppy work.

This is very cheesy work, much you have seen just in the size of the object.
The fact that they took little care of the breakup near the building to keep
the shape shows the artists did not care, or perhaps cared enough to make
sure it was noticeable.

I am in exile here in Europe, and cannot contact old friends in that
industry since it has been so many years. Exactly how it might be done could
be easily done though these people. Just find some Mac animators that have
worked on film quality or TV (this is not a film quality job).

I guess I expect all things to be true, showing fake stuff is just as
important and you taught me a good lesson.

You realize this would probably be a real video altered (look at all that
pixel breakup). The verification of location of the camera is essential to
find out which parts are real - specially if you want to engage in what
those objects leaving the scene on the left were. There are a lot of video
of "something" flying out the exit hole on that hit, that is the first one
that shows something that looks like an in tact object of oblong and rounded
at that. My immediate thought would be escape pod for the perps. But then I
worked on Judge Dredd.

Did you order the full resolution BetaCam clone from CNN?

Probably a very stupid question. You all know that the $38 a second offered
for any footage of the event ate up almost every real piece of footage
available at that time. I never got the planes hitting or saw that part,
still in the shower. The researchers I work with told me the stuff that
comes from the networks arrives with missing footage and station ID tags
over important parts.

Do all of you know that there was a Russian TV station right across the
river in Jersey City on the water who broadcast the whole thing from their
studios over the satellites and much of that was what was seen raw before
the censorship? Clearview I think within 2 months of the event bought up
their station and archives. I would love to see their stuff. Also, channel 3
news in NJ was with me at the Frank Sinatra pier with a full professional
Betacam camera with sound engineers and sat truck to film the WT7 and that
footage is still not found.

I have several minutes of night shots of the glow that night of Sept 11,
2001 that I never showed. It is interesting, but I don't think it has value
so never released it. Also have some minutes of the next day. It was just
burning and smoking. Months of it. So depressing it had me leave a place I
really loved. NY was a great city for creativity.

My question is if you are trying to prove this is a fake, it is most
probable. Do you need some special effects experts to qualify that? The
other object of course would come into question then too. That object alone
gives reason to think it is real footage that is altered vs. a still with an
animated plane over it.

So much needed, location of camera, real beta footage, and a super computer
to look at the frames. Then, what do we have for this value return? Showing
CNN altered footage? Is more proof needed that the media in the US is a tool
of the "powers"?

But as you say, each stone is another. Or each nail another one in their
coffin that may this time keep them inside it!

I apologize again, the wife wants some quality time and I shall return.

> is a segment of one of the second hit cartoons.
> was my first exploration of this footage.
> is a larger version.

> An even longer version of the JetCrash Cartoon is at

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

No comments: