The claims about the helicopters give way to a long and tedious series of claims about explosions -- not the explosions of the Towers themselves, but supposed explosions long before each Tower's destruction. The basis for these claims is a soundtrack supposedly recorded by Siegel's camera. Even if one assumes that the soundtrack is real, there is no basis for assuming that spikes of pink noise are explosions from the World Trade Center 1.8 miles away. For all we know, the sounds could be nothing more than the sound of wind rushing past the microphone.
The sensationalist claims about explosions start slow and build as the film progresses, with the first mention at 3:43:
Did you hear that? More explosions?
The alleged explosions are numbered, and circles and boxes outline supposed areas of rising dust supposedly corresponding to the purported explosions. An obvious rational explanation for the faint light-colored patches that Siegel calls "dust clouds" is that smoke is rising from the tons of burning materials that spilled from the Towers following the crashes. Once again, Siegel ignores the obvious explanations in favor of a theory with no corroborating evidence.
The claimed explosion events multiply as the film goes on. Eventually, about ten "Pre-collapse Explosions" are listed for each Tower, some long before the "collapses" began, all based on the soundtrack. Not only is the soundtrack uncorroborated by any evidence of verifiable origin, it is contradicted by the accounts of people on the ground. For example, the vast body of oral histories by emergency responders released in mid-2005 contains numerous accounts of explosion sounds at the onset of the explosion of each Tower, but apparently does not contain accounts of such sounds occurring before the explosions. Other witnesses in the vicinity of the Towers also did not hear the alleged explosions long before the collapses.
Furthermore, seismic records of the events in Manhattan on 9/11/01, such as illustrated by the Palisades chart, don't show any activity above baseline in the minutes before the explosive collapses began.
Uncorroborated claims of explosions at times that are clearly contradicted by other bodies of evidence effectively function to distract from accounts of explosions that precipitated the destruction of the Towers. The invention of such uncorroborated explosions is a theme that runs throughout the video.
In lesson narration mode, the alleged explosions are annotated on a sound amplitude graph. One doesn't have to look too closely to see that the alleged explosion sounds and their labels don't match the graph. Thus, not only is Siegel's "evidence" contradicted by verifiable evidence, it contradicts itself.
The labeling of the sound graphs emphasizes the film's tendency to indulge in interpretations that there is no basis for. For example, the "WTC1 Event" graph labels the first spike "Bedrock Foundation" and a span about 15 seconds later "internal". The film does not attempt to explain these interpretations.
Having ignored the fact that the seismic evidence contradicts Siegel's pre-collapse explosions, the lesson narrator indulges in a series of fallacious inferences about the seismic evidence.
Showing the graphic on the right from FEMA's report, the narrator states:
The North Tower created an 8-second signal, far too short to represent the collapse of debris.
No, eight seconds is about the span between the times that the bottoms and tops of the rubble clouds reached the ground. This frame breakdown of the CNN live footage of the North Tower's destruction shows that the rubble reaches the ground from approximately T+12 to T+20.
Next, the narrator asserts that the energy of the "collapse" events can be calculated from the magnitude of the largest spikes recorded at the Palisades station:
Next we see that the magnitude of the North and South Towers is 2.1 and 2.3 respectively.
To the extent that the energy of the events could be inferred from seismic data, it would be roughly proportional to the magnitude of the signal over time, not the magnitude at one instant in time. The magnitude at an instant would correspond to power or force, not energy. The most elementary physics text will explain the difference between power and energy.
Next in the parade of errors is the assertion that projections extending out of the North Tower's exploding dust cloud are explosions. However, by watching the video, one can easily see that the projections are chunks of the Tower's shattered skeleton on the edge of the dust cloud.
Once again, 9/11 Eyewitness labels as explosions events that are not explosions. How better to distract from the actual massive explosion that is converting the skyscraper onto dust and shards of steel?
The film's next foray into nonsense is to pretend that the shape of the North Tower's dust cloud represents a particle trajectory. 9/11 Eyewitness selects a frame from about 10 seconds into the North Tower's "collapse" in which the top of the right side of the dust cloud has a roughly parabolic shape. It then asserts that this shape is the trajectory of a particle, and superimposes an animation of a cannonball trajectory which roughly traces the profile of the dust cloud.
9/11 Eyewitness uses this exercise to assert that the debris from the Tower was propelled upward during the "collapse". There are two problems with this "analysis", which become readily apparent from watching the video:
This is not an exhaustive review of 9/11 Eyewitness but it highlights two of the film's dominant features:
One might ask, why does Siegel indulge in such obvious errors logic and science? Is 9/11 Eyewitness simply an effort to capitalize on footage of the attack, playing up sensational claims and taking a devil-may-care attitude toward the science? Or is its purpose to discredit the idea that the Twin Towers were destroyed by explosives by superimposing nonsensical claims on footage of the crime, facilitating future straw man attacks of the type Popular Mechanics and other mainstream press outlets wield to such great effect?