It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Naudet first strike audio/video anomalies

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Ok, don't get mad, I am not trying to suggest anything here, just the facts and the science as I see it.
I just noticed this and I thought I would put it out there and see if my observations make any sense.

About the famed Naudet bros. first strike video seen here:
youtube.com...
So we are told that the Naudet bros. were filming a documentary about a rookie fireman and attending to a gas leak which turned out to be a false alarm when they heard the sound of an aircraft, they turned around toward the sound they heard and caught the strike of the first airplane on video, that only footage of the first strike.

Only I find this rather strange. Look at the video above again, you will see that the sound of the explosion is heard about 4-5 seconds after the actual strike and explosion occur. This is normal, the delay of the sound is due to the speed of sound which is about 0.20 miles per seconds. What this means is that the sound of the airplane trajectory should also be delayed by about 4-5 seconds. During that 4-5 seconds a plane traveling at 550 MPH (or 0.16 miles per seconds) would have been almost a whole mile ahead of the engine sound.

So if the firefighters and cameraman turned toward the sound of the aircraft as we are told, how did they turn directly toward the actual hit which would be almost a mile ahead of the sound?

Cheers,
PepeLapiu




posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Very good question. But what. you have to remember is this, on 9/11, not only did common sense go out the window, but the laws of physics themselves..... At least according to the official story.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
I am just flabbergasted that nobody (to my knowledge) noticed that problem before.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Sorry, no link to back me up but I have seen a website that analyses many of the 911 videos and I believe I read eyewitness testimony to the effect that the plane was flying rather slowly and low over the city as it came in from Brooklyn, I believe. There was a lot of conflicting eyewitness testimony regarding the planes, speed, size etc.

You raise an excellent point though, that I haven't heard discussed before. I can't think how many times I've heard fast moving planes flying overhead and looked up in the wrong direction because they were already way past where I was looking.

I'm trying to check your calculations and I'm no math genius.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Actually, I just reread your post and I think you've made a mistake. At sea level sound travels at roughly 1117 fps. If the plane was travelling at 550 mph., that would equal roughly 806.67 fps. That means that the sound of the plane would be moving faster than the plane and would be heard 310.33 ft. in front of the plane. The sound of the plane would reach the film crew, if they were directly in the flight path, .28 seconds ahead of the plane itself.

I know that the firemen were not directly in the flight path and this calculation doesn't take into consideration the altitude of the plane at the time, but it does indicate to me that the firemen would have heard the plane very close to time it was directly over them. They then would have heard the plane's sound until it collided with the building.

I'd still like to think about this a little. If there was a four second delay before they heard the sound of the explosion, that means that they were almost a mile from the North Tower. This is just off the top of my head but I think they should have been able to hear the plane for a couple of seconds or so before it struck the tower.

When they first heard the plane, allowing for altitude and deviance of their location from the flight path, the plane was probably a thousand to fifteen hundred feet ahead of where the sound was telling them it was. I'm convinced that they still would have heard it before it struck, probably for a couple of seconds or so at 550 mph.

At least you are thinking seriously about this stuff, which is great.

One more point. They should have been able to hear the plane's sound after it struck the tower. In other words, even though they could see the collision with the tower, their lying ears would have been telling them the plane was still in the air until they heard the sound of the collision.

Now I'm wondering if there is some kind of challenge to the Naudet brothers film soundtrack based on what sounds are heard after the collision. Hmmm, very intriguing.



[edit on 29-9-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Yeah,yeah the Naudet brothers…What pieces of work!!
Here’s a fine view of their mugshots, to the left Jules (in all his charm) and to the right Gedeon (with his overpowering smile).

(What conscienceless people look like)

Leslie Raphael, a Scotsman has dissected those two jokers and their 9-11 ‘contributions’ better than anyone. Here’s the link JULES NAUDET'S FIRST PLANE SHOT WAS STAGED — A Clue to the Truth about 9/11. Read it and weep.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 9/29/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Wizard_In_The_Woods
 

An other thing I find strange : these two are supposed to be brothers yet they don't look alike at all. But more importantly they supposedly came over from France together. Now they are 6 years apart but I have never heard of two brothers moving to a new country together. Mind you they would later end up going to art school together yet again and take the same courses. Now that is even stranger because of the fact that they are 6 years apart, so one would be the right age for school while the other would be a bit old. Then they decided to make this documentary together, yet again.

I have never heard of two brothers moving to a new country together, studying the same courses together and making a career together. That's a bit strange honestly, brothers don't behave that way.

Now this is not a proof of anything, just an observation. It doesn't prove anything, just odd, we all have to agree on that.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Actually, I just reread your post and I think you've made a mistake. At sea level sound travels at roughly 1117 fps. If the plane was travelling at 550 mph., that would equal roughly 806.67 fps. That means that the sound of the plane would be moving faster than the plane and would be heard 310.33 ft. in front of the plane. The sound of the plane would reach the film crew, if they were directly in the flight path, .28 seconds ahead of the plane itself.


Not really, your thinking is flawed. If the plane is at point A one mile away from the crew, it takes 4-5 seconds for the sound the plane makes at that point to reach the crew. So the crew turns around to where the sound is coming from. But they look at where the plane was 4-5 seconds ago. meanwhile the plane has already traveled for 4-5 seconds at a speed of 807.67 fps which would put the plane about 0.6 to 0.76 mile ahead of the sound.

Furthermore, when the plane is coming toward you, it will sound louder as the sound waves get a bit compressed ahead of the plane. If the plane reaches mac speed the sound will compress to the point of creating a sonic boom but this was not the case of course.

But as the plane goes away from you, the inverse happens and the sound is more faint as the sound waves are depressed and more spaced out behind the plane, and this applies no matter how fast the plane goes. The difference between the coming compression and the leaving depression will of course be greater if the plane goes faster.

I don't know if this makes any sense to you in the way I explain it. But as the plane passes the crew and is leaving toward the towers, the sound should be a lot more faint ..... this can be observed on the video. As the plane is coming and passes over them the sound is greater and just before the plane strikes, you can barely hear it.

Cheers,
PepeLapiu


[edit on 29-9-2007 by PepeLapew]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   
With respect, you have to remember that the plane is emitting sound all the way. The plane was flying at an altitude of approximately 900 ft. As the plane approached the firemen it's sound would reach them quicker and quicker. When the plane was close to directly overhead the sound would reach them in under a second. My point is that they would have heard the plane before it hit the building.

I agree with everything in your last post except that from the first moment that they heard the plane they would be getting continual sonic updates at continually accelerating intervals, thus the lag time you refer to would diminish until at a thousand or so feet directly overhead, or close to it, the delay would be under a second. The plane would be roughly 800 ft. ahead of it's sound which is roughly 5 plane lengths (at 150 ft. for the length of the plane.)

Personally I believe that Flt. 11 was in fact going a lot slower than 550 mph., which would significantly cut the plane's lead on it's sound.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zenagain

Very good question. But what. you have to remember is this, on 9/11, not only did common sense go out the window, but the laws of physics themselves..... At least according to the official story.


Good answer. Only plausible thing I've heard in the last 6 years.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Actually, I just reread your post and I think you've made a mistake. At sea level sound travels at roughly 1117 fps. If the plane was travelling at 550 mph., that would equal roughly 806.67 fps. That means that the sound of the plane would be moving faster than the plane and would be heard 310.33 ft. in front of the plane. The sound of the plane would reach the film crew, if they were directly in the flight path, .28 seconds ahead of the plane itself.


Sound does NOT travel in front of the object making the sound. That would be saying the FACT of the doppler effect ineffective. Please look up the doopler effect and how it works.


When they first heard the plane, allowing for altitude and deviance of their location from the flight path, the plane was probably a thousand to fifteen hundred feet ahead of where the sound was telling them it was.


I'm sorry, but, sound does NOT travel before anything. It is an after affect. Unless someone can prove this to me?

[edit on 9/30/2007 by Griff]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Why do they put horns on automobiles?

P.S. Are you into the sauce tonight?

[edit on 30-9-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   
As I said, I could totally be wrong about sound and how it travels. I'm not perfect you know.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Griff, you are a very smart guy as your numerous intelligent posts confirm. Sound travels at 1117 ft.per second. Anything travelling at less than that speed will be preceded by the sound it emits. Putting altitude into the problem complicates it but the fundamental facts don't change.

[edit on 30-9-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 



Nice. Thanks. After I posted, I thought about it and remembered my days of physics class. That's why I said I could be wrong. But, unlike some, I would rather keep my mistakes for all to see rather than edit them out.

Thanks for the education.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Thanks for being in the battle. I just hope we aren't all rounded up one day.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   
Everyone here is focused so much on how sound travels, but the odd thing about this video that really gets me is the flash of light just before the plane hits the building. Has anyone every discussed what that flash of light is? Not trying to derail the thread, but it really has me confused.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   
The flash you are talking about has been discussed in numerous threads and in great detail. Some people believe it is the flash of something shot from the plane into the building just prior to impact. Some people have suggested that it is static electricity. Some people think that it might be reflected sunlight.

There has been extensive analysis of different photos of the moment of impact of Flt. 175, the plane which hit the South Tower. A similar flash of light was seen there as was seen in the Naudet film of Flt. 11. hitting the North Tower. If you search the ATS forums you will find a lot on it. It is also covered extensively on other websites. Just google, you will find it.

[edit on 30-9-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Are the Naudet Brothers for real?

This clip from their DVD should provide the answer:


The Incredible Moving Bridge




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by PepeLapew
 



What you are referring to is called the doppler effect. That changes the pitch of the sound but not the speed. Come on guys.... Do a little research. The speed of sound is constant for a given altitude, temperature and air density, humidity etc.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join