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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:49 AM
link   


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?


The plane was flying south down the Hudson River. The firemen were
at Church & Lispenard Streets for gas call - which is north of WTC complex

Refer to this map of area

www.mapquest.com... e=10013&country=US&location=l5oQnz3grrS%2fQNzORkLkAonvzPd6h6gWNsqFLKJPhjGqeMJcYYbb2WfReeJn%2ff6CMCD3fRFnohj6d%2btI8ImBXkZnFZEc4zrOCPIKhUZHKtbIkVS%2f%2 foRqBz%2bHpNSF1%2f5y9gDVvZJaiQ0qWLMLW%2b2qKA%3d%3d&ambiguity=1

Aircraft do not (or not supposed) to fly over Manhattan. In video can see
firemen looking around to find source of sound turning toward the south as plane goes by. As can see from map the plane passed almost directly above the firemen north of the WTC complex. Manhattan is full of
buildings, very very large buildings which act to channel or block sounds

Naudet happened to catch them looking in direction of WTC as plane smashed into North Tower.

-




posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by PepeLapew
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.


Excuse me? The speed of sound at sea level is right at 750 mph. The sound would precede the plane.


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?


But they didn't. The firefighter clearly looks "straight up" even though the plane has moved to their left. And the delay in pointing the camera to the building is most likely the camera man trying to locate the plane visually before trying to film it.

I think you're seeing what you want to see, and not what is there. If the camera man or firefighters had automatically looked at where the plane actually was, we would have seen the plane flying toward the building and then impacting...we didn't. We saw the explosion...that's the lag in finding the plane after looking straight up - which is normal tendency, look straight up and then look around.

[edit on 9-30-2007 by Valhall]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Larry B.
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.



I was not suggesting that the speed of sound changeg, not at all.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Are the Naudet Brothers for real?

This clip from their DVD should provide the answer:


The Incredible Moving Bridge

What you see as a "moving bridge" is nothing more then a moving chopper dude. You can clearly see that the angle of view of the towers changes a bit. This shot was taken from a moving chopper hence the change in the angle of view and the movement of the bridge.

[edit on 30-9-2007 by PepeLapew]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PepeLapew
What you see as a "moving bridge" is nothing more then a moving chopper dude. You can clearly see that the angle of view of the towers changes a bit. This shot was taken from a moving chopper hence the change in the angle of view and the movement of the bridge.
[edit on 30-9-2007 by PepeLapew]



You've been playing too many video games



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn

Originally posted by PepeLapew
What you see as a "moving bridge" is nothing more then a moving chopper dude. You can clearly see that the angle of view of the towers changes a bit. This shot was taken from a moving chopper hence the change in the angle of view and the movement of the bridge.
[edit on 30-9-2007 by PepeLapew]



You've been playing too many video games

Ok, so how about you tell us your opinion? Not that this would have anything
to do with the Naudet bros. since they didn't film that video so THANK YOU SO
FREAKING MUCH for derailing the thread to stir it into your stoopit conspiracy
kook crap.

But how about you tell us how that bridge was "moving" on it's own?
Perhaps you will tell us the towers never existed? Were they holograms? Were
the planes holograms? Are you a freakin' hologram?

And do you enjoy derailing threads with stoopit irrelevant crap like this? Of
course we can hear the voice of the announcer being a bit muffled by the
engine noise but that can't be the engine of a chopper, right? It most likely is
the engine of a holograms machine, right?

[edit on 30-9-2007 by PepeLapew]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn
Are the Naudet Brothers for real?

This clip from their DVD should provide the answer:


The Incredible Moving Bridge


This was posted by the WebFairy (Rosalee Grabble), someone who was once claiming the airplanes were holograms. This has nothing to do with this thread. Go start your own thread about holograms .... we are too busy conducting serious research here to talk with the mentally challenged Webfairy.

And I don't enjoy people derailing my thread with stoopit stuff that is absolutely irrelevant since the Naudet bros. did not film that footage and neither did they feature that footage in their DVD.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:19 PM
link   
To hell with that video, you could not clearly see any plane. I stand by the missle/hologram/network cgi theories.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   
First, the sound. The aircraft was not traveling at or faster than the speed of sound, therefore the sound will occur BEFORE the aircraft. Whilst a very good point was raised regarding distance from observer to aircraft as it travels along its flight path, the aircraft would appear to be approximately where the sound was emanating from.

To put this in context - when you hear a high-altitude jet cruising over, you hear it long after it flew past. This is because it took time for the sound to travel from the source to your ear. In the meantime, the jet moved forward. Light being faster than sound, it gives the illusion of the aircraft being ahead of the sound.

Doppler effect is simply the alteration of pitch. Sound waves are compressed ahead of a moving object, therefore the frequency increases and so a higher pitch sound is created vs. when it is moving away from you. If the object is traveling fast enough however, then amplitude can be affected, too.

As for the flashes: the cameras used on 9/11 were less than stellar in quality. Given that the flashes in question occurred prior to impact, my money is on static discharge.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
First, the sound. The aircraft was not traveling at or faster than the speed of sound,

Nobody has claimed that the airplane was traveling at the speed of sound or faster. Stop saying that it was going sub-sonic because we all know it was sub-sonic.


therefore the sound will occur BEFORE the aircraft.

Duh!
I don't understand what that means. What does everyone mean by the sound occurs before the aircraft?


Whilst a very good point was raised regarding distance from observer to aircraft as it travels along its flight path, the aircraft would appear to be approximately where the sound was emanating from.

No it would not!!!
Imagine that instead of an engine sound the plane screams letters instead. So the airplane is at point A 2 miles to your right on a flight path to come in front of you at point B one half mile away and to crash in the building at point C 1 mile to your left.

At the time it is at point A to your right the plane screams A.
Since point A is 2 miles away it would take about 10 seconds for you to hear the scream A.

In that 9 seconds the plane travels at 500 MPH (or 0.1388889 MPS) so it is already 1. 4 miles away from point A and soon approaching point B. So you turn to the sound of A but the plane starts screaming B

Point B is only one half mile away from you. So the sound of B takes 2.5 seconds to reach you.

So now you turn to where you hear B but in that 2.5 seconds it took for the sound to reach you the plane has already traveled 0.35 miles.

In an other 2.5 seconds the plane will hit the building. Just as it hits, the plane screams C. But C is one mile away from you so it takes 5 seconds for the sound of C to reach you.

Of course if the plane was headed straight toward you, you would hear the sound of the plane before it hit you. Nobody is claiming otherwise. But the further away the plane is, the further you hear the sound of the past position of the plane. If the plane's path is in front of you, you only hear as fast as the speed of sound, so you hear sort of in the past. This is why the explosion occurred 4-5 seconds before you could hear it. You hear in the past while you see in the present.


To put this in context - when you hear a high-altitude jet cruising over, you hear it long after it flew past. This is because it took time for the sound to travel from the source to your ear. In the meantime, the jet moved forward. Light being faster than sound, it gives the illusion of the aircraft being ahead of the sound.


This is EXACTLY what I am saying. But if the plane is 10 miles away it takes more time for the sound to reach you. So the plane is further ahead of the sound. But when the path of the plane is only a mile or two in front of you, it takes less time for the sound to reach you hence the plane travels less in that period. So you still hear 'in the past' but not as much as if the plane was traveling further away.



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   
From the author of the most detailed examination of the Naudet film - if not a fraction as detailed as it would be if I had the money : why don’t you people start addressing what I discuss in the article, and give up this back-and-forth about the speed of sound and whether there was a flash of light before the impact, etc etc ? None of that appears in my article, and nor does anything about holograms. I don’t CARE when the impact sound occurs on the film soundtrack, and I don’t CARE if there was a flash : the subject is how Naudet came to film this event - a plane, not a hologram, flying into a building. And for the record, the plane did NOT fly down the Hudson River, or it wouldn’t have flown straight into the middle of the north side of One World Trade Center. The plane’s flight path is shown in several maps in my article - that’s the one at www.frankresearch.info/Naudet911, dated October 2008. Am I dealing with idiots or disinformationists ? That’s what I have to wonder sometimes, reading this irrelevant, time-wasting crap about sound waves and light flashes - and while I’m at it, having come across some other prat on a different website peddling nonsense I dealt with in my article, that my case “can’t be proved or disproved” : our legal system is not based on
absolute PROOF, but on the balance of PROBABILITIES, and my case against the Naudets more than meets that legal standard. How often do I have to spell out basic FACTS before they start penetrating the heads of the morons and liars who think they can take me on ? When am I going to encounter somebody with a serious argument against me, six years later ? I’ve never yet seen one I haven’t already addressed and disposed of - in the article - for anybody who wants to READ the thing, and not PRESUME things I don’t say in it, and don’t care about. I’m not in the hologram club - I never was - and when David Friend of Vanity Fair magazine misquotes me to suggest I was, he’s another bloody liar - but I knew that before I wrote to him. Anybody who disagrees with my case is either an idiot or a liar - those are the two options. The Naudets, Hanlon, and the rest of the gang were in on 9/11, and you fools are letting them
walk by ignoring or rubbishing my article - them and the others who murdered 3,000. But who cares ? There’s a guy with brown skin in the White House - let’s not drag up the past. What’s the guy with brown skin going to do about 9/11 ? Carry on the same drivel as the one before
him, by the looks of it : you can stop celebrating. One last point - I explain in great detail in my article why the film of the moving bridge is an impossibility : somebody put that shot together in a special effects studio - as a deliberate insult to folk so stupid they’d accept it as real. It’s physically impossible, it was faked and that’s why - is that clear enough for you ? Any more idiotic comments ? How about some sensible ones, for a change ? Address them to
les.raphael@yahoo.co.uk.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by les406
 

Start your own thread. This one was started by a guy who wanted to talk about audio and video anomalies in the Naudet brothers film.

If you have something constructive to say about the topic, say it or link to it.

Stop ragging on the people in this thread or when the people moderating it wake from their siestas they will start censoring your posts.

Welcome to the civilized world. Have a nice day.



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   
The most amazing thing about the Naudet brothers was they were responsible for probably the most amazing footage in history yet they went on to become nobodies..

You have to ask yourself - did hollywood shun them or did they shun hollywood and fame & fortune. Either answer doesnt make sense & simply raises more questions..

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Nonchalant]



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
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]


the only problem is that FLIGHT 11 was no where near the WTC on 9/11/2001, let alone any commerical boeing jet.

The "planes" that hit the wtc were drones/missles

can we all just stop with the flight 11 bs?

the biggest anomaly from the naudet vid is what it DOESN'T SHOW.

that aint no commerical jet let alone FLIGHT 11



posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by matrixNIN11
The "planes" that hit the wtc were drones/missles

can we all just stop with the flight 11 bs?


Most people who use terms like Flt. 11 or Flt. 175 do so out of convenience, so that other people who read their posts can do so without confusion. I think we are pretty well stuck with this very well established nomenclature.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join