IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
High Quality Clip - The First Plane - Wtc1, The first plane to hit WTC

bjohnson
post Jan 29 2009, 01:54 PM
Post #21





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 22
Joined: 22-April 08
Member No.: 3,204



QUOTE (lunk @ Jan 27 2009, 12:49 PM) *
OK,
I'm working on the premise that sound effects and voices were added to the video after it was filmed.
How could one be able to tell?

When sound is mixed in a studio to a soundtrack in a video, there is always the problem of voltage offset in the added wave form. This is usually not noticeable, and usually goes unnoticed.

Anyhow,
I took just the soundtrack from the report in the video and removed a variable offset, inverted that wave form and mixed it back with the original, thus eliminating everything, but the parts of that recording that were offset and then bringing it up to full dynamic range.
The only parts you would hear, is the parts that were offset the most, and possibly added to the video after filming.


It may be that what you "see" in this wave form, was added to the film after it was recorded.
And when listening to this sound there is a very obvious (studio?) echo, in all the voices.

I need a second opinion on this.

imo, lunk

Might want to see what Insolubrius on ATS can do with it. He is the one that found the low frequency booms on that video from across the river.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jan 29 2009, 06:25 PM
Post #22



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



I think that this is a very good method for detecting
the validity of originality of any audio recording.
This particular sample has been adulterated with additional recordings.
And is not just the original sound track from the video camera.

No longer needing a second opinion.

Anybody can duplicate this, easily,
and clearly hear the added audio inserts for themselves.

It's interesting how we can watch a video of anything,
and the whole impression/perspective can be changed
with just the audio.

(Think of ducks landing and sliding on a frozen lake, with the sounds from a bowling ally, for instance.)

imo, lunk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Feb 8 2009, 04:17 PM
Post #23



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



QUOTE (lunk @ Jan 27 2009, 12:39 PM) *
This is the best and simplest audio editor I've ever found, fully functional, but it's shareware.

Here are some freeware toys for lunk (and others) that I just found while setting up someone's experiment, courtesy of Rutgers' Physics Dept:

http://duncan.rutgers.edu/physicsfreewares.htm

Here are a couple of good freeware [kitchen-ish] timers/alarm clocks that will play songs, sounds, etc. (also good when traveling with a laptop).

http://www.softpedia.com/progDownload/Time...load-36202.html

http://www.harmonyhollow.net/download_file...file=ctimer.exe

Now will you tune that guitar? wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dMz
post Mar 8 2009, 05:43 PM
Post #24



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 5,019
Joined: 2-October 07
From: USA, a Federal corporation
Member No.: 2,294



Here are a bunch more audio tools (mostly freeware and open source for various common platforms- various Windows, Mac, LINUX). There are speech tools, spectrum analysis, signal and tone generators, music systhesizers, audio analysis tools, etc.

http://marcotonini.wordpress.com/2008/06/3...audio-software/

Baudline (LINUX only):
http://www.baudline.com/
http://www.icewalkers.com/Linux/Software/5...0/baudline.html

Many LINUX tools (but several may have Windows and Mac versions as well):
http://www.linux-sound.org/one-page.html

Many of these are shareware, but there are some freeware and LINUX listed too:
http://www.download32.com/audio---multimedia-1-category.html

Here is a huge list of mainly music and synthesizer oriented software, but there appear to be several things mixed in those 7 pages:

http://lesitedeburnie.free.fr/lalistedeburnie1-en.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Sep 18 2009, 08:55 PM
Post #25





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



I'm skeptic about the little sound experiment. Here are some reasons:
1) If you want a proper sound for a video then you should use an external mic. Many film teams record the sound with an external recorder (e.g. DAT or HD)
2) digital sound recording should have no DC offset
3) if you mix two sound sources - one source without DC offset and one source with a DC offset - then the mix will have the same DC offset. More sources with different DC offsets will add the DC values and result in a low "frequency"

You are right. If you remove the DC offset of a sound file and invert the result and finally adding the original and the inverted sound then you will lost amplitude. Theoretically you should get exactly the DC part of the signal because sin(x)+a-sin(x)=a. If your second sound file was just inverted you should get zero sound because any sample (amplitude) will be added by its inverted sample. I suspect that many DC remover will do a little more than that (or even less).

As you see in the resulting sound of your subtraction the whole soundtrack is still there and audible without gaps. If I follow your consideration then I would expect zero sound for the original parts and a DC plateau for the dubbed parts. Instead you describing some strange echo effect. If this would be some kind of "studio echo" then you would hear it as well in the final mix because 1) DC offsets are inaudible unless you hear clicks 2) echo or natural reverberations are very complex signals and wont disappear by adding a DC offset. I would conclude that the digital DC remove "low pass" filter (or any other step) shifted the samples in some significant time (milliseconds) because a shorter time would result in some kind of flanger filter effect.

In the end I would say that the soundtrack is authentic. Why should anyone fake that soundtrack? Do you think the smoke is CGI and needed some sound design? I don't think so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LadyHawk
post Sep 22 2009, 08:47 AM
Post #26





Group: Newbie
Posts: 2
Joined: 21-September 09
From: Next Best Thing to Hell, AZ
Member No.: 4,624



(I'm not a pilot, can I still play with y'all? tongue.gif )

I noticed in the CNN live video here at 08:00 they're on the phone with a woman who's also reporting a "sonic boom" and TV interference before the actual strike. From the perspective of someone who's been no closer to a cockpit than the passenger loading door- those planes weren't going fast enough to produce that effect, right? So what went boom, and why the pulse? What might the pulse have been intended to do? It obviously didn't knock out communications, just scrambled them for a moment, and nothing exploded at that time.

Please forgive me in advance for any potentially stupid questions I may ask- I'm not in the aviation industry and don't understand a lot of the technical talk.

Great site btw.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
achimspok
post Sep 23 2009, 11:53 AM
Post #27





Group: Troll
Posts: 124
Joined: 19-February 09
Member No.: 4,144



Imho the witness talks about the boom of the plane. The plane ran through the cables in the core of the tower and caused a short break in the energy supply in the whole area. You can see that effect in the Fairbanks video of the second hit. The lights of Burger King went off for a very short moment. (electrical energy travels at the speed of light) So if she lived next to the towers then she probably just had to turn the head and saw the fireball. That fireball lasted for about 9 seconds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Mar 14 2011, 12:41 PM
Post #28





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



Can't find an easy way to do it, but:

In the "Fire mans" video, the fireman turns his head towards the jet, and begins turning his head as if to track it's progress.

Okay, let's assume that there is a plane he's watching.
Let's assume that when he turns his head he's looking at a plane that's almost equidistant from the north tower as he is.

If the camera is recording at 30 frames per second, and the plane is moving at 510 knots (860.78 ft/sec), and they're both about 3,000 ft from the north tower, that should be about 3.5 seconds from impact.

Then, since the Naudet camera is filming continuously, the frame count should be approx. 104 +/- say 30 or 1 second, spotting the difference at a ridiculous 860 feet.

It seems to me that there's quite a bit more than 3.5 seconds elapsed, between the time the camera goes from the Fireman looking, to the impact. A frame count would prove/disprove that impression.

Anyone?

Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Obwon
post Mar 14 2011, 12:58 PM
Post #29





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 577
Joined: 29-November 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,712



QUOTE (jo1 @ Dec 6 2007, 06:18 PM) *
Thanks for the direction. Will go and see if I can find it. I am v. curious about your opinion of the no plane theory. As far as what I see from the evidence, I don't believe passenger planes could have done that damage (esp. the wingtips through the steel in a perfect cardboard cut out shape bit), so I'd be very interested in what you think happened, or if it was the planes they said, how it's possible that they did that sort of damage. There's also talk about those particular planes not being physically able to fly at that speed at that altitude, but of course, I'm not a pilot, so I have to learn where to find this information (maybe direct from boeing or something? have been trying to find manuals, but I'm not sure this would be helpful??!)

So I am well interested in everybody's opinions of what happened with regard to the planes, and if they weren't planes, then what was it? B/c for sure something went IN!

Back to the long hard hunt for real evidence!! Thanks!


wacko.gif


This might prove to be of some interest:

Flight 91 was originally scheduled for after 9:00 AM, as mentioned in an article:
That morning, (Mary Steiner) "called to check on her flight, Flight 91, due to leave after 9 A.M.. She moved up to Flight 93 for an earlier start..."

Officially the alleged hijackers booked their flights between August 24-29.
Therefore they possibly must have been on an original passenger list of Flight 91 as well, because Flight93 did not exist at that time (it was first scheduled on Sep5th, 2001)


http://911search.bravehost.com/twintails591UA.html


The Colgan Phantom Flight

http://911search.bravehost.com/twintails591UA.html

Officially, Mohammad Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari took another flight, on that morning of Sep11th, from Portland, Maine to Boston.
The 9/11 report, recently suggested for a national book award, confirms it:

"... Atta and Omari boarded a 6:00 A.M. flight from Portland to Bostonís Logan International Airport..."


http://911search.bravehost.com/twintails591UA.html

The report even mentions the Flight Number: 5930
According to other mainstream reports, they took Colgan Airlines.

Colgan does business as US Airways and even has its planes painted in US Airways colors and it flight attendants wear US Airways uniforms.
Colgan's flight numbers are indeed US Airways 5000-5999.

There is only one problem. No plane with that tail number took off that morning, as the screenshots reveals There was also no other BTS data about other "scheduled Departure Times" of this flight.



American Eagle seems to be the only possible flight, which departed to Boston as FLIGHT 4637 (aka N266MQ).
However, this flight was already scheduled for 5:30am (Wheels off: 5:40), which contradicts all official reports.

This flight was too early to board, because Atta and Alomari officially arrived shortly before 6AM.
Then there is also the "last picture" of Atta, which is taken around 5:45am at the airport in Portland.

If this flight did not exist, Atta couldn't have been arrived in time on Flight 11 (aka N334AA).
But there is also another problem. No flight with the tail number N334AA arrived on the morning of Sep11th in Boston, neither there was a flight 11 with a departure or wheels-off-time at all.

On September 10th, N334AA (officially later turning into Flight11) arrived at 15:34 PM EST (as Flight 196), almost 10 hours after it also went back and forth as Flight 198 to San Francisco.

But what happened with N334AA on Sep11th?
And why do two different mainstream reports tell us, that the "plane" departed from two different gates? (26 and 32)

http://911search.bravehost.com/twintails591UA.html

Happy Hunting
Obwon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th July 2019 - 07:30 AM