Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: High Quality Clip - The First Plane - Wtc1
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Location > World Trade Center Complex > North Tower
investigate911.se
http://investigate911.se/911_first_plane.html

ESPECIALLY NOTE the very well known bright flash that appears just before impact. What was that?

Download the clip HERE
jo1
this is my first post, so I hope it lands in the right spot. The link I have provided below is of the same footage minus the flashes. Which footage should I believe to be undcotored and why? Or should I disregard both? I'm tryng hard to get to the bottom of whether these planes are possible, but the evidence, as you can see, is making it realllly hard!!!! And I have no experiance with photography and video, or flying. Any ideas???

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid...earch&plindex=2

sad.gif
shug7272
QUOTE (jo1 @ Dec 4 2007, 06:58 AM)
this is my first post, so I hope it lands in the right spot.  The link I have provided below is of the same footage minus the flashes. Which footage should I believe to be undcotored and why? Or should I disregard both? I'm tryng hard to get to the bottom of whether these planes are possible, but the evidence, as you can see, is making it realllly hard!!!! And I have no experiance with photography and video, or flying. Any ideas???

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid...earch&plindex=2

sad.gif

I would say first off dont believe what others tell you, research for yourself. Second, welcome you found a great home. Third the flashes were there, if you look for the original Naudet (sp) brothers footage it is there. I would really hope you dont ever buy into the no plane theory. Even if it were true it helps nothing, it just makes the story more unbelievable. Also the fact that the no plane theory didnt really catch on until after the truth movement got huge is indicative of the fact that it is misinformation meant to confuse and misdirect. I would say if you want REAL evidence made by professionals watch the Pandora's Black Box videos made by the pilots here. They are professionals and are on the ball. Great vids. 911 Mysteries is good in my opinion as well.
jo1
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
Leslie Landry
Video of the crash of the first plane hitting the North tower of the World Trade Center
TELECHARGER (1,01 Mo)
WetBlanket
Compare to this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxTB3B3XPEI
WetBlanket
Or this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh_8VCiPkTE

Hey, i'd always thought Naudet Bros was the only film.
Sanders
QUOTE (jo1 @ Dec 10 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


If you poke around in the Alternative Theories forum, you can find a lot of discussion about the theory that there were no planes.

Cheers, and Welcome welcome.gif
dMz
QUOTE (Leslie Landry @ May 25 2008, 02:27 PM) *
Video of the crash of the first plane hitting the North tower of the World Trade Center
TELECHARGER (1,01 Mo)


Hi Leslie,

I get a dead link in a new window.

I'll try the direct link from my "dead" browser window and try a direct download:

http://s.freissinet.free.fr/videos/wtc_1st.wmv

EDIT: That worked- sort of, eventually. My Windoze Media Player is broken again.
JFK
Naudet Bros. clip which appears to be the same resolution as was in Loose Change, with a "Gamma press" stamp.

I am surprised you don't have Media player classic dMole. http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli2/
dMz
Here is a NYC local news (audio only) clip said to be of the North Tower strike.

9/11 WTC Rare Video of First Plane Attack - WNYW TV



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ
lunk
The audio does not fit the video.
The camera is on the ground and the people walking by
don't even react to the noise of the plane flying over.
If you remove the ambient background noise, (yes, I did this)
the whole episode sounds like it was done in a studio,
then added to the video.

And how did a plane crash cause the video to glitch out, simultaneous?

imo, lunk
Sanders
QUOTE (lunk @ Jan 31 2009, 12:22 AM) *
And how did a plane crash cause the video to glitch out, simultaneous?


That's a frikken good question. If you allow for the difference in the speed of sound vs. electromagnetic (light etc.) radiation, that glitch could indeed have been simultaneous with the crash.
Skeptik
QUOTE (Sanders @ Jan 27 2009, 06:39 AM) *
That's a frikken good question. If you allow for the difference in the speed of sound vs. electromagnetic (light etc.) radiation, that glitch could indeed have been simultaneous with the crash.

If you listen to the soundtrack there appears to be an explosion (@ 21 seconds) just before the plane hits the building(@ 24 seconds). Could the explosion have caused the video to glitch?
Sanders
QUOTE (Skeptik @ Jan 31 2009, 07:39 AM) *
If you listen to the soundtrack there appears to be an explosion (@ 21 seconds) just before the plane hits the building(@ 24 seconds). Could the explosion have caused the video to glitch?


I don't know. You can drive yourself crazy thinking about these things. All I'm saying is, the glitch happens just before you hear the (big) explosion, and if you factor in that electromatic radiation (things like light, radio waves, etc.) travel much faster than sound, the glitch COULD have happened at the same time as the explosion, i.e., it might have been caused by something connected with the plane's impact (I'm not saying what). There's not much more that you can infer. It's just a curiousity.
Kesha
QUOTE (Skeptik @ Jan 27 2009, 02:39 PM) *
If you listen to the soundtrack there appears to be an explosion (@ 21 seconds) just before the plane hits the building(@ 24 seconds). Could the explosion have caused the video to glitch?


IŽd second that. There are two explosions, and the video glitch and #1 are nearly simultaneous. We might take into consideration that there are reports about an explosion in the basement
of WTC 1, even some seconds before the plane hit. This could be what we hear in this clip. If this first explosion was caused by a... ehm... "device" which also spreads a kinda low
"EMP", this would explain the video glitch.

Pure speculation, though... but there are two explosions, that`s a fact.


Kesha
lunk
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
dMz
Although I didn't really look all that close at the video (mostly posted it here for WTC1N reference), it did look to me like one of the women (in a red jacket) was looking around confusedly for a noise source (about 0:27 IIRC). A 2nd woman just stopped walking for whatever reason briefly after that.

I wonder what the frequency spectrum of this audio (or a Fourier transform from the time domain) would tell us. Does anyone know of a good freeware (preferably open source) audio analysis software that works with video clips? Maybe Audacity?

Here is a slightly different, Fox 5 version of mostly the same clip:

September 11 First Plane Attack at WTC -- Rare WNYW TV Video



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkx_qFJuV-Q
lunk
This is the best and simplest audio editor I've ever found, fully functional, but it's shareware.
Hands on, but easy to learn and use.

http://goldwave.ca/release.php

I used this for my offset analysis.
This isn't the picture of the actual sound,
but just the sound that caused an offset,
in the original wave form.

To me it looks like these sounds were added to the original video.
They shouldn't have been there, if this was the original recording.

I think,
I need a second opinion still.

imo, lunk
lunk
When the second voice says "trade center trade center" there is a hum as if an amp and mike were turned on and off again after he said this. The audio has been altered and voices have been added, to the original video.
You can hear this as clear as day, in the offset analysis.

btw. I removed the variable offset at .01 second intervals, if anyone wants to duplicate this.

imo, lunk
bjohnson
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.
lunk
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
dMz
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
dMz
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
achimspok
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.
LadyHawk
(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.
achimspok
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.
Obwon
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
Obwon
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 Boston’s 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
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.