Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
bill smith said:
What a noisy plane. It must have been at about 2,000 feet and it was still really noisy. Even more so than he planes on 9/11 that were at half that height and flying at full hrottle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn0t...owthread.php?t=141334&feature=player_embedded
Click to expand...


It's curious that you didn't post a similar video taken on 9/11. You know... for comparison, to support your point.

Naudet brothers, first impact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxJFM-0rFsw
WNYW news crew, first impact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ

Stop being deceitful, bill smith.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
It's curious that you didn't post a similar video taken on 9/11. You know... for comparison, to support your point.

Naudet brothers, first impact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxJFM-0rFsw
WNYW news crew, first impact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVEmAWaKoYQ

Stop being deceitful, bill smith.
Click to expand...

C|1,

It is impossible to do any significant comparison of the sound levels of these two plains.

The 747 is basically twice the size (by weight) of a 767.
The engines are older design (and I suspect much noisier).
The sound out of an engine is EXTREMELY directional.
You have no idea of the details (gain, directionality, etc.) of the microphones.
You have no idea of the sound level settings of all the various people thru whom the video has passed.

It's a meaningless distraction.

This is just bill, being bill.

Asking him to stop being "deceitful" would be asking him to stop being, well, "bill".


tom
 
tfk said:
C|1,

It is impossible to do any significant comparison of the sound levels of these two plains.

The 747 is basically twice the size (by weight) of a 767.
The engines are older design (and I suspect much noisier).
The sound out of an engine is EXTREMELY directional.
You have no idea of the details (gain, directionality, etc.) of the microphones.
You have no idea of the sound level settings of all the various people thru whom the video has passed.

It's a meaningless distraction.
Click to expand...



Good point(s).
 
RedIbis said:
Just because a few knuckle headed bigots produced some stuff about 9/11 in the beginning is not the origins of the information, as much as you wish to conflate the two.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes, it is the origins of the information. A lot of stuff was made up by knuckle-headed bigots early on and is still being vectored by conspiracy theorists to this day, and surprisingly often the reply to the question "How do you explain [insert untrue statement about 9/11]?" is "[insert name of knuckle headed bigot] made it up." When someone makes up a lie, that is, in fact, the origin of that lie.

Dave
 
tfk said:
C|1,

It is impossible to do any significant comparison of the sound levels of these two plains.

The 747 is basically twice the size (by weight) of a 767.
The engines are older design (and I suspect much noisier).

....{good stuff}
Click to expand...

[pedant]
AF1 and AA11 were poth powered by the General Electric CF6WP. Though obviously, AF1 has twice as many...most of the time anyways. ;)
[/pedant]
 
Last edited:
A lie told often enough becomes truth
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

A conspiracy theory repeated often enough becomes teh twoof
 
apathoid said:
[pedant]
AF1 and AA11 were poth powered by the General Electric CF6WP. Though obviously, AF1 has twice as many...most of the time anyways. ;)
[/pedant]
Click to expand...

That's good info. thanks. So AF1 had four GE CEF6 engines instead of the two that AA11 did. Though it WAS at least twice as high and flying much more slowly and sedately. Those engines still seem to be so much louder than the ones on 9/11. (I don'r pay too much attention to teddy's contention that the president's plane has old noisy engines)

The angle of view was roughly the same too. The Naudet bros.. camera's were professional equipment with better sound and video pickup than the amateur camera used to film AF1. Yeah....this might still be something.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
That's good info. thanks. So AF1 had four GE CEF6 engines instead of the two that AA11 did. Though it WAS at least twice as high and flying much more slowly and sedately. Those engines still seem to be so much louder than the ones on 9/11. (I don'r pay too much attention to teddy's contention that the president's plane has old noisy engines)

The angle of view was roughly the same too. The Naudet bros.. camera's were professional equipment with better sound and video pickup than the amateur camera used to film AF1. Yeah....this might still be something.
Click to expand...

So you have no idea about aircraft, engines or sound then?
 
bill smith said:
That's good info. thanks. So AF1 had four GE CEF6 engines instead of the two that AA11 did. Though it WAS at least twice as high and flying much more slowly and sedately. Those engines still seem to be so much louder than the ones on 9/11. (I don'r pay too much attention to teddy's contention that the president's plane has old noisy engines)

The angle of view was roughly the same too. The Naudet bros.. camera's were professional equipment with better sound and video pickup than the amateur camera used to film AF1. Yeah....this might still be something.
Click to expand...

The presence of the two fighter jets in the fly-over makes and comparison of sound levels meaningless. Fighter jets are LOUD.

Anyone can look of the DB levels for the respective engines and figure the official sound levels. That will be much more accurate than anything based on video and anecdotes.

Of course, that would require an understanding of Decibel arithmetic and soiund perception and in the recent past, Twoofers have shown themselves to be unable to understand that.
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
I suspect that much of the noise came from the combat jets.
Click to expand...

Hey Al....at around the 1:00 mark the female commentators seem to think the explosion is actually in the other building. Are they right do you think ? Why would they think that ? And then at the 1;15 mark the two commentators don't seem to be all that certain sure that they saw a plane, but they appear keen to say that they did what with 'planes hitting other planes' and all that.. Is it my imagination ?
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/news/watch/v224407KjaBKxn6#
 
Last edited:
Hey Al....at around the 1:00 mark the female commentators seem to think the explosion is actually in the other building. Are they right do you think ? Why would they think that ? And then at the 1;15 mark the two commentators don't seem to be all that certain sure that they saw a plane, but they appear keen to say that they did what with 'planes hitting other planes' and all that.. Is it my imagination ?
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/ca...24407KjaBKxn6#
Click to expand...

So what?

Are you presenting this as evidence that no plane hit the south tower?
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
The presence of the two fighter jets in the fly-over makes and comparison of sound levels meaningless. Fighter jets are LOUD.

Anyone can look of the DB levels for the respective engines and figure the official sound levels. That will be much more accurate than anything based on video and anecdotes.

Of course, that would require an understanding of Decibel arithmetic and soiund perception and in the recent past, Twoofers have shown themselves to be unable to understand that.
Click to expand...
The poor people running, they need to look at the jet; you will see it aimed at you not moving if it is going to hit you.

Why does 911Truth deliver junk with no conclusion relevant to 911?

The sound levels were not the same on the equipment and the fighter engine is the loud noise of the day. Plus dozens of other considerations you are implying, which include distance, masking from buildings, reflections, and more.

Was this leading to no planes? 911Truth delusion believers post junk and never tie it to rational ideas or conclusions.

Failure is in each post by those afflicted with delusions on 911. The noise on 911 was Flight 11 engines and Flight 175 engines. 911Truth is evidence free, no change.
 
... at around the 1:00 mark the female commentators seem to think the explosion is actually in the other building. Are they right do you think ? Why would they think that ? And then at the 1;15 mark the two commentators don't seem to be all that certain sure that they saw a plane, but they appear keen to say that they did what with 'planes hitting other planes' and all that.. Is it my imagination ?
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/news/watch/v224407KjaBKxn6#
Click to expand...
A failed video from 2 years ago; one of the dumbest commentaries by a failed 911Truth delusion pusher. dumb

Why does 911Truth ask and imply the dumbest things? After 7 years?

Why does 911Truth apologize for terrorist and try to make up lies? The explosion is Flight 175 and all the passengers just died and 911Truth makes up silly ideas based on ignorance of 911 and reality. 911Truth is failed ideas and delusions?

Flight 175 impact looks like an explosion because it has the kinetic energy of 2093 pounds of TNT. Flight 175 is going fast and would spend less than .25 second passing through the building. Can 911Truth calculate energy? 911Truth fails at apologizing for the murderers; 19 terrorists on 911.
WTCcladdingflying.jpg

This is what she saw, it looks like an explosion because the plane was moving at 590 mph with the energy of 2093 pounds of TNT. The fuel ignited when the plane was smashing the building killing people. The fuel was ignited by the hot engine parts some at over 800 degree C. Jet fuel instantly ignites at 450 degrees F. Flight 175 had people on board who saw how low they were just before impact and 911Truth posts tripe and think up delusions. The terrorists act like they were hijackers but they were planning the impacts to kill the passengers and hit the WTC while 911Truth makes up stupid questions because 911Truth believe in delusions.

911Truth will show a video where commentators missed the aircraft on the very video 911Truth presented! 911Truth is not paying attention as 911Truth failed to see on the video where the commentator missed the plane, the plane is clearly zooming into the WTC. The video is the dumbest tripe I have seen today besides 911Truth constant failure to make anything of it.

911Truth mock the people who died on 911 by poorly trying to support the delusions of other 911Truth people. 7 years and 911Truth is one of the most disrespectful movements with no evidence or clue what happen on 911. The complex plot has them frozen in delusions. Kill pilots fly planes into buildings is too complex. Murder is too complex. What is 911Truth's next failed dirt dumb delusion?
 
Last edited:
I finally rewatched a 2002 ABC documentary which aired the Naudet brother's video footage of the crashes, the events before the collapse, and after... All I can say after that is I'm tired of people calling a friggin building collapse a controlled demolition. The no-plane suggestions aren't changing anything... hijacked aircraft were rammed into two tall buildings, and the rest... is an issue of engineering. It's a pity there's people who have such solid ignorance of this, such that it requires them to associate an engineering failure with an entirely different scenario that has absolutely nothing to do with what happened...
 
Grizzly Bear said:
I finally rewatched a 2002 ABC documentary which aired the Naudet brother's video footage of the crashes, the events before the collapse, and after... All I can say after that is I'm tired of people calling a friggin building collapse a controlled demolition. The no-plane suggestions aren't changing anything... hijacked aircraft were rammed into two tall buildings, and the rest... is an issue of engineering. It's a pity there's people who have such solid ignorance of this, such that it requires them to associate an engineering failure with an entirely different scenario that has absolutely nothing to do with what happened...
Click to expand...

In this video note the way the Naudet brother gets WTC2 bang on centre screen, ignoring the burning WTC1 which is in shot but somewhat on on the periphery. Even when the jet starts to roar behind and above him he is not distracted from his rapt filming of the blank undamaged but imminently to be hit face of WTC2. I find this shot HIGHLY suspect. He clearly KNEW where the jet was going to hit. (or where they planned to inject the image) This really could explain the cameraman's lack of reaction until the explosion occurs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUT7yup-YIg&NR=1 Naudet 2

PS click through the video from 45-47 seconds and see if you see anything odd ?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom