Naudet Original Broadcast

It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

Postby SmokingGunII on November 3rd, 2010, 10:18 pm

Keep digging, Reel Deal!

Can somebody (perhaps Phil jayhan?) explain why the shiny building that reflects shadows towards the sun in the Naudet video cannot repeat the feat in the stills? :rolleyes:
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Postby simonshack on November 3rd, 2010, 10:21 pm

Image
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6524
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby fakers911 on November 3rd, 2010, 10:52 pm

Thanks reel.deal!
fakers911
Member
 
Posts: 71
Joined: September 29th, 2010, 7:55 pm

Postby reel.deal on November 3rd, 2010, 11:15 pm

.
Last edited by reel.deal on October 1st, 2012, 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Postby SmokingGunII on November 4th, 2010, 1:52 pm

Something about the towers in the Naudets "video" has always bugged me - they never looked tall enough.

Below I have applied a scaled image of the towers from this website:

http://hazarasoverseas.files.wordpress. ... ldings.jpg

It is clear that having scaled the image to the width of the Naudet tower and adding perspective to it, that the tower is either; in a deep valley or partially collapsed prior to the first impact. ;)

Image


To ensure that the scaled illustration wasn't flawed, I searched for a real image of the towers taken from a similar angle as the Naudet version. I found this image which, despite being taken from the opposite side, is almost identical to the Naudet angle.

http://manhattan.about.com/od/september ... -River.htm

Repeating the same process, I scaled the image to the width of Naudet's tower without adding perspective. One again, the result shows conclusively that the height of the towers in the Naudet cartoon are palpably wrong.

Image



More to follow....
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Postby SmokingGunII on November 4th, 2010, 3:42 pm

Further to the previous post, I have now built a 3d model of the towers with an eye location at Lispenard & Church St junction.

The model still looks a little below ground level, but not too significant to be of any use. I guess it was asking a little too much to think their models were innacurate, even if the rendering sucks.

Image





Hoi/Simon: feel free to delete.

On second thoughts, the difference in the ground level is quite significant - guys what do you think?
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Postby reel.deal on December 3rd, 2010, 3:59 pm

.
Last edited by reel.deal on October 1st, 2012, 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re:

Postby hoi.polloi on December 3rd, 2010, 6:29 pm

SmokingGunII wrote:Further to the previous post, I have now built a 3d model of the towers with an eye location at Lispenard & Church St junction.

The model still looks a little below ground level, but not too significant to be of any use. I guess it was asking a little too much to think their models were innacurate, even if the rendering sucks.

Image

Hoi/Simon: feel free to delete.

On second thoughts, the difference in the ground level is quite significant - guys what do you think?



Again this is where the Google comparison with full elevation would be relevant. Manhattan isn't completely flat - and elevation would be an important thing to examine.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: no-planer naudets

Postby brianv on December 5th, 2010, 1:12 am

reel.deal wrote:
brianv wrote:Does anyone have a copy of Naudet without the "airplane"?

I brought it up here previously --
http://letsrollforums.com/north-tower-r ... t8624.html"
- but the files have been removed from the BBC and CNN servers.

Here are the defunct links
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/v ... ash_vi.ram"
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/ ... gp.med.ram"

Being a complete video noob at the time, I was only able to extract a gif from the ram files above. Currently wracking brain to remember where it is!!


bri, is this it? yr gif? i dunno where i copied it from. i still dont see any 'plane' even when i play this gif full-screen.
naudet no-planers. i like it. they've actually really been 'no-planers' all along...
Image


Yup thats mine!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: Naudet Original Broadcast

Postby SmokingGunII on December 8th, 2010, 12:42 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
SmokingGunII wrote:Further to the previous post, I have now built a 3d model of the towers with an eye location at Lispenard & Church St junction.

The model still looks a little below ground level, but not too significant to be of any use. I guess it was asking a little too much to think their models were innacurate, even if the rendering sucks.

Image

Hoi/Simon: feel free to delete.

On second thoughts, the difference in the ground level is quite significant - guys what do you think?



Again this is where the Google comparison with full elevation would be relevant. Manhattan isn't completely flat - and elevation would be an important thing to examine.




Hoi - I have found this site which enables you to plot heights above sea level, I have bookmarked it at WTC for easy access.

http://www.trails.com/topo.aspx?panerro ... tyle=drgsr

Interestingly, at the junction of Church & Lispenard (Naudet position) it is 15m above sea level. At WTC it is 32m above sea level, which means that the towers should be 17m higher on my 3d rather than at the same level, which they are currently.

Using Church St as the reference point I have extracted the following heights at each of the following road intersections:

Lispenard - 15m
Walker - 15m (0)
White - 16m (+1m)
Franklin - 24m (+8m)
Leonard - 25m (+1m)
Worth - 25m (0)
Duane - 50m (+25m) - large rise in elevation, is this why they chose Duane St fire station as their base?
Chambers - 14m (-36m)
Warren - 31m (+17m)
Murray - 51m (+20m)
Park Place - 36m (-15m)
Barclay - 40m (+4m)
Vesey - 33m (-7m)
WTC - 32m (-1m)

WTC 7 - 36m (I have added WTC7 to my model to ascertain where some of the alleged "amateur videos were supposedly taken from)

Running from West to East, the highest point of Manhattan runs approximately along West Broadway, which is the next main south/north artery west of Church St. From there, the topography falls away to the two coastlines.
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Re: Naudet Original Broadcast

Postby hoi.polloi on December 8th, 2010, 7:36 pm

Interesting. So this is an argument for the idea that the WTC complex was actually less visible than the Naudet movie depicts it because it should be significantly lower ... ?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Naudet Original Broadcast

Postby SmokingGunII on December 8th, 2010, 7:59 pm

Sorry, Hoi, I think I have confused things by adding hyphens after the road names! All the heights are above sea level. So, essentially, WTC should be at an elevation of +17m higher than at the junction of Lispernard & Church. Consequently, the towers should, as I suspected originally, be taller. However, until I have re-drawn the model using the elevations along Church as a guide, I don't know how significantly different the height will be affected from that distance.

Eventually I'm looking to put together a complete map & analysis of the alleged video witnesses and their vantage points as it appears most of them were on roofs or elevated. And, of course, being linked to the film industry. What are the chances of that?

Watch this space. :)
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 10:34 am

Re: Naudet Original Broadcast

Postby reel.deal on December 9th, 2010, 3:48 am

.
Last edited by reel.deal on October 1st, 2012, 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

Re: Naudet Original Broadcast

Postby hoi.polloi on December 9th, 2010, 5:19 am

They do look a little 'squat' in the Naudet clip - the antenna should be examined to see if it's truly the same size I guess.

The only picture that looks vaguely 'real' to me is the one you took, reel.deal.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5013
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Naudet Original Broadcast

Postby reel.deal on December 10th, 2010, 1:45 am

.
Last edited by reel.deal on October 1st, 2012, 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
reel.deal
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 1294
Joined: August 15th, 2010, 1:42 am

PreviousNext

Return to SEPTEMBER CLUES: the 9/11 psyop exposed: the media aired a "Made-for-TV Hollywood movie"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests