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:
Naudet Original Broadcast
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
-
- Member
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
- Contact:
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. ;)
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.
More to follow....
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. ;)
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.
More to follow....
-
- Member
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
- Contact:
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.
Hoi/Simon: feel free to delete.
On second thoughts, the difference in the ground level is quite significant - guys what do you think?
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.
Hoi/Simon: feel free to delete.
On second thoughts, the difference in the ground level is quite significant - guys what do you think?
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re:
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.
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.
Re: no-planer naudets
Yup thats mine!reel.deal wrote: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.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!!
naudet no-planers. i like it. they've actually really been 'no-planers' all along...
-
- Member
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
- Contact:
Re: Naudet Original Broadcast
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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: Naudet Original Broadcast
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 ... ?
-
- Member
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
- Contact:
Re: Naudet Original Broadcast
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.
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.
Re: Naudet Original Broadcast
.
Last edited by reel.deal on Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: Naudet Original Broadcast
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.
The only picture that looks vaguely 'real' to me is the one you took, reel.deal.
Re: Naudet Original Broadcast
.
Last edited by reel.deal on Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.