WNYW Fox 5 9/11 Footage

Discussion in '9/11' started by Jango, May 18, 2012.

  1. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's only 0:27 seconds long, so don't complain about watching a video:
    [video=youtube;zLKYr5hA6s8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLKYr5hA6s8[/video]

    What do you see?
    Do you see any problems with this footage?

    I will reserve commenting until other members attribute commentary of their own - if that is okay.
     
  2. DDave

    DDave New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No complaints here.

    I see a poor quality news video shot from far away.

    Yes. It's a poor quality news video shot from far away with poor resolution. I'm sure you are concerned about the point where the frame goes dark. That is the iris of the camera reacting to the flash of the fireball

    I would add more commentary of my own but don't want to paraphrase incorrectly so I will let video effects expert Steve Wright explain it.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4669137903152322593

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2432158918700622833
     
  3. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    JC. I start with a :27 second video, and you respond with something that is going to eat my Internet! ;)
     
  4. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mr. Wright doesn't explain how the airplane isn't in the picture in the first video. He tried, but his answer did not suffice.

    Also, his answer about the "fade to black" seems suspicious. I don't recall any other cameras that day besides this view having that effect. Besides, would the camera's sensor be that sensitive - being four miles away?

    I was a good sport, watched both videos.
     
  5. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The chopper was probably sending back its video through a relay that was powered by the same grid to which the tower was hooked up.

    I do not doubt that there were some pretty serious power surges all over the area, causing some loss of communications links. But there is usually some redundancy and ability to hand the signal off to another circuit. It takes a noticeably amount of time.

    Now, if you are referring to the 'nose out," thatis just unburned fuel being ejected out the other side of the tower and being ignited from inside. Seen from the opposite side and from the ground, it is clearly more a disk than a cone. It is not anomolous.
     
  6. DDave

    DDave New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The more information the better, don't you think?

    I could have taken his quotes out and typed them here myself. Even taken out any areas where he may have not been 100% sure to bolster my view. But I HATE it when truthers do that so I thought it would be best if you heard what he had to say -- totally in context -- for yourself.

    Actually, he did.

    When I critisized the amateur video analysis in the truth movement you asked if I was an expert on the subject.

    I admitted I am not. I have presented you with an analysis from an expert. Mr. Wright has 20 years in the video industry. What about his answer did not "suffice"?

    How so?

    Which proves . . . what, exactly?

    Well, I don't know. We have established that I am not an expert. But Mr. Wright is and he seems to think that it would, so I will defer to his expertise.

    And I appreciate that. Like I always said. Get info from BOTH sides and decide for yourself which is more credible and logical.
     
  7. Jango

    Jango New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry about the belated response...


    Go back, please, re-listen to what he has to say. Then, type it out and quote him when you reply to me.

    I am not a professional video analyzer either. Having said that, re-analyze what Mr. Wright had to say and think of 'straw man'.

    It seems suspicious because the fade to black, IIRC, did not occur any other time, on any other camera, from any other vantage point besides that one time that shows the nose of the plane coming out of the building looking intact.

    I suggest you going back and re-listening to what he had to say to counter Mr. Baker. He was hardly 'set in stone' the majority of the time. I was actually surprised that Mr. Wright agreed with Mr. Baker on several occasions. Nevertheless, I am sure there is a way to prove one way or another that the camera would or would not "protect itself" at or around four miles away. However, it is fundamentally odd though that there isn't a roll call of 9/11 footage that displays similar blackened frames.

    I've been told the stories of 9/11 by the media and talk shows and politicians and documentaries on the History Channel for the last decade, man. It just so happened to be the tenth anniversary of 9/11 that I decided to "look deeper into it." I watched the big television special on it. It made me cry. It made me wonder. It made me question. It did lots of things. So I started digging. Kind of like how a person gets a rude awakening learning new history outside their K-12 training, I've been exposed to a world that is completely alien to me in terms of 9/11. There is a lot of theory. A lot of speculation. Baseless speculation. Delusional and paranoid. But as much as yourself, and everyone else that valiantly tries to defend any and all 9/11 allegations brought up and or mentioned on this message forum, there is a lot of weirdness about 9/11. Too many coincidences. Too many errors and failures. Too much success. Everything from the hijacking to the collapses to the victims to the planes has been questioned. And how many times does it boil down to "we've got to take their word for it?" "Their word" being the government's word. Sure, reports and investigations were performed, but they're by our own government agencies. Even though there was catastrophic failures on 9/11, and preluding, no one was punished severely. But it is just beyond the comprehension of some that the reports and investigations done are biased and are not as forthcoming and realistic as what is deserved. Frankly, I find it shameful that there aren't more people demanding answers about 9/11. I mean, you can believe the reports done if you so choose. You can believe what you have been told. You can believe all sorts of things. But I think that is a grave injustice to yourself. How much American history do you really know? Do you just have your K-12 stuff, or have you expanded and realized that America, and its government, is not as beautiful and harmonious as what we were told in school for a dozen years. What do you know about the CIA? How about the Mossad? Or the ISI? You talk about evidence. Evidence can be forged. Reality shock. Like I said, how much of what you know about 9/11 do you have to take the government's word on it? You rely on it as though there could be no other logical explanation. Maybe you've forgotten how to use analysis of your own. Maybe you trust the government too much. I don't know.
     
  8. DDave

    DDave New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No problem.

    There are a lot of questions about a lot of events. Doesn't mean everything is some evil government conspiracy. Bad things happen.

    Lots of things have been questioned and some of it is downright ridiculous. Like Jayhan and the hollow towers nonsense. I see a user named Jango at letsrollforum so I assume you know what I am talking about.

    I don't try to valiantly defend any and all allegations that come up. I have told you numerous times the approach I use to evaluate the evidence and arrive at a conclusion.

    None that I am aware of. There are plenty of outside non-government sources that corroborate the generally accepted account.

    Unless of course you assume that they were threatened by the government and are in on it too.

    Were laws broken? Who in your mind should have been punished "severely" and what should this punishment be?

    My education did not end at 12th grade. I am a college graduate.

    Yes, it can. But to assume that ALL evidence of a certain stance is fake is a bit much, don't you think?

    See above. Plenty of outside corroboration.

    No, I can analyze things just fine.

    Maybe you trust it too little.

    I could but it wouldn't change anything. You will believe what you want to believe.

    And I think you are operating under the mistaken assumption that I am trying to change your mind or convince you of something. I have stated from the start that people should look at as much info as possible from both sides and decide for themselves which seems more logical and credible. If you have done so and think that edited video footage from hundreds of sources, voice morphing that the originator of the technology even says won't work, every one at Shanksville was in on the conspiracy and countless other circumstances are more logical than the "government's version" then there's not much point in belaboring the points. You can always say the "government can't be trusted" or "the evidence can be faked" as an answer to anything info I may offer.

    Frankly, I feel sorry for you. I don't know what happened in your life to give you such a rabid distrust of all things government but it can't make for a peaceful life. Hopefully some day you'll realize that all of the paranoid delusions and baseless speculation you've been reading about was just that.

    Or some day real credible evidence will come out showing that the government WAS behind 9/11 and I'll realize that I have been duped. But given all of the information that I have had access to, I doubt that that is going to happen.
     
  9. DDave

    DDave New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Jango, you've been a good sport and watched the lengthy video which I posted. So I started to go back and type out what he said but some of it is lost without the accompanying video. So I'll offer some timestamps instead.

    At 9:55 he starts his explanation about why the plane was not in the wide shot.
    At 10:36 he demonstrates the same phenomon with a helicopter in the same video clip.
    At 10:45 he explains EXACTLY why the plane was not in the wide shot due to the technical limitations of the camera (low quality lens designed to eliminate minor detail to allow for compression of the video)
    At 12:05 he explains how the camera determines what details to filter out based on how many pixels a particular image occupies in the frame.

    How did his answer "not suffice"?
     
  10. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Or they started zooming in before the plane was in the field of vison of the camera. DERP!
     
  11. DDave

    DDave New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, musician Ace Baker did some calculations on where it should have been before the zoom and video expert Steve Wright granted that his calculations may have been fine and STILL explained and even demonstrated the exact phenomenon he was describing in the same clip.

    You are right -- but simple explanations don't cut it in conspiracy land. It has to be some complicated evil dastardly plan involving a thousand people.

    What I really wonder is why is musician Ace Baker's explanation more credible that video expert Steve Wright's in this or any other case involving video analysis?
     

Share This Page