Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Black Sheep]

Hi to the brain-boxes out there.
I've been having a debate with a guy I know, and he is convinced the 9/11 tragedy was an 'inside job' ?? I don't subscribe to conspiracy theorists in any way, but he has sent me this link and I have to say, it has thrown me a swerve-ball !!! Before I reply to him (don't know what to say, really ??), I was hoping for some opinions from you guys as to how this video may or may not be 'faked'

http://iamisatthedoors.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/shocking-evidence-reveals-possible-cgi-animation-glitch-durring-a-2001-live-news-broadcast-of-plane-hitting-tower/


Cheers.

[roseway]

Another one to put in the same bin as the moon landing conspiracy theory and Roswell. Not worth wasting any time on, in my very humble opinion.

[Black Sheep]

I agree, Eric, and as I say I don't generally get embroiled in such lunacy, But, this is a friend of mine who, tbh, has surprised me with his way of thinking ?? He's quite intelligent, and I wouldn't have had him down as a CT activist ??.

I do think it's good to question authority, and not to just believe everything you are told (i.e.: WMD/Iraq) , but something on this scale I find inconceivable that it was an 'inside job' ??!! 

[roseway]

but something on this scale I find inconceivable that it was an 'inside job' ??!!

I agree. It was far too devastating an event, with far too many witnesses.

[Berrick]

I'm on the fence with this one.

You just have to look back into fairly recent British politics to see our government hasn't been squeaky clean when it suites and may have allowed thousands of people die to suite their own ends.

Unfortunately there are some very unsavory people out there that if the price is right will do anything. Pole Pot, Idi amin, Sadam Hussian, Robert Mugabe

[sheddyian]

A quick glance at that Youtube does make me think it's fake - it's remarkably smooth for something that's been "slowed down", and the plane does indeed have a CGI quality to it.

So either

It is as presented to News Media, in which case OMG inside job!!

or

It's a bit of fake that's either been made to "prove" that it was a hoax, or the 9/11 conspiracy folk have seized on it as further "proof" of their theories.

or it's just a quirk of the video / enhancing technique used.

Lovely example of misunderstanding technology here :


http://youtu.be/5Lueue1FyR4

Claimed to be an invisibility cloak, because the running soldier gradually appears out of nowhere.

Much more likely to be a result of the video compression codec at low bit rate initially ignoring and then trying to cope with a soldier wearing camouflage running rapidly into frame.

Ian

[kitz]

"A building that is clearly behind the south world trade center tower"

Says who?  Looks in front of it to me.  Earlier in the clip at around :30 it shows smoke from the other tower coming from behind the same building.  The perspective of the highlighted building is larger, leaving me with the deduction that the building is in front and not behind.

Actually look at the still at the top of his first page - is that reddy/brown building in front or behind.

[kitz]

Actually its total b0110cks.  A quick google took me to the original video shot by Michael Hezarkhani

That brown building is in front . If you want to see the full video and not some conveniently edited clip..

[youtube]ZsP-Gt52P2A[/youtube]

[sevenlayermuddle]

A quick glance at that Youtube does make me think it's fake - it's remarkably smooth for something that's been "slowed down",

That indeed is the giveaway.   When video is slowed down, you expect to see the transition between each discreet frame whereas in the suspect clip, the plane moved smoothly.

So the version in the clip is, indeed, a CGI hoax.  But it is most certainly not the same actual footage that we all remember from that awful day.

It is possible that the hoax may have been manufactured by software that smply interpolates a series of intermediate frames to smooth out slow motion video, but in that case the interpolated frames are still just a 'best guess' and would often show such artefacts.   Still a hoax, all the same.

I begrudgingly admit though, it's quite a well executed hoax.   

[sheddyian]

Well spotted Kitz!

There's an American Penn & Teller show about conspiracies.  It's interesting, but sweary and I'm not keen on their mocking and insulting; the general style of the show grates a bit, but perhaps I'm not the intended audience.

This covers moon landings and 9/11 amongst others.


http://youtu.be/Y76AsCIagDQ  < caution, sweary from the start.

The voiceover guy in Blacksheep's original post sounds familiar to me - if he's not in this particular Penn & Teller episode, then I think they've interviewed him about some other topic in another show (there's a fair few of them)

Ian

[sheddyian]

To lighten the mood after watching those planes crash :

Moon landing hoax sketch:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw[/youtube]

Aliens sketch:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59zLZ6PpeSA[/youtube]

Diana conspiracy sketch:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4meFC1ee7Q[/youtube]

Ian

[UncleUB]

Another one to put in the same bin as the moon landing conspiracy theory and Roswell. Not worth wasting any time on, in my very humble opinion.

My sentiments exactly

[kitz]

Whoever this "I am is at the doors" person is, he's conveniently not shown the full clip which makes it more clear that the building is in the foreground.

Having watched the full clip its obvious that the person taking the video was in or very close to Battery Park when he caught it on video.  With the use of google maps its then easy to see that:-

The whitish ornate foreground building is 17 Battery Place (A),
The reddy/brown building in question appears to be a hotel at 28 Washington Street.(B)
Whilst Ground Zero is (C)

So it is indeed in front and there's your explanation why the wing would quite rightly appear to vanish behind the building.


gmap link

[kitz]

Claimed to be an invisibility cloak, because the running soldier gradually appears out of nowhere.

It would be much better if that video didnt have the red ring around it.  The red ring implies that the soldier ran in from the RH side of the screen. 

Due to the fact that there is obvious soldier activity behind the tank, I'd be much more inclined to believe that the soldier has walked from behind the tank.  That red ring is far too distracting and it would have been interesting to see the clip without it.

Like you say there is a complete misunderstanding of technology particulary when it comes to lossy compression used in photgraphs (.jpg) and video (mmpeg). It souldnt take a genius to realise that on poor resolution and/or highly compressed images/video become blocky and detail is lost. The more fast moving it is, the more blurry it becomes.  Add these 2 facts together and its why objects can sometimes appear to come out of the blue when shown in poor quality video.

I wouldnt mind an invisible cloak though

To lighten the mood after watching those planes crash :

Thank you for sharing

[renluop]

Even without the pics, there is the reek of religious right survivalist conspiracy mongering about wWordpress