9-11 Video footage comparisons

[Bandit]

Scott,

I was/am aware that it was posted in General Talk, but I still assumed that General Talk would still have something to do with BK, not just anything that popped into one's head

you were wrong

[momof5]

The evening news video was not shaking like the live one because they had a few hours to play with it so that the image was more stabilized. Makes for easier viewing.



I found out I was pregnant for my littlest one about 15 minutes before the first plane hit. It was a couple of weeks before I was really able to enjoy my good news.

Not really sure what the confusion is as far as 9/11. My parents were in NYC the day it happened. They had been to the observation floor in the WTC the evening before. They saw both planes that morning...

[Bandit]

Well, then we are at an impasse and you are being intellectually dishonest.

As you may well now, you cannot prove a negative assertion and asking someone to do so only highlights your lack of reason (here is the easy example, if I cannot prove that aliens "do not" exist, does that mean they do? No, evidence must still be presented for the assertion that aliens exists. Lack of evidence for a particular fact does make its contradiction true). You have presented no reliable evidence that the video was altered. My counter to you is simple, go look at the source footage, in context, and compare it to other footage taken at the time...it's all right there on the link I gave you.

At least I am being intellectually honest and actually looked into this a little and went to the source cited by the video YOU posted, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I am not the one viewing the world through rose colored glasses and only picking and choosing which facets of a story to believe.

Let me ask you this Bandit: hypothetically, what would even convince you otherwise? What sort of evidence would you even accept?

LOL! I have been yanking your chain, HHM.


I think you are missing the whole point & taking me way too serious. iT is only about the video you just watched...not the entire 9-11 mess.


But I would accept the same video from those TV stations (from this video shown here) at the hour that is was played on those stations to see what it was like & make comparisons. Can you do that? I think that would be interesting but I am not putting that much time into finding them when the footage was everywhere.
It was NBC & Not sure what the other was. Channel 4 somehwere.(i think)

[Bandit]

Bandit,

I will admit when I am wrong and I was wrong to jump on you for wasting everyone's time with your hairbrained ideas of a conspiracy. You did in fact put your whackjob ideas in a forum designated for General Talk, and I failed to see that crackpots like you are within this forum's guideline to put whatever insanity falls out of your head and travels thru your cigarette stained fingers into your, most likely stolen, computer as long as it was placed in the correct forum.

So once again, my apologies to you for accusing you of wasting everyone's time, when in fact you were wasting everyone's time on the appropriate forum.

Wah!


but we are having fun and you don't like it.

I do not smoke cigarrettes.
Keep the insults coming though... you wont be here for much longer. People here have real problems & they dont need to be harrassed by you

[HHM]

Fair enough...here is what I think.

1. My counter conspiracy theory...the author of the You Tube video altered the wide shot for the purpose of making this video

2. Assuming the wide shot is authentic, I really think the two shots are different angles and they are both from helicopters. The first shot is zoomed in and therefore there is no context or perspective for the angles, depth, or direction. Other helicopters in the area have very similar looking shots at various positions, so the whole issue of the stability, the angle, the lack of background, etc is just bogus. If there is an altered shot, it is would probably be the first shot because it probably was cleaned up, and I think slowed down, for the purpose of the evening news.

Where I think the You Tube video messes up is about at 2:00 minutes when he extrapolates where the plane "should" be in the wide shot. When I took a 3rd look it, the zoomed-in shot appears to be far more to the right of the North Tower giving it a better perspective on what would be coming toward the South Tower. The wide shot is clearly to the left of the North Tower and is thus obscured from seeing the planes flight path. Also, the camera position seems to be above that of the first shot (but the first shot is also above the towers) The wide shot is much more head-on with the explosion and thus would not be able to see a plane headed on the trajectory, or at least the trajectory is not what the author says it is.

[Bandit]

Fair enough...here is what I think.

1. My counter conspiracy theory...the author of the You Tube video altered the wide shot for the purpose of making this video

2. Assuming the wide shot is authentic, I really think the two shots are different angles and they are both from helicopters. The one shot is zoomed in and therefore there is no context or perspective for the angles, depth, or direction. Other helicopters in the area have very similar looking shots at various positions, so the whole issue of the stability, the angle, the lack of background, etc is just bogus.

Where I think the You Tube video messes up is about at 2:00 minutes when he extrapolates where the plane "should" be in the wide shot. When I took a 3rd look it, the zoomed-in shot appears to be far more to the right of the North Tower giving it a better perspective on what would be coming toward the South Tower. The wide shot is clearly to the left of the North Tower and is thus obscured from seeing the planes flight path. The wide shot is much more head-on with the explosion and thus would not be able to see a plane headed on the trajectory.

counter conspiracy theory

that is the laugh of the week. I thought of everything you just mentioned too.
I am still working on the second trajectory...the one that looks higher and more of angle downward. The one that really hit was almost head on & level when it hit. Remember?

I have this video of a helicopter but it was way up high and very close to the buildings...you could see the whole roof after both buildings were hit...but there wasn't that much in between the first one & the second. iT was the second hit is when people really took notice. I don't think anyone saw the first plane did they? & there is no footage of that one hitting.

Thanks for the dialogue..it was great.

[HHM]

I thought there was a couple shots of the first plane hitting from ground level, from tourists video cameras.

In the end, this You Tube video is comparing apples and oranges. It's like those pictures that are drawn using dots, when you look really close, all you see are dots, as you back away, you see a drawing of Abraham Lincoln. It is simply not a fair comparison to use a zoomed-in shot that has no context or perspective and compare it to a wide shot. You really do lose context, to much is lost in translation.

[arkienurse]

I thought there was a couple shots of the first plane hitting from ground level, from tourists video cameras.

If you look around youtube when you are there, I know I saw a video last night of the first hit. You hear a jet coming in and the camera pans over just in time to catch the first hit.

[AngelinaCat]

Its in the documentary on the rookie NY firefighter that the French brothers were in NY shooting at the time of the event.

[arkienurse]

Its in the documentary on the rookie NY firefighter that the French brothers were in NY shooting at the time of the event.

Yes, that is the one I saw last night.

[Bandit]

I thought there was a couple shots of the first plane hitting from ground level, from tourists video cameras.

In the end, this You Tube video is comparing apples and oranges. It's like those pictures that are drawn using dots, when you look really close, all you see are dots, as you back away, you see a drawing of Abraham Lincoln. It is simply not a fair comparison to use a zoomed-in shot that has no context or perspective and compare it to a wide shot. You really do lose context, to much is lost in translation.

That is how digital is though. That is what happens when you zoom in. Digital has come a long way since 9-11.

Youtube is an excellent source for the public to post media & it will gain attention and can be taken to some high places fast. That is where to put info if you want to get hits quickly.
The video in the OP is correct though. It has been altered & they did a good job of it and I still see two different newscasts- actually Ithink there is three if you consider the live one. There is no way you could miss the plane coming in because there are some even farther away & lower to the ground footage that you can see the plane hit.

If you are thinking of quality, I would need to know if the video is digital or analog & I will bet it was analog at that time, then converted.

If you listen to the report as they reported, did they actually comment on the plane buzzing so close before it hit? See? They did not as if they did not see it. They were suprized on the impact as if they did not see it coming. How?

It is the same shot but the background being messed with gives an illusion. I dont trust any large government & I question every move they make.

[Bandit]

Its in the documentary on the rookie NY firefighter that the French brothers were in NY shooting at the time of the event.

Yes, that is the one I saw last night.

Tell me where? I dont remember ever seeing that.

[arkienurse]

Tell me where? I dont remember ever seeing that.

well, this isn't the one I looked at last night, last nights was just a 30 second clip, but here is a 4 min one, that goes on after the hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOlSzCFThEY

[banca rotta]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PXNI...eature=related



Couldn't have said it better!


For the record I DON'T CARE WHO IS OFFENDED BY THIS!!

Have a nice day!

[Flamingo]

I thought there was a couple shots of the first plane hitting from ground level, from tourists video cameras.

In the end, this You Tube video is comparing apples and oranges. It's like those pictures that are drawn using dots, when you look really close, all you see are dots, as you back away, you see a drawing of Abraham Lincoln. It is simply not a fair comparison to use a zoomed-in shot that has no context or perspective and compare it to a wide shot. You really do lose context, to much is lost in translation.

There is a well documented film by construction workers taken of the first plane hitting the Tower. There are also other films taken by various tourists from different angles at the same time. People saw the first plane approaching flying too low before it hit. There was also a cell phone call recorded by a relative talking to someone else in the opposite tower when the first plane was approaching and they were advising the caller of what was approaching. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, do the conspiracy theorists believe the planes were missiles in disguise or some other object disguised as a jet airliner? If that was so, where did all the passengers go that were on the original airliners that crashed into the building? Anyone can take any issue and twist it to look abnormal in some way. Maybe someone should again start focusing on who really killed King Tut. Some things just go beyond.