FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

woman waving where the plane hit ..TV fakery again
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:52 pm    Post subject: woman waving where the plane hit ..TV fakery again Reply with quote

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

video is obviously a fake....another psyop job..conveniently fuzzy photo of woman waving...another masonic hoodwink job
This thread has had 1820 views in just a week..seems unusual to say the least

http://www.veoh.com/videoDetails.html?v=e60418aA587RwW


Last edited by mason-free party on Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:48 am; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ally
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mason-free party wrote:
stick to hard evidence like the woman waving from the hole made by the plane,its obvious to me the hole forms the outline of a plane ...you couldn't doctor this image...best to leave the hologram * to the 911 disinfo agitators,don't waste ya energy on it

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html


You're obsessed with the hologram meme and change the subject to insults instead of explaining where the plane is in the Fox footage. You should think outside the box now and again instead of wasting all your energy on jewbashing.

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ally wrote:
mason-free party wrote:
stick to hard evidence like the woman waving from the hole made by the plane,its obvious to me the hole forms the outline of a plane ...you couldn't doctor this image...best to leave the hologram * to the 911 disinfo agitators,don't waste ya energy on it

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html


You're obsessed with the hologram meme and change the subject to insults instead of explaining where the plane is in the Fox footage. You should think outside the box now and again instead of wasting all your energy on jewbashing.


Why think outside the box?
What purpose does it serve to try "proving" there wasn't a plane?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ally wrote:
mason-free party wrote:
stick to hard evidence like the woman waving from the hole made by the plane,its obvious to me the hole forms the outline of a plane ...you couldn't doctor this image...best to leave the hologram * to the 911 disinfo agitators,don't waste ya energy on it

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html


You're obsessed with the hologram meme and change the subject to insults instead of explaining where the plane is in the Fox footage. You should think outside the box now and again instead of wasting all your energy on jewbashing.


Ally=Bushkilla..another blasted agitator
I've only just looked into the hologram theory and its not worth wasting anymore time on...i'll stick to hard evidence only and let you muppets discuss this bs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MFP,

Sorry me old mukka. You have fallen into the "Hologram Trap" and have not considered the ridicule labels carefully enough...

I have also corresponded with Ally and Annie knows him, so let's do a Harry Enfield "Calm Down! Calm Down!" would be what I suggest.

Ally - I also know MFP...

See remarks here too, please:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=35742#35742

Looks like people are just responding to each other with insults and not analysing evidence - or if doing so, they are doing so selectively and not bothering to check:

1) The recent re-analysis of the Zapruder film
2) Morgan Reynolds and Judy Woods articles (Judy is a Dr of Mechanical Engineering)
3) Rick Rajter's articles (he's a materials science graduate)

Without doing any of these things, people who reject without reservation that something other than Big Boeings may have hit the WTC (despite some of the video evidence we appear to have seen) really are in a weaker position.

All of these links have been posted several times, but people prefer to spend time insulting each other rather than analysing more and more evidence.

Posts which begin "So are you saying..." or "You really expect people to believe.." or such other statements are starting from a conclusion, without looking carefully at as wide a range of evidence as possible.

Sorry folks, but this is the only way to come to a more solid conclusion - by an objective look at the evidence which may contradict what you have believed for 5 years - just like the CD of WTC contradicted what most people believed for a shorter period.

I am genuinely surprised more people on here can't see the parallels.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!


Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:25 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can we just lock-it? Rolling Eyes
_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick Brown wrote:
Can we just lock-it? Rolling Eyes


Well, we'll see. It depends if the debate can become any more civilised, but it's looking bleak, I agree.... Sad

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
mason-free party
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 765
Location: Staffordshire

PostPosted: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
MFP,

Sorry me old mukka. You have fallen into the "Hologram Trap" and have not considered the ridicule labels carefully enough...

I have also corresponded with Ally and Annie knows him, so let's do a Harry Enfield "Calm Down! Calm Down!" would be what I suggest.

Ally - I also know MFP...

See remarks here too, please:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=35742#35742

Looks like people are just responding to each other with insults and not analysing evidence - or if doing so, they are doing so selectively and not bothering to check:

1) The recent re-analysis of the Zapruder film
2) Morgan Reynolds and Judy Woods articles (Judy is a Dr of Mechanical Engineering)
3) Rick Rajter's articles (he's a materials science graduate)

Without doing any of these things, people who reject without reservation that something other than Big Boeings may have hit the WTC (despite some of the video evidence we appear to have seen) really are in a weaker position.

All of these links have been posted several times, but people prefer to spend time insulting each other rather than analysing more and more evidence.

Posts which begin "So are you saying..." or "You really expect people to believe.." or such other statements are starting from a conclusion, without looking carefully at as wide a range of evidence as possible.

Sorry folks, but this is the only way to come to a more solid conclusion - by an objective look at the evidence which may contradict what you have believed for 5 years - just like the CD of WTC contradicted what most people believed for a shorter period.

I am genuinely surprised more people on here can't see the parallels.


Andrew...so what caused the hole that looked like the outline of a plane...some laser weapon gadget?...sounds abit far fetched to me mate...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dry kleaner
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:07 am    Post subject: No planes, no brains? Reply with quote

Hello All
I have been away a while and I am surprized to see that the 'No planes theory' is still in heated debate. I have cut and pasted a link on interlacing for video and I strongly suggest that all those who believe the 'No planes theory' read it at its original source through the link I have provided.

Peace and love

DK


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlace#Problems_caused_by_interlacing

Problems caused by interlacing

Freeze-frame of an interlaced transmission displayed on a progressive display with the simple "weave" method. Combing is clearly visible in the full-size picture.Interlaced video is designed to be captured, transmitted or stored and displayed in the same interlaced format. Because interlaced video is composed of 2 fields that are captured at different moments in time, interlaced video frames will exhibit motion artifacts when both fields are combined and displayed at the same moment. However, many types of video displays, such as Liquid Crystal Display and Plasma display are designed as a progressive scan monitor; they are designed to illuminate every horizontal line of video with each frame. If these progressive scan monitors display interlaced video, the resulting display can suffer from reduced horizontal resolution or motion artifacts. These artifacts may also be visible when interlaced video is displayed at a slower speed than it was captured, such as when video is shown in slow motion.

Because modern computer video displays are progressive scan systems, interlaced video will have visible artifacts when it is displayed on computer systems. Computer systems are frequently used to edit video and this disparity between computer video display systems and television signal formats means that the video content being edited can not be viewed properly unless separate video display hardware is utilized.

To minimize the artifacts caused by interlaced video display on a progressive scan monitor, a process called deinterlacing can be utilized. This process is not perfect, and it generally results in a lower resolution, particularly in areas with objects in motion. Deinterlacing systems are integrated into progressive scan television displays in order to provide the best possible picture quality for interlaced video signals. Freeze-frame of an interlaced transmission displayed on a progressive display with the simple "weave" method. Combing is clearly visible in the full-size picture. Enlarge Freeze-frame of an interlaced transmission displayed on a progressive display with the simple "weave" method. Combing is clearly visible in the full-size picture.

Interlace introduces a potential problem called interline twitter. This aliasing effect only shows up under certain circumstances, when the subject being shot contains vertical detail that approaches the horizontal resolution of the video format. For instance, a person on television wearing a shirt with fine dark and light stripes may appear on a video monitor as if the stripes on the shirt are "twittering". Television professionals are trained to avoid wearing clothing with fine striped patterns to avoid this problem. High-end video cameras or Computer Generated Imagery systems apply a low-pass filter the vertical resolution of the signal in order to prevent possible problems with interline twitter.

Despite arguments against it and the calls by many prominent technological companies, such as Microsoft, to leave interlacing to history, interlacing continues to be supported by the television standard setting organizations, still being included in new digital video transmission formats, such as DV, DVB (including its HD modifications), and ATSC.



http://nickyguides.digital-digest.com/interlace.htm

NTSC, PAL & Interlace Explained

The Motion Picture Camera & Cinema

Motion picture cameras are based on photographic film just like your everyday hand held photographic camera. Hollywood movies use 35mm film but professional camera men often use 16mm and the home enthusiast will usually be content with 8mm. To record a movie, motion picture film is spun around a big reel inside a camera and exposed 24 times a second. As a result it will capture 24 photographs, or what we call 24 "frames" every second (fps). Each frame is one complete photograph, it is not digitally stored or compressed - you could almost literally cut each one out and stick it in your family photo album if you wanted! Once the movie is made, the film is developed, placed onto a projector, and projected onto the cinema screen.

Resolution

In terms of resolution its not really possible to compare a 35mm film to a VHS or VGA resolution because, like any photographic film, its resolution is based on a myriad tiny light sensitive crystals embedded into the film. When these are struck by light they change colour to match the light that has hit them producing a photo. But a 35mm film, based on average crystal size would be about 5000 x 5000 pixels. This is also the resolution Photoshop artists such as Craig Mullins use to create movie backdrops for the cinema. Nevertheless, the human eye can barely see the equivalent of 3000 x 3000 pixels of such a small area. So when a 35mm movie is scanned into a computer to try and get its full resolution for digital editing, it will be scanned in at 4096 horizontal pixels, also known as 4K.



Television

Television, on the other hand, is a whole other ball of wax! As you probably know, a TV screen is basically a empty glass box (or tube) with all the air sucked out of it. Inside the front of this glass box it is covered with a mesh of red, green and blue phosphor dots. At the back of the tube it has three devices (called electron guns) that shoot three beam's of electricity at these phosphor dots. When the electricity hits the dots they glow and a colour picture is produced. Increase the beam strength and you can brighten the amount of red, green or blue light produced at any part of the screen. This, in effect, allows the colours to mix into just about any colour and brightness imaginable. You might compare this to mixing coloured paints together to form new colours. Whatever way you look at it, this produces a colour picture that looks almost like real life.

Interlace

Next is the important point! To produce a picture, these electric beam are controlled by electromagnets to scan from side to side across the TV screen (as illustrated in the picture below). The beam fly across the screen in the same motion our eyes use when we are reading a book. They start from the left, finish one line and then shoot back to start the next line.



When TV's were invented in the 1920s the type of phosphor used to produce the colours did not respond very fast. This meant it was impossible to get a picture in one shot; instead we would get a flickery strobing effect moving down the screen! To solve this they decided that instead of putting the lines on the screen one at a time (i.e. lines: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) they would put them on every other line in one pass (i.e. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9) and then in-between the previous lines on the second pass (i.e. lines: 2, 4, 6, 8 etc.). This allowed a whole picture to be produced in two very fast scans and allowed enough time for the slow phosphor dots to recover. This, then, prevented any strobing effects from appearing - success! This process is called interlacing!



Resolution: Lines, Lines & Lines

The biggest misundertanding when it comes to PC video enthusiasts is the idea of horizontal resolution. When we talk about PC monitor resolutions we are talking about pixel resolution. So a PC screen may have a resolution of 800 x 600 which means 800 pixels (dots) going across horizontaly and 600 pixels going down vertically.

TV's engineers, however, only speak about TV resolutions in terms of the number of lines going across not down! Why? Because all TV's have exactly the same amount of lines going down, but not all TV's have the same amount of decernable dots going across. For example, an American TV picture will always scan exactly 480 lines down, but the number of dots going across will always depend on the quality of the TV and the signal broadcast to it. A VHS video will only offer about 210 dots across while a TV station may offer about 330 dots across!

TV engineers use a test patten to determine a TV's resolution. This test pattern has lots of vertical lines like this:



The engineer increases the lines until it is impossible to see any lines because they have all blurred into each other. When the lines cannot be seen any more the maximum resolution of the TV has been reached. These test lines are stacked from left to right as seen in the picture above. Because the lines are stacked from left to right, the number of dicernable lines across on the TV screen is called the horizontal resolution! So when we say a TV has 487 lines we mean it has a maximum resolution of 487 dots across. But to say a TV has 487 dots across is never correct scince it will always be less unless the signal quality is perfect.

Well, in actual fact to measure a TV's resolution engineers don't actually look at a grid and count the lines, otherwise we see a whole bunch of googlie eyed technicians with big thick glasses =o). In reality a test patten is put in front of a camera and the results are examined on a device called a waveform monitor. This monitor shows a graph representing the peeks and valleys of the image. If there are very high peeks and very low valleys then the resolution is higher and vice versa.

This waveform resolution is a theoretical resolution and needs to be adjusted by a factor that mathematicians call the kell. The kell factor basically describes how fuzzy the lines on a TV appear to the eye. Let's say we have a TV with 487 lines of resolution. To determine its real resolution after taking such fuzziness into accound we'd need to multiply that number by 0.7 so 0.7 x 487 = 340 lines of resolution. But again the calculations get more complex and confusing because engineers measure TV resolution assuming that the TV screen is perfectly square. But as we all know TV screens have an aspect ratio of 1.33:1 and are slightly oblong. So we need to take this factor into account also. So our TV with a resolution of 340 lines will now be 0.75 x 340 = 255 lines.

Again this resolution represents the full perfect resolution of the TV. If we take into account signal loss and low broadcast quality we are looking at something like 330 lines! I believe this is why VHS quality Video CD's use 352 lines of resolution since MPEG works best when encoded in sizes that are multiples of 32 pixels.

To cut a long story short a TV screen is about twice as fuzzy as a PC screen, this means when we capture a TV picture onto a PC screen we only need half the resolution for the same quality! So capturing a TV movie at a PC resolution of 640 x 480 is overkill. If you are recording from VHS the same quality should easily fit into a resolution as low as 384 x 288 or smaller!

Note: Although the above statement is technically true most PC video capture cards cannot capture quality small videos. In this case the video must me captured at the full capture card resolution (perhaps 352 x 480 (squished image) and then resized to 384 x 288! See my video capture guide for more details on this.



Active & non-active picture



An analog TV's resolution refers to the number of horizontal lines displayed on the screen. This is broken up into the active and non-active areas. The non-active or blanked (A) area is not used for the actual television picture and is basically always 'blanked'. The extra signal information that would have been put here is often used for closed captioning, synch info or other information such as VITC. But obviously the bit we are interested in is the active part which refers to where the actual picture will appear (B).



NTSC

The TV industry is dominated by two main standards for TV design: PAL and NTSC. NTSC is one of my pet hates basically because of it's rather low quality and use of weird framerates. NTSC stands for the National Television Systems Committee, it is the colour video standard used in North America, Canada, Mexico and Japan. Some engineers have said it should stand for Never Twice Same Color because no two NTSC pictures look alike Smile. Due to the electric system used in the US it was decided to scan the lines across the NTSC TV screen at about 60Hz (or 60 half frames per second) which produced 30 whole pictures every second. NTSC resolution is about one sixth less than that of PAL. This may not seem so bad, but divide a sheet of paper into six even parts and chop one off of the bottom and you will have a lot of detail lost. NTSC uses 525 horizontal lines of which only about 487 make up the active picture.

PAL

PAL stands for Phase Alternating Line, it is the TV standard used for Europe, Hong Kong and the Middle East. It was a new standard based on the old NTSC system but designed to correct the NTSC colour problems produced by phase errors in the transmission path. PAL resolution is 625 horizontal lines but only about 540 of these are used for the picture. PAL is higher quality than NTSC, it keeps a sharper picture and remains closer to the original format produced by motion picture cameras. Due to the European electric standards it was decided to interlace PAL lines every other line at 50Hz producing 25 whole frames every second.



TELECINE

This is the bit you've all been dying to read. Unfortunately I have not written this with a bunch of amazing solutions in mind. The idea is more to help you understand what is going on with your video so you can decide how you will process it better.

Just so you don't get confused you should be clear on what the difference is between a frame and field. A 'field' is basically every other scan line of a picture. Two fields stuck together makes a single frame on a TV set! In the picture below only one field is displayed on the left. Its hard to see because only every other line is displayed. The picture on the right is a whole frame. It is produced when we stick both fields together.

THIS IS ONE FIELD THIS IS TWO FIELDS
(OR A HALF FRAME) (OR A WHOLE FRAME)


Single fields that start from line 1 of the TV screen are called 'odd' because they go in odd numbers (i.e. 1, 3, 5 etc.). Fields that start from the second line to fill the gaps of the first are called 'even' because they go in even numbers (i.e. 2, 4, 6 etc.). Fields that start from line 1 are more often also called "Top" fields because they start from the first "top" line on the screen. Whereas single fields that start from the second line down are called "Bottom" fields. Okay, now everything you read should make perfect sense =)



TELECINE

As I have already mentioned, a motion picture camera captures its images at 24 frames every second. Each frame is a full image. An NTSC television, however, must play 30 frames per second, and these frames must be interlaced into two fields both top and bottom! So basically what we are saying is we must play 60 half frames (or fields) every second. The only way we are going to be able to play a 24 fps motion picture on NTSC television is to change it from 24 fps to 30 fps and interlace these frames into two fields making 60 half frames per second. This transformation process is done with a machine called a Telecine. A Telecine machine does something called pulldown, which, in its simplest explanation, "pulls down" an extra frame every fourth frame to make five whole frames instead of four!



3:2 Pulldown NTSC

3:2 pulldown is a name that confuses people basically because the term "pulldown" is rather ambiguous - in other words, it's not really pulling down anything! The process sounds complex but its really quite straightforward and I have designed a picture to illustrate. The top row in the picture below represents four frames from a motion picture camera. These are full frames and not yet interlaced they are represented as A, B, C, D.

Now look at the second line in our picture below. The Telecine machine takes the first whole frame A and splits it into three fields (stop reading and take a look now). For the first field it uses the top field (T) which means it takes lines 1, 3, 5 etc., from the original digitized picture. The next field taken from A is the bottom field, so it will take lines 2, 4, 6 and so on. The third file we see labeled (Tr) is just a copy of the first field again (so I labeled it T(r) to mean: top repeated').

Now the Telecine machine goes onto the next frame B. This time it just takes the top and bottom fields. Then we move on to the third frame C; it splits it up into three fields, bottom (B) top (T) and a repeat of the bottom one again (Br). Finally, the forth frame D is split into the top and bottom fields. Thats it, that is all a telecine machine does!



In short, this results in a field order of 3 fields, 2 fields, 3 fields, 2 fields! Or, if its easier to understand, our picture above shows it as: 3 yellow, 2 green, 3 blue, 2 red.

So that is why it is called 3:2 pulldown, it goes in a sequence of 3, 2, 3, 2 and so on. It can be said to "pull down" a whole frame and split it into three fields and two fields. Finally, after the Telecine machine has finished the forth frame D, it will start the process all over again with the next four pictures of the movie.

In short we end up with:

At Ab At / Bb Bt / Cb Ct CB / Dt Db

But because it always goes: top, bottom, top, bottom, top, bottom etc., we would just say it without indicating top or bottom fields. So instead of the above we would describe it as:

AAA BB CCC DD

Whatever way you look at it in the end you end up with 5 whole frames instead of 4. This turns a 24 fps movie into a 30 fps movie!



Interlacing the picture back together

Lets look at the picture again. Look at the third line down. Here we can see how these fields would be woven back together to produce a whole picture again, as we would see on a TV or computer screen. The top field of frame A is woven together with the bottom field of frame A. Then the repeated top field of frame A is woven together with the bottom field of frame B. The top field of frame B is woven with the bottom of frame C. The top field of frame C is woven together with the top repeated field of frame C. And finally, the top field of frame D is woven together with the bottom field of frame D.



That's quite a mouthful to explain in words but examine the picture, it should really explain itself. Since each frame is stuck together instead of describing telecine by saying it uses top, bottom, top, bottom in the order:

AAA BB CCC DD
We would say:
AA AB BC CC DD

The change is only how we group the letters of course and means nothing more.



A Weird Framerate

This is not quite the end of the saga. The old black and white TV's used to play back at a perfectly round 30 fps. But as usual NTSC found a way to destroy that perfection! With the introduction of color TV it was decided (because of technical reasons which I don't understand) that the movie must be played back at 29.970 fps (59.94Hz) which is basically only 99.9% of its full speed. As a result NTSC movies still have the same amount of frames they did when they were telecined, but they are played back at a fractionally slower rate.



2:2 Pulldown PAL

PAL movies also get telecined but not in the same way an NTSC movie does. A Telecine machine will use what is sometimes called 2:2 Pulldown! This basically turns every frame into two fields so they can me played on a standard PAL television. This makes 25 frames into 50 field which when played on a TV set at 50Hz will produce 25 whole frames per second. So instead of going 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2 it will go 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2! This produces the fields:

At Ab / Bt Bb / Ct Cb / Dt Db
Or just:
AA BB CC DD

Again, a PAL movie will contain all the frames from a 24fps film with no additional ones, but it will still play those frames back faster at 25 fps. In a way of speaking it is just as correct (or wrong) to say that a PAL movie is 24 fps because no frames have been added to it, they are just played back faster.



INVERSE TELECINE (IVTC)

I think I'm correct in saying that there is no such thing as an Inverse Telecine machine Smile. But, as the name suggests, inverse telecine is a process that turns a 30 fps movie back into a 24 fps movie. Basically what it does is take out all those extra fields that were added to the movie to make it 30fps. Its about now that I start spluttering because this is an awkward subject and I can't find any information on exactly how Inverse Telecine is performed! So instead I will describe what "looks" like should be done based on how it was telecined in the first place.

Lets go back to our picture! As you can see from the second row down, to turn the 24fps movie into 30fps we have to separated the pictures into 10 single fields (or half frames) by adding two fields that shouldn't normally be there. Counting from left to right, all we would need to do to turn or 10 fields back into 8 fields (to turn 30 fps into 24fps) is to delete fields 3 and 8. Remember we are talking fields here not frames.





But taking out fields 3 and 8 would produce a movie that had a field order of: top, bottom, bottom, top, bottom, top, top, bottom! Since you cannot weave together two bottom fields or two top fields we would need to swap them around. So imagine the order of the numbers as:

1, 2 3, 4 5, 6 7, 8
T, B B, T B, T T, B

To get the correct order we must change them to:

1, 2 4, 3 6, 5 7, 8
T, B T, B T, B T, B

Which gives us an order of: 1, 2, 4, 3, 6, 5, 7, 8 which should theoretically fix everything.



The Framerate Mystery Unraveled! 23.976 / 24 / 29.970 / 30

If the only framerates we use are 24, 25 and 29.97 then why to people speak of using 23.976? This is to do with how the movie has been created. A 25 fps movie still has the same amount of frames as a 24 fps movie because none have been added. But nevertheless a PAL television chooses to play them back at 25 fps. This makes the PAL movie play back at a slightly shorter length and means the audio will be out of synch slightly. To compensate for this, when a movie is telecined they apply to it what is called a 'pitch-correction' which speeds up the audio to match the playback speed, in the case of PAL this means they perform a pitch correction of about 4%.

The amount of frames a 3:2 pulldown telecined movie has is 30 fps. But an NTSC television will play them back slower at 29.970 fps (59.94Hz). The amount of actual frames hasn't changed, none have been added or taken out! Here is where the 23.976 part comes in! If we inverse telecine a 30 fps movie we would end up with 24 fps. But if we inverse telecined a 29.970 fps movie, because it has a slightly slower speed, instead of getting 24 fps as we should, we will end up with the slightly slower rate of 23.976 fps.



PROBLEMS WITH INTERLACED MOVIES

Interlaced movies look fine on a standard TV but they appear terrible on a PC monitor!? Lets take a look at our example one last time to see why. Look at the last row where it shows how the top field of frame B is interlaced together with the bottom field of frame C.



We are getting the top and bottom fields from two completely different frames!! Imagine taking half of one picture and half of the next and trying to put them together into a single picture, its impossible! On a PC this produces what we see below. Here we have Star Treks William Riker walking across the room from left to right. Notice that the top field from the previous frame shows him a little to the left and the bottom field of the next frame shows him a little to the right. This is what produces this combing effect and no amount of shifting the lines to the left or the right will fix it!



Inverse Telecine Troubles

Look at our illustration one more time. A 3:2 pulldown movie can also be encoded as 2:3 which produces exactly the same result but is done backwards - instead of getting 3, 2, 3, 2 we will get 2, 3, 2, 3! But this doesn't matter because since a 3:2 pulldown movie can be cut and edited after it is made the very first frame doesn't always start with the top of field of A anyway! It could, for example, start with the next one across - the bottom field of A. In fact, it could start with absolutely any of the 10 fields in the sequence!



Hence as far as I can see there must be at least 10 ways to perform inverse telecine. Five assuming the first field is top and five assuming the first field is bottom. It is possible to determine all sequances using such programs as AVISynth and then perform IVTC that way. The AVISynth instructions explain basically how this is done.



Adaptive IVTC

When videos have been captured on a PC and edited and resaved, as is the case with many DVD extras, the field order can get switched. Since we do not know where it switches we need to have an adaptive IVTC filter that will compensate and guess how to stick the fields together correctly. For doing this I believe VirtualDubs Telecide filter seems to do the best job I've seen so far.



OTHER ISSUES

Some of the specials and extra features of a DVD seem to have been recorded from a telecined 29.970 fps source! This means that the interlaced picture is actually edited as an interlaced picture on a computer and then reinterlaced again! There is absolutely no way to fix such a problem because the lines are literally a part of the original picture now. For example, I have taken this frame from the trailer of one DVD and separated the fields into two. When I squash all the lines together from one single field I get the following picture:



Of course, I could be completely mistaken about this, but that is what appears to be the case.



Capture Cards

Most of the Graphics Cards, TV Tuners and Video Capture hardware we use to record video to the PC will not perform any kind of IVTC. Neither do they seem to give a standard order in which they whack the TV fields together. Determining the IVTC is a matter of trying all 10 combinations until the correct one is found. This field order problem applies regardless of if you use PAL or NTSC, if you want to capture any video footage at above 240 pixels high (for NTSC, PAL is 288) you will get at least some interlace problems that need solving! When you are capturing below 240 pixels some capture card will only use one field and hence interlace problems will be almost impossible, but this is not always the case. Usually a normal IVTC can be performed on any video cature card, all you need to know is what field order it starts with.



Deinterlace filters

Since to perform inverse telecine (IVTC) to make a 30 fps movie back into a 24 fps movie is so awkward there are a few alternatives that have been designed to work on just about any movie. There are only two types of deinterlacer that I know:

Bobbing: To Bob basically means to enlarge each field into its own frame by interpolating between the lines. So from one field we are producing a full frame. Because the top fields are a line higher than the bottom the image may appear to "bob" but this is usually fixed by nudging the while frame up or down a pixel. You are only really getting half the resolution with bob but the interpolation is usually very good quality. If you are stuck for a way to bob your video my AVISynth guide offers a bob feature, check it out Here.

Blending: Flask Mpeg's & VirtualDubs basic deinterlace filter look for the parts of a picture where the two fields do not match and blends the combing effect together. The lower the threshold the more the two parts are blended and the less of a combing effect appears. The problem with this method is that the final picture can quite often end up a bit more blurry, the bob method is better.



DVD & TELECINE

DVD's offer a strange twist to the whole Telecine and 3:2 pulldown business. Almost all DVD's will have the movie stored as whole pictures at 24 fps. This is the original format of the film with no Telecine. At the start of every Mpeg-2 DVD file there are certain header codes that tell it how to play back the DVD. Since it is stored digitally it can give the fields or frames from the DVD and to the hardware or software in any order it likes. It can split the movie into two fields and perform telecine instantly. To do this has three flags that can be applied to the header code: RFF (repeat first field) TFF (top field first) and FPS (frames per second).

For a PAL DVD the FPS flag can be set to 25 and the DVD will send the picture information to the hardware at 25 fps instead of 24 fps as is stored on the DVD.

For NTSC DVD's the movie needs to be 29.970 fps so the FPS flag is set to 29.970. But this looks odd because the movie is over far too soon. Imagine it like playing cards, if you throw 4 cards on the floor every second the whole pack will be finished in half the time than if you threw 2 cards onto the floor. The solution is to telecine the movie with 3:2 pulldown to increase the amount of "cards" we have to start with. To do this it uses the RFF and TFF flags are set in the header code. By setting the DVD to Repeat the First Field again you make the video display the fields in the order 3, 2, 3, 2. By setting the TFF flag you set the DVD to start from the top field so the order always goes: top, bottom, top, bottom.

Theoretically then, it should be possible to patch the header code of a DVD's Mpeg-2 file and make it play back at 24 fps instead of the 29.970 fps! In fact some people have made patches to do this.



Progressive and Interlaced together!

I don't think I have mentioned what a progressive image is yet? A progressive image is a whole frame that it is not interlaced. Motion picture camera's capture images that are progressive. They are not telecined or split into separate fields. Computer monitors do not need to interlace to show the picture on the screen like a TV does it puts them on one line at a time in perfect order i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc.

Many DVD's are encoded as progressive pictures, with interlaced field-encoded macroblocks used only when needed for motion. Flask Mpeg tries to take advantage of this fact, because if you set it to 24 fps (or 23.976) it will give the option to reconstruct progressive images. This does not perform any deinterlacing on the video but ignore all the flags and just reads the DVD one progressive image at a time.

This is another confusing issue for me. I have no idea how a DVD movie can be both interlaced and progressive other than by the fact that a progressive movie can be played back as interlaced due to control flags. If I learn any more about this I will update my articles accordingly.



VHS, VCD & DVD

To finish, perhaps it would be nice to say a few words about the video formats too. It wasn't long after TV that VHS video recorders appeared on the scene and a yet a while latter when the Video CD-Rom's did. Of course, there were other video formats, but VHS (Vertical Helical Scan) and MPEG (Moving Picture Experts Group) won the battle, at least as far as home video was concerned. This is a little strange really because Sony's Betamax video was probably the better quality! Anyway, all video formats to date have required one form of compression or another to be able to record the huge quantities of information needed to store full motion video.

VHS

VHS video is stored just like audio on a reel of plastic tape impregnated with ground up iron. This plastic tape is spun in front of an electromagnet that replicates the strength of the TV's electric beam as they would appear scan across the screen. This caused magnetic 'kinks' in the iron parts of the tape that are almost identical to the original TV signal. A reversal of this storage process would produce the image back on the TV screen. The signal is simplified before it reached the tape therefore making it take up less space.

As anyone who has ever used video tape knows it soon looses quality. It appears grainy, looses colour accuracy and starts to produce white glitches and audio waver - a better solution was needed.

MPEG-1

As computer technology advanced CD-Rom video formats became popular and the Moving Picture Experts Group designed a compression format that could store over an hour of VHS quality video on a single CD-ROM This soon become very popular in the east but never truly caught on anywhere else. This was due to the fact that recording it was difficult and slow and the quality was not really any better than normal VHS anyway. The big big advantages of Mpeg-1 video was that it was almost impossible for it to loose picture quality like a VHS videotape! It could last perhaps over 100 years of use without any noticeable degradation of image quality!

MPEG-2

Since (at the right bitrate) Mpeg-1 was able to produce TV quality pictures superior to VHS, the Mpeg organization decided to design another version that allowed Mpeg-1 back with interlaced images so it could be used for TV broadcasts. This format was called Mpeg-2. Other features were added to Mpeg-2 to make it compress slightly better and higher quality, but the main difference was the addition of interlace support.

Since Mpeg-1 VideoCD's showed that a CD based digital video was not only a viable option, but also a very preferable that is one if the storage space was enough. When CD-ROM designs were upgraded to be able to store 4.38 gigabyte or more of information, it was decided that these new CD's would be the new storage media for video. It was called DVD to mean Digital Video Disc although it was later changed to mean Digital Versatile Disc because it was 'versatile' enough to hold other data besides video.



Resolutions

Resolutions are an important issue for amateur video enthusiasts who want to capture their video at full TV quality. Professional video editors are told to capture at 640 x 480 pixels for highest quality. But a PAL TV resolution is 576 lines down. Then we have the Mpeg group saying that 352 x 288 is the full VHS video resolution! The problem seems to lie in the fact that its hard to equate a TV resolution with a computer image. The TV is built up of lines but the dot definition is rather "fuzzy" looking. So rather than me rattling on about the pro's 'n' cons again I will merely end this article by quoting what the Ligos corporation (the creators of the LSX Mpeg-2 encoder) say in regard to this subject:

"The resolution of computer video, however, doesn't generally equate to the video world of televisions, VCRs, and camcorders. These devices have standards for resolution that are generally focused on the horizontal resolution (the number of scan lines from top-to-bottom that make up the picture). Here are some numbers for comparison:

Video Format Horizontal Resolution
Standard VHS 210 Horizontal Lines
Hi8 400 Horizontal Lines
Laserdisc 425 Horizontal Lines
DV 500 Horizontal Lines
DVD 540 Horizontal Lines

With these numbers in mind, it is important to remember this rule when bringing the worlds of computer and video together: the quality of an image will never be better than the quality of the original source material.

We suggest capturing at a resolution that most closely matches the resolution of the video source. For video sources from VHS, Hi8, or Laserdisc, SIF resolution of 352x240 will give good results. For better sources such as a direct broadcast feed, DV, or DVD video, Half D1 resolution of 352x480 is fine. There are other advantages to following these guidelines. Your files will be smaller, consuming less space on the hard drive or on recordable media like CD-R and DVD-RAM. You'll also be able to encode more quickly".






---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Duplication of links or content is strictly prohibited. (C) NICKY PAGE 2000
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mason-free party wrote:

Andrew...so what caused the hole that looked like the outline of a plane...some laser weapon gadget?...sounds abit far fetched to me mate...


I doubt it was a laser weapon - but yes, it kind of seems like a far fetched idea in some ways (that's generally how illusionists get away with things - by making you think they would never go to that much trouble to pull it off).

I need to study this part of the evidence more closely however, I would say 2 things which might give us a clue:

1) I think that a small number of the girders point outwards
2) If you insert an LC2 DVD (original copy), let the menu screen play where the 2nd impact is shown. You will see the explosion emanates from INSIDE the building AFTER the plane has gone in. Now, if this was a boeing, or something similar, the fuel in the wings and fuselage would ignite almost instanteously when the wing edge hit the building. If you watch this carefully, that does not appear to happen.

Holograms? I currently doubt it. Video fakery? Much more likely...

Am I personally 100% certain that this is correct? No - I am not, but I am damn well puzzled by this and a number of other elements of evidence which do not fit with big planes hitting (and if they did, all the evidence should easily support this conclusion).

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
2) If you insert an LC2 DVD (original copy), let the menu screen play where the 2nd impact is shown. You will see the explosion emanates from INSIDE the building AFTER the plane has gone in. Now, if this was a boeing, or something similar, the fuel in the wings and fuselage would ignite almost instanteously when the wing edge hit the building.
Why?

The fuel in an aircraft fuel tank is not sloshing around like it's in a bucket! When I was an aircraft mechanic the fuel tanks had bags inside. Why? Because the fuel itself is not quite as explosive as everybody seems to believe. It is the vapour which is explosive - so as the fuel is used up the bags contract so that there is no vapour. for this reason, no aircraft was allowed in the hangar unless it was fully refuelled. Until I had the bags explained to me, I thought this was a bit backward. There is a mnemonic triangle of fire, fuel, heat and oxygen. Without any one of these there is no fire. So until the fuel is mixed with the oxygen in the air (not simply meets the air) and then is ignited by a source of heat, there will be no explosion.

You make it sound like aircraft fuel spontaneously explodes on contact with air! This is nonsense!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for that, DK.

I work with video and graphics and I have tried on numerous occasions to explain interlacing to people in my own words - I have only ever convinced myself that I should never be a teacher!

It is a lengthy article but well worth reading and should be understood by anybody who tries to prove anything with video evidence.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 7:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

flamesong wrote:

You make it sound like aircraft fuel spontaneously explodes on contact with air! This is nonsense!


I disagree - as that's not what I was saying. I feel my simple analysis is valid. The plane was supposedly travelling fast and "vaporised" on impact (according to some people). This amount of heat from the impact, in my view, would ignite the fuel in the wings and fuselage rather quicker than seen on the video (see below).

Can I prove this? No. Is it the single most important piece of evidence? No.

Did you actually load and watch the video?

This is quite morbid, and only partly a valid comparison (let the insults fly if you wish - water off duck's back to me...) because of it being a different plane and somewhat different circumstances.


Link


If you watch this a couple of times, you will see the fire starts when the plane's left wing tip hits the ground, then the rest of the planes explodes as it hits.

Compare this with here:


Link


The fire starts after the plane has gone in to the building.

So people can squabble about holograms and shills if they wish. I try to look at the evidence myself and come to an informed opinion.

Do I count the above as proof? No. Am I an authority on plane crashes? No. Is it easy for us to re-run a plane crashing into a building to check this idea out? Of course not (as if I need to say it).

It's fine for people to ridicule or slag me off - I am quite used to it - but I am always suspicious when people do this, rather than, for example, finding a video or description which shows a plane behaving like the WTC impact one.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If you watch this a couple of times, you will see the fire starts when the plane's left wing tip hits the ground, then the rest of the planes explodes as it hits.

The fire starts after the plane has gone in to the building.


Doesn't the fire/explosion happen after the plane enters the building as;

The wingtip of the bomber struck the concrete runway - do the fuel tanks extend to the wingtips? Sparks/whatever instantly igniting the fuel as the fuel mixed with air and had the ignition source readily at hand?

In other words, the commercial aircraft's wings actually partially 'entered' the building semi-intact and it was only when the fuel was allowed to combine with oxygen that the explosion/fireball occurred. The bomber's wing was not masked by any structures, it just was torn apart in open air on a non-forgiving surface.

Contrasting designs of aircraft combined with the contrasting impact zones giving contrasting results.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Relentless Limpet Shill


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
flamesong wrote:

You make it sound like aircraft fuel spontaneously explodes on contact with air! This is nonsense!


I disagree - as that's not what I was saying. I feel my simple analysis is valid. The plane was supposedly travelling fast and "vaporised" on impact (according to some people). This amount of heat from the impact, in my view, would ignite the fuel in the wings and fuselage rather quicker than seen on the video (see below).

Can I prove this? No. Is it the single most important piece of evidence? No.

Did you actually load and watch the video?

This is quite morbid, and only partly a valid comparison (let the insults fly if you wish - water off duck's back to me...) because of it being a different plane and somewhat different circumstances.


Link


If you watch this a couple of times, you will see the fire starts when the plane's left wing tip hits the ground, then the rest of the planes explodes as it hits.

Compare this with here:


Link


The fire starts after the plane has gone in to the building.

So people can squabble about holograms and shills if they wish. I try to look at the evidence myself and come to an informed opinion.

Do I count the above as proof? No. Am I an authority on plane crashes? No. Is it easy for us to re-run a plane crashing into a building to check this idea out? Of course not (as if I need to say it).

It's fine for people to ridicule or slag me off - I am quite used to it - but I am always suspicious when people do this, rather than, for example, finding a video or description which shows a plane behaving like the WTC impact one.

Watching the video of the plane hitting the ground, there do seem to be important differences:
It is a very old plane, and might not have the bag tanks that flamesong refers to.
I can see no frame between one that shows the plane still in the air, and the fireball, so exactly when it exploded is unclear.
Most importantly, the wing could not penetrate the ground in the way that the planes penetrated the buildings on 9/11, so the fuel could not explode in the same way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dry kleaner
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Flamesong.
I know I've tried to explain it too and just make a mess of it. Hopefully this will assist in ways I couldn't.

Peace and love

DK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bushwacker wrote:
Most importantly, the wing could not penetrate the ground in the way that the planes penetrated the buildings on 9/11, so the fuel could not explode in the same way.


Fair enough - so what way would it explode then? Do you have some video evidence or something.

Heat from Crash Impact + Fuel = instant explosion.

Steel is harder than the ground the bomber crashed into. Metal in aircraft essentially the same. Fuel essentially the same. I don't see a problem with my suggestions. How can a lack of pentration cause the fuel NOT to ignite?

Besides, I can not take your opinion seriously, and you have broken our request, as a supporter of the OCT:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=35517&highlight=#355 17

Are you a gravity denier as well as a combustion denier?

You are politely asked to start a new thread in Critic's Corner and post a link to my post.

Thanks for understanding.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Merged with another thread.

Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source of information.

Inferences of idiocy made from titles of articles is also no basis for a fair analysis (i.e the catchy "no planes no brains" = you'd be stupid to think about this too much. Quite similar to "you'd be stupied to think US govt. could murder it's own people).

dry kleaner wrote:
Hello All
I have been away a while and I am surprized to see that the 'No planes theory' is still in heated debate. I have cut and pasted a link on interlacing for video and I strongly suggest that all those who believe the 'No planes theory' read it at its original source through the link I have provided.


Yes - I realise you've been away. And evidence and articles have been discussed in the interim. And "No planes" is not an entirely accurate label.

If you started a conversation about Manchester City football team and people assumed you meant Manchester United, you probably all get confused. Similar thing has happened with all these threads, thanks to inaccurate labels like "no planes" and "holograms"

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
dry kleaner
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Andrew
Yes I have been away from this Forum but not 'away' so to speak. I have been keeping an eye on the 'No planes' theory since it first came up. I say now and will say again, the distortions in the image of the aircraft when viewed from the footage of 9/11 is due to video interlacing and compression. The cameras used to film 9/11 would mostly be Digital BETA cameras that at the time of 2001 would have recorded interlaced footage. If you slow that footage down the image starts to break up. Second every who has everyone watched this footage have either watched it on the net or off a highly compressed DVD (Mpeg 4 or similar codecs) which again further breaks up the image when it is slowed down. Even if you watch the raw footage of a Digital BETA master and slowed it down you would see the same thing.

As I said a while back if 9/11 was shot on a high speed film camera (which is a specialist camera for wild life films and action films) we would be able to view the footage slowed down with out distortion if we viewed a print. But video like Digital BETA is not film and cannot be slowed down with out distortion. I know this because I work in the media and was trained at university specializing in Cinematography.

I chose the Wikepedia reference and Nicky guides as I had no time for a better source to back up my comments, but I looked through them and they are accuret if long winded. When I get a longer period of time I am planning a trip to Arri Media to discuss the matter of interlacing with one of their video technicians.

I chose the title of the thread to get a reaction and people to view this thread, which it seems to have done.

And for the record I do believe governments could and would murder their citizens. I have no problem in believing such a thing, I wrote my dissertation and I am working on scripts to such effect. I have devoted the last two years of my life to investigating 9/11 and similar crimes. I get up set when people do not look into the effects of video whilst going off on one about hologrames. The no planes theory is the new Straw man like ' The Protocols of Zion' designed to get taken down and take those associated down with it.

Thats my view on the matter.

Peace and love

DK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ally
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dry kleaner wrote:
Hello Andrew
Yes I have been away from this Forum but not 'away' so to speak. I have been keeping an eye on the 'No planes' theory since it first came up. I say now and will say again, the distortions in the image of the aircraft when viewed from the footage of 9/11 is due to video interlacing and compression. The cameras used to film 9/11 would mostly be Digital BETA cameras that at the time of 2001 would have recorded interlaced footage. If you slow that footage down the image starts to break up. Second every who has everyone watched this footage have either watched it on the net or off a highly compressed DVD (Mpeg 4 or similar codecs) which again further breaks up the image when it is slowed down. Even if you watch the raw footage of a Digital BETA master and slowed it down you would see the same thing.


I have original broadcast quality footage from back them so can write off your claims of Internet compresssion artifacts causing the anomolies. What got me thinking about it was the contradictory flight paths taken by the plane to the WTC and the plane emerging from the other side of the buildings intact. Two things nobody has explained away. Until someone does I continue to believe we were shown fakes.

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:

Quote:
Fair enough - so what way would it explode then? Do you have some video evidence or something.


It isn't a case of exploding a different way, it is a case of the bulk of the fuel was encased in the wings as the plane entered the WTC, hence it was not instantly 'halted' on the exterior of the building as the fuel of the bomber being confined to the surface of the runway.

This means that with the impetus of the aircraft, combined with the mesh like exterior of the WTC, the fuel was inside the building before it exploded.

The onus is actually on you to supply a link to something that illustrates the point more clearly as opposed to an aircrash that is so dissimilar to the events of 9/11

Thanks for understanding.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dry kleaner
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ally wrote:
dry kleaner wrote:
Hello Andrew
Yes I have been away from this Forum but not 'away' so to speak. I have been keeping an eye on the 'No planes' theory since it first came up. I say now and will say again, the distortions in the image of the aircraft when viewed from the footage of 9/11 is due to video interlacing and compression. The cameras used to film 9/11 would mostly be Digital BETA cameras that at the time of 2001 would have recorded interlaced footage. If you slow that footage down the image starts to break up. Second every who has everyone watched this footage have either watched it on the net or off a highly compressed DVD (Mpeg 4 or similar codecs) which again further breaks up the image when it is slowed down. Even if you watch the raw footage of a Digital BETA master and slowed it down you would see the same thing.




I have original broadcast quality footage from back them so can write off your claims of Internet compresssion artifacts causing the anomolies. What got me thinking about it was the contradictory flight paths taken by the plane to the WTC and the plane emerging from the other side of the buildings intact. Two things nobody has explained away. Until someone does I continue to believe we were shown fakes.



Quote:
Even if you watch the raw footage of a Digital BETA master and slowed it down you would see the same thing.


As I said.
Oh and do you have Digital BETA copies Or VHS?

Peace and love

DK


Last edited by dry kleaner on Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:54 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andyb
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1025
Location: SW London

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
plane emerging from the other side of the buildings intact


where?

_________________
"We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dry kleaner
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ally
One last thing.
Film works in frames video does not. That is why we have that effect. So even if you have the video master you will still get the same effect because it is an interlaced image. My point about compression was only to say it exagerates the effect.

9/11 was and inside job and I feel it would be more useful to examine the money trail than this theory. The general public have a hard enough time believing it to be an iside job let alone it was a hologram.

Peace and love

DK
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:

The onus is actually on you to supply a link to something that illustrates the point more clearly as opposed to an aircrash that is so dissimilar to the events of 9/11.


Is it? I present the evidence for people to consider - they can draw their own conclusions.

No one has sufficiently explained the clear delay in the explosion on the WTC footage. The fuel cannot "wait to combust" when so much energy is involved in the collision.

The onus is on each of us to decide on which position is valid, based on the evidence they have taken time to review, and taking into account the laws of physics, which are consistent across situations where plane crashes are involved.

Acceleration due to gravity is constant at the earths surface = 9.81 m/s

HEat + kerosone+ air = combustion (not a 1/4 to 1/2 second delay). The jet engine wouldn't work if this was the case.

For those that say "the plane vaporised" or "was travelling so fast it cut the steel beams" and then say "the fuel ignited when the plane was inside the building" breaks the laws of physics/chemistry, as far as I can tell.

And yes, I only really noticed this perhaps 2 months ago.

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Mighty Poster


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dry kleaner wrote:
The general public have a hard enough time believing it to be an iside job let alone it was a hologram.

Peace and love

DK


Hi DK - we know your view as that was expressed in the article you posted and it's heading "No planes, no brains" - hardly neutral.

Oops - there's that word again "hologram" - this is not always the essence of NBB theories. As I have said, they are in the minority (as far as I can tell).

i wasn't suggesting you were denying 9/11 was an Inside Job, what I was suggesting (as I have several times) is that the mentality outside 9/11 Truth movement is "US Govt would never murder it's own citizens - the idea is sillY". When you look at ENOUGH evidence, you see that it isn't silly at all.

I now see this same parallel with NBB critics. A lot of the arguments are basically "it's silly - forget it".

Telecasterisation thinks that a nobody like me should provide more evidence. I say to this, that if oyu are truly open minded to the IDEA that something other than what we saw on video might NOT have actually taken place quite the way it looked, THEN look for the evidence to support that idea, you are not going in with a foregone conclusion.

There is a lot more evidence than frame rates to consider.

But let me say this, the media have had 5 years to properly investigate and disclose 9/11 truth issues. For at least the last 2 years, they have been advised of clear evidence of CD for example - we've had 1 mention on a Sunday Religious programme on BBC 1 and a brief mention on Mayo on Radio 5 live - and, of course, talksport.

Does anyone therefore think that there is a strong possibility that the media were complicit with the black operation on 9/11? I refer again to the Zapruder film analysis for a historical precedent:

http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

Of course, I can be accused (fairly) of going slightly off topic here, but I think it is relevant (and everyone is free to disagree).

_________________
Andrew

Ask the Tough Questions, Folks!


Last edited by Andrew Johnson on Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:26 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
Wikipedia isn't always a reliable source of information.

Perhaps not. But on this occasion the article on video interlacing is an excellent technical description of its function and its limitations. It is not a subjective piece - I doubt there are any wikipedia editors who are going to embroil themselves in debate over this! So why try to discredit the clearly objective article with the sort of generalised cheap shot that is so often aimed at us?

As for the exploding fuel analysis, I'm glad that people like telecasterisation and Bushwacker were able to point out the very obvious material differences between the two different crashes. Though, I have to be honest and say that I would imagine that the B-52 would have had fuel bags. The video is not very clear but what is very clear is that the initial flash, which I suspect is a shower of sparks, is a completely different event to the subsequent explosion. Google videos are extremely difficult to control but with some fiddling you can see that there are two or three frames of 'daylight' between the the two events, the video looks like it is about 12 fps - so there could be about 0.15 - 0.25 seconds gap.

And you still seem to have misunderstood the nature of fire - ipso facto explosions:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Heat from Crash Impact + Fuel = instant explosion.

Where is the oxygen in this equasion?

And then:
Andrew Johnson wrote:
Steel is harder than the ground the bomber crashed into. Metal in aircraft essentially the same. Fuel essentially the same. I don't see a problem with my suggestions. How can a lack of pentration cause the fuel NOT to ignite?

Steel is harder than the ground? This is patently untrue! If the friction between the wing tip and the ground produced sparks it would suggest that the wing tip could not penetrate the ground and was, in all likelyhood, concrete. I suggest you check out the scientific definitions of hardness - there are several, rebound, scratch, indentation and varying alternatives of each. But essentially, in this case, if a plane hits concrete the concrete will come out of it better off.

I am glad you have raised this subject of hardness because of the popular belief that an aircraft made of aluminium alloy could not have penetrated a steel building. I remember demonstrations of how a paper disc, when attached to a high speed motor, could be used to cut brick.

I find that such ducking and weaving of elementary physical laws to prove such a fanciful notion is quite laughable. And that when somebody challenges even the 'outer limits' wing of this movement they told to get back in their box.

Personally, I believe that theories like this are infinitely more damaging to our cause than constructive criticism.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ally
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dry kleaner wrote:



Quote:
Even if you watch the raw footage of a Digital BETA master and slowed it down you would see the same thing.


As I said.
Oh and do you have Digital BETA copies Or VHS?

Peace and love

DK


It's on VHS, but what does compression artifacts have to do with the plane taking differing paths to the WTC as featured on Channel Four and the BBC on September 12th?

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andrew Johnson wrote:
Acceleration due to gravity is constant at the earths surface = 9.81 m/s

Why are you quoting the law of gravity here?

Surely, aircraft are designed to overcome gravity?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dry kleaner
Minor Poster
Minor Poster


Joined: 15 Feb 2006
Posts: 86

PostPosted: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ally wrote:
dry kleaner wrote:



Quote:
Even if you watch the raw footage of a Digital BETA master and slowed it down you would see the same thing.


As I said.
Oh and do you have Digital BETA copies Or VHS?

Peace and love

DK


It's on VHS, but what does compression artifacts have to do with the plane taking differing paths to the WTC as featured on Channel Four and the BBC on September 12th?

Quote:



Quote:
Film works in frames video does not. That is why we have that effect. So even if you have the video master you will still get the same effect because it is an interlaced image. My point about compression was only to say it exagerates the effect.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> General All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group