South Tower Anomolies

[balantz]

A study of south tower news videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIC9K319J7A

[balantz]

1. Kick

[wildbilln864]

2. thanks!

:kick:

[balantz]

3. This one

compares some of the different airplanes the media showed us on 911:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ym2aaZIp7Q

[Redstone]

4. If you look hard enough, you'll always end up seeing what you WANT to see.

(And, by the way, it's spelled "anomalies."

Redstone

[wildbilln864]

5. actually you have it backwards.

You have to look closely to really see every detail. It's when you refuse to look for yourself that allows you to accept whatever you're told.

[Redstone]

6. Nope. I had it right the first time.

Redstone

[wildbilln864]

14. Nope!

you didn't. Guess it's a matter of apinion again.

Wildbill

[balantz]

7. Don't have to look very hard

to see how unreal those planes look.

[seemslikeadream]

8. That what bush told Mueller

If you look hard enough you will see some middle east guy is responsible for the anthrax attacks

[William Seger]

9. The "vertical perspective analysis" is a complete fraud...

... and the rest of his "analysis" falls apart without it. One camera is clearly lower than the other. You can tell that from the apparent position of the exit fireball, which this poser "conveniently" left completely out of his "vertical perspective analysis."

Instead, he takes earlier frames and resizes both so they have the same vertical size, at least for the distance between the top of the WTC1 building and the bottom of its crash site. He then falsely claims that you can see the top of the building in both (when you can't see it in either because of the smoke, which is clearly seen moving in the videos), and ignores the fact that the antenna tops don't quite line up. He then runs an arrow up and down to show how well he resized them to be (almost) the same! (Not only that, but he fraudulently resized the horizontal axis of the image on the left at a different scale than the vertical axis, trying to make the two images look more the same. In fact, the two cameras have different aspect ratios, due to non-square pixels, so the building on the left looks wider when resized to the same height as the one on the right.)

That "analysis" proves exactly nothing about the videos (but it does imply a lot about the "analyst"). That resizing trick masquerading as a "vertical perspective analysis" only works for features that are about the same distance from the cameras. If he had tried that resizing trick with images that included the exit fireball, it wouldn't work: Because the fireball is farther away than the north face of WTC1, it isn't possible to simply resize the images to have the same vertical size between all of the features if the fireball is included, because the cameras are at different heights.



But there is a very simple way to absolutely prove to that: View the two images as a "stereographic pair." Our vision systems are extremely good at detecting very small differences in parallax and interpreting those differences as differences in distance. We see things in 3D because of the distance between our two eyes, and we can make stereographic pairs by taking photos from two cameras separated by some distance, then viewing one image with each eye. In these two videos, the camera for the right video is below and to the right of the left video, so in the images below, I have rotated the two images to make the line between the cameras approximately horizontal. This is a "left-right-left" stereo set which can be viewed two ways: The left image and the center image can be viewed as a "parallel" stereographic pair, i.e. by diverging your eyes as if you are looking at something far away until the two images overlap and converge. The center and right images can be viewed as a "cross-eyed" stereographic pair, i.e. by converging your eyes as if looking at something close until the two images overlap and converge. (Some people find it easier to use this method by first looking at a finger tip that's about a foot in front of your eyes, then moving your finger back and forth until the two images beyond appear to be on top of each other, then switching your focus to the pictures without changing the angle of your eyes. Using either method, it's usually easier to get the photos to "fuse" into a single 3D image if you first try to get the edges of the pictures to converge, rather than looking directly at the details.)



When viewed in 3D like this, we see that the north face of WTC1 is the closest feature, the antenna is slightly farther away, the smoke is trailing away toward WTC2, the face of WTC2 is the farthest away, and the fireball bulges out from that wall. In other words, it's a completely consistent stereographic image, which is only possible if one camera is below and to the right of the other.

When properly analyzed for camera position, all of the videos that appear to show different plane paths can be shown to be the same path seen from different angles. Not one of the "no-planer" videos claiming to show different paths properly accounts for camera position.

Far beyond any reasonable doubt, what we are seeing in the videos of UA175 crashing into WTC2 is a brutal mass murder. Time and time again, we find that the "no-planers" who make these videos are completely clueless about video analysis, yet they insist they are "proving" something. These videos are just pornography for bullshit addicts.

[balantz]

10. And the nose was just ejected dust

and the arabs with boxcutters pulled this whole thing off.

Yes, I've heard the official story.

[William Seger]

11. Did you have a point?

If it was just that there's plenty more bullshit where this came from, point taken.

But if you want to change the subject: These videos from the north side show debris exiting before the fireball erupts, and since an engine and a landing gear were found outside the building, there's no reason to assume the debris is "dust." What do you imagine this debris cloud would look like when seen from the west?

[balantz]

12. Hey

you know the best way to make a case against this person's video would be in the comment section below the video at youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIC9K319J7A

Then people here can go to the site and see the argument carried out between you and the maker of the video.

[Make7]

13. I would assume that the maker of the video already knows...

... that he is being disingenuous by presenting the analysis shown in the video.

-Make7

[wildbilln864]

15. never ass/u/me anything! nt

[Realityhack]

21. cute.

but if they do not know from doing the dishonest manipulation I doubt very much that anything will convince them otherwise. In order to make those mistakes and not realize it you probably need to be fairly self delusional and very highly susceptible to confirmation bias.

[wildbilln864]

26. Sounds like projection on your part but hey, if it works for you....

go for it. I'll pass though! I want a real investigation instead of relying on opinions.

[Realityhack]

27. You are not making sense.

We WERE talking about manipulation of a specific video on youtube.

You want a 'real investigation'(tm) of that video? The poster here already demonstrated that the person making it was dishonest in their editing. They did so with factual evidence.

[Realityhack]

19. in how many words per post?

It is perfectly valid to discuss the video in detail here as it was posted here. There is no reason to try to squeeze this in with a million other comments on the video. *IF* you felt like it you could make a video demonstrating that he original video maker was an idiot... but why bother?

You are also assuming the maker would respond in any meaningful way

[Redstone]

16. "pornography for bullshit addicts?" I like that phrase. I like it a lot. Furthermore, you are

absolutely correct in your analysis, not that logic works when dealing with the Nutters.

But you tried.

Redstone

[wildbilln864]

17. yes, he gave it his best shot I guess....

inadequate as it was! :eyes:

[Realityhack]

20. Back that up.

You are calling someone on being wrong. Prove it! Show where that analysis is flawed. If you have a point make it. Otherwise you are just sniping.

[Realityhack]

18. That was a very nice post.

A nice thorough explanation of some of the issues involved.

[balantz]

22. So then

put the angle dispute aside, overlook the weird looking evening news video (it was aired like that), and there should still be a plane, one that looks like a plane, in the live, morning news video. That silly looking blob doesn't look anything like a plane.

[balantz]

23. You know what I mean?

That silly looking blob?

[Flatulo]

24. Image compression. If someone wanted to fake a plane

video, why woould they overlay a blob instead of, well, a plane?

[balantz]

25. Sorry

That's "anomalies" not "anomolies".