Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Limitations of Video and Photo "Evidence"
Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum > Location > World Trade Center Complex
Just found this on another forum today. What do you think of this? Evidence of DEW?

Something different that I've never seen before.
This video footage is heavily edited and not trustworthy. Absolutely NOTHING substantial can be drawn from it. Note, for example, in clip 2 when the ABC logo tag floats up at around 1:20 and then at 1:23 it begins to look as if the smoke is a layer that, like the logo, is floating attached to the logo layer, not blown from the side of the building.

Not saying it is or isn't, just saying that as evidence of anything this vid is useless. Actually worse than useless because it presents itself as evidence of 'something' when it isn't. Just more sh*t for people to waste time arguing over. pukeface.gif
Curious choice in background music/sounds.
It's almost like a heart beat that speeds up near the end.
It gives a freakyness to the video clips. Twilight Zone music.

There is something very fishy about the smoke.
It seems to be coming out of nowhere and it doesn't really clear,
it becomes transparent.

Why is there no smoke coming out of other parts of the building,
just the one entire side?

Interesting method of image stabilization, though.
but, I wonder if it was to cover up the
added fake or enhanced smoke, in the original unstabilized footage.

imo, lunk
Good points both. Odd that this should suddenly surface.
I had been hoping someone with more video experience than I would post something on this, but I haven't found it yet.

1. Video cameras are VERY different from still cameras. Technologically, they are more like automobiles and apple trees. rolleyes.gif
2. Compressed video often loses much of the quality and "information" that was in the uncompressed original.
3. Mainstream news video is never "live" in the US (censored by 7-10 seconds IIRC- see the FCC regs), and "news video" is usually edited heavily or "processed."
4. The technology to CGI, chromakey, and "special effect" video has existed for years and/or decades.
5. We are hardly ever given the video camera model or technical specifications for the camera that allegedy took the various videos in question (chain of custody, anyone?).

Here are some quick references on video technology:

And some more technical resources:
Now from the "frame rate" Wiki, we've got NTSC (US) video signals recorded at 29.97-30 frames per second (fps), or an imaging interval period of ~0.0333333333 seconds.

Now we would need some very specific camera details to know the "imaging time" required to record each of those 30 frames (per second). Then we could figure how much of the 0.0333333333 second imaging interval was "lost information" to get a "duty cycle" for the recorded information.

We simply don't have enough information to determine this for ANY 9/11 video that I've seen in 7+ years.

All this said, I'm with painter's post #2 above on video "evidence."

EDIT: More on "seven second tape delay" and "bleep censors"
Still photograph foreshortening, perspective, and other subjects have already been discussed here at:

"Has Scale Analysis Ever Been Performed @ Pentagon?" Post 13

Ace Baker theory, painter's post #53

NPT/VFT question, Sanders' post #63

Analysis of crash site photo, left of impact point - superimposing the plane;hl=perspective

[particularly post #4 on Sanders' thread above: ]

Any photoshoppers need a project?, combining two hi res. images;hl=perspective

Shredding disinformation, How worth my time is it?
QUOTE (ogrady @ Jul 13 2008, 11:28 PM) *
Just found this on another forum today. What do you think of this? Evidence of DEW?

Something different that I've never seen before.

This video is evidence that there are a lot of people trying hard to prevent people from seeing the obvious truth of the WTC. I've seen dozens of fake videos from the WTC, and this is one more. I can't say who created all the video edits and put out all the fake videos. What I can say is they exist. They are there to confuse those with poor scientific understanding of the physical world.

The WTC was blown up. That is scientific fact not derived from un-sourced doctored videos, but rather from the scientific method and verifiable forensic data from the scene of the crime.

Anyone still engaged in debate over the WTC is likely looking to either confuse the subject or create "debate" where the science is already settled.

If anyone doubts what I'm posting here you can just put on your scientist hat and head on over to the published scientific papers and peer review them. I have not seen any peer review based on science of these papers which would invalidate their respective hypotheses:
Fourteen Points...[Bentham] and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink], and Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [The Open Chemical Physics Journal] .
I often see discussions about "photographic evidence." I usually see some very key concepts left out of most of these discussions, unfortunately. Over the years, I have done some work-related technical photography [and photoanalysis] for documentation, training, and communication/presentation purposes. Forensic photography is very similar to technical photography in many respects.

Let's concentrate some research on forensic photography specifically though.

NOTE: This is the student outline for the Forensic Photography section (24 hours of instruction)of the Field Evidence Technician Course (a 80 hour course) presented by the Center for Criminal Justice Research and Training, California State University, Long Beach

A. Basic equipment for crime scene photography
1. Camera(s)
2. Normal lens
3. Wide angle lens
4. Close-up lenses or accessories
5. Filters
6. Electronic flash(s)
7. Remote or sync cord for electronic flash(s)
8. Extra camera and flash batteries
9. Locking cable release
10. Tripod
11. Film
12. Owner's manuals for camera and flash
13. Notebook and pen
14. Ruler

15. Gray card
16. Index cards and felt pen
17. Flashlight
B. Lenses
1. Normal lens
2. Wide angle lens
3. Other lenses
C. Care and maintenance of crime scene photography equipment
1. Cleaning lens and camera
2. Camera repair
3. Protection from extreme heat and cold
4. Protection from rain
1. Color vs. black and white
2. Print film vs. slide film
3. Film speed
4. Matching film to the light source

A. Photographs must be correctly exposed, have maximum depth
of field, be free from distortion and be in sharp focus
1. Correctly exposed
a. Exposure is controlled by the shutter speed and
lens aperture
b. Automated camera exposure systems and automatic
flash units can be fooled and give incorrect

c. Front, side and back lighting
d. Light meters
e. Flair
f. Using gray card
g. Bracketing exposures
2. Maximum depth of field
a. Depth of field is the area in a photograph in
which objects are in sharp focus

b. How to control depth of field
c. Zone focusing
(1) Preview depth of field
3. Free from distortion (must have good perspective)
a. Use a normal focal length lens when ever
b. Keep the camera as level as possible
c. Photograph with the camera at eye level when
ever possible

4. Sharp focus
a. Keep the camera steady
b. Focus carefully and use maximum depth of field
c. Look at the frame of your scene

A. Purpose of Crime Scene Photography
1. To record the original scene and related areas
2. To record the initial appearance of physical
3. It will provide investigators and others with this
permanent visual record of the scene for later use
4. Photographs are also used in court trials and
B. Admissibility of photographic evidence
1. Three major points of qualification of a photograph
in court
a. Object pictured must be material or relevant to
the point in issue
b. The photograph must not appeal to the emotions
or tend to prejudice the court or jury
c. The photograph must be free from distortion and
not misrepresent the scene or the object it
purports to reproduce
2. You do not need to be an expert in photography to
take crime scene photographs or testify about them

A. Photographs are one way to record a crime scene
1. Field notes
2. Photographs
3. Sketches
B. Photographs
1. What photographs can show
2. What photographs do not show
C. Five steps in recording the crime scene
1. Secure the scene
2. Take preliminary notes
3. Take overview photographs
4. Make a basic sketch
5. Record each item of evidence
D. Taking overview photographs
1. Purpose
a. To show the scene exactly as it was when you
first saw it
(1) If something was moved before you arrived,
don't try to reconstruct the scene as it
was. The photographs should show the
scene as you found it

2. Major crime photography
a. First discuss the crime, evidence and
photographs needed with other investigators at
the scene
b. Be careful not to destroy any evidence while
taking the photographs
c. Outside the scene
(1) Exterior of the building where the crime
occurred and in some cases the whole
(2) Aerial photographs of the scene and the
surrounding area can be useful in some
types of cases

(3) Original series of photographs should also
show all doors, windows and other means of
entrance or exit
d. Inside the scene
(1) Begin with a view of the entrance
(2) Then photograph the scene as it appears
when you first step into the room

(3) Next, move around the room to get
photographs of all the walls
(a) These photographs should also show
the positions of any potential items
of evidence

(4) Include photographs of other rooms
connected with the actual crime scene
3. Using video to record the crime scene
a. Frequently valuable to show an overview of the
E. Photographs to record items of evidence
1. Take two photographs of each item of evidence
a. One should be an orientation (midrange) shot to
show how the item is related to its
b. The second photograph should be a close-up to
bring out the details of the object itself
2. Measuring and marking devices
a. Take two photographs if a marking or measuring
device is used
(1) One photograph without the device, the
other with the device
(2) So the defence can't claim that the scene
was altered or that the device was
concealing anything important

D. Toolmarks
E. Serial numbers

Now does anyone care to make a list of what is conspicuously missing in many/most of the "aircraft parts" and "Pentagon" "evidence photos" we have seen in 9/11 research? (Note: the World Trade Center buildings themselves often provide a reasonably accurate measure of scale in many photos and video.)

EDIT: I would add the following to the above list:

- Tape Measures (30 foot, and ~200 foot reel types)
- LASER, optical, and/or sonic distance/range finders

Evidence Photography Scales
36 Inch Flexible Scales

"ALPS Photoevidence Scales are a must tool for every crime scene and evidence photographer! A set should be included in every camera kit."

These unique Photoevidence Scales are used when a size or distance is to be shown in a photograph.

* Crime Scenes
* Bloodstain
* Horizontal and Vertical Measurements
* Traffic Collisions
* Collision Damage

These specially designed scales have bold black numbers on a yellow background to show up exceptionally well for both black and white and color photographs. They are even visible under ultraviolet light! ...
Now does anyone care to make a list of what is conspicuously missing in many/most of the "aircraft parts" . . . . . . "evidence photos" we have seen in 9/11 research?

Uhhhh . . . . . let me see . . . . . the parts?
1) The video is authentic TV footage from ABC
2) It is stabilized and zoomed in because otherwise you wouldn't see the gash
3) The gash in the south face of WTC7 is confirmed by the NIST report but at that time (prior to the final NIST report WTC7) there was a lot of speculation about the real damage of the south face. NIST over-estimated the damage a lot so some people (me too) tried to map the damage of the south face. Btw, we did a very good map that was later confirmed by the final NIST report.
4) The "strange" smoke indeed doesn't come from WTC7. Most of it came from the rubble near the damaged SW corner of WTC7 and WTC5 and WTC6 and was sucked upwards in the wind shadow of WTC7. All official reports at that time interpreted that smoke as a sign of a burning inferno inside of WTC7. There was none.

Here is the story:
QUOTE (achimspok @ Sep 17 2009, 06:17 PM) *
1) The video is authentic TV footage from ABC
2) It is stabilized and zoomed in because otherwise you wouldn't see the gash

Ummm... NO! it is an edited YouTube clip [EDIT2: FROM] this (if you mean the "DEW"/["no-plane?"] OP)- see post #1/video by "mysticalgroove" above:

EDIT: BTW- I'm a card-carryin' WTC7 "no-planer!" wink.gif
Oh yes, an edited youtube clip but there is no other manipulation than to make the gash visible. No strange smoke effects or photoshopped damage or layered logos or something like that.
Btw, what's the meaning of "DEW"?

Of course, the soundtrack is somewhat strange and completely altered. No doubt about it. I like that "clearly altered sound" much more than e.g. the official "Rudi G. story" DVD with mixed gun shots and shattering glass sounds into a down pitched WTC2 collapse sound.
Btw, what's the meaning of "DEW"?

That would be Judy Wood's "directed energy weapon" nonsense.
Got it. ... so noop, no DEW, just some tons of steel from about the 75th floor WTC1 fell on top of it.

Two interesting things about the gash:
1) it stopped instead of pancaking the whole way down faster and faster.
2) the damage of the south wall and/or south east corner of WTC7 played NO role in the collapse scenario
Nevertheless, NIST "confirmed" that just one single column had to be demolished to put the bunker into the basement.

... funny as DEW. ...nobody laughed
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.