Originally posted by Smack
So, now we are supposed to ignore the Video evidence.
Wow, okay. That is a very bold assertion and a slightly self-righteous attack. But I will roll with it.
Completely unrelated to 9/11, but take a long hard look at Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. In particular, the scenes in the droid factory. All that
machinery, ducking the swinging arms, molten metal pouring into mold, jumping through giant presses stamping out parts, the hanging steam and sounds
of the factory: 100% digital. The entire sequence was filmed in green screen with the actor jumping in front of marks. Indeed that was post production
editing of footage at its finest. Agree?
While watching a digital broadcast you can sometimes see digital pixilation caused by interference in the broadcast, reception or translation to the
TV screen. It is annoying but we dismiss those pixel squares as incorrect visuals. Agree?
VHS is a recording on magnetic tape, there are no frames like in a traditional film. Frame by frame advancement is moving the recording 1/24 to 1/30
of a second. The displayed image will have motion blurs, ghosted images of scene transitions as the focus goes from one subject to the next. In a TV
show think of an establishing shot of the White House to a tight close up of the actor playing the president just before he speaks.
Digital filming works much like VHS recording except that the digital image will undergo error correction and compression. Sounds perfect right? No,
it is not. Subjects that are stationary and unchanging are not continuously updated. Other imperfections are present in digital, such as digital
versus optical zoom, but I am not as well versed in digital to point out those failings. But I do know that the availability of quality HD Digital
cameras on 9/11/2001 was very sparse indeed. The model used for the movie Once Upon A Time In Mexico is now considered a consumer model and
retails for about $900-$1100.
What all this means is you have missing wings, planes entering intact buildings and other nonsense. Post-production editing can produce even wilder
We can take the footage of the MBL pitcher that accidentally hit that pigeon in that game, start off with a close up of the bird about to take off
from the railing surrounding a ballpark (any one will do), reverse a video of that pitcher checking first base (should be footage of that sometime
during that game) so it looked like he is checking to the right (do it fast enough and people won’t notice glove on wrong hand or crop the check to
extreme close up of the face), show the actual footage of the pitch and the sound of a thud and squawk on impact along with a dramatic music score of
cellos and violins and that accident looks intentional. You could even zoom into a bird’s eye and show the reflection of the incoming ball and some
people will believe it.
I have seen some evidence footage from 9/11 “newly revealed” or “rare” that use some of these same elements. Watch the local and national
news of interviews where the actual interview is interrupted , a separate detail is shown such as footage along with the reporter doing a commentary
narration of what you are viewing, then we are back in the interview with a question and answer that reaffirms the commentary you just saw. Oddly
enough this technique is overused in 9/11 conspiracy programs as well as official story programs. In fact these techniques are so overused, that I
would hazard a guess that there actually reasonably intelligent people on this planet that will honestly tell you that the whole thing was faked and
the towers are still standing.
So in answer of your question: