I've often contended in
this older thread and in
this newer thread that the "no plane" theory (or NPT) is a fraudulent contrivance
from one minor "faction" of the so-called "truth movement."
One of the most serious problems with every single video produced by this "NPT cult/sect" is that their productions are not based on high-quality
original video footage. I've
often asked for one, just one "No Plane"
video that is not based on poor quality YouTube source material -- so far, no one has stepped up to respond.
I've done my best to explain the problems related to using compressed
digital streaming video (YouTube) and how it cannot be relied upon for visual accuracy of any sort. Unfortunately, the "true believers" of the
no-plane religion are not able to fathom logic, nor the technological realities of the medium in which they function.
"matrixNIN11", a proponent of the no-plane idea, offered
one video as the
best-case example of the no-plane hypothesis. I've contended that the video is poorly composed of low-quality source material and the creator has
purposefully made the images worse to prove his point.
The link to the YouTube video in question is here:
911 AMATEUR part2.
One would assume that if someone is to create an evidentiary video documentary, one would seek out the best-possible source material. We often see the
"claims" that the material simply isn't available, or that requests have been rejected. I say that's a lie. I've spent $175.00 to have access to
a best-resolution DVD of the Naudet footage. I found several footage catalogs that have this and similar 9/11 material without any difficulty. I
digitized the footage at 720p via a double-pass process with medium de-interlacing at 29.97 frames per second for maximum quality. Now, let us
compare.
Here is an excellent example of what can happen when you convert a streaming, compressed digital video (from a source such as YouTube) into a
consumer-level desktop computer video editing program. The top image shows the typical ghosting which results from the editing software attempting to
create (via tweening or interpolation) new frames to accommodate a slow-motion effect. Below is the same frame from the video I digitized with greatly
improved clarity.
Here we can see the first verifiable clues that the author of the YouTube video is either intentionally blurring his source material to make his
points, or intentionally blurring his source material to hide the heavy pixelization of the YouTube source. Either way, the author is modifying the
source material without telling you that it has been modified.
Here the author is attempting to convince you that a secondary explosion is occurring high up (perhaps on the restaurant level) on the building. In
the heavily blurred environment of his altered video, the puff of smoke looks indistinct and potentially larger than the comparatively distinct and
small puff seen in the higher quality version below. I'm not sure what a "smoke puff" high up on a building immediately after a high-speed impact
from a heavy jet is supposed to prove -- other than impact from a heavy jet at high-speed. However, the purposeful blurring and contrast adjustment is
supposed to help us think it may be something criminal.
Another excellent example of the horrible quality video in the hands of someone that doesn't care about quality. In the higher resolution video (of
which we see a still here), we can see that the south-side fireball has directionality that is consistent with some of the aircraft and fuel being
ejected through the south-side, much as it was with the second aircraft that struck the south tower (and north-side eject).
It's only a "very odd shape" when you blur and adjust the contrast of the source.
It only "seems to be transparent" when you blur and adjust the contrast of the source.
Here we see perhaps the most convincing example of the difference one sees between a horrid quality YouTube video, and a properly digitized
high-resolution source video. In this case, the no-plane proponent is attempting to take advantage of the terrible quality to convince you that the
gash extends to the western edge of the north-side. In reality, as we can see by the enhancement below, it's not the same plane as the aircraft
wings, and is clearly an entire floor of burned windows.
Now we seen an excellent example of "enhancement" in order to prove a fabricated point. The no-plane proponent has altered the aspect ratio,
brightness, contrast, and blur of his video to help prove a point that is, well, unknown. More fireballs among larger fireballs -- I'm not sure what
he is attempting to prove, but it's clear he altered the source in an effort to prove it.
An additional, more distinct frame decreases the apparent impact of whatever point he's attempting to make.
Before the horizontal gash along the floor of impact appears, the no-plane proponent has applied his highest-yet level of blur and obfuscation to
create an incredible visual lie.
I suppose if you blur and adjust the values of any image enough, you can end up seeing what you want to see -- or end up presenting what you want
people to believe.
And finally below is the impact sequence, reduced to 10 frames per second, scaled to 400% (without pixel-blurring), then exported as a maximum-quality
Flash video with 10 key frames per second.
(click to open player in new window)
These are the techniques used by all the no-plane theory proponents. Rely on horrible video, blur it beyond recognition, and jack-up the values until
it resembles the lie they're perpetuating.
If these, or any other proponent of unusual events on 9/11, are really serious and not simply looking to attract attention through sensationalism,
they would spend the amazingly modest amount of money to obtain high-quality source material. But they don't. And it's for a reason.
