"My aunt and uncle were on their way to the WTC complex the morning of 9/11/2001 and were only a block away when they saw the first tower get hit.
While being evacuated, they saw the second plane hit."
So they were a block away and just happened to look up and see the first plane hit. Were they walking with their heads up in the air looking at the
exact spot where the first plane, traveling at 550 mph, hit?
While being evacuated from the area (I assume walking away from the Towers), they again managed to see an airplane traveling at over 500 mph hit the
second building? Again, were they looking backwards with their head looking up in the air at the exact spot on the building where the aircraft made
contact? That's quite a story.
"also, you are using highly compressed video to do your analysis (flaw number 1) and there was no technology that existed in 2001 that did what you
are claiming its doing (flaw 2)."
#1 It appears the quality of the original TV video was purposefully low resolution in order to hide certain details. Even a novice digital video
editor knows the lower quality of the video, the easier it is to mask the digitally altered or inserted images.
#2 Digital imaging technology existed long before 2001 - there were plenty of movies made in the '90s which used it. Here is a list of them
en.wikipedia.org...
Somebody who "worked for a major studio" should be aware of this information.
The problem with the TV footage on 9/11, as mentioned, is that it was horribly created. The background layer with the Narrows Bridge in the background
is absolutely awful. The person who created it is trying to give the impression of the helicopter moving laterally at a rapid pace, which it is not,
if you take a good look at the Towers.
The amateur digital video editor who created this scene obviously over compensated and screwed up the entire shot. Let's just say, he would have a
difficult time getting a job in Hollywood with those crappy skills.
