gumboot
13th August 2007, 04:03 AM
The video is revealing. The helicopter is hovering in the same position for a long time, i.e. not moving around or up/down as you would expect
I wouldn't expect anything of the sort. The WESCAM offers a gyro-stabilised camera mount, and is specifically chosen because it offers a very stable platform. That's especially important when operating at the long end of the lens, as was the case with this footage, because even the slightest movement is magnified.
If the technical director wanted a steady long shot of the burning towers, that's what he'd get.
, the camera is just focusing the towers only and not moving around. Quite boring news reporting. You would expect more movement/action.
Why? Would you expect CNN to cut in to an extreme close up of Bruce Willis rappelling down the side of the building?
I assume both the helicopter pilot and the camera man is looking at the towers. It is not clear if there is a third man in the helicopter - a reporter commenting what is to be seen - but I assume so.
You assume wrong. A typical news helicopter has a pilot and a camera operator, and that's it. The Camera operator has his face buried in a monitor for the camera, and the pilot is keeping an eye on surrounding traffic.
Don't they all three see the plane coming from right? They have a fantastic view.Apperently not. They just send a picture to some head office where other people are commenting on the pictures sent.
Pretty much. The chances of them spotting the other airliner are slim. The chance of them predicting what it's going to do is even slimmer. Was there news footage in existence in which the camera man snapped the frame around to follow UA175 in, I would consider it very suspicious.
Then there is this funny BEEP. And here comes the plane in the video small frame! From nowhere!
It didn't come from nowhere. It came from outside the frame.
We see it only two seconds And one commentator - probably the one in the helicopter reports an explosion in the tower. He has not seen the plane - because it has been added to the video between the helicopter and ground station/studio. And another commentator, in the studio jumps in and explains a plane was flying in from the right ... and what the viewers should believe.
The reporter could have been in the street in New York, or back at the studio watching any number of feeds. There's no reason to think they had situational awareness.
The reason why the helicopter + camera is steady is that then you can easily copy paste a pixel plane into the live show after the BEEP in a fixed picture. Not so easy if the helicopter/camera is moving and the picture is moving.
News cameramen always try to get steady images. A cameraman who could not get steady images would quickly find himself unemployed.
To me the video is fake. Why was it faked? Simply to deceive the TV viewers.
They saw it with their own eyes a plane hitting WTC2. Deceived.
I've mentioned it before, but the notion that no aircraft hit the WTC and the footage was faked is the stupidest 9/11 CT. Ever.
You suggest that many people around WTC2 also saw the plane with their own eyes without help of a faked video. Who are they? I doubt they exist.
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people saw UA175 hit WTC2 with their own eyes. It is the most documented accident/attack/news event in the history of the human race.
I imagine some fake witnesses around WTC2 reporting they saw a plane and then others in the vicinity believed that they saw a plane too, etc.
What about Stanley Praimnath?
-Gumboot
I wouldn't expect anything of the sort. The WESCAM offers a gyro-stabilised camera mount, and is specifically chosen because it offers a very stable platform. That's especially important when operating at the long end of the lens, as was the case with this footage, because even the slightest movement is magnified.
If the technical director wanted a steady long shot of the burning towers, that's what he'd get.
, the camera is just focusing the towers only and not moving around. Quite boring news reporting. You would expect more movement/action.
Why? Would you expect CNN to cut in to an extreme close up of Bruce Willis rappelling down the side of the building?
I assume both the helicopter pilot and the camera man is looking at the towers. It is not clear if there is a third man in the helicopter - a reporter commenting what is to be seen - but I assume so.
You assume wrong. A typical news helicopter has a pilot and a camera operator, and that's it. The Camera operator has his face buried in a monitor for the camera, and the pilot is keeping an eye on surrounding traffic.
Don't they all three see the plane coming from right? They have a fantastic view.Apperently not. They just send a picture to some head office where other people are commenting on the pictures sent.
Pretty much. The chances of them spotting the other airliner are slim. The chance of them predicting what it's going to do is even slimmer. Was there news footage in existence in which the camera man snapped the frame around to follow UA175 in, I would consider it very suspicious.
Then there is this funny BEEP. And here comes the plane in the video small frame! From nowhere!
It didn't come from nowhere. It came from outside the frame.
We see it only two seconds And one commentator - probably the one in the helicopter reports an explosion in the tower. He has not seen the plane - because it has been added to the video between the helicopter and ground station/studio. And another commentator, in the studio jumps in and explains a plane was flying in from the right ... and what the viewers should believe.
The reporter could have been in the street in New York, or back at the studio watching any number of feeds. There's no reason to think they had situational awareness.
The reason why the helicopter + camera is steady is that then you can easily copy paste a pixel plane into the live show after the BEEP in a fixed picture. Not so easy if the helicopter/camera is moving and the picture is moving.
News cameramen always try to get steady images. A cameraman who could not get steady images would quickly find himself unemployed.
To me the video is fake. Why was it faked? Simply to deceive the TV viewers.
They saw it with their own eyes a plane hitting WTC2. Deceived.
I've mentioned it before, but the notion that no aircraft hit the WTC and the footage was faked is the stupidest 9/11 CT. Ever.
You suggest that many people around WTC2 also saw the plane with their own eyes without help of a faked video. Who are they? I doubt they exist.
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people saw UA175 hit WTC2 with their own eyes. It is the most documented accident/attack/news event in the history of the human race.
I imagine some fake witnesses around WTC2 reporting they saw a plane and then others in the vicinity believed that they saw a plane too, etc.
What about Stanley Praimnath?
-Gumboot