Noplaners

[Oliver]

If someone is familiar with 3d-Animation, Video-Manipulation
or Video Anomalies: Feel free to add your points, correct my
lousy "English" or the things I missed:

(@Admins: Every Image is hosted by Sites that allow "Image-
Hosting" ... Plus: It's my very own Article... ) :



__________________________________________________ __

http://www.250kb.de/u/071016/j/9b5fb8ac.jpg


My knowledge and experience with 3D/Video-Software, image
processing and image-manipulation allows me to understand
that nearly every claim regarding Video-manipulation is based
on a lack of comprehension regarding the complexity of this topic.

3d-Technical Difficulties/Impossibilities

1.) Optical Oddities

Some people who believe in TV-Fakery claim that such oddities
like missing wings are evidence for manipulated footage.

Fact: Quite the opposite is true:

If someone "rendered" (3d Image Calculation Process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_rendering)) the Planes
into the Footage, the 3d Renderer wouldn't produce such errors
like the missing Wings in some frames - because 3d Renderer
are literally too accurate/precise to produce such errors.

http://www.250kb.de/u/071016/p/cdee3fbe.png
http://www.250kb.de/u/071016/p/3eb9f821.png

Now 3d Software is able to simulate features like Motion Blur (http://www.spot3d.com/vray/help/150R1/examples_vrayphysicalcamera.htm), which
would result in blurry objects like these ones (http://atec.utdallas.edu/%7Emidori/Handouts/depth_of_field.htm), but even enabled
Motion Blur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur) wouldn't produce such errors like missing wings - which
means that someone would have to produce such errors manually.

The Problem is: The coverage of the events was live. There was
no time to produce such "errors on the fly". And if you synchronize
several different Videos of the second plane, you will find out that
those errors don't happen at the exact same point in time on all
the Videos - So it's safe to say that the source of those errors is
the equipment which took the footage - meaning the cameras
being used.

2.) Camera Tracking

Camera Tracking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_tracking) is very important for the claim that Fakery is
used because what Camera Tracking does, is to add the 3d Plane
at the exact place within the Video as if the 3d-Object was part
of the original footage.

This means that if you move the camera in another direction, if
you zoom in and out - or if you walk around with the camera, the
3d-Object you like to fake INTO the footage, has to behave the
same way: It has to move synchronously to the camera-movement,
the 3d-object has to "grow" and "shrink" while the camera is
zooming and the 3d-Object has to move in a constant manner,
meaning that if you drive or walk around while filming, the 3d
Object has to adopt those movements as well to look authentic.

The Problem is: All those Amateur-Cameras don't have the capability
to record 3d coordinates and Zoom-Information to use such Data to
insert a 3d-Object at a later point. The only solution would be to
insert the Object manually or via the so called 2d-Camera Tracking.

3.) 2d Camera Tracking

2d Camera Tracking (http://www.computerarts.co.uk/tutorials/3d__and__animation/the_rules_of_camera_tracking) is a technique in which software is able to
compare frames to each other to "convert" the camera movement
into 3d-data in order to add a 3d-Object to existing Footage.

Problem is: 2d Camera Tracking needs a lot of time and it doesn't
work if the camera-movement within the footage makes it impossible
for the software to compare 2 frames to each other - meaning
that if you move the camera too fast, the Software isn't able
to detect that the frames belong to each other.

Also the 2d-Tracking wouldn't work if you move your camera
around while filming a clear, blue sky.

4.) Manual Camera Tracking

To insert a 3d Object manually, you need a lot of time on your
Hand and a lot of experience to place the Object at the exact
point where it would have been in the original footage. And we're
talking about several weeks and months here - depending on how
"shaky" the footage is. Plus you have to fake motion Blur of
the moving 3d-Object plus the motion Blur as a result of moving
the camera. Ergo - impossible for live footage. And a source for
lots of errors if you try to simulate an Object authentically within
more than one video - which would be an impossible task in terms
of genuine results.

Acoustic Difficulties

Once you somehow managed to insert a faked Object into your
existing Footage, you will face the next problem to make it - the
3d-Object - look authentic: The Sound

To simulate the Sound of a 3d Plane in existing Footage, you
have to know where the virtual object will be in your footage.
We all know what sound a passing car makes and that the
sound (pitch) itself changes while the car passes (doppler-effect).
Also most cameras are able to capture Stereosound - which means
that the car coming from the left and passing to the right, will be
recorded separately loud on both audio-tracks - depending on
where the object is located in your footage. (...Or will be if you
plan to insert an object afterwards).

The Problems are:

- You need a lot of time to insert the Sound afterwards
- You need authentic sounds of the Object you want to fake
- You need to adjust the Volume for both Audio-tracks
whenever the virtual object passes (Plus adjusting the pitch)

But the biggest problem with the sound is that you need to
have a SOUNDSOURCE, meaning that you would have to place
Loudspeakers all over Manhattan to fool the people on the
streets - and to fool the cameras that recorded the sounds.
Or - like in case of a different plane instead the one in your
existing Footage - a similar sounding object.

Operative Difficulties

1.) Live Manipulation

To manipulate a Video in real-time, you need at least special
and very expensive cameras which are able to record all the
3d Coordinates - unless you use a Steadicam and don't move
or zoom the camera at all. Otherwise it is impossible to render
a Plane into "lively" Footage authentically.

Also the faked object has to look real in the live-environment,
meaning that the Shadows of the added object must be at the
exact point where they would be in the real world. This is
especially important if a plane flies over Buildings - which cast
the shadow of the Object. (In which case you would have to
build a virtual Manhattan beforehand).

Then the lightning is important: The faked object has to adobt
things like Auto-Exposure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography), meaning that if you move the camera
from a dark scene towards a bright one - or towards the sun,
in which the camera will adjust the brightness of the footage,
the 3d Object has to change it's optical appearance in harmony
with the recorded footage.

2.) Post-Manipulation (Amateur-Footage)

I already explained the difficulties regarding the camera-tracking.
Additionally the problem with faked Amateur-Footage is to
collect all of them to manipulate them.

Of course - this means that the Government would have to
make sure that they get their hands on every footage taken
that day - which implies that thousands of agents tracked
down everyone who made amateur-footage that day.

But I guess we can agree that this is straightway ridiculous.

3.) Placed Plane-Parts

To place Plane parts in the middle of the street in a crowded
place like lower Manhattan, you have to understand that you
cannot drop a heavy part like an engine out of nowhere.
You would have to hide big objects, risking that someone
films or witnesses "the uncovering" of those objects.

You could drop those parts from a roof-top, but how did it
get there in the first place and how do you manage to drop
it from there (like a heavy engine).

Or you could drop it from an helicopter - but someone would
have seen the helicopter, or even filmed it.

What about less heavy Plane parts? How do you manage to
place them on the fly? Someone has to carry them around
to place them.

4.) Hologram-Planes

I don't know how much people believe in the Hologram-Theory,
but I will add some thoughts about it nevertheless to explain
the difficulties of such a stunt:

First of all: The Holograms must be visible from any direction, no
matter if at foot-level or from the TV-Helicopters point of view to
capture the Hologram. This means you probably would need
more than one "Hologram"-Projector.

http://xs320.xs.to/xs320/07422/rotate_ground.stucki.gif

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/8441/rotategroundss2jo1.gif

Then you need a kind of "screen" to project the Holograms
into or onto it. Unfortunately, we had a clear blue sky on 9/11.

Then we all know what happens if a room is to bright if
you're projecting a movie onto a silver-screen: You barely
see the projection. With holograms it's the same effect, they
don't work in bright daylight. At least not with todays technique
and especially not within big distances.

Summary

If you understand all the above complications, you may accept
that it would be thousand times easier to fly exactly that into
the towers, what you're later going to tell it was.

I don't say that TV-Fakery isn't possible at all - after all we have
virtual studios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_studio) today, but to archive it you need many expensive,
professional equipment, a lot of people who are 3d-professionals
to edit the Amateur-Videos and make the live-Fakery work. You
need people who place debris, you need a way to simulate
the sound all over Manhattan, you need to "cut out" an exact
shape of the plane out of the Towers and on and on and on...

Maybe you catch my point here: The best way to pull off such
a false-flag - never ever take unnecessary risks, don't let
too much people know about the plot, don't use equipment
which could reveal the the plot, make it as authentic as possible
to avoid lousy, inaccurate Videos revealing the plot. http://209.85.48.11/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

Or in other words:
Use the real Planes if you want to get away with it.


http://www.250kb.de/u/071016/p/f4b639e6.png


Additional information:

Wikipedia - Photoediting Basics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_editing

Camera Tracking:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...2&search=Search (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22camera+tracking%22&search=Search)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...2&search=Search (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%223d+camera+tracking%22&search=Search)

Recent UFO-Fakes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvIAGAKBbEU

Wikipedia - Photography:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography



Everyone who understands this topic: Feel free to edit and
enhance my initial Argumentation since my English sucks...

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

I never realized 3D animation could fool eye-witnesses who saw it live.
It's amazing what technology could do 6 years ago.

[firecoins]

This was a live event caught on camera. Not a filmed event shown to the public at the television station's convienance.

[Oliver]

I never realized 3D animation could fool eye-witnesses who saw it live.


3d Animation is able to fool people...

...but it's a hundred times more easy to use real planes instead.... That's my point here...

[firecoins]

...but it's more easy to use real planes instead.... That's my point here...
oh good. I think red cartoons flying around NY crashing into buildings wouldn't have done much damage.

[Oliver]

oh good. I think red cartoons flying around NY crashing into buildings wouldn't have done much damage.


Well, do you have skills regarding "3d-Graphics" and "Video Anomalies"?
I "painted" it "Red" to make it easier to understand "What is what?"...

[Oliver]

Anyone who knows more about.... :

- 3d Animation
- Holograms
- Video Manipulation
- Video Anomalies

?

[WildCat]

Anyone who knows more about.... :

- 3d Animation
- Holograms
- Video Manipulation
- Video Anomalies

?
Ace Baker was our expert, but he's been banned.

[jsiv]

I worked on holographic projections for cruise missiles during my internship at Area 51 back in the 80s.

[uruk]

There is no known holographic or true 3D projection device that can display a surface with out the other side "ghosting" through.
There is a difference between a hologram and a true 3d display. A hologram is a 3 dimensional image generated from a flat surface and is considered an optical illusion. It would only be viewable from a certain direction.

A true 3D display would be viewable from any angle. But the problem with that is the projected 3d object would have to be a recreation of the light reflecting from the surface of an object. The displayed object would be nothing more than emitted light like the image on a TV or monitor screen.

There would be nothing solid in the image to block the light coming from the surface on the other side of the 3 dimentional object or from any light source on the other side of the object. This is the major setback of all true 3 dimensional display technologies so far.
http://www.physorg.com/news11251.html
http://www.jamesclar.com/store/3dcubewhite/
www.hec.afrl.af.mil/Publications/ASC_00_2307.pdf

The planes would have looked ghostly and transparent.

Ct's will argue that the ever magical government has top secret 3d projectors. The old "you don't know what the government has" argument.

Well, technology is technology and physics is physics and it doesn't stay secret for very long because the government does not make or build anything. They subcontract out to companies and universities to design and build thier top secret devices. And alot of that stuff finds it's way to the public. Global positioning wasn't a secret for very long. niether was the internet. Stealth, advanced targeting/navigation technology.
True 3d volumetric displays would not be the type of thing that would remain a secret at all. Why would the government keep sopmething as innocuous as 3d displays a secret? Decoys?
Decoy technology has never ever been a secret.
And true 3d volumetic display would be too lucrative a technology for the developing comapny to keep under wraps for very long.

Right now the true 3d volumetric projection technology is no where near advanced enough to generate two realistic planes crashing into buildings.

[jaydeehess]

Thank you Oliver, for showing that the Ace Baker's and Morgan Reynolds' of the world have their heads in a very dark place indeed.

Your English was just fine. I had no trouble understanding your points.

[In My Spare Time]

Nice work on this one Oliver. Good analysis and clearly written out.
Too bad the NWO faked all the anomilies using their highly sophisticated 3D rendering software to call people's attention to the anolilies so people thought they were using 3D rendering sofware and simultaniously make it appear impossible they were using 3D rendering software.
So there.

[Bell]

You're forgetting that the NWO has state-of-the-art hardware!


http://blogs.smh.com.au/mashup/images/3_oldphotos22.jpg


http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-cdc-6600.jpg

[boloboffin]

This is nice work. However, I've decided not to dispute TV Fakery or nukes/space beams at the WTC complex. People who would be persuaded by that nonsense aren't people that rational thinking could affect.

At some point, we have to realize that we are dealing, among many, a distinct subset of genuinely insane people. I've put a single person on ignore at DU because he is seriously arguing fhat the Virginia Tech massacre was a black-op to intimidate Judy Wood, who took or taught classes there.

There are just so many hours in the day.

[Bell]

There are just so many hours in the day.

25 to be precise.

[In My Spare Time]

28 hours a day, 6 days a week. (http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/28_hour_day.png)

[Alferd_Packer]

I've put a single person on ignore at DU because he is seriously arguing fhat the Virginia Tech massacre was a black-op to intimidate Judy Wood, who took or taught classes there.




She used to teach at Clemson.

Is she still teaching somewhere? at a High School, maybe?

[Bell]

She used to teach at Clemson.

Is she still teaching somewhere? at a High School, maybe?

Kindergarten?

On the tone of 'the weels on the bus'

And the floors of the towers go
clunkity clunk
clunkity clunk
clunkity clunk

[jhunter1163]

"Clunkity Clunk" was Sofia Shafquat, not Judy Wood. Judy Wood is the space-beam dustification advocate. Opposite sides of the same nutty coin.

[Bell]

"Clunkity Clunk" was Sofia Shafquat, not Judy Wood. Judy Wood is the space-beam dustification advocate. Opposite sides of the same nutty coin.

Oooops... my bad.

[Drudgewire]

She used to teach at Clemson.
Well, Virginia Tech beats Clemson in football every year so close enough.

:(

Oh, and cool pix Oliver.

[hellaeon]

Respectfully, I dont think this is a topic any debunker should be bothered with. It is in the realms of fantasy. Even CD theories have a slight grounding in reality. Pretty cool pictures though!

[parky76]

My neighbor talk pictures of the plane approaching and crashing through the tower. He is not an NWO agent.

[tacodaemon]

Well, Virginia Tech beats Clemson in football every year so close enough.

:(

Oh, and cool pix Oliver.


Judy got all three of her degrees (bachelor's, master's, doctorate) from Virginia Tech and did some postdoc work there before joining the faculty at Clemson. Given that Virginia Tech prides itself on having a world-class engineering department, I can only hope that in her student days she was quite a bit more sane.

[gumboot]

Nice work Oliver. I only have one minor nitpick. Broadcast cameras don't capture sound in stereo.

-Gumboot

[Drudgewire]

Judy got all three of her degrees (bachelor's, master's, doctorate) from Virginia Tech and did some postdoc work there before joining the faculty at Clemson.
When questioned about it, the Va. Tech administration responded "look, we never gave degrees to either of the Vick kids. What more do you want from us?"

[Corsair 115]

This was a live event caught on camera. Not a filmed event shown to the public at the television station's convienance.The second impact was captured from at least forty different angles. That's forty different cameras, forty different locations, forty different operators, some professional news cameramen, the rest just regular folks who had their video cameras handy when history unfolded.

3d Animation is able to fool people...Correction: 3D animation is able to fool some people. I'd rate my eyes' ability to spot CGI effects as quite good. Three things traditionally give away a special effects shot: 1) motion, 2) lighting, and 3) detail. If you know what to look for, there are usually subtle but detectable problems in some or all of these areas which reveal and effects shot to be just that.

[CptColumbo]

There is no known holographic or true 3D projection device that can display a surface with out the other side "ghosting" through.
There is a difference between a hologram and a true 3d display. A hologram is a 3 dimensional image generated from a flat surface and is considered an optical illusion. It would only be viewable from a certain direction.

Right now the true 3d volumetric projection technology is no where near advanced enough to generate two realistic planes crashing into buildings.

But how was that guy able to do it in that "Scooby-Doo" episode with a film projector and a mirror? That was back in the 60s man.

Answer that Fred.





I'm just trying to win a Stundie.

[Brainache]

Nice work Oliver. I only have one minor nitpick. Broadcast cameras don't capture sound in stereo.

-Gumboot

They do if you have a stereo audio mixer plugged into them and a stereo microphone set up.

[gumboot]

They do if you have a stereo audio mixer plugged into them and a stereo microphone set up.

Broadcast cameras typically have two audio channels, but my point was more that stereo sound is not recorded. :) The standard is to have the camera mic on one channel and the reporter's mic on the other (assuming you have a reporter with you).

Even with a stereo microphone connected into both channels, there would be no perceivable stereo effect as the two mics would be too close together (microphones need to be about 30cm apart before picking up sound delay).

Thus conspirators faking UA175 crash footage would not need to accurately reproduce a stereoscopic image (and indeed, much of the footage didn't have sound).

-Gumboot

[Brainache]

Broadcast cameras typically have two audio channels, but my point was more that stereo sound is not recorded. :) The standard is to have the camera mic on one channel and the reporter's mic on the other (assuming you have a reporter with you).

Even with a stereo microphone connected into both channels, there would be no perceivable stereo effect as the two mics would be too close together (microphones need to be about 30cm apart before picking up sound delay).

Thus conspirators faking UA175 crash footage would not need to accurately reproduce a stereoscopic image (and indeed, much of the footage didn't have sound).

-Gumboot

While I agree with what you are saying about there being no need to record in stereo for your average news shoot and that there would have been no reason for any of the people shooting the events that day to be using stereo mics, I should point out that single point stereo mics for use with video cameras are available and I have used them myself.

http://www.myshopping.com.au/PR--113921_Sony_Ecmms957_Stereo_Electret_Condenser_Mic rophone

http://www.myshopping.com.au/PR--113874_Panasonic_VW_VMS1E_Stereo_Microphone

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1997_articles/feb97/stereomiking.html

[Shrinker]

Anyone who knows more about.... :

- 3d Animation
- Holograms
- Video Manipulation
- Video Anomalies

?

Yep, Ollie, that's my field.

Good presentation overall, didn't spot any problems with the English. Great pictures!

If I were to play devil's advocate I'd say 3D animation is entirely capable of missing off the wings randomly in some frames. In fact I once had exactly that problem - one wing on a plane was vanishing inexplicably.

Also, your simplification of the tracking problem has opened you up to counter-debunking ('rebunking' :D). You confuse '3D camera tracking' with '2D point tracking'. '2D camera tracking' is not a term I would use often..

3D camera tracking (as performed by Boujou, 3D Equalizer, Maya Live etc) is indeed time consuming, usually requires human guidance and is extremely prone to error, and that's in 2007. This however applies to VFX applications only. Some realtime tracking systems are emerging and have been doing so for some years (google augmented reality). This industry produces press releases which appear to promise perfect camera matching technology, and thus feed conspiracy theorists fantasies, the reality however is much more mundane, with realtime tracking often glitchy, inaccurate, and operating only within a very narrow range of conditions.

2D point tracking however is very quick and could be done in realtime in 2001 with enough computer power. I saw prototype realtime tracking applications in 1994 that worked on live footage. Again however it is not 100% reliable and is only suitable for very simple camera motion, (such as the one Ace Baker analysed.) Again, live 2D tracking solutions are have been operating, if not widely available for years. Live F1 races had digitally inserted billboards years ago. (2-3 years maybe, but I saw the technology first demoed around 10 years ago.) The weakness of these systems is that they do need a specially prepared environment, ie stand-in billboards of flat colour with well defined edges, or at the least, prominent tracking markers that are unique within the shot. Even with this, the track isn't perfect, and faulty motion would be visible to the naked eye.



Hope that helps a little

[Shrinker]

The second impact was captured from at least forty different angles. That's forty different cameras, forty different locations, forty different operators, some professional news cameramen, the rest just regular folks who had their video cameras handy when history unfolded.

Correction: 3D animation is able to fool some people. I'd rate my eyes' ability to spot CGI effects as quite good. Three things traditionally give away a special effects shot: 1) motion, 2) lighting, and 3) detail. If you know what to look for, there are usually subtle but detectable problems in some or all of these areas which reveal and effects shot to be just that.

Most people say they can spot CGI, but how do they know how much CGI they've missed? ;)

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

On my first day here at JREF, I read a noplaner's claim that NYC on 9/11/01 was a cloudy and overcast day, and included that "fact" as one of his reasons why the planes were faked.

It's amazing how detached from reality these noplaners are.

[Belz...]

25 to be precise.

Only if you take into account the Dark Hour.

[peteweaver]

Brilliant post Oliver, I dabble in 3d art myself, http://iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/scoutship.jpg

http://iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/white-landy-vray.jpg

http://iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/tardisflight.jpg

Though I'm very much a beginner, as my work shows, Your points are absolutely correct. The aeroplane crashes could not have been faked in real time with cgi.

[Oliver]

There is no known holographic or true 3D projection device that can display a surface with out the other side "ghosting" through.
There is a difference between a hologram and a true 3d display. A hologram is a 3 dimensional image generated from a flat surface and is considered an optical illusion. It would only be viewable from a certain direction.

A true 3D display would be viewable from any angle. But the problem with that is the projected 3d object would have to be a recreation of the light reflecting from the surface of an object. The displayed object would be nothing more than emitted light like the image on a TV or monitor screen.

There would be nothing solid in the image to block the light coming from the surface on the other side of the 3 dimentional object or from any light source on the other side of the object. This is the major setback of all true 3 dimensional display technologies so far.
http://www.physorg.com/news11251.html
http://www.jamesclar.com/store/3dcubewhite/
www.hec.afrl.af.mil/Publications/ASC_00_2307.pdf (http://www.hec.afrl.af.mil/Publications/ASC_00_2307.pdf)

The planes would have looked ghostly and transparent.

Ct's will argue that the ever magical government has top secret 3d projectors. The old "you don't know what the government has" argument.

Well, technology is technology and physics is physics and it doesn't stay secret for very long because the government does not make or build anything. They subcontract out to companies and universities to design and build thier top secret devices. And alot of that stuff finds it's way to the public. Global positioning wasn't a secret for very long. niether was the internet. Stealth, advanced targeting/navigation technology.
True 3d volumetric displays would not be the type of thing that would remain a secret at all. Why would the government keep sopmething as innocuous as 3d displays a secret? Decoys?
Decoy technology has never ever been a secret.
And true 3d volumetic display would be too lucrative a technology for the developing comapny to keep under wraps for very long.

Right now the true 3d volumetric projection technology is no where near advanced enough to generate two realistic planes crashing into buildings.


Thank you very much for the Info, Uruk. :)

I see the same Problems regarding Holographic Images - especially
since I can't even imagine Projectors that are able to produce clear
Holograms in a distance of several hundred meters, let alone in bright
daylight on a clear sky.

A NPT'ist at the LC-Forum did exactly that - he's imaging the ultimate
military technology to produce such Holograms, but he's ignoring the
simplest basics of optics.

May I post your Message over there?

[Oliver]

Nice work Oliver. I only have one minor nitpick. Broadcast cameras don't capture sound in stereo.

-Gumboot


I don't know much about Broadcast Videos - but I extracted several
.wav-files from Amateur-Footage and both Audio-Tracks aren't identical.
So I thought they record both tracks independently, don't they? :confused:

I have no other explanation for the differing Audio-Tracks...

ETA: Since you're pretty familiar with Video-Technology - could you
add some points ragarding natural Motion-Blur (missing wings anomaly),
Interlacing and other Anomalies the NPT-People don't understand?

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=TheWebfairy&p=r

[Oliver]

Brilliant post Oliver, I dabble in 3d art myself, http://iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/scoutship.jpg

http://iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/white-landy-vray.jpg

http://iridescent-designs.co.uk/images/tardisflight.jpg

Though I'm very much a beginner, as my work shows, Your points are absolutely correct. The aeroplane crashes could not have been faked in real time with cgi.


Thank you, Peteweaver - that's my thought as well as long
no one is able to explain what their Ideas are how to pull
this off. And I don't even want to get into the "Faces in Smoke"-
theories - as if the "Hologram Producers" desired to add such
clues... :D

And thanks for the Images - they're great for someone who's
pretty new to the "3d World". :)


ETA: If you work with 3d-Max, I uploaded the WTC-Scene for
those who want to understand the events that day:

http://www.uploadfilego.com/download.php?file=36ce07f31b66409651f40e910cd85619

[peteweaver]

Unfortunately Oliver I use caligari truespace...

[BenBurch]

Good prose Oliver! You explained your point well and I agree with it to the degree I've thought about it. Real planes are likely much easier than any SFX fake.

The usual reason for not using a real plane in a video production is the cost of the aircraft you'd sacrifice, but that didn't matter to the folks who did 911.

[Oliver]

Yep, Ollie, that's my field.

Good presentation overall, didn't spot any problems with the English. Great pictures!

If I were to play devil's advocate I'd say 3D animation is entirely capable of missing off the wings randomly in some frames. In fact I once had exactly that problem - one wing on a plane was vanishing inexplicably.

Also, your simplification of the tracking problem has opened you up to counter-debunking ('rebunking' :D). You confuse '3D camera tracking' with '2D point tracking'. '2D camera tracking' is not a term I would use often..

3D camera tracking (as performed by Boujou, 3D Equalizer, Maya Live etc) is indeed time consuming, usually requires human guidance and is extremely prone to error, and that's in 2007. This however applies to VFX applications only. Some realtime tracking systems are emerging and have been doing so for some years (google augmented reality). This industry produces press releases which appear to promise perfect camera matching technology, and thus feed conspiracy theorists fantasies, the reality however is much more mundane, with realtime tracking often glitchy, inaccurate, and operating only within a very narrow range of conditions.

2D point tracking however is very quick and could be done in realtime in 2001 with enough computer power. I saw prototype realtime tracking applications in 1994 that worked on live footage. Again however it is not 100% reliable and is only suitable for very simple camera motion, (such as the one Ace Baker analysed.) Again, live 2D tracking solutions are have been operating, if not widely available for years. Live F1 races had digitally inserted billboards years ago. (2-3 years maybe, but I saw the technology first demoed around 10 years ago.) The weakness of these systems is that they do need a specially prepared environment, ie stand-in billboards of flat colour with well defined edges, or at the least, prominent tracking markers that are unique within the shot. Even with this, the track isn't perfect, and faulty motion would be visible to the naked eye.

Hope that helps a little



Hello Shrinker, :)

I agree that the Wings could seem to look invisible in a view
angles - but that's not conform to the videos the NPT'ists
present, like this one:

http://www.250kb.de/u/071017/j/1fa80d39.jpg
Hotlinking allowed, supported and provided by 250kb.de (http://www.250kb.de)

This is pretty much the bottom-view of the plane and the "upper"
wing seems to be missing completely above the engine. A 3d-
Renderer wouldn't do such errors in this perspective - unless both
wings would show the same phenomena.

Bot of course - the compression of you-tube videos pretty much
kills the motion-blur details anyway...

Sorry for confusing the English terms for 2d-Tracking - I know the
2d point tracking system as being used in sports-coverage, and
as you pointed out, it's rather a source for errors which would
be visible - and as far I know, even todays techniques requires
a preset - meaning the technology doesn't work from a camera
operated in a helicopter. Especially since a plane flying behind
the towers require a separate "tower-layer" to make it disappear,
if you know what I mean.

I doubt that 3d tracking from moving objects like a helicopter
was available back then - or is available today. But maybe you
know more about it?

[uruk]

Thanks Oliver.
Great work BTW.

[Oliver]

Unfortunately Oliver I use caligari truespace...


Hmm, what import file-types does truespace support? I could
export the scene to 3ds, dxf, obj, dwg, wrl...

[steve s]

Hmm, what import file-types does truespace support?

It'll support 3DS object files, but I don't think it imports their scene files, which it sounds like what Oliver has.

ETA:I just checked Caligari's website and it imports SCN files. That's Max's scene format, isn't it?

I cut my teeth on trueSpace back in the early to mid nineties. Unfortunately the overly-friendly interface didn't hold up all that well as they added more features. Then I got into model building using Rhino for a few years. I don't play around with 3D all that much anymore, but when I do I mainly use Blender, which has an even worse interface than trueSpace. But it's powerful and best of all...FREE. I'll check to see if Blender will import 3DS scene files.

Steve S.

[Oliver]

I uploaded the 3ds-export here:

http://www.uploadfilego.com/download.php?file=3ece7684cd33c61993ca0710ffacdc35

The Rar-file includes 2 files including the same objects, but one
file is without preserved Max-Texture coordinates, the other one
is with those coordinates. (Might be more compatible for third-party
software.)

BTW: Does anyone have other models of the WTC-Complex/Lower
Manhattan - or maybe a model of UA175 (United Airlines/Boing 767-222).

[uruk]

But how was that guy able to do it in that "Scooby-Doo" episode with a film projector and a mirror? That was back in the 60s man.

Answer that Fred.





I'm just trying to win a Stundie.

Well obviously a "scooby-snack" was involved.



P.S. Who here does not think that a "Scooby Snack" is a euphamisim for a joint.
Think about it. Shaggy looked and talked like a hippy and was constantly hungry.

Explain that one away!

[uruk]

Thank you very much for the Info, Uruk. :)

I see the same Problems regarding Holographic Images - especially
since I can't even imagine Projectors that are able to produce clear
Holograms in a distance of several hundred meters, let alone in bright
daylight on a clear sky.

A NPT'ist at the LC-Forum did exactly that - he's imaging the ultimate
military technology to produce such Holograms, but he's ignoring the
simplest basics of optics.

May I post your Message over there?

Please do.

I had an e-mail conversation with a researcher who came up with a method of generating a 3d volumetric image within a tantalum niobate cube. She stated that they were working on the "ghosting" problem with surfaces but said the problem was 'A tough one to crack".
The cube was only 3 inches on a side. Not nearly big enough to generate a full sized airplane. And even then the image could only be within the cube. (I wish I still had the e-mail , but I never saved it and it was on a now defunct e-mail service provider)

That Japanese company has come closest to generating a free floating image just like in Star Wars, but as you can see the image is only generated from dots at the moment and only a couple of feet from the projector.

There is no 3d volumetric display present that can generate a image that reacts naturaly to light, much less project a life size aircraft for any significant distance.

Also laser beams diverge quite abit over long distance through air. Try shining a laser pointer on an object that is over a 75 feet away from you. The dot gets quite large.

[Shrinker]

Hello Shrinker, :)

I agree that the Wings could seem to look invisible in a view
angles - but that's not conform to the videos the NPT'ists
present, like this one:

http://www.250kb.de/u/071017/j/1fa80d39.jpg
Hotlinking allowed, supported and provided by 250kb.de (http://www.250kb.de)

This is pretty much the bottom-view of the plane and the "upper"
wing seems to be missing completely above the engine. A 3d-
Renderer wouldn't do such errors in this perspective - unless both
wings would show the same phenomena.

Bot of course - the compression of you-tube videos pretty much
kills the motion-blur details anyway...

Sorry for confusing the English terms for 2d-Tracking - I know the
2d point tracking system as being used in sports-coverage, and
as you pointed out, it's rather a source for errors which would
be visible - and as far I know, even todays techniques requires
a preset - meaning the technology doesn't work from a camera
operated in a helicopter. Especially since a plane flying behind
the towers require a separate "tower-layer" to make it disappear,
if you know what I mean.

I doubt that 3d tracking from moving objects like a helicopter
was available back then - or is available today. But maybe you
know more about it?

Here's some examples of 3D tracking. Note the system is tracking one object via a static camera. This is exactly the same principle as tracking a moving camera, provided the camera is filming a static scene. It's just a matter of inverting the transform matrix. (Sorry I just love saying stuff like that...)

Also note, while it's pretty darned clever it's not so accurate that you want to build a massive global conspiracy on it.

pEen5blAAeE

You mention the need for a tower layer for masking. In is possible to do this. Virtual Studio systems even back in 2000, allow for the creation of masking objects that exist in 3D space, but again, accuracy would be an issue.

It's not true about the wings. Unless you use 3D software every day, you might be surprised what can go wrong. Objects randomly failing to render is just one of the many joys of CGI. Also realtime rendering systems are prone to sorting errors which can make bits of things disappear. You see this in some videogames from time to time.

You're right however that the no-planer claims are wrong because poor resolution, compression, and importantly noise-reduction algorithms can make fast moving objects disappear. Motion blur is also a significant factor. Blurred dark objects against light backgrounds can very easily appear to vanish.

Hope this helps you out some. I find debunking the CGI claims of no-planers a little difficult since there is a principle in visual effects: never say 'impossible', say 'expensive'. Those who say this thing or that thing is impossible underestimate the ingenuity of the industry, especially when there's big bucks involved.

[CptColumbo]

Well obviously a "scooby-snack" was involved.



P.S. Who here does not think that a "Scooby Snack" is a euphamisim for a joint.
Think about it. Shaggy looked and talked like a hippy and was constantly hungry.

Explain that one away!
Don't change the subject.:)

[Oliver]

Here's some examples of 3D tracking. Note the system is tracking one object via a static camera. This is exactly the same principle as tracking a moving camera, provided the camera is filming a static scene. It's just a matter of inverting the transform matrix. (Sorry I just love saying stuff like that...)

Also note, while it's pretty darned clever it's not so accurate that you want to build a massive global conspiracy on it.

pEen5blAAeE

You mention the need for a tower layer for masking. In is possible to do this. Virtual Studio systems even back in 2000, allow for the creation of masking objects that exist in 3D space, but again, accuracy would be an issue.

It's not true about the wings. Unless you use 3D software every day, you might be surprised what can go wrong. Objects randomly failing to render is just one of the many joys of CGI. Also realtime rendering systems are prone to sorting errors which can make bits of things disappear. You see this in some videogames from time to time.

You're right however that the no-planer claims are wrong because poor resolution, compression, and importantly noise-reduction algorithms can make fast moving objects disappear. Motion blur is also a significant factor. Blurred dark objects against light backgrounds can very easily appear to vanish.

Hope this helps you out some. I find debunking the CGI claims of no-planers a little difficult since there is a principle in visual effects: never say 'impossible', say 'expensive'. Those who say this thing or that thing is impossible underestimate the ingenuity of the industry, especially when there's big bucks involved.


The "Magic Symbol"-video is nice - but it doesn't convince me
at all if this is todays high-end-technology, especially since the
real-time models aren't rendered in a Global Illumination environment.
And I don't even mention the 2d- or 3d-Motion Blur which also
requires some time to calculate, especially 3d-Motion-Blur.

No MB:
http://250kb.de/u/071017/j/d21ecee9.jpg

Image-based MB:
http://250kb.de/u/071017/j/5f2e2e9a.jpg

3d-calculated MB:
http://250kb.de/u/071017/j/7a3c7441.jpg

How would you explain a "missing wing" in a perspective like this
one while the other wing is still visible? :confused:

Now I know that 3d-Software isn't always capable to produce the
images the way you intended/imagined in the first place, so let me ask:

If someone would try to alter the Amateur-Footage, how would you
add an additional object to the footage ... I guess you know how hard
it is to get the correct lighting, camera-movement-blur, zoom-
blur, object-motion-blur and so on?

And how would you manage to represent the correct flight-path in all
those amateur-videos?

I know that "Virtual Studio" is capable to use layers to solve
the problem. But we're talking about entire lower Manhattan
here - not a little studio preset. :p

[Oliver]

Here's an image from Killtown's Forum:

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/9231/paxtvva1.gif

Maybe someone is able to explain how the wing "disappeared" in this footage...

[qarnos]

The "Magic Symbol"-video is nice - but it doesn't convince me
at all if this is todays high-end-technology, especially since the
real-time models aren't rendered in a Global Illumination environment.
And I don't even mention the 2d- or 3d-Motion Blur which also
requires some time to calculate, especially 3d-Motion-Blur.

No MB:
http://250kb.de/u/071017/j/d21ecee9.jpg

Image-based MB:
http://250kb.de/u/071017/j/5f2e2e9a.jpg

3d-calculated MB:
http://250kb.de/u/071017/j/7a3c7441.jpg

How would you explain a "missing wing" in a perspective like this
one while the other wing is still visible? :confused:

Well, you could make a wing disappear intentionally. :)

[Oliver]

Well, you could make a wing disappear intentionally. :)


*lol* :D Yes, you "could". But this is a straightway stupid thing to do. :p

The question is: "Why did the wing disappear in this footage?":
http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/9231/paxtvva1.gif

Maybe Gumboot knows the answer...

[Oliver]

I guess I found the answer - it's a compression issue:
(JPEG/MPEG encoding) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Encoding)

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7586/ffffffdu9.gif
Hotlinking allowed and provided by ImageShack (http://reg.imageshack.us/content.php?page=faq)

[Shrinker]

The "Magic Symbol"-video is nice - but it doesn't convince me
at all if this is todays high-end-technology, especially since the
real-time models aren't rendered in a Global Illumination environment.
And I don't even mention the 2d- or 3d-Motion Blur which also
requires some time to calculate, especially 3d-Motion-Blur.

Quite so, but motion blur can be tackled by brute force computing power. Global Illumination can be faked by precomputing occlusion maps as ILM did on Pearl Harbour. :)


How would you explain a "missing wing" in a perspective like this
one while the other wing is still visible? :confused: Compression would be the first suspect.

Now I know that 3d-Software isn't always capable to produce the
images the way you intended/imagined in the first place, so let me ask:

If someone would try to alter the Amateur-Footage, how would you
add an additional object to the footage ... I guess you know how hard
it is to get the correct lighting, camera-movement-blur, zoom-
blur, object-motion-blur and so on?

The issue is not technology. The technology exists to do all of these, it's just very very difficult and requires both artistic and technical skills in large volumes. This is the probem with the debate. I find the no-planer CGI claims laughable, because I know how difficult they would be to achieve, but debunkers claims that they are impossible are flawed and vulnerable to counter-debunking since they often rely on many absolutes. 'This didn't exist.' 'This is impossible' etc.

I'm just doing what truthers claim we never do, critically reviewing claims from our own side.


And how would you manage to represent the correct flight-path in all
those amateur-videos?
You only animate the planes once. Then match the position of each camera and its orientation. When the view through each camera is rendered the planes will then automatically take the correct trajectories.

I know that "Virtual Studio" is capable to use layers to solve
the problem. But we're talking about entire lower Manhattan
here - not a little studio preset. :pAha, no we're not. If you only count live feeds, UA175 probably didn't go behind more than half a dozen buildings. In some feeds only the towers would be needed.


Hehe, it's kinda fun playing the truther side.:)

[uruk]

I guess I found the answer - it's a compression issue:
(JPEG/MPEG encoding) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Encoding)

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7586/ffffffdu9.gif
Hotlinking allowed and provided by ImageShack (http://reg.imageshack.us/content.php?page=faq)

Right on the nose. You can see how bad the pixelation noise is in the sky surrounding the airplane. Mpeg compression is a "lossy" compression algorithym. It tosses out alot of the image data. It also uses a color averaging algorithym that can replace or remove detail from an object in an image that has an area that is similar in color to it surroundings. Especially where there is heavy compression rate and movement.

You see this type of pixelation error and color averaging on digital satellite or cable TV when there is alot of movement in the picture.

[Oliver]

Quite so, but motion blur can be tackled by brute force computing power. Global Illumination can be faked by precomputing occlusion maps as ILM did on Pearl Harbour. :)

Compression would be the first suspect.
The issue is not technology. The technology exists to do all of these, it's just very very difficult and requires both artistic and technical skills in large volumes. This is the probem with the debate. I find the no-planer CGI claims laughable, because I know how difficult they would be to achieve, but debunkers claims that they are impossible are flawed and vulnerable to counter-debunking since they often rely on many absolutes. 'This didn't exist.' 'This is impossible' etc.

I'm just doing what truthers claim we never do, critically reviewing claims from our own side.

You only animate the planes once. Then match the position of each camera and its orientation. When the view through each camera is rendered the planes will then automatically take the correct trajectories.

Aha, no we're not. If you only count live feeds, UA175 probably didn't go behind more than half a dozen buildings. In some feeds only the towers would be needed.


Hehe, it's kinda fun playing the truther side.:)


Well, of course you could use a pre-computed flight path matching
the camera position - but how would that work with the helicopter
cams? You could transfer the data via GPS, but what about the
camera-angle and altitude? Sorry, but even thinking about all the
complications is pretty ridiculous, "Mr. Truther". :D :p

The biggest Problem I see is that all the Stations that provided
live-feed, where involved as well - after all, the Helicopter Crew
would have seen the Plane. ;)

And someone would have provided the Hardware enabling such
a stunt - but the NPT'ists probably suspect NSA-Agents in every
Media-Department anyway.

[gumboot]

It's worth pointing out that all this amateur and broadcast footage would have been captured in DV format, and DV's poor chroma subsampling (4:1:1) makes it one of the worst possible formats to attempt a chroma key on.

-Gumboot

[R.Mackey]

Let me add to the others and say, Oliver, nice OP. Well argued, thorough, and clearly presented.

Of course, someone will chime in here soon and say "you've fallen for disinfo -- why don't you address the 'real' arguments?" whatever those might be...

Let me also make a bold prediction: While full 3-D holographic imagery does not exist that can fool people in realistic outdoor situations, when it eventually does, the first place you will see it fielded... is at Disneyland.

[Oliver]

It's worth pointing out that all this amateur and broadcast footage would have been captured in DV format, and DV's poor chroma subsampling (4:1:1) makes it one of the worst possible formats to attempt a chroma key on.

-Gumboot


I think I don't understand the relevance of the chroma-key
here. Are you referring to "Blue/Green screening"-techniques? :confused:

[Oliver]

Let me add to the others and say, Oliver, nice OP. Well argued, thorough, and clearly presented.

Of course, someone will chime in here soon and say "you've fallen for disinfo -- why don't you address the 'real' arguments?" whatever those might be...

Let me also make a bold prediction: While full 3-D holographic imagery does not exist that can fool people in realistic outdoor situations, when it eventually does, the first place you will see it fielded... is at Disneyland.


That's another good point, R.Mackey - I don't understand
why the military would be interested in developing or using
such Hologram-technique in the first place. (Ehm, other than
pulling off 9/11... ) :p

[R.Mackey]

That's another good point, R.Mackey - I don't understand
why the military would be interested in developing such
Hologram-technique in the first place. (Ehm, other than
pulling off 9/11... ) :p

Oh, I can think of some spectacularly good reasons -- just none that would be remotely practical. Stealth, for instance, covering aircraft, warships, or troop movements with neutral scenery. Decoys to attract ground fire and confuse interceptors. Or plain ol' deterrence, much like the cardboard tanks we had on the ground in Saudi Arabia in 1990.

Of course, it makes no sense at all to expose a gajillion-dollar, precision optical transmitter to enemy fire just to throw some fake images when a drone plane with a jamming pod will do the job just as well...

There may be military study of holographics for things like cockpit displays, training, and strategy exercises; nothing that could be adapted to a "No Planes" scenario, but still impressive. It's been a few years since I've been to DARPATech (http://www.arpa.mil/DARPATech2007/index.html). That would be the first place to look. But keep in mind the vast majority of things that show up here never pan out at all.

ETA: This article (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/23/iraq/main608141.shtml) makes mention of holography as camouflage for submarines as a DARPA project. I suspect they may be referring to sonic holography. In any case DARPA projects have a fixed timetable, and if this was underway in 2004, it's past its pull date and thus probably didn't work out -- or did it??? [/tinfoilhat]

[gumboot]

I think I don't understand the relevance of the chroma-key
here. Are you referring to "Blue/Green screening"-techniques? :confused:


Yes. That's what chroma keying is.

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Yes. That's what chroma keying is.

-Gumboot


But this isn't relevant at all to render a plane into
existing footage. By that I mean that the chroma
key isn't relevant for this type of fakery.

[gumboot]

But this isn't relevant at all to render a plane into
existing footage. By that I mean that the chroma
key isn't relevant for this type of fakery.


Some Conspiracy Theorists, such as Ace Baker, content that the aircraft was shot separately and then the WTC back ground was keyed into it. That methodology relies on a clean separation between the aircraft and the sky, which DV won't give you.

-Gumboot

[Shrinker]

Well, of course you could use a pre-computed flight path matching
the camera position - but how would that work with the helicopter
cams? You could transfer the data via GPS, but what about the
camera-angle and altitude? Sorry, but even thinking about all the
complications is pretty ridiculous, "Mr. Truther". :D :p


Tut tut Oliver, you must know that some 3D trackers, even off-the-shelf solutions like MatchMover Pro allow you to enter reference geometry to aid the track. So in this case, the evil conspirators, feed in an accurate model of the Twin Towers and one or two other relevant landmarks into their custom system. This helps the tracker work out where the camera is. <cough> In theory...



The biggest Problem I see is that all the Stations that provided
live-feed, where involved as well - after all, the Helicopter Crew
would have seen the Plane. ;)



More than that, they would have to have rehearsed the whole thing so that the CGI guys would know what kinds of angles the cameras would catch. On the day, they'd have had to go through probably several hours of set-up and tracking calibration, and when the action started they'd be working to a precise script.

And someone would have provided the Hardware enabling such
a stunt - but the NPT'ists probably suspect NSA-Agents in every
Media-Department anyway.

The entire department, if not the entire company would have to be in on it. The nature of the TV facilities I've worked in means very little can be kept secret between departments. What cannot be kept secret, is the fact that some aspect of programming is being kept secret. And secrets just make people gossip and speculate even more. (see the 'zero hour' thread for an example ;) )

For me, the biggest problem is that six years have passed and nobody has found any genuine anomaly despite the most concerted and desperate efforts. If they're CGI shots they still appear utterly flawless, from tracking, through rendering, compositing and down to the exact simulation of camera artifacting. Technologically speaking, there is no single absolute obstacle to achieving this, but the scale of manpower, custom development, and sheer artistic genius required is staggering. And the amount of good luck to get it all to work live...:eek: It would be like secretly rigging a 110 story building for demolition during a lunchbreak, and then setting off the bangs using matches and fuses.

Excuse my long winded replies - it's not often that I get to apply my knowledge around here. :)

[uruk]

But this isn't relevant at all to render a plane into
existing footage. By that I mean that the chroma
key isn't relevant for this type of fakery.

you are right.

Chromakeying, blue/green screen is used in compositing an element over another element.

In the chromakeying and blue/greenscreen you have a situation called spill where the the color your using to separate the background from the object you are filming spills over or reflects off the object. You get a situation where that part of the object which is reflecting the background color gets subtracted in the compositing process. That part of the object disappears in the final process.

The spill problem only occures if you are filming miniatures or models in front of a blue/green screen.

Spill is not a problem with CG elements because you would use the alpha channel instead of chromakeying.

Compositing software like After Effects, Nuke, flame, etc... use the alpha channel generated during the CG rendering processe when compositing CG elements onto a background elements. A black and white, high contrast cutout is generated during the rendering process in the 3D CG software. It is essentally a mask or matte (if you're familiar with photoshop) That alpha channel is used by the compositing software to remove the background from the rendered CG frames so that it will superimpose cleanly over a different background element.

Barring any software glitches, The wing would not disappear in a CG element due to the compositing process or rendering process. And even then a software glitch would most likey cause the a part of the object to dissapear on random frames, not consecutive frames.

The most likely explination for the wing dissapearing is the heavy MPEG compression.

[uruk]

Oh yea, I forgot to add:

MPG compression can cause consecutive frame errors because the algorithym is constantly comparing one frame to the next to find out what image information to keep and which throw away.

So if a software glitch causes a part of the object to dissapear in one frame the error gets transferred to the next frame and the next and the next, untill there is full frame dump. Which usually occures when there is a big movement shift in the image and the comparison process starts over again.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

It's important to remember that many truthers rely on videos that have been compressed and had their formats converted so many times, that they're relying on a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy to be "better" than original footage.