My favourite: in part 2, approximately 17 minutes from end, the enormous moving bridge!

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

Haven't got to the end yet, but the out of synch visual and sound streams between ABC and CBS may be due to the digital delay in one or more of their satellite feeds or the difference in either digital delay or compression between the two signals being slightly out of adjustment. News steams that are digitally broadcast have built in digital delays to allow for signal multiplexing and compression, and then decoding and synching with other streams, like at an anchor desk in a different location. The digital delay should also require adjustment during a new broadcast, or an out of synch conditon may result (just as observed). The digital delay also allows for signal encryption and communications protection. This is a normal condition in digital communications.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=113590

I haven't looked at the 17 minutes from the end piece yet.

Peter,

You should never have mentioned the audio and video synch issue.....Rigby would never have noticed.



Mike

OK, now that I've seen it, I think it's safe to say, the accusation of "video trickery" in the video feeds of the WTC 1 and 2 attack and collapse, is one of the more desperate and imaginative claims made. Which is saying something.

The Verrazano Bridge is said to be about 2-1/2 miles away from the WTC (in the feed). The bridge is about two miles long (roughly). That means that pretty much any change in perspective in the video streams for 9/11 will provide a different view of the bridge. The youtube presentation tries to imply that the bridge is far enough away that these changes in perspective (along with others images in the screen) prove "image layering", when all that it should mean is a change in the location of the camera.

I'm not a photography expert, but I think its safe to say that minor changes in perspective, keeping the WTC in full frame, would result in the observed changes, instead of being, as these people claim, proof of fakery. Besides, what would be the point? That the whole attack was a put up job? That the tens of thousands of people who saw the second plane hit were deluded? That the masses of film on the second strike were all faked? And everyone involved is in on it? Sure, great, In that case, you should know that the Verrazano Bridge does move, and you can purchase it, take it home with you, and enjoy it, for a very reasonable fee.

This is definitely one of the more entertaining of the 9/11 claims.

Peter,

Im starting to like you more and more all the time!

This is about as hokey as the claims get....but some...ah hem......will still believe them....its that keen observation and deduction we spoke of earlier you see?



Mike

September Clues is such rubbish that is widely discredited even with in the so called “truth movement”.

One example is this point by point refutation of the video from Nick Irving who I’d never heard of before. He addressed the “moving bridge”, his analysis was basically the same as Peter’s and is obviously correct to anyone with minimal understanding of photography and/or perspective something which the maker (and Paul) seems to lack. The distance to the Verrazano Narrows Bridge to the WTC was 7.6 miles according to Google Maps

“This effect is caused by the camera being a fair distance from the Towers, with a collapsed depth of field and zooming-out whilst moving to the left. The Towers - look pretty much the same as the camera is moving gradually to the side. But the effect of the collapsed depth of field is to make the background scenery (including the bridge) which is much farther away than the Towers, appear to move to the left. This is an optical illusion. In any case, it has not been proven that the Towers are on a separate layer to the background imagery as part of a composite.”

http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf *

Another example is “September Clues - Busted!” a debunking video from Anthony Lawson who also made “This is an Orange” cited by Fetzer. Lawson makes a good case that the maker of “documentary” was intentionally deceptive. For example he asked how the woman on 16th St. and 8th Av. could have seen the crash but edited out were she explained her building was the tallest in the area and her apt faced south. Lawson did make a small error, according to Google maps it was 2.05 miles (not 2.8) from that intersection to the WTC site.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=82...LHVDYPi4gK-vZQR **

The towers were clearly visible in this video shot on 6th Av around 4th St. about 1.45 miles from the WTC I.e 7 /10 the distance from the woman’s building.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2UyGQ-6yKbU&...feature=related

I haven’t listened to it yet but here is an interview with Lawson and Jim Hoffman, who is perhaps the best respected researcher in the truth movement, talking about “September Clues - Busted!” and “September Clues”.

http://www.archive.org/download/TruthRevol...20080105TRR.mp3

Here’s is Arabesque another leading truther’s blog entry about the Lawson video http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/s...s-debunked.html

For a debunker POV here is Screw Loose Change’s take on September Clues and the Lawson video.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/searc...ptember%20Clues

Though not about September Clues per se this Eric Salter essay demolishes similar claims made by Ace Baker (who Jack acknowledged faked a photo)
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/Fox5analysis.html

Len

* At one point yesterday the site was down, if its not working try the Google cache version:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:fyaqQ...temberclues.pdf

Or this version
http://twilightpines.com/images/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf

** If the video doesn’t play see the Screw Loose Change page.

Just a small point, but a number of 9/11 researchers have often relied totally on Google, etc, for distances. This is fine if they are going to be indicative or illustrative, but when that distance forms a key part of the argument, I would strongly recommend they (or people relying on that research) check distances using more authoritative sources such as surveyed maps or charts.

Google, though a wonderful tool, has been shown to be inaccurate at times.