Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,018 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,096,758
Pageviews Today: 1,982,254Threads Today: 876Posts Today: 15,241
10:23 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points

 
eyeDR3  (OP)

User ID: 82694641
United States
02/25/2023 09:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Fully caught up here now

Thank you ALL endlessly for reading and talking here.
:memorybanner:
Eireann

User ID: 82958148
United States
02/25/2023 09:47 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Good read.

However, even if there were no planes, it doesn't explain why my friend Chris is dead (AA Flight 11) and his wife Cindy is a widow having to raise their son alone.

What happened to Chris if there were no planes?? He's quite dead, missing, not in this world, vanished, so what happened to him??
 Quoting: Eireann


Wow that's so sad!

Where's his body?

Literally where did he and the others go?

Heartbreaking.

I dunno buddy...

But not here.

I think they offloaded and killed these people.
 Quoting: eyeDR3

JustTX said the same thing. I can't believe that all of these years later, I'm still grieving like it happened yesterday and Chris' son is now a grown man!

Chris played the French Horn. His father was a composer and conductor for a small orchestra. He and I used to talk about music and what not when we were working together. He had the most infectious laugh. What a horrible end for a God-fearing, patriot American!!!
Eireann~

I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 85158583
United States
02/25/2023 09:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
You hVe a lot of basics wrong about analog TV resolutions. Look up NTSC standards that were implemented in 1941. And while you're at it look up ATSC that came to pass in the 1990s
Grove Street (Redux 3.0)

User ID: 85003305
United States
02/25/2023 09:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points

And this is why we can't have nice things.
JustmeTX

User ID: 84369183
United States
02/25/2023 10:02 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Interesting...

So many experts from different fields have examined 9-11 with their particular skillset and concluded it was a government operation, myself included.

We have Professor Niels Harrit who had deep technical knowledge of particulate chemistry, who analyzed the WTC dust and gave us his proof that there was this new military tech nanothermite throughout the dust. (The proof being the magnified images of the sol gel produced reactants, the in lab witnessed exothermic reaction of some unreacted chips,
and the photographic evidence of the iron microspheres, which the thermite reaction produces. The reaction makes molten iron as a product. Issuing forth from microscopic scale reactants, it is spit through the air, achieving a near weightless trajectory for the moment needed for the iron to solidify into microspheres. A truly beautiful proof.
Not theory. Proof. Unfortunately most Americans lack the background to understand the proof, or there would be no more debate).


[link to podcasts.apple.com (secure)]

We have myself, with deep chemical engineering knowledge that further proved a thermitic material was used to bring down the towers. (The persistence of the molten temperatures in the rubble pile for 30+ days can only be explained by a highly exothermic thermitic reaction. The rubble pile becomes it's own bounded environment which increased in temperature from the forward progress of the thermite reaction, until a certain critical temperature was reached, at which point Le Chatelier's principle stabilized the reaction (dynamic reaction equilibrium). This dynamic equilibrium temperature is near the melting point of iron obviously. The principle states that increases in reaction products will slow the reaction. Since heat is a reaction product, increased temperatures slow the forward reaction progress until it stabilizes at a certain temperature. Like a great chemical thermostat! Until the excess thermite reactants are consumed it will continue to hold that temperature.
Again, this is Proof. Unfortunately most Americans lack the background to understand the proof, or there would be no more debate).

Then we have a gentleman from Holland (Danny Jowenko) who was a world class expert in building demolition. He viewed the 9-11 footage and said that this was controlled demolition. Absolutely. He gave his proofs which again were over the heads of 99.9% of humanity. But with his particular skill set, he proved the 3 buildings were dropped by controlled demolition. They at first falsified news that he recanted his "on video" comments that it was a controlled demolition. A few years went by and a random guy called him on a youtube video and he reiterated that it was definitely a controlled demolition. Poor Danny died in an auto accident right after that. Obviously murdered to shut him up.

Then we have the Wil-E Coyote experimental engineer (David Chandler) who actually made the simple version of a steel cutting thermite, invented and tested methods for small amounts of it to be used to cut through the WTC beams. Brilliant demonstration in a video only a few minutes long.
And it makes explosive puff blasts while it reacts, the same as was seen at the WTC. and it also shows the molten iron being produced from the reaction.




Then we have all the fire fighters who
may not be chemical geniuses, but they certainly knew that they had been blown up by a bomb in the lobby before the collapse. And others that saw the rivers of molten iron issuing forth from the reactions, running along the channel rails of the building, and making the beautiful molten iron "waterfalls" we all saw pouring out of the buildings.

And we have testimonies that 3 windowless vans visited the WTC nightly around 3 am for at least 30 days before 9-11, no doubt bringing in the nanothermite. Probably between 100 and 200 tons of it in total, to be planted in the locations needed to cut the massive steel supports to accomplish step 1 of the professional demolition process, and then step 2, the sequential times blasts that progress from the upper parts to the lower parts of the towers.

And we have the pilots and other aviation experts who viewed the problem with their skill sets. And their revelations that the speeds clocked on the local radar towers showed flight speeds (over 500 knots!) that were simply impossible for the 767/757 class of Boeing airliners to achieve in the dense air of near ground level flight. (The planes did not have nearly the power required to push those craft at those speeds through the dense air near sea level. And even if they did, the plane could not survive or be navigated at those speeds.
Panels would rip off the planes, control surfaces would flutter and become useless. Control surfaces may also be enveloped by the air zone of convergence which develops in high flow regimes. if this zone of convergence occurs at a control surface, you have NO CONTROL. The US learned this lesson the hard way during the development of the P-38 in WWII. They had to install "dive brakes" to slow the plane in a dive, or it would lose control and crash. Later they extended the twin booms to put the tail of the planes further aft, outside of the zone of convergence.

The pilots of these airliners also point out that flying one of these jets has a very different "glass HMI cockpit" that someone with brief training in a Cessna would be unable to operate. "this ain't like dusting crops kid", comes to mind.

I am probably missing a few of the proofs.
 Quoting: JustmeTX


Okay I believe.

Do you think helicopters were involved in triggering the top down implosion or was it the "planes?"

The planes seem like the great distraction and that's where all the holes show up...

Passports... Box cutters... Calling on a 2001 cellphone to the ground...

So what caused the full reaction?

I'll reread your post because maybe you put that in there and I missed it...

Israeli art project?
 Quoting: eyeDR3


Sorry for the typos in the previous post, but I think the correct words are pretty obvious.

Planes were irrelevant to the tower demolitions. If they existed, they were not commercial planes. This is for certain. Even Boeing (their phone rep) confirmed their planes could not achieve these speeds at low level flight.

The planes were merely the illusion the government was selling, in order to lay blame elsewhere. The first rule of these psyops is to give the public someone to blame.

The planes HAD to hit the towers for the psyop to work.
You certainly don't leave that to chance. And certainly not with neophytes at the controls. If some sort of military drone plane was used that could manage the speeds and be remote controlled, I could buy that. Obviously no super skilled pilot will volunteer for this mission, so it the planes, if they existed were remote controlled planes or drones. Maybe they were given a paint job to resemble a commercial plane. If they existed. Aluminum skinned planes would also bounce off the face of the building. Try throwing an aluminum beer can through a steel wall sometime. Probably going to bounce off it. SO I tend to think no planes hit the towers, but again, this is a finer plot point not relevant to what caused the collapse.

Command and control would have been from Building 7, the heavily fortified bunker of the government spook squad.
Maybe they used a helicopter to give them closer video footage.

The "Roadrunner" shape left by the supposed airplane was easily blasted by the Israeli "Art students" If you take one look at a photo of them, it screams "Mad bomber". They removed a window and built a damned scaffold deck on the outside of the WTC floor they were on. Not sure the exact floor but I bet it was very close to plane impact point.
So they planted the pyrotechnic display that was the "Fireball" of the plane crash, and they planted the charges that cut the Roadrunner shape into the tower. They had climbing rigs and all the climbing gear. These bomb monkeys were swinging all over those buildings inside and out. They even gave themselves a name, then changed it because it was a little too "on the nose" as they say.
Going from memory they called themselves the "B-thing" Then the "E-Team", then "Gelatin" . They would do well on the old TV show "Password". Gelatin explosives, B thing would be a bomb thing, and E-Team would be the "Explosives team".

Americans are incredibly stupid and didn't take notice of the names. I suppose if they called themselves the "mad bomber team that blew up your World Trade Center on 9-11", then maybe someone would have noticed.

Hell, Americans didn't even notice when the BBC reporter said on LIVE TV that WTC-7 had collapsed, while it was visible behind her on live TV! Even after it was pointed out on videos later.


Magicians can make spectacular things happen in view of the public. Didn't one make the Statue of Liberty disappear?
I seem to recall that advertised. I never watched it.

Can they make it look like planes hit some towers? You Betcha! Jet engine sounds could also simply be played over a loud sound system.
 Quoting: JustmeTX


Would you believe me if I told you I met a man that was working air traffic control that morning?

From him specifically, he says the planes went into an erratic flight path, basically circling or turning completely around, and then get this...

They DROPPED OFF RADAR.

How? Fucking HOW?

Then they "reappeared" right before they did their dirty on the towers.

The commercial planes WERE real. They were swapped upon rerouting and everyone aboard them was executed swiftly.

This dude wouldn't have ever told me that if we didn't bring up Jesus and our faith... He confided in me while I was doing construction cleaning on his home why he had doubts in the world and felt like we were in apocalypse.

He was a witness to this but he keeps his mouth shit otherwise he'd be LONG gone.

Crazy crazy.

People wonder how such a far reaching plot can be so misconstrued or understood but you see, people CHOOSE to hide the TRUTH so they can keep jobs, friendships or some vestige of sanity.
 Quoting: eyeDR3


Yes, that would make sense.
The tower tracks the transponders I think more than the radar, so the commerical plane turns off its transponder and then a few seconds later the same transponder signal is turned on in the drone plane.

It is known as "Operation Northwoods" I believe going from memory. They have had that plan on the books since the Cuban missile crisis. They were going to fake a downed US airliner over Cuba as a pretense for war on Cuba.

The DOD was running fake air defense simulations all that morning, so fake radar images were supposedly showing up and cluttering the screens of the ATC system.

The controllers had no idea what was real and what was a simulation that they were running.

Last Edited by JustmeTX on 02/25/2023 10:04 AM
Justme
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 85070346
Canada
02/25/2023 10:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
I know it's really long but it covers a lot.

The gyst...

Tech has radically changed and progressed. Today we could pull this off all the same, but in many ways not as well.

Low resolution analog interlaced displays and hyper advanced tech that at the time we couldn't fathom were used to fool us.

Yes in nearly "real time." (Within minutes)

Project blue beam WILL work. At least at first.

All of us that call it out will be called the crazy ones.

Recording on your phone, they could literally deliver realtime AR deception overlaying "real" devices.

Imagine a shit ton of drones or satellites that can act like "pixels" or tracking devices to overlay using CGI.

A little DJI drone could become a terrifying alien UFO with some simple tracking, CGI and AR overlay. You wouldn't even know because the only way you could record this event would be using probably a smartphone. Even then it would look like shit and wouldn't mean anything.

You'd have to be using straight up analog cameras and scopes to prove to people the fakery and at that point it's either too late or you'd have to have converted it to digital which understandably cannot be trusted.

I really think they can pull this off now...

They might even be able to use AI as a scapegoat if they get caught when in fact that is partially what will help deliver this event.

Everyone's phone when receiving the Emergency Notification could be essentially hacked with code that could utilize AR anytime it records a particular device.

You could be looking at a QR code covered plane or drone with your own eyes but on every device you see alien craft.

They showed this as predictive programming in spiderman far from home and literally called out project bluebeam.

Disney and Marvel (same company now as was predicted in the 90s) tell some truths in their movies.

Captain America The Winter Soldier specifically documents mk ultra, operation paperclip and false flags, all straight up called out by name! Not in some mystical fictional way but by literal military ops!

By no coincidence!

Disney was literally taken over by the CIA folks.

They give us previews of some tech at their parks and in their movies.

Walt warned us about ALL of this!

They're basically using highly advanced realtime ultra realistic rotoscoping!
 Quoting: eyeDR3


What comes to mind here is that recent Spider-Man movie with Jake Gyllen guy using drones to create his illusions and destruction. I think this is exactly how it will be executed. Thanks for your analysis.
eyeDR3  (OP)

User ID: 82694641
United States
02/25/2023 03:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
You hVe a lot of basics wrong about analog TV resolutions. Look up NTSC standards that were implemented in 1941. And while you're at it look up ATSC that came to pass in the 1990s
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 85158583


It might not be exact on res but like I said I was just relaying things to the best of my ability in layman's from my memory.

I'm familiar with PAL also.

Resolution really wasn't even talked about much until we were moving on to digital.

Remember, some people thought HD was "silly" and they didn't get how big the transition from analog to digital was as well as moving from CRT to lcd/rear projection.

People were way more oblivious.

This was really just part 1.

We're now primed and ready to go for part 2. We're very close.
:memorybanner:
eyeDR3  (OP)

User ID: 82694641
United States
02/25/2023 03:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
...


Okay I believe.

Do you think helicopters were involved in triggering the top down implosion or was it the "planes?"

The planes seem like the great distraction and that's where all the holes show up...

Passports... Box cutters... Calling on a 2001 cellphone to the ground...

So what caused the full reaction?

I'll reread your post because maybe you put that in there and I missed it...

Israeli art project?
 Quoting: eyeDR3


Sorry for the typos in the previous post, but I think the correct words are pretty obvious.

Planes were irrelevant to the tower demolitions. If they existed, they were not commercial planes. This is for certain. Even Boeing (their phone rep) confirmed their planes could not achieve these speeds at low level flight.

The planes were merely the illusion the government was selling, in order to lay blame elsewhere. The first rule of these psyops is to give the public someone to blame.

The planes HAD to hit the towers for the psyop to work.
You certainly don't leave that to chance. And certainly not with neophytes at the controls. If some sort of military drone plane was used that could manage the speeds and be remote controlled, I could buy that. Obviously no super skilled pilot will volunteer for this mission, so it the planes, if they existed were remote controlled planes or drones. Maybe they were given a paint job to resemble a commercial plane. If they existed. Aluminum skinned planes would also bounce off the face of the building. Try throwing an aluminum beer can through a steel wall sometime. Probably going to bounce off it. SO I tend to think no planes hit the towers, but again, this is a finer plot point not relevant to what caused the collapse.

Command and control would have been from Building 7, the heavily fortified bunker of the government spook squad.
Maybe they used a helicopter to give them closer video footage.

The "Roadrunner" shape left by the supposed airplane was easily blasted by the Israeli "Art students" If you take one look at a photo of them, it screams "Mad bomber". They removed a window and built a damned scaffold deck on the outside of the WTC floor they were on. Not sure the exact floor but I bet it was very close to plane impact point.
So they planted the pyrotechnic display that was the "Fireball" of the plane crash, and they planted the charges that cut the Roadrunner shape into the tower. They had climbing rigs and all the climbing gear. These bomb monkeys were swinging all over those buildings inside and out. They even gave themselves a name, then changed it because it was a little too "on the nose" as they say.
Going from memory they called themselves the "B-thing" Then the "E-Team", then "Gelatin" . They would do well on the old TV show "Password". Gelatin explosives, B thing would be a bomb thing, and E-Team would be the "Explosives team".

Americans are incredibly stupid and didn't take notice of the names. I suppose if they called themselves the "mad bomber team that blew up your World Trade Center on 9-11", then maybe someone would have noticed.

Hell, Americans didn't even notice when the BBC reporter said on LIVE TV that WTC-7 had collapsed, while it was visible behind her on live TV! Even after it was pointed out on videos later.


Magicians can make spectacular things happen in view of the public. Didn't one make the Statue of Liberty disappear?
I seem to recall that advertised. I never watched it.

Can they make it look like planes hit some towers? You Betcha! Jet engine sounds could also simply be played over a loud sound system.
 Quoting: JustmeTX


Would you believe me if I told you I met a man that was working air traffic control that morning?

From him specifically, he says the planes went into an erratic flight path, basically circling or turning completely around, and then get this...

They DROPPED OFF RADAR.

How? Fucking HOW?

Then they "reappeared" right before they did their dirty on the towers.

The commercial planes WERE real. They were swapped upon rerouting and everyone aboard them was executed swiftly.

This dude wouldn't have ever told me that if we didn't bring up Jesus and our faith... He confided in me while I was doing construction cleaning on his home why he had doubts in the world and felt like we were in apocalypse.

He was a witness to this but he keeps his mouth shit otherwise he'd be LONG gone.

Crazy crazy.

People wonder how such a far reaching plot can be so misconstrued or understood but you see, people CHOOSE to hide the TRUTH so they can keep jobs, friendships or some vestige of sanity.
 Quoting: eyeDR3


Yes, that would make sense.
The tower tracks the transponders I think more than the radar, so the commerical plane turns off its transponder and then a few seconds later the same transponder signal is turned on in the drone plane.

It is known as "Operation Northwoods" I believe going from memory. They have had that plan on the books since the Cuban missile crisis. They were going to fake a downed US airliner over Cuba as a pretense for war on Cuba.

The DOD was running fake air defense simulations all that morning, so fake radar images were supposedly showing up and cluttering the screens of the ATC system.

The controllers had no idea what was real and what was a simulation that they were running.
 Quoting: JustmeTX


We were all so toyed with!

They're so evil it's almost like a cat playing with a mouse until it dies and it keeps playing with it, happily torturing what is so small to it. It's just predator and prey.

What a huge event and sacrifice.

All the symbolism...

This was a satanic mass ritual whether or not people want to believe that.

And the Israel explanation makes more sense and fits in with the Bible tale of the end.

They are occupied all the same.

So we cannot hate j or Israel as a whole! It's very small groups at the very top that did this.

Was Saudi Arabia actually involved like they said? Hmmmm

Either way as we still don't know the truth and the majority that won't stop talking about it like us are driven and determined to be certain nobody forgets!

But you can't remember what you didn't experience.

These new generations see it as a big joke. How you could laugh about this I just don't know...

I wouldn't laugh about anything involving Pearl harbor even though that was way before my time. Like a lifetime before I was born damn near.

And now enough years have passed that infants and young children of that day are 21+.

Wild

So we're primed for THEIR false flag.
:memorybanner:
eyeDR3  (OP)

User ID: 82694641
United States
02/25/2023 03:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
I know it's really long but it covers a lot.

The gyst...

Tech has radically changed and progressed. Today we could pull this off all the same, but in many ways not as well.

Low resolution analog interlaced displays and hyper advanced tech that at the time we couldn't fathom were used to fool us.

Yes in nearly "real time." (Within minutes)

Project blue beam WILL work. At least at first.

All of us that call it out will be called the crazy ones.

Recording on your phone, they could literally deliver realtime AR deception overlaying "real" devices.

Imagine a shit ton of drones or satellites that can act like "pixels" or tracking devices to overlay using CGI.

A little DJI drone could become a terrifying alien UFO with some simple tracking, CGI and AR overlay. You wouldn't even know because the only way you could record this event would be using probably a smartphone. Even then it would look like shit and wouldn't mean anything.

You'd have to be using straight up analog cameras and scopes to prove to people the fakery and at that point it's either too late or you'd have to have converted it to digital which understandably cannot be trusted.

I really think they can pull this off now...

They might even be able to use AI as a scapegoat if they get caught when in fact that is partially what will help deliver this event.

Everyone's phone when receiving the Emergency Notification could be essentially hacked with code that could utilize AR anytime it records a particular device.

You could be looking at a QR code covered plane or drone with your own eyes but on every device you see alien craft.

They showed this as predictive programming in spiderman far from home and literally called out project bluebeam.

Disney and Marvel (same company now as was predicted in the 90s) tell some truths in their movies.

Captain America The Winter Soldier specifically documents mk ultra, operation paperclip and false flags, all straight up called out by name! Not in some mystical fictional way but by literal military ops!

By no coincidence!

Disney was literally taken over by the CIA folks.

They give us previews of some tech at their parks and in their movies.

Walt warned us about ALL of this!

They're basically using highly advanced realtime ultra realistic rotoscoping!
 Quoting: eyeDR3


What comes to mind here is that recent Spider-Man movie with Jake Gyllen guy using drones to create his illusions and destruction. I think this is exactly how it will be executed. Thanks for your analysis.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 85070346


Exactly

And in that movie they called it by name, operation bluebeam.

And they were even confused when they see through the trickery.

One of the FBI equivalent (shield) women asks Nick Fury why Mysterio would go through all this trouble to fake these events only to kill innocent people.

Fury or whoever answers explains that if there are real consequences, people will fall in line.

Fury in these movies is essentially the head of the FBI.

In his own movie coming up, he will be revealed to be Krull (sp?) Which is like demonic dark elf shape shifters. Reptilians is what they look like, red eyes and all! I think I've seen one of these things and even just witnessing it hurt my body, but that's a WHOLE different story.

This movie "Fury" will deserve threads of its own in the near future.

This leads into what Marvel will call Illuminati, by name, and the "Secret War."

Laugh if you must... But Marvel at this point is like a playbook.
:memorybanner:
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 85063379
United States
02/25/2023 04:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
***SKIP ALL OF THIS UNTIL THE BULLET POINTS Or First REPLY IF YOU DON'T LIKE LONGER READS.***

Edited to add some of the descriptions are in layman's terms and not exact. A lot of this stuff is very complicated.

...


If you're still with me, you enjoy learning and aren't afraid of reading! Great!

So let's go back to the "beginning" so to speak.

The 60s through the mid 90s, television became exponentially more popular.

Early tvs had as low as I think 50-100 lines that would make the image. Not pixels as those weren't a thing yet. It was analog and actually based on lines and frequency.

So when these CRT (not critical race theory silly) cathode ray tube televisions were producing an image they were splitting light out into lines, whole lines no pixels) and what you were seeing was the top of the waves in layman's terms. At 24, 30, 59 or 60Hz or times each second. Almost like looking through vertical or horizontal blinds at the outside through a window.

This is where images on CRT TVs could appear curved, slanted, wavy, juxtaposed and more. A LOT of science went into initial televisions.

(I'm a believer they CAN be a vessel for supernatural or other misunderstood phenomena)

It's all boiled down really to analog vs digital with how the displays work, to shorten that science lesson down...

But from 60s to 90s think about how imagery on television might've been as low a resolution as 180, 240 or 540 lines, only half of which were really showing each second! That's fascinating shit!

Videogames love them or hate them were the sole reason display technology progressed so very quickly and exponentially.

When you play a game and press a button, there is an amount of time that the input takes to reach the processor that tells the output what to render on screen. I push X to jump on a PlayStation 1 controller for instance and it takes something probably around 20ms to travel from the controller board through the cable to the console, then it takes the processor for I/O and commands the graphics and video output to render the animation and action code on the screen for me. Back then it could take nearly an entire second for your input to render in the game. Your brain was conditioned for that. We were literally slower back then by a pretty fair margin!

I remember being a kid and thinking how nice it would be to not have such blurry imagery, flickering and eye strain...

But I didn't know how deep the rabbit hole went with something as seemingly simple as display technology...
 Quoting: eyeDR3


So here's the meat!

If you're big brain energy you are here and will understand this next part like the back of your hand.

When movies or television were made all the way up to the mid 2000s in most cases, they were recorded with analog technology like film.

Film being developed in a manner that creates a WHOLE image (not dot matrix, not pixels, not lines) means there is a LOT of information packed into each individual frame.

To film most movies, you would need 24 pictures taken each and every second so as to see motion without "skipping" or "tearing." If you've watched films from the late 1800s into early 1900s you will see what I'm describing manifesting in people looking like they're walking in fast forward because they only took around 5 to 8 images per second. While this gives motion it's still very choppy and noticeable to our brains) disorienting.

When you go to a theater most movies are showing in 24p. This is progressive full frame film standard. Today though it still produces a bit of strain in my eyes. If you blink quickly you can see frames!

Gosh it's SOOOO much to get to my point I'm terribly sorry...

Have you ever thought Jurassic Park looked WAAAAAY better in the theater back in 93 than on your fancy blu ray player?

Well the reason is that the CGI which was revolutionary and ground breaking at the time was produced digitally and added into a movie that was FILMED in ANALOG.

So what you see is actually a composite image!

The film itself is beautiful and natural and is endlessly upscaleable into digital formats because it was a WHOLE image like a film photograph that is being converted into a set resolution digital format (think of dot matrix, printers, any digital display) but the problem was that initial digital display and rendering tech simply didn't have anything near the infinite resolution of ANALOG nor the computational ability to get anywhere close to film. No joke, some movies from the 30s hold up better than movies made a few years ago because there just isn't enough data showing in each frame...
 Quoting: eyeDR3


LAST LESSON, then SHORT TO THE POINT

So you understand that analog is whole, digital is only ever a portion of that whole. Digital is only ever trying to catch up to analog, just as is the case with music, but it LITERALLY CANNOT.

Easy analogy... Pluck an acoustic guitar string and what you hear is analog. A true smooth frequency. You run it through a digital amplifier or a recording device, and you are only capturing a certain portion of that whole. The smooth natural analog music waves look more like staircases at this point. There are tons of missing data! mp3 was the worst standard and sounds like asshole but it made it easy for people to throw 1000 songs on a device smaller than a stick of gum. Try that with your vinyl collection! (Vinyl is analog, true wave recorded music. If you can find a nice horn, that's the way to go! Good luck lol!)

Same goes for movies.

Reel to reel film is extremely I mean EXTREMELY expensive (more today than then even) but it is analog. It can be blown up to be projected on the clouds above and still have as clear, crisp, whole a picture. Digital CANNOT do this!

So Jurassic Park...

They took the film into a digital software. I have no idea how many lines of resolution it could render at the time, but no matter, they added in digital graphics of dinosaurs moving at the same frame rate, or the same amount of "pictures" per second. So literally each second of that movie that showed any kind of state of the art imagery using digital graphics, each and every second, would have 24 different representations of the digital model moving like claymation in a sense.

1 second of those long necks when they approach in that jeep had each model moving through 24 differently animated representations. So when they animate the legs moving forward you are seeing actually like 24 different pages in a flip book essentially.

Does it make sense that that requires a LOT of digital data?

So the digital graphics in that movie probably took up whole data servers of the time.

The original film was basically reproduced with the now artificially created digital imagery composed upon it. The resolutions of screens at the time couldn't really pick this up and in theaters you were seeing whole film with a layer of digital imagery overlapping it.

So it looked DAMN GOOD back then because when they captured this digital animation they were doing so once again in ANALOG.

I know it's so damn much to read and a lot to take in...

It's why you shouldn't trust somebody recording video on their device from a screen.

If somebody says "I have video of bigfoot!" and they upload a video of them recording another screen, that makes it much harder to see the fakery. It's suspect.

To finish up the lesson, and move on the the part people will read because it's short and to the point, let's talk about the huge push from analog to digital.

It was around 2007 if I remember right. Digital television was the initial push as they could take the analog signals and repurpose them for emergency personnel secured communications.

Videogames, movies and music had moved almost entirely to digital already at this point.

TVs were still mostly CRT tech at this point but people were very quickly investing in digital displays like "flat screen" lcd, projection or plasma.

These displays again showed images almost like a printer or calculator, with the lines now being compromised of "pixels." So now the resolution would be called something like 720p, 1080i or 1080p. 1080p was not standard until very late 2000s into 2010s.

Were you confused when someone says "1080p Blu-ray, with a resolution of 1920x1080!"

Well that's 1920x1080 LINES that PROGRESSIVELY show, so it's showing both horizontal and vertical lines of the image with each flash, again 24 to 60 times per second. That's about 2.07 million individual squares made up of sub red green blue rendering spaces called "sub pixels".

6.22 MILLION individual dots or squares that can render an image up to 60x each second!

4K is called so because it's 4x the resolution of 1080p, or nearly. True 4K is not "UHD" because that is a difference in aspect ratio.

Standard widescreen is 16:9 ratio. The golden ratio rectangle. It used to be 4:3 or otherwise, or more close to a "square."

4K is actually 21:9 sometimes called "ultra wide" and is 4096x2160 pixels to produce lines. Your at home 4KUHD displays are usually 3840x2160, so 16:9 ratio.

True ultrawide displays will fill the screen and you won't have those black bars on top and bottom. My cellphone for instance has a 21:9 aspect ratio. It's a more elongated rectangle, like a Hershey's bar basically.

So now your UHD TVs that people are already erroneously being referred to as "4K" are at 3840x2160. They display progressively, or all lines and pixels with each and every flash. This is 8.294 million pixels, with either 24.883 MILLION sub pixels (red green blue), 33.177 MILLION sub pixels (4 sub pixels WRGB so white red green and blue) or "Quantum dot" which is more akin to tricking digital into rendering more like analog than previously. That one I'll get into later.

Very very high resolution, yes, but when it's stretched to the size of a billboard or drive in movie theater screen, you will still see a more blurry image as it was produced not as a whole analog image, but a fully digitally produced image. This gives what we call the "screen door" effect because the pixels have to be separated by space. At say a 65" or smaller TV screen, this may not be visible at all except for the best vision on the planet, but any bigger and you start to see that screen door effect (it's called aliasing, it's that stair step jagged appearance you see on hard lines). You simply DO NOT get this with film!

So only now are our displays catching up to looking ALMOST as good as those of the past, or close enough to our poor eyesight to look similar to film.

This is exactly why modern CGI fest films look like hot dog shit.

It's 100% digitally produced when it's supposed to be real.

My Dad said the issue with videogames for him was that they were just like a very poorly animated movie. Well movies today produce the uncanny valley effect, where our brains, instincts and the way our eyes see the moving image KNOW IT'S NOT REAL. It can look so close to reality but it's just not. There are always present anomalies in CGI because the added in objects have to track with the real objects and they are fully digitally rendered. So even the highest resolution scan of a human has missing gaps of data where analog would be represented simply as a true wave of light on the VLS.

This doesn't even account for color rendering. There were for the LONGEST time about 8-16 million representable colors in standard production using RGB (red green and blue) sub pixels. Now with quantum dot and HDR (high dynamic range) we can produce digitally over 1 billion different colors. I don't know exactly how the visible light spectrum works but I would think it's actually a nearly infinite amount of colors we see above infrared and below ultraviolet to our naked eye.

Quantum dot at the moment (you've seen it called QLED or Q something lol) is a new way of displaying color.

An electrostatic layer rests over LEDs and sub pixels and when electric signals go through it in very slightly different voltages, it expands or contracts the light ever so slightly so you get red and violet shift, much like looking at stars and knowing which is moving toward or away by the red or violet shift. This can give smaller sub pixels, tighter dpi or ppi (pixels per inch) and an astounding amount of color data. Still not analog though LOL


So what does any of this have to do with 911?

Final post in this long form is only about that next...
 Quoting: eyeDR3


-911 was in 2001, when most every recording device and display were ANALOG

-at this time, special effects were mostly digital but could also be produced with live action props and models. Star Wars and The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth with David Bowie, even interstellar used what is called "practical" effects because they could be filmed as whole true analog using REAL objects. In other words our brains are still happier with a puppet on screen or models of cities and space craft than with a fully digitally created abomination because it APPEARS REAL TO US. It can be filmed in ANALOG on REAL FILM and under natural, controllable lighting. No pixels. No limited color data. No baked in light rendering. Real motion.

-digital productions of imagery are bitmap rasterized, or made of dots, pixels, lines with gaps between them instead of a whole image like analog. They can appear very sharp yes but juxtaposed with real data they look very uncanny or unnatural. Almost "too" real or surreal.

-with advanced enough computer graphics technology you could render in digital imagery atop either an analog or digital image, even in "real-time". Today this is entirely possible. That's what they do during football games to render lines on the field, overlays of CGI atop live footage. This is how they achieve "holograms" too is by utilizing highly advanced deep fake like overlay technology while filming an impersonator so in the video you are seeing say Michael Jackson but in reality it's a digital manipulation, live in real time, a deep fake, over a lookalike. If you were right there able to record in person you could catch the fakery in these cases...

-tiktok Instagram Snapchat and more are using this tech and calling it "filters." It's recording digital video while at the same time processing digital computer graphics that "track" objects in real time and try to blend in with them as if they were really present. So you can look like a retard chimera puppy too or have stupid fake butterflies flying around your head! Yay!

-the aforementioned "filters" are a subcategory of what is actually called AR. PAY ATTENTION. AR is short for "Augmentated Reality" and has been around in the consumer market since AT LEAST 2003 or so from my memory. I recall the Sony PS2 PlayStation 2 system (also a huge pioneer in pushing digital formats like DVD and digital output methods, progressive scan imagery, HD even) had an accessory called the "PlayStation eyetoy" where you set up a camera and could play dancing, surfing, sports and such on screen. Your body was the "filter" so if you outstretched your arms you could "hit" these digital objects and interact with them on screen, almost in real time. Real time CGI.

-PlayStation eye was a derivative device, that is it was inspired by preexisting tech already present for years in Japanese arcades and even at Disney parks

-2003 when it was released wasn't even 2 years beyond the world trade center attacks but it was YEARS after the technology was already available in consumer approachable areas

-If the film of 911 from all the different angles we've been allowed to see had been affected by AR, there should be SOME kind of anomaly: a hiccup in tracking, a slip in feathering the hard edges of the digital image overlapping the analog, frame pacing mismatches, resolution differences... SOMETHING. Guess what? ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE PRESENT IN NEARLY EVERY VIDEO OF 911.

-The only surviving footage we have of 911 has been converted from analog to digital by now. I can GUARANTEE anyone you know DOES NOT have footage they took themselves on any device. Video recording devices weren't very prevalent or weildy at that time, and if they were, they were highly expensive and still very slow. We didn't have the ability to whip out a digital camera in an instant let alone live stream. Even the best of the early digital recorders were very slow to boot and save data to digital card formats. By the time somebody hit record, the first, likely even the second plane already hit the building.

-don't forget analog recording methods were often not able to be recorded over and if they were, there was likely going to be some errors and things that will slip through. Think of recording over a wedding tape. You could have moments that come in as the wedding and the rest is an episode of cops. Worse you're watching ET with Grandma and grandpa and 80s porn comes on at some point. Oops.

-say you're recording the building by happenstance for a documentary at the exact moment the first plane comes in and hits. Yes this is actually more likely than you might want to believe, moreso today than in 2001 by far, but even then with millions at any given second moving around and observing the city of New York, this is believable. However, massive holes form in this story when you realize the footage you are seeing had to be RECORDED from it's original format and device to one that can be shared with others. It wasn't a digital recording. It was analog. Probably VHS or those mini VHS cassettes. It had to be converted and saved. By that time it could've already been heavily manipulated.

-in order for AR to work there has to be a reasonably powerful computer behind it as well as a DIGITAL camera. Smartphones became a device that could feasibly deliver AR quite a while ago but now it's very smooth. It was pretty silly and archaic then (still is to me today)

-Livestream video could still be manipulated with AR if it is being recorded in ANALOG and shown digitally. I call this the "Jurassic Park" effect, and this is exactly how I believe they can pull off future blue beam and even partly 911

-if a news station was "coming to you LIVE from New York City!" we all know that it wasn't truly live. There might be as little as a few seconds delay, up to even MINUTES. I don't know if you remember but if you called somebody from New York in LA back then, you could have seconds of delay before you'd respond to one another. We were literally slower in so many ways, even our own brains hadn't been conditioned to see things in real time or to even communicate like that. Video calling was just a sci fi dream to us then! Saturday might live was so big because you could see a stage skit show halfway across the world almost like you were in the audience. But remember that multicolored screen and loud beep that would come on if studios lost broadcasting signal capabilities (lost power, inference, emergency broadcast message interjection, etc)? Well that's something they could control manually if need be. To "pull it" or stop a feed say if somebody kills themself, murders, shows nudity, curses... And guess who has control over that? The FCC.

-since nothing was truly "live" then, they could take even a few seconds or minutes to have superimposed computer generated imagery or something like augmented reality into the footage. It could've even been practical effects they were using, like they had these computer generated composite planes that could track and overlay even a missile

-only somebody that was there THAT DAY that saw with their PHYSICAL EYES could say 100% for sure or not if there were ACTUAL commercial planes that day. Otherwise any footage unfortunately cannot be trusted you guys!

-if unreal engine 5 a game development engine computer software today in 2023 looks very nearly photorealistic, let's just say since 1993 the military and the "elite" have had this tech or better. Let's be honest... They've had it FAR FAR FAR longer than that. So on 911 the footage we see could be computer generated, that's entirely possible, or it could have been superimposed practical effects

-the media is 1000% involved as are everyone in higher positions. Either they were fooled themselves (even the very elect will be fooled) or directly involved. Either way... They were involved.

-FCC chair, who was it then? Are they dead?

-how many of the people with original unmanipulated footage are still alive today? How many still have the original footage? Where is it?

-how many people died that tried to expose what I've just spent 2 hours explaining?
 Quoting: eyeDR3



What gay retard took all the time to write this stupid shit?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 80376576
United States
02/25/2023 04:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
the op has all been described exactly the same in 'September Clues' -- the only true 9/11 documentary.

don't forget dancing israelis.
 Quoting: GenieInABottle


as well as the video of the "israeli" construction workers planting the explosives in the walls during the constructing of the buildings.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 84835956
United Kingdom
02/25/2023 04:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
noplanes = turd in the punchbowl for tards
eyeDR3  (OP)

User ID: 82694641
United States
02/25/2023 04:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
***SKIP ALL OF THIS UNTIL THE BULLET POINTS Or First REPLY IF YOU DON'T LIKE LONGER READS.***

Edited to add some of the descriptions are in layman's terms and not exact. A lot of this stuff is very complicated.

...


So here's the meat!

If you're big brain energy you are here and will understand this next part like the back of your hand.

When movies or television were made all the way up to the mid 2000s in most cases, they were recorded with analog technology like film.

Film being developed in a manner that creates a WHOLE image (not dot matrix, not pixels, not lines) means there is a LOT of information packed into each individual frame.

To film most movies, you would need 24 pictures taken each and every second so as to see motion without "skipping" or "tearing." If you've watched films from the late 1800s into early 1900s you will see what I'm describing manifesting in people looking like they're walking in fast forward because they only took around 5 to 8 images per second. While this gives motion it's still very choppy and noticeable to our brains) disorienting.

When you go to a theater most movies are showing in 24p. This is progressive full frame film standard. Today though it still produces a bit of strain in my eyes. If you blink quickly you can see frames!

Gosh it's SOOOO much to get to my point I'm terribly sorry...

Have you ever thought Jurassic Park looked WAAAAAY better in the theater back in 93 than on your fancy blu ray player?

Well the reason is that the CGI which was revolutionary and ground breaking at the time was produced digitally and added into a movie that was FILMED in ANALOG.

So what you see is actually a composite image!

The film itself is beautiful and natural and is endlessly upscaleable into digital formats because it was a WHOLE image like a film photograph that is being converted into a set resolution digital format (think of dot matrix, printers, any digital display) but the problem was that initial digital display and rendering tech simply didn't have anything near the infinite resolution of ANALOG nor the computational ability to get anywhere close to film. No joke, some movies from the 30s hold up better than movies made a few years ago because there just isn't enough data showing in each frame...
 Quoting: eyeDR3


LAST LESSON, then SHORT TO THE POINT

So you understand that analog is whole, digital is only ever a portion of that whole. Digital is only ever trying to catch up to analog, just as is the case with music, but it LITERALLY CANNOT.

Easy analogy... Pluck an acoustic guitar string and what you hear is analog. A true smooth frequency. You run it through a digital amplifier or a recording device, and you are only capturing a certain portion of that whole. The smooth natural analog music waves look more like staircases at this point. There are tons of missing data! mp3 was the worst standard and sounds like asshole but it made it easy for people to throw 1000 songs on a device smaller than a stick of gum. Try that with your vinyl collection! (Vinyl is analog, true wave recorded music. If you can find a nice horn, that's the way to go! Good luck lol!)

Same goes for movies.

Reel to reel film is extremely I mean EXTREMELY expensive (more today than then even) but it is analog. It can be blown up to be projected on the clouds above and still have as clear, crisp, whole a picture. Digital CANNOT do this!

So Jurassic Park...

They took the film into a digital software. I have no idea how many lines of resolution it could render at the time, but no matter, they added in digital graphics of dinosaurs moving at the same frame rate, or the same amount of "pictures" per second. So literally each second of that movie that showed any kind of state of the art imagery using digital graphics, each and every second, would have 24 different representations of the digital model moving like claymation in a sense.

1 second of those long necks when they approach in that jeep had each model moving through 24 differently animated representations. So when they animate the legs moving forward you are seeing actually like 24 different pages in a flip book essentially.

Does it make sense that that requires a LOT of digital data?

So the digital graphics in that movie probably took up whole data servers of the time.

The original film was basically reproduced with the now artificially created digital imagery composed upon it. The resolutions of screens at the time couldn't really pick this up and in theaters you were seeing whole film with a layer of digital imagery overlapping it.

So it looked DAMN GOOD back then because when they captured this digital animation they were doing so once again in ANALOG.

I know it's so damn much to read and a lot to take in...

It's why you shouldn't trust somebody recording video on their device from a screen.

If somebody says "I have video of bigfoot!" and they upload a video of them recording another screen, that makes it much harder to see the fakery. It's suspect.

To finish up the lesson, and move on the the part people will read because it's short and to the point, let's talk about the huge push from analog to digital.

It was around 2007 if I remember right. Digital television was the initial push as they could take the analog signals and repurpose them for emergency personnel secured communications.

Videogames, movies and music had moved almost entirely to digital already at this point.

TVs were still mostly CRT tech at this point but people were very quickly investing in digital displays like "flat screen" lcd, projection or plasma.

These displays again showed images almost like a printer or calculator, with the lines now being compromised of "pixels." So now the resolution would be called something like 720p, 1080i or 1080p. 1080p was not standard until very late 2000s into 2010s.

Were you confused when someone says "1080p Blu-ray, with a resolution of 1920x1080!"

Well that's 1920x1080 LINES that PROGRESSIVELY show, so it's showing both horizontal and vertical lines of the image with each flash, again 24 to 60 times per second. That's about 2.07 million individual squares made up of sub red green blue rendering spaces called "sub pixels".

6.22 MILLION individual dots or squares that can render an image up to 60x each second!

4K is called so because it's 4x the resolution of 1080p, or nearly. True 4K is not "UHD" because that is a difference in aspect ratio.

Standard widescreen is 16:9 ratio. The golden ratio rectangle. It used to be 4:3 or otherwise, or more close to a "square."

4K is actually 21:9 sometimes called "ultra wide" and is 4096x2160 pixels to produce lines. Your at home 4KUHD displays are usually 3840x2160, so 16:9 ratio.

True ultrawide displays will fill the screen and you won't have those black bars on top and bottom. My cellphone for instance has a 21:9 aspect ratio. It's a more elongated rectangle, like a Hershey's bar basically.

So now your UHD TVs that people are already erroneously being referred to as "4K" are at 3840x2160. They display progressively, or all lines and pixels with each and every flash. This is 8.294 million pixels, with either 24.883 MILLION sub pixels (red green blue), 33.177 MILLION sub pixels (4 sub pixels WRGB so white red green and blue) or "Quantum dot" which is more akin to tricking digital into rendering more like analog than previously. That one I'll get into later.

Very very high resolution, yes, but when it's stretched to the size of a billboard or drive in movie theater screen, you will still see a more blurry image as it was produced not as a whole analog image, but a fully digitally produced image. This gives what we call the "screen door" effect because the pixels have to be separated by space. At say a 65" or smaller TV screen, this may not be visible at all except for the best vision on the planet, but any bigger and you start to see that screen door effect (it's called aliasing, it's that stair step jagged appearance you see on hard lines). You simply DO NOT get this with film!

So only now are our displays catching up to looking ALMOST as good as those of the past, or close enough to our poor eyesight to look similar to film.

This is exactly why modern CGI fest films look like hot dog shit.

It's 100% digitally produced when it's supposed to be real.

My Dad said the issue with videogames for him was that they were just like a very poorly animated movie. Well movies today produce the uncanny valley effect, where our brains, instincts and the way our eyes see the moving image KNOW IT'S NOT REAL. It can look so close to reality but it's just not. There are always present anomalies in CGI because the added in objects have to track with the real objects and they are fully digitally rendered. So even the highest resolution scan of a human has missing gaps of data where analog would be represented simply as a true wave of light on the VLS.

This doesn't even account for color rendering. There were for the LONGEST time about 8-16 million representable colors in standard production using RGB (red green and blue) sub pixels. Now with quantum dot and HDR (high dynamic range) we can produce digitally over 1 billion different colors. I don't know exactly how the visible light spectrum works but I would think it's actually a nearly infinite amount of colors we see above infrared and below ultraviolet to our naked eye.

Quantum dot at the moment (you've seen it called QLED or Q something lol) is a new way of displaying color.

An electrostatic layer rests over LEDs and sub pixels and when electric signals go through it in very slightly different voltages, it expands or contracts the light ever so slightly so you get red and violet shift, much like looking at stars and knowing which is moving toward or away by the red or violet shift. This can give smaller sub pixels, tighter dpi or ppi (pixels per inch) and an astounding amount of color data. Still not analog though LOL


So what does any of this have to do with 911?

Final post in this long form is only about that next...
 Quoting: eyeDR3


-911 was in 2001, when most every recording device and display were ANALOG

-at this time, special effects were mostly digital but could also be produced with live action props and models. Star Wars and The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth with David Bowie, even interstellar used what is called "practical" effects because they could be filmed as whole true analog using REAL objects. In other words our brains are still happier with a puppet on screen or models of cities and space craft than with a fully digitally created abomination because it APPEARS REAL TO US. It can be filmed in ANALOG on REAL FILM and under natural, controllable lighting. No pixels. No limited color data. No baked in light rendering. Real motion.

-digital productions of imagery are bitmap rasterized, or made of dots, pixels, lines with gaps between them instead of a whole image like analog. They can appear very sharp yes but juxtaposed with real data they look very uncanny or unnatural. Almost "too" real or surreal.

-with advanced enough computer graphics technology you could render in digital imagery atop either an analog or digital image, even in "real-time". Today this is entirely possible. That's what they do during football games to render lines on the field, overlays of CGI atop live footage. This is how they achieve "holograms" too is by utilizing highly advanced deep fake like overlay technology while filming an impersonator so in the video you are seeing say Michael Jackson but in reality it's a digital manipulation, live in real time, a deep fake, over a lookalike. If you were right there able to record in person you could catch the fakery in these cases...

-tiktok Instagram Snapchat and more are using this tech and calling it "filters." It's recording digital video while at the same time processing digital computer graphics that "track" objects in real time and try to blend in with them as if they were really present. So you can look like a retard chimera puppy too or have stupid fake butterflies flying around your head! Yay!

-the aforementioned "filters" are a subcategory of what is actually called AR. PAY ATTENTION. AR is short for "Augmentated Reality" and has been around in the consumer market since AT LEAST 2003 or so from my memory. I recall the Sony PS2 PlayStation 2 system (also a huge pioneer in pushing digital formats like DVD and digital output methods, progressive scan imagery, HD even) had an accessory called the "PlayStation eyetoy" where you set up a camera and could play dancing, surfing, sports and such on screen. Your body was the "filter" so if you outstretched your arms you could "hit" these digital objects and interact with them on screen, almost in real time. Real time CGI.

-PlayStation eye was a derivative device, that is it was inspired by preexisting tech already present for years in Japanese arcades and even at Disney parks

-2003 when it was released wasn't even 2 years beyond the world trade center attacks but it was YEARS after the technology was already available in consumer approachable areas

-If the film of 911 from all the different angles we've been allowed to see had been affected by AR, there should be SOME kind of anomaly: a hiccup in tracking, a slip in feathering the hard edges of the digital image overlapping the analog, frame pacing mismatches, resolution differences... SOMETHING. Guess what? ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE PRESENT IN NEARLY EVERY VIDEO OF 911.

-The only surviving footage we have of 911 has been converted from analog to digital by now. I can GUARANTEE anyone you know DOES NOT have footage they took themselves on any device. Video recording devices weren't very prevalent or weildy at that time, and if they were, they were highly expensive and still very slow. We didn't have the ability to whip out a digital camera in an instant let alone live stream. Even the best of the early digital recorders were very slow to boot and save data to digital card formats. By the time somebody hit record, the first, likely even the second plane already hit the building.

-don't forget analog recording methods were often not able to be recorded over and if they were, there was likely going to be some errors and things that will slip through. Think of recording over a wedding tape. You could have moments that come in as the wedding and the rest is an episode of cops. Worse you're watching ET with Grandma and grandpa and 80s porn comes on at some point. Oops.

-say you're recording the building by happenstance for a documentary at the exact moment the first plane comes in and hits. Yes this is actually more likely than you might want to believe, moreso today than in 2001 by far, but even then with millions at any given second moving around and observing the city of New York, this is believable. However, massive holes form in this story when you realize the footage you are seeing had to be RECORDED from it's original format and device to one that can be shared with others. It wasn't a digital recording. It was analog. Probably VHS or those mini VHS cassettes. It had to be converted and saved. By that time it could've already been heavily manipulated.

-in order for AR to work there has to be a reasonably powerful computer behind it as well as a DIGITAL camera. Smartphones became a device that could feasibly deliver AR quite a while ago but now it's very smooth. It was pretty silly and archaic then (still is to me today)

-Livestream video could still be manipulated with AR if it is being recorded in ANALOG and shown digitally. I call this the "Jurassic Park" effect, and this is exactly how I believe they can pull off future blue beam and even partly 911

-if a news station was "coming to you LIVE from New York City!" we all know that it wasn't truly live. There might be as little as a few seconds delay, up to even MINUTES. I don't know if you remember but if you called somebody from New York in LA back then, you could have seconds of delay before you'd respond to one another. We were literally slower in so many ways, even our own brains hadn't been conditioned to see things in real time or to even communicate like that. Video calling was just a sci fi dream to us then! Saturday might live was so big because you could see a stage skit show halfway across the world almost like you were in the audience. But remember that multicolored screen and loud beep that would come on if studios lost broadcasting signal capabilities (lost power, inference, emergency broadcast message interjection, etc)? Well that's something they could control manually if need be. To "pull it" or stop a feed say if somebody kills themself, murders, shows nudity, curses... And guess who has control over that? The FCC.

-since nothing was truly "live" then, they could take even a few seconds or minutes to have superimposed computer generated imagery or something like augmented reality into the footage. It could've even been practical effects they were using, like they had these computer generated composite planes that could track and overlay even a missile

-only somebody that was there THAT DAY that saw with their PHYSICAL EYES could say 100% for sure or not if there were ACTUAL commercial planes that day. Otherwise any footage unfortunately cannot be trusted you guys!

-if unreal engine 5 a game development engine computer software today in 2023 looks very nearly photorealistic, let's just say since 1993 the military and the "elite" have had this tech or better. Let's be honest... They've had it FAR FAR FAR longer than that. So on 911 the footage we see could be computer generated, that's entirely possible, or it could have been superimposed practical effects

-the media is 1000% involved as are everyone in higher positions. Either they were fooled themselves (even the very elect will be fooled) or directly involved. Either way... They were involved.

-FCC chair, who was it then? Are they dead?

-how many of the people with original unmanipulated footage are still alive today? How many still have the original footage? Where is it?

-how many people died that tried to expose what I've just spent 2 hours explaining?
 Quoting: eyeDR3



What gay retard took all the time to write this stupid shit?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 85063379


You
:memorybanner:
eyeDR3  (OP)

User ID: 82694641
United States
02/25/2023 04:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
the op has all been described exactly the same in 'September Clues' -- the only true 9/11 documentary.

don't forget dancing israelis.
 Quoting: GenieInABottle


as well as the video of the "israeli" construction workers planting the explosives in the walls during the constructing of the buildings.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80376576


Gotta get that documentary then!

Rumble?
:memorybanner:
eyeDR3  (OP)

User ID: 82694641
United States
02/25/2023 04:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Updated OP to specify it wasn't FAKED (poor choice of wording) rather it was live edited.
:memorybanner:
eyeDR3  (OP)

User ID: 82694641
United States
02/25/2023 04:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
noplanes = turd in the punchbowl for tards
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 84835956


No COMMERCIAL airline plane.

Why is everyone trying to derail the thread to misconstrue what I'm saying?

Simply not reading that dissertation or what? Lol

It's impossible still today for commercial jets to make those maneuvers and at that speed.
:memorybanner:
HellsTruant

User ID: 83275499
United States
02/25/2023 04:55 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Great post. Will read your entire post later, then I'll comment or ask a question. Thank you for your time and effort.bump
Treat me good, I'll treat you better.
Treat me bad, I'll treat you worse.

Trump WON the 2020 election. If you believe Biden won, you're an Idiot!

If you got the vaxx, stay the fuck away from me.
eyeDR3  (OP)

User ID: 82694641
United States
02/25/2023 05:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Great post. Will read your entire post later, then I'll comment or ask a question. Thank you for your time and effort.bump
 Quoting: HellsTruant


You are very welcome
:memorybanner:
JB1969

User ID: 85316216
United States
02/25/2023 05:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
I don’t believe any planes hit the towers. They wouldn’t have just been absorbed into the buildings. They would have hit the concrete and steel and fell to the ground. I can’t believe anyone thinks the planes were real.
JB
Tis I

User ID: 13657018
United States
02/25/2023 05:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
bump
My Foolish Daydream

User ID: 73398970
United States
02/25/2023 05:44 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Some cgi shots in Jurassic Park still look amazing. The rex breaking out of the paddock, the rex going from animatronic head to full body cgi as it walks from Explorer to Explorer, etc. But a lot of the cgi shots are indeed dated. The brachio scene looks weird now, and some of the raptor shots are shitty as hell. I always just chalked it up to it being a 1993 film where conversions into HD look...strange. It's why I never bought Predator on HD. These conversions get rid of film grain, and I fucking love film grain. They look plastic and fake to me.

The airplanes in 911 always confused me. We saw one thing on the media coverage footage, but the eye witness testimony never matched up. Over and over people were saying they saw black military style airplanes, but on the footage they're commercial airliners.
It's just a bad day, not a bad life. If you run, I will run, until my last breath.
abrock

User ID: 80966518
United States
02/25/2023 06:00 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Don't know how y'all feel about Q but on a q board several yrs ago, a video was posted showing how 911 could have been achieved with holograms and thermite.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 85348088
Ireland
02/25/2023 06:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Have fun boys and girls!

This is all straight from me.

No wiki, all by my memory...

Please ask any question you'd like. I'd LOVE to explain anything that might confuse you...

911 was the event the bible explained that "even the elect would be fooled."

And it leads to Satan's short lived reign over earth.

Tribulation is very soon.

We've lived in pretrib for a bit.

2017-2024, 7 years split by peace and evil.

Split by 2 solar eclipses that form an X, a mark, over the US

US is New Babylon

America will be judged very harshly. The rain falls on all.

No rapture.
 Quoting: eyeDR3


Nope, twas a test run for the second coming hoax that'll trap unbaptised or faulty baptised Catholics into the NWO indefinitely in hell on earth or just damned to hell. Christ already came and established His Church around 2000 yrs ago and ain't coming back especially to a world that forgot that He is God

Anonymous Coward
User ID: 44477656
United States
02/25/2023 06:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but Operation Northwoods is spying on phones as well as building probable contacts based on who you call (it predates smartphones).

It wasn't supposed to be used here.

Anyway, it could be related to 9/11 somehow as well, idk.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 83041820
United States
02/25/2023 06:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Quantel UK
ThePassenger

User ID: 85348109
France
02/25/2023 06:52 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Huuuuuuge bump
A.I.B.I.A.
Gemini Rising

User ID: 80829763
United States
02/25/2023 06:54 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
What about those two French guys who filmed the planes that day?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 72727002
United States
02/25/2023 06:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
***SKIP ALL OF THIS UNTIL THE BULLET POINTS Or First REPLY IF YOU DON'T LIKE LONGER READS.***

Edited to add some of the descriptions are in layman's terms and not exact. A lot of this stuff is very complicated.

...


If you're still with me, you enjoy learning and aren't afraid of reading! Great!

So let's go back to the "beginning" so to speak.

The 60s through the mid 90s, television became exponentially more popular.

Early tvs had as low as I think 50-100 lines that would make the image. Not pixels as those weren't a thing yet. It was analog and actually based on lines and frequency.

So when these CRT (not critical race theory silly) cathode ray tube televisions were producing an image they were splitting light out into lines, whole lines no pixels) and what you were seeing was the top of the waves in layman's terms. At 24, 30, 59 or 60Hz or times each second. Almost like looking through vertical or horizontal blinds at the outside through a window.

This is where images on CRT TVs could appear curved, slanted, wavy, juxtaposed and more. A LOT of science went into initial televisions.

(I'm a believer they CAN be a vessel for supernatural or other misunderstood phenomena)

It's all boiled down really to analog vs digital with how the displays work, to shorten that science lesson down...

But from 60s to 90s think about how imagery on television might've been as low a resolution as 180, 240 or 540 lines, only half of which were really showing each second! That's fascinating shit!

Videogames love them or hate them were the sole reason display technology progressed so very quickly and exponentially.

When you play a game and press a button, there is an amount of time that the input takes to reach the processor that tells the output what to render on screen. I push X to jump on a PlayStation 1 controller for instance and it takes something probably around 20ms to travel from the controller board through the cable to the console, then it takes the processor for I/O and commands the graphics and video output to render the animation and action code on the screen for me. Back then it could take nearly an entire second for your input to render in the game. Your brain was conditioned for that. We were literally slower back then by a pretty fair margin!

I remember being a kid and thinking how nice it would be to not have such blurry imagery, flickering and eye strain...

But I didn't know how deep the rabbit hole went with something as seemingly simple as display technology...
 Quoting: eyeDR3


So here's the meat!

If you're big brain energy you are here and will understand this next part like the back of your hand.

When movies or television were made all the way up to the mid 2000s in most cases, they were recorded with analog technology like film.

Film being developed in a manner that creates a WHOLE image (not dot matrix, not pixels, not lines) means there is a LOT of information packed into each individual frame.

To film most movies, you would need 24 pictures taken each and every second so as to see motion without "skipping" or "tearing." If you've watched films from the late 1800s into early 1900s you will see what I'm describing manifesting in people looking like they're walking in fast forward because they only took around 5 to 8 images per second. While this gives motion it's still very choppy and noticeable to our brains) disorienting.

When you go to a theater most movies are showing in 24p. This is progressive full frame film standard. Today though it still produces a bit of strain in my eyes. If you blink quickly you can see frames!

Gosh it's SOOOO much to get to my point I'm terribly sorry...

Have you ever thought Jurassic Park looked WAAAAAY better in the theater back in 93 than on your fancy blu ray player?

Well the reason is that the CGI which was revolutionary and ground breaking at the time was produced digitally and added into a movie that was FILMED in ANALOG.

So what you see is actually a composite image!

The film itself is beautiful and natural and is endlessly upscaleable into digital formats because it was a WHOLE image like a film photograph that is being converted into a set resolution digital format (think of dot matrix, printers, any digital display) but the problem was that initial digital display and rendering tech simply didn't have anything near the infinite resolution of ANALOG nor the computational ability to get anywhere close to film. No joke, some movies from the 30s hold up better than movies made a few years ago because there just isn't enough data showing in each frame...
 Quoting: eyeDR3


LAST LESSON, then SHORT TO THE POINT

So you understand that analog is whole, digital is only ever a portion of that whole. Digital is only ever trying to catch up to analog, just as is the case with music, but it LITERALLY CANNOT.

Easy analogy... Pluck an acoustic guitar string and what you hear is analog. A true smooth frequency. You run it through a digital amplifier or a recording device, and you are only capturing a certain portion of that whole. The smooth natural analog music waves look more like staircases at this point. There are tons of missing data! mp3 was the worst standard and sounds like asshole but it made it easy for people to throw 1000 songs on a device smaller than a stick of gum. Try that with your vinyl collection! (Vinyl is analog, true wave recorded music. If you can find a nice horn, that's the way to go! Good luck lol!)

Same goes for movies.

Reel to reel film is extremely I mean EXTREMELY expensive (more today than then even) but it is analog. It can be blown up to be projected on the clouds above and still have as clear, crisp, whole a picture. Digital CANNOT do this!

So Jurassic Park...

They took the film into a digital software. I have no idea how many lines of resolution it could render at the time, but no matter, they added in digital graphics of dinosaurs moving at the same frame rate, or the same amount of "pictures" per second. So literally each second of that movie that showed any kind of state of the art imagery using digital graphics, each and every second, would have 24 different representations of the digital model moving like claymation in a sense.

1 second of those long necks when they approach in that jeep had each model moving through 24 differently animated representations. So when they animate the legs moving forward you are seeing actually like 24 different pages in a flip book essentially.

Does it make sense that that requires a LOT of digital data?

So the digital graphics in that movie probably took up whole data servers of the time.

The original film was basically reproduced with the now artificially created digital imagery composed upon it. The resolutions of screens at the time couldn't really pick this up and in theaters you were seeing whole film with a layer of digital imagery overlapping it.

So it looked DAMN GOOD back then because when they captured this digital animation they were doing so once again in ANALOG.

I know it's so damn much to read and a lot to take in...

It's why you shouldn't trust somebody recording video on their device from a screen.

If somebody says "I have video of bigfoot!" and they upload a video of them recording another screen, that makes it much harder to see the fakery. It's suspect.

To finish up the lesson, and move on the the part people will read because it's short and to the point, let's talk about the huge push from analog to digital.

It was around 2007 if I remember right. Digital television was the initial push as they could take the analog signals and repurpose them for emergency personnel secured communications.

Videogames, movies and music had moved almost entirely to digital already at this point.

TVs were still mostly CRT tech at this point but people were very quickly investing in digital displays like "flat screen" lcd, projection or plasma.

These displays again showed images almost like a printer or calculator, with the lines now being compromised of "pixels." So now the resolution would be called something like 720p, 1080i or 1080p. 1080p was not standard until very late 2000s into 2010s.

Were you confused when someone says "1080p Blu-ray, with a resolution of 1920x1080!"

Well that's 1920x1080 LINES that PROGRESSIVELY show, so it's showing both horizontal and vertical lines of the image with each flash, again 24 to 60 times per second. That's about 2.07 million individual squares made up of sub red green blue rendering spaces called "sub pixels".

6.22 MILLION individual dots or squares that can render an image up to 60x each second!

4K is called so because it's 4x the resolution of 1080p, or nearly. True 4K is not "UHD" because that is a difference in aspect ratio.

Standard widescreen is 16:9 ratio. The golden ratio rectangle. It used to be 4:3 or otherwise, or more close to a "square."

4K is actually 21:9 sometimes called "ultra wide" and is 4096x2160 pixels to produce lines. Your at home 4KUHD displays are usually 3840x2160, so 16:9 ratio.

True ultrawide displays will fill the screen and you won't have those black bars on top and bottom. My cellphone for instance has a 21:9 aspect ratio. It's a more elongated rectangle, like a Hershey's bar basically.

So now your UHD TVs that people are already erroneously being referred to as "4K" are at 3840x2160. They display progressively, or all lines and pixels with each and every flash. This is 8.294 million pixels, with either 24.883 MILLION sub pixels (red green blue), 33.177 MILLION sub pixels (4 sub pixels WRGB so white red green and blue) or "Quantum dot" which is more akin to tricking digital into rendering more like analog than previously. That one I'll get into later.

Very very high resolution, yes, but when it's stretched to the size of a billboard or drive in movie theater screen, you will still see a more blurry image as it was produced not as a whole analog image, but a fully digitally produced image. This gives what we call the "screen door" effect because the pixels have to be separated by space. At say a 65" or smaller TV screen, this may not be visible at all except for the best vision on the planet, but any bigger and you start to see that screen door effect (it's called aliasing, it's that stair step jagged appearance you see on hard lines). You simply DO NOT get this with film!

So only now are our displays catching up to looking ALMOST as good as those of the past, or close enough to our poor eyesight to look similar to film.

This is exactly why modern CGI fest films look like hot dog shit.

It's 100% digitally produced when it's supposed to be real.

My Dad said the issue with videogames for him was that they were just like a very poorly animated movie. Well movies today produce the uncanny valley effect, where our brains, instincts and the way our eyes see the moving image KNOW IT'S NOT REAL. It can look so close to reality but it's just not. There are always present anomalies in CGI because the added in objects have to track with the real objects and they are fully digitally rendered. So even the highest resolution scan of a human has missing gaps of data where analog would be represented simply as a true wave of light on the VLS.

This doesn't even account for color rendering. There were for the LONGEST time about 8-16 million representable colors in standard production using RGB (red green and blue) sub pixels. Now with quantum dot and HDR (high dynamic range) we can produce digitally over 1 billion different colors. I don't know exactly how the visible light spectrum works but I would think it's actually a nearly infinite amount of colors we see above infrared and below ultraviolet to our naked eye.

Quantum dot at the moment (you've seen it called QLED or Q something lol) is a new way of displaying color.

An electrostatic layer rests over LEDs and sub pixels and when electric signals go through it in very slightly different voltages, it expands or contracts the light ever so slightly so you get red and violet shift, much like looking at stars and knowing which is moving toward or away by the red or violet shift. This can give smaller sub pixels, tighter dpi or ppi (pixels per inch) and an astounding amount of color data. Still not analog though LOL


So what does any of this have to do with 911?

Final post in this long form is only about that next...
 Quoting: eyeDR3


-911 was in 2001, when most every recording device and display were ANALOG

-at this time, special effects were mostly digital but could also be produced with live action props and models. Star Wars and The Dark Crystal, Labyrinth with David Bowie, even interstellar used what is called "practical" effects because they could be filmed as whole true analog using REAL objects. In other words our brains are still happier with a puppet on screen or models of cities and space craft than with a fully digitally created abomination because it APPEARS REAL TO US. It can be filmed in ANALOG on REAL FILM and under natural, controllable lighting. No pixels. No limited color data. No baked in light rendering. Real motion.

-digital productions of imagery are bitmap rasterized, or made of dots, pixels, lines with gaps between them instead of a whole image like analog. They can appear very sharp yes but juxtaposed with real data they look very uncanny or unnatural. Almost "too" real or surreal.

-with advanced enough computer graphics technology you could render in digital imagery atop either an analog or digital image, even in "real-time". Today this is entirely possible. That's what they do during football games to render lines on the field, overlays of CGI atop live footage. This is how they achieve "holograms" too is by utilizing highly advanced deep fake like overlay technology while filming an impersonator so in the video you are seeing say Michael Jackson but in reality it's a digital manipulation, live in real time, a deep fake, over a lookalike. If you were right there able to record in person you could catch the fakery in these cases...

-tiktok Instagram Snapchat and more are using this tech and calling it "filters." It's recording digital video while at the same time processing digital computer graphics that "track" objects in real time and try to blend in with them as if they were really present. So you can look like a retard chimera puppy too or have stupid fake butterflies flying around your head! Yay!

-the aforementioned "filters" are a subcategory of what is actually called AR. PAY ATTENTION. AR is short for "Augmentated Reality" and has been around in the consumer market since AT LEAST 2003 or so from my memory. I recall the Sony PS2 PlayStation 2 system (also a huge pioneer in pushing digital formats like DVD and digital output methods, progressive scan imagery, HD even) had an accessory called the "PlayStation eyetoy" where you set up a camera and could play dancing, surfing, sports and such on screen. Your body was the "filter" so if you outstretched your arms you could "hit" these digital objects and interact with them on screen, almost in real time. Real time CGI.

-PlayStation eye was a derivative device, that is it was inspired by preexisting tech already present for years in Japanese arcades and even at Disney parks

-2003 when it was released wasn't even 2 years beyond the world trade center attacks but it was YEARS after the technology was already available in consumer approachable areas

-If the film of 911 from all the different angles we've been allowed to see had been affected by AR, there should be SOME kind of anomaly: a hiccup in tracking, a slip in feathering the hard edges of the digital image overlapping the analog, frame pacing mismatches, resolution differences... SOMETHING. Guess what? ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE PRESENT IN NEARLY EVERY VIDEO OF 911.

-The only surviving footage we have of 911 has been converted from analog to digital by now. I can GUARANTEE anyone you know DOES NOT have footage they took themselves on any device. Video recording devices weren't very prevalent or weildy at that time, and if they were, they were highly expensive and still very slow. We didn't have the ability to whip out a digital camera in an instant let alone live stream. Even the best of the early digital recorders were very slow to boot and save data to digital card formats. By the time somebody hit record, the first, likely even the second plane already hit the building.

-don't forget analog recording methods were often not able to be recorded over and if they were, there was likely going to be some errors and things that will slip through. Think of recording over a wedding tape. You could have moments that come in as the wedding and the rest is an episode of cops. Worse you're watching ET with Grandma and grandpa and 80s porn comes on at some point. Oops.

-say you're recording the building by happenstance for a documentary at the exact moment the first plane comes in and hits. Yes this is actually more likely than you might want to believe, moreso today than in 2001 by far, but even then with millions at any given second moving around and observing the city of New York, this is believable. However, massive holes form in this story when you realize the footage you are seeing had to be RECORDED from it's original format and device to one that can be shared with others. It wasn't a digital recording. It was analog. Probably VHS or those mini VHS cassettes. It had to be converted and saved. By that time it could've already been heavily manipulated.

-in order for AR to work there has to be a reasonably powerful computer behind it as well as a DIGITAL camera. Smartphones became a device that could feasibly deliver AR quite a while ago but now it's very smooth. It was pretty silly and archaic then (still is to me today)

-Livestream video could still be manipulated with AR if it is being recorded in ANALOG and shown digitally. I call this the "Jurassic Park" effect, and this is exactly how I believe they can pull off future blue beam and even partly 911

-if a news station was "coming to you LIVE from New York City!" we all know that it wasn't truly live. There might be as little as a few seconds delay, up to even MINUTES. I don't know if you remember but if you called somebody from New York in LA back then, you could have seconds of delay before you'd respond to one another. We were literally slower in so many ways, even our own brains hadn't been conditioned to see things in real time or to even communicate like that. Video calling was just a sci fi dream to us then! Saturday might live was so big because you could see a stage skit show halfway across the world almost like you were in the audience. But remember that multicolored screen and loud beep that would come on if studios lost broadcasting signal capabilities (lost power, inference, emergency broadcast message interjection, etc)? Well that's something they could control manually if need be. To "pull it" or stop a feed say if somebody kills themself, murders, shows nudity, curses... And guess who has control over that? The FCC.

-since nothing was truly "live" then, they could take even a few seconds or minutes to have superimposed computer generated imagery or something like augmented reality into the footage. It could've even been practical effects they were using, like they had these computer generated composite planes that could track and overlay even a missile

-only somebody that was there THAT DAY that saw with their PHYSICAL EYES could say 100% for sure or not if there were ACTUAL commercial planes that day. Otherwise any footage unfortunately cannot be trusted you guys!

-if unreal engine 5 a game development engine computer software today in 2023 looks very nearly photorealistic, let's just say since 1993 the military and the "elite" have had this tech or better. Let's be honest... They've had it FAR FAR FAR longer than that. So on 911 the footage we see could be computer generated, that's entirely possible, or it could have been superimposed practical effects

-the media is 1000% involved as are everyone in higher positions. Either they were fooled themselves (even the very elect will be fooled) or directly involved. Either way... They were involved.

-FCC chair, who was it then? Are they dead?

-how many of the people with original unmanipulated footage are still alive today? How many still have the original footage? Where is it?

-how many people died that tried to expose what I've just spent 2 hours explaining?
 Quoting: eyeDR3


Nope. There were eyewitnesses. I know someone who lived right across from the WTC and she was actually looking out the window and saw the second plane hit the building. She lived in Brooklyn but had a complete and total view of the whole thing.
eyeDR3  (OP)

User ID: 82694641
United States
02/25/2023 07:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Some cgi shots in Jurassic Park still look amazing. The rex breaking out of the paddock, the rex going from animatronic head to full body cgi as it walks from Explorer to Explorer, etc. But a lot of the cgi shots are indeed dated. The brachio scene looks weird now, and some of the raptor shots are shitty as hell. I always just chalked it up to it being a 1993 film where conversions into HD look...strange. It's why I never bought Predator on HD. These conversions get rid of film grain, and I fucking love film grain. They look plastic and fake to me.

The airplanes in 911 always confused me. We saw one thing on the media coverage footage, but the eye witness testimony never matched up. Over and over people were saying they saw black military style airplanes, but on the footage they're commercial airliners.
 Quoting: My Foolish Daydream


I remember that when I was a kid...

The theories went rampant.

Most people were coerced or silenced.
:memorybanner:
eyeDR3  (OP)

User ID: 82694641
United States
02/25/2023 07:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: This is how 911 might've been visually manipulated in realtime. Scientific... You decide. VERY long read but synopsis in OP bullet points
Don't know how y'all feel about Q but on a q board several yrs ago, a video was posted showing how 911 could have been achieved with holograms and thermite.
 Quoting: abrock


Don't know how y'all feel about Q but on a q board several yrs ago, a video was posted showing how 911 could have been achieved with holograms and thermite.
 Quoting: abrock


Q is operation trust... So I don't trust it...

But that information is very likely regardless.
:memorybanner:





GLP