simonshack wrote:*
DUST IN THE WIND
Allright folks: we are going to make a chronological comparison of
the dust seen (or
not seen) on the MILLENIUM HOTEL's eastern façade in various WTC2 collapse images. The first two images below (3 and 5 seconds into the WTC2 collapse) show the dust allright - although it is inexplicably quite differently distributed on the MILLENIUM east façade. So these first two images are already in absurd conflict with each other:
"BEN REISMAN" video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD2DBUJl0OM
Next, here are two frames from a video credited to "Barry Weiss". At approx
9 seconds into the WTC2 collapse, there seems to be
no dust whatsoever to be seen on the Millenium's eastern façade!
In fact, the dust
starts appearing progressively only a few seconds later. Here is a frame from approx
15seconds into the collapse:
"BARRY WEISS" video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZUcom0hUxk
(NOTE: the WEISS video starts with the collapse already underway. However, it is possible to make out with reasonable accuracy that the video starts between 5 or 6 seconds into the collapse.)
Ok: so far, we may say that all of the three above shots are in conflict with each other. Who of the three authors credited with these images is a fraud?
AMY SANCETTA? BEN REISMAN? BARRY WEISS? Or perhaps - all three of them? Well, if we are to believe that TOM MIUCCIO's footage of the WTC2 collapse is real and legit - ALL THREE OF THEM must be frauds:
"TOM MIUCCIO" video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MN95E76mtMM
TOM MIUCCIO shows us a spotless MILLENNIUM hotel -
NO DUST AT ALL appears to have reached its eastern façade during the first
17secs of the WTC2 collapse! But hey, would you buy a used car from TOM MIUCCIO ?...
Could possibly ALL FOUR be frauds? Is this not the most plausible conclusion?
Maybe we should print out some new T-shirts, folks?
My first real post! Unfortunately I may ruffle some feathers.
I feel the need to play devil's advocate here. I find this evidence to be a sort of "fly in the ointment" and perhaps it should be rethought of as something other than evidence of conflicting footage.
That building is highly reflective, what you see on it is not dust collecting on the buildings side, but dust being reflected in the windows.
There is only a slight discrepancy between the first two photos, and considering distance and elevation the perspective shift, while seemingly small, could more than account for different dust patterns.
Barry's video, while zoomed out, is MUCH closer than the other two, as you can see by comparing the spire height on the building next to the millennium hotel. While I amnot sure what it SHOULD be reflecting, it comes as no surprise that it would reflect differently than the other shots.
Finally the wide shot, with no dust. This should be exactly what we expect! the dust would have to be blocking the shot in order to be seen reflecting.
I do think that there are damning inconsistencies between the shots.
What is laughable is the PERFECTLY STRAIGHT line being reflected in the first two angles.
But I would protest that the shots do not necessarily conflict each other, perhaps the first two could be used to represent more rendering glitches.
Just my 2 cents.
).
