RARE VIDEO - Proof TV Blacked Out During Flight 175 Crash.

reply to post by Pilgrum


The different way they are transmitted to be seen or heard is one difference. What exactly did you have in mind for differences, of which there are at least several? Do you have a problem researching it yourself? I know the differences, and have for some time since childhood.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Pilgrum

 

The different way they are transmitted to be seen or heard is one difference. What exactly did you have in mind for differences, of which there are at least several? Do you have a problem researching it yourself? I know the differences, and have for some time since childhood.

Do you deny that video is transmitted on an RF carrier wave?

That would give me an idea of how elementary I would need to keep the information at least.

Like I said earlier it's a waste of time trying to present factual information to anyone incapable of understanding it.

[edit on 25/1/2008 by Pilgrum]

Here's another video with similar evidence of video interference similar to the OP, recently posted by piacenza on this thread: Very good video analysis of the nose in nose out footage.

Whatever you think of the analysis of the nosecone going through the tower, note well the 15 black frames immediately after the impact.

This was from a broadcast of "Good Day NY." Indeed.

reply to post by gottago
Thanks for the link - might try downloading it from work for later viewing to see what's going on interference-wise.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Unless the spyplane actually demodulated the composite signal, fiddled the audio, remodulated and re-transmitted the signal at a power that swamped the original signal. The big question is for what purpose?

OK, so the EC-130 Psyops "spyplane" somehow intercepted the signal and inserted their own audio into the signal flow?

How close would they have to be to do that? How powerful are their transmitters?

Do you think one was in the area at the time?

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Pilgrum

 

The different way they are transmitted to be seen or heard is one difference. What exactly did you have in mind for differences, of which there are at least several? Do you have a problem researching it yourself? I know the differences, and have for some time since childhood.

Do you deny that video is transmitted on an RF carrier wave?

Why don't you explain how radio (sound waves) capture video (light waves) and transmit through radio frequency transmission?

ORion..... CABLE tv is RF... Radio Frequency.

You plug cable into the back of your tv via RF cable.

Originally posted by IvanZana
ORion..... CABLE tv is RF... Radio Frequency.

You plug cable into the back of your tv via RF cable.

(NTSC-based analog television)

(Example)Channel/ Video Carrier (MHz)/ Audio Carrier(MHz)

2 /55.25/ 59.75
3 /61.25/ 65.75
4/ 67.25 /71.75
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by jerico65
OK, so the EC-130 Psyops "spyplane" somehow intercepted the signal and inserted their own audio into the signal flow?

How close would they have to be to do that? How powerful are their transmitters?

Do you think one was in the area at the time?

As to the presence of such a plane I don't know and the possibly wasn't raised by me

What I'm trying to get at here is the actual method that would be needed to accomplish this supposed deliberate temporary obfuscation of audio in a transmitted TV signal in real-time. A little deeper understanding of the principles would lead one to the conclusion that this technique was not used. Even if the evidence supported such a technique we'd then have to wonder what was the point of going to so much trouble.

If you're looking for conspiracies they seem to appear in everything but does that make them real?

reply to post by IvanZana
Exactly
All wireless transmissions are RF. What differs is the frequency and how the content is modulated onto the carrier frequency, the content being video, audio, digital data or in the simplest application of radio, morse code which is sent by simply switching the carrier frequency on and off or modulating a pulsed fixed VF tone onto the carrier.

I did reveal the basic secrets of analog TV earlier in the post after all.

I should have added above that analog cable TV only differs from wireless in that the RF signals are carried on a coaxial cable instead of through the air to provide better immunity to interference as well as better control over who can actually receive the signals (pay TV) but the signal makeup is the same as standard wireless free-to-air transmission with the addition of crude scrambling like sync, colour burst and video inversion to control who can actually watch it by use of a set-top descrambler box.

something inside the Building, maybe something setting off?, could that have made static?

I was watching live, when the second plane hit.
It seems strange that I remember very clearly what I saw, at the time, but I have never seen it like that on any of the youtube videos.
It may have been one of these imposible to make shots, that only could have been taken at a place that does not exist.
This has been bothering me for a long time.
I have not said anything because I was expecting to run across one, eventually.
I watched the plane aproach, over the river, from left to right, and it flew almost over the camera, towards the last few seconds.
The camera panned over, following the plane, then showed it take a sharp turn, at the last second, to hit the building.
That was "Live", supposedly, as it happened.
I have a suspicion that it was pre-recorded, then run on the network at the appropriate time.
If it was real, you woud have heard people screeming, like in the videos made by private citizens on their camcorders.
I do not remember anyone around the camera, saying anything.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Why don't you explain how radio (sound waves) capture video (light waves) and transmit through radio frequency transmission?

When I read this I almost had to scream. Radio is not sound waves. A recorder (such as a microphone) converts the soundwaves to RF, which can then be carried via an analog or digital signal via coax, or other carrier.

Video is not light waves. A camcorder converts light waves into an RF signal... exactly as a microphone.

You said you understood how this worked since you were a child. Where exactly did you learn this from?

Originally posted by IvanZana
ORion..... CABLE tv is RF... Radio Frequency.

You plug cable into the back of your tv via RF cable.

Sound is on one frequency. Video is on another. It is what is in the TV and cables receiver breaking them out but keeping them unified, to carry both video and sound. They are not one and the same. That is why cable boxes and TVs may have extra plugs for additional sound or video.

If you look at your TV, and try to attach a camcorder with audio, you will notice the different plugs - one video and two audio. The colors will be yellow, red and white.

Light waves are not transmitted by sound waves or vice versa. Just because there is one cable does not mean they are. They are transmitted from the base transmitters by two different methods to blend as one through one cable. Both transmitters and/or the engineering panels have to be altered at the base connection feeding networks. There is video engineering and sound engineering being done, by people working panels at the stations or used to be. Computers could be doing some or all it by now for all I know at this point in time.

The reason I know all this is because my father first started out as a radio engineer. Moved on as television engineer, when TV stations were finally spreading across the USA. Then he went into electronics engineering. I grew up with it all.

Scientists first had to learn how to incorporate the light to transmit differently than sound, and , yet, travel together in sync (synchronized). My father always thought it was take-your-child-to-work-day after clearing it with his supervisor or the owner. He did it far more often than any other parent would.

Light waves travel much faster than sound waves. An engineer has to make certain light (video) and sound (audio) are in sync at all times. In the more primitive days of TV, we would see the mouths moving and seconds later hear what they were saying. By then the action had moved on, and the words made no sense relative to the changing action. It used to happen in movie theaters and drive-ins as well. It gave everyone a good laugh when it did.

That is why I said the video may still be going but the audio can be cut and vice versa.

Originally posted by TLomon

Originally posted by OrionStars
Why don't you explain how radio (sound waves) capture video (light waves) and transmit through radio frequency transmission?

When I read this I almost had to scream. Radio is not sound waves. A recorder (such as a microphone) converts the soundwaves to RF, which can then be carried via an analog or digital signal via coax, or other carrier.

Video is not light waves. A camcorder converts light waves into an RF signal... exactly as a microphone.

You said you understood how this worked since you were a child. Where exactly did you learn this from?

So do you watch TV with your ears and hear with your eyes? Or do you see the result of light waves (video) and hear sound (audio)?

Before we had TV, all we had was radio if we could afford it. We would stare at the radio, which did nothing but sit there, and hear audio.

Perhaps the above and the following will better enable you to understand the difference between sight and sound our brains process. Deaf, but not blind people, will absorb the results of light waves (video). Blind, but not deaf, people will absorb sound but not light waves (video).

Maybe people were watching all of it live, and maybe they were not.

Live could have been when no one saw any impacts (regain of control at the base of network feeds).

Fake could have been alleged airplanes people thought they saw, and then switched back live immediately prior to impacts no one saw or heard when viewing.

Hence, the reason for audio interuption not video. The fake part may have not had audio to send. It would have looked as if it was all live. Yet, the first part would be illusion, until the engineers regained control of the video and sound panels, they did not realize they lost. Their moniters were being fed with the same video as everyone else, and they would not realize they had temporarily lost control of it all. That high up people would not normally question audio when that high up. Not with all the street noise interfering with sound that high up.

It was exactly the same as cutting actual views of security cameras, substituting fake video feeds, to hide perpetrators entering and having free runs of buildings. When sound is not needed or expected, who would know the difference between reality and illusion simply from video?

Originally posted by OrionStars
So do you watch TV with your ears and hear with your eyes? Or do you see the result of light waves (video) and hear sound (audio)?

You are killing me, smalls.

Ok, I will go over this is extreme detail because you aren't just getting it. Not only was I brought to work several times when I was a child to a switch house, I currently work for cable as an engineer.

The only cable that transmit light is fiberoptic. That is done over backbones in most areas because of the cost involved.

As I stated, microphones, etc. convert to an analog signal where it can be stored on tape, transmitted live, etc. A video camera does the same with the visual portion. Light is not transmitted over coax.

The signals are at different frequencies, but are still traveling at the same speed. This signal will go through a MUX (multiplexer) from both audio and visual feeds and be transmitted over the network via an analog signal. At that point, it will hit a backbone area (OC3 or higher) where it is convered to a optical signal and transmitted over fiberoptics. At that point, the sound is also light.

Once it reaches the destination, it is converted back from optical to analog signal where it is then distributed to homes off of various nodes. Your cable box converts the signal to audio for the speakers (radio frequencies converted to sound) and video to the screen (radio frequencies converted to light) where the TV then has three electron guns (red, blue, green) which then draws the picture on your screen to form what you watch.

Over the coax, the signals travel at the same speed. There is no speed of light vs. speed of sound.

Originally posted by TLomon

You are killing me, smalls.

Either address me with civility or do not address me at all. What is the problem? Are I getting too close to the truth for your comfort? Or are we simply having a wide age gap problem for civil communication?

I already know how it works. Nothing has changed since fiberoptic was researched and developed much later on. In the budding days of radio and TV, there was no fiberoptic cable, and would not be for many years into the future. Light and sound transmitted from radio and TV stations used to be via air waves. Then changed to cable lines. Everyone does not have cable or satellite dishes, but they have TV for VHF and UHF air wave transmission, of both light and sound waves in synchronized form of energy.

Both light and sound have their own separate frequency waves. Light waves are not radio waves, and radio waves are not light waves.

The following is an educational website related to any discussion concerning 9/11/2001:

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

For those of you possessing TV coaxial cable, if you have a cut piece without a connector, please note the number of wires in audio-video coaxial cable.