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

reply to post by TLomon
Welcome to the twilight zone

I know you have the background to appreciate the likelihood of manipulating the audio of a transmission in real time especially with no signs of interference evident in the video which is far more susceptible to any electrical 'noise'. To my logic this aspect rules out any 'jamming' being done remotely and more importantly, secretly like from those pesky omnipresent spyplanes.

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

I have large amounts of such 75 ohm characteristic impedance coaxial RF cable here and I can assure you it has a single solid copper core surrounded by foam insulation wrapped in the second conductor which is a foil shield, and a PVC sheath covering the outside length of it. It carries sound and video by the means described earlier. After all, what does the word 'coaxial' mean?

I could branch off into the world of characteristic impedance, impedance matching and the 'maximum power thransfer theorem' but I doubt you'd see the point of it.

The video and audio can be carried separately in AV cables from your VCR/DVD/STB/SAT receiver to the TV but this method is only good for a few metres.

Well, then, I suppose some people never noticed their TV volume goes up during commercials, and down again during programming. Funny thing is they did nothing to adjust the volume of their TV sets. Lo and behold the video never changes just the audio.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

I have large amounts of such 75 ohm characteristic impedance coaxial RF cable here and I can assure you it has a single solid copper core surrounded by foam insulation wrapped in the second conductor which is a foil shield, and a PVC sheath covering the outside length of it. It carries sound and video by the means described earlier. After all, what does the word 'coaxial' mean?

That is odd, because audio-video normally has at least two separate rubber coated wires inside that exterior rubber coating like this:

www.wikihow.com...

One connector to the cable box and two separate wires feeding the connector. You can call that coax anything you wish. However, never will light and audio waves be one and same wave. Although, both radio and TV do transmit audio (radio frequency).

Originally posted by OrionStars
Well, then, I suppose some people never noticed their TV volume goes up during commercials, and down again during programming. Funny thing is they did nothing to adjust the volume of their TV sets. Lo and behold the video never changes just the audio.

Well congratulations - you may have stumbled upon something worthy of a conspiracy theory there.

The commercials are indeed louder than the programs they interrupt mainly to get your attention and to make them harder to escape even if you leave the room to get away from them. The networks will claim it's due to automatic volume levelling being applied to the adds in the production phase while the programs themselves have a full dynamic range of volume as they're supposed to have but we're onto them

[edit on 27/1/2008 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by Pilgrum
www.wikihow.com...

The commercials are indeed louder then the programs they interrupt mainly to get your attention and to make them harder to escape even if you leave the room to get away from them. The networks will claim it's due to automatic volume levelling being applied to the adds in the production phase while the programs themselves have a full dynamic range of volume as they're supposed to have but we're onto them

No conspiracy there. Unless, you consider they put no disclaimers on the screen when they raise the gain during commercials. They have been doing it for years, and I have watched sound engineers do it, because the advertisers pay extra to have it done.

reply to post by OrionStars
I'll go right out on a limb here and state with absolute confidence that sound and video can be and is carried on the same wire at the same time. AV cables are something else where the audio is carried at audio frequency on one (or 2 for stereo) cables and the video is carried in its purest electrical form of composite horizontal & vertical sync pulses, colour burst and the video scan llines to be shown on your tv. Those separate AV signals have to be demodulated and separated from the single coaxial cable on your antenna or cable connection.

The only places these signals (audio and video) could be separated sufficiently to 'doctor' one but not the other in real time are at the source (camera), the destination (your TV) or at the intermediate studio if they are retransmitting on a different channel. Of course the spy may have been in the studio to specificly 'zap' the audio for a couple of seconds.

You see - my knowledge of the technology isn't from google



[edit on 27/1/2008 by Pilgrum]

reply to post by Pilgrum


Why would it be done on cables to receivers? It has to be done at the base transmitters feeding networks.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Pilgrum
Why would it be done on cables to receivers? It has to be done at the base transmitters feeding networks.

In the case of cable TV the RF signal is totally distributed via coaxial cable to prevent interference from any wirelessly transmitted signals. Basicly just a directly connected earth-shielded single antenna wire all the way back to the source (transmitter).

At least you're showing a slightly improved understanding of the technology now so what is your opinion on the supposed audio-only 'blackout'.
Do you think it covered up something?

Originally posted by OrionStars

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?

That wasn't intended as an insult. It appears you don't recognize the movie quote and in what context it was used, so my apologies if you took offense to it.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Are I getting too close to the truth for your comfort? Or are we simply having a wide age gap problem for civil communication?

There definitely does appear to be a problem with communication. For one, I am having a hard time figuring out what generation you belong to.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Light and sound transmitted from radio and TV stations used to be via air waves.

This never happened in the life of TV and radio. Never. It has been one day one radio waves that were transmitted. The station converts sound to radio. The radio converts the radio waves to sound. The same for light and TV.

Originally posted by OrionStars
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.

The exact same principles are present for VHF and cable. The reason for cable is to cut down on interference. The TV is receiving radio waves.

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

This is a correct statement but is not related to what we are talking about. I am going to try to approach this from another direction.

You state that video is transmitted via light waves. This would cause a broad spectrum light transmission, which would instantly diffuse. That is why lasers are needed. It would not be possible as light needs to have line of sight to transmit to. It simply won't work. You don't have lasers zapping into your home. What would happen if you had the shades down?

Can you watch TV in a sound proof room? You can. How would the sound waves be delivered to the rabbit ears if this was the case?

The information transmitted to your TV is not sound or light, but radio frequencies. Due to interference, you can loose your higher end channels without loosing the lower end, or vice versa. EMF interference can be cause by something as simple as a vacuum cleaner. According to your statements, a vacuum cleaner is producing light interference since you are insisting video is transmitted by light. After all, it can cause problems on the screen so that must be the case.

Each channel you watch is on a different frequency. That is why the knob used to change channels was called a tuner. The same on radios.

Technology of Television

Please take the time to read that. The technology hasn't changed from its basic principals since it was introduced.

Originally posted by TLomon

Originally posted by OrionStars

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?

That wasn't intended as an insult. It appears you don't recognize the movie quote and in what context it was used, so my apologies if you took offense to it.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Are I getting too close to the truth for your comfort? Or are we simply having a wide age gap problem for civil communication?

There definitely does appear to be a problem with communication. For one, I am having a hard time figuring out what generation you belong to.

If you missed that as clearly as I explained it, it is obvious you may well not be comprehending the quantum mechanics of electromagnetic spectrum as well. If you cannot comprehend that, you cannot scientifically prove your points until you do.

Light does not travel on radio waves or vice versa. They support one another when captured and transmitted by audio and video transmitters after being synchronized. I have explained why.

However, try the following since you and others made it self-evident you do not believe me, no matter how many real life examples I presented to validate my points of argument.

www.xowave.com...

"Timecode allows you to synchronize multiple distinct recordings, typically from different pieces of equipment. For example, you might use timecode to synchronize two analog tape decks so you can record more tracks. You might also use it to synchronize an analog tape deck with a VCR. Synchronizing audio and video is especially convenient because most professional video standards do not support more than two or four tracks of audio, which is hardly enough to do serious recording and editing."

Hi fellow Truthers and also hello to you OfficialConspiracyTheoryBelievers. Th Discovery channel show MythBusters has issued an invitation to submit "myths" for them to explore. There are obviously enough myths pertaining to the events of Black Tuesday to provide enough material for a whole season. I suggest that everyone interested in this topic to submit one or two well defined myths from that day to them for testing. Truthers- heres your chance to prove whether concrete turns into dust in a building collapse etc- and OTC Believers quit griping about the impossibilities of daylight Holographic projections etc. and submit it to the crew at Mythbusters.

Here is the thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Please be civil and happy MythBusting

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

You're right, Orionstars did. You just answered the question.

So, Orionstars, do you think the Psyops plane was doing something? Do you think they might have been in the area?

Originally posted by jerico65

You're right, Orionstars did. You just answered the question.

So, Orionstars, do you think the Psyops plane was doing something? Do you think they might have been in the area?

Anything is possible until proved impossible. That is the only truthful answer anyone can express without validated proof.

Quite frankly, if people are going to take control of video and audio transmission, they normally have to do it from inside the building doing the networking transmission. That is fact not fiction.

Depends on what was done as to how it can possibly be done with the highest probablity of success.

Originally posted by OrionStars
If you missed that as clearly as I explained it, it is obvious you may well not be comprehending the quantum mechanics of electromagnetic spectrum as well. If you cannot comprehend that, you cannot scientifically prove your points until you do.

Light does not travel on radio waves or vice versa. They support one another when captured and transmitted by audio and video transmitters after being synchronized. I have explained why.

However, try the following since you and others made it self-evident you do not believe me, no matter how many real life examples I presented to validate my points of argument.

www.xowave.com...

I believe you use the 'quantum mechanics' term far too often and how does it relate to terrestrial radio/television transmissions or anything else outside of nuclear physics?
Radio and television in general fall into the field of electronics which is aptly named as it deals with the activity of electrons, not the nuclei of atoms.

True - light and sound do not travel directly on electromagnetic radiation in their native state although light itself is a form of electromagnetic radiation at a far higher frequency than radio or TV transmissions.
Television is more of an active facsimile process allowing the light and sound to be converted to electromagnetic energy which is used to modulate 'carrier' frequencies at the transmitter, sent vast distances, and reproduced as light and sound by the receiver.

The issue for this thread topic is the unlikelihood of being able to specifically attack the audio without affecting the video because the 2 signals are carried by modulation of closely adjacent frequencies with the video carrier being the more susceptible to noticeable noise than the audio due to the complexity of the data and the method of modulation.

That 'timecode' link bears no relation to TV transmission. It's about in-house recording of AV signals which is after it has been received and demodulated.



[edit on 27/1/2008 by Pilgrum]

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Because quantum mechanics is the study of energy, and physics is the study of the cause and effect of energy on physical matter. That's why, Pilgrum.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Because quantum mechanics is the study of energy, and physics is the study of the cause and effect of energy on physical matter. That's why

Then can you explain how you believe quantum mechanics obscured 2 seconds of audio in a particular TV transmission?

That's the general issue at hand here after all

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Then can you explain how you believe quantum mechanics obscured 2 seconds of audio in a particular TV transmission?

What convinces you that only 2 seconds was being obscured? How do you know it was not more? How do you know you got live feed at all times? Would you be able to tell whether you were or not? If so, how would you be able to tell?

I gave a hypothesis already as to part of what was fed to receivers from transmitters. Inside interception at the base transmitters feeding the rest of those on the network, plus, control taken away from the sound and audio engineers at the base, unless they are doing any covert feeding of hoax video.

When the networks are all using the same film footage on newscasts, one is supposed to be live feed, and is being fed to base transmitters of one station (FOX, CNN, CBS, NBC, etc) on the network, which is then fed out to all other networks using the same footage.

The engineers would never know they lost control. They would not lose control if they were doing any hoax feeding from the base. After hoax video was transmitted, control would be returned back to any unsuspecting sound and audio engineers, which could explain time delay black outs (video and/or audio) for a second or two. Yes, it certainly is possible, and has been for quite some time. There was definitely something wrong with all the network video feeds on 9/11/2001.

In fact, there is a discussion specifically on hoax video feeds on 9/11/2001. It should be close to the top on the first page. I do not disagree with the initial post, poster's comments, or the analysis made in the video. As I recall, the title is "Nose in, nose out" or something to that effect.

Anything is possible until proved impossible.

Originally posted by OrionStars
When the networks are all using the same film footage on newscasts, one is supposed to be live feed, and is being fed to base transmitters of one station (FOX, CNN, CBS, NBC, etc) on the network, which is then fed out to all other networks using the same footage.

The facts are that there was more than one network on site with cameras rolling for the biggest thing since television was invented. The feed to this part of the world actually showed UA175 hitting WTC2 with no glitches at all in audio or video which brings me back to the indication that the glitch in audio was isolated to a single camera possibly being fed to several local networks - it happens. If it was a coverup they certainly didn't do a good job by missing all the other cameras.

Anything is possible until proved impossible.

Let's apply that principle to the possibility of no intentional deception in this video.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Of course, each network can have people on site filming the same or different locations, but only one has been reported to be filming from the sky - FOX. If the rest of the networks wanted sky feed, they had to get it from the cam in sky - FOX.

I said it was my hypothesis and quite possible and easy to accomplish. Considering covert CIA agents also have jobs in the business world. Some of the best places, to send spooks, is into the workings of the Fourth Estate - the media. People will never know the person sitting or standing next to him or her is a spook. It keeps the heat off covert agents, when they have regular jobs like the rest of us ordinary people.