Allan Weisbecker 911 discussion thread

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I would appreciate it if Allan would fix this ridiculous video. It's 36 seconds long, and is based on footage showing a large aircraft (allegedly UA flight 175) approaching and striking the WTC on 9/11. Allan asks "why no motion blur" and claims that the shutter speed of the camera should be 1/60 of a second, thus causing motion blur. The images of the aircraft appear reasonably sharp, and Weisbecker rightly argues that if the shutter is at 1/60, the images should be more blurry. However, he is making the basic error of conflating frame rate with shutter speed.


The fact is that the shutter speed would have been throttled to control the exposure. The video was taken in bright morning sunshine, so a reasonable exposure setting would be f/5.6, 1/500, ISO 50. Any automatic system would set an exposure with this shutter speed or faster, and there's no reason why a professional photographer would select an extremely small aperture in order to lengthen the exposure time and deliberately create motion blur. Automatic systems use the widest possible aperture, especially in small sensor cameras, to avoid diffraction limit effects. In 2001, all digital video cameras used small sensors, as modern full-frame DSLR equipment was not yet available.

Several of the commenters to Weisbecker's video understand this. Weisbecker is oblivious to their technical savvy, and in some cases goes to great lengths to argue his point, denouncing his detractors for posting "dumb ass crapola".

Right back at you, Allan.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
This discussion of yours with Allan brings back the bad old days of our numerous 9/11 'truth' community participations, and also importantly reveals my recent point of contention with ousia about perception, illusion (, and delusion). As for the latter, all the philosophical grounding in the universe(s?) is worthless if one can't move beyond 'common' senses.

Besides all the professional disinfo (such as my dear Rasputina) that immediately flooded the post-911 environment, we perhaps spent even more time having to deal with all the innocents making wild claims deriving from their childish ignorance of such as physics and relative material strengths, etc..

I remember my first introduction to uncommon sense at an early age. The father of my best friend at the time was a jet engine engineer and we lived in an area where new aircraft were tested and not too uncommonly crashed. After one such event, my friend told me that his father explained to him that metal was little more than toilet paper, in such events. This seemed incredible to my young mind, my first introduction to 'relativity' so to speak. Thus, from mal-informed mental frameworks, people are forced (or paid) to advance all manner of workarounds and special pleadings in order to satisfy their common sense delusions, all the while sure that they are perceptively correct. This is proving to be the whole problem with the wider analysis of society as well, as everything is distorted here in Wonderland.

The classic case, for me, was when Rasputina's alleged boyfriend, Jim Hoffman, advanced the insane idea that the alleged impact plane at the Pentagon imploded just before impact, so as to justify the obscurantist notion that the "hole was too small". Jim and Rasputina insisted there had to a 757, because so many of the people on the highway, stalled in traffic looking the wrong way (and most of whom worked for the DoD BTW) claimed they saw 'something'. Some of them claimed they were showered with a metal confetti snow storm, yet not one hi-res photo of the highway nearby remotely showed such a thing on the asphalt or the sidewalks.
 

Allancw

Member
I'm not going to debate technical issues about 9/11 here except to say that anyone can do some googling about frame rate and shutter speed in off-the-shelf video cameras and then do the math to calculate how much motion blur there should be. I am not going to take the bait and waste everyone's time on a misdirection back and forth, on a detail about a subject matter better dealt with elsewhere. I’d be happy to start a separate thread about 9/11. In fact, I’d love to do that. I’d love for everyone to see my Walter Iooss Interview and then your reaction to it. So, please do open a thread.

Make of the above paragraph what you will, how I'm this or that; knock yourself out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Per Allan's request, I have moved the 911 related items to a separate thread.

anyone can do some googling about frame rate and shutter speed in off-the-shelf video cameras and then do the math to calculate how much motion blur there should be.
That's what I did, and 1/500 shutter speed is what I came up with as a typical value. I also trust that anyone else can do the same.

I just watched some of Wolfsire's video. Starting at about 10:00 in, there's a very interesting sequence in which the researcher creates a 3-D computer model of the flight path of alleged flight 175 taken from radar sources, and then compares this 3-D model to video footage of the flight captured from twenty-six different angles. Every single film conformed to a single flight path, although there were some anomalies between two different sources of radar data.

Starting at 25:00, Judy Wood is complaining that the wingtips were not strong enough to cut through the building facade. Without doing the appropriate computations (a very complex finite element analysis of the crash) I don't see how she can be so confident.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
As a follow-up, I checked at the "Canon camera museum" to find a typical consumer video camera from the period. This is the Canon model ZR10: it had a 1/4" video sensor (which is very tiny by modern standards, almost like a cell-phone camera), and a 10x zoom lens with an F/1.8-2.9 aperture. The maximum shutter speed was 1/8000. The spec sheet doesn't give the effective ISO speed. If a camera like this was used on 911, it probably would have been operating at maximum zoom, f/2.9, and a shutter speed of 1/2000 or faster.

http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/product/dvc673.html
 

Allancw

Member
Look, never mind. What I meant to say was that I don't have time for 9/11 now, and won't until we finish up these Kesey matter. I still have not heard from Joe at all: only tirades of misdirection from Jan. I would appreciate our setting a date for my defense of Kesey. As I've said, I suspect Joe is going to duck me on this, using whatever misdirection excuse he can come up with. I hope I'm wrong. I suspect I scared him with my observations on the title analysis and especially the tape travesty.
 
Top