Possible Explanation for Explosions Caught on Camera

[Tandem Thinking]

Alright, I stumbled across this video on youtube and found it to be very interesting (or atleast I thought so)



I found it a little confusing so I also asked him a question about it which I'll also include for those of you who may also be confused after seeing the video:

I think I have a vague idea of what you're saying, but I'm not sure.
Let me see if I got this:
A standard consumer video camera records two half frames almost simultaneously (but not quite) and puts them together to form one frame.
The white ghost flash is the bottom half of the frame capturing the flash before the two frames have been interlaced.

Is that right or am I completely off?

Yep, that's exactly right.

Why does this deserve its own thread?
Well, I found the idea he is presenting to be interesting.
It gives the dead horse one last slap on the cheek.
Perhaps it will be helpful in future debunkings of those who have been newly introduced to the conspiracy theories (as I was only a few months ago)
And I haven't seen anything similar to this in the 9/11 forum, in fact I haven't seen anyone give anything like this as a possible explanation for explosions captured on film either during the collapse or during the plane's collision.

That is all, you won't be getting those five minutes I just wasted back, so you might as well say something profound.

 

[Shrinker]

He's got it all wrong about interlacing. That can't possibly be the cause of his artifact. What it is though... I've no idea...

Edit: nope, I've got it. Some cameras - even high end (digibeta, Red camera), scan the picture vertically, so if an event happens 1/4 way through a frame, it only shows in the bottom 3/4 of the picture. That's why when you see video of celebs at premiers the camera flashes sometimes fill only part of the frame. His white dot is therefore something like a lens flare from the LED, which illuminated part way through the frame scan. The scan missed the LED on, but caught the 'flare'. I don't think we've seen any anomaly in 9/11 footage which is explained by this artifact.

Edit2: The term I was desperately trying to remember is 'rolling shutter' and is described here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter ...and is an entirely different phenomenon to interlacing, although both do exist in many formats.

 

[T.A.M.]

yes I believe it is due to the CMOS sensor that those cameras use, but I could be wrong.

responsible for "Jello" cam when doing quick pans.

TAM

 

[Mangoose]

My explanation is way simpler. The impression that the "flash" occurs below the crash area is an illusion due to movement of the camera between frames. The flash is simply the moment when the nose hits the building. The footage is very blurry and the camera is getting mainly a rear view of the plane, so the nose itself is not visible. But it is clear that this is the moment the nose crashes into the building if you look at the frames more carefully:

The frames are aligned by the northeast corner of the roof of the tower (green line). In the original footage, the view moves upward significantly between these frames -- such that what would have been the impact site a fraction of a second before the crash occupied the same pixels as a portion of the building several floors below in the impact frames.

Note the difference between frames #1 and #2 -- there is no shadow of the fuselage cast on the building in #1 whereas there is a shadow cast along the length of the building in #2. It is in the very next frame where the "flash" occurs. The red line shows that the point where the shadow intersects the plane in #2 corresponds to the flash in #3 and this is the same exact spot as the center of the impact zone five frames later in #8. So probably in #1 the plane had not reached close enough to the building to cast a shadow across it, #2 was the moment when the forward fuselage (including the nose) got close enough to cast a shadow but not yet close enough to impact, #3 is the moment when the nose impacts, and #8 shows the building after the wings and the rest of the plane hit, showing that the center point of the impact zone corresponds to the same location where the nose of the plane impacted in #3.

 

[Baylor]

Good work Mangoose. I never really looked into this because it is probably the stupidest trutherism there is. Yes, stupider than the "pod".

 

[Tandem Thinking]

He's got it all wrong about interlacing. That can't possibly be the cause of his artifact. What it is though... I've no idea...

Edit: nope, I've got it. Some cameras - even high end (digibeta, Red camera), scan the picture vertically, so if an event happens 1/4 way through a frame, it only shows in the bottom 3/4 of the picture. That's why when you see video of celebs at premiers the camera flashes sometimes fill only part of the frame. His white dot is therefore something like a lens flare from the LED, which illuminated part way through the frame scan. The scan missed the LED on, but caught the 'flare'. I don't think we've seen any anomaly in 9/11 footage which is explained by this artifact.

Edit2: The term I was desperately trying to remember is 'rolling shutter' and is described here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_shutter ...and is an entirely different phenomenon to interlacing, although both do exist in many formats.

yes I believe it is due to the CMOS sensor that those cameras use, but I could be wrong.

responsible for "Jello" cam when doing quick pans.

TAM

Thanks a lot both of you for the explanations and the link, I think I get it mostly (atleast in laymans terms)

My explanation is way simpler. The impression that the "flash" occurs below the crash area is an illusion due to movement of the camera between frames. The flash is simply the moment when the nose hits the building. The footage is very blurry and the camera is getting mainly a rear view of the plane, so the nose itself is not visible. But it is clear that this is the moment the nose crashes into the building if you look at the frames more carefully:



The frames are aligned by the northeast corner of the roof of the tower (green line). In the original footage, the view moves upward significantly between these frames -- such that what would have been the impact site a fraction of a second before the crash occupied the same pixels as a portion of the building several floors below in the impact frames.

Note the difference between frames #1 and #2 -- there is no shadow of the fuselage cast on the building in #1 whereas there is a shadow cast along the length of the building in #2. It is in the very next frame where the "flash" occurs. The red line shows that the point where the shadow intersects the plane in #2 corresponds to the flash in #3 and this is the same exact spot as the center of the impact zone five frames later in #8. So probably in #1 the plane had not reached close enough to the building to cast a shadow across it, #2 was the moment when the forward fuselage (including the nose) got close enough to cast a shadow but not yet close enough to impact, #3 is the moment when the nose impacts, and #8 shows the building after the wings and the rest of the plane hit, showing that the center point of the impact zone corresponds to the same location where the nose of the plane impacted in #3.

That is absolutely simpler.
I brought this up though to check its validity (which I failed to mention in the list of reasons) and also to see if it could be applied to any scenario on 9/11.

It appears that even though the creator had the best of intentions, his assumptions were wrong. As far as I can see and as others pointed out, it doesn't explain anything on 911 that isn't already explained by a simpler method.

Thanks a lot for the comments everyone.