Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
they has just started BROADCASTING in digital in 2001/2 (the 1999 requirement that you lie about was actually a 2001 rule and would be required within 8 years they would)..the camera's in the field were still analog
Congress set June 12, 2009 as the deadline for full power television stations to stop broadcasting analog signals.(I'm sure you remember when we all had to get converter boxes, for those that we still on rabbit ears).....to sit there tex, and say in 1999 they were braodcasting digital ..is an outright LIE...
at least get your story straight
My story is straight ... and I'm surprised you keep coming back for more humiliation ... have you no shame?
The "person" who claimed digital video didn't exist in 2001 was plainly ignorant ... also assuming that video tape automatically indicated analog, which is another pure belly laugher, since digital tape has been around a very long time. That's what I was responding to ... but aside that, you're stretching to try to find something wrong or inaccurate with what I said ... YOU FAILED AGAIN.
History .... it's easy to check ... no need for you to speculate or pull things out of your backside.
1993
At a meeting of engineers from 18 countries, MPEG-2 (for Moving Picture Experts Group) is agreed upon as worldwide standard for digital television pictures. However, for broadcasting these pictures and for sound encoding, each region goes its own way -- leading to the usual incompatibilities among the United States, Europe, and Japan.
Europeans drop D2 MAC and officially declare Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) to be their digital TV system of choice.
1994
Digital satellite TV service DirecTV is launched.
1996
WebTV is the first company to marry the Internet with television sets.
On 26 December, the FCC approves the standard for Advanced TV, which includes HDTV and multichannel Standard Digital Television (SDTV).
1998
Twenty-two so-called early-builder stations in the top 10 US markets are scheduled to begin first digital TV broadcasts on 1 November.
1999
By 1 May, network affiliates in the top 10 markets -- representing 30 percent of US households -- are required by the FCC to be on the air with digital TV programs. The same goes for network affiliates in the top 30 markets -- representing 53 percent of the country -- by 1 November.
Yet maybe your criticism and charge of me lying is just you being as confused as the other sad chap, so, while you chose to jump in, let me straighten you out too.
There is a huge difference between broadcast methods and video format, as well as quality and format. You can broadcast digital source over analog transmitters, and you can digitally broadcast analog source. The end quality is not predetermined by the mere format of the source video, be it analog or digital, as was insinuated. You can have high def analog, and standard def digital ... and ultimately, the method of transmission and the quality of source both dictates what quality is received ... high def digital, transmitted digitally is the highest quality ... but even today, High Def is a small part of the TV market ... and I doubt many people understand that most programming is still standard def ... even though they are watching digital satellite on high def flat screens .. which does offer increased quality even in standard def, analog video source.
To make matters even more confusing ... true high definition is not possible at present, from a broadcast TV perspective. There is not enough bandwidth currently to broadcast full high def video, so what we now have is a quasi-high def for broadcast level of HD.
I know a little about the subject, because I used to sit and watch an actual high def monitor in my spouse's edit suite sometimes when she worked late doing a final review of a program that was to go to broadcast (everyone worldwide is familiar with this program, but for anonymity, I won't reveal). And this was in the mid 1990's ... and it was analog video encoded to digital for non-linear editing, and output to digital tape, that would ultimately be broadcast over analog transmitters ... imagine that! Sounds confusing, but the reality is ... back then ... almost everything was shot in the field with analog cameras, and converted to digital for editing on computer based systems which can only handle digital. Therefore, most TV programs, even in the 1990's used digital source tape for broadcast TV .... and what does that mean from a quality standpoint? Nothing. Because the original source was analog ... and simply converted to digital in order to edit it.
So by him saying that digital video didn't exist in 2001 ... it was just a totally brain dead thing to claim. And I pointed out how wrong that was. I also explained how irrelevant it was too ... because digital video really means very little insofar as quality is concerned, as I explained. He doesn't understand that, and since you came rushing to his defense, it seems you don't understand the issues either. But now you should be closer than when you first started out.
Video is a complex issue ... so there are many aspects that the common person has no clue about. And though I am no expert on the subject, I do have more of a background, and understanding than the average schmo.
So, if you intend to challenge me .... best do your homework, because at this point, you should already know by now, that I already have.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 05-22-2011 at 09:08 PM..
Obfuscation and denial that's your whole weak argument? The keyword was reputable not 1200 crackpots like you, great that's a reliable source, no wonder you all are laughed at and ridiculed as being the lunatic fringe. Lets see reputable peer review endorsement. not Idiot #1 saying Idiot # 2 is right because he agrees with me so there fore we are all right, all 1200 of us! And the other 800,000 Architects & Engineers in the country who say y'all are nuts are just plain wrong because they don't believe us.....Hmmm sounds seriously delusional to everyone who thinks with both hemispheres of their brains. But I am glad to see you got one point right... "there is nothing to see here ... but a handful of loons who believe in conspiracy theories"
It's a classic appeal to false authority (you'll find that in that list of 1200 only a 1/4 of them are licensed engineers) and of that 1/4 absolutely 0 of them, have done any peer reviewed research on the collapse of the towers.
BTW that list has been going around since 2006. And in 5 years, it gained all of 75 new "signatures".
Wonder if you contacted those 1200 to see what their views today are, many of them would probably not even aknowledge that huge list of a logical fallacy.
My story is straight ... and I'm surprised you keep coming back for more humiliation ... have you no shame?
Yet you fail again. I didn't SAY that digital VIDEO didn't exist in 2001 (otherwise my video editing class in 1998 was just a figment of my imagination) I said that BROADCASTERS were using ANALOG video in 2001.
this is what I exactly stated:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
yeah. analysis of highly compressed video on the net and not from the ORIGINAL High Quality tapes (yes TAPES). Digital versions of video didn't exist in 2001, and were only encoded to digital formats in the days after 9/11.
Broadcast in 2001 was mostly analog and were done on TAPES.
Digitizing video back then also meant highly COMPRESSED video being used (adding artifacts) . There was no such thing as HD or h.264 codecs. We were looking at apple's sorenson and indeo codecs to deliver video
Get it?
Archive.org has a compilation of all the videos that were shown that day, again ANALOG recorded videos; digitized in the days, months and years following 9/11
"pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...the great Oz commands it" Sounds a little familiar doesn't it...pay no attention to that Boeing 767 its not really there its a CGI image we made just to fool all of you gullible people...the Truthers demand it!
No you're right .. not one .... hundreds .... literally 1500 Architects & Engineers, along with 12000 other notable individuals endorsing their petition demanding a new investigation because of the nature of controlled demolition evident in all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7.
.
wrong ae911 1200 a and e...and not ONE of them a skyscraper a or e...not one of them a building structural engineer..not one of them a demo expert
yeah..so what if an archetect who designs single story houses in cali say .."oh sure I sign you pettion"
Action by the Commission, January 18, 2001, by Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 01-22). Chairman Kennard, Commissioners Ness and Furchtgott-Roth concurring in part and dissenting in part and issuing separate statements; Commissioner Powell issuing a separate statement and Commissioner Tristani dissenting and issuing a statement
The FCC also made adjustments to certain DTV-related rules and policies for broadcasters participating in band-clearing agreements. In particular, the Commission granted petitioners' request to allow a broadcaster that gives up one of its channels to accommodate band clearing the flexibility to continue to operate in analog mode and convert to DTV at any time up until December 31, 2005 and seek further extension of the DTV construction deadline if less than 70% of the television households in its market are capable of receiving DTV signals. The FCC also granted such broadcasters limited relief from DTV policies regarding interference protection of non-replicated service areas, and established a 90-day processing timeline for modification applications filed in connection with band-clearing arrangements. Finally, the FCC rejected arguments by a petitioner seeking to reverse its interference protection policies in connection with band-clearing arrangements.
Tomorrow, Saturday, May 1st, FCC rules become effective calling for the ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC affiliates in each of the top ten television markets to begin programming on their digital television channels. I am pleased that the DTV transition is largely on schedule and that broadcasters are joining the digital revolution .
straight from the source, the FCC
fact the tv news was still using ANALOG cameras in 2001..the STATION may have been BROADCASTING in LIMITED areas and availability in digital..but had to continue to broadcast in analog all the way to 2009 (extended until may 2010)
APPLICANTS FOR NEW ANALOG LOW POWER TELEVISION AND TV TRANSLATOR STATIONS MUST CONVERT TO DIGITAL BY MAY 24, 2010
In furtherance of the digital television transition, the Media Bureau announces that applicants for new analog low power television and TV translator stations must submit an amendment to their pending applications to specify digital operations by May 24, 2010. Pending applications for new analog facilities that are not amended to specify digital operations by the deadline set forth herein will not be processed.
Last edited by workingclasshero; 05-22-2011 at 11:32 PM..
Hell no I don't, what a crock of sh*t the official story is.
of course you can present your own narrative, along with scientific researched data right?
Oh and you have published your findings in a respected peer reviewed journal so that other scientists and engineers have weighed in on your research and conclusions right?
Of course you don't. And it isn't the "official" story. Its the ONLY explanation based on SCIENTIFIC research backed by THOUSANDS of man hours in research that supports the evidence of what happened on 9/11.
There are thousands of outside studies that support the investigation into 9/11's outcome
truthers like birthers have lies, inuendo, pseudo science, con artists, scam artists, and lunatics who are just out to make money on the gullible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does Anyone Still Believe the "Official 9-11" Story?
