| Welcome to Pumpitout. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Carmen Taylor Answers Questions | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 23 2009, 05:01 AM (14,304 Views) | |
| shure | Jul 29 2009, 09:28 AM Post #406 |
|
Administrator
|
Carmen's tour bus brochure:![]() http://www.pumpitout.com/images/ct/scan.jpg ![]() http://www.pumpitout.com/images/ct/scan0001.jpg ![]() http://www.pumpitout.com/images/ct/scan0002.jpg ![]() http://www.pumpitout.com/images/ct/scan0003.jpg |
![]() |
|
| heidimarie | Jul 29 2009, 04:32 PM Post #407 |
|
Again, thank you Jeff for posting the brochure scans. I'm computer-challenged. Tgc C |
![]() |
|
| heidimarie | Jul 29 2009, 04:38 PM Post #408 |
|
Subject: Metallic taste from dust Somewhere, somebody asked why I tasted metallic in the dust after the Towers fell. I don't know. ...but has anybody ever accidently gotten a piece of "aluminum" or "tin" foil in their mouth? You don't necessarily have to bite down...it's bad. And you will go to great lengths to make sure it never happens again. ...or how about putting a metal eating utensil in your mouth and it turns out to be one of those that have that absolutely horrible metallic taste? Yuck. What do these two examples mean? I don't know. Some kind of metal not intended to be in my mouth got there, but neither came from an exploding building or from thermite, as far as I would think. tgc c |
![]() |
|
| shure | Jul 29 2009, 05:39 PM Post #409 |
|
Administrator
|
Thank you for scanning and sharing with us
|
![]() |
|
| YougeneDebs | Jul 29 2009, 11:44 PM Post #410 |
|
Carmen~ Thank you, thank you, thank you !!! You're so sweet for doing that! And thanks, Jeff, for helping out! Debs |
![]() |
|
| heidimarie | Jul 30 2009, 10:36 AM Post #411 |
|
Debs, Jeff, everyone...you're most welcomed. tgc C |
![]() |
|
| seatnineb | Aug 2 2009, 09:21 AM Post #412 |
|
@ Carmen Could you watch this video: http://www.livevideo.com/video/E738EF62E5AF41CCBDD15840FDAE0B55/damning-evidence-where-there-s.aspx?lastvcid=313996 Ignore the title and the insinuations it makes.....it was made 2 years ago by a complete idiot. But it does have one useful thing.....the cameraman(who goes by the name of Fred) is on the embankment just in front of where your ferry was stationed on 9/11 ........he is swiveling his camera 360 degrees trying and failing to find where Mike Hezarkhani was filming from on 9/11 whilst the angle is not 100% the same as what you experienced on 9/11......could you pause this video at the point where you think you 1st saw the plane approach(Ie from the north west).....and then tell us we can then take a screen capture of where you paused the video so we can can get a visual idea Thanks in advance |
![]() |
|
| heidimarie | Aug 2 2009, 05:00 PM Post #413 |
|
s9b...sure will. have guests today, but will do Sunday night or Monday morning. Anxious to see the video. Wish I could do it now, but would get caught...tgc c |
![]() |
|
| heidimarie | Aug 2 2009, 10:01 PM Post #414 |
|
I would like to post photos and things here directly, but even with these directions I'm having trouble. I'll try again. I appreciate the help. tgc c |
![]() |
|
| heidimarie | Aug 2 2009, 11:13 PM Post #415 |
|
Seat9B: Not easy to do...but, try 6:54, :56 and :48. Put me on the end of the ferry towards the Towers I'm turned very slightly toward the Towers, and I first saw and then watched "175" approach by turning my head to the left, but NOT looking back over my shoulder. Turned just enough to see approach low on horizon across the river. Also look at 5:21, and the approach might be from the left, but it doesn't feel right. It may be a stretch. I looked back at pages 10 and 11 where I drew in my position, camera angle and 175 approach. Hope this helps. The video just felt odd. tgc C |
![]() |
|
| achimspok | Aug 3 2009, 07:39 AM Post #416 |
|
Hi Carmen, I know the whole discussion but I never understood WHY some people hardly try to discredit some photos and videos without ANY visible or comprehensible reason. Some guys run around in Battery Park, show a probable perspective and decide not to go there and find the right place. No, they turn around and go home stating these photos must be fake. Others go by ferry and take some very distant shots to show all wrong perspectives while they got closer and closer. That's where that video ends with the statement that at least the Hezarkhani video must be fake. It's a parody in itself. That's why I did the "No Plane Manifesto - 100% proof" video a while ago and put it on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElG-J3RlEs It's a parody but a lot of people don't realize it. Should I laugh or cry about it? I don't know. I thought the nonsense must be obvious. No. You can state that a helicopter pilot usually is 4 meters tall and a lot people do not realize the nonsense. What the hell is going on in these heads? Let's try something! ![]() OK, your photograph next to a frame from the Hezarkhani video. Let's say both are no fake because a fake of these two shots (especially back in 2001 when Pixar made Monsters AG) would be a lot lot lot lot of work that would take a long time to programming it and a long time to render it and we saw a lot of !!!consistent!!! videos from about 20 different perspectives. According to the two shots you are a little bit to the right of Hezanrkhani that's why we see a gap between the top of the Downtown Athletic Club (reddish building in the foreground) and WTC1. The burning floor in relation to the height of the Downtown Athletic Club is about the same. In other words, the angle is about the same. So if you and Hezarkhani were at about the same height then the distance was also the same. Using a scaled 3D model of Manhattan it must be possible to find a similar angle for the Hezarkhani shot: ![]() ...and for your photograph: ![]() Here is the isometric top view with the camera positions: ![]() You can see the towers + the plane + the Downtown Athletic Club + two little spheres in the water. The green sphere represents the POV of Hezarkhani in the moment of the frame. The red sphere represents the best match for your photograph. For both cameras I choose an altitude of 2.3 meters above the water. So may be both of you were a little lower and the distance between the ferry and the tower was a little larger. If so then the distance between you and Hezarkhani would be some inches different. In other words, the failure of that model is small. Have a look at the mapped Google map. "Infront" of you (red ball) behind Hezarkhani (green ball) is a ferry. The size and position of that ferry fits 100% to imagine a ferry that goes towards (or came from) the peer and both of you on deck shooting the plane. In that video at 3:49 you find an animation (2fps) of the flight path. As far as I could analyze it the plane flew almost above of your head. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClDtwOR-3wQ If the Hezarkhani video and your photos are no fake then it should be possible to combine both to get some kind of 3D picture. All you need is a red and a green transparent foil. I'm sure you can get it in a stationery shop. Use the red foil for your right eye (your perspective) and the green foil for the left eye (POV Hezarkhani). Everyone will see that it works very good for every single column in the air at that fraction of a second. ![]() Now change the side of the colors! Use the green foil for your right eye (your perspective) and the red foil for the left eye (POV Hezarkhani). The following is a combination of the pictures I started with. ![]() The resolution of both sources wasn't very good. So it's just a matter of time until someone "know" it must be fake because the left wing looks like ... like ... like invisible. But that's another discussion about tons of bad resolution videos and pictures on the internet copied and compressed a thousand times and about the techniques of macro block compression like JPG and MPG and all these FLV videos on google and youtube... In short, a compressed picture consists of squares of grouped pixels. Similar colors and brightness will be reduced to one color and brightness just to reduce the size of the file. If you want to use a compressed file for some kind of analysis then you will get a problem e.g. a missing wing. Btw, of course the plane looks like "melting" into the wall but you neither see a single column in these low resolution pictures nor you see a million of tiny pieces of debris. All of that just looks like a gray cloud of dust. It isn't. I believe this is the point where the problem (the fake claim) first started. Once you realize that one pixel of the Hezarkhani video represents about 0.5m X 0.5m on the surface of the WTC2 and all the gray tones were first compressed just in the moment of recording and again when captured it on the hard disk and again when uploaded it and again when downloaded and edited it into a little video about the missing wing and again when uploaded the little video... Hey, you have to be happy that you still see the towers. |
![]() |
|
| broken sticks | Aug 3 2009, 07:57 AM Post #417 |
|
lovin the reflection of 175
|
![]() |
|
| achimspok | Aug 3 2009, 08:13 AM Post #418 |
|
I wrote "almost above of your head". It's relative. Here is the position of the plane 3.5 seconds prior to the impact and at an altitude of 364 meters.
|
![]() |
|
| heidimarie | Aug 3 2009, 09:19 AM Post #419 |
|
achimspok: The more I see the more I don't understand. What did I see "to my left" that I thought was a plane, then visually tracked after assuming it would circle the tower and then photographed? I don't see how I could have visually tracked a plane that approached from behind me and flew over my head. I'm not arguing, disputing or being stubborn. I simply don't know how I set up the shot, zoomed in and out a couple of times after deciding the plane I saw "to my left" was going to be in position. Maybe the last 3.5 seconds was enough for me to have done that, but when I first "saw' 175, it was very small, to my left. I can understand being confused about what, when and where I saw 175 IF I had NOT taken the picture--bad memory, etc--but I took the picture based on what I saw and assumed it was going to do. Your information is logical. Is mine emotional? I wrote an essay "Impact" several months after 9/11. This is the ending: "...I felt anticipation, vibration. I felt the low drone of engines, much like tugboats declaring their impending arrival as they pushed their heavy cargos against the current. This feel of home, of the Arkansas River at my back door was familiar, not frightening, and I leaned into it and let it push through me. Far to my left, toward the west and low on the horizon I caught the movement of a tiny, dark speck in the sky. It had been the engines of an airplane I had felt, not those of a tugboat. An airplane was coming. More people were coming. Perhaps this was a police aircraft preparing to come in and circle the Towers for a closer look. It would probably drop beneath the smoke, get in close enough so the people on board could see inside the Towers. The people in the Towers would see it coming and when it got close enough they would probably look at the people looking at them and then everybody would know what was happening. I easily imagined this. It was logical in my pre-9/11 mindset to believe this and maybe I had to believe this in order not to believe the truth. I had always thought of more people as more help and this was the reasoning that guided me. I still held my camera steady, strap wrapped around my palm so I wouldn't drop it. The plane was heading directly for the South Tower and I couldn't think of any reason for it to change course. This would make an interesting picture and give me something sane and calming to do while the plane moved in closer. There was plenty of time for me to set up the shot. The North and South Towers were already centered on the Sony's scratched, sun-washed screen, perhaps a little too close, though, not allowing enough foreground or locators. Backing off a bit and widening the frame helped open up and better identify the scene. This might even make a good picture. The clear, blue sky was a beautiful backdrop and the red brick building in the foreground was a nice contrast. The helicopter should add some interest and a bit of action. Bracing myself tighter, I steadied the camera and held the shutter halfway. My body swayed with the ferry. I mechanically tracked the airplane with my peripheral vision and centered my attention on the viewfinder as the plane traveled its low, precise course which lined up perfectly with the South Tower of the World Trade Center." TGC C Edited by heidimarie, Aug 3 2009, 09:20 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| achimspok | Aug 3 2009, 07:51 PM Post #420 |
|
The ferry goes from east to west. Probably Hezarkhani stood near the bow (front) you stood near the rear. If you stood in the direction of the ferry then you had to look to your left to see the plane coming. The towers were apprex. to your right. About 3.5 sec prior to the impact the plane was in front of your ferry.![]() in the second frame (the one with the better resolution) you reached the position of Hezarkhani's impact. (It would be possible to calculate the speed of your ferry.) ![]() Here is the flight path. The red arrow shows the direction of the ferry.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · September 11, 2001 · Next Topic » |



















7:27 PM Jul 10