Rehashing the Verrazzano bridge

[simonshack]

*

I am opening this thread just to discuss the Verrazzano bridge (as floated on TV on 9/11), as our member Rusty from Germany has brought up the issue in our WTC collapse thread. I will ask Rusty to expound his views on the matter here, on this dedicated page.

I have copy-pasted below my old post from the SIMCITY thread. If Rusty can find fault with it, I will gladly amend/correct or retract any basic errors or technical inexactitudes it may contain:

***********************************************************

THE VERRAZZANO BRIDGE ISSUES

At left: The Verrazzano bridge as aired LIVE on 9/11 on ABC TV (and later on the History Channel)
At right: The Verrazzano bridge as depicted in a private pre-9/11 aerial video.




There are three distinct issues with the 9/11 VERRAZZANO bridge imagery (this is, without even mentioning the absurd-looking colors and 'texture' of the imagery itself - which bear no resemblance to images shot by top-notch TV cameras).


ISSUE 1
It has been argued that this ridiculously large/wide aspect of the Verrazzano seen on LIVE TV on 9/11 could be explained by lens distorsion - caused by different focal lenghts of the given lenses used. As we see, in the above left ABC TV image, the bridge appears approx 3.3X taller/wider than in the above right PRIVATE image. Yes, when using a telephoto zoom lens (200mm or upwards), objects in the backdrop will appear larger than with a 'shorter' lens (such as a standard 50mm lens): this optical phenomena is called 'focal distorsion'. The problem is, large 500 or 1000mm telephoto lenses have notoriously a much inferior focus range/ depth of field than shorter lenses: when focusing on a subject in a given skyline, any object in the backdrop will be entirely out of focus / i.e. totally blurred. Yet, the bridge seen in the ABC TV imagery is perfectly visible and only slightly out of focus.

ISSUE 2
Here is now a sequence from the 9/11 LIVE TV broadcasts, showing the bridge drifting in the backdrop. It has been argued this could be explained by the TV helicopter camera's zoom out motion/and sideways drift of the chopper which supposedly carried the TV camera :


The problem is: at the end of this sequence, the zoom-out motion stops. Yet, the bridge continues to drift sideways at a rapid rate - far superior to the apparent 'helicopter' drift. And again, the bridge remains magically focused, this time even though a long zoom-out motion is performed ! That is truly an extraordinary / other-worldly lens which every pro-photographer in the world would dream of putting their hands on...


ISSUE 3
Furthermore, please consider these facts:
- The distance of the Verrazzano bridge from the WTC is/was almost 12km.
- The height of its pillars is 211m - roughly half the height of the WTC towers - 417m.

Now, imagine for a minute that the bridge pillars were as tall as the towers themselves. Here is what it would look like:



The challenge is open for anyone wishing to take it:

Choose two equally tall buildings (A -in foreground ; and B - in backdrop) placed 12kilometers apart. Use whichever existing lens you wish - and choose to stand at whichever distance you wish (from A) with your camera. See if you can get B to look as tall as we see it in the image above - and IN FOCUS!

Good luck!

[rusty]

Simon,

as far as I understand, the main argument from your side in all three issues is related to the focus and quality of the images. I'm no expert in photography and can't therefore comment on the availability of super-lenses which could theoretically achieve such ridiculous quality shots. But I agree that your basic argument is valid: It's inconceivable that these shots were taken with real-word-lenses from real-world-helicopters.

The only point I want to make is, that these shots are mathematically possible, that means in (CGI) theory. There's nothing wrong per se with the perspectives and ratios - only with the claim that real-world cameras and helicopters could have been used to create them. I think that's an important point for understanding your claims.

Just for fun I created a "simulation" of those shots in the Terragen software:

Here is the annotated "map" of the landscape with camera position and lens angle. The one rock in the foreground is meant to simulate the WTC, the two rocks in the background represent the pillars of the Verrazano bridge. All rocks have the same height - I know the "pillars" should be smaller, but you get the point, if you keep this in mind.


Using this camera position and zoom you will get the following picture:


Now I use the following camera position with an extreme zoom setting. Remember, a high zoom simply means a small lens angle.


When I move the camera to the left while keeping the "WTC" rock in focus (target position), the two rocks in the background will move very fast (I have to admit that the camera speeds up here, but that does not matter). At the same time the small rocks in the foreground will barely move.

Also, because the distance between camera and "WTC" is the same as the distance between "WTC" and the "pillars", the pillars appear to have exactly half the height of the "WTC" rock.

So, from a 3D-software perspective, everything is fine with the Verrazano shots. The challenge is to reproduce something remotely similar with real lenses.

rusty

[Haze]

Interesting.
The rocks have the same height when a pillar is 1/2 tower.


On this shot, the pillars are 1/4 tower height. If the cameraman is at 12 km, it's ok, like your simulation !

But on this shot,

The pillar is 1/2 tower height, so the cameraman needs to be at 24 km of the towers, isn't it ?

Maybe i'm totally wrong, but even if he is at 12 km of the tower, it dont seems to be logical to stay as far as this.

[simonshack]

*

Rusty, you wrote:

"But I agree that your basic argument is valid: It's inconceivable that these shots were taken with real-word-lenses from real-world-helicopters."

Well, that's it then. You agree with the basic - and fundamental - argument that I wished to make!

As for this musing of yours:
"The only point I want to make is, that these shots are mathematically possible, that means in (CGI) theory. There's nothing wrong per se with the perspectives and ratios - only with the claim that real-world cameras and helicopters could have been used to create them."

Well, I'd say your reasoning is just caught up in a catch 22 - or some form of semantic aberration. If, on one hand, you say that "there's nothing wrong with the maths" - and on the other, you admit that those maths wrongfully simulate reality (which, of course, was their intended purpose) - then these maths cannot be called 'correct' or 'exact'. They fail to reproduce what is possible to achieve in the real world, with real-world lenses and cameras. Agreed?

To be sure, we are not discussing here the latest Playstation release which, like all computer games, obviously uses mathematical algorithms to simulate 3D environments on a computer screen. We are analyzing historical images which were sold to the public as real-world events purportedly filmed by television cameras.


********

But on this shot,

The pillar is 1/2 tower height, so the cameraman needs to be at 24 km of the towers, isn't it ?

Haze,

You are using my 'double-pillar' graphic completely out of context. Are you sure you understand the issues here?

[rusty]

If, on one hand, you say that "there's nothing wrong with the maths" - and on the other, you admit that those maths wrongfully simulate reality (which, of course, was their intended purpose) - then these maths cannot be called 'correct' or 'exact'. They fail to reproduce what is possible to achieve in the real world, with real-world lenses and cameras. Agreed?

Well, yes and no. The geometrical aspect of the math can be correct, even though the physical limitations of real-world cameras and helicopters may prevent a real-life shot depicting the same geometry that's possible in a pure 3D CGI software program.

To make it clearer why I think it's important to make this distinction, I will cite three of your statements, purposefully taken out of context:

1.

See if you can get B to look as tall as we see it in the image above

I made the rocks look as tall as we see in the image above. It's possible, because if the distance between the camera and object A is the same as the distance between objects A and B (all in one line), the relative height of B will be half of the relative height of object A. That's simple trigonometry.

2.

Yet, the bridge continues to drift sideways at a rapid rate - far superior to the apparent 'helicopter' drift.

Yes, that's because you only need very little camera movement to make objects in the distance move very fast in a zoomed shot. That's what I proved with my rock simulation.

3.

It has been argued that this ridiculously large/wide aspect of the Verrazzano seen on LIVE TV on 9/11 could be explained by lens distorsion - caused by different focal lenghts of the given lenses used.

I'm not sure anyone made the claim it's due to "distortion", but I proved that the large and wide aspect is due to a zoomed shot from a far distance (see point 1).

See what I mean? The math is correct. But still it looks practically unfeasible to me.

rusty

[resolution]

Hi Simon,

Here's a picture of the Verrazzano bridge taken from the World Trade Centre by Andy Kazie http://www.redbubble.com/people/andykazie.


http://www.redbubble.com/people/andykaz ... ter-view-3

Looking at his other images, it appears to be taken from inside the North Tower of the World Trade Centre.

http://www.redbubble.com/people/andykaz ... ter-view-1


http://www.redbubble.com/people/andykaz ... nter-lobby


http://www.redbubble.com/people/andykaz ... ter-view-2


http://www.redbubble.com/people/andykaz ... ter-view-4


http://www.redbubble.com/people/andykaz ... -sculpture


http://www.redbubble.com/people/andykaz ... stood-tall

[simonshack]

Hi Simon,

Here's a picture of the Verrazzano bridge taken from the World Trade Centre by Andy Kazie http://www.redbubble.com/people/andykazie.

Nice one, Resolution!

[sunshine05]

Great graphic, Simon.

[resolution]

Here is another corroboratory image for you Simon, this time supposedly from the public viewing platform. Unfortunately it is from the website of a guy who claims that he had training scheduled in the towers that morning, took the path train and saw people jumping to their deaths. I was unfortunate enough to come across quite a few shill websites whilst looking for historic images, some of which had extensions of previously seen false imagery.


http://www.doki-doki.net/~lamune/wtc/ob-deck-images/

[simonshack]

*

The 'sinking' of Verrazzano

I love it how this is meant to simulate the TV chopper shifting altitude... It just doesn't look right:

[Exorcist]

The only point I want to make is, that these shots are mathematically possible, that means in (CGI) theory. There's nothing wrong per se with the perspectives and ratios - only with the claim that real-world cameras and helicopters could have been used to create them. I think that's an important point for understanding your claims.

Just for fun I created a "simulation" of those shots in the Terragen software:

Just for fun I will later upload a forensic analysis carried out in AutoCad proving Simonshack is correct regarding the relative sizes of the bridge/WTC towers apparent in the MSM footage shown on the History channel programme. The ratios are mathematically impossible.

Question: WTF is CGI theory?
Answer: Large piles of it can be viewed and examined on cattle farms, but don't forget to wear some rubber gloves....and be extra careful where you step.....lmao!.....

[rusty]

Just for fun I will later upload a forensic analysis carried out in AutoCad proving Simonshack is correct regarding the relative sizes of the bridge/WTC towers apparent in the MSM footage shown on the History channel programme. The ratios are mathematically impossible.

As far as I understood Simon didn't make any concrete allegations about the mathematical (im)possibility of the relative sizes, nor has he questioned my findings. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your forensic analysis.

rusty

[brianv]

Have we got another tag-team going here?

Amazing! "rusty" last posted in May of 2013 and pops in with an immediate response to the latest post!

Are threads of "less than immediate importance" being targetted to attract casual readers away?

[Exorcist]

Just for fun I will later upload a forensic analysis carried out in AutoCad proving Simonshack is correct regarding the relative sizes of the bridge/WTC towers apparent in the MSM footage shown on the History channel programme. The ratios are mathematically impossible.

As far as I understood Simon didn't make any concrete allegations about the mathematical (im)possibility of the relative sizes, nor has he questioned my findings. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your forensic analysis.

rusty

I've just realised I expressed my point rather poorly in the paragraph you've quoted above so I'll rephrase it. I should have said I was referring to the pair of photos above (ABC tv on 911 versus Private pre 911).

From my analysis progress so far it's my opinion that the bridge, as it appears in the ABC tv photo is reasonably correct whereas the bridge as it appears in the Private pre 911 photo is faked.

NB: In saying the particular frame grab of the ABC tv footage appears reasonably correct I'm not saying that it is genuine. It could be a product of fakers with better skills. The pan in the History channel sequence, at first glance, seems very dodgy to me.

[simonshack]

From my analysis progress so far it's my opinion that the bridge, as it appears in the ABC tv photo is reasonably correct whereas the bridge as it appears in the Private pre 911 photo is faked.
.

Oh yes - very well, Exorcist. Bye now.