Sunday, March 8, 2009

Why They Dumped Out of Delay

Beep Beep. Don Dahler is at the WTC, speaking to Charlie Gibson and he is cutoff mid-sentence by two beeps. He begins talking again. Then the airplane comes in. Gibson, watchig a monitor in the studio, says "That looks like a second plane" Dahler says "I did not see a plane, that just exploded".

The two beeps and the cutoff sound very much like ABC is dumping out of delay. Live TV broadcasts are typically delayed. The actual live signal is run through a delay circuit of say 10 seconds. Live talk radio has the same feature. If something is heard or seen that is unfit for the airwaves, the engineer has 10 seconds to switch the delay off, going completely live, and bypassing the offending material.

Why, oh why would they switch out of delay just before the second fake airplane strike? Seems like they would have wanted that delay for insurance, just in case something went wrong (like Chopper 5). But no. They dumped out of delay, certainly on ABC, and I suspect on all the networks. Why?

It's so obvious. Teresa Renault. Talking to Bryant Gumbel as the second "plane" hits the South Tower. We are supposed to believe she is witnessing the airplane out of her window in Chelsea. If she really was seeing an airplane out of her window, it wouldn't matter if the networks were still in delay. She would see the plane live, she would report it live, and her voice would be synchronized with the video of the airplane. "Oh my god there's another one".

But if Renault is watching the plane on TV, it matters very much. For if she is watching a delayed signal, then her voice will be 10 seconds behind the video.

The same is true for those voices in Chopper 5, and any of the other channels with callers on line. They dumped out of delay because they needed those people watching television to pretend they were seeing it with their own eyes.

11 comments:

L.L. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
engineer said...

"There IS THE 2nd plane"? Right on schedule.

"I did not see a plane, that just exploded". Weird sentence. Nervous? But saw one that did not? Or explosion with no plane. Did he almost blow it?

TV people are pretty dense anyway. Your brain must go numb after a while, reading those teleprompters.

None of them had the reflex to witness a 2nd plane. It is moving at 800 ft/sec (a joke but let's go along) and they WOULD HAVE not been gazing (TV or direct) into the field of view, not expecting a plane.

L.L. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ace Baker said...

Audio and video are separate elements. They can be delayed separately. Perhaps video was already live, and they switched audio out of delay at the beep beep.
Or perhaps they re-edited the piece for our consumption later.

Either way, the audio of ABC sounds exactly like dumping out of delay. I can't think of any other explanation. Dahler is cut off mid-sentence, then begins speaking again with a completely new sentence. This is exactly what happens when going out of delay.

If there is another explanation, I'll listen.

L.L. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reader said...

Do you have other examples of (non 9/11-related) news broadcasts dumping out of delay and producing the same sound? How do you know that the "two beeps and the cutoff sound very much like ABC is dumping out of delay"?

engineer said...

"If she really was seeing an airplane out of her window.."

How did the other 100,000 miss it, who were much closer to the scene?

Is this not all moot?

"then her voice will be 10 seconds behind the video. "

Why not delay the audio?

Anonymous said...

You can do no good in these matters, Mr.Baker.You can only exacerbate the harm you've caused. Your continued presence even damages your own ideas about what happened on 911. There are many things in the world, that would be helped by your attention. If you are an honorable person, you will do the right thing and find some other work to do.

Anonymous said...

You can do no wrong in these matters, Mr.Baker. You can only clarify the fine science you've already done, and make it accessible as only you can. Your reactions to the truth you have found, your own ideas about what happened on 911, are the most human and humane response to an unacceptable reality. There are many things in the world, that would be helped by your attention. You are an honorable person, you will do the right thing and finish the best 9/11 film, the one that will offer the truth with great science and magnificent emotional music. May you have the strength to see it through, and the health to enjoy your contribution to humanity.

Especially, thank you for banishing the lie, so we can create a more beautiful and perfect world. I wish most of all that you can enjoy that world you have sacrificed so much to help birth.

u2r2h said...

Good point.

I think it is important for you to see that you too have a logic-blockage with regards to the necessity of holograms (or whatever that live-image-in-the-sky technology is actually called) I value your cogitations, but the nose-out and eye-witnesses and SOME footage and the risk of film-of-explosion-without-plane make holograms a must.

Perps could never risk to have some camera film the explosion showing just a missile. They programmed the hologramme for almost all angles.. featureless against the sun.. and good detail for battery park watchers.

The theory of the technology is described HERE

operative phrase:
atomic vapors and gases, plasmas and even liquids it was possible to generate holograms

Ace Baker said...

Thin-air holograms are physically impossible, just as is going faster than the speed of light.

You have brought no evidence supporting your claim.

Eyewitnesses are easy to manufacture in any quantity.

Video compositing is proven.