9/11 - Camera Equipment - UPDATE - 5/18/2018

The image below was filmed on an analog camcorder by: Luc Courchesne

 http://footage.framepool.com/en/shot/271003791-united-airlines-flight-175-aircraft-hijacking-wtc-1-north-tower-wtc-2-south-tower 

If you look at this video there is a building to the left of the screen which is very darkly lit.  It is dark because the camera is pointed toward the sky which is bright, so the camera has used auto exposure to reduced the brightness of the overall image.  ie it has increased the shutter
speed.  I suspect this video camera was operating at a faster shutter speed than all the other cameras and has caught the projection technology in "mid-project".  In other words, during the time she shutter was open, the plane was being "drawn", but there was not enough time for the entire
frame to be "drawn" in the short shutter speed, so the last part of the projection, ie the wing has been missed.

Here's the original video link.

http://footage.framepool.com/en/shot/271003791-united-airlines-flight-175-aircraft-hijacking-wtc-1-north-tower-wtc-2-south-tower 

Luc Courchesne (videographer flight 175) filmed the footage in a BetaSP recording format @ 29.97 fps. Which you IS a sort of analog MAGNETIC TAPE, so to speak. So he could have used a Sony BVW-200 it was one of the most popular in the mid 90s, and he was a professional. My opinion the pro's in 1997 would have used either a Sony OR Ikegami. http://www.matrixav.com/reference/dv_betacam.htm 

I did email Luc Courchesne and asked him if he could tell me what kind of camera he used on 9/11. I'm still waiting and hoping for a response. It is a Betacam SP of some kind. The shutter speed would have been 1/125, 1/250, 1/500, 1/1000, 1/2000 seconds. NTSC camcorder - switchable - Drop Frame to NDF. So we're at around 29 fps. http://www.broadcaststore.com/pdf/model/9254/9254.pdf 
Which is the frame rate that's delivered when purchased from original source. I've been analyzing videos / photos with Mark Conlon. We both agree their could have been a missile (or other solid object) exiting the South Tower.

I recently interviewed Norio Hayakawa - 45 year UFOlogist - He said their is evidence of: "UFO sightings in Dulce New Mexico, being some type of illusion technology mounted on to aircraft." Mark Conlon and I suspect a missile (solid object) could've been essential in providing the object for the radar data. Maybe a delivery system for the 3-D airplane image? Obviously a missile wasn't used to create the airplane shaped holes and obviously missiles didn't destroy the buildings. Missiles are also NOT a secret technology that can be used for good. This is my reason for focusing on the energy weapons. Still I suspect people are muddying the waters in regards to - missile's being used.
ie: The Concerned Grandpa. 

There is evidence of energy effects seen in Shanksville & The Pentagon which I have documented here --> http://wolfclanmedia-research.blogspot.com/2018/03/911-phantom-warfare.html

I suspect this could be the reason why there is no major video disruptions in the Jennifer Spell footage, Luc Courchesne had some video errors right at the time of the airplane impacting the tower.



Neither is the wing missing in Jennifer Spell's (Luc Courchesne was) and he recorded on a beta sp (magnetic tape) during the spike in the earths magnetic field.

Jennifer Spell was an eyewitness on 9/11 who filmed flight 175.

She used a sony vx1000 which is a digital video cassette redcorder. So this was fairly high quality (at the time)

Some have suggested her camera captured a "laser light" or some kind of "orb" in the video. Some refute this as "paper".

My only issue (with this being paper) is that it aligned perfectly with the impact zone, right before the plane enters the building and the "paper" continues it's path unaffected by the fireball, after the explosion.

See Video: 

Sony vx1000 is a digital camcorder with a digital cassette so... It WAS NOT using a magnetic strip of tape to capture the video. The above video was originally encoded in a digital format. If the reader feels I've made an error, please contact me and let me know....

Chris - wolfclanmedia@gmail.com

Also, the brightness in the contrast of the airplane, in Jennifer Spell's video, is different than the rest. Is there a possibility that Steven Rosenbaum did color correction during post production? YES, but...

There is NO evidence to suggest this. Even if the editors did spice up the appearance of the airplane, that proves nothing. In my opinion. The footage is 100% authentic.
She also saw the "turn around" and "3rd aircraft" fly by. She tells Jeff Hill about this on their phone call. Yet people still spread lies about this woman on the internet. Calling her a fake, very disrespectful. The truth is she: "Saw a plane and didn't alter anything" you can bet on that!

Naudet footage of 2nd plane has a wing missing in some shots. Another professional camera man using analogue equipment in 2001 (this makes sense to me because I know many studios do not update the gear when it's out of date, common practice - if it ain't broke don't fix it) analog tape was still very popular in 2001.

This "Wing Study" was completed by Mark Conlon. Which shows comparisons in different clips of the wing missing. You'll notice this was NOT caused by compression or video artifacts. 

So I wonder does anyone know what kind of camera Michael Hezarkhani used? I guess I could call CNN, but would rather not...

IMPORTANT UPDATE - 5/18/2018
Thanks to Mark Conlon and his recent video disproving audio fakery in the Hezarkhani video, Ive come to see that this too was probably filmed on tape. Killtown was using deception in his analysis as well as Ace Baker to promote video fakery. Meanwhile CNN said: "The tape was re-winding" Killtown thought it was suspicious, but not if it was just captured and sold to CNN to air quickly.

Here is the link to Marks video - https://www.bitchute.com/video/9bRURhoLjnSw/

I will update this article as info emerges.

- Chris - Wolf Clan Media