Cnn Fake Footage? More Video, Merged with That Old Hezarkhani Clip, again! Options

[Sanders]

Originally posted by gss:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9hwdJTOdEmY


The video is saying that this shot must have been faked:

(IMG:http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9062/picture2pl0.png)


because these trees should have been in the way (here shown without leaves):

(IMG:http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/648/picture3ut6.png)

I pointed out in another thread that in the last few frames in the CNN shot you can see the tops of trees in the bottom of the frame, so there must be a positition from which the building can be seen clearly above the trees. Well, here's the proof of THAT:

This is a photograph (NOT taken by CNN - this was presented IN THIS SAME VIDEO as a "real photograph" taken by somebody else)

(IMG:http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/9339/picture1uc7.png)


And there the building is, clearly seen above the tree-tops. So why is the maker of this clip trying to convince us that the CNN shot is impossible?

........ ........ ........ ........ ........
EDIT: The building behind the Whitehall building (reddish building) is far too low, this camera position is far too close ... at the time of this posting I hadn't caught on to the signifigance of the position of the building behind the Whitehall building (Something that is not explained in the video that is the topic of this thread).
....... ........ ........ ........ ........

Hey, painter, where is that little post you made with the two photos of the girl, one from farther away and with a zoom lens, one closer up? I tried to find it but I couldn't. These two photos, folks, shows dramatically what kind of spacial distortions can occur simply due to distance and zoom factors when taking a photo. This phenomenon explains everything else in this video that the maker credits to video-fakery.

This is the OPPOSITE of someone trying to get at the truth. This video is purposeful obfuscation.

This is disinformation.

Whether ALL of these sorts of videos are similarly disinfo or not I can't say, but this is not evidence of video-fakery, this video is evidence of a DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN being waged by outsiders to distract, mislead and disrupt the truth movement.

........ ........ ........ ........ ........
EDIT: Inn lieu of what I've learned during the course of this thread, I retract the above comments. I still believe there are unsubsantiated claims and misleading comments contained in this video which undermine the case that the director is trying to prove, but the hypothesis that the CNN shot chould not have been taken from ground level on Manhattan appears to have merit (see later posts page 5, 6 etc.).
....... ........ ........ ........ ........

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Darm! Are you realy so st***. Compare sizes of the towers in between the to pictures, these are 2 total different positions!
The Whitehall bld. and the DAC Bld. has to be in a percize position match to fit in the place.

Also look here, more walk arround in the Park.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m866D5Hea6A

So why dont u go by ureself to the batery park and find the location!?

Your conclusion is a whole farce, and you are calling
others work as Disinfo, while you are presenting the obvious disinfo by yourself.

Great

[Sanders]

So why dont u go by ureself to the batery park and find the location!?

That'd be tough, since I don't live in the states. This CNN person, Rosa, may well be lying, there well may have been TV fakery employed on 9/11. I'm on the record btw many times as arguing that an aluminum plane can't just slip into a steel-framed building like a knife through butter, that the technology to insert images in live feeds is well advanced, there well may have been some fakery going on, but put all that aside.

I am only adressing THIS clip
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9hwdJTOdEmY

The video says that this shot must have been faked:
(IMG:http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/9062/picture2pl0.png)

because these trees had to have been in the way
(IMG:http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/648/picture3ut6.png)

Then the video states sarcastically, "Let me guess... those trees just sprang up in five years?"

Yet photos such as these taken by other people are offered
(IMG:http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/304/picture4uk2.png)

(IMG:http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/9757/picture5be6.png)

That shows that there must be places to film from where the building isn't obfuscated by trees, no? And you can't tell exactly, or at least I can't, from where the shot was taken because the towers don't exist anymore, right?

So enough about the trees, the clip then compares these two shots:
(IMG:http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/4328/picture6nn5.png)

(IMG:http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/4896/picture7jc7.png)

And makes a big deal about where the damage is, yet if one shot was taken from farther away with a zoom or a higher position (from a balcony for example) then the position of the crash site would indeed change relative to the building. Then the text says "I have no idea what that black building behind 19 Rector Street is doing in the CNN footage". Yet, if the photo was taken from closer up compared to the CNN footage then that black building would indeed appear lower (as well as the crash site, which indeed it is...) and be lost behind the trees. All these relative heights of things would change depending on the camera height or distance.

Am I missing something? If I'm wrong I'll be happy to admit it. But the way this 'CNN Fake Footage' video is presented certainly came across to me as purposefully deceptive and misleading.

[Sanders]

I watched it again -

At the beginning of the clip is says

If you go to the spot where it "could have been taken from"
There are big trees that would have wrecked the shot.

What the heck does that mean? Why the phrase in quotes? Why the use of "could"? Does this not mean there are other locations where it could have been taken from? What is this a quote from? Who said this?

I'm just trying to understand this. I watched the WTC clip as well but it didn't change my opinion on any of this.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

And you can't tell exactly, or at least I can't, from where the shot was taken because the towers don't exist anymore, right?

Oh yes its posible. But while i life in Germany i cant go there(i was in Batery Park in April 2002, too bad i havnt heard about TV Fakery at that time)

anyway, by the positions of the two buildings can reveal the position of the Camera by 99% .

(IMG:http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/217/picture2pl0yh4.png)

Anyway you stated that it is stil posible to get a look at the towers while seeing the treeline, and dont get blocked by it. And therfor you use a picture from a completly different angle to make your claim look reasonable.

[Sanders]

How am I using a photo from a completely different angle? I'm using the photo (taken by a camera, not CNN footage, that the filmaker purports to trust) that the video itself uses in the comparisons in the second half of the video. Both the photo and the CNN footage show the trade towers a ways behind and just off the right of the building, so the angle with respect to left and right is essentially the same. The up/down angle is, as far as I can tell, similar as well - but not identical. This is where the location of the crash site and the top of the black building that is just visible in the CNN footage but not visible in the photo comes in to play... The video makes note of the height of the crash site, but the trade towers are quite a ways back behind this building - a difference in camera height or distance from the objects will change that placement in the shot.

I'm tellin' ya, this is very deceptive filmaking IMO. That is why my OP was worded so strongly. People, no matter what their views regarding NPT or Video-fakery, should be very wary of this for the obvious reasons I have stated many times. We want to get to the truth, right?

[painter]

Sanders, I couldn't find the thread with the examples you're looking for. I believe it was in a thread started by Waterdancer regarding some WTC7 photos. I looked in that forum but didn't see that particular thread. You might ask him, though. He may remember. In some ways they were a better example than those I present below.

Compound lenses in cameras can cause all sorts of distortions -- wide angle distortions, depth of field distortions, focal length distortions, and so on. In other words, to figure out precisely where a shot was taken requires one to know what kind of camera was used, what the size of the lens was and, with a zoom lens, the zoom amount. Given these distortions, it is actually possible to completely alter the composition of a photograph depending upon angle, distance from certain objects, lens size, zoom amount and so on. Below are examples of various lenses all pointing at the same group of objects. Note how they distort the size and spatial relationships of these objects. I do not know whether they were all taken from the same spot. It is likely that they were not, that the photographer was finding the spot where the foreground object looked the same size while the background objects changed -- IOW, he was probably moving further away from the 'foreground' object.

NOTE: I'm not offering this to prove or disprove anything in regards to the video in question. I'm simply saying that TO BE PRECISE in locating a position from which a particular photograph is taken one needs to know more than the information presesnted in the image itself.


28mm (wide)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/28mm.jpg)

35mm (wide)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/35mm.jpg)

50mm (normal)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/50mm.jpg)

70mm (telephoto)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/70mm.jpg)

100mm (telephoto)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/100mm.jpg)

135mm (telephoto)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/135mm.jpg)

200mm (telephoto)
(IMG:http://www.mattneedham.com/images/200mm.jpg)

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

painter!

Are you trying to tell me that all these pics where shot from one and the exact same location?

[Sanders]

I don't think he said that

And it looks to me like as you go down the series, the camera gets farther away from the fountain while the camera zooms in more to compensate, the result being that the background elements get larger.

Thanx painter for digging those up.

[Destinova]

I agree with Sanders. The Cam moves away from the fountain while the zoom make the background larger. I guess everyone have seen this effect before, in some movies the zoom leave the foreground as it is and only pull up the background.

[painter]

painter!

Are you trying to tell me that all these pics where shot from one and the exact same location?

No. Reading comprehension is your friend:

<s>
I do not know whether they were all taken from the same spot. It is likely that they were not, that the photographer was finding the spot where the foreground object looked the same size while the background objects changed -- IOW, he was probably moving further away from the 'foreground' object.
</s>

[Destinova]

Here's a good example for the push/pull zoom effect. While getting away from the object in focus use the zoom to keep it in the same size.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dXbflE-Wf0

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[shoon]

If you see the side of the building, the agle of the edge of roofs are steaper on the CNN video. They would have been closer than behind trees.

Next time add better music.

[gss]

I'm not trying to throw disinfo out. I'm really excited about these developments. Anyway, as I said in another thread, you got the 2nd plane going underneath the billowing smoke and in another video, it is coming from the opposite side of the smoke and both can't be correct. I think there's just too much evidence supporting the TV FAkery/no plane position to ignore.

[painter]

I'm not trying to throw disinfo out.  I'm really excited about these developments.  Anyway, as I said in another thread, you got the 2nd plane going underneath the billowing smoke and in another video, it is coming from the opposite side of the smoke and both can't be correct.  I think there's just too much evidence supporting the TV FAkery/no plane position to ignore.

I agree that this evidence should not be ignored.

However, I have another question for you -- ultimately, what difference does it make?

I don't mean to sound either overly critical, condescending or patronizing -- I'm asking a simple question. We already have very solid evidence that the official narrative of 9/11 can not possibly be true. More than enough to warrant some sort of action on the part of authorities. That said action can not or will not be generated is, itself, a significant (non speculative) fact.

What is the objective? Does pursuing this realm of research help us reach that objective?

This is what I asked KT over two years ago and I still do not feel I've gotten a satisfying answer. Saying "Well, we're after the real truth," isn't sufficient. Of course you are. We all are -- whether you (individually and collectively) believe that or not. But you can't win this battle with highly speculative evidence which ends up being argued over infinitely. That's what has happened in regards to NPT and VF -- and that is why many refuse to entertain it outright. It by its very nature seems to be inconclusive and open to interpretation. How does this help us achieve our aim -- whether it is "the whole truth" or "a new investigation" or "revolution by the masses" or whatever?

It has to be tight. It has to be right. It has to be easy to understand. So easy even a meathead can 'get' it in about 30 seconds. Seriously.

[Sanders]

I'm not trying to throw disinfo out.  I'm really excited about these developments...

My displeasure was never directed at you, gss. Only at that particular video clip.

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

But you can't win this battle with highly speculative evidence which ends up being argued over infinitely.

I C youre aim!

But i tell you to look at the evidence. There is not a single evidence in the OT that supports the Planes, and people have to realize this. Once they see that there is no such evidence, and they are left with unverified witnesses and Footage they may wake up.

Blowed up buildings by CD is even speculative as TVFAKERY, even much more unsupported.

There is not a single evidence in the OT that supports the Planes, and people have to realize this.

Bullsh*t. Tell the world how these steel columns and huge chunks of building got smashed in? If there was no plane and only an internal explosion, internal explosions don't explode in:

(IMG:http://bonez.us/pics/1_in_blackhole.jpg)

(IMG:http://bonez.us/pics/1_wtc.jpg)

Blowed up buildings by CD is even speculative as TVFAKERY, even much more unsupported.

More bullsh*t! Controlled demolition is the most supported theory of the 9/11 truth movement. Click on the banner in my signature for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and learn how 3 WTC buildings exhibited none of the signs of fire-induced collapse and all of the signs of controlled demolition.

[KP50]

But you can't win this battle with highly speculative evidence which ends up being argued over infinitely.

I C youre aim!

But i tell you to look at the evidence. There is not a single evidence in the OT that supports the Planes, and people have to realize this. Once they see that there is no such evidence, and they are left with unverified witnesses and Footage they may wake up.

Blowed up buildings by CD is even speculative as TVFAKERY, even much more unsupported.

So there were no planes at all right? Everyone who was there just imagined them?

So having caused everyone in New York (a not insubstantially populated city) to look at just one place in the sky, you explode a building just where they are looking. You then fake a plane on TV, you fake the plane in still photographs, you plant eye-witnesses by the score to say there was a plane. In some of the films, you don't super-impose the plane onto existing images, you actually build New York up from scratch - but you get it wrong.

In Washington, you do exactly the same. Except this time there is a plane, in fact maybe more than one plane. Except the plane doesn't hit the Pentagon, at least the big one doesn't, maybe a smaller one does.

Makes sense to me, where do I sign up?

[u2r2h]

Whether you zoom in, or out, the perspective from the camera does not change for objects that are hundreds of feet away.

Think backwards:


The intersection between the various buildings can only point back to the location of the camera.

If this location does not exist, the film/photo must be fake.

If this location exists, but trees cover the field of view, the film/photo must be fake.

What is so difficult about that?

Why doesn't someone with surveyor-equipment go to New York and make it legit? I am sure there are any number of newspapers and TV-magazines that would spend 10 grand for the explosive story that CNN did broadcast faked footage, or even 10 grand for the story "We knew it! Conspiracy Theorists are total lunatics"

Now sports and weather ;-)

But ....wouldn't it be lovely if trees would cause the downfall of the matrix-world?
The military psy-op virtual world specialists forgot about the trees and just selected the virtual cam-position in this unlucky spot, which, in September, is hidden by @#$%^& trees!? Reminds me of the sniper window in Dallas 1963... there were some rather annoying trees in the line of sight, too.

But of course this is all CT phantasy.. someone will do a proper film about it any day now and give us the perfect angle, right?

Of course it is a certificate to the highest intelligence and proof of mental health to not even engage in this madness. It can safely be ridiculed because the wonders of modern telephoto-lenses can explain everything!!!

:ph43r: