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


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




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



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)




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.).
....... ........ ........ ........ ........

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

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:


because these trees had to have been in the way


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




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:




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.

I watched it again -

At the beginning of the clip is says



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.

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% .



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.

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?

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)


35mm (wide)


50mm (normal)


70mm (telephoto)


100mm (telephoto)


135mm (telephoto)


200mm (telephoto)

painter!

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

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.

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.

No. Reading comprehension is your friend:

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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:







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.

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?

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:

we could argue this all decade. just another "back and to the left..." to keep us occupied and ARGUING instead of DOING SOMETHING

Hags4,

I and my friends have given out over 2,000 DVDs yet we discuss this topic all the time. I see no harm in taking in some arm-chair quarterbacking with down time.

Sanders,

Do you mean to say that this video is "purposeful disinfo" or as it has been but together "not accurate"?

Sanders,

Check out the photo in this post.

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?sho...post&p=14266767

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=903

This overlapping gif is utterly useless as is made abundantly clear up-thread, Quest. It proves nothing.

Quest, the meaning, or lack of, in those photos are adequately addressed by painter's zoom series. I could take a picture of that building from in front of the trees then from behind the trees and resize (or adjust the zoom of) the shot to the same size and it would look just as your links look.

I'm not falling for it. The maker of the clip that is the subject of this thread is absolutely engaging in purposeful dissinformation. Absolutely - I'm convinced. Please read my posts on this (there are many, sorry).

The answer to your question is, I stand by my statements. That vid is purposeful dissinformation. I see no other way to interpret it.

I arrived at that conclusion along different lines about a month ago.

@ Quest, for a long time now we've permitted the NPT/TVF discussion to go forward in this forum. I'm not saying it hasn't had its problems but we have allowed this sub forum of our research forum to be a soap box for this investigation. We do not have to do that and there has been discussion of ending it. I'm now beginning to come to the conclusion that this is what we should do. Understand, this is not limiting your right to investigate whatever you want or to post whatever you want ON YOUR OWN FORUM. I suggested to KT over a year ago that he start his own forum, as he did. We see also the "researchers" forum -- and much that has come out of it DOES have the 'smell' of calculated, deliberate disinfo. Again, I'm talking about where there may be a large proportion of factual information but mixed in with it are elements which are false and, worse, what appear to be deliberate attempts to discredit anyone who either does not follow or does not accept this "research".

The Administrators of this forum have been lenient for a long time but the question is, why should we continue to chase your dogs tail? If you want to investigate this stuff and discuss it with those of like mind, then you have every right to do so (so far). However, that doesn't mean we have to allow it here. I've come to the position where I now believe there is a direct connection between the J R E F deniers and the "researchers" group. I'm not saying that most people such as yourself engaged in this are aware of how they are being handled -- but I am saying that it looks more and more to me that both groups ARE being handled in such a way that they can 'play' one off the other in a one-two punch -- discrediting the WHOLE. They do this by revealing legitimate information in such a way that it can not be accepted as credible. This is precisely the same conundrum that we have with the Pentagon FDR file: If the data it contains is true, then it could not have been found in the Pentagon as claimed.

We are moving beyond all that now here at P4T. I said this months and months ago: Arguing indefinitely about things which can not be proven conclusively from the evidence available is not only a 'waste of time' it is counterproductive -- as all good counterintelligence is intended to be.

I'm not offering you a warning as you've done nothing wrong but I am letting you know that the window of opportunity to use THIS forum to promote these ideas may be closing.

For the record, I believe ABSOLUTELY that what painter is saying reflects what's going on.

No problem gents.

For what it's worth, I happen to know the fellow that made the video in question and he's legit. You may not agree with the content and it may even be incorrect but "purposeful disinfo" it is not.

I don't think it's a good idea to post this stuff here anymore but I'm not offended. JDX has been great and I appreciate the time he afforded us.

I consider you guys valuable truth members despite any difference of opinions and will always keep in touch.

To all.

I understand, Quest. I believe we are on the same team. Whether or not the disinformational aspect of this specific video is intentional or deliberate is, to me, largely beside the point. You know the person who took the video and believe they are honest and I have no reason to doubt your perception. However, from my yeas of experience, I know that cointelpro type operations can and do accommodate misinformation and turn it into disinformation.

As an example of this, I point people to this "Declaration of a State of War" delivered by Weatherman Underground member Bernadine Dohrn: http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/videodir/pacif...communique1.ram Whether or not Ms Dohrn was consciously and deliberately acting as an agent when she delivered this message is of secondary importance. However that may be, her declaration was used by both authorities and media to create the perception that the youth movement of the Sixties was a wide spread, revolutionary movement intent on the violent overthrow of the US Government -- which was emphatically false. Whether it was delusional on her part (and many of that time shared that delusion) or whether it was intentional disinformation (who wrote the script, I always wonder) the effect was the same -- it was used to justify both social and judicial repression against those with idealistic and leftist sentiment within my generation. The very fact that the Weather Underground was "able" to avoid detection and apprehension by the FBI for 11 years signals to me that their domestic terrorist actions were more useful to them as propaganda than their apprehensions and incarcerations would have been.

What we are dealing with here, now, however, is a very different situation in many respects. If we are right -- and I have no doubt we are right in the main -- treason has been committed by people in high places and this treason is being covered up by government, media and private interests. For all its delusional qualities, Dohrn's analysis was largely correct and is now echoed past a generation into the words of Mumia Abu Jamal's "THE WAR ON US ALL." We are at a historical cross roads unlike anything the American people or, indeed, the whole of humanity have faced before. We must keep in focus what is important -- and be willing to take the kind of stand against the official 9/11 narrative and the bogus "war on terror" mythologically portrayed by Gandalf's proclomation to the Balrog: YOU SHALL NOT PASS!

---

No you most certainly could not. If you move further back the building behind will become more visible.

Zoom, lens, optics, nothing will change that.


There NEEDS TO BE A WEBPAGE / FILM that makes this abundantly clear by showing ample examples! Not only to educate you, but to edify all of us.


http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2007/0...pact-video.html

I'm quite aware of that. And quess what, if you look at Quest's gif, the size of the buildings in the background DO change, so those two shots could not have been taken from the same place. Now, after looking at that gif more carefully, I will admit that you are right - the CNN shot could not have been taken from in front of those trees, because the buildings in the background in the CNN shot are higher - walking closer to the building would make the buildings farther away appear lower. But, the shot could have been taken from in front of the trees if the camera position was higher.

Two things I noticed checking that gif again, the "black building" that the CNN footage analysis clip points out saying, "I have no idea what that black building behind 19 Rector Street is doing in the CNN footage" - is visible in BOTH of Quest's shots, it's much lower in the leafless one, but it's visible.

Secondly, the background buildings shift to the right in the "leafless" shot. This tells me that the CNN shot was taken from a position to the left of where the leafless shot was taken. If my memory serves, there were some apartment buildings to the left of those trees that I saw in that CNN-fakery clip, weren't there? Hey, I don't know if the CNN camera position was taken from a 3rd storey balcony on an apartment building to the left of those trees and the leafy trees in the bottom of the frame in the CNN shots are different trees, or it the trees in the bottom of the frame in the CNN shots are in fact those same leaf-less trees and the camera position was farther back (and maybe higher) and farther to the left. But it's really irrelevant - my point is this - I can't trust the conclusions being drawn from the maker of this flick because he is fudging everything and making leading or misleading comments, the most blatant of these is his issue with the location of the crash site - the location of the crash site in relation to the building is entirely dependent on the camera position yet he ignores the issue of camera position and simply says, (I'm paraphrasing) look, the crash position is higher so the footage must be fake.



u2r2h, you seem like a smart guy. Do you not agree that the way this clip is put together is highly manipulative? I'm not trying to argue that there was or wasn't fakery - I'm just saying this clip is purposefully trying to pull a fast one.

More regarding this gif:



I've outlined the difference in positions of the background buildings



You can see that the buildings farther back are lower in the shot from behind the trees (pink outline), that the farther back they are the lower they drop, and that all background buildings shift to the right. Hence, I think one can say with some certainty that the CNN shot was taken from either farther back and/or a higher position, and farther left from the shot behind the leafless trees.

I read some of this thread
http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?sho...&#entry14266767
over at 911movement.org, I see now that others are aware of this shift in the height of the buildings and realize that the shot (if not faked) needed to be taken from a higher position or from farther back, but that the camera position (behind the leafless trees) is at the edge of the water(?). Is it?

I want to be very clear about something, my position in starting this thread is that the clip 'CNN Fake Footage' is purposely misleading in a number of ways. Whether this CNN footage is truly faked or not is a different story - I don't know. But if the footage was indeed faked, the filmaker should have tried to do a better job proving it, and back up his assertions plainly.

I watched the clip "WTC", which preceded the "CNN Faked Footage" clip, about a dozen times. The clip is here
http://youtube.com/watch?v=m866D5Hea6A

Judging by the buildings in the background and their height/position, the closest he got to the hypothetical CNN camera position, in my estimation, was at around 2:00 - 2:25 in the clip. In nearly every other part of the clip where he's walking around the area, the buildings on either side in the background are far too short, meaning he is too close and needs to back up more (or get higher).

This is the closest he got to the composition in the CNN shot, with my comments about the composition:


He needs to back up for the shots to match, and also move to the right a bit. This shot is taken at the water's edge (this is not explained, but in the WTC clip, before this shot is taken, the camera pans around and shows that the camera position is next to the water).

But the water is not perpendicular to the shot. It slopes out and away at an angle, and the camera position is too far to the left as evidenced by the too-narrow gap between the right edge of the building and the black one behind it. If the camera is moved from this position to the right, I'm certain the camera can back up more. If the camera is moved farther right to get the background lined up correctly, can he back up enough to get the heights of those buildings correct? And if he does, will the tree line come down sufficiently? Or is there a building or something to stand on in that position where the camera position can be raised? Who knows, I can't tell from any of the videos because he's always too far to the right or the left. He needs to align these buildings using the camera position, and if that is impossible because of the water, be needs to get as close as possible and show that it cannot be done because of the water. When and if that is proved clearly, then the only remaining explanations are that the shot was taken from a boat, or was faked as this director states. However, he has not proved that, and he certainly hasn't explained it. Instead he makes all sorts of contentions that are not supported by the footage or photos he is presenting.

If I was in NY with a video camera, I'd love to go down there and prove or disprove this contention (that the shot was impossible) one way or another, but being in Japan I can't. Maybe someone should, it would be simple enough to do.

Excellent analysis, Sanders. This was precisely what I saw as well.

Even more to the point, contentions not supported by the evidence is the very heart of disinformation. This is precisely what we have with BOTH the FDR file and the physical damage at the Pentagon -- Evidence that does not support the contention.

THANK YOU painter. That is exactly what I have been trying to say.

It's Ironic, after getting all anal about this and reviewing this person's video footage, I suspect that he may be right after all, that the CNN shot might in fact be impossible, but I can't be sure because he is such a crappy filmaker.

To fred, or whoever you are, that made this clip, get out there and prove your hypothesis! Make your case clearly so we can all understand it! Do you expect the entire US population to review all of your footage a dozen times to try and read your mind after forgiving you for making blatently false statements based on footage that has been presented dishonestly?? I figure I'm the only one so far.

Prove your case. I expect that you CAN prove it, but that you don't do it clearly, and that this video is part of a disinfo campaign to keep us all arguing and debating.

Please, prove me wrong, fred.

flattery will get you nowhere. What makes you think I am a guy?
Do I seem more intelligent now? Now that you know I am female?

Or less?

Hysteric maybe?



The two buildings act as iron sights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_sight

They are very precise iron sights because they are far apart.

Look at the photo between the burning towers and the antique Whitehall postcard:
http://u2r2h-documents.blogspot.com/2007/0...pact-video.html

perfect for lining up.

Look at the 4 blue sky pictures below the antique Whitehall postcard. Small movements on the ground make large movements of the buildings in relation to another.

The location on the ground can be found with ease.

The line is "going up steeply" 45 degrees or so.

If the camera location is on the ground, we have found the spot, trees are in the way, CNN=fake.

The angle is steep, moving 10 feet forward or back means moving 10 feet up or down.

If the camera location is forward *and up* in the air, then the camera was levitating or on a cherry-picker, and the trees are still in the way, CNN=fake.

If the camera is clear of the trees it is 60 feet up in the air, CNN=fake.

If the camera location is further back, it is filming from inside the earth, CNN=fake.

Does this make sense to sanders and painter?

Anyone?

In addition to the obvious problem that the huge trees would have wrecked the shot completely, notice how the Red Building Gets taller, the Black Building behind the invisible 19 Rector Street also moves taller, and some of the distant buildings in the upper right move up significantly on screen. That can only happen if those buildings were filmed from further back, say from a helicopter out over the water. We can completely rule out NIST's claim that the Hezarkhani video was shot from ground level near the Castle Clinton National Monument. It's a fake, plain and simple.

Thanks to Killtown and Peggy Carter. Water's edge shot. If you want to back up further you're going to have to swim, and you're contradicting NIST. The shot doesn't work from a boat either, or a helicopter for that matter.






As you can see from the pictures here, they didn't try too hard to even put the World Trade Centers in the right spot. If the footage were actually taken from Battery Park as NIST claims the towers would look a lot shorter relative to the trees and buildings in the foreground.

http://www.bigfoto.com/sites/galery/sept11/


The perspective changes quite a bit in the Hezarkhani CNN Ghostplane video. The treeline he's showing on the zoom out are actually the trees further up in the park, as if he were standing in the clearing in the park out beside Castle Clinton, but then the tops of the buildings are completely out of position. It's a fake video made from lots of different photos of the location and animated together. Moreover the video uses extensive still panning. If you watch the CNN video frame by frame you'll see that there's no camera movement, just animation and still panning on a 2-D background. It's not even close to real video plus an animated plane.

Whatever study they used for their fake video was probably taken from the air and considerably further back. They then did a half-assed simulation of a Battery Park camera angle so that they could claim Hezarkhani took the footage. It's an animation sequence, not a video that was shot on 9/11 with a plane inserted into it. Notice in particular how high the tops of the WTC buildings are in the Hezarkhani fake CNN Ghostplane video. They appear much lower on real photos taken from Battery Park.

What NIST says here is simply impossible and the CNN Ghostplane video has been completely debunked.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/08/nist-...-at-ground.html




Fabulous find by behind




See also: Filmer Of Accused Fake Wtc Crash Video, won't disclose shot location

It was proven a long time ago that the CNN Ghostplane shot can't be taken from any point on land so the NIST description is just the final nail in the coffin.

Here's video from every single location near, in, and around the Castle Clinton National Monument http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m866D5Hea6A

The supposed cameraman isn't even allowed to say where he was on 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOeNUax-gaw


You can now eliminate any doubt about the CNN video MAYBE having been taken SOMEWHERE. They guy who supposedly shot it can't talk about, and NIST relied on it and gave out the location where it was shot, and we've proven that that location is impossible. So it's fake. A hoax. We can say that with absolute certainty now, which is great. We don't need to get a boat or a helicopter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m866D5Hea6A

----

Hey Sanders, it was proven a long time ago and actually it's gotten many hundreds of thousands of views on internet video sites.

We can completely rule out NIST's claim that the Hezarkhani video was shot from ground level near the Castle Clinton National Monument. It's a fake, plain and simple.

http://unauthorized link.com/33hq7e lays out everything you need to prove that the CNN footage was fake. As Peggy points out when you get up high enough to see over the trees you have a 37-story skyscraper called 19 Rector Street that is plainly visible. If you get in front of the trees at the Water's edge and stand near Castle Clinton where NIST says the video was taken from you can clearly see 19 Rector Street and the skyline doesn't even remotely match up with the fake CNN video.

You might not be able to pick up a math book and understand the proofs in it. That doesn't mean that something hasn't been proven. Just because you're not willing to do the work required to understand something doesn't mean I have to make a video to spoon feed you. I know you don't care all that much about the people who were murdered on 9/11 because you can't fly yourself to New York city and go to Battery Park. Tell your Pilot friends to go recreate the Hezarkhani video themselves. I'm not interested in teaching remedial math to the lazy.

I already posted video that contradicts NIST and the Hezarkhani fake. Which part went over your head? You can't understand that the images don't match? What's your problem? Bad eyesight?

Stop being a lazy bum and do some work for a change. This isn't your TV set. Get yourself a camera and a ticket to NYC or please STFU. I really can't stand lazy whiners and shills who throw out accusations of disinfo.

Is that asking too much from you, Sanders?

PS

OK, after I posted this I see that you're doing some real work analyzing the images which is at least proof that you're not a lazy bum, so I'm sorry for the name calling above. I still think that you and your less lazy Pilot friends should go to NYC. The overlay shot is from the Water's edge. You can't take a shot that matches up with the CNN Fake because it's a composite image. The perspective changes throughout the video. It's made up of some aerial shots taken over the water, and some pictures taken from within the park, and it doesn't work from any location. If you think I'm wrong, the ONLY thing you have to do is go to NYC, stand near Castle Clinton at Ground Level just like NIST says, and shoot the Hezarkhani video yourself. It should match up perfectly except for the missing WTC. The skyscrapers haven't moved an inch. When you're out over the water, by the way, 19 Rector Street towers above the treeline.

The CNN Video is fake. TV Fakery has been proven, the only people denying it now are working for the terrorists or are willfully ignorant. If you genuinely care you'll go to NYC and make your own video. Right? You do care enough to spend time and money on this right?

PPS, OK, I see that you say you're in Japan. I've put up video from over 20 locations in Battery Park, and there's no "too far to the left or not far enough to the left" nonsense going on. The CNN video is fake. The buildings are out of position. If I draw you a map of Japan and I put Tokyo up in Hokkaido and then you go and take pictures of Japan and draw me a real map, I don't get credit for saying that in your picture Tokyo is too far north, and you should have filmed from the Arctic Circle or should have Filmed from Kyushu. The CNN video shows things in the wrong place. It's fake. If you see George Washington on a 1000 Yen Note and you claim its fake, and then you go post video which shows that you went to 20 different banks and filmed transactions and the 1000 Yen note doesn't have George Washington on it. I don't win by telling you to go to a different bank and saying that I live in New York City and if I were in Japan I would go to an ATM machine and get a 1000 Yen Note with George Washington on it to show you how stupid you are.

Tokyo isn't in Hokkaido, a real 1000 Yen note doesn't have George Washington on the face of it, and the CNN Ghostplane Hezarkhani Fake Video was not shot at Ground Level Near The Castle Clinton National Monument. It wasn't shot anywhere. It's as fake as a $3 bill. It's like a tatami mat made of unicorn feathers or those Rolex watches you can get for $30 in front of the train station. IT IS NOT REAL.

???

Who implied that you were a guy?

Nothing to do with flattery, or whether you are a guy or a gal, I was convinced that your ducks were in a row from your first post.

So, what are we talking about? What are we left with? I don't see any further progress until someone goes out to the Battery and documents whether or not there is a spot where that CNN shot could have been taken or not. I can't do it, I'm in Japan. Fred's footage doesn't clear it up, sorry to say. I posted over at 911movement, asking for clarification.

If the CNN shot was impossible, it should be easy to show that. The filmaker hasn't done that yet, and it's his own contention (I say "his" because I have come to learn that his name is "fred" and so I assume he is a guy - though I don't know for sure...) so it's his responsibility to back it up.

I'm so sick of these bullsh#t videos - state your hypothesis, then prove it. Or not.

Sheesh.

Fred, we cross posted. I havn't read your above post yet.

I suspect, having studied your videos for a couple of days now, that I might have some suggestions for you getting your point across, maybe even proving your point, if it represents the truth.

You probably hate me, but my posts were all my honest opinion at the time, having only watched your vids. It took literally dozens of viewings to figure out what the amonolies were. What does that say??

Will read your post now...

Cheers.

Oh God. What hasn't been proved? Jesus Christ you're annoying, Sanders. I don't HATE you, I find it frustrating that I'm wasting time explaining stuff that's fairly straightforward. You're welcome to make your own video exposing the CNN TV Fakery. I'm all in favor of people explaining things better so that even the slowest of the slow can understand what's wrong.

The Hezarkhani video is fake. Stop playing pachinko and look at the evidence. Being stupid and lazy is no excuse for being ignorant and annoying. Even someone who's slightly-below-average can understand that there's a word fake and it means something. I'm grouchy because I'm wasting time "explaining" something to somebody who has no excuse for not understanding.

You have NIST's statement, you have Hezarkhani's refusal to talk, you have the CNN Ghostplane video, and then you have Battery Park where you and all your Pilot buddies can go try to re-create the videos. Surely someone with the resources to live in Japan can figure out how to find New York City and fly there. Are you broke? Don't you have any friends from New York who can go and shoot a video for you?

What's the problem here? I'm in no mood to take crap from lazy expats who can't get off the couch. You talk a lot of smack, Sanders, but you come up empty, IMO. You've got footage from Battery Park available to you. Instead of saying "it doesn't match up, it needs to be further left or further right" maybe you need to consider the fact that IT WILL NEVER MATCH UP BECAUSE THE CNN VIDEO IS FAKE. You can go to the left or right all you want and it will NEVER match up. That's the point.

I don't hate you, I find your willingness to criticize stuff you don't understand annoying. If I show up at flight school and keep saying, I don't get lift, why does the plane have wings? Wings are stupid. Why do we have to talk about lift? Let's go flying, this sucks.... I think the guy doing the teaching has a right to get annoyed with me. I think they have computers in Japan, and maybe even cameras. If you want to make a better video I doubt that the Yakuza is going to stand in your way. Where's your video? What's stopping you?

Edit: @ u2r2h

How would we know what gender you are unless you tell us? And, no, I don't care and I doubt Sanders does either. No, I don't regard you as "hysterical" regardless of your gender and I don't appreciate the insinuation.

Does what you are saying "make sense"? Yes. It "makes sense" but that doesn't mean it is accurate or, even if it is accurate, it doesn't mean you have presented in a way that is persuasive. I think we've made our position abundantly clear above and need not repeat it.

My ultimate question is, so what? So what if this video is faked? Just about everything about 9/11 is fake -- and the media are covering that up. It is just as much a crime to cover-up treason as it is to be directly involved, isn't it? So, from a strategic vantage point, so what? What is the aim? How does this further the aim? We already know that the media lie to us all the time about everything -- acting as a manipulator of social perception. Truth does slip out occasionally but most of it is propaganda. So what? We also know that in cases of national emergency ALL communications systems are subject to government control and authority -- even military authority. That's built in. But what difference does knowing this make from the point of view of what we're going to do about it?

We've made the point -- if your evidence isn't conclusive it can be worse than useless. Worse because it can be used to undermine your own credibility and the credibility of your associates. You're not going to win the hearts and minds of the American people with less than credible evidence. Go back to Battery Park on September 11th this year. Find the closest spot that matches the CNN footage. Use a variety of cameras and zoom ratios. Calculate how much the trees may have grown in the six years since 01. Create a diagram that shows exactly where you are shooting from -- then come back and show us your report.

We don't need to calculate growing trees. Here's a better suggestion. Why don't we publicize the fact that CNN aired fake videos. Most people in the world think they showed real videos. When they find out the videos are faked, they're shocked. They want to know why that happened. Instead of going and talking about trees growing, why don't we prosecute the people working at CNN for participating in an act of treason and mass-murder. When they're up on the stand maybe they'll explain that they were forced to by some other people, and eventually we'll catch the perps.

If I'm going back to Battery Park on September 11 it's going to be with a rope and some of the criminals and not because I want to spend time worrying about how fast trees grow.

I can't believe how lazy and apathetic you are. "So What?" "Calculate how much the trees may have grown in the six years since 01".

No, let's hold trials and hang the guilty from those trees and send a message that we don't tolerate treason and mass-murder. How about that? This ends with the bad guys dead or in prison. It's not about going to parks and contemplating trees, Painter.

Painter,


You have the spot in the video. See Castle Clinton? See the water? See NIST's report?

NIST says "at ground level near castle clinton". That's where all the video was shot. Doodle your own damn diagram, or go to google and type in Castle Clinton Map. I really can't be bothered, AT ALL. My report is that you're incredibly lazy, arrogant, and totally unconcerned with seeing any justice for the murdered people in those buildings.

Where's your video, Painter? Where's your diagram? Did you decide not to serve your country? Is dereliction of duty the only thing you want on your record?

Fred, I have watched WTC and CNN:Fakery numerous times. Is there another video that provides additional information that I am not aware of?

If not, you have not proven your case to the uninitiated. You need to keep it simple, you need to go out there, and point your camera at those buildings, lining up the ones in the background to match the CNN footage left/right-wise, then back up with with your camera running to show that the buildings in the background rise as the camera position moves back, EXPLAIN that phenomenon of perspecitive, and then show that there is no way to match the CNN composition because of the water. Do that clearly, and you will have proved something.

Seriously, Fred, I couldn't believe you tried to pass off the unrelated shots of the crash site, both being entirely dependent on camera position, with no mention of said camera position, and then insinuate that because the crash site is higher or lower the footage must be fake. That's just plain deceptive, IMO.

Am I missing something?

Fred, if you indeed are interested in finding and relaying true anomolies in the official footage, you need to stick to basics, avoid manipulative dramatism, and prove your contentions clearly and succinctly. IMHO !!!

I can't do it, I'm in Japan, not NY. This is your baby, you started this. PROVE IT!

I mean, what the heck good does it do to wander around Battery Park saying "Wrong" in a dozen locations? Fast forward!!! Use the background composition to find the spot where the CNN footage was taken from, and if that is impossible, SHOW IT - so that any idiot understands why it's impossible, and it stands up in court.

I am not your enemy. I am merely calling it as I see it and being honest. If I am not convinced, that should be a problem for you. If you are really looking for the truth and if this "ghostplane" shot is indeed bogus, it should be easy to demonstrate.

2 cents

P.S., none of us know what Castle Clinton is, or the names of any of these buildings. I was eternally confused watching those vids and reading the posts over at 911movement.

You don't need a video, I posted a photo overlay already from the water's edge that proves the case. You can't back up any further. It contradicts NIST.




See this picture here?

This is what the view looked like AT GROUND LEVEL NEAR CASTLE CLINTON ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

That's not what the Hezarkhani video looks like, the Hezarkhani video is fake.

A patriot would not be in Japan drinking Sake and sleeping with local women, a patriot would go to NYC and fight for the cause. Yes, obviously you're missing something.

You have all the proof you need right here. Multiple people have gone down to Battery Park, and they've all concluded the same thing.

The photo overlay is not too far to the left or too far to the right. You can go to art school and learn about perspective on your own time. I really don't need to be your free tutor about perspective. You're the lazy guy having fun in Japan and posting stupid crap wasting people's time. I've gone to Battery Park and posted the video for you, you lazy bum. I pointed my camera so that couch potatoes like you could go and have fun in foreign countries. But now you're so entitled that you think I have to teach you art? I should give you a free lecture on perspective? WTF?!

Peggy already went down there and took pictures which proved the CNN video was fake, I went down and took video that proved it was fake. Jeff called the guy listed in NIST who can't even tell us where he was on 9/11. 'Behind' found the NIST document which says the video was used in their analysis and was shot from the ground level near Castle Clinton. It doesn't really matter what you think about anything. The CNN video has already been proven fake.

What the hell have you ever done? Honestly. I don't make videos for lazy people like you. Frankly, I hope you never come back to the USA, but on the other hand it worries me that you'll give the Japanese the wrong idea about Americans. Maybe you can tell them you're from Russia or something so they won't think we're all lazy like you.

Hi, This time of year, Summer, you can't even *see* the Whitehall bld. I was there a month ago.

I'm the one who took the pics posted at the link above.

You can't back up any farther from where it was taken. Ace Baker pointed out that I probably should've moved to my left a bit to get it perfect (not sure why you are saying move to right?)

Killtown and Nico both suggested I take a photo so everyone can see that the trees block the entire shot this time of year.

The buildings which look taller in my shots than in the "Hezarkhani" don't make sense. That is, the Whitehall is a precise match (on the vertical) to the Whitehall in the Hezarkhani, yet the buildings behind do not match.

They would be behind the Whitehall. So if I moved in on them to make them appear taller, shouldn't the Whitehall "grow" correspondingly at a greater rate - since the Whitehall is closer?

This is, I believe, why Fred contends the skylines were on layers (FCS). The layers have some bugs still.

This vid shows a glitch from the layers:

http://www.livevideo.com/video/guntherznad...than-words.aspx

specifically the glich involving the moving Verazanno bridge.

There's another showing the island of Manhattan moving as though on a vinyl plate with the Towers acting like a spindle (fixed). Can't find that at the momo for you, on the run.

PS. here are some pics of the context.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_T66Zcma3eso/RrzZtZ...allcroppedw.jpg

To my right of the Whitehall
http://bp3.blogger.com/_T66Zcma3eso/RrzDWp...htcropsmall.jpg



Is it clear from this photo that you cannot move farther toward the Whitehall to *correct* the problems with the match.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_T66Zcma3eso/Rry6c5...h/panorama2.jpg

I should do some 360 still shots.

Map of the location:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_T66Zcma3eso/Rcj1Ul...00-h/yahoox.jpg

If I would move my POV farther to my right [East on the map] which would take me farther away from the Whitehall....there is nothing to stand on, no building or anything to raise my POV.

There is still the problem .... The "plane" itself cannot enter the building as depicted.

And I'm sure you know, as pilots, the South Tower is an impossible target at the alleged speed.

One question I was wanting to ask a pilot: "When an airplane tips, as was depicted in the Hezarkhani vid and the "Park Foreman" and others, doesn't it, by necessity, turn?

Hmmm.

Thank you for any information you could shed on this question.

Painter and Sanders,

There is a reason I posted this stuff in Pilots. I am posting it in from some of the most intelligent and mature members of the truth movement. I hope you guys understand that I WANT you guys to attempt to dissect our claims so that if they are baseless, they'll be exposed, yet at the same time, if they are found accurate, please acknowledge it and show it the respect it deserves and work to stop the attacks on this topic.

I hope you are willing to hang in there on this thread because we have some pretty sharp guys in this thread. Between us, i think some good can come out of this thread and come up with some important findings. I could care less whether I am wrong or right, all I want is the truth. If the truth means that TV fakery types like myself need to find something better to do with their time, so be it. However I see see an opportunity here to quell the bitterness between groups and the constant ridicule of some people who are trying to call out the lapdogs of the 911 criminals; the MEDIA.

Let's try and keep this gentlemanly and stick to the topic minus the name calling and impatience. Let's recognize we are on the same side and give the respect that SOME might have done a little more work on the topic than others and be willing listeners. Please, if someone is going to respond in this thread, keep it POLITE.

Quest, skype me now.

Looking for you PAinter.

Somehow I have a feeling I am not getting through to yous.

Sanders doesn't remember his own postings

u2r2h, you seem like a smart guy.

and now that he knows I am a woman --- he sheeeshes me.

He does not stop to think for one second about what I said.

Equally, neither Fred nor painter are willing to understand the compelling nature of the iron-sights-argument.

Must be my fault. Lets try again

- Even at low picture resolutions

the

- large distances of front-sight (Whitehall Building) to rear-sight (red-tall-box-building, name?)

allow precise targeting.

In other words.. wherever that photo was taken from is the almost exact location of the camera. The two important buildings (in the direction of the camera, near centre vision) provide a clear vector, in both directions. The precision on the ground is in the 10feet range.

This vector points to a spot where trees are massively in the way, the CNN video must be fake. Q.E.D.


What is so difficult to grasp?

Why argue about motives, film quality, Japan or whatever?

There is only one thing to do... take the two photos, and walk into CNN with a film camera and a few reporters and write a story for the Financial Times, International Herald Tribune, France Soir, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Asahi Shimbun, The Times of India ....

Somehow I have a feeling I am not getting through to yous.