South Tower Anomalies - Extended

[Goobelham]

The shots are two different shots, from slightly different angles.

[drusha1]

footage is taken from empire state building and the difference is due to elevation difference of the ground! we're looking at 30-50 feet difference in the ground level for the two buildings it seems

[modaclubs]

The empire state b. is only 320 m high you cant film the rooftop of the WTC from there you dumb motherfucker

[drusha1]

i''m talking about the tip of the spire approximately 443m

dumb motherfucker inside your pants by the way

[modaclubs]

yes ofcourse you or somebody else ( Spiderman?) filmed it from the tip of the spire...... well it confirms only that you are a very very dumb motherfucker

[imnazhole]

DAMNIT!! I didn't see that either. The World Trade Center buildings were the highest buildings in the world until the Sears tower was built. How that hell did they get that footage??

I always thought I was smart. Thank heaven for truly smart people. No offense people, but I feel as dumb as a baptist minister.

[GGcaptmandrake]

I might add, in regards to the so-called height problem, that the footage appears to be shot from a rooftop, or out of a window, of a building.This look's to be about a quarter of a mile away!

[GGcaptmandrake]

they answer their own question in this video! Camera's run at different speed's!! That's the answer. So what, if the fireball, reaches the roof faster in one shot versus the other. the other thing is, that the stationary shot actually does appera to be shot 20-30 floor's below the roof, they make accusation's, before considering. Also, broadcast's are time delayed, some 6 second's. this would account for the lack of continuity of the shot's.

[GGcaptmandrake]

Hillarious!!! there's a huge ploom of smoke, covering the angle of approach.LOL!!! And this is proof?

[chibangin007]

this video explains why the footages arent accurate. and u sit there saying oh it sounds like bush did it? this is bullshit? there were hundreds involved. the news media played a major role in this. you dont know shit about this research. so how about u go fuck off u new zeeland piece of shit

[malcolmjacobson]

you sir, are what we here in new zealand, call a retarded moron.

Open your eyes brother. There is no conspiracy, just a bunch of pissed off arabs in some planes.

Grow a pair and grow up.

[chibangin007]

dude, you are one stupid little man. you are believing in the official story. 19 hijackers with box cutters hijacking 4 planes? and hitting 75% of their targets? in america? now that sounds like a conspiracy theory. but not tv fakery, it is a discovery. too bad you'll never understand.

[katyu16]

Malcolm:

"Open your eyes brother. There is no conspiracy, just a bunch of pissed off arabs in some planes."

Anyone who believes the official story as Gospel is either naiive, asleep at the wheel or just plain RETARDED !

[chibangin007]

dude, you are a fucking idiot. the towers are facing the same angle you dumbass.

/watch?v=RyBsEIsKMJk&

here's another video u should check out. this will blow ur mind.

and flight 175 was still in the air after the second tower fell. dont believe me? watch

/watch?v=AjRS-gRyLTo&

[malcolmjacobson]

it is you sir, who i believe to be the idiot.

[chibangin007]

im the idiot? u still dont understand what this video explains. ever heard of sir issac newton? ever heard of physics? dont u understand how fake the footages are? no u dont. its simple, even a child can figure it out. so seriously dude, ur the fuckin idiot u dumb fuck

[p0lar0id]

I think I have some answers for the questions posed in this video.

1) The orb? = plane. The bad quality of the video is to blame.

2) No plane video 2? Yes there is @ 3:14 you can barely make out a small dark object entering from the top right. The comparison of video 3 (orb) vs. video 2 (supposedly no orb) is clearly an issue of video quality. I mean, it hard enough to make out the "orb" in video 3 when it starts to blend in with the background buildings but video 2 quality is that much worse

[p0lar0id]

3) Trajectory of the orb vs. plane? Simply an issue of camera vertical angle differences. One is slightly higher angle & other slightly lower.

4) Where is the mounted camera? WTC roof height = 417m vs. Empire State Building plus antenna = 448.7m - it's possible a camera is mounted on the antenna.

5) Where's background? Mounted camera (further & lower angle) vs. helicopter camera (closer & higher angle) can alter background dramatically w/only a few degrees of angle change.

[p0lar0id]

5a) Try modeling an example of what you've seen in the video w/ a camera, box-like object (WTC), and a suitable background. You'll notice that standing further away and zooming in (mounted camera) gives you a much more narrow field of view vs. standing a bit closer and zooming out slightly will reveal much more of the background even though the size of the object is similar. That is what I believe is happening in the video.

[p0lar0id]

6) Video speed issue?...not as important. I feel the significant issues of this video have legit explanations. 9/11 inside job? I say yes but I don't think this video proves anything.

[ThoughtCrime7]

3:35

[viasevenvai]

if it was such a good plan to trick everyone, why do such a crappy job on the ACTUAL EVENT?! you guys are stupid to think that the government is either ONE-lieing, or TWO-stupid to leave the obvious stuff out.

[ciucinciu]

the trajectories of the plane on video1 and 3 is diffrent because it;s filmed on very diffrent angles, look at the horizon on 1 the sky, and on 3 it's the river. but it;s really weird on video 2 that the plane isnt there

[NFSMWcrazy]

wow...WOW...very very VERY nice job...

Very curious...EXTREMELY CURIOUS...

holy crap...and to think i argued with people for about 2 hours about this...I was WRONG...i love this video

[vipersrules]

lol fili fail

and yeah... waow...

[Codad]

very interesting video, well put together.

[LuckyTony777]

dude, you got me curious AS HELL.

thanks :)

[MFOURNIFOURK]

It's pretty obvious why they would play it at half the speed. It's more entertaining that way. As for the plane not showing up in the 2x2 pixel video, i think it's just the angle they're sitting at and maybe the quality of the video. Simply rendering a 3d image over a video isn't really being precise. They could have also stabilized helicopter footage with video software. How do you explain the video taken from street level clearly showing an airplane crashing into the building.

This is joke.

[kylejjw]

Your a fkin jk. This video is not saying a plane didint hit the wtc buildings. Its saying that the media made these fake clips of a plane hiting the wtc buildings.

[MFOURNIFOURK]

Yeah, no.

[MassacreBlast]

@kylejjw - Actually there was no plane in one video, then there was a clear shot of one in the next later edited one. How can you go from NO plane to A plane without noticing the obvious logical discrepancy?

[Goobelham]

@MassacreBlast differing video resolutions. the resolution is so shitty that you can't even see the plane.

[shaybutta11208]

@Goobelham the resolution was so shitty you could see the background too right?? but the clip with the "good" resolution the background dissappears. Im confused

[beggarz]

At 2:30 it sounds like the reporter on the ground starts to say something, then cuts herself short - then says "Oh! Another one just hit! Something else just hit... a very large plane just flew directly over my building..."

Where was this reporter on the ground? On which building?

[ThoughtCrime7]

Ya her first reaction is "oh" - she never saw/heard the plane before it crashed? Then "something" just hit, then "a very large plane" just hit. She should have continued with "A very large plane with angry Arabs who hate our freedoms carrying box cutters" just hit.

[blahyourhamster]

these were both live?

[RionNipal]

The horizontal perspectives might have been the same, but the VERTICAL perspectives were clearly different. The evening news shot was taken at a lower angle, and had to look up at the building slightly. Second of all, that "orb" is the plane that's been raped by video compression. the trajectories are different because the height of the choppers is different, and finally, the evening news clip is so steady because it was "hovering" and using a steady cam. The live chopper was clearly moving -_-;

[CACBCCCU]

"The second clip is apparently an altered version of the helicopter clip, with a plane added."

Just to clarify - I'm not suggesting that the apparently faked video discussed above provides credible evidence that there was actually no plane there.

There is plausible deniability of a notable intent to decieve available to the makers of the faked video - i.e. they just wanted to correct incorrect impressions left by a fuzzy helicopter video.

[SirBroadsword]

Actually, the best versions of the live "Chopper 4" shot are so clear you can actually see a thin line (a missile?) follow almost the exact same path as the "orb" that was added in later for NBC's 'archive' footage...

[CACBCCCU]

IMO the helicopter clip is too fuzzy, but the cameraman there could see something in his viewfinder.

The second clip is apparently an altered version of the helicopter clip, with a plane added. The source I could only speculate about, but one obvious effect is to create confusion that parallels the confusion around the pentagon events of that day.

[donjuanven]

Terrific!!

[jlamber71]

another thing is how the camera zooms in just in time and in the right spot in the live shot. also the lady says another one just something just hit a plane just hit superman just hit lol lady how do you know

[comfirmend]

AWSOME!!!

[hvncb]

CONTROLLED TELEVISION!

[cdelaorden]

at least really really curious, especially the background stuff for me. computer generated perhaps for the evening news?

[cjstudent83]

U can barely see the plane in the second video. Fast forward to 3:15 in this vid. when it zooms in on the second video. Go to full screen view...at 9 seconds till impact you can see something black emerge from the top center part of your screen. You can see it barely go towards the south tower and it disappears behind the north tower at 4 seconds till impact. The second video is a poor quality camera. The first video looks like a fake. The third video uses a much better camera than the second.

[sovereign777]

In the second video the plane is behind the towers for longer as it approaches.

This second shot is a 40-45 degree rotation over the first shot. Translate that back and include variants in lenses used,zoom length,white balance,actual distance,actual height etc between shots and the results contain too many variables to be used side by side and also explain why a plane may not be visable in one cameras shot.

Easy peasy.

CTards.

[OutlawVR]

lol, easy peasy?

right, they were using one of those new no background, half speed cameras that adds planes into and is operated by the steady hand of god

[Kenzofeis]

Hm.. I just want to add a few words.

Camouflage.. it is an art, it is related to psychology, tricking the eye, exploiting weaknesses in perception. In some cases almost the same stuff con artists and magicians do. Not just a camosuit or some paint.

Like, if you want to hide from someone in dense woods and in a hurry, one of your best bets is to climb up in a tall tree to exploit the instinct we have to watch for stuff horizontally and downwards.

Some training makes it easier to spot stuff.

[Kenzofeis]

Excellent work. Yours, not theirs, that is ;)

[slimmerpickins]

Why, if these are identical shots, was it necessary to stretch video 1, firstly in the graphic of the twin towers and then in the orb trajectory comparison?

It is very clear that it was, if you create a semi-transparent layer of it in a photo editor, overlay, rotate and then stretch it equally, when the towers are the same width as they are in V2, the explosion is much higher in V1 and can only be made to match V2 by distorting the layer vertically. I'll post proof if necessary.

Just asking.

[mic11111]

this alone is proof. bush!

[fafnir242]

Okay, thay gray area on the North Tower that's supposedly "the roof" is nothing more than a light patch of smoke. Are you trying to tell us that there was no plane that hit the South Tower? What exactly was the point of this video?

[ThoughtCrime7]

The point is stated at the beginning.

[MandoMohan]

Totally great update on all aspects. Top vid. Thanks very very much

[PandoraLeigh]

Definitely suggestive of altered video.

[ThoughtCrime7]

"South Tower Anomalies III" is coming in a few days - with better CGI! Undebunkable! Stay tuned!

[horror11]

awsome vid.

this is a very good update .

thx for ur work

[ThoughtCrime7]

You're welcome! Cheers!

[hammer1165]

this is pure logic, the American people do not respond to logic, only what they see on TV.

[ThoughtCrime7]

It just jumped to 85 views - damn - I'm not important enough to be censored after all.

[ThoughtCrime7]

Now it's down to 70?!? WTF!

[springbok2005]

Well done, excellent work

ps you are still on 15 hits

[ThoughtCrime7]

3 hours later, still at 15 views.

[roidroid]

Background scenery and Approach angles of Orb/Plane are BOTH explained by Video1 being taken from the empire state building.

It was not higher up, you are mistaken on the roof issue. What you think is the roof in Video1 is actually smoke - you can also see this same smoke in Video2 drifting up from the actual roof.

The 3D explosion also shows Video1 has as lower viewpoint, as in the other videos (helicopter) you can see more of the top of the 3D explosion.

[PollenB]

So the Empire ST Bldg is taller than the WTC? You are clutching at straws.

[ThoughtCrime7]

Go to Google Image Search and type "World Trade Center view from Empire State Building". There's lots of stills from people's visits to NYC. Notice that in all the pictures you find, the Empire State perspective shows the towers separated by a much larger space. You'd have to move to the right of the ESB to get NBC's horizontal perspective.

[roidroid]

thx for the suggestion. hmm, looking at the pictures i feel comfortable saying that video1 was taken from an even LOWER vantage point than the top of the empire state building!

Pics from the top show more background scenery than Video1 has. Perhaps Video1 was taken from a lower level, or even another building.

(PollenB you misunderstand)

[horror11]

but u cant see a flat roof of another building if ur position is LOWER than this roof.

[roidroid]

That's right.

The news camera helicopter view (Video2) was higher, and you could see the roof from that.

But in Video1 you can't see the roof. What you think is the roof is actually just smoke rising from the roof, you can't actually see the roof, the camera is too low - as you said.

[ThoughtCrime7]

You can see the square edges of the North Tower roof surface, particularly the right-front corner. The black smoke rising from behind the North Tower is visible above the FAR edge of the roof surface.

[Kenzofeis]

The impression you get that it's "lower" is because the "sky background" fools you into instinctively thinking that it is filmed upwards. Sort of playing with your mind, it doesn't always take more than that.

If you focus strictly on the buildings and rooftops you see that the cameras are almost exactly at the same vantage point.

[roidroid]

all you have to do is compare the 3D nature of the explosions Video1's explosion is clearly filmed from a lower vantage point, you can see more of the bottom of the explosion.

Just compare the explosions.

[Kenzofeis]

The tower/smoke and cleareance between towers says all there is to say about vantage points.

Besides, you clearly see the "roof edge" to the right on the blunder vid no_1..

[ThoughtCrime7]

YOUTUBE RESET the number of views of this video from 56 to 15, one hour after it was posted, Nov 24/07.

[roidroid]

i just watched it, and the views are still at 15. Surely it should have gone upto 16 with my view?

Intriguing.

[ThoughtCrime7]

Interesting! Maybe I have finally become important enough to be censored! This is a proud moment! Thanks CIA or FBI or Cointel Pro or whoever - I was begining to think no one was paying attention!

[roidroid]

views just shot upto 85

[PollenB]

5 stars.

[Jen1001001]

Makes ya think huh?! Good work!

[msmLIES]

Awesome!