@Richvehicle- Hi, how's life in shillville? Stop performing ATM on Bush for a second and riddle me this. How is it then that the live feed can somehow miss the jet but still manage to capture the much smaller boats on the water that are much further away? Got an answer for that asshole?
AWESOME VIDEO. The reason that debunkers (i.e. disinfo agent scumbags) fight the "no plane" explanation tooth and nail is because IT'S TRUE. The disinfo scum fighting the "no plane" truth are willing to concede all other points about 911 to appear like they are "911 truthers", but they cannot and will not concede this last point because it's central to their fraud. No planes = no hijackers. They need hijackers to justify the wars ...
OMG!!! You can't see the windows on either shot so both buildings are fakes!!!
: )
Just kidding.
Basically before you can throw around vague hypotheses based on video evidence you might need to familiarise yourself with everything from parallax to depth of field to the NTSC colour carrier, fields, compression artefacts, pixel binning, atmospheric aberration (etc etc).
@RichVehicle Guessing? I created my own 3D models to test the theories so I wouldn't have to guess. I made a video - you made a comment. If you have a specific criticism, let's hear it.
"Guessing? I created my own 3D models to test the theories so I wouldn't have to guess."
Two 6 sided primitives and a cylinder shot through a guessed F.O.V ? It's hardly a full FET simulation.
"If you have a specific criticism"
Your 'study' fails to allow for any number of variables present in the recording system, you seem to have worked entirely visually from (I would guess) a SD NTSC video source and made a series of guesses from there.
I'm wondering why you haven't addressed the response put out by alawson911, who does a wonderful job of pointing out several errors you made.
He isn't a debunker btw, as he does believe there were inside job elements going on that day. He, like most, believes the truth is more important then pushing Simon Shack's lie (and it really is a lie, created using images he created).
Accepting the planes were real doesn't mean you can't believe it was an inside job.
@stbays I've had several conversations with alawson911. He couldn't convince me he was correct about his video analysis so he made a "debunking" video. He starts his debunking video by describing my video as "a music video". I encourage everyone to watch his video & mine. Use your own discernment.
Also I never say there were no planes - I say there was fake video - that's all I can prove.
A most interesting direction to go with things. Usually when I hear people say faked video, they're ready to jump on the no planes theory too.
Personally I've been dealing with video for along time now, both digital and traditional. Wading through the hundreds of hours worth of film out there, I've found no errors. The problems most people have brought up are usually easily explained by perspective and compression.
The thought has crossed my mind. I've been trying to consider the best way to show some of the elements I'd like to show. I've access to 3D softward, which in theory might be the best way to show what I'm hoping to show.
My voice is not the most easy to listen to, but I'm not afraid to speak up. I can't explain things like WTC 7, mainly because that was more of an issue of elements inside the building rather then camera work.
If I make a video though, it'll probably take some time, since I'm not a professional at this. My knowledge is mostly first hand, both from an artistic stand perspective (I did a lot of perspective drawings at one time) and from a novice photographer (mostly local shots and stuff from vacations taken as "professionally" as I'm able to).
@stbays You are exactly right. Most of the so-called "anomalies" people point to in these videos are due to compression artifacts, or perspective distortion.
It is impossible to compare horizont level with so narrow camera angle using a face side ob an object covered with the smoke at so blurish video.
A little shift in angle — and you can go from hundred meters height right to the ground with no significant change on an observed building. Try your 3d software.
That's why there is no background on evening news.
@InuXela I over-lapped a still frame from both video clips and the rooftops match perfectly. If its smoke that is causing the illusion, it is an illusion in BOTH videos.
why are you assuming the video came from the observation deck of the empire state building? the observation deck is not the roof.. the empire state building is taller than you are leading people to believe. the ESB's antenna is taller than the WTC's roof.
@existenceisfake I watched it, but it would be better if you could "show the math" so to speak, or use a 3D program. This is essentially a short verbal opinion. Having modeled the towers myself, I cannot line up the 2 plane paths without significantly altering the camera view. Even at 320 meters (highest observation deck in Empire State Building) the plane paths don't agree. Try using Google Sketchup - you can DL scale models of the towers.
BTW--RE: the footage at archive.org--CBS live cameras show the plane from TWO different angles. CNN and BBS both catch the plane live. The "orb" shot from NBC is live. Let's do some math. 5 live cameras catch the plane. 1 live camera does not. Either there is information you are missing about the 1 camera, which could explain the anomaly--OR--5 cameras from different angles were simultaneously altered and faked on live television, all reporters and eye-witnesses complicit. Employ Occom's razor.
@existenceisfake If you find it hard to believe that 5 shots were faked, I understand, but that seems to be the case. Some points to consider; the only eyewitness reports I can find are from the 5 major news networks. 14 of the plane eye witnesses are network executives. The rest are bystanders who report seeing: no plane, a small plane, a passenger jet, a missile. Send me a link to any plane eye-witnesses you have. These news clips are all compiled in the movie September Clues - recommended.
@ThoughtCrime7 This whole "analysis" can be discredited by one important fact--the "video 2" clip in this video is the exact same shot as "video 3", the clip with the "orb" a.k.a. "another NBC clip". You ask where the plane is in video 2, then you show it in video 3. Why not just admit you goofed?
@existenceisfake I guess you missed the point. Video 2 and 3 are the same - except that the plane is not visible in video 2. I did no editing here - so someone else did. How do you feel about the missing background scenery in video 1? Are you ok with that? Not an issue for you?
@ThoughtCrime7 Perhaps you did not notice the resolution degradation in video 2 as compared to video 3--no tampering necessary. It's an artifact of digital compression from low-res video copies.
The missing scenery is no problem. If you watch the original NBC footage, you will see a stationary shot of the towers with the Empire State Building in the foreground taken from atop a building north of the ESB. That shot has mostly sky in the background. Video 1 is a zoom in from that camera.
@ThoughtCrime7 I watched the "analysis" you referred me to--wow--I'm stunned at how easily misled people are. In fact--that analysis contradicts your own. Your video posits that video 1 was stationary while video 2 was from a chopper. This is correct. In the Richplanet 911 analysis, the two clips are said to be the same shot. It's so clear when people have no real experience with video. The "orb" anomaly is due to resolution too low to show flat wing detail. Again--employ Occom's razor.
Take a good photography or cinematography class. Depending on camera distances and lens focal length, perceived distances and angles can appear very distorted and will fool your eyes. You might be able to "match exactly" an object in frame when comparing two camera angles, but if one camera is far away and zoomed in while the other is close and wide open, the surrounding scenery will appear vastly different--sizes, angels, and distances become significantly distorted.
This is a great example of what happens when armchair experts attempt forensic investigation. How do you know this "analysis" is meaningless? There is absolutely no consideration of perspective distortion. All of these "anomalies" can be easily explained by differing degrees of extension and/or compression distortion in the various camera angles. Without knowing relative camera distances and lens focal lengths, this "analysis" is utter nonsense.
911 discussions for me at least run along the lines of chicken little stuff, or beating a dead horse, hell Perry Mason with all the evidence would not touch the case. But after seeing this video I have to scratch my head, WTF?
This IS NO HOAX, TOTAL CGI, PHOTOSHOP, and all other digital enhancers for these videos, those who have PARTICIPATED IN THIS GREAT LIE WILL PAY, KEEP PROVING THIS, 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB NO MUSLIM DID THIS, IRAQ, SADDAM HUSSAIN, AFGHANISTAN, AND ALL THAT IS CONNECTED TO THIS LIE IS ...............................BLASPHEMOUS....................... BLESS YOU ThoughtCrime7, Many Blessing unto you and your family!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just thought I'd throw this out there. If you know an airline pilot, ask him or her how fast a 727 can fly near ground level. The answer will be similar for all large passenger planes - about 165 MPH. Commercial aircraft take off and land at about 165 MPH because the air is denser at ground level. At 30 thousand + feet, they can go 500 and faster, but not near ground level. It's like trying to run really fast in water. Official reports say 9/11 planes flew at 494 mph and 586 mph. Search "Jassm".
wow, this is probably the best analysis I have ever seen of the news that day regarding the subject. Mathematical perspective is inarguable. You can't debunk the blatantly obvious.
If you know anything about GOP (Group of Pictures) structure and video compression with regard to macro-blocking, you would know why the "orb" appears in one video and not the other.
this is indeed strange but as a photographer there is one thing that you must consider, which is camera focal length and aperture (could blur background or create haze)... a wide lens (ie 24mm) may in fact make a different trajectory angle than a long lens (ie 300mm).. coupled with how far you are away this may distort trajectory
@LifeRegenRevolution Believe what you want. I lived and still live just a few blocks away on White st. Seperate planes did hit the WTC and I personally saw much of the horror that ensued with my own two eyes.
This absolutely is an interesting video but it doesn't explain all of the other live footage that's out there. If you watch the YouTube video "Flight 175 As it Happened" it shows multiple live network broadcasts from the moment of impact and the plane is clearly visible in multiple shots. This also doesn't explain all of the other home movies that ordinary people shot of the impact. And what about the thousands of eye witnesses there in Manhattan that saw it with their own eyes.
excellent work, the only persons that can call BS on your claims is the guy who slowed the video. I wonder what he would have to say or if he even knows about this info
Very interesting, thanks for your efforts. It´s kind of a shame that we still have to discuss about the topic 911 anyway, I remember seeing it live on TV and it was impossible for me to believe it.
Bush beeing in a kindergarten at that moment of the impact...that´s bad screenplay
that was a very impressive video. you definately saved the best for last with the fireball comparisons. never seen that in any videos before. good job man!
you make me sick for wanting people to be killed for something we believe in and knowledge of what happened. (sounding kinda like a terrorist to me)
i used to believe it was "terrorist" that made 9/11 happen, but then like father Christmas and the Easter bunny I realised it was all a lie and the FACTS! are more on the side that was inside job,,
Ya I know it's hard to use Google. I'll do it for you.
CBS: 84% think gov't is LYING about 911.
MSNBC: 67% say US gov't was INVOLVED in 9/11 attacks.
TVO, Canada, 72% say US go'vt made 9/11 happen.
CNN, 82% say there is a 911 COVERUP.
9/11 Families say 70% of their questions WERE NOT ANSWERED. Most of them want a new 9/11 investigation. Most of them think 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB - Bill Doyle, 911 Coalition of Families.
You'll need a lot of bullets to shoot all those people.
For all you know, I could be making those numbers up? Why don't you Google it & find out? I guess you'd rather just start shooting people. And I don't live in the US.
I don't think he's implying he hates America. If a country is corrupted, that doesn't mean someone hates the coutnry. Either way, all countries are corrupted one way or another, even though the US act the most angelic about which is one of the most hypocritical and laughable things to see.
I think that makes my case for a lack of informed perspectives nicely. I think the video is interesting, although I think the whole 'no aircraft' argument is absurd in the extreme. Psy ops on the thousands that saw planes? Puh-lease. On thing I don't see in the vid is any references to the level of pixellation, a real aircraft would be nowhere near as clearly defined as the models suggest. When the tower is 1 inch high on the screen a plane won't be visible.
I don't say there was no aircraft - I believe some type of aircraft hit the towers. I try to emphasize the difference between no-planes theory and fake news theory. There are many examples of fake news on 911 - check this out:
I understand that you're not making this point but others do. I disagree with the term 'fake news' though, certainly on some of the clips you've presented where they have been slowed down for example. I apprecate your point that this makes them "not original" but i don't make the leap that there's anything underhand about it. 'Action" shots are often slowed down on the news for many reasons such as letting the audience grasp what they are seeing or stretching to fit a particular news segment.
Fair enough. I would check out "September Clues" if you haven't already. It may not convince you of anything, but he presents the best argument for & analysis of deliberately altered video.
Ok, I watched as part as H before my brain was leaking out from my ears. If that's the best argument and analysis then with respect this perspective is in real trouble. I suppose I should mention I'm a professional analyst so filling in gaps in problems is what I do. The only, and I mean ONLY, interesting point made was regarding the apparent use of the same soundtrack, although I obviously do not have access to the original footage. Most of the other points were immediately dismissable.
I just uploaded the RAW Chopper 4 Video ASS! You can see the plane, it isn't clear, but you can see it if you are looking for something other than BS conspiracies.
but it is interesting because the plane is not visible in the live one, plane could possibly be non-visible because of light and video quality, but idk, and the slowed down one, idk either.
hmph, very interesting video, for as why the one that said "earlier" you know this is a playback video, also the earlier's background wasnt visible, and if it was slowed by half. for the no motion, they possibly could have taken the original video and taken it to where the viewable part stands still while the edges move but are cropped out, and are more viewable, the colors, with the background, could be they messed with the contrast, also to make it more clear,
No, the basic premise of Loose Change is mere conjecture. There was no scientific research done for that pile of steaming shit. The architects and engineers of those websites merely want another investigation done into certain aspects. No credible engineer would doubt the overall theme of 911. IE, that the buildings were hit by planes and collapsed.
I think Loose Change has done way more harm to your "cause" than you realize. It's the most vocal mouthpiece in the 911 "truth" movement.
the first has a different angle idiots ... thats why they didn't saw the plane if they was a little more to right, they allso had seen it ... how stupid are you guys .. belives in every conspiracy fairytale.. .. omg
well as you see on the other vid,the plane comes low,,and in the first vid the angel are more to left...thats why they cant see it,and the first vid cant because the building cover it from that angel..and the plane comes low,thats why thats why they cant see it above the buildings from the first vid...i know my english sucks,but hopefully you understand something atleast....and this vid are so stupid...kids grow up for god sake
"Stupid" is an insult and Insulters get blocked! Last chance. You have to show your proof - use a 3D program, or Google Earth. I have done the math and three is no way to hide a plane.
so if i think this page is stupid i get blocked?if you are that dumb,that you think its all made up by the goverment..then you need a shrink..guys like you should be blocked..........
This footage here makes me wonder: what would America have to hide from us? Would it be so hard to just show the normal footage? The event itself seems legitimate, so is it just that they like to seem suspicious to the rest of the world or something? Really, I see no reason for the false footage to exist. Something's strange about that, no?
They want to control the image for some reason. Some say no real planes, some say modified planes, some say missiles that look like planes (Jassm Missile), some say missiles + CGI, but all I can prove is that network footage has been faked..
Indeed. And that's why it seems so suspicious. If the footage has been faked, that means that the news network lied to the public, and I can't think of any real reason they'd have to do so.
And I know I already said this, but you put this together really well, and I must commend you for spotting this false footage. Kudos!
Interesting that you intentionally left out the most plausible theory. Just because the newstation "faked" their broadcast as you say, doesn't mean that the official story is by any means off the table. I detect a hint of bias in your words, and I'm not sure if it's intentional or not.
This was an excellent and very thorough video! I had seen similar comparisons (thanks to Simon Shack), but I wasn't aware of some of the details...like the evening video being slowed to 50%! Very well done! I've already favourited it, and I most certainly will subscribe!
And in the meantime Im struggling to stay within the ridiculous 500 words limit from youtube while u truthers usually have no more to say than 150 - 200 words. Im spending way too much time on this u know? U better come up with smthing good now.
The point is too, that the media are way too easily seen as something u can influence by just calling them and offering them some cash or smthing. Media all over the world employ millions of people, turn over millions, probably billions of dollars each year and loads of ambitious journalists are after the truth. I wouldn't know where to begin if I had to start bribing enuff ppl from the media in order to stop true footage from leaking, if that is what u think the point is. Which is stupid too.
NYC has approx 5 million citizens. I wonder 1: how many of them needed the media at all to see what was going on with the WTC?
2: How many of them were reporters or wanted to report on this as amateur with their cell phone camera or digital camera or w/e. they had.
Get my point? Even if the US. wld have gotten the media as far as u think they got em, the scale wld have been so big enuff ppl wld have stepped out with the truth and I dunno, walked over to the BBC or so. Or where they bribed too?
And even if it is true, what is the point then, seriously? Ow, look, that shot couldn't have possibly been made? We've put ppl on the moon 40 years ago. Of course that shot cld have been made.
And sorry, I said "there is also..." -> obviously it shld have been "there were" and that's thanks to terrorists who defended pretty comprehendable points in a totally unacceptable way, not thanks to a government which wasn't nutty enuff do this.
TheBourneID - you say "Even if true, what's the point". If the truth is pointless, why try to debunk it? The point is that fake news rolled in real time, meaning media complicity prior to the event.
"If the truth is pointless, why try to debunbk it?"
I never said the truth was pointless, I was trying to say this video is pointless. But that's also cos we have different opinions on what is true. And why did I try to debunk it. Well, I ran out of things to do, okay? None of of your business, actually why I'm posting here. But if you'd think, you'd find that I'm interested in this stuff and that I'm trying to separate nonsense from sense. Clearly, this vid is at least partially nonsense.
The 3:24 purple polygon which somebody mounted in that angle which makes it look as if the footage was shot from a higher altitude is simply wrong. Do you think the roof of A building which stands 417 metres tall is totally flat? there is also a raised observation deck there, several fences and loads of antennas. That shot, and therefore the whole point is busted to me.
I am looking for a HQ original too - all copies online seem to be copies of Archive(dot)org - they pulled the whole 911 archive and then re-up'd with some edits. Simon Shack (Sept Clues) has the best quality of original chopper 4 shot. I will keep you posted on what I can find.
Video 1 and video 2, Two vastly different perspectives. But you already know that. You are just being contrary truther jackass. And as a "no planer" you are the lowest on the food chain. Hundreds of thousand of people in all five boroughs AND New Jersey witnessed it.
dude just shut the fuck up you what is the point to your video? the tape was altered? big deal! the fact is that innocent people died that day and all you care about is weather the video was altered or not and you said it yourself you dont know why so just really...shut up
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
and half speed ? lolzz.. dude i can see that u edited it w.e i dont need to see this. but besides the lies the footage u got together is good. make sure u keep it.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
lol omg lol. how can they be so blind. the camera thats stable is on the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING. lolzz i cant belive its not obvious to u... and they do capture other helicopters. sigh this is so fake .... plz dont try to blind other people with ur lies. kthnx
and what might that motive be? by ruining the economy? and killing 3450 innocents that must be some kind of government thing . T.T sarcasm . sigh... like all major life changing events there will always be conspiracys..
Everybody now knows that it was Elvis who masterminded the hijackings. Elvis recruited Barney, tinky winky, and bear in the big blue house. Barney has not been seen since the incident. Now that Bush is back at the "mother ship", aka Texas, look for another event in near future.
If you can see the rooftops...the shot is above the roof...No 3D BS modeling required. This is a simple fact.
And even if the "city" shot is from lower, it should be less hazy than the shot that is coming from above the towers....that higher camera would be angled more downward.
Search a video on youtube called: "World Trade Center Attack - Live News Coverage" And you will clearly see, at 2:19, if you watch in high quality, that at 2:19 when the women say AND, that a plane is coming... search that vid: World Trade Center Attack - Live News Coverage
Boy, this is dumb. The evening rerun was played at 1/2 speed so the plane was visible. On the live broadcast, the video-feed shows a ripple-effect anomalie as apparently the effective shutterspeed/aperature combination couldn't focus on the moving plane. And perhaps these might have been two different sources, with cropping making up for apparant differences caused by zoom focal-point foreshortening. This is all academic as the second plane strike was filmed by many dozens of cameras.
focal length? now that's dumb. Focal length doesn't bend light, just compresses depth. Only visible at half speed? that's dumb too - other news vids were shown at normal speed. nice try.
at 8:03 the woman on the audio says "oh another just hit" exactly as we see it hit on the video. I thought there was a 10 second lag when they do live coverage so the engineer can "bleep" out certain mistakes the networks don't want us to hear.
Search a video on youtube called: "World Trade Center Attack - Live News Coverage" And you will clearly see, at 2:19, if you watch in high quality, that at 2:19 when the women say AND, that a plane is coming... search that vid: World Trade Center Attack - Live News Coverage
Why you gotta delete comments?
saultrain 1 week ago
@saultrain huh?
ThoughtCrime7 10 hours ago
Horrible bit of disonfo this video.
saultrain 1 week ago
@saultrain Your comment is disinfo.
ThoughtCrime7 1 week ago
TOP TWO 911 "OFFICIAL" LIES
1) Planes hit the towers
2) Almost 3000 people died
kansasinnovember 4 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o
/watch?v=KhdppHwUJ9k
/watch?v=iGqjzFQvfdI
/watch?v=WxqoChniKVU
/watch?v=9QWvkAgyIY4
/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY
/watch?v=HfmliaqIRBE
/watch?v=HSjDCwN2i3w
/watch?v=8XRMrMdn0NQ
/watch?v=zhnNy5EsebA
megamogx 5 months ago
FEST HOS MANGE!!!!!! /watch?v=xoVRPngoLHM
evil001987 7 months ago
Last time I saw video 2 there was a plane going by. Why isn't there a plane in your video?
Gavinanimator 7 months ago
@Gavinanimator I think you need to watch again.
ThoughtCrime7 7 months ago
@Richvehicle- Hi, how's life in shillville? Stop performing ATM on Bush for a second and riddle me this. How is it then that the live feed can somehow miss the jet but still manage to capture the much smaller boats on the water that are much further away? Got an answer for that asshole?
Dendude222 9 months ago
AWESOME VIDEO. The reason that debunkers (i.e. disinfo agent scumbags) fight the "no plane" explanation tooth and nail is because IT'S TRUE. The disinfo scum fighting the "no plane" truth are willing to concede all other points about 911 to appear like they are "911 truthers", but they cannot and will not concede this last point because it's central to their fraud. No planes = no hijackers. They need hijackers to justify the wars ...
anthonyc31 9 months ago 4
Definitely food for thought, and well composed evidence. Something fishy appears to have gone on, but you are right not to have guessed at it.
Jordrake44 9 months ago
OMG!!! You can't see the windows on either shot so both buildings are fakes!!!
: )
Just kidding.
Basically before you can throw around vague hypotheses based on video evidence you might need to familiarise yourself with everything from parallax to depth of field to the NTSC colour carrier, fields, compression artefacts, pixel binning, atmospheric aberration (etc etc).
In other words the video shows nothing.
RichVehicle 11 months ago
@RichVehicle You gave me a list of video terms - great - with no specific argument. In other words, your comment shows nothing.
ThoughtCrime7 11 months ago 2
@ThoughtCrime7
My point is that without even a grounding in the technical basics and you are just guessing your way through all this.
RichVehicle 11 months ago
@RichVehicle Guessing? I created my own 3D models to test the theories so I wouldn't have to guess. I made a video - you made a comment. If you have a specific criticism, let's hear it.
ThoughtCrime7 11 months ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThoughtCrime7
"Guessing? I created my own 3D models to test the theories so I wouldn't have to guess."
Two 6 sided primitives and a cylinder shot through a guessed F.O.V ? It's hardly a full FET simulation.
"If you have a specific criticism"
Your 'study' fails to allow for any number of variables present in the recording system, you seem to have worked entirely visually from (I would guess) a SD NTSC video source and made a series of guesses from there.
RichVehicle 11 months ago
TOP FIVE 911 TWOOFER LIES
1) Nanothermite (aka paint chips from PPG)
2) No flight 93 (despite 95% of plane debris recovered)
3) No flight 77 (even though over 130 witnesses saw a plane)
4) Marvin Bush WTC security (never happened)
5) Free fall speed (absolutely no building collapsed at freefall speed)
ctcole77 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos
I'm wondering why you haven't addressed the response put out by alawson911, who does a wonderful job of pointing out several errors you made.
He isn't a debunker btw, as he does believe there were inside job elements going on that day. He, like most, believes the truth is more important then pushing Simon Shack's lie (and it really is a lie, created using images he created).
Accepting the planes were real doesn't mean you can't believe it was an inside job.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays I've had several conversations with alawson911. He couldn't convince me he was correct about his video analysis so he made a "debunking" video. He starts his debunking video by describing my video as "a music video". I encourage everyone to watch his video & mine. Use your own discernment.
Also I never say there were no planes - I say there was fake video - that's all I can prove.
ThoughtCrime7 1 year ago
@ThoughtCrime7
A most interesting direction to go with things. Usually when I hear people say faked video, they're ready to jump on the no planes theory too.
Personally I've been dealing with video for along time now, both digital and traditional. Wading through the hundreds of hours worth of film out there, I've found no errors. The problems most people have brought up are usually easily explained by perspective and compression.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays I would be interested to see your analysis. Are you planning to make a video?
ThoughtCrime7 1 year ago
@ThoughtCrime7
The thought has crossed my mind. I've been trying to consider the best way to show some of the elements I'd like to show. I've access to 3D softward, which in theory might be the best way to show what I'm hoping to show.
My voice is not the most easy to listen to, but I'm not afraid to speak up. I can't explain things like WTC 7, mainly because that was more of an issue of elements inside the building rather then camera work.
stbays 1 year ago
@ThoughtCrime7
If I make a video though, it'll probably take some time, since I'm not a professional at this. My knowledge is mostly first hand, both from an artistic stand perspective (I did a lot of perspective drawings at one time) and from a novice photographer (mostly local shots and stuff from vacations taken as "professionally" as I'm able to).
Sorry I can't be more useful immediately.
stbays 1 year ago
@stbays You are exactly right. Most of the so-called "anomalies" people point to in these videos are due to compression artifacts, or perspective distortion.
lunartraveler 9 months ago
Comment removed
ilah2001 1 year ago
The two clips do not look like they are from the same posotion. This seems bogus.
saultrain 1 year ago
But you still can see fireball perspective difference (dark spot at the top of it) at 5:36
It is clear that second shot was made from low height. From any roof around.
InuXela 1 year ago
4:38 — roof is NOT visible. It's just a smoke.
It is impossible to compare horizont level with so narrow camera angle using a face side ob an object covered with the smoke at so blurish video.
A little shift in angle — and you can go from hundred meters height right to the ground with no significant change on an observed building. Try your 3d software.
That's why there is no background on evening news.
It's a sky you dummie.
InuXela 1 year ago
@InuXela I over-lapped a still frame from both video clips and the rooftops match perfectly. If its smoke that is causing the illusion, it is an illusion in BOTH videos.
infoseeker264 1 year ago
@infoseeker264 I believe you're wrong. This video is totally bogus.
Watch this:
watch?v=32uRDI0-wGc
or this:
watch?v=PQ_7gEECzvY
saultrain 1 year ago
Thousands of witnesses that planes was there and couple of junkies with "perspective for dummies" knowledge.
InuXela 1 year ago
why are you assuming the video came from the observation deck of the empire state building? the observation deck is not the roof.. the empire state building is taller than you are leading people to believe. the ESB's antenna is taller than the WTC's roof.
TVForces 1 year ago
@TVForces so the camera was on the esb's antenna?
ThoughtCrime7 1 year ago
Comment removed
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake I watched it, but it would be better if you could "show the math" so to speak, or use a 3D program. This is essentially a short verbal opinion. Having modeled the towers myself, I cannot line up the 2 plane paths without significantly altering the camera view. Even at 320 meters (highest observation deck in Empire State Building) the plane paths don't agree. Try using Google Sketchup - you can DL scale models of the towers.
ThoughtCrime7 1 year ago
This video rocks:
watch?v=eFIGeINof0Y
ThoughtCrime7 1 year ago
I just discovered that this video has already been thoroughly debunked @ watch?v=k4Jahg9fxM4. Bravo. This guy is dead-on.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake I was talking about this video:
watch?v=eFIGeINof0Y
ThoughtCrime7 1 year ago
@existenceisfake the video's been removed.
Nomolos2010 1 year ago
BTW--RE: the footage at archive.org--CBS live cameras show the plane from TWO different angles. CNN and BBS both catch the plane live. The "orb" shot from NBC is live. Let's do some math. 5 live cameras catch the plane. 1 live camera does not. Either there is information you are missing about the 1 camera, which could explain the anomaly--OR--5 cameras from different angles were simultaneously altered and faked on live television, all reporters and eye-witnesses complicit. Employ Occom's razor.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake If you find it hard to believe that 5 shots were faked, I understand, but that seems to be the case. Some points to consider; the only eyewitness reports I can find are from the 5 major news networks. 14 of the plane eye witnesses are network executives. The rest are bystanders who report seeing: no plane, a small plane, a passenger jet, a missile. Send me a link to any plane eye-witnesses you have. These news clips are all compiled in the movie September Clues - recommended.
ThoughtCrime7 1 year ago
@ThoughtCrime7 This whole "analysis" can be discredited by one important fact--the "video 2" clip in this video is the exact same shot as "video 3", the clip with the "orb" a.k.a. "another NBC clip". You ask where the plane is in video 2, then you show it in video 3. Why not just admit you goofed?
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake I guess you missed the point. Video 2 and 3 are the same - except that the plane is not visible in video 2. I did no editing here - so someone else did. How do you feel about the missing background scenery in video 1? Are you ok with that? Not an issue for you?
ThoughtCrime7 1 year ago
@ThoughtCrime7 Perhaps you did not notice the resolution degradation in video 2 as compared to video 3--no tampering necessary. It's an artifact of digital compression from low-res video copies.
The missing scenery is no problem. If you watch the original NBC footage, you will see a stationary shot of the towers with the Empire State Building in the foreground taken from atop a building north of the ESB. That shot has mostly sky in the background. Video 1 is a zoom in from that camera.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake Please watch this:
watch?v=eFIGeINof0Y
to see a clearer video of the "orb" shot. This is a great analysis also imo.
ThoughtCrime7 1 year ago
@ThoughtCrime7 I watched the "analysis" you referred me to--wow--I'm stunned at how easily misled people are. In fact--that analysis contradicts your own. Your video posits that video 1 was stationary while video 2 was from a chopper. This is correct. In the Richplanet 911 analysis, the two clips are said to be the same shot. It's so clear when people have no real experience with video. The "orb" anomaly is due to resolution too low to show flat wing detail. Again--employ Occom's razor.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
Take a good photography or cinematography class. Depending on camera distances and lens focal length, perceived distances and angles can appear very distorted and will fool your eyes. You might be able to "match exactly" an object in frame when comparing two camera angles, but if one camera is far away and zoomed in while the other is close and wide open, the surrounding scenery will appear vastly different--sizes, angels, and distances become significantly distorted.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
This is a great example of what happens when armchair experts attempt forensic investigation. How do you know this "analysis" is meaningless? There is absolutely no consideration of perspective distortion. All of these "anomalies" can be easily explained by differing degrees of extension and/or compression distortion in the various camera angles. Without knowing relative camera distances and lens focal lengths, this "analysis" is utter nonsense.
existenceisfake 1 year ago
@existenceisfake How does focal length hide a plane? Perspective distortion? If it's easy to explain, please do.
ThoughtCrime7 1 year ago
watch?v=k4Jahg9fxM4&feature=related
further educate yourselves on what happened on 9/11!
Goobelham 1 year ago
911 discussions for me at least run along the lines of chicken little stuff, or beating a dead horse, hell Perry Mason with all the evidence would not touch the case. But after seeing this video I have to scratch my head, WTF?
ElCajoia 1 year ago 2
This IS NO HOAX, TOTAL CGI, PHOTOSHOP, and all other digital enhancers for these videos, those who have PARTICIPATED IN THIS GREAT LIE WILL PAY, KEEP PROVING THIS, 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB NO MUSLIM DID THIS, IRAQ, SADDAM HUSSAIN, AFGHANISTAN, AND ALL THAT IS CONNECTED TO THIS LIE IS ...............................BLASPHEMOUS....................... BLESS YOU ThoughtCrime7, Many Blessing unto you and your family!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
crownedpricelesswand 1 year ago 3
Just thought I'd throw this out there. If you know an airline pilot, ask him or her how fast a 727 can fly near ground level. The answer will be similar for all large passenger planes - about 165 MPH. Commercial aircraft take off and land at about 165 MPH because the air is denser at ground level. At 30 thousand + feet, they can go 500 and faster, but not near ground level. It's like trying to run really fast in water. Official reports say 9/11 planes flew at 494 mph and 586 mph. Search "Jassm".
ThoughtCrime7 1 year ago
This is a lot to take in. I don't know where I am on this one to be honest. Why can't American TV cameras be as clear as they are here in the UK?
At first (and it didn't take me long to change my mind) I thought it was bad that angry middle easterners would want to fly planes into WTCs.
Then I thought it was bad enough that the Bush admin done it for oil
Then I thought it was bad it was done by shaddow government to go into Afghan, establish bases and turn world into Police State.
NOW THIS!
albabhoy81 1 year ago
@albabhoy81
Yeah it sucks. But on the bright side, there are lots more informed people today than ever before.
ThoughtCrime7 1 year ago
wow, this is probably the best analysis I have ever seen of the news that day regarding the subject. Mathematical perspective is inarguable. You can't debunk the blatantly obvious.
hmsixsixsix 1 year ago 3
Only a moron would argue against such demonstrable evidence. Bravo!
MassacreBlast 1 year ago 2
If you know anything about GOP (Group of Pictures) structure and video compression with regard to macro-blocking, you would know why the "orb" appears in one video and not the other.
andyandlesley 1 year ago
@andyandlesley
make sure you watch on here
THEORY OF GHOSTPLANE
LifeRegenRevolution 1 year ago
@andyandlesley Why?
albabhoy81 1 year ago
this is indeed strange but as a photographer there is one thing that you must consider, which is camera focal length and aperture (could blur background or create haze)... a wide lens (ie 24mm) may in fact make a different trajectory angle than a long lens (ie 300mm).. coupled with how far you are away this may distort trajectory
strictpolicy 2 years ago
@strictpolicy
This video confirms the data in these other fabulous vids
911 TABOO
PASSENGERS FICTITIOUS 911
911 CONTIN0US PIECES
JOHN LEAR 911
ZERO 9/11
LifeRegenRevolution 1 year ago
@LifeRegenRevolution Believe what you want. I lived and still live just a few blocks away on White st. Seperate planes did hit the WTC and I personally saw much of the horror that ensued with my own two eyes.
albamoog 1 year ago
@albamoog
Planes did NOT hit the wtc
LifeRegenRevolution 1 year ago 2
A masterpiece.
machfron 2 years ago 15
Google "The FBI uses polygraphs to eliminate suspects"
WTCnucleardemolition 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This absolutely is an interesting video but it doesn't explain all of the other live footage that's out there. If you watch the YouTube video "Flight 175 As it Happened" it shows multiple live network broadcasts from the moment of impact and the plane is clearly visible in multiple shots. This also doesn't explain all of the other home movies that ordinary people shot of the impact. And what about the thousands of eye witnesses there in Manhattan that saw it with their own eyes.
RadDugan 2 years ago
excellent work, the only persons that can call BS on your claims is the guy who slowed the video. I wonder what he would have to say or if he even knows about this info
Majestyka 2 years ago
verry interesting work.
thank you
MrPolitischUnkorrekt 2 years ago 7
Very interesting, thanks for your efforts. It´s kind of a shame that we still have to discuss about the topic 911 anyway, I remember seeing it live on TV and it was impossible for me to believe it.
Bush beeing in a kindergarten at that moment of the impact...that´s bad screenplay
djwondermike 2 years ago
that was a very impressive video. you definately saved the best for last with the fireball comparisons. never seen that in any videos before. good job man!
mickles21486 2 years ago
To the guy that says we should Be shot.
you make me sick for wanting people to be killed for something we believe in and knowledge of what happened. (sounding kinda like a terrorist to me)
i used to believe it was "terrorist" that made 9/11 happen, but then like father Christmas and the Easter bunny I realised it was all a lie and the FACTS! are more on the side that was inside job,,
Prove us wrong not shoot us down!
adamwebb1987 2 years ago
good video. somehow ive never heard this argument
fiishywiishy 2 years ago
Prove Positive
MrNiceHk 2 years ago
you 9/11 truthers make me sick
anyone who honestly believes 9/11 was an inside job should be shot for treason
to believe that is to support terrorism
idaman12345 2 years ago
You want to shoot between 49% and 72% of the world's population - to stop terrorism - oh the irony! Google 911 polls. Then watch TERROR STORM.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
what so i can see more made up shit by you terrorists
idaman12345 2 years ago
Ya I know it's hard to use Google. I'll do it for you.
CBS: 84% think gov't is LYING about 911.
MSNBC: 67% say US gov't was INVOLVED in 9/11 attacks.
TVO, Canada, 72% say US go'vt made 9/11 happen.
CNN, 82% say there is a 911 COVERUP.
9/11 Families say 70% of their questions WERE NOT ANSWERED. Most of them want a new 9/11 investigation. Most of them think 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB - Bill Doyle, 911 Coalition of Families.
You'll need a lot of bullets to shoot all those people.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
again for all i know like the terrorist supporting traitor you are you could be making them up
if you hate america so much why still live here?
idaman12345 2 years ago
For all you know, I could be making those numbers up? Why don't you Google it & find out? I guess you'd rather just start shooting people. And I don't live in the US.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
yeah cause everything on the internet is true
why dont you wake up and quit being such a sheeple
idaman12345 2 years ago
Internet? I'm talking about a CBS scientific poll. But you rather shoot people than Google it.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
I don't think he's implying he hates America. If a country is corrupted, that doesn't mean someone hates the coutnry. Either way, all countries are corrupted one way or another, even though the US act the most angelic about which is one of the most hypocritical and laughable things to see.
albanianx 2 years ago
Here's a stistic for you. 3% of Americans claim to have been abducted by aliens. Just because they believe it doesn't make it so. Laughable.
mezzer99 2 years ago
Here's one for you. 70% of Americans can't find America on a globe.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
I think that makes my case for a lack of informed perspectives nicely. I think the video is interesting, although I think the whole 'no aircraft' argument is absurd in the extreme. Psy ops on the thousands that saw planes? Puh-lease. On thing I don't see in the vid is any references to the level of pixellation, a real aircraft would be nowhere near as clearly defined as the models suggest. When the tower is 1 inch high on the screen a plane won't be visible.
mezzer99 2 years ago
I don't say there was no aircraft - I believe some type of aircraft hit the towers. I try to emphasize the difference between no-planes theory and fake news theory. There are many examples of fake news on 911 - check this out:
watch?v=X72d7v3smxc
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
I understand that you're not making this point but others do. I disagree with the term 'fake news' though, certainly on some of the clips you've presented where they have been slowed down for example. I apprecate your point that this makes them "not original" but i don't make the leap that there's anything underhand about it. 'Action" shots are often slowed down on the news for many reasons such as letting the audience grasp what they are seeing or stretching to fit a particular news segment.
mezzer99 2 years ago
Fair enough. I would check out "September Clues" if you haven't already. It may not convince you of anything, but he presents the best argument for & analysis of deliberately altered video.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
Will do. Thanks. The joy of an intelligent discussion!
mezzer99 2 years ago
Cheers!
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
Ok, I watched as part as H before my brain was leaking out from my ears. If that's the best argument and analysis then with respect this perspective is in real trouble. I suppose I should mention I'm a professional analyst so filling in gaps in problems is what I do. The only, and I mean ONLY, interesting point made was regarding the apparent use of the same soundtrack, although I obviously do not have access to the original footage. Most of the other points were immediately dismissable.
mezzer99 2 years ago
I'd be happy to discuss point by point if you'd like, but some of the fundamental points were just too laughable.
mezzer99 2 years ago
fake planes...
makes it alot easier to pull off.
you just gotta have a way to sell the myth...
T V MINDCONTROL
P S Y O P S
P E R C E P T I O N W A R F A R E!!!!!!
wsee 2 years ago
I just uploaded the RAW Chopper 4 Video ASS! You can see the plane, it isn't clear, but you can see it if you are looking for something other than BS conspiracies.
barbos 2 years ago
wtf ... no entender todo pegar subtiii
eme30 2 years ago
pesaroso eu desejo que eu soube o português.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
watch?v=ZzbVn3o8JNE
999is666upsidedown 2 years ago
watch?v=oVH5jm06pJY
999is666upsidedown 2 years ago
but it is interesting because the plane is not visible in the live one, plane could possibly be non-visible because of light and video quality, but idk, and the slowed down one, idk either.
999is666upsidedown 2 years ago
hmph, very interesting video, for as why the one that said "earlier" you know this is a playback video, also the earlier's background wasnt visible, and if it was slowed by half. for the no motion, they possibly could have taken the original video and taken it to where the viewable part stands still while the edges move but are cropped out, and are more viewable, the colors, with the background, could be they messed with the contrast, also to make it more clear,
999is666upsidedown 2 years ago
Lame.
I tend to believe PHDs and professionals more than some dork loose change kids trying to make a buck off of peoples gullibility.
ptraiders40 2 years ago
ptradiers40:
Since you believe PHDs, here you will find thousands of PHDs who agree with the premise of Loose Change (note - all are ORG sites)
ae911truth, pilotsfor911truth, 911scholars, stj911
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
No, the basic premise of Loose Change is mere conjecture. There was no scientific research done for that pile of steaming shit. The architects and engineers of those websites merely want another investigation done into certain aspects. No credible engineer would doubt the overall theme of 911. IE, that the buildings were hit by planes and collapsed.
I think Loose Change has done way more harm to your "cause" than you realize. It's the most vocal mouthpiece in the 911 "truth" movement.
ptraiders40 2 years ago
"No credible engineer would doubt the overall theme of 911"
Wrong - look at the websites.
dayjoborchestra 2 years ago 2
this video PROVES 100%
F A K I N G NEWS...
and
NO PLANES AT THE WTC...(or anywhere else on 9/11)
planes & hijackers are the DISTRACTIONS in the 9/11 PSY OP.(if you're looking for the truth in what happened)
it was crucial to have the hijacking scenario for the ULTIMATE FEAR FACTOR...
'our' newsreaders & some C G I graphics took care of the hard part....
SELLING THE HIJACKED PASSENGER JET TALE.
the rest is
FAKE history...
wsee 2 years ago
the first has a different angle idiots ... thats why they didn't saw the plane if they was a little more to right, they allso had seen it ... how stupid are you guys .. belives in every conspiracy fairytale.. .. omg
martini1900 2 years ago
Angles are covered in this vid - horizontal and vertical. Show me what angle would hide the plane - make a video! Use a 3D program! Show us all!
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
well as you see on the other vid,the plane comes low,,and in the first vid the angel are more to left...thats why they cant see it,and the first vid cant because the building cover it from that angel..and the plane comes low,thats why thats why they cant see it above the buildings from the first vid...i know my english sucks,but hopefully you understand something atleast....and this vid are so stupid...kids grow up for god sake
martini1900 2 years ago
"Stupid" is an insult and Insulters get blocked! Last chance. You have to show your proof - use a 3D program, or Google Earth. I have done the math and three is no way to hide a plane.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
correction - * "there" is no way to hide a plane.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
so if i think this page is stupid i get blocked?if you are that dumb,that you think its all made up by the goverment..then you need a shrink..guys like you should be blocked..........
martini1900 2 years ago
So people with opinions you oppose should be sent to a shrink and should be censored?
And I shouldn't block you for using insults?
I'll give you one more chance to use your intellect instead of your anger - provide some evidence of your angles theory.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
This was put together very well! You knew what you were doing when you made this.
mariofan239 2 years ago 3
it's basically:
can reality change depending on which channel you watch???
on 9/11
it CAN...
wsee 2 years ago
This footage here makes me wonder: what would America have to hide from us? Would it be so hard to just show the normal footage? The event itself seems legitimate, so is it just that they like to seem suspicious to the rest of the world or something? Really, I see no reason for the false footage to exist. Something's strange about that, no?
mariofan239 2 years ago
They want to control the image for some reason. Some say no real planes, some say modified planes, some say missiles that look like planes (Jassm Missile), some say missiles + CGI, but all I can prove is that network footage has been faked..
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
Indeed. And that's why it seems so suspicious. If the footage has been faked, that means that the news network lied to the public, and I can't think of any real reason they'd have to do so.
And I know I already said this, but you put this together really well, and I must commend you for spotting this false footage. Kudos!
mariofan239 2 years ago
watch
SEPTEMBER CLUES
911 AMATEUR PT 2
911 OCTOPUS
tv fakery, video fakery, future combat systems, information warfare, psy ops teams...
loads of excellent research from simon shack & fred (bs registration)
shows you EXACTLY how the 9/11 military/media psy op was executed...
wsee 2 years ago
Interesting that you intentionally left out the most plausible theory. Just because the newstation "faked" their broadcast as you say, doesn't mean that the official story is by any means off the table. I detect a hint of bias in your words, and I'm not sure if it's intentional or not.
ptraiders40 2 years ago
conspiracies.... a choice method of thought
RJhasFLOW 2 years ago
labeling...a choice method for those who cannot debate
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
This was an excellent and very thorough video! I had seen similar comparisons (thanks to Simon Shack), but I wasn't aware of some of the details...like the evening video being slowed to 50%! Very well done! I've already favourited it, and I most certainly will subscribe!
Bongofury361 2 years ago 3
Thanks for your support!
Cheers!
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
And in the meantime Im struggling to stay within the ridiculous 500 words limit from youtube while u truthers usually have no more to say than 150 - 200 words. Im spending way too much time on this u know? U better come up with smthing good now.
TheBourneID 2 years ago
The point is too, that the media are way too easily seen as something u can influence by just calling them and offering them some cash or smthing. Media all over the world employ millions of people, turn over millions, probably billions of dollars each year and loads of ambitious journalists are after the truth. I wouldn't know where to begin if I had to start bribing enuff ppl from the media in order to stop true footage from leaking, if that is what u think the point is. Which is stupid too.
TheBourneID 2 years ago
NYC has approx 5 million citizens. I wonder 1: how many of them needed the media at all to see what was going on with the WTC?
2: How many of them were reporters or wanted to report on this as amateur with their cell phone camera or digital camera or w/e. they had.
Get my point? Even if the US. wld have gotten the media as far as u think they got em, the scale wld have been so big enuff ppl wld have stepped out with the truth and I dunno, walked over to the BBC or so. Or where they bribed too?
TheBourneID 2 years ago
And even if it is true, what is the point then, seriously? Ow, look, that shot couldn't have possibly been made? We've put ppl on the moon 40 years ago. Of course that shot cld have been made.
And sorry, I said "there is also..." -> obviously it shld have been "there were" and that's thanks to terrorists who defended pretty comprehendable points in a totally unacceptable way, not thanks to a government which wasn't nutty enuff do this.
TheBourneID 2 years ago
TheBourneID - you say "Even if true, what's the point". If the truth is pointless, why try to debunk it? The point is that fake news rolled in real time, meaning media complicity prior to the event.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
"If the truth is pointless, why try to debunbk it?"
I never said the truth was pointless, I was trying to say this video is pointless. But that's also cos we have different opinions on what is true. And why did I try to debunk it. Well, I ran out of things to do, okay? None of of your business, actually why I'm posting here. But if you'd think, you'd find that I'm interested in this stuff and that I'm trying to separate nonsense from sense. Clearly, this vid is at least partially nonsense.
TheBourneID 2 years ago
The 3:24 purple polygon which somebody mounted in that angle which makes it look as if the footage was shot from a higher altitude is simply wrong. Do you think the roof of A building which stands 417 metres tall is totally flat? there is also a raised observation deck there, several fences and loads of antennas. That shot, and therefore the whole point is busted to me.
TheBourneID 2 years ago
See 5:00 - identical altitudes in both shots.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
they werent identical shots
the angles are different
helicopter vs building shots
again you can tell by the horizon that the angles are way different
the helicopter is further away
angles and lenses can be deceiving when shooting the same thing
justin39640 2 years ago
do you have the original quality footage or just youtube video?
that can make a huge difference too \
if you have the link to the original quality can you send me a pm with them
ty
justin39640 2 years ago
I am looking for a HQ original too - all copies online seem to be copies of Archive(dot)org - they pulled the whole 911 archive and then re-up'd with some edits. Simon Shack (Sept Clues) has the best quality of original chopper 4 shot. I will keep you posted on what I can find.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
Video 1 and video 2, Two vastly different perspectives. But you already know that. You are just being contrary truther jackass. And as a "no planer" you are the lowest on the food chain. Hundreds of thousand of people in all five boroughs AND New Jersey witnessed it.
AWSmith1955 2 years ago
Comment removed
dayjoborchestra 2 years ago
Read video description - this vid is not about NPT and I am not a no-planer - this vid is about fake news.
I never disagreed that there were witnesses to the actual event.
Discussion is welcome, insulters get blocked - last chance.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
yeah you can tell the angle by where the horizon is
the second shot is a way different angle
and the "far edge" is smoke
justin39640 2 years ago
Where do you figure the camera was for that shot?
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
the first shot was probably from another skyscraper
the second was obviously from a helicopter from much higher than the first
and the lenses will make a difference too (fore to background)
justin39640 2 years ago
dude just shut the fuck up you what is the point to your video? the tape was altered? big deal! the fact is that innocent people died that day and all you care about is weather the video was altered or not and you said it yourself you dont know why so just really...shut up
DamagedAngelWings 2 years ago
Comment removed
dayjoborchestra 2 years ago
So you're ok with the fact that the media was complicit at the planning stages of 911?
Discussion is welcome, insulters get blocked - last chance.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
you do realize that probably about a million people from queens to jersey probably witness this event with their own eyes
that fact that there isnt a million people who claim that the building exploded sans-plane pretty much says that youre a kook
justin39640 2 years ago
You may be right - there may have been a million witnesses - the video doesn't dispute that.
Discussion is welcome, insulters get blocked.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
inside job, all fake, just like the moon landings
rockync7 2 years ago
'plane' as day
5*
wsee 2 years ago
FANTASTIC VIDEO!! Thanks alot for the post. 5 stars.
hankwheels 2 years ago 3
Cheers!
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
PollenB closed. anyone knows why?
jesudel 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Great, a faked video to demonstrate news footage was faked. More 9-11 "truther" lies.
adamsmark69 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
and half speed ? lolzz.. dude i can see that u edited it w.e i dont need to see this. but besides the lies the footage u got together is good. make sure u keep it.
photonarbiter 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol omg lol. how can they be so blind. the camera thats stable is on the EMPIRE STATE BUILDING. lolzz i cant belive its not obvious to u... and they do capture other helicopters. sigh this is so fake .... plz dont try to blind other people with ur lies. kthnx
photonarbiter 2 years ago
The answer to 99 of 100 questions is always the same.
Money.
statesRcountries 2 years ago
Just how much fricken information do the debunkers need to see that this was clearly an INSIDE JOB!!
Hellooo.....Knock knock... is there anybody home??
Those people make me sick!
AND on top of it, there is clearly a MOTIVE as well!!
This is outrages!
brkdaice 2 years ago 2
and what might that motive be? by ruining the economy? and killing 3450 innocents that must be some kind of government thing . T.T sarcasm . sigh... like all major life changing events there will always be conspiracys..
photonarbiter 2 years ago
Everybody now knows that it was Elvis who masterminded the hijackings. Elvis recruited Barney, tinky winky, and bear in the big blue house. Barney has not been seen since the incident. Now that Bush is back at the "mother ship", aka Texas, look for another event in near future.
ub30f 2 years ago
And..
If you can see the rooftops...the shot is above the roof...No 3D BS modeling required. This is a simple fact.
And even if the "city" shot is from lower, it should be less hazy than the shot that is coming from above the towers....that higher camera would be angled more downward.
I win.
JSSTyger 2 years ago
Search a video on youtube called: "World Trade Center Attack - Live News Coverage" And you will clearly see, at 2:19, if you watch in high quality, that at 2:19 when the women say AND, that a plane is coming... search that vid: World Trade Center Attack - Live News Coverage
franckcool00 2 years ago
Boy, this is dumb. The evening rerun was played at 1/2 speed so the plane was visible. On the live broadcast, the video-feed shows a ripple-effect anomalie as apparently the effective shutterspeed/aperature combination couldn't focus on the moving plane. And perhaps these might have been two different sources, with cropping making up for apparant differences caused by zoom focal-point foreshortening. This is all academic as the second plane strike was filmed by many dozens of cameras.
starmanskye 2 years ago
focal length? now that's dumb. Focal length doesn't bend light, just compresses depth. Only visible at half speed? that's dumb too - other news vids were shown at normal speed. nice try.
ThoughtCrime7 2 years ago
at 8:03 the woman on the audio says "oh another just hit" exactly as we see it hit on the video. I thought there was a 10 second lag when they do live coverage so the engineer can "bleep" out certain mistakes the networks don't want us to hear.
JSSTyger 2 years ago
I think that only came in effect after the Super Bowl with Justin Timberlake but I'm not sure.
Kyle0David 2 years ago
TC7 I have watched 100's of 911 videos many times and this one is VERY WELL done. Thanks for your effort.
ljrow49 2 years ago 2
Search a video on youtube called: "World Trade Center Attack - Live News Coverage" And you will clearly see, at 2:19, if you watch in high quality, that at 2:19 when the women say AND, that a plane is coming... search that vid: World Trade Center Attack - Live News Coverage
franckcool00 2 years ago