The Easiest Way to Tell this Video Is a Fake
The plane should have been coming right up behind them, the cameraman and the people around him should have seen it coming for many seconds before it went over them. Yet the cameraman (Michael Hezarkhani according to NIST) is focused on the tower until the plane is right OVER HIM, then he pans up very quickly TO PERFECTLY CATCH THE PLANE RIGHT BEFORE IT HITS???
NO WAY any cameraman is going to be able to pan UP and have the plane perfectly centered and then track it perfectly.
It is IMPOSSIBLE.
It must have all been set up.
UPDATE: To clarify, I think the scene with the camera movements was rigged up. I think the plane was inserted as a CGI into the footage. The plane is clearly fake, I think the explosion is real and the surroundings are real. What concerned me here was the incredible camera movements from a supposedly unsuspecting cameraman. It screams fake-- and I suppose they don't even care that people can see it!
posted by spooked at 5:51 PM
24 Comments:
500mph no less!
that's as foolish looking in real time as it is in slow motion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Spooked,
I support your work.
However, it's a good thing that I'm typing rather than talking, because I'd be shooting.
***&*$#$$#@$#@$#!!!!!!
There is a difference between a fake, and a setup.
Which one do you mean to imply? Am I being too sensitive. Could you fix this post right away and explain exactly whether you are implying "TV Fakery" or whether you saying that the shoot was pre-planned?
There are two different interpretations, and the implications are quite significant, don't you think?
You know I'm bringing this up to deal with the "no planes" issue right?
i tend to think that it is both faked and a set up.
~h
impossible camera angles, impossible motion
"It is IMPOSSIBLE."
Only to someone with an IQ less than 80...
FAKE!
The plane is clearly fake
I think there's a difference in saying
a) the plane in the vid is not a Jetliner
and
b) the plane in the vid is a fake
Please explain why you assert b)?
by the way, when I typed shooting above, I meant shouting at you, not shooting....
I know I'm stating the obvious to some of you, and I don't believe the following is a strong debating point. However, it should be raised:
So, they faked the video, and in the fake, they included things like a flash of light from under the right wing near the fuselage right before the impact?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Here's what I think, for what it's worth, and to clarify.
Parts of the plane, as it nears the building, definitely show an imperfect CGI. However, there is no reason, that the reality of the event was a plane/projectile/missile of some type, while it is being masked in this video in part by cgi overlay.
No one I know agrees with this theory, but I'm going to keep on bringing it up, until someone explains why it's incorrect.
The plane, the WTC, the trees, all fake, all debunked. Check out 911researchers.com for the thread there as well.
exposions are fake and don't match live shots either
In fact, you can see all the animation stills posted here
Zooming in on the 9.11 Hoax
Fred
Also, go to http://noplanes911.blogspot.com/ and you can see that the shot from in front of the whitehall building would have been obscured by the trees anyway.
The whole thing is not CGI+Live, it is FAKE. Full stop.
Do check out those animation stills. They only update the falling debris and the fireball every 20 frames or so.
Fred
Thanks Fred. I'll look some more.
I don't know, I did an analysis on the Whitehall building some time back and it seemed okay to me in terms of how it looked in this video. Perspective can be VERY misleading. I don't see the point of altering the buildings in the video anyway, except to perhaps fuck with us. But I tend to doubt they altered things that much.
In any case, I think the plane image is clearly fake, I tend to doubt the buildings and explosion have been added in or switched around.
Webfairy said the Ghostplane footage was made over a panned still, which seems possible, though they probably used higher tech means.
I think the plane could be a CGI overlay on the actual flying object that hit the building. I certainly can't rule it out. My favorite theory is still a beam weapon was used to make the plane shaped hole and start the explosion (via a stash of fuel planted in the building), and all the plane images are CGI. But there is no way to prove this right now.
--spooked
And the basic point of this post, again, was that the camera work is HIGHLY suspicious and essentially proves inside knowledge.
--spooked
They just used 2-D animation because then they don't have to worry about us seeing anything they don't want us to see. They made it BEFORE 9/11 and had it ready to hand to CNN as "amateur video".
It's not a CGI insert. It's old-school Hanna Barbera animation.
Bet you a nickel! =)
Fred
Fred,
Are you Fred Burks? Not that it matters, but curious.
Here's my problem with what you say:
'It's old-school Hanna Barbera
animation'
If it is in fact a cartoon, why on earth wouldn't they do more to make it look less fake?
Dog gone it, the left wing is totally missing after the plane passes in front of the smoke clould before impact. Isn't this clear evidence that CGI is at play?
I'm not saying it was live insertion CGI, but possibly CGI to help produce the cartoon?
And another thing,
Has Webfairy (and possibly others) backed away from the argument that that part of the sky in the some videos is an odd shade of blue?
If there is merit to this argument, doesn't this argue for live insertion?
I realize I'm going logically from consideration of this particular vid to the whole batch, but I think it's a fair question.
(It's odd that I'm arguing for live insertion because I've heretofore been very skeptical of this contention.)
this fred is not fred burks.
If it is in fact a cartoon, why on earth wouldn't they do more to make it look less fake?
yes, the left wing AND the left tail blink off in this CNN portrayal.
it looks very fake regardless of whether it is a cgi cartoon or simply an old school cartoon.
check out a few of the portrayals showing this same moment in time from the east - the "nose out" vids - they show a shadowy flat-black colored plane-like silhouette missing its right wing.
h.
Hi BG:
Nope, not Fred Burks at all.
I don't want to put any words in her mouth, but I think she agrees that the ghostplane clip is entirely animation.
I think there may very well be weird stuff going on in the sky in other clips but I don't know what it is.
The best way to verify that the ghostplane is fake is to pull it into virtualdub (free) and just browse frame by frame with the scroll wheel on your mouse. It's very easy to see that way. You can also just browse the JPEGS online at the link above and see the animation stills.
Remember, they don't want a lot of people knowing that this is fake because it's a big deal. So they probably only had one animation guy who knows Rumsfeld and Cheney personally, as opposed to telling the 24-year-old computer whizzes to make it look good.
They just produced 3 20-second clips for CNN. Why not show some footage of the plane at the Pentagon? Why not plant a real plane in Shanksville?
These guys are acting criminally, and AGAINST the Constitution. So, I think they did what they could to make it "good enough" for the Media Hoax to work. Making it better would have risked operational security IMHO. If you're going to commit high treason, you don't want to tell the entire graphics department.
Hi BG:
Appreciate your thoughts.
I'm don't want to be needlessly argumentative... (some might say I missed that boat already :-)).
I would tend to say that any organization that can do a perfect demolition of WTC 7 could have assets which could do better videos. Maybe you are right, however, in that the group responsible for the military tech stuff would not necessarily be tightly integrated with the media fakery.
My guess would be that they're highly compartmentalized, with the leaders sharing very little with the operational teams. They may very well have requested that the animations be prepared for a "drill" or some other ruse.
Regarless of how or why they did it, the fact that CNN aired totally fake videos is something that we can prove.
Fred
^d
and here is blob11 as it hits the wtc1 (left) superimposed with the resulting hole (right) from the explosion.
http://img443.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zzzqf9.jpg
this shows that the 1st plane hitting the 1st wtc (from the naudet film) was every bit as phony as the 2nd plane hitting the 2nd wtc (CNN footage)
^h
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home