CNN: Only the Finest in Fake Video!
This idea has been percolating around for a while, and I was not totally sure about it. But now I am finally convinced from this excellent video by Fred that even the freakin' towers in the CNN "Ghostplane" video* were manipulated:
If you look at the end of the video (at 2:24), there is a very damning photo that shows what the view from the park was of the twin towers, and where the damage to the tower was.
Note WHERE the building scar was and also the SCALE of the towers were from that view.
Look at the video at 2:24 and then look at this series of photos:
Compare the size of the south tower to the buildings in front between the shot at 2:24 and the "Carmen Taylor" shot (which is the same angle and view as the CNN "Ghostplane" footage).
The towers are too big in the CNN and Taylor view, compared to the front buildings. This is beyond any doubt.
If you move forward to try to get the CNN "Ghostplane" view, you lose sight of the building scar completely, if you move back to get more perspective, the towers are going to get even smaller.
The only way to explain this is extreme levels of video fakery.
So here is what I think they did. I think they took some video from the Battery park location, and PASTED IN LARGER WTC TOWERS-- and added in a CGI plane thus-- to give an "enhanced view" of the towers and "plane" and the impact.
This is why the camera motion is so fake-- because the whole thing was cobbled together as a montage.
No way would any cameraman be able to pan up so quickly to capture a plane flying over his head at 540 mph-- and then perfectly follow the movement of the plane!
But it can be done here because the camerawork and video is all totally bogus!
This CNN footage is FAKED beyond any doubt, and thus it doesn't even matter what the plane is doing-- the whole fucking video is a fucking fake.
Dammit.
*
If you look at the end of the video (at 2:24), there is a very damning photo that shows what the view from the park was of the twin towers, and where the damage to the tower was.
Note WHERE the building scar was and also the SCALE of the towers were from that view.
Look at the video at 2:24 and then look at this series of photos:
Compare the size of the south tower to the buildings in front between the shot at 2:24 and the "Carmen Taylor" shot (which is the same angle and view as the CNN "Ghostplane" footage).
The towers are too big in the CNN and Taylor view, compared to the front buildings. This is beyond any doubt.
If you move forward to try to get the CNN "Ghostplane" view, you lose sight of the building scar completely, if you move back to get more perspective, the towers are going to get even smaller.
The only way to explain this is extreme levels of video fakery.
So here is what I think they did. I think they took some video from the Battery park location, and PASTED IN LARGER WTC TOWERS-- and added in a CGI plane thus-- to give an "enhanced view" of the towers and "plane" and the impact.
This is why the camera motion is so fake-- because the whole thing was cobbled together as a montage.
No way would any cameraman be able to pan up so quickly to capture a plane flying over his head at 540 mph-- and then perfectly follow the movement of the plane!
But it can be done here because the camerawork and video is all totally bogus!
This CNN footage is FAKED beyond any doubt, and thus it doesn't even matter what the plane is doing-- the whole fucking video is a fucking fake.
Dammit.
*
posted by spooked at 10:27 AM
22 Comments:
And those of us who saw the second plane hit?
One word: helicopter....
Us?
Tell more, please.
Did you see a plane? What did it look like? Where were you?
my wife's cousin's son's school teacher's husband gets his hair cut by a barber whose brother's son's wife's gardener's wife who knows a guy that saw both planes.
he says that he could even see the faces of the terrified passengers peering out of the little oval windows in one plane and in the other plane he could see the face of the evil iraqi/iranian highjacker guy cackling in maniacal glee!
shut the fuck up anonymous @ 10:57 AM.
Iraqi/Iranian hijacker?
OH PLEASE... even your planehugging
sarcasm is wrong.
All kidding aside I know someone who saw the "2nd hit" from across the water New Jersey and there was something flying in the air toward Manhattan that looked smaller than a big passenger jet that looked like it was going to go behind the towers. That may have been a missile or a distraction plane, or a UAV, maybe even a helicopter... I really don't know. But then with all the TV images people naturally assume that what they saw in real life was the same thing they were later shown a clearer version of on TV.
I agree with Spooked on the Photo Montage idea. They've concocted the fake video out of a bunch of location shots and then animated the whole sequence together.
Fred
it doesn't matter if anyone saw a plane hit a tower.
the video "evidence" that we were shown on TV of a plane is phony.
the fact that CNN and other mcmedias felt that they had to show us false images means that they are complicit.
should i once again post my beer can analogy? if anyone saw a REAL 767 really hit a wtc then my beer can analogy is what they would have really seen.
granted it would have happened so fast that no one's eyes/brain could have actually processed the squash occurring in real time but giant pieces of squashed and torn lightweight aluminum would have deflected off the wtc in many directions - especially the giant yet fragile tail assembly.
where are all the smart guys to explain exactly in what manner the smooth rounded lightweight plastic nosecone penetrated the massive hardened steel columns that had only 2' space between them?
did the smooth rounded lightweight plastic nosecone pierce thru the massive hardened steel columns like an arrow?
or did it bludgeon it's way thru like a hammer?
or did it flow between and around the columns like liquid mercury?
or were the laws of physics suspended for that brief moment on 9/11/01?
or were we all fooled by easily produced video fakery.
ha.
"the video "evidence" that we were shown on TV of a plane is phony."
Is it really? Than why is it that only witless YouTube "researchers" think this is so? Not one credible expert anywhere thinks that the thousands of folks here in NY who actually saw the second plane hit were mistaken.
You clowns need to go back to your star trek chatrooms where no one will laugh at your hologram stories...
---
the phony conspiracy smasher said:
""Not one credible expert anywhere thinks that the thousands of folks here in NY who actually saw the second plane hit were mistaken""
really? WHAT CREDIBLE EXPERT?
produce a link to a credible expert.
and then find a credible expert who will explain in what manner would the smooth plastic nosecone of a REAL 767 penetrate a wtc?
quit being a schmuck and stand up straight for once!
only the govt/military could have destroyed the twin towers so completely.
only the govt/media could have produced such phony evidence as to convince the american people that "evil muslims" were responsible.
only the govt/corporati could have encouraged such wasteful extravagances as 10mpg SUVs while simultaneously driving up the price of oil to $3.50/gal fuel.
and only the foolish & phony "conspiracy smasher/pinch gang" could continue to besmirch efforts towards exposing such corruption.
most of you should just fuck off.
ha.
Jimmy HaHa, once again getting his little knickers in a twist.
in a twist - sure, i admit to such.
meanwhile the middle east is rapidly becoming a depleted uranium hellhole as a result of the "evil muslims" meme which was enabled by 9/11 TV FAKERY.
my ego will survive the *humiliation* of being deemed a *wacko* by the likes of *you*.
i would still buy you a beer pinch and raise it in honor of Edna Cintron who somehow withstood the "incredible heat" that NIST claimed was responsible for imminent global collapse.
you are not even trying anymore are you.
ha.
Methinks most of the posters on this blog are spooked in various disguises.
ya no doubt spooked has nothing else to do except pretend to be sword of truth!
"ya no doubt spooked has nothing else to do except pretend to be sword of truth!"
Indeed! Our hero Spooked has a very busy schedule building chicken-wire models of the WTC and doesn't have time to engage in debate with every government shill.
wow pause @ 4:17 and see that the beige building in the CNN clip is 19 rector st., and in the days before 9/11/01 it had a black building right behind it.
that black building seems to be absent in the CNN clip.
what's up with that CNN?
wow pause again @ 1:45 and you discover that the explosion in the CNN clip does not even line up with the actual hole that was filmed by some innocent tourist by-standers.
how ironic that the only "eyewitness" that said he saw a 767 hit a tower was the vice-prez of CNN.
every other witness that claimed to see a plane said that they saw a small plane.
@ :55 the phony 767 from the CNN clip makes it's full-speed appearance in real time - you can tell it's full-speed by the audio track.
is that really what 540mph looks like?
wow! FIVE posts conspiracy smasher! (that you attached your name to, at least)
looks like you'll get a fat check for your work in this thread. ;-)
no no! look a little closer.
4 posts are from the new and improved real conspiracy smasher!
1 post is from the old phony conspiracy smasher...
old phony conspiracy smasher is a SPOOK, other SPOOKS include Pinch, Sword of Truth, and the ScrewLooseChange crew...
Dude, go to photography school - or just read a web page or two - and learn about the different effects that different optical lenses can produce.
Regarding the stupid video - the angles are not right with the purported tree-laden photography spot. The WTC building is turned a little more in one picture than the other. The video must have been taken some distance to the right of your hypothetical point.
Post a Comment
<< Home