Simple Ghostplane Angle Proof of Fakery?
At least to me, this analysis, and the analyses within, are confusing as hell.
How about a simple page with the Ghstplane view screenshot, versus real-life view photos trying to match the view?
Something real simple, that you could present to someone in one minute as proof.
It would be rather useful.
Something along the lines of my proof that the official flight 93 story is a lie.
How about a simple page with the Ghstplane view screenshot, versus real-life view photos trying to match the view?
Something real simple, that you could present to someone in one minute as proof.
It would be rather useful.
Something along the lines of my proof that the official flight 93 story is a lie.
posted by spooked at 11:29 AM
8 Comments:
NIST says the CNN Ghostplane Hezarkhani video was taken from Battery Park at ground level. There's no place in Battery Park where you can take any video that matches up with what's shown on the CNN Fake video. Nobody has been able to post a video from Battery Park that gets the buildings to line up correctly.
What's the confusion? They even left out a 37 story skyscraper. The only place that even gets close is at the Water's Edge where the shot is impossible because of giant trees. You couldn't even see the buildings if the shot were taken from there.
People have already gone all over the park with cameras and verified that there's no place you can take the video... it's not terribly complicated. I'm not clear on what you find confusing. If I take a picture of the Chicago Skyline and the Sears Tower is missing we have a fake picture of Chicago. If I take a picture of New York City from Battery Park and we can't see 19 Rector Street we have a fake picture of New York City.
They left out a building, the tops of the buildings don't match up, and they created an imaginary location that doesn't exist in the real world. What do you want me to put on paper?
Please have at it. I don't understand what there is to get confused about. There are many many things wrong with the CNN video. Only ONE thing wrong is enough to discredit it.
Leaving out ONE skyscraper is enough. Rendering the buildings from ONE imaginary location is enough.
Frankly, the plane melting into the building is enough too.
I'll leave it to you guys who work with webpages to make the webpages.
The other problem with the "put stuff on one page approach" is that mindless idiots will say, well, you showed one angle, what happens if you move 100 feet to the left.
We've already shown video from every conceivable location.
NIST says the video was taken from Battery Park at Ground Level. We've tested every location in Battery Park at Ground Level and can conclusively rule out that statement. It's fake. You can print out that statement if you like, and if you don't take my word for it, you can encourage people to attempt to disprove it. All you have to do to disprove my statement is GO TO BATTERY PARK, and TAKE VIDEO THAT MATCHES THE CNN FAKE.
If no one can do that, then my statement stands.
I'm sympathetic with your wish for something simple. In fact it's already been proven simply, but people aren't very good at understanding proofs. I'd encourage anyone who feels they can present the information more simply to present it in a format that he finds compelling.
Fair enough, I suppose. All I wanted was some still shots put together for better analysis. I guess I will do that myself.
Just that the link supposedly showing what I wanted, didn't show what I wanted.
I do agree the missing building is very damning. But as I said, having photos side-by-side to compare would be nice.
To clarify, the videos are great and I congratulate Fred/BSReg for doing them-- many kudos to be sure-- but they are not the kind of thing you might easily to show to someone in authority. You can't really send a video link to a politician for example and expect them to watch it and be convinced.
What I was looking was for something a bit more formal, that could be used as formal evidence, formal proof. Proof that could be sent to people that might not normally watch the videos.
u2r2h is trying to get someone with a theodolite to head out to Battery Park, and some of the folks over on Pilots for Truth are starting to realize that the CNN video really is fake, although they're wayyy behind where they should be. People are playing around with databases and flight simulators and they can see that something is wrong. As enough people get down there and someone decides to hire a surveyor we can probably get some more "official expert testimony" that someone can notorize and send to a bureaucrat.
Part of the problem, of course, is that the politicians DON'T WANT TO UNCOVER THE TRUTH. They participated in a cover-up for a reason. The real trick is not to convince the politicians of anything, but to convince the public. When the politicians realize that their necks are going to be on the blocks THEN AND ONLY THEN will they start to look at any evidence.
the so-called pilots for truth were made aware of the existence of 9/11 media fakery and the actual crash physics of a real 767 vs. wtc almost the very day that their website appeared.
the fact that they chose to ignore it for so long doesn't speak well for their credibility.
William Seger did the math, too.
2 cameras on a boat, CLICKME for more info...
Post a Comment
<< Home