FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

CNN footage suggests prior knowledge of 911
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:58 pm    Post subject: CNN footage suggests prior knowledge of 911 Reply with quote

Now



Then



Note the drawn lines are copied from one and pasted onto the other. The correlation between distances proves we are in the same latitude and longitude. Only altitude is different.

Fred says the new pic is right on the shore.

CNN had an elevated camera in place on 911

http://contrarianthinker.com/

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The higher camera perspective would place the various CNN buildings lower in the frame making them yet closer to the positions shown in the 'after' shot.

Valuable bit of work to outline the buildings, makes it much clearer. I am confident the CNN position could be achieved by being on a docked boat though.

I don't think there's anywhere further you can go with it till you know for sure it couldn't be filmed from a boat, which seems impossible to tell - and even if you did discover CNN being there, very thin evidence of anything illegal.

I wonder if Fred would take the Truther Challenge and provide these two images in higher resolution so we can examine them more closely?

_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No. The newer image is pretty much exactly on the spot of the CNN camera - you can tell by the fact that buildings line up across the horizon despite different focal lengths. The only thing changing is the elevation.

Quote:
The higher camera perspective would place the various CNN buildings lower in the frame making them yet closer to the positions shown in the 'after' shot.


No. It would place objects in front of the main building lower and objects behind higher. I thought you were a 3D graphics man... Confused

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi, the new still is from video taken March 2007, and available here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3970143629099703247&hl=en

Since name calling is de rigeur over here and I wasn't allowed to post for weeks, if you want to see what it looks like from elevation you can watch this. You'll notice that as you go up, there's no longer anything for 19 Rector Street to hide behind.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/8C1F9CC2735F49EC91A8D5BB953612D9/disinf o-in-the-uk-150-replies.aspx?lastvcid=173963

I'm glad that Rodin is actually doing some work now, after the hundreds of posts here that couldn't even come up with a camera location and ridiculed me for being in the wrong spot.

Cheers,

Fred
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fallious -any chance you can capture better res photos and PM a url sometime? I might be busy for a few days but if this is a runner it should get the best we've got.

Failing that I will blow up the pics and post larger. But the evidence is there already I think.

Someone should go back and shoot a pic from the correct elevation also. That would settle it for those people who are not so good at mental 3D manipulations.

Is there any way CNN could have set up this shot from scratch while 911 was still happening?

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One smoking gun in the CNN footage is the pan down and right from the corner of the Whitehall Building to the spot where 19 Rector Street should be. We see the corner of the black building (outlined by Rodin in blue) behind 19 Rector, clearly visible in the CNN shot, but not 19 Rector.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rodin wrote:
No. The newer image is pretty much exactly on the spot of the CNN camera - you can tell by the fact that buildings line up across the horizon despite different focal lengths. The only thing changing is the elevation.


I'm not sure if I made myself clear, we can't know for sure that the horizontal location is exactly right, but its damn close. Actually, I don't have any contention with your post whatsoever except for the assumption that a CNN truck is the only way for a camera to get higher up..

Quote:
Quote:
The higher camera perspective would place the various CNN buildings lower in the frame making them yet closer to the positions shown in the 'after' shot.


No. It would place objects in front of the main building lower and objects behind higher. I thought you were a 3D graphics man... Confused


(Are we talking about the large building in the foreground?) That would be the case if the main building were the pivot point and the camera were rotating around that point. In actuality the cameras focus in both cases is pretty much the same point in the sky. If we assume that to be the towers, then it would be true that as the camera rises, buildings BEHIND the towers would also rise up in the frame but everything in front, sinks down.

_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fallious wrote:
rodin wrote:
No. The newer image is pretty much exactly on the spot of the CNN camera - you can tell by the fact that buildings line up across the horizon despite different focal lengths. The only thing changing is the elevation.


I'm not sure if I made myself clear, we can't know for sure that the horizontal location is exactly right, but its damn close. Actually, I don't have any contention with your post whatsoever except for the assumption that a CNN truck is the only way for a camera to get higher up..

Quote:
Quote:
The higher camera perspective would place the various CNN buildings lower in the frame making them yet closer to the positions shown in the 'after' shot.


No. It would place objects in front of the main building lower and objects behind higher. I thought you were a 3D graphics man... Confused


(Are we talking about the large building in the foreground?) That would be the case if the main building were the pivot point and the camera were rotating around that point. In actuality the cameras focus in both cases is pretty much the same point in the sky. If we assume that to be the towers, then it would be true that as the camera rises, buildings BEHIND the towers would also rise up in the frame but everything in front, sinks down.


I am right. Think about it. Camera pans up to clear trees. Trees drop.

Closest buildings are our reference here. They rise above trees. EVERYTHING behind closest building RISES referenced to closest building. Think of a plane taking off. I am sure you have got it now - yes?

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fred wrote:
One smoking gun in the CNN footage is the pan down and right from the corner of the Whitehall Building to the spot where 19 Rector Street should be. We see the corner of the black building (outlined by Rodin in blue) behind 19 Rector, clearly visible in the CNN shot, but not 19 Rector.


I thought this 19 Rector must be the blue. It behaves exactly as it should as the camera pans up. Honest!

I am a visual mathematician. My teacher told my mum I was the best she had ever taught.

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rodin wrote:

I am right. Think about it. Camera pans up to clear trees. Trees drop.

Closest buildings are our reference here. They rise above trees. EVERYTHING behind closest building RISES referenced to closest building. Think of a plane taking off. I am sure you have got it now - yes?


Sleep on it, i'll make a demonstration in the morning if it hasn't clicked by then Very Happy

_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This lightweight 30 footer (minimum required for the shot IMO) takes 1 hour to assemble once on site.

http://www.loumasystems.biz/fichprod.phtml?id=1

How do we find out what CNN used on 911?

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
scubadiver
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 26 Apr 2006
Posts: 1850
Location: Currently Andover

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been following this argument for a couple of days and I've been getting headaches!

Laughing

_________________
Currently working on a new website
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fred was trying to prove CNN footage was faked, but instead has shown it not only to be real, but to have been shot from an elevated camera.

The camera must be at least 5m off the ground - probably a lot higher. This can be verified sometime by aligning a camera until the shots co-incide.

It is worth verifying if the CNN camera started broadcasting in less time after the first hit than it would have take to get a camera into such a position. If it is not feasible to do this CNN must be asked how they managed to have such a camera in place before 911.

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rodin wrote:
Fred was trying to prove CNN footage was faked, but instead has shown it not only to be real, but to have been shot from an elevated camera.

The camera must be at least 5m off the ground - probably a lot higher. This can be verified sometime by aligning a camera until the shots co-incide.

It is worth verifying if the CNN camera started broadcasting in less time after the first hit than it would have take to get a camera into such a position. If it is not feasible to do this CNN must be asked how they managed to have such a camera in place before 911.


Simple answer. It's NOT CNN's camera (at least that’s what they claim) I even remember when this footage was first shown on the tele it was identified as amateur video. Before moving any more into this line of enquiry I suggest you establish the basic facts: was it a pre-positioned professional camera?

Of course, even if it’s a guy with a decent handy cam, or even a CNN team, we can’t be sure if they were sent on a mission to film 9/11, they might have had a perfectly valid reason to be there (filming ducks, no doubt). So that’s two things to establish before you start theorizing about their setup and I can tell you; CNN isn’t going to say a word about it if it’s a genuine amateur tape, let alone if it’s their own people.

_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Banish
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 250

PostPosted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is an easier explanation, the photgraph or footage, whichever it is was, was taken a few years ago. The whole "9/11" scenario may have been concocted by the Pentagon several years ago, for another era, another enemy, ( say the saudis?). Also there would be older generation of airplanes in the original footage. Maybe thats why we are seeing non-descript planes too. The plan was dusted off when lame duck bush had to run to his limo during "inauguration". Hardly an auspicious start, 9/11 saved the bush regime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chek
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rodin wrote:
Fred was trying to prove CNN footage was faked, but instead has shown it not only to be real, but to have been shot from an elevated camera.

The camera must be at least 5m off the ground - probably a lot higher. This can be verified sometime by aligning a camera until the shots co-incide.

It is worth verifying if the CNN camera started broadcasting in less time after the first hit than it would have take to get a camera into such a position. If it is not feasible to do this CNN must be asked how they managed to have such a camera in place before 911.


It's possible - but probably hard to say after all this time - that a tree team or electrical maintenance crew with a cherry picker already at the park may have been amenable to a small donation to the Tree Surgeons' ball or summat.

I'm not convinced that foreknowledge could be provable - although it does add to the list of 'convenient' happenings that occurred on 911[/i]

_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bottom line: could CNN get a camera team onto shooting WTC1 in time to catch the impact into WTC2?

In New York?

Why the hell not?

_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
david carmichael
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 159

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rodin wrote:
Fred was trying to prove CNN footage was faked, but instead has shown it not only to be real, but to have been shot from an elevated camera.

The camera must be at least 5m off the ground - probably a lot higher. This can be verified sometime by aligning a camera until the shots co-incide.

It is worth verifying if the CNN camera started broadcasting in less time after the first hit than it would have take to get a camera into such a position. If it is not feasible to do this CNN must be asked how they managed to have such a camera in place before 911.


So what tree set is visible in the CNN Footage?

The bank of trees closest to the water's edge esplanade OR THE tree set closest to the Whitehall building.

Rise above the esplanade tree set TO WHERE THE lamp post is not visible NOR THE espland bank of trees...

... AND 19 Rector Street will be sticking out like a sore thumb.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
david carmichael
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 159

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

chek wrote:
rodin wrote:
Fred was trying to prove CNN footage was faked, but instead has shown it not only to be real, but to have been shot from an elevated camera.

The camera must be at least 5m off the ground - probably a lot higher. This can be verified sometime by aligning a camera until the shots co-incide.

It is worth verifying if the CNN camera started broadcasting in less time after the first hit than it would have take to get a camera into such a position. If it is not feasible to do this CNN must be asked how they managed to have such a camera in place before 911.


It's possible - but probably hard to say after all this time - that a tree team or electrical maintenance crew with a cherry picker already at the park may have been amenable to a small donation to the Tree Surgeons' ball or summat.

I'm not convinced that foreknowledge could be provable - although it does add to the list of 'convenient' happenings that occurred on 911[/i]



..well, again... any camera elevation that renders the esplanade bank of trees invisible AS WELL as the lamp post when the CNN Footage banks back is going to cause 19 Rector St to stick out like a sore thumb...

In other words, the TOPS OF THE tree set closest to the Whitehall Bldg will not occlude the view of 19 Rector St.


So the "increased elevation" motif is annihilated....

therefore ONE has to move forward to have the WhiteHall Bldg tree set provide the necessary obstruction of the view of 19 Rector St....

..one also HAS TO move sufficiently close FOR THE lamp post to remain invisible...

IN THAT CASE (SCENARIO)....

...the apparent height of the Whitehall Buiding relative to the Red Building behind it quickly falls out of alignment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505

PostPosted: Tue May 01, 2007 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

..well, again... any camera elevation that renders the esplanade bank of trees invisible AS WELL as the lamp post when the CNN Footage banks back is going to cause 19 Rector St to stick out like a sore thumb...

No, it is not. That's just what YOU want to believe.


In other words, the TOPS OF THE tree set closest to the Whitehall Bldg will not occlude the view of 19 Rector St.

Most of us here are certain they can and did.

When did merely re-asserting what you want to believe ever constitute a logical, scientific proof of your claim?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
david carmichael
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 159

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
well, again... any camera elevation that renders the esplanade bank of trees invisible AS WELL as the lamp post when the CNN Footage banks back is going to cause 19 Rector St to stick out like a sore thumb...


Quote:

No, it is not. That's just what YOU want to believe.


Of course it would, old chum... increased camera elevation to clear the esplanade tree set WOULD ALSO raise it to AT LEAST begin to clear The Whitehall Bldg tree set.

So now you have WAY INSUFFICIENT or NO blockage of 19 Rector St. by the tops of the Whitehall Bldg. tree set.

You've ALL had 30+ opportunities tp provide a correct camera angle/distance displacement AND/OR put an "X" on a map where the video footage should have been taken from...

..you ALL dodged each of those opportunities... the reason is IS because you know THE CNN FOOTAGE was faked.


Quote:

In other words, the TOPS OF THE tree set closest to the Whitehall Bldg will not occlude the view of 19 Rector St.


Quote:

Most of us here are certain they can and did.


Not if the elevation of the CNN Footage Camera has been raised to clear the esplanade tree set....treetop level elevation FROM the esplanade tree set to the Whitehall Bldg tree set was NOT ALL that different.

...and again... you should have been able to provide a camera angle/distance displacement...you didn't


Quote:

When did merely re-asserting what you want to believe ever constitute a logical, scientific proof of your claim?


You've all had 30+ opportunities to come up with a camera angle/distance displacement....

If indeed the esplanade treetops were at the same height as the Whitehall Bldg treetops....

...then any camera footage taken from behind the espalande tree set WOULD ONLY have blocked the view of what was below the Whitehall Bldg. tree set...it is called "line of sight", old sport.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fallious wrote:
rodin wrote:
Fred was trying to prove CNN footage was faked, but instead has shown it not only to be real, but to have been shot from an elevated camera.

The camera must be at least 5m off the ground - probably a lot higher. This can be verified sometime by aligning a camera until the shots co-incide.

It is worth verifying if the CNN camera started broadcasting in less time after the first hit than it would have take to get a camera into such a position. If it is not feasible to do this CNN must be asked how they managed to have such a camera in place before 911.


Simple answer. It's NOT CNN's camera (at least thatís what they claim) I even remember when this footage was first shown on the tele it was identified as amateur video. Before moving any more into this line of enquiry I suggest you establish the basic facts: was it a pre-positioned professional camera?

Of course, even if itís a guy with a decent handy cam, or even a CNN team, we canít be sure if they were sent on a mission to film 9/11, they might have had a perfectly valid reason to be there (filming ducks, no doubt). So thatís two things to establish before you start theorizing about their setup and I can tell you; CNN isnít going to say a word about it if itís a genuine amateur tape, let alone if itís their own people.


You sure they said it was an amateur tape? If so even less likely that the camera could have been on a hydraulic boom or similar. It was definitely elevated and it was definitely steady. So it wasn't shot from a boat either.

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Wed May 02, 2007 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

19 Rector street behaves exactly as it should as camera elevates

Ground level shot



Elevated shot with exact same skyline from ground level line drawn



As camera pans up buildings in the far distance should appear to rise. This is what happens. Does anyone still not see this?

The top photo was taken from almost exactly the right spot on the ground. You can tell because lateral measurement of buildings remains proportional from one pic to the next. Confirmation is that the tree line contours match exactly.

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No replies in 24 hours. Everyone agrees then? CNN footage was not faked?

PS

Why is this in controversies? Did I post it there mistakenly or wasit moved? Because it is not controversial to

1) Show a controversial position is wrong while
2) Pointing out that there may be another perfectly valid smoking gun kicking around.

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
david carmichael
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 159

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2007 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rodin wrote:
19 Rector street behaves exactly as it should as camera elevates

Ground level shot



Elevated shot with exact same skyline from ground level line drawn



As camera pans up buildings in the far distance should appear to rise. This is what happens. Does anyone still not see this?

The top photo was taken from almost exactly the right spot on the ground. You can tell because lateral measurement of buildings remains proportional from one pic to the next. Confirmation is that the tree line contours match exactly.


No...two different shots... taken at different camera elevations...LOWER & CLOSER to make lamp post visible in winter shot AND PROVIDE COMPENSATION for apparent relative heights of Whitehall Bldg and Red Bldg.

You're out of perspective...the winter tree in front of the WhiteHall Bldg would be covering MUCH MORE of the Whitehall building in 2006(if not for growth)...but then again THAT LAMP POST...draw blue or white bordering lines in both photos OF THAT LAMP POST to see what is being obscured on the WhiteHall Bldg by the lamp post itself:D

Nice try Wink

CNN Video footage would have to have been taken from further back WHICH MEANS blockage by esplanade tree set factors in
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The CNN video is totally fake, not only for its camera angles but for all of the many features that the people on this board are too lazy to analyse for themselves. It's nice to make up theories about New York City and imagine what would happen if you did real research.

Here's a comment from somebody who did real reseach:

"yeah i went and shot some footage and i understand. by the shore there are those big trees blocking the shot totally. a little closer up the red building drops behind the whitehall building. but even closer up, the red building is below the more... more... whitehall building. and from that point the rector building is behind the smaller trees there.
i got on top of the round brick building but the rector building is totally visible from there.
i dont see where they could have shoot that footage from."

The fact is the CNN shot is not possible from anywhere, and for all of his hundreds of posts John White can't show any footage matches the CNN shot. We don't even need the camera angle argument to prove that the CNN footage is fake, however. The lack of crash physics is proof enough.

Rodin can desperately try to cover-up the TV Fakery and spin it into "CNN Foreknowledge" but he won't succeed. The video is fake, CNN won't defend it (because they cannot) and the perps have to rely on people like John White to help them get away with their crimes.

The CNN video is fake, and all the kings horses and evevated poles won't turn fake footage into real.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When you go up (as Rodin Suggests) to see over the trees, 19 Rector Street towers over the park. There's no way to have it hiding behind some trees. You have to get over the treetops to see the Whitehall Building anyway. The CNN shot is impossible from the water's edge because of the large trees in the FOREGROUND.

Let's pretend they were filming there, and they put the camera over the treetops. Now it's impossible for them to pan down and to the right and show the corner of the black Millineum Hilton and not show 19 Rector Street. There isn't any tree for 19 Rector Street to hide behind. You have to get above some very large trees in the foreground to even look up and see the Whitehall Building at all. The entire sequence when the plane flies in is fake.

But by all means, go ahead and try to recreate it yourself. You'll need to use an animation package and you'll be doing a lot of cutting and pasting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fallious wrote:
rodin wrote:
Fred was trying to prove CNN footage was faked, but instead has shown it not only to be real, but to have been shot from an elevated camera.

The camera must be at least 5m off the ground - probably a lot higher. This can be verified sometime by aligning a camera until the shots co-incide.

It is worth verifying if the CNN camera started broadcasting in less time after the first hit than it would have take to get a camera into such a position. If it is not feasible to do this CNN must be asked how they managed to have such a camera in place before 911.


Simple answer. It's NOT CNN's camera (at least thatís what they claim) I even remember when this footage was first shown on the tele it was identified as amateur video. Before moving any more into this line of enquiry I suggest you establish the basic facts: was it a pre-positioned professional camera?

Of course, even if itís a guy with a decent handy cam, or even a CNN team, we canít be sure if they were sent on a mission to film 9/11, they might have had a perfectly valid reason to be there (filming ducks, no doubt). So thatís two things to establish before you start theorizing about their setup and I can tell you; CNN isnít going to say a word about it if itís a genuine amateur tape, let alone if itís their own people.


Whoever shot it was 5-10m above ground. Not something an amateur could achieve. I wonder if the film came from colleagues of these people who were sent to document the event? Question

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

Here's what came up on page 1 of Google

closed to new answers

Quote:
What's your opinion of the 5 Dancing Israeli's who were filming the 9/11 attacks?

Best Answer - Chosen By Voters

I think you made it all up because you hate Jews.

Get a life.



http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070423031636AAncwLc

Chosen by voters no less...

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com


Last edited by rodin on Sat May 05, 2007 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rodin
Validated Poster
Validated Poster


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

david carmichael wrote:
rodin wrote:
19 Rector street behaves exactly as it should as camera elevates

Ground level shot



Elevated shot with exact same skyline from ground level line drawn



As camera pans up buildings in the far distance should appear to rise. This is what happens. Does anyone still not see this?

The top photo was taken from almost exactly the right spot on the ground. You can tell because lateral measurement of buildings remains proportional from one pic to the next. Confirmation is that the tree line contours match exactly.


No...two different shots... taken at different camera elevations...LOWER & CLOSER to make lamp post visible in winter shot AND PROVIDE COMPENSATION for apparent relative heights of Whitehall Bldg and Red Bldg.

You're out of perspective...the winter tree in front of the WhiteHall Bldg would be covering MUCH MORE of the Whitehall building in 2006(if not for growth)...but then again THAT LAMP POST...draw blue or white bordering lines in both photos OF THAT LAMP POST to see what is being obscured on the WhiteHall Bldg by the lamp post itself:D

Nice try Wink

CNN Video footage would have to have been taken from further back WHICH MEANS blockage by esplanade tree set factors in


Wrong. Not closer and I can prove it. The relative positions of the buildings in the background match on the horizon. Ergo - we MUST be in the same point on the planet. The only difference is elevation.

If you cannot see that this must be true talk to someone with a good understanding of geometry.

_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Fred
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 26 Apr 2007
Posts: 321

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 10:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Rodin. As your camera goes up you'll see 19 Rector Street above the trees and the black (Millenium Hilton) building very clearly. Try it and see. pepople have already gone down to the park and checked it out. The CNN video is fake.

By way of analogy, think of the trees as a wall in the foreground. If you get your head or camera up high enough to see over the wall, you can see the 37 storey building in the distance.

You should also analyse the pan down and to the right from the corner of the Whitehall Building to the blue sky where 19 Rector Street should be. The "camera" is zoomed in and the trees do not behave properly for being close to the camera (as they would be if the camera were situated at the water's edge.)

There are over 20 frames in the CNN Video where the background moves but the explosion remains frozen in time. Of course, this is a physical impossibility. Since you've taken the time to post and draw diagrams, you owe it to yourself to download a copy of the free program virtualdub and analyse the CNN video frame-by-frame. They simply move a still background around to create the illusion of camera movement. Rather than sincerely defending a fake video, you should observe the many other features that prove that the footage is fake.

Cheers,

Fred
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group