No crane theory

[jfk]

the shaky footage shows a big red crane in front of the at&t building but zooms out and doesnt show a plane. The stable footage shows a plane but no crane. EVEN PICS showing the plane...show no crane!! more vids and pics are out there. You can do your own research and find them OR Killtown has everything archived on one website.
want sources??
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit...

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=wENvbwENs_0[/youtube]

[rodin]

OK who's going to debunk this then? Must admit I have softened my stance on NPT since before.

[fish5133]

At 29 secs I cannot even see the big red crane in the zoomed out shot let alone a plane that is even further away. Shaky evidence IMO. I am now a craner and planer

[fish5133]

http://cleveland.indymedia.org/uploads/ ... rike-2.avi


Not seen this clip before which shows the first plane hitting the tower. Of course it can be rubbished by saying
1) its fake

2) why would someone be filming from their car


just another piece of the jigsaw

[agent orange]

sorry but they are two different bridges. the one that you are stating has a crane behind it is the Williamsburg bridge. Where as the one that you say has no crane behind it and therefor proving fakery is the Manhattan bridge which is the next one down stream with the Brooklyn bridge visible just behind it.
just google images of the bridges in the area (Brooklyn, Manhattan & Williamsburg) and compare the design of the main piers/uprights and you will see that they are all different. the one in your video which you say proves fakery once and for all belongs to the Williamsburg.
This is also why the perspective between the videos you are comparing is all wrong. and is why the AT&T building is in front of different towers in each of the videos.

sorry but no proof of fakery im afraid. just proof that in this case the camera doesn't lie.

to save you googling
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/BRI/BRI ... Bridge.htm

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/BRI/BRI ... Bridge.htm

[John White]

More proof that people like JFK are regretably gullable

I note the links either been pulled or was naff to start with

Error 404: File Not Found
The requested page is not found. This may happen due to the following reasons:

Page or file is outdated, renamed, moved, or does not exist.
You typed the address incorrectly, like http://www.example.com/pgae.html instead of http://www.example.com/page.html
Please contact your webmaster if you are not sure what goes wrong.

[rodin]

http://cleveland.indymedia.org/uploads/ ... rike-2.avi


Not seen this clip before which shows the first plane hitting the tower. Of course it can be rubbished by saying
1) its fake

2) why would someone be filming from their car


just another piece of the jigsaw

Running back frame by frame you can see a fuselage 'emerging' from the building then it disappears?

[rodin]

sorry but they are two different bridges. the one that you are stating has a crane behind it is the Williamsburg bridge. Where as the one that you say has no crane behind it and therefor proving fakery is the Manhattan bridge which is the next one down stream with the Brooklyn bridge visible just behind it.
just google images of the bridges in the area (Brooklyn, Manhattan & Williamsburg) and compare the design of the main piers/uprights and you will see that they are all different. the one in your video which you say proves fakery once and for all belongs to the Williamsburg.
This is also why the perspective between the videos you are comparing is all wrong. and is why the AT&T building is in front of different towers in each of the videos.

sorry but no proof of fakery im afraid. just proof that in this case the camera doesn't lie.

to save you googling
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/BRI/BRI ... Bridge.htm

http://www.nyc-architecture.com/BRI/BRI ... Bridge.htm

You are correct. The ratio of the 2 faces of the tower visible is 2:1 in one aspect and 3:1 in the other. I think you can see the crane in front of the building immediately to the right in the still shot. You would expect this displacement. Case closed

[Samantha J Fox]

What is it that seems to fly between the towers at 2:08/2:09

The camera seems to tilt then as it raises something clearly moves between the two towers.

I'm not suggesting what it is, it probably is a bird but the distance doesn't seem right and it does seem larger.

[Samantha J Fox]

http://cleveland.indymedia.org/uploads/ ... rike-2.avi


Not seen this clip before which shows the first plane hitting the tower. Of course it can be rubbished by saying
1) its fake

2) why would someone be filming from their car


just another piece of the jigsaw

Running back frame by frame you can see a fuselage 'emerging' from the building then it disappears?

Thats an impact clip, unless I have mistaken your point.

If you look very closely there is something very small and white that heads in to the building before the explosion. Its not taken from the side where you would see the fuselage emerging.

having said that, and I am certainly not in the NPT camp, I do think that the tiny white spec that is in this video does not quite have the size or definition i would expect of a large passenger plane.

[gruts]

the shaky footage shows a big red crane in front of the at&t building but zooms out and doesnt show a plane. The stable footage shows a plane but no crane. EVEN PICS showing the plane...show no crane!! more vids and pics are out there. You can do your own research and find them OR Killtown has everything archived on one website.
want sources??
http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit...

jfk - given that every piece of npt "evidence" you've ever posted has turned out to be complete * - how many times do you have to be proved wrong before your blind faith in killtown's drivel starts to waver?

btw - do you have any insights into who is real and who's a sockpuppet over at 911 movement?

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=14684

assuming that you're not just another of killclown's socks yourself - if I were you I'd be trying to work out which of your fellow believers isn't fake before you regurgitate any more of their disinfo about allegedly fake planes....

[jfk]

the big red crane cannot be seen behind the bridge in many pics or vids. EVEN in the Robert Clark fake pic .BOTH BRIDGES ARE IN THE PIC... LOOK. Go look at other pics by:Wolfgang Staehle and Robert Clark. ALSO vid by DEVIN clark

also I would like to add.... line up the smoke in the 2 vids in this video. The smoke looks identical to me. HOW can the cranes mast be in front and higher than the AT&T building if the smoke lines up so well? The angles of the building are off some... but by how much??

[chek]

the big red crane cannot be seen behind the bridge in many pics or vids. EVEN in the Robert Clark fake pic .BOTH BRIDGES ARE IN THE PIC... LOOK. Go look at other pics by:Wolfgang Staehle and Robert Clark. ALSO vid by DEVIN clark

also I would like to add.... line up the smoke in the 2 vids in this video. The smoke looks identical to me. HOW can the cranes mast be in front and higher than the AT&T building if the smoke lines up so well? The angles of the building are off some... but by how much??

jfk - like any stooge being bamboozled by a two-bit magician you pick all the wrong cues to note.
Of course the Towers and the smoke look similar - that's how the NPT clowns put one over on you every time.
What matters is the spatial relationship of foreground and background.

I'll take this slowly. First here's the AT&T building in the first scene of the video. Notice how because the viewpoint is to the east, it is to the left of the South Tower.

Here is where the building is located on the west shore approach to the Brooklyn Bridge. It lost the 'Ma Bell' logo in favour of the 'Verizon tick' logo in 2002, but the building is the same.


Here is the Google map placement of it at 375 Pearl Street NYC. Its location is denoted by the green arrow.


Next up here is the view in the second scene of the video.

Note how in this scene the building is square in front of the North Tower.
We know it's the North Tower because it has the antenna on top.

Now here's a bigger map showing the lines of sight needed to see those views with the buildings in those positions relative to each other.

In the above map, WTC1 North is the red square with the green and yellow stripes, WTC2 South is the red square with the blue and yellow stripes, and the Verizon building is the blue shape with the red and yellow stripes.
The blue line is the line of sight in video scene one, and yellow line matches video scene two.
As should be blindingly obvious to you by now, objects in front of the Verizon building from one perspective cannot be in the other.
No ifs, buts, or fuzzy logic. End of story.

Now go kick someone's a$$ for confidently delivered bull$hit lies that wasted not only your time, but that of all the boys and girls here.
Shame on you. Do you really think the producers of dreck like your video are being honest?

Or maybe you're not so monumentally stupid after all, and just repeatedly punt this $hite out in the hope someone will think there must be something to it.

Let me assure them right now that there ISN'T anything to it, but there are a lot of people ready to buy a bridge off you at any one time out there.
If you happen to actually be selling any bridges, try 911 Movement or 911 Taboo first. There seems to be a whole bunch there just waiting to make you rich.

[John White]

Let me assure them right now that there ISN'T anything to it, but there are a lot of people ready to buy a bridge off you at any one time out there.
If you happen to actually be selling any bridges, try 911 Movement or 911 Taboo first. There seems to be a whole bunch there just waiting to make you rich.

God damn, its right though isnt it? This latest "product" really is trying to flog bridges

Congratulations! I can confirm that if you fell for this you really are easy to con