Evidence of TV fakery? ?

[ian neal]

Somebody I know posted this on facebook recently

https://www.facebook.com/100010748143165/videos/189296338105303/

and it was certainly new to me and initially convincing

Then Andrew Johnson posted an analysis which appears to explain and disprove the claim

http://www.checktheevidence.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task= view&id=386&Itemid=60

Anyone no differently please let us know

[uncle_glotty]

The no plane narrative is dead in the water, Simon Shack has already been exposed as a liar. The two towered buildings were constructed of steel columns as little as quarter inch thick in the outer frame towards the upper floors, some aviation alloys are a strong as many steels, as for the ''wing tips going through'' even using a quick Google search it can be seen that the wing tips only went through the aluminium cladding not the steel beams.

The reason the plane is distorted on the videos is because it's a fast moving, banking, reflective object being filmed on a pre 2001 camcorder, there's won't be motion blur because that only occurs if either the camera is adjusted for motion blur or it's edited in later using software, or when objects change direction ie a tennis racket may seem to go blurred during a long swinging base shot, this is because it's coming around and because the design is thin, this wont occur with an plane going in one direction. When motion blur is seen on photographs of race cars etc.. it;s been sought by the photographer or later during editing.

Besides all that, if these cgi spooks that are proposed by Shack et al were responsible for ''video fakery'' they would have surely noticed such mistakes prior to releasing their cgi film into the public domain. Unless of course the culprits hired the worst cgi spooks available to humanity so that Shack et al had reasons to makes films/books/names for themselves.....