Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:27 am Post subject: Re: Where is that missing buiding?
I'd like to be hyperlinked to any discussion that has gone on in the past regarding the "missing Richter building" at the last 2 minutes 27 seconds of this video.
This is quite disturbing, if true, that a major NEWS NETWORK like CNN would air such footage.
Has this been debunked by anyone yet?
If so, please hyperlink me to where?
If not discussed yet, what within the realm of reasonable possibilities could account for such an apparent photographic phenomenon?
What missing buildings? Whoever took that shaky video footage was NOT in the same place as the CNN cameraman who filmed Flight 175 crashing into the South Tower. The former was also on the ground, whereas the TV camera was on top of a building closer to the Tower and so it was looking up into the sky ABOVE the tops of the buildings seen from the ground on the right of the old building in the foreground with the arched façade. The amateur camera was further south and on the ground, so it was able to take in the buildings, whereas the TV camera, being much higher, was not able to do so. There is no problem here.
Nor is there any problem with the so-called melting of Flight 175 into the South Tower. They had similar coloured pixels, and the imagery taken from the TV recording and reproduced on many 9/11 websites is of such poor resolution and so highly compressed that the side of the South Tower appears virtually homogeneous, whereas it was really a lattice in appearance. The wing between the fuselage and left engine vanishes because it had the same colour as the shaded facade of the tower. It's an optical illusion due to the poor quality of the TV footage.
What missing buildings? Whoever took that shaky video footage was NOT in the same place as the CNN cameraman who filmed Flight 175 crashing into the South Tower. The former was also on the ground, whereas the TV camera was on top of a building closer to the Tower and so it was looking up into the sky ABOVE the tops of the buildings seen from the ground on the right of the old building in the foreground with the arched façade. The amateur camera was further south and on the ground, so it was able to take in the buildings, whereas the TV camera, being much higher, was not able to do so. There is no problem here.
Nor is there any problem with the so-called melting of Flight 175 into the South Tower. They had similar coloured pixels, and the imagery taken from the TV recording and reproduced on many 9/11 websites is of such poor resolution and so highly compressed that the side of the South Tower appears virtually homogeneous, whereas it was really a lattice in appearance. The wing between the fuselage and left engine vanishes because it had the same colour as the shaded facade of the tower. It's an optical illusion due to the poor quality of the TV footage.
Agreed.
I have viewed this and TC's multiple video posts and can see nothing at all that would lead me to suspect that there were no planes, nor that there was any "TV fakery".
If these videos are regarded as evidence of this speculative theory then I amazed that anyone believes it at all. _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
What missing buildings? Whoever took that shaky video footage was NOT in the same place as the CNN cameraman who filmed Flight 175 crashing into the South Tower. The former was also on the ground, whereas the TV camera was on top of a building closer to the Tower and so it was looking up into the sky ABOVE the tops of the buildings seen from the ground on the right of the old building in the foreground with the arched façade. The amateur camera was further south and on the ground, so it was able to take in the buildings, whereas the TV camera, being much higher, was not able to do so. There is no problem here.
Nor is there any problem with the so-called melting of Flight 175 into the South Tower. They had similar coloured pixels, and the imagery taken from the TV recording and reproduced on many 9/11 websites is of such poor resolution and so highly compressed that the side of the South Tower appears virtually homogeneous, whereas it was really a lattice in appearance. The wing between the fuselage and left engine vanishes because it had the same colour as the shaded facade of the tower. It's an optical illusion due to the poor quality of the TV footage.
Thank you for responding? I'm still interested in the tree tops showing in each video.
..but I can see your point... how many feet(approximately) should I move in each axis (east/, west?, north?, south?) and how many feet(approximately) should i rise vertically TO GET THE PROPER camera ANGLE and ....
.... and where would that physically place me on a yahoo!map of that location?
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:01 pm Post subject: StillDiggin on TV fakery
StillDiggin has a brilliant blog and his latest post is on TV fakery - the lovely ghostplane picture (from the clip with the motionless smoke) and a few other pointers as well...
http://911logic.blogspot.com/2007/04/earth-is-not-flat.html
.... and where would that physically place me on a yahoo!map of that location?
Again, thank you for responding!
I was wondering exactly the same thing, I went into google earth but couldn't find the location where the film is taken from. I know its by the river (duh!) but I can't see any green space with a building like the one in the foreground. Anyone got a location for this thing?
I suspect the original camera man was either significantly closer to the set of trees we see in the new video, or he was quite a bit further back, behind a second row of trees. There's no way to know how much he is zoomed in, or the 'Field of Vision' his camera is set to capture, unfortunately. _________________ "Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 9:41 pm Post subject: Re: StillDiggin on TV fakery
MadgeB wrote:
StillDiggin has a brilliant blog and his latest post is on TV fakery - the lovely ghostplane picture (from the clip with the motionless smoke) and a few other pointers as well...
http://911logic.blogspot.com/2007/04/earth-is-not-flat.html
Thank you, MadgeB... here in the USA(or as you Brits say, "across the pond")..we have a pretty famous MadgeP...
..she used to be pretty famous, anyway...
She was a manicurist by trade, Madge from Palmolive, and she was always sticking her customers hands in dishwashing liquid.
"Dishwashing liquid?!??!!?"
"Relax... it's Palmolive--- cleans dishes and still is soothing to one's hands"
Back on topic.... thanks for the posting/hyperlink, MadgeB
.... and where would that physically place me on a yahoo!map of that location?
Again, thank you for responding!
I was wondering exactly the same thing, I went into google earth but couldn't find the location where the film is taken from. I know its by the river (duh!) but I can't see any green space with a building like the one in the foreground. Anyone got a location for this thing?
I suspect the original camera man was either significantly closer to the set of trees we see in the new video, or he was quite a bit further back, behind a second row of trees. There's no way to know how much he is zoomed in, or the 'Field of Vision' his camera is set to capture, unfortunately.
Yeah! well , with my meager abilities -- I try to use the treetops as a visual fulcrum of sorts for the "camera view"... I should be seeing SOMETHING OF the building but I don't.
Micpsi and Craig W(especially Micpsi) seem to know what they're talking about... at least, Micpsi is asserting quite confidently that nothing is out of the norm.
Let's see what is forthcoming from Micpsi....
I'd like to believe this isn't true-- that my eyes or the camera angle are deceiving me.
Micpsi.... where in your best yahoo!map guess was the ground level photo taken?
..where in your best yahoo!map guess was the CNN photo taken ALONG WITH the attendant rise in elevation you referred to?
OK
I am listening, i have watched octopus before but i do now realise that the video in octopus is fake. Missing buildings is the clincher.
But the fact that the video is a hoax does not mean at least one plane was not used.
Surely there were eyewitnesses looking out the windows or looking up at the buildings?
But again the question is, how do we know this octopus video is not simply disinformation. I agree it makes a case, but is it the actual original footage or is it touched up footage?
Other than watch this over and over again why not watch the original news reels? _________________
Cheers to david carmichael and Witchfinder General - If you don't already know it 911researchers.com is the really 'cutting edge' site where research and debate continues on TV fakery, DEWs and all sorts (including location of POV for faked hit), and new info is frequently posted. One recent nugget is this story picked up at TotalInfo http://www.total911.info/2007/04/discovery-of-directed-911-dialectic.h tml
"...Van Romero announced in the local Albuquerque Journal that the Twin Towers were obviously taken out by a conventional controlled demolition. Romero quickly and quietly retracted his claim and disappeared from the scene. What was not revealed until now however, is that Romero is a major player in directed-energy weaponry, and a long time member of the Directed-Energy Professional Society (See 911researchers.com)."
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
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
