Analysis of "CNN Footage Faked.. Part III"

[david carmichael]

I did not see Mecpsi post the yahoo!map NOR "google earth" location of where the CNN cameraman would have been located AND AT the increased elevation Mecpsi mainatained would have been necessary.

I have however fashioned an analysis of the two videos(CNN and bsregistration) which obviates consideration of camera placement/elevation.

bsregistration was kind enough to answer my questions AND HE maintains that the closest building in the direction where his critics told him to move DOES NOT pass muster for the camera placement motif... I forget the name of the building(Cirrillo???)

bsregistration may be joining this forum.



The terms used in this discussion "left" would refer to the left side of your viewing screen... "up" would mean the top of your viewing screen.

"right"...right side of your viewing screen, etc.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=K_cHc6yRyS8&mode=related&search=


I do not comment on the first TWO elements shown in the video.

The following discussion concentrates on Part III.... The Part III portion of the video is time stamped at 5:30 of the 7:56 length video.



Thesis:

The CNN video is NOT A CORRECT representation of what existed at that location.

Therefore it is not a correct representation of what happened on that date AND AT that time of day.


Elements:

1)We have the arched building on the left

2)We have the trees

3)We have the 37 -story 19 Rector Street Building(built in 1931) which will never appear in the CNN video

4)We have a "black building" directly behind 19 Rector Street building(from the view screen perspective)

5)We have the buildings on the right.

6)We have "blue sky clearance" between the arched building and the 19 Rector St/Black building combo

7) We have "blue sky clearance" between the 19 Rector St/Black building combo and the buildings on the right.

8)In the CNN video...the "blue sky clearance" is eliminated due to the presence of the WTC Towers


THE two POSSIBLE SOURCES OF OBSTRUCTION OF the 19 Rector Street Building

a)It is possible that bsregistration did not film far enough to the left of his filming spot and that the arched building is blocking view of 19 Rector St Building

b)the trees would be obscuring the view in the CNN video---meaning the CNN videographer/cameraman was standing closer with his camera than bsregistration was in his camera footage.


ELIMINATION OF Point "a" as a possibility for the obstruction of 19 Rector Street; to wit,

[david carmichael]

If aired live at the time on CNN, though... then the NPT case is solid--- they should abandon all other arguments in favor of FORCING a government media explanation on the 19 Rector St/Black Building combo.


Also... it's NOT going to change the conclusion of that analysis...

...but the key TO PUTTING THE final nail in the coffin of the media/government propoganda effort(if indeed that was aired "live" in real-time)...

..is not to look for any possible building where the CNN camera person could have been stationed... No!

Any CAD Drafting Technician or Quality Technician in a manufacturing facility COULD TELL you....

...the foreshortened distance on the right side JUST NEEDS to be matched in a subsequent camera shooting event.

The cameraman can take his camera and start right at the foot of the building and walk in a straight line back to the river...

..making sure to keep that same foreshortened length the same throughout his walk from the foot of the building to the river (visible length of the right side of the building).


Like I said, it's not going to change the conclusion AS EVIDENCED BY the immense amount of "blue sky clearance" from the arched building to the buildings on the right side of the viewing screen shown in the CNN video.

I'm a "thermate" guy.... that yellow molten stuff flowing down the side of the building was not "molten aluminum with impurities which made it glow yellow"...

...but there is no denying that Part III of that CNN Video footage was faked(ostensibly by the 2-D animation process the video's author talked about).

The NPT thesis is back within the realm of discussion by virtue of Part III alone.

Were the floors hit on each floor IN EACH OF THE WTC BUILDINGS limited access due to large battery arrays and computer equipment?


Then you have a real possibility of homing equipment guiding a cruise missile(or "remote-controlled plane") OTHERWISE HOW COULD the damage area be predicted in a CNN video that would obviously have been made prior to 9/11.

As the mechanical engineer said about the witnesses and the absence of an exit hole in WTC II.

"The 'impossible' trumps the 'highly improbable' 100% of the time.... becuase with the "highly improbable" there is still a "small possibility" WHICH one does not find in the "impossible".

I want to know EXACTLY when that CNN video was aired..and anyone so inclined can go out again to that park-like area with a camera and put the final nail in the coffin if they wish.

[david carmichael]

In the post THAT FOLLOWS MY ORIGINAL posting in this thread, I've explained how to re-shoot the camera sequence...


...but it won't make any difference in the conclusion drawn... it'll only drive the "final nail in the coffin" , as it were.

Since the viewing screen is a 2-D representation of a 3-D building... the right side of that arched building appears in 2-D representation as a foreshortened length.


An accurate camera re-shoot (which would mimic the CNN shooting perspective) ONLY needs to hold that foreshortened length constant WALKING BACKWARDS from the FOOT OF THE BUILDING to the RIVER.

It's not going to render the conclusion ANY DIFFERENT but indeed it should be re-shot with a video camera.

The killer for proving CNN fakery is the amount of "blue sky clearance" over the treetops till the buildings on the right side of the screen re-surface.

[Stefan]

TC,
The angle is different so you can't see the buildings.

Let's just get this straight:

You are claiming that rather than superimpose a plane onto a shot of new york, they created the whole of new york from the ground up and forgot to include buildings.

Right?



Even within NPT that is absurd.

[david carmichael]

[david carmichael]

bsregistration is having difficulty getting his nineelevenukaccount established... i suggested he look for the approval in the spam section of his email inbox.

That's where I found my approval


HERE IS HIS POSTING TO ME:

[Stefan]

It's not obscured by anything; it's not in frame.

The "easiest exposed lie" is not that the TV images from 9/11 were entirely computer generated.

It's that WTC7 was destroyed by fire and debris damage.

[John White]

Oh dear. Hitting the fonts huh?

The question isnt for me: its for the makers of the wonderful "part III" to actually produce something coherant to argue their case and explain what they mean by flashing up "19 rector street" with no context: still photographs would do nicely instead of a lurching paranoid freak out set to hypnotising electronic beeps. But maybe something more sober would pawn the argument as a "no show" huh? And again, nice to see filmakers so wonderfully intelligent that they pawn their own bogus argument by showing wonderful footage of plane debris showering over Manhatten. Clowns

[Stefan]

David,
From my first post it should have been fairly obvious that I was saying the building was not in frame, but I have clarified at your request.

Now would you answer my question please?

Is it your position that in this shot the whole of New York was computer generated from the ground up?

Yes or no?

[thought criminal]

[John White]

My inability to care what others think of me extends to you as well thought criminal. You may be lost in space (by your own admission) becuase it helps you to cope but some of us come from the centre

[david carmichael]

That bsregistration chap did excellent work...

HERE IS THE MIDDLE HYPERLINK OF HIS "POSSIBLE LOCATIONS (WITH OBVIOUS PROBLEMS)" SUBSET.

This most closely replicates the foreshortened distance(lentgth) of the right side of the arched building which we see in the CNN video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8442930449266388598&hl=en


As I previously stated... this shot that I specifically asked for only confirms what my prior analysis of bsregistration's "work product" had already confirmed.

The CNN Video was fake.

I noticed on the site it said "exclusive coverage provided to CNN"

Presumably, this is the 2-D aniamation that some other guy talked about.


So we now need to determine:

1)How many hours and minutes after the attack occured was this video shown on CNN?

2) If the fakery is indeed is "2-D animation"... how long would it take to create this fake?

3) If another type of fakery... how long would its creation take to complete?

4) What was the name of the individual who provided this to CNN?

5) Who at CNN took receipt of this video from that individual?

6) Was it possible to complete this fakery in the AMOUNT OF TIME(Hours/Minutes) between the attack and its first showing on CNN?


IN AND OF ITSELF.... the MOST damning thing this "work product" of bsregistration does is NECESSITATE THE complete study of the body of the "video record" of that day for other instances of "fakery".

I myself, am now wondering, about the protruding aluminum nosecone of the 757, with no attendant hole at the opposite side of the steel-latticed building.

[david carmichael]

[david carmichael]

[John White]

Havnt got a clue what your blithering about tbh

Stefan asked questions. You don't want to answer. Seems like your issue to me, and this whole "venture" follows a pattern thats been seen here so many times before

So carry on by all means, I've got popcorn

[Stefan]

David,
I don't understand where the accusations of dishonesty are coming from.

From a different angle, there will appear to be more "blue sky" to the right of the building. That is simple perspective which any art student will understand.

My second post was not "bad conduct" you'd asked me a quetsion I'd already made the answer to clear, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and answered it again.

Then I repeated my very simple question which you still haven't answered:

Is your charge here that rather than super impose a plane onto some film of New York, they created the entirity of New York from the ground up, and forgot to include some buildings?

Yes or No?

[John White]

[david carmichael]

[david carmichael]

READERSHIP ALERT!!! Get your wagers down, sports fans!

Will John White re-assert that the building shown is not 19 Rector St... or will he flee from his prior contention AND THE words in HIS VERY OWN postings???

See for yourselvezzzzzzzzzz!!!!!

[Stefan]

David,
I have just watched the video, repeated it several times and it is clear as day there is no proof of fakery.

The CNN shot the guy is standing MUCH CLOSER to the building, the camera is pointed upwards at a greater angle as well. Just note that you can never see the ground in the CNN shot.

The trees (covered in leaves) are obscuring more of what is behind, and everything - the building we see as well as the space between buildings is larger.

This is a simple matter of perspective.

I'm sorry mate there really is nothing in this. Nothing. If I lived in New York and it was summer I would head over there and quite easily be able to get the exact same shot that CNN had and demonstrate this to you.

Your notion that this is the strongest piece of evidence 9/11 truth has is ludicrous- it's not evidence of anything at all.

[david carmichael]

[Stefan]

David,
You are right that I was wrong to say it was out of shot, I retract that, after watching it through a few times I accept that was flase.

On closer inspection of the film it is IN SHOT.

It's right there: 06.05

You can see the top of the building through the leaves of the tree on the right hand side of the screen.

The reason that the "clear blue sky" is larger on the CNN shot is the precise same reason the trees are bigger on the CNN shot and the main building in frame is larger in the CNN shot. Also, conincidentally the same reason the ground is never in frame on the CNN shot:

The camera man was closer to the building, and was pointing his camera at a greater angle upwards.

David.

Go to 06.05. The top of the building, completley indentical in tone and the little detail we can see on the video shot at 05.39.

It's right there. I cannot believe that someone posted this on youtube without even noticing that.

Debunked

Thank you and good night.

[david carmichael]

Wrong again, Stefan... but please keep plugging away!


I would have accounted for that building in my analysis if it had even been close.

The annihilation of that as a possible source is not the "heighth" of that black building BUT INSTEAD its "width"...


....a portion of 19 Rector street would be visible rising up (superimposistion) the heigth of the black building by where the last "N" in "CNN" is being displayed.

There is NO EXTENSION of that black building to the right of the tree that you are claiming the tree occludes....

...therefore the RIGHT SIDE of that black building must be completely hidden by the tree....

..at 6:05 of the 7:56 video

... that means you have exposure of approximately 40% of the black building's width WITH ONLY "partial occlusion" of the black building by the branches on the left side of the blocking tree AS EVIDENCED BY the "black of the building" showing through/between the branches....

It is there and towards the left to the last "N" in the "CNN" that we should be seeing the rise of the 19 Rector St. building rising from the ground.

...at a "more restrictive camera angle"(i.e.--- an angle more favorable to consideration of your argument, Stefan)...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2510583813365682505&hl=en


..we AGAIN see blockage of the "black building" by the Rector St building in excess of 40%

...so again, at the last "N" in the CNN we would see the 19 Rector St. Building rising up in a superimposition of the black building behind it.




..and here is bsregistration's reply to Stefan's latest posting:

[Stefan]

*slaps forehead*

If you look closley is clearly there and is the building you are referring to, it is the same colour, same width and you can even make out some of the detail as well. It is exactly where it should be.

The building you are referring to IS THERE, you can see it just through the tips of the foilage on the right.

Please watch the tape again carefully. Then either just stop, or be a big man and admit you made a mistake.

To admit you have been wrong may be embarrassing, but to keep on going when you have been proven wrong is juts undignified.

[david carmichael]

[John White]

Colours now? Wow

How long till meltdown?

[david carmichael]

[Stefan]

No, it would not stand out like a sore thumb, because it is obscured by the tree in front of it, but you can still clearly make it out, at 06.05 on the you tube video.

That's all I have to say. Its there.

[david carmichael]

[John White]

Oh boy. We got ourselves a "special" poster here

Couldnt you do us all a favour and takes your gifts off to JREF?