CNN footage suggests prior knowledge of 911

[rodin]

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/

[Fallious]

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?

[rodin]

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.

[Fred]

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

[rodin]

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?

[Fred]

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.

[Fallious]

[rodin]

[rodin]

[Fallious]

[rodin]

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?

[scubadiver]

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

[rodin]

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.

[Fallious]

[Banish]

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.

[chek]

[John White]

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?

[david carmichael]

[david carmichael]

[Micpsi]

..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?

[david carmichael]

[rodin]

[rodin]

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.

[rodin]

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.

[david carmichael]

[Fred]

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.

[Fred]

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.

[rodin]

[rodin]

[Fred]

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