My guess is that the building you can't find is probably too small for you to find in the 'before' photo which is provided.
My guess is that he camera operator is probably very close to ground level - as can be seen by the right top edge of the nearest tower (South) - and the building in question is probably fairly close to them.
I estimate that the camera operator was somewhere near the green arrow in the photo below and the building would have been in the vicinity of the area indicated by the red arrow. Indeed, an enlargement of that area, in the red circle, seems to show a building which could very easily be the building which you are looking for.
Is this definitive proof that NPTers are simply inept and haven't got adequate analytical skills - or perhaps that they are just generally inadequate and are perpetual attention seekers.
Anyway, this sensationally headlined thread would suggest that this is the best evidence on offer. With a case as watertight as this - there is always work in kitchens - straining vegetables.
What about responding to the discovery of the missing building?
thought criminal wrote:
Good work, CB! What is that building? Anyone?
Good work? It took me 10 minutes with Google to completely demolish it! How about Good work, flamesong for finding the errant building for you? You evidently didn't want anybody to find it, really!
And the issue you raised (yet again) has been answered countless times before by people with an evidently far superior knowledge of video technology than you.
We all know that you NPTers (and you in particular) like to play ring-a-ring-a-roses to try to shake off the damning evidence which destroys your silly little distraction theory.
I notice that we have gradually entered a new phase of disseminating all the video footage into 'real' and 'fake' camps. There is something however that I do not quite accept;
The generic title for this has been termed 'tv fakery' - the point that appears to be missed is that we are watching this footage usually via YouTube, in other words posted well post-event via the internet and not viewed via our tv screens.
With this in mind, just because something has CNN or whatever in the bottom corner, can we be sure that this is how it appeared on the day/was broadcast by the network concerned, or has it merely been doctored after broadcast by someone who has downloaded it?
I do not therefore accept that this is in fact 'tv' fakery at all - with the wealth of software at the disposal of every numpty with a PC, how is this manipulation placed at the feet of the tv networks? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
As far as I can see, the building which is claimed to be anomalous exists and there does not appear to be anything irregular about it when one takes into account the camera angle and the focal length of the lens.
This is a very clumsy attempt at prestidigitation by the NPT squad.
I notice that we have gradually entered a new phase of disseminating all the video footage into 'real' and 'fake' camps. There is something however that I do not quite accept;
The generic title for this has been termed 'tv fakery' - the point that appears to be missed is that we are watching this footage usually via YouTube, in other words posted well post-event via the internet and not viewed via our tv screens.
With this in mind, just because something has CNN or whatever in the bottom corner, can we be sure that this is how it appeared on the day/was broadcast by the network concerned, or has it merely been doctored after broadcast by someone who has downloaded it?
I do not therefore accept that this is in fact 'tv' fakery at all - with the wealth of software at the disposal of every numpty with a PC, how is this manipulation placed at the feet of the tv networks?
The thing is Tele, you still think that the 19 hijacker scenario is absolutely plausible, so with all due respect, how are we supposed to take any of your conclusions at all seriously? _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
The thing is Tele, you still think that the 19 hijacker scenario is absolutely plausible, so with all due respect, how are we supposed to take any of your conclusions at all seriously?
So you're saying all airline hijacks are fake then? _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
The thing is Tele, you still think that the 19 hijacker scenario is absolutely plausible, so with all due respect, how are we supposed to take any of your conclusions at all seriously?
So you're saying all airline hijacks are fake then?
What? I am saying that there were no hijackings involved in the 9/11 WTC/Pentagon kerfuffle. _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
The thing is Tele, you still think that the 19 hijacker scenario is absolutely plausible, so with all due respect, how are we supposed to take any of your conclusions at all seriously?
So you're saying all airline hijacks are fake then?
What? I am saying that there were no hijackings involved in the 9/11 WTC/Pentagon kerfuffle.
I see, so you are saying that the Shanksville aircraft was hijacked - interesting turnaround. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
The thing is Tele, you still think that the 19 hijacker scenario is absolutely plausible, so with all due respect, how are we supposed to take any of your conclusions at all seriously?
So you're saying all airline hijacks are fake then?
What? I am saying that there were no hijackings involved in the 9/11 WTC/Pentagon kerfuffle.
I see, so you are saying that the Shanksville aircraft was hijacked - interesting turnaround.
None of the planes were hijacked. You think they were though. Bwahahaha. _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
..the 19 hijacker scenario is absolutely plausible
to;
Quote:
None of the planes were hijacked. You think they were though.
However, I have been crystal clear about my stance - I do not know exactly what happened on 9/11 - neither do you. In fact, every single aspect about that day and its events is based upon guesswork. Stating this does not in any way detract from my searching for the truth. I am a realist, not an assumptive, it is a fair more liberal and healthy standpoint and until something other than mere conjecture arises, that is what I will stay.
Putting words into my mouth changes nothing.
I notice you prefer to opt for the your usual silly nonsense instead of dealing with my point about 'tv fakery'.
This speaks volumes. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
I notice you prefer to opt for the your usual silly nonsense instead of dealing with my point about 'tv fakery'.
This speaks volumes.
Your points about 'tv fakery' once again venture into 'cop-out' territory. If I was that lazy I could easily have come back with a counter attack and said "See, you have admitted CGI is easy peasy pudding and pie to execute".
But I'm not. So I won't. _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
That is exactly what I am saying - it is manipulated.
The point you avoid is WHO is doing the manipulation? There is zero evidence to point to the TV networks - all the footage we now see is yonks old and pumped out via a medium that has no connection with TV.
Prove any of it was done on the day and not post-event. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
That is exactly what I am saying - it is manipulated.
The point you avoid is WHO is doing the manipulation? There is zero evidence to point to the TV networks - all the footage we now see is yonks old and pumped out via a medium that has no connection with TV.
Prove any of it was done on the day and not post-event.
No. You prove it. _________________
chek wrote:
look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Impossible to prove, same for you, hence the point about my stance.
Welcome to my world.
See how sensible it is? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
The planehuggers strike (out) again!
Anyone with an insulting attitude as in flamesong's post is obviously not able to understand how to research something
The arrow in the photo that flamesong references is NOT of the building in question.
The building in the CNN clip is the Whitehall Building, located at 17 Battery Place, as is no where near that arrow. The red arrow points to an area just a couple blocks from the towers, while 17 Battery Place was a lot closer to the southern tip >>> MAPQUEST
cb brooklyn it is hardly anyones fault that NPT'ers do not present the evidence so those who dont know can understand.
heres what i suggest you do.
1. show a recent picture of the whitehall building(not from the 1930's and as many angles as you can)
2. show its location on a map
3. show the location of the camera man
4. tell us what he should be filming and point out what is wrong or should not be there.
5. link a good overhead map pointing out all the points above.
6. list as many reasons as you can comparing why you think the whitehall building is being film(uk truth = uk not ny city so many will not know the whitehall building). just to point out it cannot be a differant building other than the whitehall.
7. colate the evidence and post as one being as clear about each point as possible.
so far i am baffled what the problem is and what is being said hence i switch of instantly. presentation is just as important as evidence if its present wrongly how can people understand the point your making and what is meant to be seen and not seen.
The planehuggers strike (out) again!
Anyone with an insulting attitude as in flamesong's post is obviously not able to understand how to research something
The arrow in the photo that flamesong references is NOT of the building in question.
The building in the CNN clip is the Whitehall Building, located at 17 Battery Place, as is no where near that arrow. The red arrow points to an area just a couple blocks from the towers, while 17 Battery Place was a lot closer to the southern tip >>> MAPQUEST
It matters not that my estimations of where the building is were wrong - they were based on this image:
Which you made a song and dance about saying, isn't it too tall?' (thereby illustrating complete ignorance of perspective - I suggest you watch a classic episode of Father Ted to see exactly how stupid you really look) and, 'exactly what, and where, is that building anyway?' (demonstrating a damning willful ignorance).
Perhaps I got the 'where' wrong but the building itself wasn't hard to find, even for somebody who has never even set foot in your country. What your questions show, CB_Brooklyn, is that you don't even know your own backyard.
But hey, don't hang about! Just start another thread with another piece of hare-brained unsubstantiated nonsense.
I am only embarassed that I even bothered to read your post.
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
The more you watch this montage, the more obvious the overdubs and the fake voices stand out.
