simonshack wrote:I sometimes wonder - after almost half-a-decade of analyzing the 9/11 imagery, just why it took such a long time or me (or anyone) to notice the atrocious crassness of it. There are mysteries aplenty in this world, but this particular mystery (why I didn't fully grasp the evident bogusness of the entire pool of 9/11 imagery) has had me scratching my head for a long while. I now realize that this was all part of the 9/11 plotters' plan.
Back in 2007, I made my very first 9/11 imagery analysis: The Grand TV Illusion. Of course, I wasn't quite content with it: the poor quality video resolution at hand left me wondering if I had pushed too far my interpretation of the given visuals. Perhaps I was just looking at standard video artifacts - caused by digital conversions/compressions?
Luckily, in 2010, the very stupid 9/11 perpetrators decided to release higher-resolution versions of their horrid digital animations. The below HQ frame of this CNN shot is from the NIST-FOIA batch of imagery released in 2010. (Huh? Have you ever asked yourself why NIST would have been sitting on/archiving this 9/11 image pool ? Wouldn't the TV networks have that material stored in their archives? )
Anyways, the below image was supposedly shot from a "static camera" placed in the CNN's Penn Plaza building... How anyone can still believe these are real/genuine images by a broadcast-quality CNN camera is quite beyond me. Note the <<<clear masking line>>> around WTC1:
source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u88I0jZ8xYo
Here's a frame of the collapse of WTC2 - supposedly from the same "static camera" placed in the CNN's Penn Plaza building". All I have done here is to apply a brightness/contrast filter to highlight the absurd, pitch black cartoon-outlines around the buildings (and other problems):
source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjKyHn8pxGo
The 2 above images naturally lead to the following simple and logical conclusion:
NOT ONLY WAS THE IMAGERY OF AN AIRPLANE IMPACTING THE WTC SHOWN ON TV a digital animation, ALSO THE WTC COLLAPSES were digital animations.
Originally sourced--- CNN Sept. 11, 2001 8.48 - 9.29am@ 22.08 Minutes
Re- Released--- NIST FOIA: WPIX Dub5, Clip 15
photos credited to William Nunez (director/writer/producer) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0638035/
source of image: http://rvision.daydreamlabs.com/user/50 ... 6778578227
Some "9/11 eyewitness" apparently captured this wonderful, lucky shot. He snapped a pic JUST as "Flight 175" emerged from that building. That's Poolitzer Prize material, folks!
This other shot also depicts "Flight 175 - as it explodes". Hence, it is evidently (and supposedly) immediately successive to the shot.
This "William Nunez" claims he snapped these pictures with a $15 disposable Kodak camera.)
This claim is completely unbelievable. This claim is offensive to any photographer's intelligence.
Bond analyst Will Nuñez had gone to his corner newsstand and bought a $14.99 disposable Kodak, hoping to record the smoking tower out his office window "for history's sake," he says. "I remembered an incident back in the thirties when a plane had hit the Empire State Building, and I was always impressed by photos in encyclopedias." Instead, from his perch on the thirty-second floor of One State Street Plaza, he captured the plane's breathtaking blur out his office window, quite unintentionally. In his shot, a colleague, standing before a vast picture window, looks on in silhouette, next to an innocuous baseball trophy, its tiny batter poised on a two-handled loving cup. The plane had streaked by with such speed, Nuñez had not even realized he had caught it on film until he finally got around to developing the roll a week or two later.
- David Friend, Watching the World Change: The Stories Behind the Images of 9/11, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, p. 13.
Hereby, I challenge any engineer specialized in crash physics to explain what we see in the 4 below videos.
How does this aluminum airliner penetrate the steel structure of the WTC without a single part shearing off?
PLEASE VIEW GIFS HERE--
SHOT 1: Credited to "Michael Hezarkhani"---
SHOT 2: Credited to "Luc Courchesne"---
SHOT 3: Credited to "Evan Fairbanks"---
SHOT 4: Credited to "Jennifer Spell"---
To be sure, this is a still completely unresolved issue to this day. NOT ONE individual contending that these are REAL videos has ever tackled this basic issue in any sort of scientific, peer-reviewed manner. Peer-reviewed? Yes well, that is a common requirement for any thesis/analysis to be deemed valid by our planet's scientific community.
lux wrote:Found a few more:
There are copies of all the CLUES, YOUTUBE VIDEOS, AND GIFS.. on my hard drive. In case anything gets lost, copies of videos are also being re-uploaded to you tube being re-uploaded I'm also sharing on face-book.
Rudy Algera wrote:@ Equinox at 12:32 above
In the top photo, directly beneath the yellow Kodak camera, isn't there something odd about the row of 7 black windows in the building on the right hand side? Shouldn't they be brown, not black - the same as in the photo underneath it showing the same building?
Could someone with better eyesight than I have look carefully and compare these two photos, and especially the rows of windows?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests