9/11 SIMCITY

[nonhocapito]

Just to clarify that I did not put much thought about where exactly "Hlava" was supposed to be standing.
It was only to show that he was in the underpass and not in Greenwich street:

It is clear judging from the NIST videos that he was supposed to be standing much further ahead than what is shown in the picture above, at the curb but closer to the bridge (possibly around where the little picture icon is). And you are right, the lamplights are white, at least today as shown in google earth.
Looking forward to your analysis of the POVs in the video.

[SmokingGunII]

Firstly, I'd like to thank Nonho for correcting my earlier post with regards Hlava's alleged location. I hadn't viewed the NIST version which clearly suggests that he has exited the tunnel and has exited the car.

Thanks to the video, we are able to pinpoint his alleged position more accurately. He is close to where the white kerbside line narrows. I have estimated his position on my model here. Please not that I have overlaid a satellite image for better accuracy. Please note that the image sits well over the streetmap below it, using the coastline and road positions as reference.



Now, it is clear that Hlava is now below street level. Anyone who understands perspective will know that this makes his alleged video footage even less likely. Any reduction in elevation from the POV will mean the closer building will become higher in relation with any building beyond it. You can replicate this with household items to see for yourself. To demonstrate that I have not used any smoke and mirrors let me remind you how my model is constructed.

I have set Hlava's eye level at 0 and at 50 degree perspective (similar to camera lens). Of course, he would have been lower than this, but I prefer to give any benefit of the doubt to the creators of the video. My buildings are also built from 0. To confirm, these consist of the towers (415m high), Deutsche Bank (172m high) and 19 Rectory Sty(142m high). In fact on my model, you can also see WTC 7 which is 174m high. Taller than DB and about 350m further away. Look at the difference in height of the two.



Here is the basic rendered version:



I don't think an overlay of my model and the video is required to illustrate that something is not right. Below is a still from the video, where we can clearly see the top of the towers.



Not only do we see much more of the tower above 19 Rectory St, the DB height is off too. In truth, the South Tower in the video doesn't even appear to be square...



The "receding" lines should be shorter than the front face of the tower.

Next, I will attempt to "match" the model to the footage and reveal what parameters were required to do so. My guess is that the POV will be 30m plus above ground level.

[hoi.polloi]

It looks like the entire video is stretched vertically.

Examine the "lamp" in the corner and I think you'll find it is a little "squat" as if the whole image used to be as wide as the black bars on the left and right, but it was squashed. Careful with analyzing something by its appearance without taking into account what the official explanations for distortions might be.

[SmokingGunII]

It looks like the entire video is stretched vertically.

Examine the "lamp" in the corner and I think you'll find it is a little "squat" as if the whole image used to be as wide as the black bars on the left and right, but it was squashed. Careful with analyzing something by its appearance without taking into account what the official explanations for distortions might be.

No, Hoi. The video would have most likely been shot in 4:3 format and not widescreen (16:9). If the video had been compressed vertically, the time stamp would be distorted too. This is not the case.

If the video had been "squashed" as you put it, the south face should still be wider than the East face proportionately.

Perhaps you would care to share which "official explanations" regarding 9/11 you do adhere to?

[SmokingGunII]

To clarify my previous post to Hoi and anyone else who is confused by perspective and how it works, I have added my model to the NIST footage, squashed it vertically and tilted it to suit Hlava's video:



I hope this speaks for itself. Please also note that no amount of compressing width will change the height of DB against WTC. Remember, these two buildings were opposite each other so any difference in terrain would be minimal. Also note that my model is based on Hlava's eye being at 0m not lower down in an underpass as intimated by the video footage.

To illustrate how "squashing" has NO effect on how perspective is treated, please compare the two photos below. One has been squashed by 10%, but note that the relationship between the faces of the towers remains unaltered proportionately. Any faces diminishing from the POV are narrower than those facing the POV. This is basic rule of perspective and cannot be manipulated - unless the material we are viewing is fake.

100% width


90% width

[hoi.polloi]

If the video had been "squashed" as you put it, the south face should still be wider than the East face proportionately.

Perhaps you would care to share which "official explanations" regarding 9/11 you do adhere to?

Don't worry, I don't adhere to any official explanations that haven't been backed up by proof. As of yet, not a single official explanation has held any water. I am glad to be corrected because it shows their error more plainly. Here is what the "stretched" version would look like:



Of course the timestamp looks pretty sadly distorted this way (on the original screengrab you show, it's "normal" as if it were added in post-production, rather than recorded on the video itself.) And the lamp still doesn't look stretched enough. But it does correct for the question you asked about the top of the WTC not being square.

Looks like they were trying to wobble some different elements into place in the hopes that the "average" would appear realistic. Kind of like the airplane graphics where the wings are missing. Some weird computer flaw they overlooked.

[nonhocapito]

There is no doubt that Hlava's video --for whatever reason-- was stretched vertically in its entirety, not only the WTC backdrop.
Yet the timestamp appears perfectly unstretched, which seems difficult to explain without taking fakery into consideration.

The vertical stretching I think is especially noticeable in the vehicles seen in the underpass:


Also appreciate here the magic reflection in the window of this car, showing the smoke billowing out of the tower in front.
From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqhrThoOqyQ


From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNSgt7yLl6A

Plus, if we compare the green signs with those we see laterally from google street view, it seems even more obvious that the picture was stretched vertically. Well, actually, two of these are different signs altogether. Yet I think they can serve as an indication of what the proportions of those signs are supposed to be. Also note the height of the reddish beam sustaining the bridge.


From http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=40 ... .51,,0,0.5

I am not sure of what this means, and if this really influences the evaluation of those errors in perspective that do seem substantial (as the towers do seem deformed laterally as well): but certainly a vertical stretching must be taken into account.

[SmokingGunII]

It doesn't matter whether it was stretched vertically, squashed vertically, the perspective and relationships of the buildings is wrong - impossible - but i'm sure you know that!

For anyone who still has the slightest doubt that Hlava's video is fake, I would like to follow on from Nonho's excellent spot of the smoke reflection in the car windscreen. Using my model I can investigate if this is possible using the laws of reflection or whether, as Nonho suggests, the car has magic glass!

Below I have re-posted the image where the smoke can clearly be seen billowing from the top of the tower:



I have used my model to determine that Hlava is positioned approximately 620m from the base of the south Tower. To give his reflection every chance of succeeding, I have dropped his position 8m below the base of WTC. I have positioned the car rear windscreen 8m in front of him (it really doesn't matter, believe me) and given it an angle of 30 degrees (again this really doesn't matter but it is typical).

Below is a close up of these calculations which shows the camera position (eye level), incident ray & relected ray and, of course, the rear windscreen set at 30 degrees. I have lined the top of the windscreen up with Hlava's eyeline although it would appear to be slightly below his eyeline in the footage. This works in the favour of the footage and not this analysis. Heaven forbid that we get accused of skewing results in our favour!



So, now we have the close up, just where do the incident rays go to? Remember, they should cross close to the top of the South Tower!

Voila!



That's another one put to bed. Next!

[nonhocapito]

Great delivery, Smoking.

I will note en passant that obviously this magic reflection reminds us all of the infamous pornographic video by "Evan Fairbanks", that shows in the windshield of a car reflection of an event happening to the back of it.


From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udVbDzN9Cgc

Anyone is free to verify if the same phenomenon can be observed with any car in any of our streets. Good luck!
This Hlava-Fairbanks magical-reflective similarity is further proof that all these videos have been created in front of the same computers by the same band of manic-depressive demented criminals who produced all the faked 9/11 amateur material.

[hoi.polloi]

http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww66 ... onwide.jpg

Excellent analysis. Case closed. The videos are nothing but lies and exaggerations of realistic phenomena used to support the impossible notion of "thousands of witnesses filming terrorism with their cameras" ...

Obviously if these videos are prefabricated amateur videos, then someone on the street would speak up and say this never happened, right?

The argument gets weaker and weaker the more we debunk these videos as complete fabrications. Great work.

[simonshack]

The argument gets weaker and weaker the more we debunk these videos as complete fabrications. Great work.

Yes Hoi, and let me join you in saying: great work, guys!

The Pavel Hlava "2nd plane strike" video is as flawed as can be. It was probably produced to lend some more 'credibility' to the dreadfully unbelievable Hezarkhani "amateur video of 2nd plane strike". Please remember that the Hlava composite rendering was first shown on TV in 2003 (by Diane Sawyer)- 2 years later - as documented by SEPTEMBER CLUES part F (at 7:05) :


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_iKnwZ2Fq4

********************************************************************************************************************************************


I just wish to contribute with yet another image comparison to make this other point clear: just as the "planecrash amateur videos" were entirely computer animated, so were the shock-and-awe images of the tower collapses. This may be old news to the Cluesforum members, but I keep reminding this for anyone who (for a number of reasons) may still not be entirely convinced about this fact: ALL the 9/11 images we have seen originate from a vast image pool which was created to convey to the public an artificial visual tale of what occured in Manhattan on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Here we have two images, one extracted from a movie ("The flight that fought back" which supposedly includes REAL FOOTAGE of the day) - while the other still image was supposedly snapped by alleged martyr-photographer "Bill Biggart" who apparently died under the rubble...).


**************************
And just for the record, here is another image credited to "Bill Biggart - the martyr-photographer-who-died-under-the-rubble"...

[Equinox]

Minus the bright Orange explosion, the 9/11 footage has the same cgi style that was used 5 years earlier in the Independence Day movie. Little bits of debri launched around. And a big ploom Of computer generated smoke to represent the building vaporising.






full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eujwxh_r43E


The Color and tones are just all wrong. Any normal camera would not have such flaws.

[SmokingGunII]

Great delivery, Smoking.

I will note en passant that obviously this magic reflection reminds us all of the infamous pornographic video by "Evan Fairbanks", that shows in the windshield of a car reflection of an event happening to the back of it.


From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udVbDzN9Cgc

Anyone is free to verify if the same phenomenon can be observed with any car in any of our streets. Good luck!
This Hlava-Fairbanks magical-reflective similarity is further proof that all these videos have been created in front of the same computers by the same band of manic-depressive demented criminals who produced all the faked 9/11 amateur material.

Yes, the same thought crossed my mind, Nonho! However, unlike the Hlava footage, there would be a chance of the windscreen in EF's footage reflecting the towers as he has a lower viewpoint and together with the closer proximity of the vehicle and the height of the towers it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility. Of course, that doesn't make the footage genuine and I will illustrate later a catalogue of errors in their attempts to "enhance" the footage.

Anyway, Fairbanks is next up!!

[SmokingGunII]

I said Fairbanks was next up so I apologise - I got waylaid with Scott Myers!

It's unlikely that Scott Myers actually exists. He has never been interviewed to my knowledge, despite getting a clear shot of the 2nd plane hitting the South Tower.

Originally, I was going to analyse the possibilty of his explosion reflection which appears on the side of the Millennium Hotel. Unfortunately, or fortunately in this case, a few rudimentary searches opened a bigger can of worms and one that sits beatifully here in SIM CITY.

Here is the image that intrigued me, taken from the 9/11 Propaganda documentary 9/11 In Memoriam: Excuse the quality, I downloaded this from Google videos a couple of years ago and anyway, we now have the hi-res NIST versions to savour. However, it does confirm his location as John St.



New hi-res NIST version:


Here is the plane in frame:


First I went about pinpointing his location along John Street. He had to be pretty close to the buildings in the foreground because John Street is quite narrow and we are able to see both the Equitable Life Building (left) and Millennium Hotel (top right). The building obscuring the towers is 22 Courtland St - this is when I became very curious.

The closest I could get to his location on Streetview was here:


This started the alarm bells ringing. Myers had to be on a rooftop to pull off this angle, but in the NIST clip 1, we can clearly see that he is supposed to be at street level: (notice the roof line below the Equitable Life building). It is also interesting to note that at no time can we see the 16 storey building to the base of 22 Cortlandt St. This is 5 Dey St. It was built in 1921:
http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/Prop ... -NY-10007/



Full link here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egna2AAX ... re=related

It was clear he was at the junction with Broadway. I moved him accordingly on my model.



The next thing that intrigued me was what type of lens he had to get all of these buildings in shot including the rear side of the Equitable building:



Here, we can clearly see that the building with the silver edge to it's roof comes to an end. On Streetview it is very different and although I have tried to date the building adjacent I haven't had any luck - but I think we can agree it looks older than 10 years. In fact, around the corner facing the Equitable Life building there is demolition going on, so it is unlikely that a building erected post 9/11 was now being demolished.



At this stage, I thought it would be worth adding the 3 main buildings in view to my model. I use these two sites for this information:
http://www.emporis.com/city/newyorkcity-ny-usa
http://skyscraperpage.com/

Equitable Life - 226.5m (also known as 1 Liberty Plaza or the Singer Building)
22 Cortlandt St - 141m
Millennium Hotel - 179.2m

I set Myers' eye level at 1700mm and this was the result - not totally unexpected:


This compares favourably with the Streetview shot. As I expected the towers would not be seen from this close.
Once again, this can be illustrated with simple geometry:

from my model I can acertain that Myers is approx. 70m from 22 Cortlandt St which is 225m (face to face) from the South tower. OOPS! Of course, were he to be postioned about 100m further away he would see the tops of the towers. Unfortunately, he would also be so far back up John St that he would be surrounded by different buildings.



For anyone interested, I did manage to get a close match up from his alleged location:


He just had to be 68m from the ground!

Finally, watch clip 8 from NIST and marvel at Scott's ability to keep his camera (while on zoom) perfectly still! Also, listen to the contrived audio. A few sirens and not a voice until a little child pipes up to his Dad. Hilarious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLuBLpB3 ... detailpage

Fairbanks tomorrow!

[nonhocapito]

Wait... Are you sure he is not imagined to be on a rooftop here? That on the left is a chimney after all. i doubt you would see that, from its back side, so up close, if you were not on a rooftop.

There is a block of lower buildings between John street and Maiden, I think this is were he is supposed to be located:


From http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=40 ... 17&vpsrc=6

... on one of the rooftops above?

This below is a google streetview from John street.



...the building indicated by the red arrow seem to be the same one visible in the video shot above on the right. We can concur that the imagined POV is rather close to the building and to the left of it. It must be on a rooftop in that block. The building at 15 Maiden (to which a movie was dedicated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_Maiden_Lane) in particular seem to have a bundle of offices that could serve as a justification for "Myers" to have been there.

Although, why this alleged hollywood writer --credited by Michael Moore in his 9/11 Fahrenheit disinfo piece-- was supposed to be on top of a office building in Manhattan on 9/11 of all days I can't fathom...

Scott Myers: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0616851/