Electronic Jamming on 9/11

[simonshack]

*


THE STREET-VIEW VIDEO CLIPS
"what about the people who DID capture private videos on 9/11"?


This "Electronic Jamming" thread has always been a controversial one, since it only postulates (on the basis of various reported electronic disruptions of the day) that military electronic jamming technology may have been employed to ensure that no one could capture video footage of the day. Was this technology used? If not, the question remains: WHERE ARE THE LEGIT AND AUTHENTIC private videos of the day? As a matter of fact, do we have any?

To be sure, the NIST FOIA video material released in 2010 contains many "never-seen-before" (i.e. prior to 2010) video clips which would appear - at first glance - to have been captured by the average "Joe Public On the Street". Yes, we DO now have several videos depicting people staring in awe from afar at the smoking towers - leaving us with the impression that thousands of New Yorkers had a "grandstand view" of the WTC drama - and that many amateur videographers were tranquilly strolling around on that sunny morning, mostly aiming their lenses at people's horrified faces and expressions...

- "Omg! What a jaw-dropping sight"

The problem with these "9/11 street-view" video clips (which anyone can view on Youtube - just search for the various "NIST FOIA" 9/11 clips) is that whenever we are offered a view of the smoking WTC towers, they appear to have been digitally inserted into the scenery. To anyone with a keen eye for photography, they just look artificial and, well, fake. But that is - of course - no proof of anything. The question is: can we PROVE in a reasonably 'scientific' way that the towers were inserted in those street sceneries - as they seem to be at first glance?

Here we have a trio of images - apparently captured from slightly different vantage points - yet evidently from the same general location:



Since these images were all captured with the same video camera lens (and thus, no focal distorsion phenomena should be expected), it should be possible to accurately overlay these images on top of each other, using the various buildings as a scale reference. As we do so, we should expect the respective buildings' proportions to remain fairly equal, i.e consistent with each other. Well, let us be generous and allow a margin of +5 or -5 percentage points of object-to-object discrepancy - due to the apparent lateral / longitudinal displacements of the cameraman between the shots.

However, as we overlay these shots, we see that the WTC towers' proportions - and only those of the towers - mismatch quite significantly:

Here - the width of the towers mismatch by as much as 20% :


And here, the height of the marked tower section (measured from the rooftop of building A) actually DOUBLES in size :


Now, even making due allowance for the different vantage points - these quite significant discrepancies can only mean one thing:
the towers have been inserted in this purportedly authentic street-view video - by digital compositing .
We may say that we have optical / empirical proof of this assertion.


source video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSzrDeoEvUw

[simonshack]

*
THE "MASTER TEMPLATE"

This appears to be the "master backdrop template" for the various sceneries compared above.
There should now be little doubt as to just how they made these street sceneries: just playing around with various layers.



No wonder that they decided to show this "damning" master template in this brief manner (in super-fast zoom-in mode):

(gif at real speed)

Here I compare the "master template" with yet another shot. Once again, only the towers seem to be "misplaced". It is all becoming clear why we have all these odd / "slightly off" perspectives all over the 9/11 imagery. The software they used was pretty good - yet not good enough to simulate reality to perfection. Note that the "cameraman's vantage points" in these two shots appear to be almost identical (only a couple of meters apart - at the most):



"A little further up the road" :


"... and yet a little further up the road" (who are these people?) :




******************************************
And as an aside...

Evidently, the Grand 9/11 Image Forgery Crew couldn't resist throwing some silly 'humor' into the broth - such as this spooky rabbi-like photographer, popping out of nowhere - and senselessly snapping away at the video cameraman...
[/url]
(gif at accelerated speed)

[simonshack]

I have mead some amendments / additions to my two above posts that you might wish to check out.
The 9/11 hoax truly was a "Hollywood-based" affair. Forged imagery fools most people most of the time...

[Tufa]

HeHe!
My favourite -- and this one it looks really very good and authentic ...
It is the clip where a car drive towards the towers, on some kind of road.
It looks so very good! But the "tower" insert is not a film, it is a pic, so the "smoke"
don't move !!
HeHe!

Ref TPB 7511348/B22/FLV DK/DR1, and it comes from some "documentary", and I captured this using my TV-recorder.
I have used this in my 9/11 film, that currently looks like it will get banned on Youtube.

The question is: can we PROVE in a reasonably 'scientific' way that the towers were inserted in those street sceneries - as they seem to be at first glance?

1) The Plane thing is not physically implementable, so it must be faked.
2) If there where any "burning towers", some real photo should exist of this.
But there is no such photo. due to (1), any such photo would likely discredit the story rather badly.
Better not have any such photo!
3) So there where never any burning towers...
4) So every photo has to be manufactured.
I made a short film "Fullspeed" where I argue that they use a model tower to take the pictures of the "burning towers"

//
Tufa Video

[Tufa]

Oh Yes, the title is "Electronic Jamming", to prevent real genuine photos of the towers by ordinary people.
I don't agree. No Jamming, and no magic electronics, and no military secret equipment.
But there could have been jamming of some satellite news channels, to prevent N.Y. citizen finding out too quickly what is going on. This has been discussed earlier.
// Tufa Video