"FALLING MAN" - the phony jumpers

The notion of 'thousands of victims' was crucial to generate universal public outrage. However, having 3000 angry families breathing down their necks was never part of the perps' demented plan. Our ongoing analyses and investigations suggest that NO one died on 9/11.

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby lux on Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:41 pm

Image
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby pov603 on Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:23 am

reel.deal wrote:Image
what ?
:huh:

Damn! It was them!
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby Maat on Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:37 am

I found a Chinese site that had plagiarized the Yahoo! News article by Joe Pompeo: | Yahoo! 9/11 10th Anniversary – Mon, Aug 29, 2011 [as previously referred to in August here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 9#p2358599].
But, although it shows the same pic of Richard Drew, it included this different angled shoop of the "falling man" as well as his infamous one. So, how many moves can anyone make with a zoom lens in milliseconds again? :blink:

Photographer behind 9/11 "Falling Man"
2011-08-31 07:14:27 GMT2011-08-31 15:14:27 (Beijing Time) SINA.com
@ http://english.sina.com/world/p/2011/0831/393055.html
There's so much wrong with this stupid composite... <_<

Image
(AP photo/Richard Drew)
Drew. . . doesn't reminisce much about his experience on Sept. 11. (No lingering nightmares or PTSD, either.) He is reminded of the photo, however, twice a day, every day, through online news alerts that track mentions of the words "falling man" in the press. He picked up his BlackBerry to check the latest. . . The alerts, which he created on his Yahoo! and Google accounts about eight years ago, rarely have anything to do with the actual Falling Man, but he likes to keep up anyway.

"I'm curious to see if people are writing about it or talking about it," he said. "To see how they might interpret the picture."

Yeah Dick, we know you (or some perp studio) Drew it! :P

Just revisited his "photo gallery" to remember how ridiculous they were... yep, 'he' was in the right place at the right second more than once too! :rolleyes: http://news.yahoo.com/photos/photograph ... 80785.html
Maat
Member
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby pov603 on Fri Dec 16, 2011 9:15 am

reel.deal wrote:Image
;)


Hey, who is Keyboard Cat's Lil'fren?
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby Equinox on Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:31 am

I re-call Simon 20th may post over lets-roll http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-video-de ... post204407

Why are the windows below 36 inches or less tall? Each and every window we were told was 78 inches tall by 18 inches wide.


the many pictures/videos of the WTC façade with all those people waving and jumping out of the towers. The first problem I have with these images is one of proportions. Let me briefly illustrate my point with these three frames - A,B,C:

Frame A : I will assume, for the purpose of this discourse, that this is a legit and authentic picture of the WTC façade:

Image

Observe the respective proportions (height and width) of the PANELS and WINDOWS of the twin towers.
Now, here's a well-known scene from the 9/11 image pool. Do the proportions match with the above picture?

Image

Next, here's another view from the 9/11 image pool. Again, do the proportions match with the ones seen in the 2 photos above?

Image

They don't seem to be very consistent, do they? And don't we have a bunch of people hanging out the windows in these pictures? So, the BIG question I have now


Do the members of this forum not consider the possibility that the towers were completely empty - since the perps had absolutely no intention to burden themselves with mass murder? Where is the logic in believing in these images with people leaning out of the towers and, at the same time, in the fact/notion that the towers were empty?

Now, before you say that "well, maybe a few hundred people were let into the towers to be sacrificed", let me stop you in your tracks: a few hundred people? Seriously? Shall we say 400? So the perps would risk having 400 very angry families breathing down their necks for decades, wondering where the HELL the alleged other 2500 families are?

You've got to be kidding yourself!

The bottom line is: since we have now definitively exposed scores of fake 9/11 victims, are we to believe this pattern only applies to a section of the "3000 dead"? What sort of mental gymnastics would make anyone still contend that 'at least a few must have died' - in what was nothing but a quite conventional, controlled demolition job?

********************************************************************************************************************
I’m just a general observer and contributor; I only have stumbled across this research and had no idea about any of this stuff before. I just looked at the evidence and used my logic and think for myself.

And logic tells me this in regards to the above shot. If believe 9/11 was a conspiracy you have to be absolutely nuts to think that in the year 2001, special ops are just going to stroll up to building full of thousands of live innocent civilians, set it on fire, stand there calmly and film those people burning to death with them on fire. And then calmly blow the 1000's of people to smithereens.
That is the most retarded theory I have ever heard ever, seriously the hijacker story is more believable...

But in regards to live people on the footage in the trade centre... are not the TV cameras like WAY more professional and accurate than the amateur cameras. How come not one of them shows a SINGLE person in their shots...

Image
Equinox
Banned
 
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby Heiwa on Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:11 am

Image
I would say, based on above photo, that a WTC office window pane is 2.4 x 0.5 meter and that the spandrel/panel in between is 1.2 meter high. Any footage showing something else, especially with people hanging out from broken windows, is fake.
Heiwa
Banned
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby simonshack on Sat Dec 17, 2011 2:35 pm

Ugo_da_Lugo wrote:This picture (below) of the North face of the North tower surely is from Jeff Christensen and it seems to have been taken from a similar angle and possibly from the same location - this is what I am trying to pin down here.
Image
While we're at it - does anyone here have any idea which tower and which facade we are looking at> And from where were these pictures were taken - for example, they do not look as though they were taken from the ground, but perhaps from another building, or even from a helicopter maybe?

Thank you for any help on this..............


The touching Vanity Fair story about this man being recognized as being "Luke Rambousek" - by his own father...
"The Man in the Window" http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... erpt200609
Image

But...uh...is this a woman holding a little baby in her outstretched arms? How grippingly Thespian ! :lol:
Image

Another image credited to "Jeff Christensen"...
Image


So. no: Jeff Christensen was obviously NOT in a helicopter - or in a position to take the "Man in window" image. I honestly can't see how anyone can lend a iota of credence to these images as being real.

******************************************
And, on the subject of the location/vantage points of alll these photographers credited with pictures of the day, let's look at these other two credited to Sean Adair:

IMAGE 1 - Credited to Sean Adair:
Image
http://latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com ... enter1.jpg

IMAGE2 - Also credited to Sean Adair:
Image
source: http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/gallery ... h-gallery/

Go figure why Sean Adair decided to run down on the streets - after having captured "Flight 175" from his ideal vantage point... He must be a very stoopid photographer. But he's got a cool camera - who can make smoke switch from black to white - depending on ...uh, well, go figure!

And to get back on topic (of this "FALLING MAN" thread), has this image already been posted here?
Image
source: http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/gallery ... h-gallery/

So, to stay with the subject of (possible/impossible) perspectives/vantage points, I ask:
Image

Just asking...<_<
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6730
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby simonshack on Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:29 pm

*
We now need to calculate the distance from the façade of the lower 'man' (or black pixels) seen in this shot:

Image

(Let's forget for a second that the wall they are falling against looks NOTHING like the WTC steel-columnated façade...)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6730
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby Maat on Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:02 am

They ripped off Monty Python! Same quality animation too :P

It's the Falling Leaves, man :D


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp1HVg_J7QA
Maat
Member
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby SmokingGunII on Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:51 pm

Reel - you nailed the jumpers way back, it's an embarrassment for the perps. And why are they always bare footed? Do you have a better chance of surviving an 800 feet fall without shoes on? :P
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby pov603 on Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:10 am

At least we know that 'jumper' was North Korean with dress sense like that.
Maybe he was shouting 'Hey-wo, I'm Kil Jong Ill and I must be losing my liddle toiny moind, I fowgot my frickin' shoes!...No, wait! I can see them on the sidewalk....weeeeeeee......!!!!'
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby pov603 on Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:38 am

The irony is, with 9/11, a thousand photos are worth one word...fake!
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby nonhocapito on Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:17 am

Just as a (redundant) statement of how easy it was to fake a falling man both on stills and on video, I found this in the ridiculous 1996 movie "Skyscraper" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyscraper_%28film%29

Image

The movie is a soft-porn version of "die hard" with Anna Nicole-Smith: it is unbelievably bad even as a 9/11 hint -- but this utterly fake falling man, reflected in the windows and casting a shadow as he falls, looks realer than the crap from the big 9/11 production...
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2554
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby SmokingGunII on Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:34 pm

How tall was Jonathon Briley?

Image

Image

:unsure: ;) :P :lol:
SmokingGunII
Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am

Re: FALLING MAN

Unread postby Heiwa on Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:36 am

SmokingGunII wrote:How tall was Jonathon Briley?

Image

Image

:unsure: ;) :P :lol:


Floor to floor distance should be ~12' (or 3.6-3.7 meter). The windows were about 2.6 meter high with a 1 meter spandrel in between (to which the floor was bolted).
Heiwa
Banned
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

PreviousNext

Return to VICSIMS: the simulated victims of 9/11

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests