Damn! It was them!reel.deal wrote:
what ?
"FALLING MAN" - the phony jumpers
Re: FALLING MAN
Re: FALLING MAN
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?
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...
(AP photo/Richard Drew)
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! http://news.yahoo.com/photos/photograph ... 80785.html
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?
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...
(AP photo/Richard Drew)
Yeah Dick, we know you (or some perp studio) Drew it!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."
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! http://news.yahoo.com/photos/photograph ... 80785.html
Re: FALLING MAN
Hey, who is Keyboard Cat's Lil'fren?reel.deal wrote:
Re: FALLING MAN
I re-call Simon 20th may post over lets-roll http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-video-de ... post204407
Frame A : I will assume, for the purpose of this discourse, that this is a legit and authentic picture of the WTC façade:
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?
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?
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...
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: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.
Frame A : I will assume, for the purpose of this discourse, that this is a legit and authentic picture of the WTC façade:
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?
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?
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...
Re: FALLING MAN
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.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: FALLING MAN
The touching Vanity Fair story about this man being recognized as being "Luke Rambousek" - by his own father...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.
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 Man in the Window" http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... erpt200609
But...uh...is this a woman holding a little baby in her outstretched arms? How grippingly Thespian !
Another image credited to "Jeff Christensen"...
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:
http://latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com ... enter1.jpg
IMAGE2 - Also credited to Sean Adair:
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?
source: http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/gallery ... h-gallery/
So, to stay with the subject of (possible/impossible) perspectives/vantage points, I ask:
Just asking...
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: FALLING MAN
*
We now need to calculate the distance from the façade of the lower 'man' (or black pixels) seen in this shot:
(Let's forget for a second that the wall they are falling against looks NOTHING like the WTC steel-columnated façade...)
We now need to calculate the distance from the façade of the lower 'man' (or black pixels) seen in this shot:
(Let's forget for a second that the wall they are falling against looks NOTHING like the WTC steel-columnated façade...)
Re: FALLING MAN
They ripped off Monty Python! Same quality animation too
It's the Falling Leaves, man
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp1HVg_J7QA
It's the Falling Leaves, man
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp1HVg_J7QA
-
- Member
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
- Contact:
Re: FALLING MAN
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?
Re: FALLING MAN
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......!!!!'
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......!!!!'
Re: FALLING MAN
The irony is, with 9/11, a thousand photos are worth one word...fake!
-
- Member
- Posts: 2579
- Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
- Location: Italy
- Contact:
Re: FALLING MAN
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
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...
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...
-
- Member
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
- Contact:
Re: FALLING MAN
How tall was Jonathon Briley?
Re: FALLING MAN
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).SmokingGunII wrote:How tall was Jonathon Briley?
-
- Member
- Posts: 557
- Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 9:34 am
- Contact:
Re: FALLING MAN
Thank you for the correction, Heiwa. Unfortunately, I took my reference of one of the lower floors from the NIST report, which is, of course different to the floors higher up.
However, I have corrected this error and submit below why Briley is still too tall!
I have made an estimate of which window Briley would have leapt from and marked the corresponding column red. In fact, it doesn't really matter as the perspective from left to right on the photo has very little distortion. I have added some of my own "falling" men which have been scaled to 6' tall. This has been made easy by the very fact, as Heiwa points out, the floors are 12' apart.
Falling man A is level with the left corner of the tower and I have added a few more along the width of the tower, using the 12' guideline as a reference point, finishing with one at the far end. Hopefully, this will make it clear that the height of Briley's figure, as I had suspected originally, is not correct. Indeed, there appears to be another figure attempting to vacate the building on the reference line between falling man A & JB. This figure, does, at least, appear to be the right scale.
Even if Briley was in line with the left hand corner & approximately 25m from the tower - his body height would still be wrong!
The fakery of the people jumping from towers is beyond doubt, but it doesn't hurt to have corraborating evidence, especially when the layman can look at it without the emotional upset of viewing a video, which they find difficult to believe is fake.
However, I have corrected this error and submit below why Briley is still too tall!
I have made an estimate of which window Briley would have leapt from and marked the corresponding column red. In fact, it doesn't really matter as the perspective from left to right on the photo has very little distortion. I have added some of my own "falling" men which have been scaled to 6' tall. This has been made easy by the very fact, as Heiwa points out, the floors are 12' apart.
Falling man A is level with the left corner of the tower and I have added a few more along the width of the tower, using the 12' guideline as a reference point, finishing with one at the far end. Hopefully, this will make it clear that the height of Briley's figure, as I had suspected originally, is not correct. Indeed, there appears to be another figure attempting to vacate the building on the reference line between falling man A & JB. This figure, does, at least, appear to be the right scale.
Even if Briley was in line with the left hand corner & approximately 25m from the tower - his body height would still be wrong!
The fakery of the people jumping from towers is beyond doubt, but it doesn't hurt to have corraborating evidence, especially when the layman can look at it without the emotional upset of viewing a video, which they find difficult to believe is fake.