9/11 SIMCITY

[Equinox]

That photograph!!

I synced that photo with the CBS footage…

A- The top corner of the NTH tower – photo- visible… CBS- Not visible.
B- Smoke plume from NTH tower lit up Photo- visibly orange… CBS- Not lit up.
C- Bottom smoke on south tower Photo and CBS do not match up at all.

Just stumbled across this... Now the bridge is further up/down in the foreground!!
Site-- http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3009043.htm

[pov603]

That photograph!!

I synced that photo with the CBS footage…

A- The top corner of the NTH tower – photo- visible… CBS- Not visible.
B- Smoke plume from NTH tower lit up Photo- visibly orange… CBS- Not lit up.
C- Bottom smoke on south tower Photo and CBS do not match up at all.

Just stumbled across this... Now the bridge is further up/down in the foreground!!
Site-- http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3009043.htm

And where has the flag gone between two of the pictures?

[simonshack]

And where has the flag gone between two of the pictures?

Dear pov603,

The flag on top of the bridge is actually visible in both images, but...



image sources:

PULITZER-WINNING image:
http://www.damncoolpictures.com/2011/08 ... raphs.html
http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/2002

ABC-published IMAGE:
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3009043.htm

The Brooklyn bridge - today:

http://www.newyork-reise.de/wallpaper.htm


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Edit:

I have sent this mail to ABC Australia - through their "CONTACT" page: http://www.abc.net.au/am/contact.html

The 9/11 WTC image published on this page of your website http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s3009043.htm is a proven forgery. It is a poorly-crafted 'clone' of a Pulitzer-winning image, as illustrated and expounded here:

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p2370624

Our longstanding research at Cluesforum.info has reached the conclusion, after almost half a decade of comparative photo analyses, that none of the images pertaining to the 9/11 event is trustworthy. We would much appreciate ABC Australia to help us diffuse our findings.

You may of course ignore this message altogether or - hopefully - tackle this momentous issue in the spirit of honest and earnest journalism. Should you opt NOT to respond to this mail, we (at Cluesforum.info) will interpret such a choice as an admission of guilt - and complicity in the 9/11 events.

Sincerely yours

Simon Shack

[fbenario]

You may of course ignore this message altogether or - hopefully - tackle this momentous issue in the spirit of honest and earnest journalism. Should you opt NOT to respond to this mail, we (at Cluesforum.info) will interpret such a choice as an admission of guilt - and complicity in the 9/11 events.

A beautifully constructed sentence, forcing them into a corner, leaving no way out. Excellent, and very well-done!

[Maat]

Re email to ABC Australia:

You may of course ignore this message altogether or - hopefully - tackle this momentous issue in the spirit of honest and earnest journalism [ ]. Should you opt NOT to respond to this mail, we (at Cluesforum.info) will interpret such a choice as an admission of guilt - and complicity in the 9/11 events.

Nice one, Simon! As a natural-born Aussie I'm very familiar, and always been disgusted, with Another Bullshit Clone (ABC au), mimicking BBC. The buggers will undoubtedly ignore you (they can't 'afford' not to, really) but at least you let 'em know we can tell a real photograph from cheesy digital paintings that "win" Pulitzers!

Americans may be interested to know that Aussie ABC, aka "Aunty", the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, is still government owned (i.e. “editorially independent” in name only — like the US ABC is “publicly” owned in name only ). Although known to embarrass the Aus government now and then (whenever it suits a contrived/collusive agenda), "Aunty's" primary function is blatantly described as a mass indoctrination tool in their own words.

From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 [pdf file] — here's their "Charter" / raison d’être:

[Section 5] Part II,
6 Charter of the Corporation

(1) The functions of the Corporation are:

(a) to provide within Australia innovative and comprehensive
broadcasting services of a high standard as part of the
Australian broadcasting system consisting of national,
commercial and community sectors and, without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, to provide:

(i) broadcasting programs that contribute to a sense of
national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect
the cultural diversity of, the Australian community; and

(ii) broadcasting programs of an educational nature;…

[Extremophile]

Simon,

I've tested to see if I could recreate the Pulitzer and ABC images in Google Earth with a WTC model.
First of all; you assumed it is the same Brooklyn bridge pillar in both images, but they are most likely not.

The two spots which came closest to match the images:



The "Pulitzer viewpoint":



"Pulitzer viewpoint" cutout, resized and sharpened (as if a zoomlens was used):



The "ABC Australia viewpoint":



"ABC viewpoint" cutout, resized and slightly sharpened:



Take into account that all the building models vary in accuracy, so it's not said that these viewpoints are precise, but they are I think in the proximity.
It also doesn't mean these pictures are legitimate of course. For instance the impossibility of two separate people taking a photo at exactly (1/10th of a second or less?) the same time of an unexpected event is still valid I think.

Edit: @Simon: you're welcome

[simonshack]

Thanks, Extremophile

I have amended and simplified my comparison of the PULITZER and the ABC images (see above). You made a good point - and you are right about the fact that the two images are meant to depict the two different Brooklyn pillars, a bit like this:



I still have my doubts about this issue though, as one would expect the two pillars perspectives (as seen in the two Pulitzer/ABC images) to be dissimilar in those two artful images, which they hardly are. However, I do agree it is a 'disposable' debate - and one that may lead to unnecessary controversy - so thanks for pointing this out.

[Equinox]

Sept. 2011 - Post exclusive: Previously unseen video of plane hitting South Tower of World Trade Center.


Source of vid --- http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/natio ... 29188.html


Last night stumbled across this video of yet another same position…

Overnight youtube user 9/11 allcaustic with virtually all of the 9/11 footage on the account oddly enough has made its 9/11 account private….
But yours truly has ripped a copy minutes before it was gone… I just uploaded it then

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


3 shots now… WTF!! Headache? Confused yet???

1-
2-
3-

Does this put any “ perp”spective on the matter? Simon… anyone??

[simonshack]

*
Hilarious... And remember, Equinox...

This infamous video (which I call the ALQAEDA clip) - seemingly shot under the BROOKLYN BRIDGE - is yet another variant of the same template. We now have an entire family of "Brooklyn bridge shots".


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wf3EVo3t-x0

NOTE: The above, sharp/crisp NEW version of the ALQAEDA shot (thus named because it was, reportedly, "found by the FBI on an AlQaeda website"...) was uploaded in June 2011 on the YT channel of "WTC911demolition". It has also been 'inexplicably' cropped, so that we now only see five seconds of the "Flight175" approach, instead of the original seven:




And, as we compare the ALQAEDA version with the ABC AUSTRALIA version, we get...




I also wonder now...what about this shot? Was that 'right turn' signpost standing somewhere in the East River?



And once again: if you know where I can buy a lens which such an extraordinary depth-of field (capable of focusing both distant and nearby objects with this wonderful sharpness) - please let me know. I'll buy one tomorrow!

[NormalBates]

I found another problem with the Naudet video I haven't seen posted before.

The smaller buildings in the foreground are in the shade.

http://www.spingola.com/JULES%20NAUDET% ... simp_8.jpg

Here they are in the sun, especially the building on the left.

http://www.spingola.com/JULES%20NAUDET% ... simp10.jpg


You can see it changing in the vid at around 00:35.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U6KBtzoxp8

[NormalBates]

Code: Select all

http://www.911myths.com/html/there_was_no_plane.html

/thread

And what does this have to do with simulated footage of New york on 911?

If you want to debunk something, debunk the fact that the footage of 911 is clearly faked.

The fact that Ernie Stull is changing his original testimony certainly does not disprove any no plane theory, whatsoever.

[Equinox]

Code: Select all

http://www.911myths.com/html/there_was_no_plane.html

/thread

UA 93 is done and dusted dude .
"FLIGHT 93": http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1345
Black Boxes... http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2363040
Vertical stabilizer... http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2363042
Engine... http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 0#p2362901
Plane speed..1- http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2367249
2- http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 5#p2367250

no more stories... anymore... no more fairy tales...

[Equinox]

The NBC Ball shot is most laughable video when compared to a scaled Boeing 767-200.

[Equinox]

*
Hilarious... And remember, Equinox...

This infamous video (which I call the ALQAEDA clip) - seemingly shot under the BROOKLYN BRIDGE - is yet another variant of the same template. We now have an entire family of "Brooklyn bridge shots".

Yes mate and out of the whole "Brooklyn family" gallery The FBI and the ABC shot look like direct cousins.

I found the full length Brooklyn bridge one if anyone is interested.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffaA7p72_80

[Equinox]

I found this site. Rehash no plane fakery. I,m sure the smart guys here have seen all these. BUT!
It is another point of view...
http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/
Truthseeker....

So as far as I can see here is the method-- http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/ggua175/simulation

In order to analyse the airframes and flight paths of the respective UA175 aircraft images I have utilised Microsoft's 'Flight Simulator 2004 - A Century of Flight' with the 'New York Objects' scenery kit that can be downloaded from http://www.surclaro.com.

The 'New York Objects' scenery kit rebuilds the former World Trade Centre complex and together with the Project Opensky (POSKY) 767-200 aircraft model the simulated environment is complete.

http://www.surclaro.com/fsdownload-detail-9749.html

For the purpose of this article we will consider the Boeing 767-200 in accordance with the 'official' version of events. I have superimposed the POSKY 767-200 on top of a photograph of a real Boeing 767-200 to show the reader how accurate the model is:

I see no reason to doubt this research. I have been reading through it the past week,
And somewhat researched the methods myself…. And as far as I can see there is no reason not to use some of the photos n quotes on here. Actually the method is quite a good way and I might try with the 9/11 plane photos like this.


As I don't have the software yet...Here is my rough first attempt just of I used the wingspan/trade centre width for my ratio. I would rate it pretty accurate.