Some are still trying to push fake planes due to POOR understanding & observational skills.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Building "R" is not the building that is circled in the pic that I reposted.......

So then that pic must be wrong. It was clear that something didn't add up.

You ask me which one of those buildings in your pics appears taller but it doesn't show the top of building "F" in your 2nd pic, and it doesn't show the top of building "R" in your first pic, although I would say that building "R" appears to be taller, but not much.

But if you look at the reposted pic then what should be building "R" does not appear to be taller there either.

I can't use Google Earth right now, but since you already identified the buildings on it, maybe you can tell me what they are called and/or you can google and find out their heights. Get the distances between them and the Twin Towers too while you are at it.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Still avoiding the YES or NO

You question was a fallacy so it couldn't be answered with yes or no. You don't need a high speed camera to show REAL detail, just MORE detail(of an action taking place, not resolution wise)

If you film a hummingbird with a normal camera you can't really see the exact movement of its wings, but you sure can see that its wings are moving and changing position. If you want to see the movement in detail you can use a high speed camera to show all individual positions of its wings, but you really don't need a high speed camera to show that its wings have moved in between normal speed frames.

And the plane was obviously not moving at a speed that would make it appear to be a smudge on this normal speed camera.

originally posted by: TheFridaySpecial
a reply to: wmd_2008

Building "R" is not the building that is circled in the pic that I reposted.......

So then that pic must be wrong. It was clear that something didn't add up.

You ask me which one of those buildings in your pics appears taller but it doesn't show the top of building "F" in your 2nd pic, and it doesn't show the top of building "R" in your first pic, although I would say that building "R" appears to be taller, but not much.

But if you look at the reposted pic then what should be building "R" does not appear to be taller there either.

I can't use Google Earth right now, but since you already identified the buildings on it, maybe you can tell me what they are called and/or you can google and find out their heights. Get the distances between them and the Twin Towers too while you are at it.

Really not the same buildings the Rear building wasn't much higher TAKE A GOOD LOOK.




Notice the ARCH at the top of the building marked F on my first 2 images also compare the small structure on the building marked R on my images.

Now look at the buildings in the video still NOW that is settled back to high speed impacts the plane impact speed was 500 mph so what would YOU expect to see in 25-30 fps video with a 1/50=1/60 of a second shutter speed

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I've actually read quite a bit of the "debunking" info on this and have yet to see an air tight argument.

Most of the things I've come across are either written in a mocking tone or they just verbally attack Judy Wood who has never even made a hologram claim. I haven't come across the address of the building though. If you can find it please share.

21 West St, New York, NY 10006, USA

Here it is on google maps...of course the tower is gone now, but you can see the footprints:

Link

Another view:
Link

Here is a Slate article on this hoax: Link

goog leearth

I find this view hard to reconcile with the 911 video and the viewing angle in it, showing the top of building "R" aswell as the Twin Towers.

According to NIST the Hezarkhani footage was shot from ground level, near Castle Clinton National Monument.

image.shutterstock.com...

Here's a view from that location that seems really close to the angle in the video, only in reality you don't see building "R" appearing in the shot above the other building. I don't think you would get the Twin Towers in the shot from there either.

Let's find out.

a reply to: TheFridaySpecial


Does this help



or how about this

a reply to: wmd_2008

So do you agree that the pic I reposted is wrong in several ways?

a reply to: wmd_2008

Does this help

Yep, it shows the Herzarkhani footage is fake. Thank you.

or how about this

Yes, this one proves the Hezarkhani footage to be a fake too. This is great! Keep em coming!

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: TheFridaySpecial


Does this help

or how about this

Yes, so for comparison,




Do we see how it is impossible for the wing to be behind the building while the plane appears to be lower than the Twin Towers in the frame?

100% proof of fake here.

Thanks WMD_2008, couldn't have done it without you!

a reply to: TheFridaySpecial

NO it shows YET again YOU can't get your head round perspective and field of view the second image was one taken near but not in the exact area but shows your assumptions to be full of BS.

You couldn't even identify the buildings in the first place

a reply to: wmd_2008

You can't recreate the shot because it is fake and impossible regardless of perspective and lenses, there simply is no line of sight that makes this shot possible.

originally posted by: TheFridaySpecial
a reply to: wmd_2008

You can't recreate the shot because it is fake and impossible regardless of perspective and lenses, there simply is no line of sight that makes this shot possible.

I was in New York a few months ago if I go back which I plan to, I will see what I can shoot from that area.

You would say black is white just for the sake of it the images show your assumptions are wrong like I say YOU couldn't even work out what the buildings were in the first place

a reply to: wmd_2008

You don't have to do anything, you already posted all the proof that is needed to show that the Hezarkhani footage is a complete composite fake.

Again, thanks for your help.

Good luck recreating that shot. Can you explain what you think you need to do to make that impossible shot happen?

Get an ACME telelens? Like the one Hezarkhani had on his videocam?

a reply to: wmd_2008

You don't have to go back to New York, you can simply draw it out like I already told you. Take the heights of the buildings and the distance to the Twin Tower and make a drawing at the proper scale. Draw a line across the tops to try to recreate the line of sight and fail miserably.

a reply to: JustAnObservation

With all due respect to your father and his friend, the trouble with a report saying they heard the airplane approaching is that, at least according to parts of the official story, in its final 20 seconds or so, AA77 was going so fast that it was fairly close to the speed of sound, so it was rather ahead of its sound signature.

Assuming that your father was telling the truth as best he knows it, what noise he heard and what debris he saw might very well have been from something much smaller, like maybe what small plane was shown in the several frames of the notorious "parking lot camera".

But the debris shown in several official pictures for public consumption was not consistent with a 757. Not sure how experienced your father was in knowing the difference between debris from a 757 and debris from some smaller drone aircraft.

originally posted by: Salander

With all due respect to your father and his friend, the trouble with a report saying they heard the airplane approaching is that, at least according to parts of the official story, in its final 20 seconds or so, AA77 was going so fast that it was fairly close to the speed of sound, so it was rather ahead of its sound signature.

Excuse my nit-picking but the speed of sound at sea level is approx 335m/s (1100'/sec) and the planes were recorded at 220-250m/s which amounts to approx 2/3 of speed of sound so how could you deduce they were 'ahead of their sound signature'?

500mph = 223m/s
750mph = 335m/s

Conclusions based on bad data end up being useless conclusions but others will pick them up and build even worse ones.

ETA: The planes were much closer to mach1 for their operating altitude but mach1 actual velocity is inversely proportional to altitude. The planes were virtually at sea level.

a reply to: TheFridaySpecial

Any statement from you regarding images is not worth considering lets look at your record over a few posts. You could not identify the buildings you said I picked the wrong ones yet I was correct. You said the building at the rear was not much taller than the building in front of it YOU were wrong again. Now everyone can see a pattern with your posts you get fk all right keep up the good work.

a reply to: TheFridaySpecial

WTC site plan

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg

a reply to: TheFridaySpecial

I am really trying to get out of the conspiracy habit.......

Just cannot stand the hypocrisy.

If you would just apply the same scrutiny of "the official record" as to the con persons in the truth movement, you would save some face?

I would think you would look for the debunking arguments to anticipate skeptic's talking points? It would at leased make you more effective at debating?

A little digging on the internet, and you would have found:

Two cases of “truther” nonsense undone by photo/video tech expertise
skeptools.wordpress.com...

debunked-9-11-impact-footage-was-faked-shows-layering-error
www.metabunk.org...

a reply to: Pilgrum

Yes, we agree on those numbers you offer.

In real life and as applied to this situation, factors such as wind direction and speed, and being inside an enclosed building must be entered into the calculation.

Being inside a building, with a very fast moving modern airplane with fan engines approaching, the chances of actually hearing it are pretty slim. Considering there was no debris consistent with that airliner present, I think the man and his friend were in a poor position to judge what exactly they were hearing.