Were the pictures of 9/11 faked?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
While I was looking into different aspects of the 9/11 atack and I came across this page debunking some of the video from the attacks.



Unfortunately, the UA175 illusion (WTC2, morning of 9-11-1) was not 100% successful. It was, in summary, just a sad hack job:

The hi-tech trickery was exposed by a few amateur cameramen and photographers that caught the optical illusion either videographically or photographically and their evidence surfaced in the months that followed, but it never had widespread exposure and consequently escaped the eyes of the masses.

Someone in the loop blew the whistle by producing defective fakes that could easily be discerned from a ‘real’ fake and then mixed them in with the remaining media. Under close scrutiny these deliberate fakes can be exposed, but to the layman they would normally remain unseen.

The witness reports didn’t add up. Some said they saw something that resembled a passenger jet flying into WTC2 but couldn’t positively identify it as a Boeing 767-200 with a United Airlines livery. Others didn’t see or hear anything at all, they just saw the explosion ‘happen’ and thought it was a gas pipe exploding inside the tower. (Debris seen could well have been hand-planted in the vicinity of the Twin Towers. The FBI fib [no pun intended] of Atta’s pristine passport is an outright howler.)


www.gallerize.com...

Long, but very interesting read.

edited, spelling in title

[edit on 28-6-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Ahh the great joys of actual 3d work..

I will read this later but it does seem interesting from the breezethu i did look at it..

I wonder what HowardRoark will have to say about this one...



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   
I'd like to see how all pictures broadcast in real time by numerous national and international news agencies were all faked.

Sounds impossible to me.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
If the pictures were faked it is highly possbile that they were made before the day and then shown as "live" footage.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The smoking towers as well as the collapse would be the 'real' aspect.

The impact would be pre-generated, as he said.

Hmm, how many angles were available on that day? And the first plane hitting?

The holograhic aspect seems the most far fetched, but I already knew the Military was able to create sound in a localized area, aka In your head, to throw off a soldier (think they are being shot at from a different direction, etc.)

And I do agree that a physics based collision model of 9/11 should be re-enacted, computed, what ever.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I browsed through it, but honestly I doubt it. Something like that you can't just pretend happened. Hundreds of witnesses saw the planes collide with the towers, and the video of the first plane hitting you can tell people around saw a plane. I think the anomolies with the wings and whatnot are for the reason that the plane was actually not a standard 767.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I'd like to see how all pictures broadcast in real time by numerous national and international news agencies were all faked.

Sounds impossible to me.


i think it was pretty well explained by the VERY THOROUGH investigation. did you read the whole thing? it's pretty long. i skipped some bits, but i still read most of it and know that the wings don't just dissappear, buildings offer resistance, the sun casts light on stuff, photographs pick up detail, and wings can only deform in certain ways(ie. they cannot twist so that the rear of the wings rises up to cover the passenger windows, and the front twist down towards the fuselage), among other things.

i gotta say, those flight simulator mockups are incredible! the angles and positions are indistingiushable form the 'real' thing. this guy is has artistic/logical skills out the wahoo!


God

posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles

Hmm, how many angles were available on that day? And the first plane hitting?



thewebfairy.com...


I dunno guys.....this seems to be stretching it quite a bit. I didn't get a chance to read the whole link....

It would be pretty hard to pull off. Plus there are plenty of amature videos floating around.... I think...



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SydBarrett
If the pictures were faked it is highly possbile that they were made before the day and then shown as "live" footage.


This is the frustratingly insanity that really discredits the 9/11 truth movement. The 'oh! there was noone on board those planes!', 'no plane hit the pentagon!', etc stuff actually serves the powers that be. Its almost like this sort of strong tinfoil disinformation is done on purpose to discredit the REAL truths: the WTC 7 mystery, the uncomfortably close links between Washington-Pakistan and al Qaida, the NORAD standing down factor, PNAC's desire for a 9/11 type event, etc.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent

Originally posted by SydBarrett
If the pictures were faked it is highly possbile that they were made before the day and then shown as "live" footage.


This is the frustratingly insanity that really discredits the 9/11 truth movement. The 'oh! there was noone on board those planes!', 'no plane hit the pentagon!', etc stuff actually serves the powers that be. Its almost like this sort of strong tinfoil disinformation is done on purpose to discredit the REAL truths: the WTC 7 mystery, the uncomfortably close links between Washington-Pakistan and al Qaida, the NORAD standing down factor, PNAC's desire for a 9/11 type event, etc.


it's like trial by fire. i would have agreed it's a bad thing not too long ago. recently, i have come of the opinion that it's a GOOD thing, because ALL the arguments must be burned on the alter of truth.
this was a CrAZy event. the solution to the enigma is not going to be some hollywood ending. there will be criminals who get away with murder ALWAYS. however, to arrive at any kind of crisp definitions of what happened that fateful day, every lead must be followed, no matter how implausible. implausibility is strictly a function of the availability of data. it's going to be a CrAZytruth, and only the perpetrators will ever know the whole story.
oj and michael jackson told me.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Indeed, if there was a conspiracy, instead of looking to these far-fetched ones, the real conspiracy is to look for these few things:

1) Who stood the most to gain
2) Who had the connections
3) Where was the money

That is where your conspiracy will lie. In things like the ties between U.S.-Al Qaida, etc. etc. Things of that nature. Not of this.

-wD



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Why would you need fake pictures? Why not just use the real ones...you can't really think that two planes didn't hit the WTC, I saw it and so did just about everyone in a little place called NYC!!



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Something did hit the WTC there is no way anyone can say that didn't happen, but maybe it was not a real airplane. There has been speculation that it was some form of missle or bomb disguised as a plane and this site shows how the pictures are not of true planes but something else.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Well we know that two planes were really taken over...so why would someone need to fake using planes, when they really did have planes anyway...I just don't see the need to fake it. They had the planes!! People saw the planes hitting the WTC, so why use fake planes if the real planes would work better???



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by 8bitagent
This is the frustratingly insanity that really discredits the 9/11 truth movement. The 'oh! there was noone on board those planes!', 'no plane hit the pentagon!', etc stuff actually serves the powers that be.


You beat me to it, 8bit. It would be easier for whoever was responsible for this crime to do it with real planes than to make mock-up video and then try to disseminate it as live news and amateur video. Also, after the first hit, every personal video camera in line of sight of the towers was trained on them. And what would they do when real amateur videos came out showing huge explosions but no planes? Confiscate them, add a plane or two, and then re-release them??

Government sponsored terrorists - plausible.
Remotely controlled planes - plausible.
Holographic planes and super-missiles - deliberate disinformation and/or overactive-imagination-inspired hogwash

I even read one site which surmised that the towers themselves were holographic and the whole thing was done with CGI.

I personally believe the footage from the gas station across from the Pentagon was confiscated and not released because it showed that the plane that hit there was not a passenger aircraft.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
How much work has gone into that page ?
Anyway, there is an alternative 'wrong plane' page here.

The entry for N612UA on registry.faa.gov shows that id's status as Valid for a 767-222, but that may mean absolutely nothing at all, other than the id number is 'valid' ...
linky



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
How many eyewitnesses stood there and watched planes fly into the building? A hologram can't be projected into midair. It has to be projected onto something, and it would LOOK like a hologram. I saw another site that I can't find right now that took a picture of the damage to the first tower, took a picture of a 767, aligned it and put it in front of the whole, and got a perfect fit to the damage. There were too many LIVE witnesses that SAW the planes hit the towers.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
What an absolute pile of tosh that website is. What's worse is the fact that the author firmly believes that what he has written is correct. There are numerous holes in his film vs cgi comparisons that anyone should be able to spot.

1. His 3d model images do not take into account the blur created on film when you try to film something that is travelling at 500 mph.

2. His 3d models don't give the same perspective of the aircraft.... unless of course he knows exactly the cameras and lens size used to film the various clips and has replicated this, which he so obviously hasn't.

3. He's viewing probably 3rd/4th generation copies of videotape that has been compressed and compressed again, not anything that is high resolution.

4. There is no image distortion due to smog etc in his 3d.......Ah god, I could go on and on.

I'm tempted to send the guy an email to tell him how piss poor his site is.

I'm with you 8bit.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
how can u fake something like that, why would u fake something like that, and how could u pull that off in the first place? also what bout all of the first hand witnesses? unless someone can completly answer these questions i have then im forced not to believe, but i wanna believe, but i dont know how i can w/o these questions answered. thanx for ur time!!



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
motion blur should affect both side of the plane equally. wings and tailfins winking in and out of existance is not motion blur. at least i've never seen motion blur affect only particular parts of a moving object.

i really don't think the lense curvature of the original camera would make THAT much difference, because the image of the plane is fairly centered, and distant. unless it was a fisheye lens or something, the distortions would be minimal. certainly negligible.

assuming it's a typical video camera, the lens would have been designed to capture anything you point it at with a fair degree of accuracy. we are very sensitive to visual distortions, and wouldn't buy video cameras that make everything look like it's from a fun house of mirrors. the distortion of the original could actually be determined by comparing changes in the planes image frame by frame.

much easier to just say loudly, "THAT'S WRONG. HE'S STUPID".

i'd LOVE to see someone here do something anywhere NEAR as thourough.

like, prove the veracity of your, 'it might be a funky lens' 'debunking' excuse, by doing frame by frame geometrical analysis.
or show me pictures of other planes in motion where only ONE wing is not just blurred, but completely missing, while the other wings are fairly clear.

the how you could fake something like that is two projectors(on other nearby aircraft) locked onto a homing device which is on the missile(missile in the generic sense, not 'rocket', although, as we know, there may have been a stinger or something, too). presumably the holographic screen apparatus would be part of the construction of the attack plane/missile.

did you know holographic televisions are not too far off in the future. holograms are not nutty sci-fi. they've been around for years, if not decades. the military's secret high tech is always like ten or twenty years ahead of everyone else. like radar invisibility or GPS. in twenty years we might be able to smash holographic cars into our neighbor's house for laughs.



new topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join