Your link's broken, but it makes a fascinating pattern in any event.

Your link is screwed up and there are plenty of harmful script going on there.

the LINK isn't screwed up, you just have to use Internet Explorer to view it.

The CGI thing is ridiculous. I suggest that people who honestly feel this, to take a film course and learn about perspective and do some actual filming.

To date I haven't seen anything to support such claims.

[edit on 3-5-2007 by talisman]

I've a TON of experience in photography and videography and there are aspects of what you are claiming that might not hold entirely true. Now, I'm working so I don't have an endless amount of time to explain everything (I'll try to later) but there is a thing called line-of-sight. You cannot simply assume that the trees and the WTC buildings would NOT frame the same due to camera movement - it is dependent upon the distance from the camera to the WTC and the distance of the camera to the trees. If the distance from the trees to the building were significantly closer than say the camera to the trees, they could track and frame exactly the same through the use of telephoto lenses. Telephoto lenses create a frame of reference anomoly because of the focal length of the lense and distorts the depth of field a great deal. A good example (Although hokey) would be the end of the movie E.T. where the bicycle flies in front of the moon. The moon is absolutely HUGE in relationship to the bicycle - a perfect telephoto anomoly.

To achieve such an effect we understand that the moon's size remains relatively constant due to it's incredible distance from the Earth. To film ET on the bike would have made the moon look like a basketball relative to the bike, however, by filming the bike and rider from an incredible distance and using telephoto we achieve the effect - huge moon and larger bike. The same could be said from these shots. The trees were further from the camera than the WTC, which is why they are huge relative to the buildings. A simple panning of the camera would have held the trees in position relative to the buildings and parallax wouldn't be achieved. Had the camera moved several hundred yards AND the trees remain in position, I would agree.

Also, regarding the fireballs - from different angles (Which is what we have) it is impossible to measure the geometry of the fireballs as it is too amorphous, rapidly changing and obscurred by smoke and such.

To set the record straight - I firmly believe that 9/11 was an insider set-up but I don't think that these video comparisons do anything to support that claim. I know I haven't explained this well enough and will attempt to later, but I'm not seeing anything CGI based in these videos. It is easily explained by understanding focal lengths.

Sorry I haven't been around. You need to right click the link and Save-as. I didn't notice that it did that once Opened in a new window I do apologize. I'm not making any claims I just wanted to see what everyone thought of. I didnt make this video just saw it