ABC Live 911 Coverage was Totally Fake (UPDATED) - "TV Fakery"

Now that would be one interesting camera indeed and the Verrazano-Narrows bridge about what 7-8 miles away? I would say that you could see the Brooklyn Bridge from the twin towers as you could have seen the towers from the Brooklyn Bridge as seen by this picture. But it is pretty hazy to see the double arch on the pylons...could be anything, but I really doubt the Verrazano would be visable from any angle that included the towers. Not sure if it would even be visible from on top the towers with a telescope.






[edit on 2-6-2007 by Ahabstar]

This is an occurance of parallax.

Parallax, or more accurately motion parallax (Greek: παραλλαγή (parallagé) = alteration) is the change of angular position of two stationary points relative to each other as seen by an observer, caused by the motion of an observer. Simply put, it is the apparent shift of an object against a background caused by a change in observer position.

external image

The helicopter is high enough so that the camera on it is able to view the bridge from that distance and the World Trade Center. There is a considerable distance from the World Trade Center and that bridge. When the helicopter moved to the left, the east, the World Trade Center moved to the right, and the bridge moved to the left.

I can definitly understand that logic your point out but I saved and inverted stills to show a great jump is made.

i135.photobucket.com...

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

This is ludicrous, if you look at the time on the lower right hand corner, there is 4 minutes between the jumps, of course the perspective is going to change in those 4 minutes with a copter flying around.

The reason why it is banned at those sites is anyone can see how laughable this is and serious investigators dont want to be associated with it.

This is edited to suit someones agenda. There is nothing at all to see.

Originally posted by Balboa
What's going on with the timestamp on the video? It jumps around at various points in the video. Isn't that evidence of something fishy?

Yeah, the person who made this video edited it to make it look like something was happening.

Originally posted by bsregistration

OK, here's smoking gun proof that the ABC live 9/11 coverage was totally fake.

Nico, is that you? Nico @ YouTube

Silly boy, these people here are intelligent, and hard to fool.

When you bring your fakery to this place, you risk embarrassment and shame.


Friends of ATS, all of these theories are contrivances of one Nico Haupt, the bane of New York 9/11 Truth. And clearly, someone living outside reality.

Flyer

Agreed, I noticed this as well and would like to see this titled a "HOAX" for that reason.

The perspective changed as the helicopter changed position and was closer, even the building in the right shows the perspective change. The missing four minutes would clearly show this to be a hoax.

This is very deceptive and manipulative.

It is perspective illusions.

For everyone who thinks this proves anything, just set up two objects one in front and one in back and move away from them and when you move toward them move to the left slightly....

Guess what happens? You got it. The object in back moves further from where it was in the original position.

Here is an example of why not to trust your eyes.

The two LINES ARE THE SAME SIZE even though they look different. Its called perspective.

www.coolopticalillusions.com...

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

img.photobucket.com...


The blue lines are the tops of the closest comparable structures in the images. The pink line is on the 78th floor observation floor of WTC1. Each side of WTC1 and WTC2 was 208 feet long.

The pink line on the image is 35 pixels long. Dividing 208 by 35 gives each pixel at the distance from the camera to the World Trade Center a length of 5.95 feet. I am only going to use apparent change in this analysis.

On the 9:14 image the apparent distance from the bridge to WTC 2 is 20 pixels, indicating an apparent distance of 119 feet. The left building pixel distance is 70, indicating an apparent distance of 416.5 feet.

I am tired. I did not do the other measurements.

Conclusion:

This is a hoax or an effort that needs more research.


[edit on 2-6-2007 by pyrolimeade]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

pyrolimeade

You can't say the distance of the bridge to WTC-2 is 119 ft, cause of the depth involved. It is much further back then that.

Also, if a straight line were to be drawn toward the camera from the bridge, anyone would quickly see what is happening, as the straight line would not be at all in line with the helicopter nor the camera. We can't do this of course due to it being a 2 dimensional image.

The camera in the last sequence is closer and in a different position causing the illusion.

Whomever did this film has tried to intentionally deceive people.

bsregistration


There is a major problem i have with everything you post. You use footage from places like youtube and googe video. This footage could have been tampered with so that people like you latch onto it. You are trusting videos from a site where anyone can upload it! I could go and edit something myself now so that it looks well, like it's been edited.

Few people on this site are idiots, most like decent evidence, and i'm afraid that some videos which we cannot verify as being original and unedited simply won't cut it.

I think this is another attempt by a bored teenager, rather lacking in intelligence to make the people on sites like this look like nutters.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984I think this is another attempt by a bored teenager, rather lacking in intelligence to make the people on sites like this look like nutters.

These videos are from Nico Haupt, a confirmed disinformation agent. (even the producers of Screw Loose Change feel Nico has been sent to make 9/11 Truth look even worse than it does now)

Thanks for the heads up. Someone (Nico) likes throwing the wrong pieces of a 2 million piece jig saw puzzle.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

All this no plane stuff gets people looking at ridiculous things. People are believing in things that can easily be explained with perspectives and angles. It is designed to make the regular movement look bad so that it will never gain any sort of credibility.

Here is yet another reason to not always trust your eyes when it comes to perspectives.

The Two Creatures are the Same Size!

www.coolopticalillusions.com...

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

then whys the one at the bottom running? no I get what everyone is say, and its like 4 minutes apart. anything from nico deserves no more attention from me!

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

The suggestion that I'm Nico Haupt is silly. YOU'RE NICO HAUPT!

The bridge can't be seen from that angle. It's fake video, plain and simple. Go find an aerial shot of the Verrazono Bridge and look how far it is from the city.

If you're so thick that you think everything you see on TV is real I cannot help you. If you don't believe me, check it out in Google Earth. Show how you can see the Verrazano Bridge from there. The video is fake.

Lol, so how far do you think the bridge travelled in 4 minutes time? A mile? 2 miles? 3 miles?

This ought to be great.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/6/2007 by Mirthful Me]

It's in any archive of ABC's live coverage you want to look at and it a similar special effect has been pointed out in the Naudet video 9/11.

You can claim tampering all you like, but that's what they aired on 9/11 and it's fake. If you have a "real" tape of ABC's live coverage that contradicts it go ahead and post it. You don't and you want. We both know that.

Do you believe in WMD in Iraq? Powell and Bush said they were there. Why is it OK to believe those were fake? Because the TV told you they were fake?

The bridge shot (showing the bridge in 2 different places where it doesn't belong) proves the ABC footage is fake. Go post some video of the Verrazano Bridge and you'll see. It doesn't belong there.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
bsregistration


There is a major problem i have with everything you post. You use footage from places like youtube and googe video. This footage could have been tampered with so that people like you latch onto it. You are trusting videos from a site where anyone can upload it! I could go and edit something myself now so that it looks well, like it's been edited.

Few people on this site are idiots, most like decent evidence, and i'm afraid that some videos which we cannot verify as being original and unedited simply won't cut it.

I think this is another attempt by a bored teenager, rather lacking in intelligence to make the people on sites like this look like nutters.

Originally posted by bsregistration
The bridge can't be seen from that angle.

I setup Flight Simulator 2004 to approximate the camera position of the footage. The bridge is indicated with an arrow.

While Microsoft Flight Sim might not the best judge, it does set up the shot nicely. Out of curiousity, which bridge is that to settle the dispute the Brooklyn or Varrazano-Narrows?

Bsregistration

You seem to have missed my point. I am saying the videos you are showing are fake, but not in the way you mean. I think they were faked to make it look like they were fake. I cannot find an official one at the moment, if someone can help there it would be nice.

As for WMD's, no i dn't believe what i hear on tv, i believe there wern't weapons because numerous official bodies other than our governments said there wern't. But lets not get into a seperate discussion on such things.

I don't believe in everything i see on tv, and i most certainly don't believe in everything i see online, unlike you it seems.

Show me a video from an official source, that being the news agencies website or somewhere else we can accept as being the unedited footage. If you can do that and the same errors are there, then i will take you very seriously.

Honestly give me an original source with these errors and i will apologise and then start seriously researching this.