It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Filmer of accused fake WTC crash video won't disclose shot locaton

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   


Alright, now if this guy's response to simple questions about a video he allegedly took of one of the most tragic events ever is not suspicious, then I don't know what is. I never really took this TV fakery stuff seriously, however after watching September Clues and now one of the alleged amateurs who allegedly took footage of the second World Trade Center crash won't ever confirm where he supposedly took his video, it's hard to NOT to accept TV fakery as a legitimate area of 911 research. His lawyer advises him not to say anything about his video? You think this phone call came from a Hollywood movie script, not real life.

Then if you look at all the oddities about the video itself (the plane melting into the building, the trees being way too short compared to real amateur video taken from the ground, his voice being at different times in the different versions, etc.), his suspicious refusal to talk about it fits perfectly with the claim that at least this video is fake.


[edit]

Apparently it has since been discovered that officials said that this video was taken from the ground:


Footage taken at ground level near the Castle Clinton National Monument. Footage taken south and east of the towers.






[edit on 20-8-2007 by PandorasBox]




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   
That video does bring up a lot of interesting points.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by PandorasBox
Then if you look at all the oddities about the video itself (the plane melting into the building, the trees being way too short compared to real amateur video taken from the ground, his voice being at different times in the different versions, etc.), his suspicious refusal to talk about it fits perfectly with the claim that at least this video is fake.


It says that the 'pod' issue is proof it is fake. How can that be if the pod is not visible earlier in the video? It can't possibly be proof that the 'pod' is a load of rubbish can it?

Also, in regard to it being taken from a boat, why does the video that apparently disprove this only show it from two places, the shore and a boat which is clearly around the middle of the river, as opposed to anywhere in between. Even though if it were closer, it could probably be in the right place.

You can also see that the foreground building in the original video is from a different angle to where the newer film shows if you look closely enough.

Suspicious that he doesn't say where it was taken, perhaps. But how do we know that even was the actual person who took it? Apparently we don't believe the government and what they say, but people in the truth movement must be faultless people who never lie? Yeah right.

And the plane just melts into the building? Considering that there will likely be digital compression, only a small bit where the aircraft cuts in, that being in shadow and probably not fully focused yet, no it has to be the plane melting into the building.


And tell me, why did the government who are capable of pulling all this off, so incapable of making a film of the plane hitting the tower and getting the buildings right?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   
So, because this guy filmed one of the towers being hit, he has no right to privacy anymore? I feel sorry for him as he probably has to put up with 100's of calls from wackjobs like that every week. He doesn't "owe" anyone anything, stop bothering him.

If you guys belive that these videos are cgi, please explain which specific programs were used, and how you come to that conclusion. If we do it so easily in the UFO forum, it should pose no problem for you guys in the 9/11 forum.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Yeah you are right, 911 was a day like another, those nutcase asking a very simple question are making his life impossible. How hard it must be to answer the question. What can he say? I was in mid air?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
It doesn't matter what day it happened on, you are impeading his RIGHT to privacy and he owes you nothing.It's that simple.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
It doesn't matter what day it happened on, you are impeading his RIGHT to privacy and he owes you nothing.It's that simple.


As much as I respect a persons right to privacy, I don't think it is wrong for people to question the content of this video, or its maker.

The fact is that the day he filmed this and it came into the public domain he lost his right to simply ignore peoples questions about it. Whether he likes it or not he was witness to one of the most shocking events in the modern history of the Western world. I don't think he has the right to just not talk, this is bigger than any one man. Be it legally or illegally, people will try and gain answers to the inconsistencies; and his silence will further fuel the conspiracy debates.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Interesting video.

I found it odd though that the maker discounted shots simply because the trees were the wrong shape and size... after all, he did shoot the video in april of 2007, while the original shot was in 2001. trees do grow, after all...

edit; the shot around 5:41 is the one i`m thinking of. Those are young trees, by the look of it. 6 years of growth would give them that kind of height.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by vox2442]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Depending on just what rights he signed away to CNN at the time, he could very simply be honoring his side of the deal.

As for "his lawyer" telling him not to say anything, it sounds bad, but again, depending on exactly what rights he signed away, that could be a very legitimate comment from his lawyer.

Whilst the trees are used as a reason why the video couldn't be shot from that location - we're taking an event that occurred 6 years ago. Those trees could easily have grown in that period to block the then clear view.

As for the "pod" - that is simply video compression artifacts making you see things that aren't there. The video is in no way clear.

I think people are reading way too much into this one.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Let me reiterate that government officials said that Mr. Hezarkhani allegedly took this footage from the ground:

img263.imageshack.us...

[edit: removed link]

Apparently this fact wasn't discovered until after Killtown/Pumpitout.com made their video.



 

ADMIN: EDIT
* Promoting other boards and "posting-by-proxy" for banned members is not allowed under the terms and conditions. Content remains, but link removed. Please be aware of this in the future. Thanks.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: Image Hotlinking – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 20/8/2007 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442edit; the shot around 5:41 is the one i`m thinking of. Those are young trees, by the look of it. 6 years of growth would give them that kind of height.

Those trees were apparently mature on 911. I can't remember off-hand where I saw them, but I saw pre-911 photos of battery park showing the trees being about the same height as seen in those real amateur shots taken earlier this year (2007) in the phone call video I posted.

Think about it logically... what would the odds be that the city of New York planted new trees at Battery Park a couple of years before 911?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I'm no lawyer but I think that Mr. Hezarkhani probably does have a reasonable expectaion of privacy in terms of what information he should be required to supply the public. Of course the Patriot Act has rolled back the expectations of the public as a whole in that respect. On the other hand the behavior of the Bush administration with regard to releasing the videos of the impact with the Pentagon, for example, seem to set a new standard for the witholding of information from the public.

There are two diverging trendlines here and the general public (who provide the soldiers and the taxes) occupy the ever growing information void between those two lines.

Many people believe that the Patriot Act was drafted and is administered by the very people it is designed to combat. It is as if a child molester were put in charge of the search for Elizabeth Smart for example. Given the context I certainly can understand why a young activist, who should probably be out chatting up the girls or rolling around on his skateboard, is instead attempting to get a small clue out of Mr. Hezarkhani.

The development to really be afraid of is when elements within the military and police forces finally get tired of the aroma at the barbeque of the US Constitution. As a Canadian, I sometime think that Americans don't quite grasp who the founders of their nation were and what giants they were.

[edit on 20-8-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by PandorasBox

Originally posted by vox2442edit; the shot around 5:41 is the one i`m thinking of. Those are young trees, by the look of it. 6 years of growth would give them that kind of height.

Those trees were apparently mature on 911. I can't remember off-hand where I saw them, but I saw pre-911 photos of battery park showing the trees being about the same height as seen in those real amateur shots taken earlier this year (2007) in the phone call video I posted.

Think about it logically... what would the odds be that the city of New York planted new trees at Battery Park a couple of years before 911?


Ok, maybe the coffee hasn`t kicked in yet, but thinking about it logically I can`t see any way of calculating the odds of tree planting in a public park over a given time period.

The trees in question are young (by this I mean that their trunk dia. is still apparently under two feet), and growing. In the first picture they are full - because it`s September. In the second (actually taken in March, my mistake) they are budding. You can even see the recent growth if you look closely for thin twigs.




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Hey thanks for posting that video! I can now clearly see the missile being fired! You can even see the plume left behind just like the plumes left behind after the 2 engines enter.

Good job!



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
well it seems to me it would be alot easier to actually fly a plane into the trade center rather then fake it and try and lie about something that big, which many people witnessed



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Rabid Cerebral
 



Well, doesn't it also seem easier to just say "Yeah, that was in Battery Park. Oh man, what a crazy day." or something like that, rather than explaining how his lawyer says he can't talk about it? I don't really believe a lot of that TV fakery stuff, but this is really fishy...



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   
honest question...How many eyewitnesses recalled seeing the planes hit the buildings before these images were circulated through the mass media? Does anyone know?



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   
I am SURE that it has been said somewhere in the replies to this thread, buuuutt has anyone considered that trees grow? When they show the comparison video, is it not SIX years later? A little sun and a little water and see what happens? Not sure but, trees grow right? Dont they? Who knows? I am going to keep a video diary of my apple tree. Hopefully it doesnt grow and ruin my view of the house behind mine.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:18 AM
link   
there isnt even any proof other then the video saying so that they were actually talking to the guy they said they were talking to, i mean that could of been anyone



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinner99
I am SURE that it has been said somewhere in the replies to this thread, buuuutt has anyone considered that trees grow? When they show the comparison video, is it not SIX years later? A little sun and a little water and see what happens? Not sure but, trees grow right? Dont they? Who knows? I am going to keep a video diary of my apple tree. Hopefully it doesnt grow and ruin my view of the house behind mine.

What if the trees were mature? How would you explain the tree height difference then?




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join