reply to post by thesneakiod
Well it's not easy. To CG would have had to be very precise. I am talking exact camera angles and as I stated before motion mapping. If that video I
had posted earlier had any relevance there would have been people shooting in the exact locations on that day of that shoot as they were on 9/11. Then
of course they could have produced those shots using motion mapping, by in effect having a projectile like in the video I posted then ran in reverse
to animate a plane over the projectile. There would be similar shots of planes to get the correct angle or perhaps a 3D animation of the plane using
the motion mapping I just described.
Then if this theory was true, on 9/11 who ever coordinated everything would have sent camera men out to those specific locations. They would have had
monitors have been told to use onion skinning (transperancy) to match the angles of the original shots extactly by looking at their monitors.
The original keying of the planes of course would have been produced over the previous year. What they would do then is have a ready animated video of
the plane that is already keyed and has transperancy for video layer 2. Video layer 1 of course would be the real time shot that was matched to the
previous shots one year earlier.
Then they would use a live video mixer and actually do this in real time and have a precise moment worked out in which the broadcast video mixer would
actually cue up the planes and mix with the live event in real time, which would also explain any deliberate fade to blacks like the one seen in the
video. This would also explain why you can see the airplane enter the building at the same time but not see any damage to the building. So the plane
animation would have used a garbage matte. This is sort of similar to keying only it is done manually by adding points instead of keying, similar to
using the pen tool in photoshop, you can create maps. When the front end of the plane and even the wings enter the building there is no evidence of
any damage to the building until a split second after the plane has allegedly entered the building. Look frame by frame and you will notice that the
plane actually appears to be animated and seems to vanish into the building without damaging it at first.
Then there is an explosion. This could have easliy been controlled to appear as if a large object has hit the building. Though it is not easy to
predict what the actual physics of a controlled explosion might appear without doing it for real.
So unfortuanately IMO there are a couple ways this theory could be proved or debunked.
1. Analyze the video for any tampering, keying, manipulation etc.
2. Get one cameraman from that day or the possible shoot one year earlier to publicly state that they instructed to shoot this location on this
specific day etc.
3. If there were any live web cam video feeds of any of the shooting locations that day or on 9/11 that we would be able to review to verify what
techniques they were using, (ie: using a monitor) or at least verify that they were actually there.
4. Any inconsitancies with the live broadcast with actual footage that was taken that day, like clouds in the sky that appeared to be there but were
not etc. and a verifiable way of showing that what we saw on live footage was not actually what happened.