Debunk this! (Hoaxed WTC7 video)

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by 8ILlBILl8
It would be easy to debunk because we have seen all of the building 7 footage. So if any one can find the same video with out the blast then its a fake.
I cant ever recall seeing this angle before unless they reversed the image to make it appear that it viewed from a new angle.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)


Quite right. This appears to be entirely video manipulation and audio tracks. The guy who made it was really clever too, because he knew to add a delay in the explosions to account for the building being at a distance.

Here is a video that may contain the sample, at 4:19 :

www.youtube.com...



As someone who has done video editing in the past, the degradation of the OP's video is caused by the zooming. The camera zooming and moving is all digital and the image is flipped horizontally. I'm willing to bet that the audio and explosions are added in. It is automatically easily faked due to the quality being so low. It means you can be less precise, but still appear convincingly real.


Good man good man, awesome thanks. With no editing the original looks like a demolition. The top falling in and the windows braking.




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
One other thing to add about the video that is bugging me. I don't know if many of you have used digital cameras, but even today's digital cameras are hard-pressed to zoom that fast in reaction to a noise. Usually, that would be seen in more professional cameras with manual zooms that can be quickly moved to focus on the picture. If that were the case, the quality would be far higher than it is, and the video itself said it was a digital camera, meaning I am almost certain this video is fake.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


My wife has a Nikon 600 (or something like that), it was several hundred dollars as an anniversary present for her. It is digital, and she can zoom in milliseconds. The lenses are interchangeable depending on conditions, and it can be zoomed by rotating the lens by hand. She is very good with it, and it would be no problem to be in auto focus and also zoom in in a split second. She often catches our kids in mid-flight that way.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Varemia
 


My wife has a Nikon 600 (or something like that), it was several hundred dollars as an anniversary present for her. It is digital, and she can zoom in milliseconds. The lenses are interchangeable depending on conditions, and it can be zoomed by rotating the lens by hand. She is very good with it, and it would be no problem to be in auto focus and also zoom in in a split second. She often catches our kids in mid-flight that way.


Do you know if a similar camera was available in 2001? This is very important, as there have been advances in the last ten years.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 8ILlBILl8
 


My first thought was that it was flipped from this video:



But if you look at the pattern of blown windows it doesn't match, suggesting that this is indeed from the other side. It doesn't match any of the other videos I am aware of either.

However as far as I can tell it DOES appear to be flipped, because we have some inkling of what the other side looked like:


...and that damage isn't present in this video.

So...

Prizes to the first person to find which video this is flipped from.

ALTERNATIVELY: It could just be a genuine operator error, recording the things backwards or playing it back flipped, in which case we are seeing it from a new angle not seen before.




Do you know if a similar camera was available in 2001? This is very important, as there have been advances in the last ten years.


Maybe it would be a problem for digital zoom, but if you are talking about optical zooming the technology dates from the stone age. I seem to recall digital camera's with optical zoom were widely available even then.

I don't see why it should be digital zoom though, it appears to simply be out of focus for a moment.

________________________________________________________________________________________

My conclusion is still that if this is an out and out fake, it is a pretty good one. Apart from the inverted image there is nothing obviously wrong with it.

edit on 14-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 


I don't know, about 2001, but I bought hers in 2007, and it wasn't the latest and greatest on the market, so I think it is highly possible that something similar was available in 2001, probably would have been more expensive though.

ETA: Yes, hers is optical zoom, you actually have to turn the outer lens casing. The camera will digitally focus as you zoom (I think).
edit on 14-9-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


That does seem to be a probable explanation. Still, the video shows many signs of being manipulated, and if you flip it back to the correct orientation (the other side of the tower being far too covered in smoke to be it), then you see that it is as close to exactly the same angle as the CBS footage as one can get. The difference is that it has been zoomed on the computer (and I know how to do this. I could replicate the zooming and camera movements if I wanted to).
edit on 14-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I suspect this is a [HOAX!]. It looks like someone has mirrored, cropped, added some shake and flashes to the video Shadow Herder posted on page 1. Besides that the video has all the telltale signs of being fake - very short (actual footage is 13 sec), very low image quality, dubious camerawork etc.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
The video in the OP is probably real, and if it is, it proves rather conclusively that it wasn't controlled demolition that brought it down. I'm an architect and have some familiarity with controlled demolition, it requires literally miles of wiring from each explosive to a central control computer. Each explosive is wired individually to avoid potential faults. The explosives are set to detonate in stages in a very controlled manner with the center columns being destroyed first followed a split second later by the middle columns and then the outer columns (the number of stages depends on the size of the building footprint). This creates a condition where the building collapses inward rather to one side or another. Obviously that is not what we're seeing in the OP, what we see there are completely random flashes of light all over the building, most definitely not controlled demolition. Also most people are not aware that all glass is removed from a building that is being demolished. There's a very good reason for this, the charges would blow the windows out causing glass to rain down for hundreds of yard in every direction. Clearly we do not see this happening in the OP video, it appears a window breaks here and there but we certainly do not see entire floors of windows blowing outwards like they would if a fully-glassed building was brought down with demo charges. Looking at the video in the OP it appears to be a rather random collapse, more than likely due to internal fires as has been reported. I know the twin towers did not have sprinkler systems, I'm not sure about WTC7 but if it didn't either, then a raging fire in the lower levels would eventually burn through the fireproofing and the steel would deform and eventually fail. This can take a few hours, but once the lower levels start failing then the whole thing just collapses on itself.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 


They had sprinklers, they were just supposedly not working due to the impact. WTC did not have an impact, and it certainly had sprinklers, and they were supposedly working.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Here I flipped the new video horizontally and stabilized it so now it looks like the same footage we have seen before.


the other side of the WTC 7 building looks like this and this is what the video should of shown. So I call faked.


Still looking at the old footage of World trade center 7 collapse it is almost without a doubt a controlled demolition.

I can see this video being made by official story pushers to discredit 911 truth seekers again. Lots of smearing going around towards groups or people determined to solve the 911 mystery.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by cripmeister
 


The dubious camera work is one of the better elements of this.

Someone would have had to have added that for authenticity if the CBS footage was the source, that would presumably have taken not inconsiderable effort.

My biggest problem with the CBS comparison is that if you look at that footage, to the left side, there is a line of broken windows that forms in the shape of an inverted T, whereas in THIS footage there is an additional horizontal below that doesn't seem clearly visible, or visible at all, on the CBS video.

Compare 0:16 here to 7:32 in CBS footage.

It also appears that the sequence is different. The blown out windows are already formed (right side) when the penthouse goes, while in the CBS there are still windows going (left side).

I don't know how one could add such a feature though, or why, not being a digital manipulation expert myself.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:48 PM
link   
It is a reversed CGI video.

You have to carefully look at the windows and where they are placed in both videos, in both videos, there are normal windows to your left (original video) then there are what appear to be 5 hazed over or covered over windows (original video), then on the fake, they are in the exact same position. Unless the building was an exact perfect symmetrical twin of itself on both sides (meaning the wtc7 building is a perfectly engineered aesthetic mirror of itself on all 4 sides) (which isnt as common as you think, many buildings have differences on both sides.) then that proves that the OP video is a fake because I did notice a difference. Next we have to look at the smoke coming out from the building, blowing in the exact same direction in both videos. Then there is the electrical room on the top of the roof which collapses in the exact same way in both videos, showing us an exact reversed blueprint between the original video and this faked video.

There is also one other way to tell for sure if both sides of the building were matching blueprints of one another, but I cannot find decent pictures of different angles online of the two sides before 9/11. If we could it would hold some solid evidence that quite possibly this could be a real video or a fake video.

WAIT!!! I have found something credible to support my theory of this hoax?




The building was not an identical symmetrical twin of itself. The two photos prove this beyond any shadow of a doubt. I know everyone will agree on that point alone after examining the pictures.

Notice under the heading of the first picture " Minor damage to parapet wall", there is a part of the building that comes out in a small "upside down L" shape on both sides of that section of the building, well you do not see this "upside down L" shape on the other side of the building because it was not constructed on both sides of WTC 7. One side of the building (the side we see in both videos) was a straight level construction. The other side, the one that we do not see in any videos had two protruding shapes on the end of the left and right sides of the building. Proving the video a Hoax!!!

Thank you, thank you very much! *waves hands in the air*



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 




Here, I flipped the video horizontally.


Thanks, now it is easier to compare directly.

The angle seems roughly the same (which makes sense even if it a different video) and the audio is obviously different. The CBS footage is zoomed out enough to contain all the bits so it is very much conceivable that it an elaborate hoax.

But why change the window breakage pattern? It doesn't look obviously faked to me and it is very different.

Gotta hand it to whoever faked this, if it is faked (which it appears most likely to be), it is a very comprehensive effort.



Thank you, thank you very much! *waves hands in the air*


Haha, well done and nice pics. But I fear you will find that the flipped image was one of the first suspicions.

I don't think that the flipping necessarily rules out the video as real, but it certainly doesn't strengthen its case.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Darkwing01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


It is a fake, see my above for 100% debunking material. The only Material that proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt that its a hoax.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I did some video magic and put the CBS version next to the flipped version (thanks, couldn't find the flip-video function for some reason).

Not only does it appear to be at a lower angle, the timing of the puffs and the collapse are entirely different. The OP's video progresses way faster than the other video.

www.youtube.com...



Edit: Whoever put this together cut out time from the right-hand side of the building when the picture zoomed in really close to the "explosions." You'll see that the line across the top of the building disappears instantly after it zooms in, and in every other video, the rest of the roof stuff doesn't fall in until the collapse, which also happens almost immediately in the OP's video. This is 100% fake.
edit on 14-9-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


It has nothing to do with it being flipped or not. But it was. We know this because of the material I just posted. If it were the other side of the building we would see the protruding elongated ends of the building to which we do not, also the window patterns match perfectly on both videos, when in real life the window patterns on both sides of WTC7 were not matching at all as it was planned to look different, with more offices, longer structure, more building, hence more windows and a different window pattern.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by misfitofscience
 





It is a fake, see my above for 100% debunking material. The only Material that proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt that its a hoax.


The only thing it proves 100% is that the image is inverted. Inverting an image like that is an extremely simple process and can even be done without any digital help (i.e. optically).

For me the mere fact of a flipped image means little or nothing, but it does speak against the authenticity.

It is pseudo-skeptical to simply look at the first apparent flaw and not take a skeptical stance towards your noticing of the flaw. The fact that the flip was strongly suggested in the O.P. and proved several posts before yours DOES indicate a lack of sufficient skepticism of your own ideas on your part.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkwing01
 


See my post where I put them side by side and show that the timing in the fake video has been extremely altered. All the shaking and zooming is just a magician's trick to distract you from the video-editing.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Varemia
 




See my post where I put them side by side and show that the timing in the fake video has been extremely altered. All the shaking and zooming is just a magician's trick to distract you from the video-editing.


Yeah, I mentioned that earlier too, thanks for making it explicit like that.

It almost certainly is a faked, the only other possibility is that the CBS footage is faked. We know that THAT footage was cut in a suspicious way, at least the audio portion. Frankly the clear CBS video would seem to me to be easier to manipulate in a convincing way (adding broken windows etc.)

I for one am certainly open to the possibility that the CBS video is the manipulated one, but I wouldn't say it is PROVEN. Certainly not by this footage.

Suggested maybe.





top topics
 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join