9/11 Solved!

reply to post by Vitruvian


Great find, the jumper is missing in two frames and appears again in later frames.

If this is not proof of video tampering I don't know what is.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

Hi Vitruvian, I am trying to use paint.net to make a screenshot from a yt vid. It works but ATS won't let me upload the pic due to a file size error. Do you know how to solve this?
I tried to resize the pic but it doesn't matter.

Paint.net is different than MS Paint ?? Paint.net might be the problem - incompatable software?

If so try doing your "PrintScreen" using Microsoft Paint - it comes with the software........save as a jpg from there to dsktp......You might have to convert it to a JPG after saving it from Paint. For that I open in Irfanview (or any other viewer) and save from there as a JPG. (see below)

I never got the message "due to a file size error." ..........But I usually Save all images to the desktop either from Microsoft Paint or from Photoshop Elements as a .JPG - Even though the size looks right in Photoshop its always too big for ATS up-loading - so I right click the image (from dsktp) and open it in Microsoft Picture Manager and re-size it - then do the usual up-loading from ATS up-loads - click on the uploaded image - and copy the URL into my posting window.

reply to post by Vitruvian


I got it now, I tied to resize it before, keeping the same aspect ratio, but that doesn't work, so I resized it with a changed aspect ratio and that works. Too bad really, because I would like it to keep the original ratio.

Here's a still from some 911 footage.



Here is a GE view from the same approx. spot.



And another one,



Where is building B in the 911 footage? It should be visible. Point A in the first pic, is definately point A in the two other pics. If someone doubts that, I can prove it with further pics if I need to.

So was this campus tower built on the complex after 2001? I don't think so, I can't find any reports on it anyways.

PS, thanks for your help.

edit; Building B is actually part of the Caring Community Independance Plaza, I found a review of the appartments and the building is 40 years old, according to that,

hese 3 buildings are listed as luxury apartments. They are not. There are a few levels of renovated apartments ranging from recently renovated to renovated within the past 5 years but they are still in old buildings with old pipes and surrounded by old apartments that haven't been renovated or looked after properly for 40 years. Read more: www.apartmentratings.com...

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

Great find, the jumper is missing in two frames and appears again in later frames.
If this is not proof of video tampering I don't know what is.

Ohhhhyea.........I thought it a significant find - were it not for esteay812 asking that question I might never have seen it - I just now noticed it when I was answering the post by esteay812
I see many anomalies in that video........at the very beginning the 'jumper' makes a big shift from right left by abt. 15 feet. There is another big shift towards the end right before the shadow seperation and many frames seem altered and quite inconsistent. We can see that more clearly as we examine the stills..........its a FAKE and the entire video from it came is also a pastiche - a composite fraud.

I am making a new GIF now for esteay812 to view again.......but GIF SOUP is very slow today........

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
[Here's a still from some 911 footage.

Here is a GE view from the same approx. spot.


Where is building B in the 911 footage? It should be visible. Point A in the first pic, is definately point A in the two other pics. If someone doubts that, I can prove it with further pics if I need to.

The red lines might give a clue.........I think

reply to post by Vitruvian


I am not sure what you mean, the red lines are not in the same place.

It should be like this,




So do you agree that building B should've been in that 911 footage? I am not sure if you were agreeing or refuting it.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

I am not sure what you mean, the red lines are not in the same place.

It should be like this,

So do you agree that building B should've been in that 911 footage? I am not sure if you were agreeing or refuting it.

edit on 16-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)

I think the building is not included in the pic on the left - reasons? perspective - angle - lens - etc.......it seems that the 'missing' structure you refer to would have been further back in the left side picture........

reply to post by Vitruvian


I don't think so, the left pic (in your double pic) is from virtually the same angle as the last pic I posted with the black line.

It should be visible above the roof next to section A. No matter what lens was used.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

I don't think so, the left pic (in your double pic) is from virtually the same angle as the last pic I posted with the black line. It should be visible above the roof next to section A. No matter what lens was used.

Check the "length of the building" as indicated by the red lines - from that measure of building length it seems logical to my eye that the image on the left in my posting is not inclusive of the building in question........And the lens and the angle and the distance and the perspective with respect to the "target" are all important in this kind of an analysis.That's also why we see quite differet buildings in the background of each image - Notice that?....

I made another GIF from the video - NIST FOIA: Jim Huibregtse Clips 01-14A



GIF HERE
GIFSoup

reply to post by Vitruvian



The black lines are in virtually the same spot in both pics.








If you scroll these three pics to the right, you can see the buildings match up. You realize there are new buildings in the background?

And yes, the length of the building to the left seems off, that doesn't disprove my point. In fact it could be more evidence of tampering.


What is important is the A section, it proves that I am looking at that exact spot where building B should be visible.

Section A is the only part of the building that has a grey, rectangular shape.

And the lens and the angle and the distance and the perspective with respect to the "target" are all important in this kind of an analysis.

Angle, distance and perspective are almost exactly spot on in this case.

What kind of lens would make buildings that are in a direct line of view, dissapear?

Edit, btw the third pic is not from the exact right angle, I only included it to be able to see the surroundings, which were blocked by the trees in the other GE pic, that is not the one to compare with.

reply to post by Vitruvian


Seems like the last part of his fall looks so weird because he is missing in those two frames within that section.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

Seems like the last part of his fall looks so weird because he is missing in those two frames within that section.

CORRECTION
I checked again the 2 frames with no person in them - I think its because the 'jumper' goes into the dark space between the alum pillars...........hence he only seemed to have disappeared from those 2 frames..........

reply to post by Vitruvian


For real? Nah man. If that is the case he should be missing from more frames.

He is perfectly visible as he crosses the dark parts throughout his fall, why would these two frames be any different?

Originally posted by OutonaLimb

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Ben81

 

I agree Ben81, but the fact of the matter is this dude is saying no one was in the building. How can a lie get get us closer to the truth? I like his ideas overall but this is stupid and makes me think this is a troll thread. Saw it with my own eyes and get angry when people say junk like this.

CJ

There were a few companies whose 'employees' were located in the buildings on 9/11
but everyone was evacuated safely when the drill/exercise began.
The buildings for the most part were gutted and emptied of floors and
contents long in advance.
The WTC was specifically built to be symbolically destroyed on 9/11/2001.
The scope of the operation, the timescales involved and the depth of planning
required is mind-boggling. They covered every base, meticulously.

They do not want people to realise the extents to which media fakery has been incorporated
into this, and other similar policy changing (fantastical) event narratives.

You keep saying this but you have absolutely no retort to those that are calling you out to explain where these loved ones/people went. Japan? Good grief. When someone starts thinking people around them couldn't possibly understand the bigger picture, that "THEY" aren't thinking clearly, "most people cannot comprehend this" there's a term for that - it's called Delusions of Grandeur. Google that term. That will explain quite a bit.

Originally posted by OutonaLimb

Originally posted by SamLuv
reply to post by Maluhia

 

Yeah, this threw me.. I dont know if he meant it to be implied differently, but there were definitely people in those buildings.. They were "pre-emtied", Unless he is refering to WTC7

Seek out video relating to what should have been a constant stream/stampede
of approx. 50,000 people piling out the main exits of WTC's 1&2 within the
space of 1 hour on the morning of 9/11.

You will not find one.

There were a few conpanies and employees present on the day, but all would
have been evacuated safely well before the planned demolition. Major
sections of both buildings were hollowed out and emptied of floors and contents
well in advance.
Google hollow towers to see that the basis for everything i say is rooted in
solid ground.

Actually there are hundreds of videos that show people running for their lives.At least that many interviews of people who survived who were lucky enough to get down the stairwells. Next?

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

The link I provided clearly proves the faked jumper, the image cannot be real.

You on the other hand, are just an anonymous profile typing words without a single piece of evidence.

I think I will believe my link.

Hey, you know what, I worked there for 10 years and was there that morning, I didn't see any planes or people jumping.

See how easy that is?

That statement is worth just as much as yours.

edit on 12-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)

Nope. Sorry. All it "clearly proves" is you believe this stuff. Next time a decent-sized plane flies overhead from your perspective, watch the shadow on the ground as it appears and disappears through the clouds. Smoke or other obstructions would cause a "shadow" to disappear and REAPPEAR possibly several times. Debunked,.

Originally posted by TraitorKiller
reply to post by Finishthis

 

You are annoying, you clearly have no idea about what particular case I am talking about because the weather factor was already covered in the links I provided aswell as in this thread.

And this,

See how the guy travels a few m and then starts falling straight down just before he pulls the shute? Now imagine him falling moving sideways across that building.

It's just not happening. I doubt our falling man would make such a leap, besides you can see him falling very close to the building in the links, the problem is his sideways travel.

edit on 12-7-2012 by TraitorKiller because: (no reason given)

OMG really? You would dare to compare a guy making a controlled jump wearing a suit specifically designed for this type of activity with a man frantically falling to his death?