FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist  Chat Chat  UsergroupsUsergroups  CalendarCalendar RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Is This Definitive Proof of TV-Fakery ???

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:04 pm    Post subject: Is This Definitive Proof of TV-Fakery ??? Reply with quote

http://911researchers.com/node/151


Any thoughts??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:41 am    Post subject: Re: Is This Definitive Proof of TV-Fakery ??? Reply with quote

CB_Brooklyn wrote:
http://911researchers.com/node/151


Any thoughts??


Good work, CB! What is that building? Anyone?


Link

_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hahaha. Laughing The more you watch this montage, the more obvious the overdubs and the fake voices stand out.

Unreal. Literally.


Link

_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes you've made it very clear what the problem is. its the building.....

1. is it meant to be there?

2. is it made of ginger bread?

3. is it a model set in a studio and only made to appear as if all this is real?

4. or is judy wood putting pennies out on the windowshill? oooops windowsill even.

please explain give us a picture of the problem if you want answers or opinions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have any of you NPT'ers ever held a camera?

Do you know what perspective is? And how it can be distorted by a lens' focal length?

Work your way through these images and you will see how the focal length can fool the eye:

http://www.kevinwilley.com/l6_topic04_tele01.htm

My guess is that the building you can't find is probably too small for you to find in the 'before' photo which is provided.

My guess is that he camera operator is probably very close to ground level - as can be seen by the right top edge of the nearest tower (South) - and the building in question is probably fairly close to them.
I estimate that the camera operator was somewhere near the green arrow in the photo below and the building would have been in the vicinity of the area indicated by the red arrow. Indeed, an enlargement of that area, in the red circle, seems to show a building which could very easily be the building which you are looking for.



Oh, look! Here it is!

http://www.top-wetter.de/ny/gross/ny16.jpg

And here it is again!

http://www.alovelyworld.com/webusa/gimage/gny29.jpg

Er... and again!

http://img480.imageshack.us/img480/5484/image22we.jpg

Yawn... and again!

http://www.apisgroup.org/apis/fototeka/world_trade_center_delete.jpg

Is this definitive proof that NPTers are simply inept and haven't got adequate analytical skills - or perhaps that they are just generally inadequate and are perpetual attention seekers.

Anyway, this sensationally headlined thread would suggest that this is the best evidence on offer. With a case as watertight as this - there is always work in kitchens - straining vegetables.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why do all them 'plane(s)' that hit the South Tower look different and dark and nothing like anything but cartoon bs?
_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about responding to the discovery of the missing building?

thought criminal wrote:
Good work, CB! What is that building? Anyone?

Good work? It took me 10 minutes with Google to completely demolish it! How about Good work, flamesong for finding the errant building for you? You evidently didn't want anybody to find it, really!

And the issue you raised (yet again) has been answered countless times before by people with an evidently far superior knowledge of video technology than you.

We all know that you NPTers (and you in particular) like to play ring-a-ring-a-roses to try to shake off the damning evidence which destroys your silly little distraction theory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I notice that we have gradually entered a new phase of disseminating all the video footage into 'real' and 'fake' camps. There is something however that I do not quite accept;

The generic title for this has been termed 'tv fakery' - the point that appears to be missed is that we are watching this footage usually via YouTube, in other words posted well post-event via the internet and not viewed via our tv screens.

With this in mind, just because something has CNN or whatever in the bottom corner, can we be sure that this is how it appeared on the day/was broadcast by the network concerned, or has it merely been doctored after broadcast by someone who has downloaded it?

I do not therefore accept that this is in fact 'tv' fakery at all - with the wealth of software at the disposal of every numpty with a PC, how is this manipulation placed at the feet of the tv networks?

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thread was started by claiming that this article was definitive proof:

http://911researchers.com/node/151

It cites these two images:





As far as I can see, the building which is claimed to be anomalous exists and there does not appear to be anything irregular about it when one takes into account the camera angle and the focal length of the lens.

This is a very clumsy attempt at prestidigitation by the NPT squad.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
I notice that we have gradually entered a new phase of disseminating all the video footage into 'real' and 'fake' camps. There is something however that I do not quite accept;

The generic title for this has been termed 'tv fakery' - the point that appears to be missed is that we are watching this footage usually via YouTube, in other words posted well post-event via the internet and not viewed via our tv screens.

With this in mind, just because something has CNN or whatever in the bottom corner, can we be sure that this is how it appeared on the day/was broadcast by the network concerned, or has it merely been doctored after broadcast by someone who has downloaded it?

I do not therefore accept that this is in fact 'tv' fakery at all - with the wealth of software at the disposal of every numpty with a PC, how is this manipulation placed at the feet of the tv networks?


The thing is Tele, you still think that the 19 hijacker scenario is absolutely plausible, so with all due respect, how are we supposed to take any of your conclusions at all seriously?

_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Brown
9/11 Truth critic
9/11 Truth critic


Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1201

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thought criminal wrote:
The thing is Tele, you still think that the 19 hijacker scenario is absolutely plausible, so with all due respect, how are we supposed to take any of your conclusions at all seriously?

So you're saying all airline hijacks are fake then?

_________________
We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE<
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Patrick Brown wrote:
thought criminal wrote:
The thing is Tele, you still think that the 19 hijacker scenario is absolutely plausible, so with all due respect, how are we supposed to take any of your conclusions at all seriously?

So you're saying all airline hijacks are fake then?


What? I am saying that there were no hijackings involved in the 9/11 WTC/Pentagon kerfuffle.

_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thought criminal wrote:
Patrick Brown wrote:
thought criminal wrote:
The thing is Tele, you still think that the 19 hijacker scenario is absolutely plausible, so with all due respect, how are we supposed to take any of your conclusions at all seriously?

So you're saying all airline hijacks are fake then?


What? I am saying that there were no hijackings involved in the 9/11 WTC/Pentagon kerfuffle.


I see, so you are saying that the Shanksville aircraft was hijacked - interesting turnaround.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
thought criminal wrote:
Patrick Brown wrote:
thought criminal wrote:
The thing is Tele, you still think that the 19 hijacker scenario is absolutely plausible, so with all due respect, how are we supposed to take any of your conclusions at all seriously?

So you're saying all airline hijacks are fake then?


What? I am saying that there were no hijackings involved in the 9/11 WTC/Pentagon kerfuffle.


I see, so you are saying that the Shanksville aircraft was hijacked - interesting turnaround.


None of the planes were hijacked. You think they were though. Bwahahaha.

_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So you go from having me thinking;

Quote:
..the 19 hijacker scenario is absolutely plausible

to;
Quote:
None of the planes were hijacked. You think they were though.


However, I have been crystal clear about my stance - I do not know exactly what happened on 9/11 - neither do you. In fact, every single aspect about that day and its events is based upon guesswork. Stating this does not in any way detract from my searching for the truth. I am a realist, not an assumptive, it is a fair more liberal and healthy standpoint and until something other than mere conjecture arises, that is what I will stay.

Putting words into my mouth changes nothing.

I notice you prefer to opt for the your usual silly nonsense instead of dealing with my point about 'tv fakery'.

This speaks volumes.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:

I notice you prefer to opt for the your usual silly nonsense instead of dealing with my point about 'tv fakery'.

This speaks volumes.


Your points about 'tv fakery' once again venture into 'cop-out' territory. If I was that lazy I could easily have come back with a counter attack and said "See, you have admitted CGI is easy peasy pudding and pie to execute".

But I'm not. So I won't.

_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is exactly what I am saying - it is manipulated.

The point you avoid is WHO is doing the manipulation? There is zero evidence to point to the TV networks - all the footage we now see is yonks old and pumped out via a medium that has no connection with TV.

Prove any of it was done on the day and not post-event.

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
That is exactly what I am saying - it is manipulated.

The point you avoid is WHO is doing the manipulation? There is zero evidence to point to the TV networks - all the footage we now see is yonks old and pumped out via a medium that has no connection with TV.

Prove any of it was done on the day and not post-event.


No. You prove it.

_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
telecasterisation
Banned
Banned


Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Impossible to prove, same for you, hence the point about my stance.

Welcome to my world.

See how sensible it is?

_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thought criminal
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 574
Location: London

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

telecasterisation wrote:
Impossible to prove, same for you, hence the point about my stance.

Welcome to my world.

See how sensible it is?


"takes Telecaster's hand and runs off towards an even stranger horizon"

_________________
chek wrote:

look at NIST's and other photos in a decent resolution to see what damage was actually caused.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John White
Site Admin
Site Admin


Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3172
Location: Here to help!

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Is This Definitive Proof of TV-Fakery ???


Hmm, let me see....

No

_________________
We are not a community looking to believe: We are a community dedicated to seeing what is

Enjoy the View from the Hills:
http://malvernmessages.free-forums.org/malvernmessages.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CB_Brooklyn
Moderate Poster
Moderate Poster


Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 168
Location: NYC

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

flamesong wrote:
Have any of you NPT'ers ever held a camera?

***Bull snipped*




The planehuggers strike (out) again!
Anyone with an insulting attitude as in flamesong's post is obviously not able to understand how to research something


The arrow in the photo that flamesong references is NOT of the building in question.

The building in the CNN clip is the Whitehall Building, located at 17 Battery Place, as is no where near that arrow. The red arrow points to an area just a couple blocks from the towers, while 17 Battery Place was a lot closer to the southern tip >>> MAPQUEST
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marky 54
Mega Poster
Mega Poster


Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cb brooklyn it is hardly anyones fault that NPT'ers do not present the evidence so those who dont know can understand.

heres what i suggest you do.

1. show a recent picture of the whitehall building(not from the 1930's and as many angles as you can)

2. show its location on a map

3. show the location of the camera man

4. tell us what he should be filming and point out what is wrong or should not be there.

5. link a good overhead map pointing out all the points above.

6. list as many reasons as you can comparing why you think the whitehall building is being film(uk truth = uk not ny city so many will not know the whitehall building). just to point out it cannot be a differant building other than the whitehall.

7. colate the evidence and post as one being as clear about each point as possible.

so far i am baffled what the problem is and what is being said hence i switch of instantly. presentation is just as important as evidence if its present wrongly how can people understand the point your making and what is meant to be seen and not seen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flamesong
Major Poster
Major Poster


Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 1305
Location: okulo news

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CB_Brooklyn wrote:
The planehuggers strike (out) again!
Anyone with an insulting attitude as in flamesong's post is obviously not able to understand how to research something


The arrow in the photo that flamesong references is NOT of the building in question.

The building in the CNN clip is the Whitehall Building, located at 17 Battery Place, as is no where near that arrow. The red arrow points to an area just a couple blocks from the towers, while 17 Battery Place was a lot closer to the southern tip >>> MAPQUEST

It matters not that my estimations of where the building is were wrong - they were based on this image:

Which you made a song and dance about saying, isn't it too tall?' (thereby illustrating complete ignorance of perspective - I suggest you watch a classic episode of Father Ted to see exactly how stupid you really look) and, 'exactly what, and where, is that building anyway?' (demonstrating a damning willful ignorance).

Perhaps I got the 'where' wrong but the building itself wasn't hard to find, even for somebody who has never even set foot in your country. What your questions show, CB_Brooklyn, is that you don't even know your own backyard.

But hey, don't hang about! Just start another thread with another piece of hare-brained unsubstantiated nonsense.

I am only embarassed that I even bothered to read your post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    9/11, 7/7 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Controversies All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group