In addition to the obvious problem that the huge trees would have wrecked the shot completely, notice how the Red Building Gets taller, the Black Building behind the invisible 19 Rector Street also moves taller, and some of the distant buildings in the upper right move up significantly on screen. That can only happen if those buildings were filmed from further back, say from a helicopter out over the water. We can completely rule out NIST's claim that the Hezarkhani video was shot from ground level near the Castle Clinton National Monument. It's a fake, plain and simple.

Thanks to Killtown and Peggy Carter.






As you can see from the pictures here, they didn't try too hard to even put the World Trade Centers in the right spot. If the footage were actually taken from Battery Park as NIST claims the towers would look a lot shorter relative to the trees and buildings in the foreground.

http://www.bigfoto.com/sites/galery/sept11/


The perspective changes quite a bit in the Hezarkhani CNN Ghostplane video. The treeline he's showing on the zoom out are actually the trees further up in the park, as if he were standing in the clearing in the park out beside Castle Clinton, but then the tops of the buildings are completely out of position. It's a fake video made from lots of different photos of the location and animated together. Moreover the video uses extensive still panning. If you watch the CNN video frame by frame you'll see that there's no camera movement, just animation and still panning on a 2-D background. It's not even close to real video plus an animated plane.

Whatever study they used for their fake video was probably taken from the air and considerably further back. They then did a half-assed simulation of a Battery Park camera angle so that they could claim Hezarkhani took the footage. It's an animation sequence, not a video that was shot on 9/11 with a plane inserted into it. Notice in particular how high the tops of the WTC buildings are in the Hezarkhani fake CNN Ghostplane video. They appear much lower on real photos taken from Battery Park.

What NIST says here is simply impossible and the CNN Ghostplane video has been completely debunked.

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/08/nist-...-at-ground.html




Fabulous find by behind

See also: Filmer Of Accused Fake Wtc Crash Video, won't disclose shot location

It was proven a long time ago that the CNN Ghostplane shot can't be taken from any point on land so the NIST description is just the final nail in the coffin.

Here's video from every single location near, in, and around the Castle Clinton National Monument http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m866D5Hea6A

The supposed cameraman isn't even allowed to say where he was on 9/11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOeNUax-gaw


You can now eliminate any doubt about the CNN video MAYBE having been taken SOMEWHERE. They guy who supposedly shot it can't talk about, and NIST relied on it and gave out the location where it was shot, and we've proven that that location is impossible. So it's fake. A hoax. We can say that with absolute certainty now, which is great. We don't need to get a boat or a helicopter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m866D5Hea6A

I think it is proven that the video was not taken from Battery park at ground level. Maximum appreciation to you Fred, and Peggy Carter for discovering and documenting this.

I do not think it is proven that the layout of the buildings is impossible. I think it is entirely possible that it was shot from a helicopter just off shore, maybe 100 feet above the water.

I'm quite sure the plane is composited in.

Webfairy seems to be suggesting there are missing frames from the background. Could be, I'd sure like to have a study. I'm hunting for the best copy I can find.

Excellent work.
I love it, thanks.

Hi Ace. There are some other issues too besides the buildings. If you look at the FIRST copy they aired, it's completely different from the later copies such as CNN America Remembers DVD. The DVD is probably the best copy, but it's NOT what they showed on TV.

Killtown has done lots of work on it but for one thing the soundtrack is COMPLETELY different, they even have a different voice reading a different part.

People like to make fun of the Scary Faces, but the fact is they animated them right in and put them on newspaper headlines.

http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/zubzubletter

I'm absolutely certain that the shot won't work from 100 feet up in a helicopter over the water because of 19 Rector Street. They've taken some aerial shots as studies perhaps, but then they've modified those to make it look like they're in the park. They didn't fix everything, however. When you go up there's no way to hide the 37-story 19 Rector Street behind the trees. There's no way to hide it from the Park, either actually.

Basically there's no shot from the Water's edge, no shot from in the park, and no shot from out over the water. Ideally we'd zip around some in a helicopter and prove the no shot from 100 feet up idea, but I don't have the resources for that unfortunately.

Riddle me this.

If taken from a different angle or further out, why then do the buildings line up and retain the same proportions?

I can understand how the limbs are depending on when the shot without the towers was taken. Nature grows, and trees are nature. But then I see a light post in one that should have been in the other as well (unless added between shots). I personally have never been in Battery Park so can not say one way or the other on any of it. Other then what I say.

Do I think the U.S is responsible and this was a cover up? Do not know. But I do know this. They had motive, opportunity, and means. What I do think was this was an attempt to institute something that went wrong for them. And that's probably why the Media has turned on the Bush Administration in the last couple of years.

But they too can not admit the day was a fake because they are as guilty. 9/11 was just another attempt to institute what is called 'New World Order' as is been called for by the Democratic Party, Bush (THE WHOLE KLAN), Republican Party, and those private financial groups like the Federal Reserve Bank. Just to name some of the front runners that have control over most America. I even heard the Pope calling for it while sitting under an inverted cross. Some call it St. Peters cross, Satanist call it a Satanic Cross that represents denial of Jesus and if red signify s Blood Sacrafice.

Now we fight a war based on the same lie while leaving the War on Terror (cut & Run?) JUST AS we had Osama cornered. Not to mention the fact we have dealt with Osama and have even given him medical treatment while he is talked to by a CIA agent while he is a wanted man by our country. Those who did the Hijacking, and those pulling the strings were two different people. And Osama was the middleman they were both willing to work with.

Got news for you Alice! This is but the entrance to the Rabbit's Hole. Why not look inside and see whats at the bottom.

I don't get any of this about the fake video.

What is the motivation for making a fake 911 video, where there are plenty of real videos? It's not like it didn't happen. Yes, it is a strange video. Is it to misdirect attention somehow? In which case, from what to what?

The Hezarkhani phone interview was strange too. But what's the theory behind this?
Confused,
CHL

Hi coolhandluke,

In order for the Perps to pull the WTC 1, 2, & 7, they COULD NOT RISK crashing real planes into them to do this, but they needed to make it look like real planes did (hence faking the videos) and not just that, but make it look like real planes penetrated all the way into the towers (specifically their wings "loaded with fuel") in order for them to have a seemingly logical reason for why the towers collapsed.

Please read this which explains this in more detail:

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2007/05/why-t...to-hit-wtc.html

Thanks Killtown,

Good information about the psychology and so forth on the link you provided. But what about the people who died in the plane crash? There were passenger lists and families, right? Did they crash the "real" planes out in the Atlantic? Where did they go? Are all of the videos of all the crashes fake? Why the focus only on the video from Hezarkhani?

Silverstein's slip about pulling WTC7 was telling, wasn't it? Plus his insurance policy on the buildings (read about that one?), the info on thermite, the explosions, not to mention the whole indestructibility of the buildings themselves. Bush's verbal mistakes are very weird too. That there were spooks in the buildings on weekends prior to Sept 11 - very suspicious indeed! Not much written about that. But planes not actually used is new to me. 'Gotta think about this!

So is Hollywood in on this too? There's got to be a lot of people. No one has said a word. No one has had a pang of conscience?

Here's a good link from http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/2210

CoolHandL

1) It's impossible to know where the took the real planes and passengers (if they all really existed). They could have easily flown them and a secret base and killed the passengers who were not in on it.

2) Hard to say. I think most of them are, so wouldn't be surprised if all of them are. Even if just a few are fake, that there is proof of a conspiracy.

3) We've analyzed all of them: http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

The Hezarkhani gets more focus because most of us see more smoking guns in that one compared to others.

4) Of course they are. There are tons of "smoking guns" surrounding 9/11. NPT (no-plane theory) is just part of the puzzle and it's up to each individual to determine for themselves which evidence to focus on or not.

5) Personally I think thermite helping to bring down the towers is a ruse.

6) It took a while for me to grasp it! Here is one of the first threads I started about no-planes: 767's Wing Tips Made Of Pentanium Steel?

Here's also a great article about the technology used in TV Fakery (notice the date): Lying With Pixels - July/August 2000

7) The funny thing is when I first saw the huge fireball coming out of the South Tower, on of the first things that popped in my mind was how that explosion looked like something out of a hollywood movie.

It's been said that Hollywood has been in bed with the military and CIA for a long time. That's where they get a lot of there ideas. Remember the Lone Gunmen's Pilot episode about the Boeing 727 electronically hijacked and planning to crash into the WTC?

8) I doubt that perps would recruit non-evil people to help carry out 9/11, so anyone involved would have been a willing participant IMO, so very low chance of someone later growing a conscience, especially when they and their family would be killed for it!

coolhandluke, As well as going through the excellent information Killtown has posted, try and find time to go through the videos in the first post on this thread;

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2983&

'September Clues' will give you a broad understanding of the 'no plane' ideas.
It's really important to get your head around the 'nose out' footage and how the 'live WNYW chopper 5 feed was screwed-up and , quite literally, 'covered-up' 6 minutes later on CNN (you will see what i mean) before ultimately being scrapped from the Fox archive and replaced with video feed from a competing network. It's worth noting it was only the video feed that was replaced while the original audio remains.

Further analysis of the 'nose out' can be seen in the cunningly titled 'nosed out' video in the same thread.

The naudet brothers footage (1st hit) is analysed in '911 amateur part 2'. My personal favourite part in that video is the linear secondary explosion footage 6 seconds after impact of the alleged plane.

You're not obligated to believe anything and certainly not immediately. After all, it took some of us years to get on board with the 'no plane' issue , even after realising the absurdities of the official story, pretty early on.

Hopefully you will get some answers by exploring all the material.

Thanks Sidlittle & Killtown,

The links on the page you referenced are extremely interesting. Video 2 is unbelievable. I like the strange parallax inconsistencies in '911 amateur part 1'. But I still wonder, these are after the explosions. Why not film the real thing? Maybe to give it an "on the spot" look and feel without going outdoors, and nothing to do with a conspiracy? I mean the city was smoking that day. It's not like they had to fake anything at that time.


Is the following new? Looking at YouTube, I found the following:
on youtube vid 1 you don’t see a nose exiting in this close-up

On Youtub Vid 2 at about 1:14 you see the nose exiting.

Wow.

But I gotta say, with all the evidence on all the 911 web sites, and all the experts, all the footage and all the analysis, it seems unlikely anything is going to change. We all still watch CNN & Faux News and whatever.

Thanks for giving me the "red pill", guys.
CHL

The sound in the above video 1 is obviouly faked


the crash sound is not delayed as it would have been in a distant shot




This post has been edited by bill on Feb 8 2008, 10:31 AM