Friday, August 10, 2007

Faked CNN WTC impact video

OLD ARTICLE ! Some claims have been debunked!

Bottom Line: The Carmen Taylor Photos and Michael Hezarkhani Videos were probably filmed from a real location, from the deck of a Ferry to Ellis Island.

We were basically just double-checking the angles to make sure we weren't watching Disney.
All the angles match, both were on the boat, 2nd mooring, 10 to 50 feet apart.
This is what the picture-trigonometry shows fairly clearly.
Even the trees match fine... I made some crap statements, I regret.

IMO what was filmed was the real world. With one exeption:
The plane was inserted into the picture.

I base my steep claim on

    Marcus Icke's work
    The eye-witnesses (that should have seen a plane, but didn't Who's got a list?)
    The nose-out/fade-to-black-17seconds
    The mismatching flight-approaches in the various videos
    And my guess that 911 was far easier to carry out without airplanes

Please CLICK ME to see the new "all explaing graphics" and more info.

21 West Street (Le Rivage) - map - website -

whitehall building 17 Battery Place click HERE for the google map/satellite hybrid

- Even at low picture resolutions


- large distances of front-sight (Whitehall Building) to rear-sight (red-tall-box-building, name?)

allow precise targeting.

In other words.. wherever that photo was taken from is the almost exact location of the camera. The two important buildings (in the direction of the camera, near centre vision) provide a clear vector, in both directions. The precision on the ground is in the 10feet range.

This vector points to a spot where trees are massively in the way, the CNN video must be fake. Q.E.D.

=== in other words ===

The two buildings act as iron sights

They are very precise iron sights because they are far apart.

Look at the photo between the burning towers and the antique Whitehall postcard:

they are perfect for lining up.

Look at the 4 blue sky pictures below the antique Whitehall postcard. Small movements on the ground make large movements of the buildings in relation to another.

The location on the ground can be found with ease.

The line is "going up steeply" 45 degrees or so.

If the camera location is on the ground, we have found the spot, trees are in the way, CNN=fake.

The angle is steep, moving 10 feet forward or back means moving 10 feet up or down.

If the camera location is forward *and up* in the air, then the camera was levitating or on a cherry-picker, and the trees are still in the way, CNN=fake.

If the camera is clear of the trees it is 60 feet up in the air, CNN=fake.
If the camera location is further back, it is filming from inside the earth, CNN=fake.

Please CLICK ME to see the new "all explaing graphics" and more info.

more fruitless discussion, but some links to sources for this posting:

It was a bomb, not a second plane. Who said a plane? I saw it all.


Perceptive Man: "No second plane, it was a bomb! -- a bomb in the other building, not a second plane! That was a bomb!
Who said a second plane?"

Fox news: "That's what we are told! a second plane, we saw it on television"

Perceptive Man: "No! I saw everything"

Fox news: "All right, thanks a lot"

No planes impacted the Towers!
THE TREES!! Oh my god!

The virtual-video operator stuffed-up.. he forgot about the trees!

Overlay composite of
  • CNN 767 UA175 impact video
  • still photo that exactly matches the location!

EDIT: This is not a precise overlay. We are waiting for more photos to be taken from a ferry boat!!



Please CLICK ME to see the new "all explaing graphics" and more info.

Please CLICK ME to see the new "all explaing graphics" and more info.

Meet the cameraman:

See his footage:
"Oh my god, the plane just crashed into the building. I can't believe it." Worst. Actor. Ever.

Source: CNN Remembers September 11th Documentary DVD

See all videos:

Whitehall Building seen from Battery Park

Above is a picture from Battery Park of the Whitehall Bld. featured in this Video:

The picture above is the viewpoint from here as shown by the black "x." The Whitehall Building is the large brick-colored and dirty-beige checked one, with brown stripes, at the very left front in the picture above.

The view, is actually looking over the top of the fort. In the top image you can see the fort Clinton, which is a low brick structure at the left. In the picture directly above that's the circular building in the foreground.

Here is the same exact photo from at top cropped and zoomed to imitate the view in the "Ghostplane" rendition as seen in the video.

Please CLICK ME to see the new "all explaing graphics" and more info.

Here is an overlay of the two pictures above, done by "brianv" see his
"No Planes 9/11 - The Holy Grail"

Click on the pictures to see the larger versions.

Below are the approximate locations "x"-ed out: of the viewer, the Whitehall Building and the South World Trade Tower.

Red "X"-es here:

Brobdinag proportions

Here is a Google Earth screen shot where I have "x"-ed in the three players. It shows the relationship between the viewer, the top of the Whitehall Bld. and the World Trade Tower South. The height of the Whitehall Bld. is represented by the two "x"-s, one on top of the other. The height of the Trade Tower is the vertical line to the right. It's all roughly to scale. If you want it larger, click on the picture.

These are the measures I made. From the front of Whitehall Bld. to observer, 1000 ft. From observer to foot of World Trade Tower South, 3300 ft. Height of Whitehall Tower, 424ft. Height of Trade Tower, 1727 ft. When these figures are mapped out, the line of sight of the viewer, from where I stood in the Park, captures the appropriate top section of the Trade Tower as shown in the above clip, altered in any case. The buildings between the Trade Tower and the Whitehall Bld. are too short to interfere with this sight line. The ones to the right when you're facing it, could very well be covered with trees. It's not uncommon to have the leaves on the trees here in September.

The model is approximate and rough but illustrates some reasons behind the optical illusion many people experience in viewing one of the government-sponsored video clip, "Ghostplane."

When I made my triangles of the correct proportions and drew a sight line - only the top portion of the South Tower was visible - exactly how the scene was rendered in the government released clip.

The Towers appear too short above the Whitehall Bld. This is due to a few things: Please notice the shortening of the perceived distance between the observer and the WB in the "close-up" shot. This comes about through the use of zooming and cropping so the perceived distance is shortened. One has no idea how high up one is looking or how far away. However, the Whitehall Bld is over 400 ft. tall.

Appreciate the scale clearly by looking at the first picture above which shows the Whitehall Bld. in the context of the Battery Park setting. The distances: both between the observer and the building and between the top of the Whitehall building and the ground are clear in the unaltered perspective.

The difficulty in processing the scale here is due to another factor: the unnatural height of the Tower and its obscure distance from the viewer. (The South Tower is over 1/2 a mile away from the observer in Battery Park and is itself 1/4 of a mile tall.)

Much as the gigantic moon, though very far away, will appear larger when it is near the horizon. In this case we only feel the building should be larger.

The larger-Moon-near-the-horizon effect is an optical illusion
since the moon's objective size doesn't change. It's so far away its apparent size won't change no matter where it moves.

When you plot the distances out between the observer, the top of the Whitehall Bld. and the top of the South Trade Tower, the top of the South Trade Tower is right where it should be and where it is depicted in the screen shot of the video. The World Trade Tower South is so much more huge than we can process and therefore subconsciously "assume" the proportion is wrong. We can't see it as being distant. From what it looks like in the cropped rendition we assume that it must be closer and the size of a regular skyscraper. This is also partly because we are deceived, from the photograph since the Whitehall Building appears there much smaller than it actually is. Most of the building is cropped away in the "Ghostplane" video clip.

Click on picture below for full size image:

If you click on the pictures you can see the larger versions.

Whitehall Building

Please CLICK ME to see the new "all explaing graphics" and more info.

> OK, I'm looking at the two pictures and they do seem to be taken from
> the same spot.


> The conspiracy theorists are saying that the trees are a
> problem, the trees are in the way... According to the video on the
> associated page, the second picture was taken Aug 3rd, 2007. Is it any
> surprise that the trees in question grew over the course of 6 years to
> partially obstruct the view?

Sycamores grow about 2 feet per year. 30-40 feet in 6 years is impossible.
The lamp posts existed 6 years ago!

Whitehall in the front and 21 West behind

Large Photo of the context of the camera location are here and here (to the right of Whitefall) and here

Please CLICK ME to see the new "all explaing graphics" and more info.

This software can analyse footage and tell us where exactly the spot is?

If you are interested in "The Faking Of" 9-11 impact videos:
you will take hours to go through it all, but the TV footage from
that fateful morning is online at ...
September Clues can be verified. It's very spooky.


19 September 2006

The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories

Numerous unfounded conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Some of the most prevalent myths are:

1) The World Trade Center (WTC) twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions.

This is how the collapses may have appeared to non-experts, but demolition experts point out many differences:

  • Demolition professionals always blow the bottom floors of a structure first, but the WTC tower collapses began at the upper levels, where the planes hit the buildings.
  • Non-experts claim that debris seen blowing out of windows was evidence of explosive charges, but experts identify this as air and light office contents (paper, pulverized concrete, etc.) being forced out of windows as floors collapsed on each other.
  • Demolition firms had very sensitive seismographs operating at other sites in Manhattan on September 11. None recorded any explosions during the tower collapses.
  • Clean-up crews found none of the telltale signs of controlled demolitions that would have existed if explosive charges had been used.
  • Cutting away walls, insulation, plumbing, and electrical conduits to place numerous charges on the towers’ structural columns in advance would not have gone unnoticed.
  • For more information, see ImplosionWorld’s article on the WTC collapses and Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5.

2) No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11. Instead, it was a missile fired by elements “from inside the American state apparatus.”

Conspiracy theorists making this claim ignore several facts:

  • The remains of the bodies of the crew and passengers of American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site, and positively identified by DNA.
  • The flight’s black box was also recovered at the site.
  • Numerous eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the Pentagon. Some saw passengers through the plane’s windows. Missiles don’t have windows or carry passengers.
  • Numerous photographs show airplane debris at the crash site, as was also witnessed by survivors and rescue personnel. See sections 4:57 to 6:00 of the “911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77” video for pictures of airliner debris.
  • For more information, see “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?” and Popular Mechanics, part 6.

3) The planes that hit the World Trade Center towers were remotely controlled.

  • Boeing, which manufactured the planes that struck the towers, stated that all its commercial jet transports are configured so that they cannot be controlled from anywhere except the flight deck of the aircraft.
  • Passengers onboard the flights made several phone calls. All reported that hijackers had commandeered the planes.
  • For more information, see “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?”

4) United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was shot down by a missile.

  • The cockpit voice recorder of this flight was recovered and showed that the passenger revolt caused the hijackers to deliberately crash the plane. The hijackers controlled the plane until its impact. See full transcript.
  • The U.S. military did not learn that flight 93 had been hijacked until four minutes after it crashed, as recently released tapes demonstrate.
  • The military never gave interceptor pilots authorization to shoot down United flight 93. See article on tapes.
  • Listen to the 45-second message left by flight attendant CeeCee Lyles on her home answering machine. Click on the “Lyles” file or the phone icon in the bottom left corner of the flight 93 page.
  • For more information, see The 9/11 Commission Report chapter 1, “We Have Some Planes,” pages 13-14.

5) World Trade Center building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition.

  • This allegation was fueled by a comment by the WTC owner that, after WTC 7 was judged to be unstable, he recommended pulling a group of firefighters out of the building, using the phrase “pull it” in reference to the contingent of firefighters. For more details, see 9/11 Revealed?
  • Conspiracy theorists have interpreted the “pull it” remark as slang for demolishing the building with explosives. But demolition experts say “pulling” a building means attaching long cables to a weakened structure and literally pulling it down with bulldozers and other powerful machinery – not using explosives.
  • Seismographs recorded no telltale spikes or anomalies that would have indicated the use of explosives.
  • For more information, see ImplosionWorld article and Popular Mechanics, part 5.

6) Insider trading in the stocks of United Airlines and American Airlines just before September 11 is evidence of advance knowledge of the plot.

  • The 9/11 Commission investigated this issue in detail, concluding, “Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation.”
  • For example, it stated, “much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American [Airlines stock] on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.”
  • For other examples, see The 9/11 Commission Report, “Notes” section, page 499, footnote 130.

7) Four thousand Jews failed to show up for work at the World Trade Center on September 11.

  • It appears from media reports that some 10-15% of WTC victims were Jewish, indicating there were no mass absences.
  • The “4,000” figure apparently came from an early statement by the Israeli Foreign Ministry that some “4,000 Israelis” were believed to be in the New York and Washington areas, where the attacks occurred. This figure was apparently seized upon by conspiracy theorists, in an attempt to bolster the false rumor.
  • For more information, see “The 4,000 Jews Rumor.”

8) Al Qaida is not responsible for the September 11 attacks.

  • Al Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, have repeatedly confirmed that they planned and carried out the September 11 attacks.
  • In an audiotape released on May 23, 2006, bin Laden stated, “I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers … with those raids ….”
  • In a November 2001 tape, bin Laden said, “We calculated in advance the number of casualties … who would be killed …. I was the most optimistic of them all. … Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only.”
  • For more information, see “Al Qaeda and September 11th.”

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site:

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 4:17 PM


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Very nice collection of links. You might also include the NIST report page that says the CNN footage was taken on the ground in Battery Park by Michael Hezarkhani, which is of course impossible.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 2:49:00 AM PDT  
Blogger FemaCamper said...

We should all phone Mr. Hezarkhani. If enough people contact him, he might give out some information.

Saturday, September 1, 2007 at 6:31:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home