Alex
Constantine
Alex
Constantine open
index
Septmeber 11 Videos FAKE ?
The issue
is not new.
This is
the base question of the "no-planer"
debate.
Now, from
my point of view at least, the term
no-planer"
has been
thrown about very
loosely.
Many of
the people that thought a 757 MIGHT not
have hit the Pentagon,
were
deemed "no-planers" from time to time, by
different people.
This confusion has fueled
problems , and BOTH sides of the are at fault for not clearing this
up.
The arguments themselves, to me, are a distraction from the
truth movement,
but there is no reason the videos shouldnt be looked at
closely,
as a matter of fact, I think it important that they are.
The problem is, they are usually looked at with an
agenda.
My
position is that I think that Flight 175
probably did not hit the tower,
though, I
think something probably
did.
I also
think that SOME of the photos and videos
that have been shown about September 11th,
were
manipulated to some degree at least,
and some very possibly were total fakes.
If you
find that hard to believe, you should
realize that certain sites
which
originally posted these videos and
photos, did not have any photographers name
associated
with the
photo or video, and indeed, they did no
homework at all to verify the authenticity of the
media.
Even the
major media outlets on September 11th and
the days following aired video simply saying ....
"this is
amateur footage".
It was submitted to them, sometimes anonymously, and taken as
fact.
Many have
remained as FACT , and just called "CNN
footage" or something by the researchers.
On one site in particular, I found a photo
literally penciled
in, probably by a young kid.
Other
videos / photos do have a background,
but the photographer may have a history which is a bit
suspicious.
These
photos and videos get passed around between
people,
shared at websites, and taken to be authentic,
with no
validation at all.
Other
photos and videos came out years after
the fact,
and most of those are conspicuous to say the
least,
if not for
oddities in the film, for the timing of
the release.
Some
September 11 researchers take these films
apart, trying to determine
what kind
of plane it is, etc...
and do not
bother to check who the photographer
was, the history of the video's release,
or any
other info to tell if the film is
authentic.
To take
these videos as authentic , without
checking the background, is a mistake,
and one
that happens all too often in the 9/11
truth community
I have
researched many of the videos and photos
from September 11,
calling into question several of them.
I usually bring to light problems I see, so that other researchers
can pick up where I left off,
and usually, I do not end up with a hard conclusion either way.
Unfortunately, many researchers do not see my work in this
light,
and either take this to mean that I am a "no-planer" ,
or I think that the video is fake, real,
or come to some other conclusion, which I usually, have
not.
If you STILL think ALL of the videos
you have seen are real,
have a look at THIS
one.
Hmm...
so was
this the real video, and was
the
plane just inserted in the other one ?
The original version of this video, shows a plane, or what kinda
looks like a plane,
except for the fact, that the wing gets bigger and smaller, from
frame to frame.
(Not to mention, lack of color, and a few other oddities)
This is shown
here
along with other sample videos that appear to be altered.
Here is another video...
Is
it REAL, or
memorex ?
Another example is shown below.
(From the Park Foreman Video.)
(click for large version)
This is an
overlay of 2 different frames from this
video in Photoshop.
There are a couple of things i find strange.
For one, if you watch the video, the plane seems to be centered
very well,
and follows through very smoothly for a hand held camera
tracking a plane going at 400+ mph
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK4aLL7OSVM
Notice the POLE
(2
arrows)
The reason
the pole appears to move in relation to
the background,
is
because it is in the
foreground.
But, thats
not the only reason, that is not
enough.
The camera
also has to be moving.
I dont
mean from left to right,
i mean the
WHOLE camera must be moving, as if
someone were running with it,
or the
video was taken from a helicopter
etc....
We dont
know how much exactly, it has to
move,
since
we dont know how close the POLE is in
the foreground.
But, if
you are running with a camera in your
hand,
how do you
keep this plane in the center of view
?
(and, why
would you be running ?)
Here we see more snapshots from the video
In frame 690 (near the start where the plane comes in)
we see a ree to the right of the antenna
The camera then pans down then pans back up
When it comes back up (frames 713 and 715)
the tree is below the level of the building in the background.
This means the camera itself was moving upwards
see photo...
When the camera pans back up 15 frames or so later
Since the
building is farther in the background
than the tree
when the tree appears to "move down" in realtion to the
building
then the camera must be moving itself.
So we can assume that the
"plane" should alo move in relation to the antenna as well.
The image on the right of this photo is a compilation of several
frames.
The top blue image with 2 planes is a merge of frame 687 and frame
715.
So the plane should have moved in realtion to the antenna since the
camera was obviously moving
Of course it did move left to right
but did it move UP as well (in relation to the building or
antenna ) ?
Also, if
this is from a
helicopter
how would
you see the plane coming, and focus
in,
while
keeping the plane in the center of
view, rather smoothly ?
NEXT, the
STARS....
When I
first looked at this video, I had a
degraded copy,
and never made much about the little bright lights in the
background.
A degraded
video, could easily had some anomalies
like this.
Now, we
have a much better copy.
These
little lights SEEM to be stationary, so at
first, I thought they might be STARS.
I was an
amateur astronomer, and it is possible to
see stars in the daytime
with the right equipment, under the right
conditions.
But this
camera wasn't setup to do
this.
So looking
further into it, I realized that the
stars DO move.
taking
different frames from the video, and
overlaying them on the background,
it
seems the stars are not stationary.
keeping
the "stars" centered, the 2 overlays of
the building , do not match.
Now, there may be another explanation as to why the stars appear to
move.
They areNOT moving, everything else is.
Are these
stars ?
Is the
camera moving ?
What type
camera was used ?
911review.org
Homepage
Internal
related links
9/11
FAKE
VIDEOS WTC planes
Osama
Bin Laden 911review
New
Pentagon Video
FOIA request september 11
The
missing
Pentagon security Video
CCTV frames 9/11
911
photo flight 175
Plane
video
shows WTC exercise
batcave
analysis
9/11
investigation video
and photo analysis Pentagon and
WTC
batcave
analysis
World
Trade Center
9/11 theories, photos, and video
analysis
Other links
(external)
(Marcus Icke and Stephna Grossman - Ghost Gun 175)
http://www.911closeup.com/nico/
The
WTC 2
Media Hoax
Humint
Events Online: Strange Plane
Web Pages
referring to this page
Link to this page and get a
link back!
