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!
