Debunked: 9/11 impact footage was faked, shows 'layering' error.

Pete Tar

Senior Member
http://intellihub.com/2013/09/12/shocking-evidence-reveals-possible-cgi-animation-glitch-durring-2001-live-news-broadcast/
[Video url updated Feb 2016, as original was removed]

Just a case of being fooled by perspective I'm sure. Not exactly compelling.

[Admin: added debunking image]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Freak

Active Member
Looks more like that's part of the building in the foreground than behind the towers. What building is in the foreground, and what building are they claiming it should be in front of but isn't?
 

EpsilonVonVehron

New Member
Looks like the building is in front of the WTC to me. Don't know why he says it's "clearly behind the WTC south tower" when there is nothing to show perspective. The building in question would have to be nearly as tall as the WTC if it was behind.
Also he says it's a rare video, then he's explaining that the video was "seen all over the world, over and over and over again, year after year".
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member
Yeah I suppose I shouldn't be so lazy and actually work out the angle's and buildings, but basically the building is in front of the tower.
...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Freak

Active Member
OK. So, I was wrong. There are indeed 2 buildings. The building in the foreground is the Whitehall Building. If you look at the detail on the top and compare it to the part of the building you can see in the video, it's pretty clear this is the building. It's directly across the street from Battery Park. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Building



You can also see a darker building behind it. That's the other building in the video. (I believe it's the La Rivera Apartments at 21 West St.)

And here's a picture showing just how close to the Whitehall building it is.


In both pics you can see the 3 rows of windows that are visible in the video on the building the plane passes behind.

And a shot to show the location in relation to the WTC towers.



It's pretty clear to me that the building "behind" the towers, is in fact in front of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Freak

Active Member
Yea, it took me a bit to identify the building in Google Earth, but once I did, it was super easy. Almost every pic has both buildings in it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's perspective foreshortening.

The plane does seem to clip with the edge of the WTC, but that's just a compression artifact, like Anderson Cooper's disappearing nose.
 

mrfintoil

Active Member
I believe the reason why the overlapping of details looks "strange" to most people is because the video frames has been interpolated using software to achieve slow motion. The original video material was likely interlaced NTSC video, which meant this slow motion effect was probably applied on already de-interlaced material, something that in itself usually cause minor visual artefacts on fast moving objects.

This adds to the "strangeness" of the visual overlap.
 

911Skeptic :-)

New Member
Ok. Sounds like the video maybe wrong...but I have a question for you good folks. Ain't something missing in the shot if that camera angle and the flight path is correct on the mock up? There are some buildings that should be seen that isn't. Anyone have a explanation before we discard the entire video? I personally hypothesis the video is fake. But that doesn't matter. Are all the buildings present in the shot based on the mock up versus the video? Let me know what you think. Thanks
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok. Sounds like the video maybe wrong...but I have a question for you good folks. Ain't something missing in the shot if that camera angle and the flight path is correct on the mock up? There are some buildings that should be seen that isn't. Anyone have a explanation before we discard the entire video? I personally hypothesis the video is fake. But that doesn't matter. Are all the buildings present in the shot based on the mock up versus the video? Let me know what you think. Thanks
Why don't you say which buildings you think are missing? It's your theory, so you should be the one supplying the evidence for it.
 

911Skeptic :-)

New Member
I totally agree. Finally, it seems I joined a chat with real thinkers (possible oppose to my views), which I feel is a great thing and the only way to grow. Open minds you know. Anyway, to answer your question honestly I was hoping someone already did the work, but, my first instinct is the taller buildings closer to the WTCs inline with the flight path. The right tower was impacted, therefore the taller building should have been in the shot? Again, with just a snap shot look at the mock up and the flight path, that's what it seems. I could be wrong, but I would like to hear why. Thanks
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I totally agree. Finally, it seems I joined a chat with real thinkers (possible oppose to my views), which I feel is a great thing and the only way to grow. Open minds you know. Anyway, to answer your question honestly I was hoping someone already did the work, but, my first instinct is the taller buildings closer to the WTCs inline with the flight path. The right tower was impacted, therefore the taller building should have been in the shot? Again, with just a snap shot look at the mock up and the flight path, that's what it seems. I could be wrong, but I would like to hear why. Thanks
I suggest you install Google Earth, turn on 3D buildings, and then move the camera until the view is the same. Then take a screenshot.
 

911Skeptic :-)

New Member
I gotcha that's exactly what I'm going to do. The shot is from ground level and I guess the camera man was zoomed all the way in? Is that accurate? Thanks for your help. I follow up in a few days.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The shot might have been from in a building. I'm not sure. I really can't see why there would be other building anywhere near in that shot though.

The important thing is the camera position, not the zoom.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Which OP shot?

In Google Earth, if you turn on 3D buildings, you can usually just click on the 3D model, and it will tell you:
 

deirdre

Senior Member
ugh. I have the same things checked as you and I'm getting nothing. you just have a magic computer. : P

edit: ok got it. had to go to 2002 though. ; (

Thanks!
 

deirdre

Senior Member
Would telephoto lense distort the view a little?
I think the angle of the shot would have passed over that tall silver building anyway (because it was far away). But the tall silver building wasn't there on 9/11 so its a moot point.
 

Efftup

Senior Member
The other problem I have with this is simple logic.
I haven't done this with video but I have done it with images in Photoshop or GIMP

If I was asked to composite or superimpose an aeroplane onto a landscape that is what I would do.
i would have two layers. The Landscape layer and the aeroplane layer.

Unless there was a need to, there is no way I would cut off any part or the landscape layer and paste it as a separate layer.

I hope this is making sense.

But all of this applies to the video. If someone is faking footage of flight 175 onto footage of the building, why the hell would they cut a part of the new York Skyline footage and make a separate layer that would then even enable this "compositing mistake"?
 

911Skeptic :-)

New Member
So my question was answered? And the obvious was in fact overlooked. The taller building closest to the WTCs would have had to of been in the shot wasn't built until 2010. How did a picture surface with the new building and the WTCs still standing? Weird lol. There is no way anyone could of truly debunked this video without explaining the silver building first. The mock up wasn't to scale. My question now is what else has been over looked? I'm presently reviewing the flight path to see in fact if it would have been possible for the left wing to clear the top of the building in question and impact the tower at that angle. Only then will this video be truly debunked in my opinion. Thanks
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
So my question was answered? And the obvious was in fact overlooked. The taller building closest to the WTCs would have had to of been in the shot wasn't built until 2010. How did a picture surface with the new building and the WTCs still standing? Weird lol. There is no way anyone could of truly debunked this video without explaining the silver building first. The mock up wasn't to scale. My question now is what else has been over looked? I'm presently reviewing the flight path to see in fact if it would have been possible for the left wing to clear the top of the building in question and impact the tower at that angle. Only then will this video be truly debunked in my opinion. Thanks
This (these) "questions" tend to replicate a narrative that has been on-going for over a decade. Usually attributed to a load of misinformation that is (firstly) gleaned off of the Internet.

A compilation of historical videos that were taken, and hence archived. THEN, others come along and attempt to "micro-manage" every sniggling detail, and wrap themselves up into a "conspiracy" mindset, usually because of very, very simple misinterpretations OF the original video evidence.
 

911Skeptic :-)

New Member
OK. So, I was wrong. There are indeed 2 buildings. The building in the foreground is the Whitehall Building. If you look at the detail on the top and compare it to the part of the building you can see in the video, it's pretty clear this is the building. It's directly across the street from Battery Park. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Building



You can also see a darker building behind it. That's the other building in the video. (I believe it's the La Rivera Apartments at 21 West St.)

And here's a picture showing just how close to the Whitehall building it is.


In both pics you can see the 3 rows of windows that are visible in the video on the building the plane passes behind.

And a shot to show the location in relation to the WTC towers.



It's pretty clear to me that the building "behind" the towers, is in fact in front of it.
Yeah you right. My question is how tall is this building? The WTCs were 110 stories. This building appears to be no more than 30-40 stories. If the plane impacted above the 75th floor ( I'm not sure) shouldn't we see more distances between the building and plane from the ground in the footage? It's nearly doubled the height of the building up? Weird smh
 

911Skeptic :-)

New Member
This (these) "questions" tend to replicate a narrative that has been on-going for over a decade. Usually attributed to a load of misinformation that is (firstly) gleaned off of the Internet.

A compilation of historical videos that were taken, and hence archived. THEN, others come along and attempt to "micro-manage" every sniggling detail, and wrap themselves up into a "conspiracy" mindset, usually because of very, very simple misinterpretations OF the original video evidence.
So don't investigate anomalies? I don't see your point. I'm an investigator, I investigate anomalies. You must agree that their are anomalies here correct?
 

deirdre

Senior Member
Yeah you right. My question is how tall is this building? The WTCs were 110 stories. This building appears to be no more than 30-40 stories. If the plane impacted above the 75th floor ( I'm not sure) shouldn't we see more distances between the building and plane from the ground in the footage? It's nearly doubled the height of the building up? Weird smh
the perspective is throwing you is all. battery park (where the video is from) is pretty far away from the towers, which is why the two buildings looks so "high" in the video and the plane goes behind the building. I would show you the camera angle but I cant figure out how to get my camera in street view to angle up. Find a tall tree and have a friend stand ( I don't know distances) like 100 feet way? or further. get down on your knees in front of your friend and look up at the tree and your friend. You'll see the same perspective as in that video. Your friends head will be very close to the top of the tree.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
So don't investigate anomalies? I don't see your point. I'm an investigator, I investigate anomalies. You must agree that their are anomalies here correct?
Seriously....an "anomaly" is really in the "Eye Of the Observer".

Think about it. THINK (please) about "optical illusions" (for example....please Google and find a vast resource).

Also (to keep it short...TOO LATE!!!) think about the VAST amount of nonsense out there that claim the Apollo Moon landings were somehow "faked"......ALL of it based on very basic misunderstanding of the science of photography.
 

deirdre

Senior Member
Here: in this photo I am like 6-8 feet away from her. When I was standing up the red flowers came up to mid calf on her, so I laid down on the pavement and angled my camera up.

persp.png

edit: oh and the flowers are about a foot from me. so if a bumble bee was flying around her nose level a foot from HER, in my shot the bumble bee would look like it was behind the flowers.
But if I stood up the bumble bee would look well above the flowers.
 
Last edited:

Keith Beachy

Senior Member
So don't investigate anomalies? I don't see your point. I'm an investigator, I investigate anomalies. You must agree that their are anomalies here correct?
There were no anomalies on 911, only our own lack of knowledge. There is what happened, no anomalies. Perspective might look like an anomaly, it is perspective.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Did anyone notice the right wing as the tip passes behind the tower then reappears just before impact??
20160218-082231-her9t.jpg

20160218-082411-h2s7n.jpg
Yes, that's a combination of video compression on the original, and then the slow-motion software is adding extra frames, and "guessing" what those extra frames are.
 
Top