Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
tisasituation said:It's all a conspiracy!!
It wasn't a demolition. This has already been debunked for you. However, for whatever reason, you have decided you would prefer to believe the debunked conspiracy gibberish.Then ask him how concrete can fall through steel, even if it is "soft like clay," at virtually the same speed as it would fall through air (90% of free fall speed is still free fall speed for these purposes,) and he can get a Nobel Prize for revising the laws of physics. Summary here:
The Easiest Way to Understand 9/11 Was a Demolition: Free-Fall
It wasn't a demolition. This has already been debunked for you. However, for whatever reason, you have decided you would prefer to believe the debunked conspiracy gibberish.
Seriously? Different camera angles, different cameras with different depths of field is somehow proof of a conspiracy? Holy pogo sticks.
It is, actually. Its called "depth of field". Don't take my word for it. Take a camera out and play around a bit, and you'll see there's nothing suspicious about the photos you posted.I know it's hard to accept. You are firmly attached to the official story for psychological reasons. This is why you accept these shots as all being plausible by some excuse of angle or depth.
Shot 1: The WTC towers shown are at approximately the same distance from the camera - but the bridge in the right hand photo is much further away.
I don't know about you - but if I zoom my camera - everything in the frame must get bigger or smaller. I can't selectively zoom something in or out and keep the rest of the forground or background the same size.
It is not possible.
Almost.Shot 2: Even as the camera stops zooming out and is in a static position, the bridge keeps moving left. I don't know if walking bridges are a part of your reality - but they certainly aren't part of mine.
Shot 3: Almost exact same distance, exact same depth, and same angle. Plane in left frame is black - doesn't reflect sun. Plane in right hand frame does. Left hand frame shows building with green top as a prominent feature - right hand frame the green topped building is missing.
I know it's hard to accept. You are firmly attached to the official story for psychological reasons. This is why you accept these shots as all being plausible by some excuse of angle or depth.
If that's true, then why do the secret chemicals in my water make a rainbow?It is, actually. Its called "depth of field". Don't take my word for it. Take a camera out and play around a bit, and you'll see there's nothing suspicious about the photos you posted.
Almost.
I love when CTists, especially Truthers, not only think they've uncovered some secret mystery that we all saw, but only they have seen the TRVTH[sup]TM[/sup], they're also psychologists and have insight into the psyche of people skeptical of their claims. Either that or they think they can read minds.
You simply dont know how cameras work..... if you think you cannot get those 2 shots.I know it's hard to accept. You are firmly attached to the official story for psychological reasons. This is why you accept these shots as all being plausible by some excuse of angle or depth.
Shot 1: The WTC towers shown are at approximately the same distance from the camera - but the bridge in the right hand photo is much further away.
I don't know about you - but if I zoom my camera - everything in the frame must get bigger or smaller. I can't selectively zoom something in or out and keep the rest of the forground or background the same size.
It is not possible.....
I know it's hard to accept. You are firmly attached to the official story for psychological reasons. This is why you accept these shots as all being plausible by some excuse of angle or depth.
Shot 1: The WTC towers shown are at approximately the same distance from the camera - but the bridge in the right hand photo is much further away.
I don't know about you - but if I zoom my camera - everything in the frame must get bigger or smaller. I can't selectively zoom something in or out and keep the rest of the forground or background the same size.
Shot 2: Even as the camera stops zooming out and is in a static position, the bridge keeps moving left. I don't know if walking bridges are a part of your reality - but they certainly aren't part of mine.
Shot 3: Almost exact same distance, exact same depth, and same angle. Plane in left frame is black - doesn't reflect sun. Plane in right hand frame does. Left hand frame shows building with green top as a prominent feature - right hand frame the green topped building is missing.
That's because you don't know what you're doing and obviously have little experience with a camera. Not only is such a thing possible, it's a fundamental part of composing a photograph.
You can even change those sizes in real-time. Do you know what a Dolly Zoom is? It's a camera trick that keeps the subject of the shot the same size and in focus while changing the apparent size & distance of objects in the foreground and background. It's accomplished by moving the camera towards the subject while zooming out at the same speed (or vice versa, moving away while zooming in). It was made popular by Alfred Hitchcock in Vertigo and, in a more recent example, was used in the first LOTR movie in the woods before the Nazgul first appeared.
Seriously? A static position? That shot is from a helicopter. You can see everything in the foreground AND background moving.
No, they're not from the same place or the same distance - not remotely close. If you watch the video on youtube labeled "September Clues C", you can see that the shot on the left was taken from a considerable distance away. In fact, it was taken in Brooklyn (or possible on/above the East River). You can see the same angle by going to google maps, typing in "300 furman st Brooklyn NY", going down to street view, and looking across the river. You can tell this left-hand shot wasn't taken from Manhattan, because all of the buildings you see from street view are also visible in that shot and you wouldn't be able to get that angle from Manhattan.
Compare that with the extreme upward angle in the second/right-hand shot, which shows that it was taken from within a few blocks of the WTC.
Lastly, what is it, exactly, that you hope to prove by suggesting that these videos are fake? That the towers didn't burn and collapse? That they weren't struck by something?
It's amusing and disheartening to me that you'd think that the video people allegedly involved in this wouldn't be able to catch glaring errors like this. It's pretty obvious that you've never worked in any sort of media production.
-Dan.
You are talking about short distances in film media as opposed to long distances in static media (either from a snap shot, or a single frame from a film)
Keeping in mind that the 911 photo is not a snap - but simply a frame from a film..
The distances between the bridges in either shot are considerable in relation to the distance of those cameras to the WTC. The effects you are talking about in the first Nazful/Frodo and friends encounter in LOTR is relatively short. And - anyone watching knows it's an effect - it doesn't appear as normal photography.
These WTC shots are also NOT at street level - which means that even if one could create a "dolly zoom" still frame that shows no sign of it being a camera trick - the person moving towards the bridge would either be in a helicopter or running across a NY building rooftop in the direction of the bridge to get that shot.
So which is it do you suppose? Did the helicopter pilot speed his chopper a considerable distance forward while zooming out, or speed his chopper backward while zooming in to get these shots? What would be the reason for this doing special effects shots in a news cast on 911?
Again - the Verrazano Bridge is a considerable distance away from where the WTC stood. Here's another perspective:
Compared to another still frame from above street level on 911:
Notice also the double height of the bridge here, with it's doubling portion stacked on top of itself and for some reason colored in red. (???)
The film we were shown that day was tampered with.
I suggest paying attention to the last 2-3 seconds of the shot. At that point WTC is approximately at the middle of the shot - while bridge keeps walking to the left.
Anyone can see that the frames shown are of approximately the same distance - whether the camera is physically closer or zoomed in, and they are from almost the exact same perspective.
The plane in the left doesn't reflect the sun while the plane on the right does. The building on the left isn't present in the right hand photo. That's a problem, because it's absence shows that one of the photos (or both) are forgeries.
The second famous photo is also cropped. Here's a frame from the original:
<I can't post images yet either>
Not only is there no green topped building anywhere near the WTC in this shot
- I'll ask something September Clues pointed out in it's doco that I found extremely amusing:
The guy shooting the film - is he a dwarf? Or did he jump into a manhole just to get this camera angle at the best possible moment?
If you hadn't noticed, the gifs in the post this refers to are from the September Clues website. And catching glaring errors IS what that doco is all about - by a person who is quite familiar with media production.
These "fake picture" conspiracies are so transparently silly that they MUST HAVE been planted by the illuminati power structure to cast doubt upon all the other real conspiracies.
.
Its "false flag" conspiracy-manufacture.
.
If you swamp the dozen or so real conspiracies with a couple hundred goofy ones, then they all seem goofy.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?