Saturday, August 10, 2013

9/11 Scams: Real N.Y.C. Images Vs. Fake MSM 9/11 Media Broadcast Footage- Random Examples.

This post is mostly a reference file for some real pre-9/11 photos and videos that I have come across to date.

The only thing to note/compare really here is the superb resolution, clarity and detail of all of these original genuine images, even those  depicting the WTC's construction in black and white, and also, the complete absence of the strange, single or double black lines around  any of the scenery, unlike these two randomly selected stills immediately below from the alleged live 9/11 network footage.[Both image analyses , fig.s 1 & 2 below courtesy of Simon Shack . Click on images to enlarge].


Remember that these examples [Fig.s 1 and 2] of the alleged live network footage of  9/11 were supposedly captured via  network TV cameras where the cameras lens alone routinely cost between $8000 and $20000[!] [ Click on images to enlarge]:                                                          

                                                                     
                                                                              Fig.1

                                         
                                                       Fig. 2  
Above: An analysis of two "stills" taken from original, allegedly "live" network video feeds.[i.e.Typical MSM 9/11 image quality. Click on images to enlarge.]

                         
                                                                    Youtube link to video
Above- Fig. 3 A genuine pre-9/11 home movie. Note the complete lack of double black lines or similar, plus the overall clear resolution of all imagery in this video.



















     
Compare, Compare, Compare:                                                                                                                                                      

Now try and see if you can get anywhere near the same sort of image quality and resolution as captured by this small, handheld video camcorder in a genuine amateur video above, from
any  allegedly "live" 9/11 network video sequence depicting the Twin Towers etc. 

Remember in 2001, a "state of the art" camcorder was a probably a Sony camcorder costing maybe $2000 [ a guess], with nowhere near the capabilities of studio network cameras, where, as I mentioned before, the lens alone on those monsters cost anywhere between $8,000 and $20,000]!  


For example, as well as Figs. [1] and [2] above, see this gif file below from NBC's original "live" feed showing the collapse of WTC 2, : 

Fig. 4: An $8,000 to $20,000 NBC network camera lens in action on 9/11? [gif. made by Simon Shack from the original highest resolution MPEG format version of NBC's 9/11 archives, now re-archived in a lower {flv?}resolution format here]

Fig. 5 Still shot from MSNBC's "Live 911 footage" archive. A  state of the art network camera costing in the region of $20,000 [at least], took this ! This is after 9am on a clear sunny day, and yet it looks more like the break of dawn than anything else, here.

Below: various, random real, pre 9/11 photos [ Click on any image to enlarge it]:


                 
                            

               


                              


                                         
                                 

                            

                                     


                                         
                                               

And again , as a reminder, this [below] is just one completely atypical example [i.e. not an aberration] of the image quality from various alleged live network feeds broadcast on 9/11: 

This gif file was  made from an archived, supposedly genuine NBC "live, 9/11 video" sequence. Yeah, right. This  sample of the typical 9/11 MSM broadcast image quality [check for yourself] is so obviously fake its not even funny! [Or, it's funny to me, if you still believe it is actually a gif from genuine real time MSM footage, I suppose :-) ]. 

Study, Study, Study:

If you still believe it and others like it, are genuine, go back through the numerous real photos I have posted here, click on them at random to enlarge, then study them and compare the picture quality when compared with that of this gif or that of the two photos that started this post [Fig.s 1 and 2 ]. 

Conclusion: All of the "live" US MSM broadcast video footage of 9/11, for all channels, [CNN, CBS, ABC,NBC, Fox,], all 102 minutes of it , as now officially archived here, is in fact fake, pre-manufactured [on computer] imagery, not real live footage, as we were, are, and always will be, led to believe. 

Are we "there" yet? 

 Not "There" Yet? : The Sum of All The Evidence:

The poor quality of all of the "live" MSM 9/11 footage compared to regular live broadcasts [don't take my word for it- study the archived footageclosely yourself {officially archived here },  and compare with your own selection of genuine, pre-9/11 imagery] alone does not prove wholesale media fakery.

 Other factors must be seriously considered, such a the remarkably fortuitous timing of various alleged "live" edits and camera "zooms" in and out to capture the alleged live imagery  events of 9/11, or the repeated presence of doubled, or "ghosted" images, and the presence of large black lines around many buildings in numerous "live" original MSM archived sequences. 

Then there is the whole question of imagery [i.e the Verrazano Bridge]seen to be moving in stationary camera sequences, or appearing to be double or triple its actual size relative to other buildings in those sequences.

As an attempt at a "sum of all the evidence" type argument, I will post examples of these further types of proof of media fakery on 9/11,  either here as  updates, or in separate posts in the future.

                                  
Regards, onebornfree.

Update 09/03/13
See related post on 9/11 MSM broadcast image quality : 





































2 comments:

  1. Really like this post. Nothing here should be controversial, except for the conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the positive feedback, elbuggo.

    ReplyDelete