[This post was inspired by the contributions of "BrianV", "Equinox", and "Nonhocapito" , at www.SeptemberClues.info ]
Snoop Dogg:
In 1995 the rap artist Snoop Dogg released a song"NewYork New York " with an accompanying promotional video.
The video contained scenes with giant images of Snoop Dogg and other group members superimposed on computer simulated scenes of Manhattan.
For example, consider these screenshots from that video:
Please note the lack of detail; the tell-tale lack of definition/resolution, of the various building facades depicted. Obviously, those scenes of downtown Manhattan in that video are simulations, made on computers, using the latest publicly available software for that time.
Again, that was in 1995!
And then 6 years later....... :
The Naudet Brothers-2001
Shortly after the alleged "terrorist attacks" of Sept. 11th, 2001, in downtown Manhattan, N.Y., U.S.A., a mysterious movie making team known as the Naudet Brothers gained brief international fame when they released a movie [broadcast on T.V.] that they claimed to have filmed in realtime in downtown Manhattan on the morning of 9/11.
Theirs is one of the few 9/11 movies that allegedly captured the impact of AA Fl.11 into the North tower [WTC1] - the vast majority of 9/11 movies depicting planes depict Fl. 175 flying into the South Tower [WTC2] .
To date, there have been many different versions of the Naudet Bros. 9/11 movie released, all with slight differences [which I am not an expert on].
However, according to 9/11 researcher "Hoi Polloi" the apparent original version of Naudet Brothers movie can be seen/downloaded here: http://septemberclues.info/naudet/
Last But Not Least: The 2010 Steve Vigilante "Genuine" 9/11 Movie
In 2010 , yet another mysterious 9/11 move surfaced, by one "Steve Vigilante" [ great name "Steve" :-) ].
Below is a screenshot from this "new" movie [Credit : Simon Shack + "Equinox"]:
Curiously, [or maybe not :-) ] almost the exact same viewpoint can be seen in the 2001 original Naudet Bros. footage, below [and also in the 2nd Snoop Dogg screen-shot at the start of this post, which bears an overall similarity more to the Naudet screen shot than to the Vigilante screen shot, especially definition/resolution-wise].
Naudet/Vigilante Differences?
Notice how the Vigilante screen shot has far more definition than the original Naudet sequence screen shot, [ or than the Snoop Dogg screen shot, for that matter], as seen , for example, in the brick work above the "coffee shop" indicated via the arrow in the Vigilante still, and the question mark in the Naudet still below it.
It appears obvious to me that the newer Vigilante sequence is nothing more than a higher resolution re-rendering of the Naudet [and possibly Snoop Dogg] sequence, that is, a re-rendering, from a slightly different angle [easy to do on a computer], in order to give more detail and to therefor appear more authentic to the naive, ignorant and casual viewer, and to attempt to once again reinforce the fiction that the Naudet's film, [or any/all of the rest of the alleged original MSM or "amateur" footage], is genuine [when it is not].
Re-Rendered Footage To [Mentally] Reinforce The 9/11 Myth
And Where Did That Red Canopy Come From?
And yes, I'm fully aware that the Vigilante example appears to be from a slightly later , post Fl. 175/WTC2 impact time-point, but did that red canopy above the 4 men in the lower right hand corner of the Vigilante screen-shot running the entire length of the red building above them in the picture, which is not seen in the Naudet screen shot, somehow get put up in it's entirety between the first and second tower strikes? Hmmm?
Red Versus White Building Facades:
Notice too how the building facade color is very different, as demonstrated in the side by side comparison of the Naudet still [left] and the Vigilante still [right] shown below.[And no, red brick buildings do not magically turn white, or grey, in direct sunlight.]
3 Questions You Might Consider:
Q1] It is worth remembering that the Naudet Bros. are alleged professional film-makers - do you really believe that they would not have had professional camera equipment in 2001 fully capable of achieving the exact same resolution, definition, and detail as is now magically revealed in the newer [2010] Vigilante sequence?
This exact same point applies to absolutely all of the original so-called"live" MSM footage, all of which has appalling lack of resolution and detail, regardless of network- all allegedly "achieved" with network cameras costing in excess of $200,000 [my guess] per camera.
Q1b.] So why does all of the original network footage display such appalling lack of detail and resolution?
For example, here is a screen-shot from the original "live" CBS 9/11 broadcasts [N.B. this still is from the official higher resolution archives , when they were all still being archived in the higher resolution MPEG3 file form. From sometime in 2008 all of those 9/11 archived files were converted to a lower resolution file-save format.]:
[Don't take my word on this lack of detail in all original 9/11 "live" footage , check the original MSM "live" 9/11 footage against other 2001 and prior, none-9/11 related live network footage or photo stills for yourself.]
Another Resolution/ Definition Comparison - Genuine Pre- 9/11 Real Imagery Versus Typical 9/11 Imagery:
Q2] Which of these movies and extracted screen shots [i.e. Snoop Dogg, Naudet, Vigilante] is authentic to you, and why exactly?
Q3] Why can't all 3 be fake movies, in your opinion ?
Regards, onebornfree
