9/11 Video Fakery:Snoop Dogg vs.The Naudet Bros. vs. "Steve Vigilante"

[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. 

Re-Rendered Footage To [Mentally] Reinforce The 9/11 Myth

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]. 

       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

4 Real 9/11 WTC2 Collapse Photos- Or..?

9/11 Video and Photographic Fakery-The Sum of All The Evidence- a Demonstration

[Original photo research by Simon Shack and "Equinox"]

Below are 2 allegedly real photographs [the first below is actually a video "still" from an alleged live video by a "Ben Reisman"], depicting an alleged early moment in the miraculous, almost instantaneous [under 20 sec.s]  collapse of  WTC2 on 9/11. Notice both are taken from near identical angles/perspectives and at almost the exact same instant in time. Yet one displays a lamp-post and the other does not. 

If you think that the nearer viewpoint of the 2nd photo [Sancetta] would explain that, try making a screen shot from the Reisman still that successfully excludes the lamp-post, and yet still includes the exact same portion of the pyramid-shaped roof and gold ball on top for the [lower]building situated directly in front of the black building, as is seen in the second photo [Sancetta]. Good luck with that! 

Still Not Convinced Something's Wrong?

Now if that does not convince you that something is wrong- I understand, after all it is possible that Sancetta was in front of the lamp-post when that shot was taken and that accounts for the difference. 

However, now compare both Sancetta and Resiman's photos with another alleged photo depicting the same event from a similar angle, the Nilsson photo [1] below]. [Forget about photo 2 below for the moment].

 Notice anything odd? 

Last of all,  compare the Nilsson photo[1] above, with the Samoilova photo [2] above. 

Are we there yet? Remember-  in the big picture, it's the sum of all the evidence that leads to an ultimate conclusion- not one piece of evidence in particular. 

Regards, onebornfree.

Addendum/Update 11/17/12: 

Yet more versions of the WTC2 collapse "family" of photographs, such as these two , as compared by September Clues researcher "reel deal" take special note of the marvelously cloned smoke pattern on the left side of the smaller photo that gets overlayed onto the larger one! : 

"you forgot to comp the streetlight & flagpole."

"dont matter, cloned the tree & dustcloud instead..."

  

Update 11/29/ 12:  Same Scene Now 8 Authors!

Would you believe that as revealed by September Clues forum researcher "Equinox", there are now at least 8 slightly different versions of  almost exactly the  same famous Sancetta image seen above [2nd. image from top], all somehow miraculously capturing the exact same moment in time? 

Below are stills of some of these additional images. Some stills are from new, allegedly live video that was released by N.I.S.T. in 2010 as part of it's "Cumulus" information release, supposedly as the result of  Freedom of Information [F.O.I.A.] motion by some person or group [if you can believe even that!]

A question for you: do you believe that it is at all likely that 8 different photographers all happened to be in almost the exact same spot on 9/11, and that all 8 [and possibly more!] happened to shoot the almost exact same event/moment in time as depicted in these photos and stills from various videos? And what about the conflicting scenery shown? How do you explain that? "Perspective issues" perhaps?

Regards, onebornfree. 

NBC "Live" on 9/11, or "Armageddon"- Which Picture Is Real?

Question: So which picture is more real to you- a still from this on line, low resolution flv.  movie file [ from the 1998 "Armageddon" movie]:

Or..... this still from this on line, higher resolution original MPEG archived record of NBC's  original , allegedly live, 9/11 broadcast? :

FACT:  yes, I understand both images are  only at a low resolution 72 d.p.i. image when viewed online, but consider: the original on line NBC file source  was of higher [MPEG]"res" than the original on line source [flv.] of the still from the movie"Armageddon", and so should still be of far better quality than that flv. file when compared side by side, even at 72 d.p.i. - and yet, somehow, it's not. 

P.S. TV network cameras routinely cost 100's of 1000's of $' [as do a movie companies] and are therefor fully capable of shooting high quality footage at all  times- except apparently, on 9/11!

 Both stills courtesy of Simon Shack 

Fake 9/11 N.I.S.T. Twin Tower Collapse Footage [2010]

Blog purpose: This is  the first post for a blog that I should really have started a few years ago. What finally got me to start it was two separate events: [1] the loss of September Clues researcher "Reel.Deal"'s work on the September Clues forums,[just one of many excellent researchers there], due either to site hacking or whatever, and [2], the comment of "Ab Irato" on whose radio show I had appeared, when he told me he thought a site dedicated to highlighting notable research updates from the September Clues researchers, {who continue to find new evidence that  further confirms their contention that all of the original US "live" broadcast footage for 9/11 [i.e. ABC, NBC, CNN, Fox, CBS, ] is in actual fact fake, and was pre-manufactured using computers and then broadcast as if live, into the homes of millions of Americans that day}, would be a good idea.  I decided that I needed to do the same thing myself in order to help prevent the future loss of research at the September Clues site that I personally believed to be particularly important because of its clarity/simplicity .   regards, obf.

......................................................................................................................................

Fake "Live" 2010 N.I.S.T. Twin Tower Collapse Footage: 

 I currently believe that the "live" MSM network collapse sequences for WTC1 and 2 [and 7] ,  just like all of the original, allegedly "live" MSM aired network Fl.175 sequences [and like all, post-event released amateur equivalents], are all fakes [i.e pre -manufactured on computers, then dishonestly broadcast as being "live"], as  revealed by Simon Shack and the various talented September Clues  researchers.

 Recently the super observant folks at September Clues uncovered yet more evidence in support of this proposition:

 Imagery discrepancies in NIST footage released 2010 [ a piece of debris falls towards camera without ever becoming larger on screen; the debris falls at a speed far above its possible terminal velocity [apparently under 4 sec.s , more than double the real-world possible speed- see the gif below extracted from the video ] : 

Gif source here 

Click here for full, fake, original 2010 NIST  falling debris Youtube video

Regards, onebornfree