Carmen Taylor Digital Photograph - "Revenge Of The Money Shot"
The Carmen Taylor digital photograph,
distributed by Associated Press and a web site of the State Department,
looks so similar to screen captures from the
CNN Best Angle video at impact that we'd be forgiven for thinking they were imaged with the
same device. I've shown the closest possible frame from the CNN Best Angle video below for
comparison:
In both the CNN Best Angle capture and the Carmen Taylor photograph the area of wing between the port engine nacelle and the fuselage is almost completely missing, not to mention the absent bottom half of the tail fin! Being so similar to the CNN Best Angle video it faces the same problem, which is that the aircraft attitude shown in the image is inconsistent with other images of the UA175 aircraft taken at the same time. In order to get an optical match I had to tilt the nose up to about 3 or 4 degrees above horizontal and rotate the airframe over to the left to such an extent that it contradicted not only the official attitude data, but also my own data pulled from other video sources and stills photography. Other CNN footage, taken from Brooklyn Heights, shows a near straight horizontal entry attitude and no last-instant 'pulling up' of nose of the alleged plane, in flat contradiction to the 'nose-up' anomaly of the CNN Best Angle and Carmen Taylor graphics.
It is unlikely the pod is an optical illusion caused the reflection of the engine nacelle in the starboard wing fairing given the relatively small size and curved shape of the fairing and the rather obvious fact that the pod itself appears to be larger than the wing fairing. Pod issues will be discussed later on in 'The Pod Illusion De-bunked' section of this article.
-----------------------------------------------
Afterward
Despite the 'official' version of events stating that WTC2 was hit by
a hijacked Boeing 767-200 there is no photographic evidence to support this.
Each picture of the supposed UA175 aircraft analysed in this article shows
that some kind of unexplainable defect, be it a 'pod', a defective port wing,
lighting anomalies or just an airframe that bears no resemblance to a Boeing 767-200.
When the UA175 images are analysed comparatively we see glaring
inconsistencies in airspeed, airframe symmetry, lighting,
descent path angle and airframe attitude.Some of these deficiencies are so obvious it is as if their creator wanted us to know that they are fakes. We could call these people "Whistle Blowers". There is the distinct possibility that more than one person or organisation is responsible for manufacturing these fake videos and fake images and that what we are seeing here are the differences between the forging standards of each respective party.
It should be apparent to the reader that the visual record of the WTC2 strike has been fabricated or tampered with to make us believe that the tower was hit by an aircraft. This is the Media Hoax. The question is, by how much has the visual record been manipulated? Are they all fakes or just a proportion of them? It is very hard to tell. In my opinion the figure could be as high as 100%. This means that we effectively have no genuine visual record of the WTC2 strike.
So why is the establishment trying to conceal the true nature of this attack? Why manipulate and / or fabricate the videographic and photographic record of the event? The witness reports offer us an explanation. None of them reported seeing a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 collide with the tower. They all describe something different like a "grey plane" or a "non-commercial plane" or "a plane with no windows" or a "small plane".
The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Afterward
Despite the 'official' version of events stating that WTC2 was hit by
a hijacked Boeing 767-200 there is no photographic evidence to support this.
Each picture of the supposed UA175 aircraft analysed in this article shows
that some kind of unexplainable defect, be it a 'pod', a defective port wing,
lighting anomalies or just an airframe that bears no resemblance to a Boeing 767-200.
When the UA175 images are analysed comparatively we see glaring
inconsistencies in airspeed, airframe symmetry, lighting,
descent path angle and airframe attitude.Some of these deficiencies are so obvious it is as if their creator wanted us to know that they are fakes. We could call these people "Whistle Blowers". There is the distinct possibility that more than one person or organisation is responsible for manufacturing these fake videos and fake images and that what we are seeing here are the differences between the forging standards of each respective party.
It should be apparent to the reader that the visual record of the WTC2 strike has been fabricated or tampered with to make us believe that the tower was hit by an aircraft. This is the Media Hoax. The question is, by how much has the visual record been manipulated? Are they all fakes or just a proportion of them? It is very hard to tell. In my opinion the figure could be as high as 100%. This means that we effectively have no genuine visual record of the WTC2 strike.
So why is the establishment trying to conceal the true nature of this attack? Why manipulate and / or fabricate the videographic and photographic record of the event? The witness reports offer us an explanation. None of them reported seeing a United Airlines Boeing 767-200 collide with the tower. They all describe something different like a "grey plane" or a "non-commercial plane" or "a plane with no windows" or a "small plane".
The reason why the establishment is trying to conceal the true nature of the WTC2 attack is because there was no United Airlines Boeing 767-200 impact with the WTC2 tower on the morning of 911.
No comments:
Post a Comment