| |
Please allow time to download graphics. (45 MB) - Be patient, and if some images don't show up - please click "refresh" on your browser.
|
More evidence of FAKE TOWER-COLLAPSE IMAGERY :
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/84413/844135b8c7d71c77cbc1fd76819c6ed8d3c83067" alt=""
This video is attributed to "amateur" Rick Siegel. Does that smoke-reflection drift in the right direction?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44168/441681a82e21e4faea5c88f1a8de8546dc04e8a6" alt=""
Clearly, Siegel's video was made with a horribly flawed 3-D software with some jerky rendering bugs!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/aba68/aba680b405ebef7375c7fbd4498ff7eb1eba0ebc" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7590/c7590296cc194244ed17eba89164f086c09de35f" alt=""
Two similar, frontal shots of the WTC1 collapse: Do both antennas appear to fall in the same direction ?data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/63b2f/63b2f4fc9753768b43002bec8830e4e62788e960" alt=""
Objectively speaking, they don't. Yet both "cameras'" vantage points feature similar Northern vantage points. It is safe to say that these "tower-collapse" videos cannot both be real. More likely, none of them are: the towers collapsed behind a thick smokescreen - and were never captured on film. Also, consider this: The alleged author of the top left shot, one "Etienne SAURET", is credited with much 9/11 imagery shot "as he speedily roamed about the area". So where was Mr.SAURET when he caught this head-on shot of the 110-story WTC ?
In March 2010, the "SAURET-shot" was used again in a fanciful documentary by one "DIMITRI KHALEZOV". This man claims to be a "former soviet nuclear expert" and he uses - once again - the fake 9/11 imagery to illustrate why he believes the WTC was demolished by some nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, Dimitri's version of the SAURET-shot is a sorry disaster: his WTC tower only shows 39 out of 59 beams ! Evidently, the 9/11 fakery-team provided poor Mr. Khalezov with a scrap copy of the various test-runs of their computer animations... Note also that the 39 beams are askew in relation to the building's frame. This formidable cock-up establishes beyond reasonable doubt the fraudulent nature of the 9/11 imagery. Here's a link to our forum for all details and references to this conclusive proof of foul play.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d855d/d855daf2e7d60fcdd4acbbefb03e1854e7c2742f" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2683d/2683de377ba1bb5f79b5f8ae00c6e6dc55936628" alt=""
These 2 shots are supposedly authored by two different cameramen. They are not :
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4bf7e/4bf7ea114798b011de9fe1f3bf2e46131fe9d4a3" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/84413/844135b8c7d71c77cbc1fd76819c6ed8d3c83067" alt=""
This video is attributed to "amateur" Rick Siegel. Does that smoke-reflection drift in the right direction?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44168/441681a82e21e4faea5c88f1a8de8546dc04e8a6" alt=""
Clearly, Siegel's video was made with a horribly flawed 3-D software with some jerky rendering bugs!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/aba68/aba680b405ebef7375c7fbd4498ff7eb1eba0ebc" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7590/c7590296cc194244ed17eba89164f086c09de35f" alt=""
Two similar, frontal shots of the WTC1 collapse: Do both antennas appear to fall in the same direction ?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/63b2f/63b2f4fc9753768b43002bec8830e4e62788e960" alt=""
Objectively speaking, they don't. Yet both "cameras'" vantage points feature similar Northern vantage points. It is safe to say that these "tower-collapse" videos cannot both be real. More likely, none of them are: the towers collapsed behind a thick smokescreen - and were never captured on film. Also, consider this: The alleged author of the top left shot, one "Etienne SAURET", is credited with much 9/11 imagery shot "as he speedily roamed about the area". So where was Mr.SAURET when he caught this head-on shot of the 110-story WTC ?
In March 2010, the "SAURET-shot" was used again in a fanciful documentary by one "DIMITRI KHALEZOV". This man claims to be a "former soviet nuclear expert" and he uses - once again - the fake 9/11 imagery to illustrate why he believes the WTC was demolished by some nuclear weapon. Unfortunately, Dimitri's version of the SAURET-shot is a sorry disaster: his WTC tower only shows 39 out of 59 beams ! Evidently, the 9/11 fakery-team provided poor Mr. Khalezov with a scrap copy of the various test-runs of their computer animations... Note also that the 39 beams are askew in relation to the building's frame. This formidable cock-up establishes beyond reasonable doubt the fraudulent nature of the 9/11 imagery. Here's a link to our forum for all details and references to this conclusive proof of foul play.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d855d/d855daf2e7d60fcdd4acbbefb03e1854e7c2742f" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2683d/2683de377ba1bb5f79b5f8ae00c6e6dc55936628" alt=""
These 2 shots are supposedly authored by two different cameramen. They are not :
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4bf7e/4bf7ea114798b011de9fe1f3bf2e46131fe9d4a3" alt=""
No comments:
Post a Comment