| |
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 :
This video is attributed to "amateur" Rick Siegel. Does that smoke-reflection drift in the right direction?
Clearly, Siegel's video was made with a horribly flawed 3-D software with some jerky rendering bugs!
Two similar, frontal shots of the WTC1 collapse: Do both antennas appear to fall in the same direction ?
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.
These 2 shots are supposedly authored by two different cameramen. They are not :
This video is attributed to "amateur" Rick Siegel. Does that smoke-reflection drift in the right direction?
Clearly, Siegel's video was made with a horribly flawed 3-D software with some jerky rendering bugs!
Two similar, frontal shots of the WTC1 collapse: Do both antennas appear to fall in the same direction ?
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.
These 2 shots are supposedly authored by two different cameramen. They are not :
No comments:
Post a Comment