At the 8:03 mark in this video, you can clearly see the airplane wing go behind the the building to the left in the foreground! Clearly it was CGI and done in conjunction with fake MSM and put out there as the official video footage!
Definitely an inside job. What happened to the so called passengers on those phantom planes? Were they all CIA operatives and their identities changed soon after they supposedly died? Or were they actual citizens caught up in the ruse and killed by the CIA as part of their nefarious agenda?
I wondered what you were referring to. It turns out that an Anon (worth his name) did some background research regarding the plane's flight path and discovered that it indeed was behind that building. No CGI (pre-CGI). It is a simple consequence of what amounts to a telescopic picture. At a sufficiently far distance, the focal plane is the same for everything in view and it all looks like it is at the same distance. I noticed this strange effect in TV coverage of football games when I was growing up in the 1950s: the spectators in the stands looked as large as the players on the field. Distance suppresses the perspective effect.
So, wannabee "anons" can hug their conspiracy blankets and decry "CGI" when this was all before that technology was available, and a real anon dug into the picture and the flight path and discovered that the image was real.
Well, I don't happen to have that in my Roladex. The point was: the anon matched the flight path to a map with the location of major buildings and determined that the airplane did indeed fly "behind" the building that obstructed the view of the wingtip. And what was wrong with that? The uninformed viewer starts out with an incorrect assumption of the depth of the images---which is a characteristic of images taken at long distance. Normal perspective cues for distance are obliterated by the fact that the images are all at the "same" distance. There wasn't anything to "show" except his statement of what he found.
But the fact seems to be that you give creds to the credulous.
Edit: Primitive CGI was available earlier (e.g., "Tron") but the kind of CGI that we are familiar with and can expect today was not. Nor is it clear how that could be inserted into a video. But since the airplane flight path and the location of identified buildings confirms that the plane flew behind the one in question, it is moot.
Look up Logo Insertion. They could insert network logos in realtime so they could probably do a logo shaped like a plane. Show it when everyone's traumatized and it'll pass. Then hide all the video once the brainwash takes hold. Standard MK trickery.
Logos are fixed in the field of the frame. There are no moving logos, at least not in the time frame of interest.
But it is one thing to surmise, quite another to prove. There is no proof of any such manipulation, and plenty of observational, photographic, and material evidence for the collision. Your arguments are of the same form as the "We never went to the Moon" crowd. When everything is a lie---why should I believe you? And why should you believe that everything is a lie?
At the 8:03 mark in this video, you can clearly see the airplane wing go behind the the building to the left in the foreground! Clearly it was CGI and done in conjunction with fake MSM and put out there as the official video footage!
Definitely an inside job. What happened to the so called passengers on those phantom planes? Were they all CIA operatives and their identities changed soon after they supposedly died? Or were they actual citizens caught up in the ruse and killed by the CIA as part of their nefarious agenda?
It never struck you as weird all those celebrities that "missed " their flight that day? I know the family guy guy has talked about it several times
I wondered what you were referring to. It turns out that an Anon (worth his name) did some background research regarding the plane's flight path and discovered that it indeed was behind that building. No CGI (pre-CGI). It is a simple consequence of what amounts to a telescopic picture. At a sufficiently far distance, the focal plane is the same for everything in view and it all looks like it is at the same distance. I noticed this strange effect in TV coverage of football games when I was growing up in the 1950s: the spectators in the stands looked as large as the players on the field. Distance suppresses the perspective effect.
So, wannabee "anons" can hug their conspiracy blankets and decry "CGI" when this was all before that technology was available, and a real anon dug into the picture and the flight path and discovered that the image was real.
An anon worth his name… please provide sauce… we don’t give creds to spoofs. Show his proofs
Well, I don't happen to have that in my Roladex. The point was: the anon matched the flight path to a map with the location of major buildings and determined that the airplane did indeed fly "behind" the building that obstructed the view of the wingtip. And what was wrong with that? The uninformed viewer starts out with an incorrect assumption of the depth of the images---which is a characteristic of images taken at long distance. Normal perspective cues for distance are obliterated by the fact that the images are all at the "same" distance. There wasn't anything to "show" except his statement of what he found.
But the fact seems to be that you give creds to the credulous.
Edit: Primitive CGI was available earlier (e.g., "Tron") but the kind of CGI that we are familiar with and can expect today was not. Nor is it clear how that could be inserted into a video. But since the airplane flight path and the location of identified buildings confirms that the plane flew behind the one in question, it is moot.
Look up Logo Insertion. They could insert network logos in realtime so they could probably do a logo shaped like a plane. Show it when everyone's traumatized and it'll pass. Then hide all the video once the brainwash takes hold. Standard MK trickery.
Logos are fixed in the field of the frame. There are no moving logos, at least not in the time frame of interest.
But it is one thing to surmise, quite another to prove. There is no proof of any such manipulation, and plenty of observational, photographic, and material evidence for the collision. Your arguments are of the same form as the "We never went to the Moon" crowd. When everything is a lie---why should I believe you? And why should you believe that everything is a lie?
Or some of each?