http://intellihub.com/2013/09/12/sh...tion-glitch-durring-2001-live-news-broadcast/

External Quote:

[Video url updated Feb 2016, as original was removed]

Just a case of being fooled by perspective I'm sure. Not exactly compelling.

[Admin: added debunking image]

OK. So, I was wrong. There are indeed 2 buildings. The building in the foreground is the Whitehall Building. If you look at the detail on the top and compare it to the part of the building you can see in the video, it's pretty clear this is the building. It's directly across the street from Battery Park. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Building

You can also see a darker building behind it. That's the other building in the video. (I believe it's the La Rivera Apartments at 21 West St.) Moderator note: it's actually the Downtown Club at 20 West St. La Rivera is the lower yellow brick building to the right in the photo below. See post #40.

And here's a picture showing just how close to the Whitehall building it is.

In both pics you can see the 3 rows of windows that are visible in the video on the building the plane passes behind.

And a shot to show the location in relation to the WTC towers.

It's pretty clear to me that the building "behind" the towers, is in fact in front of it.

Wow, it's a lot further away than I thought.

[...]

It's perspective foreshortening.

The plane does seem to clip with the edge of the WTC, but that's just a compression artifact, like Anderson Cooper's disappearing nose.

I believe the reason why the overlapping of details looks "strange" to most people is because the video frames has been interpolated using software to achieve slow motion. The original video material was likely interlaced NTSC video, which meant this slow motion effect was probably applied on already de-interlaced material, something that in itself usually cause minor visual artefacts on fast moving objects.

This adds to the "strangeness" of the visual overlap.

Why don't you say which buildings you think are missing? It's your theory, so you should be the one supplying the evidence for it.

I suggest you install Google Earth, turn on 3D buildings, and then move the camera until the view is the same. Then take a screenshot.

The shot might have been from in a building. I'm not sure. I really can't see why there would be other building anywhere near in that shot though.

The important thing is the camera position, not the zoom.

Which OP shot?

In Google Earth, if you turn on 3D buildings, you can usually just click on the 3D model, and it will tell you:

ugh. I have the same things checked as you and I'm getting nothing. you just have a magic computer. : P

edit: ok got it. had to go to 2002 though. ; (

Thanks!

I think the angle of the shot would have passed over that tall silver building anyway (because it was far away). But the tall silver building wasn't there on 9/11 so its a moot point.

Not really, a cropped segment of a 50mm shots is essentially the same as a 500mm shot if taken from the same position.

The other problem I have with this is simple logic.
I haven't done this with video but I have done it with images in Photoshop or GIMP

If I was asked to composite or superimpose an aeroplane onto a landscape that is what I would do.
i would have two layers. The Landscape layer and the aeroplane layer.

Unless there was a need to, there is no way I would cut off any part or the landscape layer and paste it as a separate layer.

I hope this is making sense.

But all of this applies to the video. If someone is faking footage of flight 175 onto footage of the building, why the hell would they cut a part of the new York Skyline footage and make a separate layer that would then even enable this "compositing mistake"?

This (these) "questions" tend to replicate a narrative that has been on-going for over a decade. Usually attributed to a load of misinformation that is (firstly) gleaned off of the Internet.

A compilation of historical videos that were taken, and hence archived. THEN, others come along and attempt to "micro-manage" every sniggling detail, and wrap themselves up into a "conspiracy" mindset, usually because of very, very simple misinterpretations OF the original video evidence.

Yeah you right. My question is how tall is this building? The WTCs were 110 stories. This building appears to be no more than 30-40 stories. If the plane impacted above the 75th floor ( I'm not sure) shouldn't we see more distances between the building and plane from the ground in the footage? It's nearly doubled the height of the building up? Weird smh

So don't investigate anomalies? I don't see your point. I'm an investigator, I investigate anomalies. You must agree that their are anomalies here correct?

I can't answer for WW but to my mind, no, not really.

What anomalies?

the perspective is throwing you is all. battery park (where the video is from) is pretty far away from the towers, which is why the two buildings looks so "high" in the video and the plane goes behind the building. I would show you the camera angle but I cant figure out how to get my camera in street view to angle up. Find a tall tree and have a friend stand ( I don't know distances) like 100 feet way? or further. get down on your knees in front of your friend and look up at the tree and your friend. You'll see the same perspective as in that video. Your friends head will be very close to the top of the tree.

Seriously....an "anomaly" is really in the "Eye Of the Observer".

Think about it. THINK (please) about "optical illusions" (for example....please Google and find a vast resource).

Also (to keep it short...TOO LATE!!!) think about the VAST amount of nonsense out there that claim the Apollo Moon landings were somehow "faked"......ALL of it based on very basic misunderstanding of the science of photography.

Here: in this photo I am like 6-8 feet away from her. When I was standing up the red flowers came up to mid calf on her, so I laid down on the pavement and angled my camera up.

edit: oh and the flowers are about a foot from me. so if a bumble bee was flying around her nose level a foot from HER, in my shot the bumble bee would look like it was behind the flowers.
But if I stood up the bumble bee would look well above the flowers.

There were no anomalies on 911, only our own lack of knowledge. There is what happened, no anomalies. Perspective might look like an anomaly, it is perspective.

Yes, that's a combination of video compression on the original, and then the slow-motion software is adding extra frames, and "guessing" what those extra frames are.

Is this a helpful video? Clever how it's done.

A slight correction: the red brick building is actually the Downtown Athletic Club building at 20 West Street, now a residential tower called The Downtown Club. 21 West Street is immediately north of it (hidden in the above photo).

I'm bumping this now as this debunked claim is being reposted a lot on social media currently (September 2026) - eg this post by former British MP Andrew Bridgen.

Source: https://x.com/ABridgen/status/2099744507830952359?s=20