TV fakery

[steelerzrockin]

First of all, I would like to say that I love the United States, I think it is truly a lovely place to live. However, I would like to share my concerns that the mainstream media DID in fact help support the American military's 'War on Terror' by airing faked plane footage on September 11, 2001. I strongly believe that the 'planes' were computer graphics that corresponded with a bomb explosion planted inside the WTC and that eye-witnesses were paid to say they saw a plane. I do NOT want to offend anyone who truly believes what the media said on that terrible day. I just want to share evidential pieces of footage that may contradict that the 'planes' shown were NOT a United Airlines plane. http://www.facebook.com/photo_search...33566&view=all Please check out as many pictures as you can and read the information provided.

[Bearsy]

I believe that the government had something to do with or at least knew about the attacks before they happened. But even I think you're batshit insane for thinking that a million eyewitnesses were paid off to lie about something like that. Planes did crash into the buildings. Whether or not there were bombs, I'm not sure. But there were planes.

[steelerzrockin]

I think you're batshit insane for thinking that a million eyewitnesses were paid off to lie about something like that. To Elis: May I ask who says there are a million witnesses who saw a plane? Did the mainstream media report a million witnesses, the same mainstream media that I believe aired the faked plane footage to support the military? To hankwheels: Thank-you very very much for your support to my concerns about the 9/11 TV fakery. Another thing you have to remember is that the mainstream media only aired the footage containing the computer graphic planes. They never aired home videos that people caught that featured no plane at all. Here is just a couple example, including an NBC live shot with no plane: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=zQTsiLX3XbA http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=mo1eQha4HPY Please don't say that the plane was behind the buildings, because in the 'plane footage' it is always flying under the North Tower's smoke.

[Bearsy]

To Elis: May I ask who says there are a million witnesses who saw a plane? Did the mainstream media report a million witnesses, the same mainstream media that I believe aired the faked plane footage to support the military? New York City is really fucking big. Most, if not all of the people were watching the towers. 8,274,527 people, lets say 1/8th of them were outside looking, and not watching TV. There. 1 million people. Plus tourists... how many hundreds of thousands of tourists are in NYC at any given day? They'd be there too.

[arby]

I'd be able to understand the logic of "I saw a plane on TV later and heard the explosion and everyone else saw a plane so I must have seen a plane/there must have been a plane" But this website is just batshit crazy and has more holes then a normal conspiracy website. Let me give examples. "OMG ITS BLACK" - 2 explanations, the sun is approximately on the other side of the aircraft or the black smoke is casting a shadow on it "OMG IT'S NOT BLUE" - Alright, if it's not blue why do you jump straight to the conclusion it didn't exist? I mean, last time I checked, gray planes existed too. If you wanna be conspiracy nuts, say that they used different planes then the ones that were hijacked. "OMG THERES A GLITCH SURROUNDING IT, IT'S FAKE" *head-on-desk* *head-on-desk* *head-on-desk* It's called compression of a photo. "THE THIRD WING ON THE BACK IS GONE" - I can clearly see that it is pointed towards the picture taker and is simply therefore not visible. "THE WINGS ARE GOING AWAY" - Explained by compression too. As well as reflection and shadowing. In no way would a computer graphics program EVER act this way. "IT'S CHANGING APPEARANCE" - It's clearly rotating slightly and thus different parts of it are getting light. "AT THE MOMENT OF IMPACT THERE WAS BARELY ANY DAMAGE" - what were you expecting? A blast crater? an atomic bomb? It's freaking blunt force on a building. The engines were the things that exploded. not the nose. "THEY EDITED OUT THE BACKGROUND" - Take a look at that background there... there are WHITE boats you can barely see due to compression. A plane that is a similar shade to the water would not show up at all. They took out the background so people could see. Processing media clips is not a new thing. "ONE OF THESE SHOWS A HUGE ANGULAR CRASH" - its taken from below I HATE youtube conspiracy theorists =/ The ones that make valid points though, I don't mind.

[steelerzrockin]

To Arby: Your reasoning to the 'plane' being black is invalid. The 'plane' was black well before it even went under the smoke, if you watch the actual TinaCart1 footage, you will see this. I can't believe you think a United Airlines plane is going to turn COMPLETELY JET BLACK because of a shadow! You are a fool! And your excuse to why the close-up shots of the 'plane' is gray... you said: "I mean, last time I checked, gray planes existed too." Sorry buddy, United Airlines planes have blue jet engines, blue tails, and the lower fuselage is blue. You mean to tell me the 'hijackers' painted the United Airlines Flight 175 gray before they crashed it? You are a fool! And your excuse to the editing of the background? You said they took out the background so people could see the plane better?? YOU ARE A FOOL! Your other excuses aren't worth my time. You just don't want to accept the fact the mainstream media aired faked plane footage to support the military's plans for wars in the Middle East.

[Bearsy]

It's just poisoning the well. They come up with these harebrained ideas and all it does is make people think that all theorists are insane and retarded like these people. Bummer

[Xox]

I lived in NYC when this happened. The eyewitnesses werent paid. I have family & friends who actually saw it happen. I believe that the government had something to do with or at least knew about the attacks before they happened. But even I think you're batshit insane for thinking that a million eyewitnesses were paid off to lie about something like that. Planes did crash into the buildings. Whether or not there were bombs, I'm not sure. But there were planes. I agree with everything you said.

[Bearsy]

I lived in NYC when this happened. The eyewitnesses werent paid. I have family & friends who actually saw it happen. I agree with everything you said. Marry me?

[Oneironaut Zero]

Just wanted to say two things. In the "black plane" pictures, the plane would not have been jet black. Looking at the surrounding area the sun was not behind the plane. It was on the side of the plane from which the camera was shooting. It would be lit up, just like the surrounding environment. And two, in the "September Clues" video (clip A), check out the wide shot from "Shot 3", where you see the whole skyline. Then, after the 3-part-Zoom, the plane is almost immediately coming into frame to smash into the building. Who here disagrees that that plane would have been visible in that initial, long shot before the zoom? [Edit: Nevermind. I just continued watching the clip, and saw that they did end up touching on that. I just spoke up before I knew if it was talked about. Haha. Still a valid point, though.]

[arby]

At least I know Ynot bothered to watch the debunking: I think that covers most of the major points from the facebook page Now on to watch the rest of the september whatever. I thank Ynot for posting the video that presents the points in a logical formal instead of: Which is just a joke. Along with all the points made there. [EDIT] ooooo, they cited the lack of evidence at the 4th crash site. I get to post this now: WOW, where'd it go? ;P [edit edit] Alright, movies are very good and there are many points I can't refute but there are just as many that I can. I am not, however going to take 5 hour to do so. I'm sure someone has (tried) like they did for part 1.

[hankwheels]

Yes I am well aware about the 9/11 hoax. My Grade 12 Media class studied 9/11's TV Fakery and analyzed several contradicting flight patterns, sounds associated with the 'plane', and the the 'plane's look in general. The thing that proved to me that something was terribly wrong with the footage shown on tv were the CLOSE-UP shots that featured a completely gray plane. A United Airlines plane has blue jet engines, a blue tail, and the lower fuselage is entirely blue. The fact that people bought the government's story of a hijacked United Airlines plane is rediculous. Nice facebook gallery by the way.

[lorettacalcutt]

Seven years later and people are still clueless that 9/11 was a false flag operation in order to scare the american citizens about terrorism so they would support the military to engage in long-term wars in the Middle East. United States wants the Middle East's oil. Period.

[lorettacalcutt]

Nice try Arby, but that little 'blur' wasn't even in the right direction as the other 'planes'. Remember what you said about the 'plane' being under the smoke which made it black? Why isn't your BLUR under the smoke? Fool. steelerzrockin, here is another live view featuring NO PLANE. Not even the news anchor sees or mentions any kind of plane: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=wOPx8b...eature=related

[steelerzrockin]

Loretta, thanks for the video. There were only TWO different 'plane' footages shown 'live' on tv (ABC & WNYW were the two, however, four other networks were playing ABC's exact footage 'live') All other footage with 'planes' were amatueur tapes clearly tampered with. Arby, the plane that you showed was black because the camera was DIRECTLY UNDER THE SUN you silly sally. Tina Cart's camera was NOT under the sun. Thanks anyway for your once again pointless arguments.

[lorettacalcutt]

People need to take some time and investigate 9/11 on there own, and STOP taking the damn mainstream media's word for what happened - it was the mainstream media that aired the faked footage and they have been feeding us the government's lies since the beginning. Watch September Clues/911 Taboo and wake up people!! GEESH!

[Bearsy]

I love how the three users coming on here, arguing for their stupid "theory" all haven't posted in months, then they come on together and post at the same time.

[lorettacalcutt]

I would like to comment on two different 'live shots'. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=wOPx8bs_XWE (NY1's 'live' footage) According to Arby's argument trying explain why the Tina Cart footage featured a BLACK 'plane', he stated that a reason why the 'plane' was black was due to a shadow from the smoke of the North Tower. That means the official flight path of 'Flight 175' was under the smoke given off from the North Tower. So... in this 'live shot' the 'plane' should be seen flying under the smoke right? No. Absolutely no plane was shown on NY1's 'live footage'. Not even the news anchor seen OR mentions a plane of any kind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pQ5PWAdrMc (WNYW's 'live' footage) The tv network WNYW aired a little less than realistic approach. For starters, the sky is orange. Secondly, the 'plane' flies out no where! Thirdly, the 'plane's nose pokes out of WTC fully intact. Fourthly, the video FADES TO BLACK as soon as the 'plane's nose pokes out! I suspect this was due to panick from the perp's after they witness the nose poking out. Please watch these two different 'live shots' and make your own decision about the mainstream media's attempt at airing faked footage.

[arby]

I would like to comment on two different 'live shots'. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=wOPx8bs_XWE (NY1's 'live' footage) According to Arby's argument trying explain why the Tina Cart footage featured a BLACK 'plane', he stated that a reason why the 'plane' was black was due to a shadow from the smoke of the North Tower. That means the official flight path of 'Flight 175' was under the smoke given off from the North Tower. So... in this 'live shot' the 'plane' should be seen flying under the smoke right? No. Absolutely no plane was shown on NY1's 'live footage'. Not even the news anchor seen OR mentions a plane of any kind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pQ5PWAdrMc (WNYW's 'live' footage) The tv network WNYW aired a little less than realistic approach. For starters, the sky is orange. Secondly, the 'plane' flies out no where! Thirdly, the 'plane's nose pokes out of WTC fully intact. Fourthly, the video FADES TO BLACK as soon as the 'plane's nose pokes out! I suspect this was due to panick from the perp's after they witness the nose poking out. Please watch these two different 'live shots' and make your own decision about the mainstream media's attempt at airing faked footage. Le sigh... This is why these ideas live on. This person didn't even give a casual glance to the debunking, my giant photo in this thread that got resized or anything else other then what was in this thread that they wanted to believe. and a 3rd person tagteam in 3..2...1...

[hankwheels]

Study the architectural design of the Twin Towers, and you will find they were built to survive earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, bombs, and yes, even plane crashes. The fact that they were destroyed by 'jet fuel' is ridiculous. And what ever happened to WTC Building 7? The official 9/11 Commision Report stated that WTC Building 7 collapsed due to fire. Watch this video and ask yourself: does WTC Building 7 look like it was caught on fire?? http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A I suspect, as well as many other people suspect, WTC Building 7 was part of a controlled demolition, as well as the Twin Towers. ALSO NOTE in the WTC 7 video: Why was there a camera filming WTC 7 in the first place? It seems like they were EXPECTING the collapse of WTC 7.... just a thought.