Thread: TV fakery

arby
with all due respect, I think you're barking up the wrong tree

Yes compression artefacts have an enormous impact on videos such as these (particularly if you're zooming in and inspecting small areas)
Youtube is hardly the place to do video analysis (even the Hi-Def video versions)

BUT
that's not really the issue here
and at the risk of being labelled god knows what
I kind of agree with this video composite theory

(I'm not saying there were no planes, however - but some of the footage is definitely doctored)
there's quite clear evidence of video layering going on

Five different American news networks shot independent footage of the plane hits, and each one shows what appears to be edge masking around the 2 towers

In one video, compression could account for this
but 5 different videos affected in (roughly) the same way by compression is highly unlikely

anyway,
all that aside
what really got me was the other evidence (the non-video evidence)

If you haven't seen it, watch this
(it's close to 90 minutes of video, split into 10 min segments)

September Clues - Part A
September Clues - Part B
September Clues - Part C
September Clues - Part D
September Clues - Part E
September Clues - Part F
September Clues - Part G
September Clues - Part H
September Clues - Epilogue (Q&A Video)

I may not agree with everything in these
but I have to agree with a lot of it

Originally Posted by Xox

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?

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.]

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.

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=3N2RrQWsGes
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CudLxM04l6A

this "no planes" theory has got me absolutely convinced
I'm sold, hook line & sinker

shit

The September Clues series, in summary says:
- No planes impacted the towers on 9/11

- Live television feeds shown by TV networks were centrally controlled

- Each TV network received a doctored live feed (TV anchors completely unaware of this)

- Live feeds were delayed by 17 seconds
(this could be for many reasons - not least so producers can bleep swearing - but introduces possibility of real-time video manipulation)

- Inconsistencies between plane trajectories between TV networks & amateur video

- ALL eye-witnesses featured in TV network interviews and calls into the studios can be connected back to the media

- ALL amateur video of event can be traced back to people in the media / computer graphics business

- MANY inconsistencies between live video shown in studios & corresponding commentaries by reporters
(there's one reporter at the scene that's practically under the second plane's flight path but he fails to see it)


The only thing I can see that the September Clues series fails to address is the (I'm guessing, but I don't think it's unreasonable) thousands of eye witness accounts of people "seeing" planes

- Everyone who saw commercial jet planes seem to be a fair distance away

- Eye-witnesses closer to the scene differ
some remark on small planes - light aircraft
some refer to the impacting objects as "missiles"

There does not appear to be anyone in close proximity to ground zero that saw a commercial jet

Those two videos I posted above - interviewing John Lear, retired pilot, further question whether any commercial jets were involved

1.)
There's absolutely no way a commercial jet could fly at 560 MPH at 700 Ft. - the air pressure at such a low altitude make it physically impossible for a jet plane to fly at such speed

Max speed possible at that altitude is 360 MPH - this contradicts the video footage. For a plane to exceed 360 MPH, it would need to be at a much higher altitude, where the air is thinner

2.)
There's absolutely no way a commercial jet could perform some of the manoeuvres shown on video at speed

Many professional pilots have confirmed these two points (see "pilots for truth")

Originally Posted by Ynot

this "no planes" theory has got me absolutely convinced
I'm sold, hook line & sinker

shit

The other side.

Please note that this is other truth seekers who are working to debunk this.

Also, about the speed points, it doesn't necessarily mean that there were NO aircraft is it holds (I'm pretty sure they debunk it somewhere). They might just not have been different then expected.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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...

The plane crash was real, if not, then how else did the twin towers get destroyed? EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

the picture where it shows gray-white-black is stupid and you know it because the color of the sky in the background is also completely different, and the angle of the photograph taken and probably even the camera and the lighting situation. Did that never cross you're mind? what about if you were taking a picture in the shade of a building? thats obviously going to mess with the compensation and adjustments the camera is going to have to make. What if these pictures taken with tampered with in PhotoShop? Not to mention the quality of the pictures which are shit.

if you are going to question something come at it from both sides at least. These pictures prove nothing. Millions and millions of people live in New York City, not to mention all the tourists holding cameras, and to see planes flying at the same level as the buildings is a sure fire for someone to take out their camera. How can you explain the dust clouds, the lives lost, the buildings that fell down, the people who ran, the people who saw it? the millions of millions of people who saw it which the government has no control over at any given moment. How about the buildings that fell down? You cannot deny they didn't fall down, so maybe you should pay a visit and see for you're self if they are standing or not. lol

Originally Posted by robot that is lucid

The plane crash was real, if not, then how else did the twin towers get destroyed? EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

Even with the planes, imo, there had to have been bombs.
Bombs.
Was that really hard to figure out?

I urge you to watch Loose Change - Final Cut
it deals with the physics and crash dynamics
(get good quality vids off of bittorrent, not from youtube)

the planes impacting did not exhibit any realistic crash physics

There is no proof that terrorists were inside the twin towers. Ergo, there is no proof that there was a bomb. This thread is a lie without photographic evidence.

and and anyone knows what the exact crash physics are of a plane hitting a building with many different dimensions on the inside? with the exact angle of the plane and the speed?

the answer is no buddy. Humans have only made a couple of experimental airplane crashes.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

Even with the planes, imo, there had to have been bombs.
Bombs.
Was that really hard to figure out?

Thanks for the comment. I'm assuming you believe that the government planted the bombs in the WTC right? My question is, if you believe that the government planted bombs in the WTC (which is my belief as well), why is it SO hard to believe that the government used it's control over the mainstream media to air faked plane footage to correspond with a bomb explosion?
I would like to post three clips of 9/11... one is a 'live shot', the other two are amatuer. Please watch all three (all of them are short), and please at least CONSIDER the fact that perhaps the mainstream media did in fact air faked planes in the footage to support the military's plans for wars in the Middle East. Here are the clips:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOPx8bs_XWE (NY1)

This was the NY1's 'live footage' of the bomb explosion. Notice no plane, not even the news anchor sees or mentions plane. The official flight path of 'Flight 175' was under the smoke that the North Tower emitted (at least according to the Tina Cart footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4JrHfZ5C3w (Tina Cart)

A less realistic appraoch to NY1's footage. Notice the 'plane' is jet black even though September 11 was a sunny day. Why wasn't this charcoal plane seen in NY1's footage? Perhaps it was because the NY1 station was one of the few mainstream media outlets NOT involved in airing faked plane footage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6ZaiWEVdQQ (Luc Courchesne)

More amatuer footage that was faked (by the military I'm suspecting) to include a United Airlines plane. Watching the 'plane' frame by frame, ASK YOURSELF, does this resemble a United Airlines Boeing 767... or a computer animation corresponding with a bomb explosion?


God bless to all those killed in the WTC that terrible day, and may their deaths NOT be blamed on Boeing 767's, but a bastardly media scandal that supported the American military's plan to start wars in the Middle East for oil.