ABC Live 911 Coverage was Totally Fake (UPDATED) - "TV Fakery"

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
I think the only ting that is fake is that video. There are far too many independent witnesses with cameras for it to be "faked for TV".

I'm telling you, the fringe is getting loonier and loonier with each passing say.

Originally posted by eponymous67
still have an odd feeling about the sheer number of video clips at the right place at the right time.....

There are 9 million people in that city. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of tourists as well. There are going to be more than a few cameras rolling. Also - cities all over this country have 'web cams' and 'live cams' on buildings. They do weather shots with them or just leave them up. I could easily google live shots of the George Washington Bridge .. there's been a live camera there for traffic reporting for years. There are cameras pointed at the White House and the Capital Bulding all the time (look at CNN).

Having cameras around is no smoking gun .. except for the cameras that were rolling across the river by the jewish fellas in the van. THAT is a smoking gun that Israel knew what was coming .. and they let it happen.

Well to put this one to bed I did a little looking around and found ABC's complete uninterupted broadcast on 9/11/2001 9:12am-9:54am that covers the timeframe in the OP video.

We see transitions between 2 different cameras and lots of movement on the camera giving these shots of the "moving" pylon of the bridge. We also get to hear the origin of many speculations of what happened by Peter Jennings that are often used in clips in different films as "proof" of this and that.

Link to video: www.archive.org...

I find it amazing that there has been such a negative reaction to the no-plane idea.

Really disappointing that so many people are ingrained with particular theories, and not willing to even consider this one. Have you all not considered that this theory has been given bad light because it is the correct one?

I shouldn't have to mention how weird the transponder data is from 9/11..

Or how Alex Jones promotes the "Norad stand down"...

Have you all forgotten that the area around NYC is one of the most secure airspaces in the world!

I've still yet to hear ANYONE explain how 4 planes can get through to their targets, over a 2 hour period, and also explain how the people at FAA were not all involved in this.

Is this one an optical illusion?

That bridge looks like is moving quite fast actually.

Lmao dude, i was waiting for someone to post that clip and shut everyone up on the "its just an optical illusion due to distance"..

Good job

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
I find it amazing that there has been such a negative reaction to the no-plane idea.

I find it amazing that there are people who actually don't believe that airplanes flew into the WTC. Considering the number of eyewitness' on the ground .. and eyewitness (myself included) watching via TV ... and the plane parts that were found ... and the fact that there were real people on those flights and they are dead and gone ...

Dear bsregistration:

You make me proud to be an American citizen. A big thank-you for your recent contributions here on the ATS 9-11 forum. You are absolutely, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt, without any reservations whatsoever, CORRECT about your 9-11 film and image fakery analysis. And a another big statement of gratitude for your unwavering patience in responding to the stubborn critics. Few have that kind of endurance.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

I found an image which appears to show a bridge in general proximity to the World Trade Center. As I've been drinking and smoking all afternoon, I can't seem to ascertain whether it is the same bridge as the one shown in the footage -- at the same angle. It looks similar, but somehow not the same. Can anyone confirm which bridge it is, or if it is the correct position in relation to the one in the video? My sense of angle and direction have been compromised.

Although I'm no technical video analyst, the bridge shown in the footage seems to be moving too much for it to be a trick of the camera -- due to the Helicopter flying about. I could be completely wrong, but It also seems too close, and too tall to be the bridge in the image I provided.

Bsregistration, I assume that when researching this you found the original clips on ABC's archive; is it possible for you to direct me to where I can find the appropriate segments? If not I will have to go through it all myself.

All you have to do is set up 2 objects.

The first object make it closer to YOU.
The second object have it behind the first object and to the left, but appearing closer to the first object similar to what you see in the ABC news video.

Now, move away from the first object and slightly to the right. So the object in the back starts to move closer to the front object.

Now, move to the left. Watch what happens to the object in back of the first object. Move closer as doing this.

You will see the exact same thing your seeing in this video. The object in the back starts to move away from the first object, but just moving slightly to the left! If you edit it like the person did here, you would see the same thing.

Thats all guys. Its really that simple.







[edit on 3-6-2007 by talisman]

Originally posted by Arctor
I found an image which appears to show a bridge in general proximity to the World Trade Center.

The bridge seen in this videos is this one:

The Verrazano Narrows Bridge. It is several miles distant from the WTC, Nico knows this, he lives in NYC.

Nico is using the parallax effect, as well as the motion, of a telephoto lens on a video camera in a helicopter to try and fool those unfamiliar with the setting into believing his "Conspiracy Fakery".

Originally posted by mister.old.school


The bridge seen in this videos is this one:

The Verrazano Narrows Bridge.

Thank you for this information, mister.old.school.

Originally posted by mister.old.school
Nico is using the parallax effect, as well as the motion, of a telephoto lens on a video camera in a helicopter to try and fool those unfamiliar with the setting into believing his "Conspiracy Fakery".

Perhaps so, perhaps so. But are you positive that that is definitely what is happening? I saw that you made a fairly big mistake with McNiven; are you positive about this? Are you positive that this guy is even Nico Haupt? You may very well be absolutely correct, but what evidence can you show me to back yourself?

Originally posted by Arctor
Perhaps so, perhaps so. But are you positive that that is definitely what is happening? I saw that you made a fairly big mistake with McNiven; are you positive about this? Are you positive that this guy is even Nico Haupt? You may very well be absolutely correct, but what evidence can you show me to back yourself?

Regrettably, the McNiven story played on my propensity to focus on the conspiratorial factors leading up to 9/11/2001. While he himself is most certainly a sad hoax, there are attributes of his story that have echoed amongst researchers, even before 9/11/2001.

In this case, with Mr. Haupt, this "BSregistration" person is posting in a manner, tone, and grammar identical to previous efforts attributed to Haupt, Ewing, and other admitted pseudonyms. In addition, in nearly all 9/11-related circles, from 9/11 blogger, to 911truth.org, to intense skeptics such as Screw Loose Change, Haupt is seen as a loose canon with only one agenda, increase ridicule of 9/11 conspiracies. His posting here is a mirror image of his contributions elsewhere.

And, I was in attendance, when he did this:

Google Video Link

So I am very familiar with this tactics.

The entire "TV Fakery" plot is from the angry person, Nico Haupt, in that video.

Originally posted by bsregistration
They aired fake videos of a plane crash so they could have an explanation of how Osama could have pulled it off. Loose change is LYING TO YOU.

Why is it with you type, when you make these claims you say it with such authority and make it sound as if we don't believe you, we are dumb, or we are in on it, or sound just like W. only instead of insisiting you're the decider, you're the provider.

Why can't it be that the people who made loose change actually believe what they are presenting, and if what you say is correct, maybe they're wrong. Why does it HAVE to be that they are LYING. I mean, it is possible for people to believe something while it is supported by good reasonable evidence but also it just happents to be wrong.

or does this kind of logic make me disinfo

oh, and one more thing. certainly several people in NYC were out and looking on 9/11 with awe, and i'm sure some of them decided to go grab their video camera. So i'm sure, if what bsregistration says is true, there has to be at least one video out there of someone in the right position showing the twin towers being hit by nothing. that is, you (bsregistration) show us a video of the tower exploding at the point where the plane was supposed to have hit, but show it just exploding with no plane. and i don't mean the back behind view, show us one looking at the building where we SHOULD have been able to see the plane but we don't. if you can't do that, stop telling us you "know" and start saying you "think". and quit insulting people, it's rude and it makes it very hard for people to listen to you.

for the sake of argument, lets say you are right and the rest of us are wrong. as of right now, we believe we are right. i mean, we actually do. really, we believe it with all our heart because me made a decision based on evidence. and maybe that evidence is logical. maybe we just overlooked a few things that would turn it all around. now does that mean we are dumb? does that mean we are brain washed or thick headed? maybe it just means we don't have all the information, but the amount of information you have is not a 1 to 1 ration of how smart you are, how gullible you are, or how thick headed you are. ignorance means you don't pocesses the knowledge, it does not mean you are dumb. ignorance does not mean ignore, it means not enough info.

great claims require great evidence

[edit on 3-6-2007 by ebayitup]

[edit on 3-6-2007 by ebayitup]

Sorry, but i would trust Nico over Loose Change and Alex Jones anyday of the week, even if i know nothing about Nicos history.

Why? Because Loose Change and Alex have gone mainstream, and forgotten the very aspect of truth seeking they set out with.. if they ever did that is.

They are nothing more than money loving whores, playing with half dead theories of thermite and Norad stand down.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Sorry, but i would trust Nico over Loose Change and Alex Jones anyday of the week, even if i know nothing about Nicos history.

Why? Because Loose Change and Alex have gone mainstream, and forgotten the very aspect of truth seeking they set out with.. if they ever did that is.

They are nothing more than money loving whores, playing with half dead theories of thermite and Norad stand down.

i'm not saying you're wrong, but please explain this. in order to be true to the "truth movement" you can't go mainstream? so you should keep your message underground. then, if a lot of people do believe your ideas, you must have lost your way. i thought they were suppost to make it mainstream. and you can't be successful?

not saying that loose chage and alex jones are credible, it just seems like you just boxed out anyone who might make headway. if too many people believe you, you're wrong therefor it is a never ending circle that still only a selct few know the "truth". this reminds me of the punk rock band idea. a punk band is only good if not too many people know about they're music. as soon as they are popular, they suck. therefore in order to stay likeable, they must only be liked by a few.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
While Microsoft Flight Sim might not the best judge, it does set up the shot nicely. Out of curiousity, which bridge is that to settle the dispute the Brooklyn or Varrazano-Narrows?

That is the Varrazano Narrows Bridge.

I know that FS isn't a defintive source of proof but I feel it's more than adequate to refute the OP's claim that the bridge would not be visible "from that angle."

Originally posted by bsregistration

OK, here's smoking gun proof that the ABC live 9/11 coverage was totally fake.

I see no smokeing gun proof.

the video looks virtually like CBS and NBC CNN only the angle might be just a little bit different.

Oh and it has some slick video editing so I would not believe it for one minute knowing they admitted it was modified

[edit on 6/3/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by bsregistration

They're using multiple layers and looped stock footage as a technique to hide what's really going on.

Why leave us hanging like this?

What do YOU think is going on? How does this relate to a conspiracy? Which conspiracy? The one where the government is fully responsible or the one that holds the government knew it was coming but did nothing to stop it? Or a new one all together?

How exactly does this fit into a conspiracy with the conspirators knowing there are ample eye-witnesses to the event? Why are they faking this video footage?

I personally can't debunk or confirm these videos are fake, but I wondering what the motive is behind it.

Nico and his followers are trying to discredit the 9/11 movement and make a mockery of Logic.

From frozen fireballs to moving bridges, they want people to argue about these things and make everyone think the whole movement is nuts.

Well, it just isn't working as planned. There are too many people out there that are a little to wise for this charade.

Again, the bridge doesn't move. The camera position and the helicopter does as proven by the movement seen in the building toward the right, which is in the foreground.

I suppose people who believe Nico will also believe the moon follows them around when they drive in a car!

Because something *LOOKS* like something, doesn't always mean it is. You have to take other factors that are involved, you have to look at the entire case.

Yes things can at times be correctly judged by viewing, however when dealing with camera angles things can get screwed up easily.

Anyone can see this is a hoax, and I am preplexed as to why it is given the go-ahead here to continue without the hoax title.