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

Well the media does this all the time, even for non important stories, its fun for them it seems, to screw around with footage. They did it with Osama Bin Laden, taking a video made in the 90s and using the very same footage from the old video in a new Osama threat, its totally staged.

But what Im wondering is, what are they trying to hide? I too find it so weird that there were so many cameras pointed at the towers for both impacts.

I remember George Bush was giving a speech to a High School, it was actually on TV, and a boy asked him a question "what did you think when the first tower was hit?" He said "Well I knew I had to act" (thats the last thing he did), but get this, he said "Well I remember when I saw the first plane hit the tower, you know on TV, I thought to myself 'what a terrible pilot, mustve been an accident, but then another plane hit"

But hold on a minute Georgie boy, the first tower being hit was not shown live on television, it was recorded on the street and shown a looong time later. Only the second tower being hit was shown live, not the first. But there is the president sitting there telling the people he saw the first plane hit live, impossible. Hes lying.

Why do they need to lie and fake, unless they had something to hide??

So, people see the World Trade Center on fire, with a giant gaping hole and they're NOT going to point cameras at it? Why do people find it so weird that this huge event had so many cameras? This was a MAJOR event, right from the start.

Originally posted by LightWorker13
Why do they need to lie and fake, unless they had something to hide??

Because they are politicians and that's what they do .. lie and fake .. and the story will change to suit the audience, and the story will change depending on what sounds best at that time.

It's the nature of the beast - the politician beast that is.

No reason for me why this theory is less valid then any other...

It's all speculations at this point.


[edit on 3-6-2007 by selfless]

Originally posted by eponymous67
I have always thought it amazing, as one who really believes we were attacked by foreign terrorists on 9/11, that so many cameras were trained on the towers at the moment of impact.

I never had any trouble believing we were attacked by foreign terrorists on 9/11...I just also believe they had assistance from domestic terrorists.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Bsregistration

You seem to have missed my point. I am saying the videos you are showing are fake, but not in the way you mean. I think they were faked to make it look like they were fake. I cannot find an official one at the moment, if someone can help there it would be nice.

Interesting little video / thread here.

I have the high quality "Archive.org Collection" videos of that time frame, but sadly my home Internet wont be on until Tues. and I dont have the files here on this crumby work PC I'm on at the moment. However I'll try to remember to glance at my ABC videos when I get home, aside from the Iraq War "Killing Machine" video I'm currently wrapped up in....

Originally posted by IAttackPeople

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."

Thank you, I would not have thought it was big enough to be visible that far away and almost directly south as I have not crossed that bridge in my travels around NYC. But the last time I was in Newark, I had to use the truck to force cars out of my way to keep from being forced into the Holland Tunnel. Yep got flipped off a few times but they would have been real cheesed about what they would have had to do to keep a 13'6" truck from going into a 12' hole. And $21 to cross the Washington Bridge is a ripoff the other time I was in the area. At least the lady was nice enough to tell me that I didn't want to come back across as that was $33.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by Ahabstar]

again -

the more i read your response to people , the more sick you become .
you are a sad person who really needs pro help . and im not saying that to attact you , im trying to help you .. really , do you really thing the government faked all the home video footage as well ? you need help .

Mr Nico, Conspiracy Fakery, Haupt relies on the gullible to be unfamiliar with the territory of New York City. But he, having created these contrived conspiracy hoaxes, knows the lay of the land, and will be very aware of this:



Here we see the relative positions of the objects in question.

As you can see, the bridge as at the opposite end of New York Harbor from the lower tip of Manhattan. And a television camera will need a reasonably strong telephoto lens to show the towers of the bridge as clearly as we see in Nico's contrived video.

Now, once we place the helicopter in logical positions in lower Manhattan, we can see that we have a space of mere blocks between the yellow dot of "position one" and the green dot of "position two".

When the helicopter camera man maintains the World Trade Center in center frame, that very minor motion over Manhattan, translates to line-of-sight changes, out to the Verrazano bridge, that are very nearly the full length of the bridge itself.

Yet the camera man and helicopter are so close to the burning towers, the visible angle of the towers has almost no discernible shift because of the perspective-limiting parallax of the telephoto lens.

This is the reason the bridge moves. And this is the reason the bridge appears to jump in Nico's contrived video with missing frames.


Nico is your shill. He is the one telling lies. He is the one seeking to make a mockery of 9/11 conspiracy research.

Ahh, mister.old.school, if only WATS was still in existence. Thorough research is the only way to make these fanatics quiet down, and it's good to see it getting done. This is something akin to the way Caustic metaphorically slapped Jack Tripper and the PentaHoax in the chops. Bravo.

Naudet brothers video

I have seen this on utube with and without sound.

Some movie making is done without sound, any one know the truth
about the Naudet film, is the original with or without film.

Is there an original sound track placed on the original film verified
as original.

Sound is added in as a separate operation on my pc movie maker
and that is useless for me making videos with sound. Too afraid you
will copy something.

I don't think camera film that is developed has a sound track, only
the film for movie houses.

I heard one sound that was a rattle trap plane sound (like a V1) and one
that sounded like an airliner.

how dont we know if someone just alterd this video and uploaded it to youtube?? why would abc want to create this video?? dont get me wrong i believe 9/11 was a setup etc but can someone explain this video to me cheers

If you compare the images of the "glitch" and of the "normal" footage you can see several, though very small, difference in nearly all the building's heights, distancesfrom one another, and elevation. This is me sets off alarms that this is probably more of an optical illusion.

I wish we didn't have these "theory extremists" that have ideas of fake news broadcasts and holograms. I'd like to have this tretcherous act exposed for what it is. The deliberate murder of approximately 3,000 human beings through international political manipulation and controlled demolitions.

tyranny22

Your correct in your analysis. Here is another reason to think this.

Look very carefully at the Video. Everyone else here do the same. Watch very carefully. There are two key moments, one which shows the bridge closer to the towers the second with it showing the towers further away.

Notice, in the second instance with the bridge further away.

You can clearly see that the South Tower is more exposed, or is showing more. This is happening due to the fact that the helicopter has moved to the LEFT.

The bridge appears more to the left of the camera because the helicopter has moved LEFT.

That is what is happening and anyone can test what I am saying by simply taking a walk down the street and experimenting with a large building that has another building or bridge in the back. Moving toward the left will make the object in the back appear to move to the left.

It is clear from the video that more of the South Tower can be seen and judging by the angle this is great indication that the helicopter has indeed moved LEFT.

Just to add something. If one were to look at the camera angle carefully in the first instance it is not really LOOKING straight at the building, in the second instance it is more in line with the towers.

Take a careful look. The camera is looking from the right as it moves in close it is more straight on and the position is left of where it was.

The reason the bridge appears close is the angle from the right, then as it got closer it moved toward the left and then the camera angle changed.

[edit on 4-6-2007 by talisman]

Nope. It's layer animation like they used over and over again on 9/11. You can see from the photo overlays that the background elements moved left and the foreground stayed the same.

Submitted by brianv on Sun, 2007-06-03 11:28.

The objects marked "yellow" dont move, the objects marked "red" do. The shot remains the same. No slight camera reposition could account for this shift!



In fact, we know exactly how they set up this shot and the military camera system they used. You can read all about how they digitally store aerial images and use their military WESCAM system to manipulate it right here from MIT's Technology magazine (published a year before 9/11) Lying with Pixels

There is a growing body of TV Fakery evidence and the entire matrix is crumbling around the perps. Sure the shills can censor, whine, and complain all they want, but it's going to be a lost cause for them.

"It is not yet common knowledge that some news is "doctored"
or that what is happening before the camera may be only what is
taking place in one small area. As stringers are employed more
and more in the Third World, it is increasingly likely that
activity may be staged or filmed selectively. When the biased
nature of video coverage becomes common knowledge, televised
dramatic events may well lose impact." -- NSC White Paper 1994

Originally posted by bsregistration
There is a growing body of TV Fakery evidence ...

no there isn't.

and the entire matrix is crumbling around the perps.

The only perp I see around here is a HOAXer.

Sure the shills can censor, whine, and complain all they want,...

So .. those who have proven you wrong are 'shrills' and they are 'censoring, whining and compaining'? Oh .. that's beyond funny!

bsregistration, im thinking that terrorist could have walked right up to you on the street with bombs strapped on, and you would still think its a Governmetn conspiericy. Get over it already 9-11 is over, its not forgotten and never should be, but whats done is done and can never be righted so move on to current events buddy. Two planes did slam the towers and brought them down becasue the heat from the full fuel loads melted the support structures. the weight of the tower tops brought them down. nothing more to see nothing more to cry wolf over. You want to do something constructive support the toops anyway possible. Send things from home to these heros . they need thier countries population behind them or they will all suffer when its over. I have been on this site for a short time but I have also noticed that not much gets by the people here. SO stop dismissing everything they say, you could be wrong have you thought of that yet.

I dont agree or hold to everything my government jams down my throat but i dont constantly relive the past everyday either. So some camera man or TV station executive tried to keep people interested in thier coverage. SO WHAT

Originally posted by bsregistration
Nope. It's layer animation like they used over and over again on 9/11. You can see from the photo overlays that the background elements moved left and the foreground stayed the same.

Unlike Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt, let's be scientific about this scene and the realities of cameras.

I already showed our conspiracy con artist an overhead shot that illustrates the issue, but he is refusing to accept the obvious. So let's be painfully obvious for our conspiracy con artist and blow his hoax even further wide open.

It took a matter of minutes to construct a rudimentary mock-up of the important physical items within a simple 3D software program. Here's a high-angle view of the simplistic scene --



You can see that we have a small cluster of buildings, two of which represent the ill-fated World Trade Center twin towers, and a distant simple arch that represents the Verranzano Narrows bridge. I'm not completely confident these items are to scale, but the bridge is small and distant enough in this high-angle view to illustrate our point for our ill-intended conspiracy con artist, Nico Haupt.

Now, once we have this simple scene, it's a matter of a few more moments to place a virtual camera, assign a nice focal length of 300mm (which is likely similar to what the TV video camera was using), place it near our virtual WTC, and give it a slight bit of motion.

The camera is approximately 15 blocks north and west from the virtual building cluster, nearly the same height as the virtual WTC towers, and the motion is roughly equivalent to a helicopter flying just blocks. When we keep the towers roughly center-frame, we see this effect --



While there are some very obvious differences, the effect is identical to what we see in the unaltered frames from the ABC video Nico is trying to fool you into thinking contains "layer animation". There is very little change in the foreground objects, yet dramatic change in the distant bridge object.

There is a growing body of TV Fakery evidence and the entire matrix is crumbling around the perps. Sure the shills can censor, whine, and complain all they want, but it's going to be a lost cause for them.

Very typical of the deceptive rhetoric of Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt. We have "matrix", "shill", "censor", and "perps" all in one short two-sentence paragraph. Very impressive. However, no matter how accusatory Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt becomes in his increasing desperation to discredit 9/11 conspiracy theories, his concepts and techniques are loosing ground as no one with any degree of critical thought is believing him.

And quite clearly, no one is censoring him here. In fact, he appears to be able to freely distribute each and every one of his conspiracy hoaxes with impunity. And, as is the nature of this critical thinking conspiracy theory community, he is being exposed for what he really is -- a fraud.



I revised the original scene to include a "ground" with a visible grid to help better clarify the effect.


[edit on 4-6-2007 by mister.old.school]

Here Here, great post