Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
wasnt this thread labeled as fraud yesterday and now its labeled as updated. yet i dont see any new information. Anyone no why?

Possibly because the only ones calling it a hoax are getting that message in writings from Urantia. See my posts up a few from this one to see what Urantians are. Then look at some of the self professed Urantians in this thread.

I think one side is mistaken and looking for something not there and the other side is basically NUTS!!

Although I do believe it is within the governments ability to fake news I do not think this is the case here, as I said the main problem with this theory is the 1,000's of individuals on the ground looking up at that building and seeing the airplane hit the tower. The eyewitnesses had many descriptions of the plane, from cargo, to small to commercial jetliner, nonetheless they did see some kind ofplane with their own eyes. Not to mention the many private videos of it.

Maybe two disinfo agentstrying to take the eyes off of building 7 which was never struck by a plane and no one claimed it was, yet down it came into its own footprint slick as you like and all after they decided to"Pull It".HOW CONVIENENT.

Go back to the original posters video and watch it cosely. At one point you see the bridge stantion in the middle, and another at the left of the screen, yet another part shows TWO STANTIONS one in each spot where the singles are. So the question is what covered first one then the other stantion then moved out so both were visible? I got this crazy idea, SMOKE! The smoke from the fires was in between the camera and that bridge in the distance and could have easily obscured first one stantion, then as the wind blew it covered the other one, then it blew out so both were visible. Unless someone claims there was no smoke, or even possibly a small cloud.

I do not see anyting here of value as to the 911 questions that we need to focus on. WTC7, Explosions, Fema showing up the night before to prepare, and Giuliani's self admitted warning that the towers were going to fall. Lets stick to the tangible and proveable and the rest will fall into place in my opinion. Wasting time on these other topics doesn't do anyone any good and probably actually harms the search for the truth.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist
wasnt this thread labeled as fraud yesterday and now its labeled as updated. yet i dont see any new information. Anyone no why?

I guess due to a good arguement from the OP or supporters that the add label of (Fraud?) was dismissing it out of hand. Or perhaps someone enjoyed the critical study and feared that the (Fraud?) label might be confused with (Fraud) or (Hoax) and that study would stop. Just my guesses.

I believe the principle perps of 911 are in the White House and I would put almost no limit on the kind of chicanery they are capable of, but having said that, anyone presenting evidence of video manipulation is facing serious chain of custody issues with regard to their exhibits.

There is no question that the media have been seriously muzzled on 911 issues. For example virtually no mention in the mainstream of explosions in the buildings, despite the fact that reporters on the site at the WTC were reporting them, themselves, as they happened. No follow-up whatsoever. These reporters know the story, but they obviously are not allowed to tell it.

If chain of custody is broken in an ordinary court case, the evidence in question is chucked, no matter how good it is. I suspect that most of the allegely digitally manipulated video footage would fall into that bag, even if it is genuinely solid evidence. This whole area is a can of worms. My two cents worth.

Look "Mister Old School":

The analysis is completely independent and valid. Tilting the camera does not change the perspective one bit. Your cover is blown, you've lied about who I am. You've been exposed as a proponent of an NSA-sponsored cult by other members here, and now finally you've been caught 3 times:

1. You lied to everyone here about who I am and you produced no evidence to back up your fantastic claims. Anyone here can read your multiple postings where you make claims about who I am with absolutely no evidence at all. Maybe it is time for me to make claims about who YOU are.

2. You produced no evidence to refute the careful analysis shown other than an animation of some rectangles that you claim *you* made which showed that anyone can draw shapes that move around on the screen.

3. You're lying and claiming that the independent analysis "distorted" the original picture, when it's a clear photo overlay that simply adjusts for cropping and camera rotation. You either have no qualifications to judge the work presented here, in which case you and your NSA-sponsored cult are simply lying in order to manipulate people, OR

4. You know exactly what you're doing in which case you're deliberately attempting to mislead the viewers of this thread and sabotage the evidence presented here to protect the people who murdered 3000 Americans in a single day.

Now that you've been caught in so many lies, perhaps it's time that you get reassigned to other work. You burned yourself and you're going to be useless as an agent of influence now. Or perhaps you can plead ignorance and apologize for your outrageous lying.



[edit on 6-6-2007 by bsregistration]

[edit on 6-6-2007 by bsregistration]

[edit on 6-6-2007 by bsregistration]

I have a question. Are ya'll just saying that it was ABC's live coverage was "fixed"?

[edit on 6/6/07 by galm 1]

Originally posted by bsregistration
The analysis is completely independent and valid.

By whom?
What, may I ask, are their qualifications?
Did they use the actual full-resolution source video?
Have their findings been independently confirmed by a comparatively source with similar credentials?

You've been exposed as a proponent of an NSA-sponsored cult

No need for insults sir. I've clearly stated my distaste for Urantia.

1. You lied to everyone here about who I am and you produced no evidence to back up your fantastic claims.

I clearly stated from what basis my assumptions stemmed that caused me to believe you were one of the many admitted online pseudonyms of Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt. I had previously apologized for that seemingly erroneous assumption.

2. You produced no evidence to refute the careful analysis shown other than an animation of some rectangles

The animation demonstrates the parallax effect of which you seem unable to comprehend.

3. You're lying and claiming that the independent analysis "distorted" the original picture,

I believe you are misrepresenting what I said. I asked why the overlay needed to be distorted and rotated. Clearly, the overlay is smaller, showing a change in focal length of the camera shooting the video. This is what effects parallax.

4. You know exactly what you're doing in which case you're deliberately attempting to mislead the viewers of this thread and sabotage the evidence presented here to protect the people who murdered 3000 Americans in a single day.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm attempting to expose the efforts of what appears to be a "Conspiracy Tycoon". My implication does not immediately extend to you personally, but the author of the video you're presenting here.

The lies are fully in the lap of Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt and whomever collaborated with him in the creation of the video. Perhaps you can see the light, plead ignorance, and persuade your friend to come here and apologize for their outrageous lying.

Originally posted by mister.old.schoolThe lies are fully in the lap of Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt and whomever collaborated with him in the creation of the video.

Which lies in which video?

So have any of these fakery proponents actually compared the full-res Archive.org videos?


Ok, so lets bend over backwards and say ABC did "fake" their coverage during those times...
I don't see much of a case of it being some sort of "conspiracy" unless the other networks did the same thing at the same times. They're supposidly trying to hide something right?...
Why not just show some different cameras completely since they're trying to hide something?

Originally posted by bsregistration
The analysis is completely independent and valid.

So then, let's revisit a couple key points of the "independent" analysis you've offered to us here.

Let's review these two frames... and remember, in the video you posted, they are shown back-to-back, but in reality, are separated by 3 minutes and 50 seconds. This time has been deleted from the video you offered, so we do not have the benefit of seeing what happened... but we can easily make a well-educated guess based on the information at hand.

If you view the changes inside the red circle, it's very clear that in those 3 minutes and 50 seconds, the helicopter changed position. We are seeing sunlight on the eastern edges of the buildings, indicating the helicopter has moved eastward between the 14:30 frame and 18:40 frame. This motion accounts for the parallax of far distant objects through a telephoto lens and the appearance of relative motion.

And if that's not enough, there is more evidence of eastward motion...

The slight space between the hole/smoke in Tower 1, as compared to the edge of Tower 2, is a bit larger in the 18:20 frame, as opposed to the 14:30 frame. This further shows evidence of eastward motion that accounts for the parallax of far distant objects through a telephoto lens and the appearance of relative motion.

I hope that helps clarify the effect a little better.

Fine, I've been told I have a bad attitude so while i'll be the first to admit you're analyzing the problem wrong, and simply noticing that they've done some still panning on the image, the overlay already proved that the bridge moved. The landscape doesn't change because you zoom your camera or change locations. In the fake video the bridge has moved very far out of position.

I'll let you be right about calling me Nico Haupt though, since I don't want to make it seem like you are always wrong about everything. ;

This piece of footage has 3m 40s missing from 8:14:40 to 8:18:20. It therefore cannot be the original film. It has been edited to show a sharp transition between two different distances between the helicopter and the tower. During that 220 seconds, the camera has moved slightly both to the left and nearer the tower. This means that the angular gap between the bridge and the tower will increase - the former will move to the left, as, indeed, happens in the film. The question is whether it moves too much in relation to the tower. I have to say that I would have expected the tower's profile to rotate more than it does. Merely getting closer to the bridge would not account for the degree of its displacement. The helicopter also had to move to the left, but the perspectives of the two towers do not rotate proportionately. Indeed, they don't seem to rotate at all! It is as if what we are seeing after 8:18:20 is an earlier shot of the towers laid over on a later shot of the Manhattan skyline, now altered by the change of angle.

The earlier section of the footage therefore is inconsistent with the later section. However, this does not indicate necessarily that the TV footage originally broadcast was faked. This footage has 220 seconds missing, and so what we have here is not the original film but a new version edited in order to create an anomaly that will confuse people in the 9/11 truth movement. If the footage had been continuous instead of having 220 seconds missing from it, then the OP's claim that the footage proves TV companies aired fake images would be valid. However, as this piece of footage has been edited, it does not prove his case. Rather, all it demonstrates is that there is now plenty of film out there purporting to be original footage but which in fact is faked either by mischievous pranksters or by cointelpro agents in order to dupe people into believing false theories about 9/11.