CNN TV Fakery: Still Photos become "exclusive video"

Originally posted by ebayitup
ever seen "deadliest catch, beast of season 2"

Finally thanxz ebayitup,

and also I believe someone else who threw in positional parralax prior.

Here is a link to bs's own vid (?) showing the 'dancing tower' but as a much more graceful 'gliding tower' IMO. (You have to run it down to 13 secs for starting shots)

www.livevideo.com...

YET - I still challenge those who pull the 'Eye saw/didnt see' validation/end of discussion B.S. If that is how it's going to be, I and an ATS poster named frank'n'beans are going to light up the UFO world very shortly.

-scrap

I am not ignoring any post. If he saw a plane good for him, since I was not there I wish to see it as well. Show me a freaking video high res with a real plane going inside. One video a real video. Can you agree that this plane its a freak of nature????? Are you telling me this is the most natural plane ever flying? I saw one damn picture of this thing that looks like a plane and thats a fake one. We are discussing in cirlce accusing each other and as always we do not focus on the OT.

What's with the "hi-res" video? You'd call that fake too! There IS video, but of course, you 9/11 cultists pick it apart, which is easy because it's not exactly the best footage ever shot. You see video artifacts as manipulation, you see light and shadow as trickery... you see what you want to see.

How would this "hi-res" video exist? A professional camera crew just happens to be waiting with that type of equipment? Your asking for the impossible to disprove you, yet ignoring the video that does exist because you have determined that it's faked... people saw this happen, but they're not credible, but a bunch of internet cut and paste analysis is...?

Get real.

If there was excellent "footage" then maybe you would have an argument because that would mean there were expecting it. Since there is no absolute true great footage wouldn' t that mean there were caught off guard.

since you keep wasting space with diferent threads about the same thing .
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 .

Looked at bsregistration's profile, all information is accurate as of this post:

Account created: May 3, 2007
Threads Started: 4 (all four started on June 2, 2007 all four on the subject of TV fakery, some videos are repeated in different threads)
Total Post Count: 36 (First post May 6, 2007, all 35 other posts are June 2-3, 2007)

Posting pattern analysis: 30 of 36 are in threads that were personally started. 35 of 36 are in threads that sugguest no planes or TV fakery in the title or original post. The one exception was a "What if" question in one of my own largely unpopular threads. That was a one line answer of yes to the question and supported by promotion of 2 repeated videos of TV fakery and one video that compares power of suggestion in the no plane theory by using an ad of woman eating noodles that throughout suggests she is perform an act of fellatio.

Opinion: While supporting only ideas that one agrees with is perfectly fine. And shotgunning threads and posts after a long hiatus in a blitz of presentation is not overtly suspicious activity. It does raise the question of why? My observation of these four threads has seen less than civil debates amongst some members consisting of "this is the way it is, prove it' attitudes on both sides.

Either way, 4 threads generating 14 flags and 218 replies and a growing list of friends and foes is interesting statisics of activity that basically comes down to 2 days of active participation. Confirmed hoaxers have been banned that generated less. Not saying this is a hoax, deliberate sensationalism or info gathering. Not calling for a ban or anything else, just that it an intersting amount of activity centered around one person in a very short time.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
There are hundreds of thousands of eyewitness' to the second hit.

I watched it happen LIVE on TV. I turned on the TV and saw that the first tower had been hit. My daughter and I stood there and watched as the second plane hit.

This is one of the more persistent myths about 9-11 — the notion that the plane crashes into the twin towers were shown ‘live’ on TV. I myself happened to have my television tuned into ABC when the first images of the burning North tower were shown. And I continued watching the entire day. As far as I can remember the crash into the South Tower was not aired until much later that afternoon. For those of you who insist otherwise, you can buy Tim Canale’s 8 hr DVD’s to see for yourselves. He videotape-recorded all day long what the various TV stations were airing on 9-11. He says the flight UA175 impact wasn’t shown until 4:30 PM eastern time.

Now, SkepticOverlord had once commented (on another thread) that he recalls seeing the South Tower hit ‘live’ on New York television while he was at his office. I cannot refute this. All I can say is that it wasn’t shown on any of the channels where I live (in Florida). And, for whatever it’s worth, fellow ATS member John Lear mentioned that during that chaotic day, people’s memory may have gotten distorted somewhat.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Well that's pretty impressive, since my friend called me at 3:45am in Hawaii, and I KNOW I saw video of the second plane hit the tower before I ran into work at about 4:45am, which would have been 9:45am and 10:45am EST. Oh, wait, I guess according to you I'm a liar then huh? I KNOW what I saw that day, and I KNOW I saw the first tower burning, and the second impact. In fact when my friend called to tell me he distinctly said "They hit the towerS and DC." Now why would he say that at 945EST, if they didn't show the second hit until 430pm?

And we know that John Lear couldn't possibly be wrong, and everyone else is, right? All the people that remember seeing the second hit are misremembering or have been misled? Riiiiight.

[edit on 6/3/2007 by Zaphod58]

Yes the impact was televized live. In some shots the plane was nowhere to be seen but in the live feed from WESCAM you could actually see the blob going inside the building.
By the way I just heard from CNN.COM a few witnesses that were right under the towers while the explosion took place and they were all quite sure that an explosion went off weird they did not hear any planes...

Alright. The only way I could somewhat substantiate my point (that the crashes weren’t shown live), is to purchase and review Tim Canale’s tapings. But I’m not motivated enough to do that. Because to me it’s as obvious as no-Santa-Claus that there were no planes on 9-11.

I’m not calling anyone a liar here. If you say you KNOW what you saw, and that you saw the second impact between 9:45 AM and 10:45 AM EST — then that is indeed what you observed. I will say, that there are times when all of us (and that includes me) see things as they aren’t. Perhaps it was a trick of the light….

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

I watched the second plane hit live on BBC News 24 as it happened.

O. K. Since many of you claim to have seen the second crash live, or at least near the official time of impact, maybe Tim Canale and I were tuned in to the wrong stations. It is possible. But this doesn’t weaken bsregistration’s original case that the footage is fake. All 9-11 airplane films are garbage (quality wise). That we CAN prove.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

I was watching NY1, the local cable news channel operated by Time Warner, when the second plane hit.

Their live angle clearly showed the plane approaching and banking from the south.

The live broadcast included the anchor person (Miles?) in conversation with the reporter in the helicopter (normally their traffic reporter). Before the second plane came into frame, the reporter said, "My God, here comes another plane!"

This was live.

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
But this doesn’t weaken bsregistration’s original case that the footage is fake. All 9-11 airplane films are garbage (quality wise). That we CAN prove.

Here is some footage of a crash, the quality is poor, we still have no absolute idea what happened. We can even see the name being burned off in the crash. There are jumps and cuts in the footage. Is this totally faked? Did this event not happen? bsregistration's claim is that all footage seen of TV is faked and comes from a military feed. In order for this to be absolute then all TV fotage must dismissed and we have to depend on eyewitness accounts. We have eyewitnesses in this thread that say they saw the plane hit. Are they mistaken or telling a lie? Do they use safety of the internet to make bold claims to their observation?

Basically this theory boils down to same as the time traveller that has no time machine, no future item and not enough knowledge of the current history to tell you lottery numbers or who wins the Super Bowl to make their claims valid. So let's counter it. Provide any or all of the following:

Show documented orders for production of fake plane crashes into WTC for the military. Show where the military forced all TV stations to show these feeds that originated from the military. Show the control boards and written testamony from the board operators that they ran the feed to all TV Stations. If it was military jamming where is the location, power output generators and mutli-spectrum arrays that broadcast this signal in multiple frequencies. How many of these faked films were produced and in which formats to give the illusion of independent coverage for the six major media outlets and independent channels that had 9/11 coverage that flocked to NYC and DC for their exclusive footage? What is the exact level of clearance required to obtain this information? And and easy one...who is the originator of this information outside protected circles?

Answering that last question allows for real investigation into the validity of the claim as their can only be three answers: self, made up name or real person that can be questioned and examined. The first makes it a theory, the second makes it a hoax, and the third makes it easy to determine theory, fact or hoax.

Video as promised earlier:
youtube.com...

[edit on 3-6-2007 by Ahabstar]

Dear Ahabstar:

Our paths must not yet have crossed here on ATS. So I’ll restate something I’ve said before here on ATS. Much of our scientific world is based on only indirectly verifiable theories. E. g we cannot see an atom or an electron or a muon. Yet we can reasonably assume and circumstantially prove that these particles exist.

On 9-11 we have buildings exploding (proving an inside job), impossible flight paths, impossible cell phone calls, impossible penetrations of quarter inch thick steel outer box columns at the twin towers, no NSTB of FBI crash reports (for the first time ever) and no (real) plane wreckage at any of the sites. With only this in mind (because there are many more reasons of doubt), isn’t it plausible to suspect that the horrible quality and odd looking films of planes flying into the WTC’s are all faked? Shouldn’t the less-than-cell-phone-camera-quality video of the North Tower ‘attack’ be categorically categorized as bogus, being that it was shot by ‘professional’ camera crews with expensive equipment?

Bsregistration’s argumentation best fits the factual evidence of 9-11 on hand. Therefore it becomes the most valid theory. Asking for documented proof is unrealistic and unnecessary. Just like we don’t need pictures of atoms in order to make an atom bomb.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

Just to let you know, this thread has become pathetically embarrassing.

I have a friend who's an average guy, who I got interested in 9/11 CTs. I referred him to ATS to learn a little bit of the details of 9/11. He called me up today and I asked him if he checked out ATS.

His response?

"You mean the website with the bunch of f$#ing morons arguing about whether planes really hit the World Trade Center?"

Just thought I'd let you know that "normal" people surf this site and this is the impression they get. Nice job.

Originally posted by piacenza
Since there were no plane there is no proof we need to show. You say there was a plane so show us some proofs. Show us a good video of a real plane entering that building and some witnesses taped on 911...

Here's a crazy thought...

If there really was NO plane that hit WTC2, then there certainly must be some video of WTC2 out there that shows just the explosion of the south face with no plane in the shot, right? You would think that of the thousands of people looking up at the towers when the FL 175 hit WTC2, somebody would have taped the explosion minus the plane.

And yes, there were thousands of people in lower Manhattan looking up at the towers when the 2nd plane hit.

nick7261

Yeah but he is going to point you to a video with horrible compression that has no plane, actually the original will but the compressed one its harder to see.

I think a lot of these people feel comfortable believing every single person who saw the planes with their own eyes are either lying or they don't exist.

That is how extreme this viewpoint is and far different then any other theory. I think most of us should have open minds but when the person starts presenting something that goes against what so many people either have claimed to have seen or experienced then that in my view is dangerous.

You know if someone came up to me and told me something outlandish, if there is something to the story I would consider it before rejecting it.

This on the other hand is going against what is just plainly obvious. That even the de-bunkers and regular 'truthers' agree.

Planes hit those buildings. It is true, it is horrible but it happened. But for some reason there are people here who are ignoring what many have posted to clear up visual anomalies and ignoring common sense.

I mean how stupid do they think the military would be? If what they were saying was true, we would have today thousands of people claiming NO PLANE hit the South Tower.

Even from the standpoint of planning such an operation this theory doesn't work.

Wizard In The Woods,

Thank you for the polite introduction and the analogy that 9/11 is akin to particle theory and quantum physics. Both are rife with competing ideas and observations. Nitpickers may argue the semantics of explode and implode to pick you apart or argue natural collapse due to external stimuli and gravity versus experimental "top down" controlled demolition as proof of terrorist versus inside job of an unquantifiable group.

Me, I will argue the dismissal of all video is like

...this theory boils down to same as the time traveller that has no time machine, no future item and not enough knowledge of the current history to tell you lottery numbers or who wins the Super Bowl to make their claims valid.

and the fact that you refused to address that main point and instead discussed no need of verifiable proof is deflection. Not addressing the second point of having proclaimed witnesses in this thread is also deflection.

Now this may seem harsh, but calling all video fake without something to substantiate such a claim is not quite the same debating rotational spin of a quark. Nick as a very good account of the effect that this has on normal thought in the general population.

One last point to ponder, if all video evidence is fake. Then every idea using video evidence as proof is also wrong. That means CD, pods, radio control planes, holographic planes, no planes and all other theory is gone. That only leaves the official story, NIST Report and 9/11 Commission which is the government telling you what happened with the evidence they choose to present. All writen records of proof can then be debunked as Tom Clancy writes good fiction using sourced information too.

But if you want prove it fake, and show some evidence instead of asking to accept on faith, I will look and give objective thought in response. As well as many others on ATS as well.




[edit on 4-6-2007 by Ahabstar]

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
On 9-11 we have buildings exploding (proving an inside job), impossible flight paths, impossible cell phone calls, impossible penetrations of quarter inch thick steel outer box columns at the twin towers, no NSTB of FBI crash reports (for the first time ever) and no (real) plane wreckage at any of the sites. With only this in mind (because there are many more reasons of doubt), isn’t it plausible to suspect that the horrible quality and odd looking films of planes flying into the WTC’s are all faked? Shouldn’t the less-than-cell-phone-camera-quality video of the North Tower ‘attack’ be categorically categorized as bogus, being that it was shot by ‘professional’ camera crews with expensive equipment?

Well, How does the way the buildings 'exploded' prove an inside job? Are we talking about the planes hitting them or the collapse of the buildings?
No crash reports? Well I wouldn't really know about that, but it seems that it would be difficult to properly investigate it, except for a CVR that shows that terrorists stormed the cockpit. But, I daresay thats faked too.
What do you count as 'real' plane wreckage at a crash site? After hitting a building at high speed, and that building then collapsing, how much wreckage that is easily identifiable do you expect?
Why should all the films be faked? Just because they were shown n TV, and as all TV stations were controlled by the government that day, all shown is fake?

And the footage of the first hit, well when you consider that the person filming it was filming someone at first, then heard a plane go over, looked quickly up and I think zoomed in on the WTC to see the plane go in, giving no time for the camera to focus. Therefore since it isn't focused, it must be fake?

Asking for documented proof is unrealistic and unnecessary. Just like we don’t need pictures of atoms in order to make an atom bomb.

You need a fairly good understanding of physics to do it though.