New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

So they make airplanes out of brittle low density materials like plastic, wood and aluminum, and they make kinetic energy projectiles, bullets etc, out of high density [heavyweight] materials like lead and depleted uranium.

You want your airplanes light, so they can fly, and you want your bullets and artillery shells made out heavy dense lead and DU, so they have a lot of impact energy when hit their targets.



But the real point of this thread, was supposed to be the following.

The media showed IMPOSSIBLE video footage of the nosecone exiting the other side, several news commentators even said, "and it flew right through the building!", .... CNN then immediately covered up that mistake with their banner.

In addition all that footage of the supposed "fly through", was dropped from further video coverage, and the supposed fly through was never again spoken of.



It was the MEDIA that edited their footage later on, leaving out the "fly through", and not the guys who brought this to your attention.


If you really want to know, the truth about this, then watch the video again.

www.livevideo.com...

We are supposed to believe it crashed.

Oh I believe that airplanes cause damage when they hit buildings, and I believe a Boeing like that, would have caused considerable damage had one hit the WTC.

I "belieeve" that such an event had it occurred, would have caused considerably even more exterior damage than was supposedly caused, and a great amount of burning fuel and debris, would have rained down the side of the WTC, killing perhaps hundreds of people on the street below.

I "belieeeve" that very likely the radio telemetric shaped charge detonation system, previously hidden within the WTC, would very likely have been knocked out of alignment or maybe even predetonated, and so the whole "drop it right down into it's own shoes" thang, .... would have been totally f'ed up.

I am sure also, that possibly an engine or two, would have pierced into the interior and wrecked considerable havoc, setting off the fire suppression system and causing a swift evacuation.

I really am also convinced and belieeve ab-so-lu-tly, that no way in hell did the nose and for-fuselage, wings right out to the very tips, the entire trailing fuselage and the whole freaking tail section, just pass right through heavy steel leaving a near perfectly cartoonish outline of itself.

Hallelujah! That’s exactly the point. Anyone can film something but only if it is ‘there’! Which is why there is only crappy (fake) footage in existence of the 9-11 ‘flights’. Because they never happened. We’ve got loads and loads of WTC tower collapses in razor sharp imaging quality — since those were REAL!

Greetings and good morning.
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 6/10/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]

Wizard_In_The_Woods

No Wizard that isn't the point. The point is how did they control every single camera in New York that filmed the event, every single amateur video that shows a plane hitting the towers is said to be suspect. So how exactly is the military going to hunt down every upload, every piece of tape, every single "Joe" and "Tony" in New York with camera's and video's looking Right at the Events.

And *IF* the military could do that, why are we even having this discussion? They would hunt this down to!

I'm not looking for ambigious material but a clear shot of the missile or whatever it was going into the tower since so many people were watching.

Also do you realize the manpower to undertake this, to look around and edit everything? The "COST" the "RISK", it doesn't add up. Or every single newscaster taking a risk of the disguised 'missile' missing the tower and hitting a shopping center! What would they say? "oops I guess we got caught with our pants down, send us to the firing lines!"

Btw you deny the planes, you deny 9/11. To deny the one, you deny the other. If you deny the planes you have absolutely no logical foundation to assume 9/11 happened.

You believe 9/11 happened based on what you saw with your EYES. If you don't see the irony in telling other people that they shouldn't believe what they saw with their EYES that day, then your applying a standard which is to be rejected.






[edit on 10-6-2007 by talisman]

Oh yes it is (the point). There was no need to control any cameras in New York whatsoever. The true amateur picture-takers filmed nothing — except for ‘burning’ smoke-machine laden towers. And the phony official ‘amateurs’ cut, spliced and pasted together the ‘official’ (amateur) footage half-assily in some studio.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

You grossly misrepresent the real point of this thread, and the topic as presented by the CTG's.

The real point is you, and proponents of these farcical theories, ignoring real-world evidence and basic science in an effort to deceive as many people as possible.

You continually ignore sound science understood by most middle school students.

You continually ignore clear evidence that refutes all the major points of "TV Fakery".

You continually deflect attention away from productive 9/11 conspiracy research by proposing irrational explanations for well-explained events experienced in-person by thousands of people.

On what do you base this statement?

So if someone was filming...let's say boats on the river. And uploaded the footage to youtube for other people that like to watch film of...boats. Someone at youtube would add planes if they happened to catch the towers in the background shot before the upload became public?

Power limitations aside, wouldn't just be easier to put the HAARP array on full time burn to always broadcast an ELF that would force the human mind to always receive a fuzzy image of a plane crashing into the burning towers anytime a video is viewed? And that all these little glitches that only some people see are due to small chemical differences? That perhaps the ones that don't see the plane at all would be large chemical differences?

I'm not ready or willing to endorse or debunk this TV Fakery angle yet, but as heated a debate as this is, have you watched the videos bsregistration and others have put up? They are actually pretty interesting. I hesitate to use the word compelling here given the angry reactions, but they are interesting none the less.
livevideo.com...
video.google.com...

I think it's ironic that a conspiracy forum membership like ATS is more than willing to allow discussion of the "No Planes" theory, page after page after page, and yet we aren't at all willing to openly discuss the only feasible method by which this theory would be made possible.

Open your mind and indulge the theory for just a moment and look into it...
They wouldn't have needed to control every camera in NY, it isn't about controlling cameras at all, in this case, it's about digital alteration of delayed live feed. Digital technology makes things like this entirely possible, indeed we see it every day in sporting events and even your local news broadcasts.
As to the amatuer footage recorded by hundreds of witnesses to the event, how much of that amatuer footage have you actually seen that came straight from the sources showing the impacting aircraft? Straight form the source, that's crucial. Remember, for instance, that Abraham Zapruder was an amatuer photographer on the scene during the JFK assasination and Time Life held his film for years before it was ever released to the public and we all know what a debacle that was.
The one point made in the octopus video that I found very interesting was the nose of the 'plane' does emerge from the other side of the building exactly the same size and shape as when it entered, of course as earlier in this thread we learned that these planes are built with Super Aluminum, I guess that's entirely possible in a world where Aluminum Sheeting trumps steel beams.
While I'm not saying that it was, yeah it very well could have been faked, the technology exsisted to make it possible, there is a legitmate motive to garner public support for military operations in Afghanistan (UNOCAL was lobbying Congress that year to literally bomb Afghanistan into compliance with the pipeline deal that the Taliban had just backed out of for example), and the media isn't as independent as alot of folks would like to think it is. They get their feeds and footage from the same sources many times, and as we found shortly after 9-11, those sources are sometimes Uncle Sam himself (simply search ATS for "Fake News" and see for yourself).
Two cruise missles, planted demolitions in the two towers and WTC 7, and a little digital magic would be all it took really. It's not impossible to fake something on television at all, I'd go so far as to say it happens on a daily basis in some form or fashion.
Ah but the witnesses said this and the witnesses said that... You know when John Lennon was shot, one of the first witnesses that was interviewed by reporters gave America their first details of the event. His name escapes me at the moment, but we find out later that the guy they interviewed wasn't even on the scene when it happened, he was something like two blocks away but there he was on ABC news telling America what he 'saw' happen. Many of the witnesses of the 9-11 events reported explosions in the basement just before the planes impacted, many of them saw planes with no windows, many of them saw no planes, just the resulting explosions. Which witnesses are we to believe, and which ones are we to dismiss?
I don't think we should rule out any possibility, at any point, until we are certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that we know what happened that day. You guys may be dismissing this out of hand, and missing something very important in the name of protecting your own perceptions.
Bush said he saw the first plane hit, we know that was impossible if he was reading Goat Stories.Perhaps this fruedian slip meant he saw the dailies for the animation of the planes or something.


It's a theory mind you, but if you have an extra hour and 40 minutes some day, here's a possible motive...
video.google.com...

Here's a possible (IMO Probable) method...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

They've done it before, and fairly recently, take a look at this page for a few examples...
www.cuttingedge.org...

I'm not endorsing the idea but faking the 9-11 television coverage would certainly fit nicely into place here. And it wouldn't be as hard to pull off as many here seem to think it would be.

Remember this girl?



Fictional movie yeah, but it really is that easy to fake the news, and they certainly have no compunctions about doing it for real either...
www.google.com...

A truly great post twitchy!

"But everybody knows a dogs tail cannot really wag the dog! That's just crazy! So crazy in fact I wont even consider such an absurdity."

People may not be truly aware, of the difference between, raw satellite TV feed and what is actually broadcast to viewers just moment later.

"Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, documentary filmmaker Brian Springer, captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George Bush talks to Larry King about halcyon -- all presuming they're off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality."

The above description really doesn't do this stunning documentary justice.

I dare you to watch all of it.

57 min 26 sec

video.google.com...


Gee wiz. I wonder why you can't get such satellite dishes and decoder boxes anymore?



[edit on 10-6-2007 by Natasha_Thompson]

Underestimating to what extent information is controlled is the most fatal assumption that anyone can make. I was glued to the T.V. on 9/11 from 8:45AM until the afternoon. Much of what was shown on live news channels has been stricken from the record.

For instance: the initial reports were of a Cessna type airplane. This did not change until after the second tower exploded. Every media outlet was reporting the same thing. Why don't you see uploaded evidence from average citizens who recorded these events you ask? Because the lackluster way this was reported to the public indicated that there was absolutely no reason for concern.

So many witnesses seem to come forward claiming to have seen jumbo jets. Where were these people on the morning of 9/11 between 8:45 and 9AM? There was ZERO indication during this time span that there was ANY cause for alarm. People were being told that there was no eminent danger and it was business as usual. CNN and FOX were specifically and repeatedly requesting employees of certain brokerages to report for work since this was going to be a 'busy trading day'. How did they know this? Why has the record been altered? Why is this never mentioned? Why did the NYSE even open on 9/11? Can anyone give me answers to these questions once and for all?

IM sadley a no planer her on ATS/..after 9 years as an audio/visual engeneer,,if you wanted to see bin ladin in a spider man suit flying into the twin towers..i could do it...talisman brought up a good point..the b-25 bomber that flew into the empire state bld. 1947??? why didnt it just crumble down like the twin towers?..because it was real!...and theres where natasha tomson has a real good point...and coughy machine might be called in question...the japanes know all about pre-planed attacks..and dont think for one min. that the media dosnt know about C>G>I> and the money trail might rock your reality..unless your on the reciveing end wich im not and i belive linda wood isnt ether..real life isnt your inter-net blather..its about death beams on your own people to scare the be-jesus out of the rest of the world to give us there oil...you with me on this since your 8 mile a gallon ford explorer might not have anoughf fuel to git you to the UDF to git a pack of cigs. 2 blocks away that your fat ass caint walk??...i my self would perfer not to talk about this stuff and rather pack my noise with jenna bush and thumb reality like there dad...

OK, once again, What made the holes??????

Well, then Please Do. Honestly.


No. Actually you're comparing two entirely different architectural designs, let alone the differences in building materials. Apples and Oranges.

As for the remainder of your post, I personally feel it draws serious question as to your aforementioned experience and or capabilities. Though, I am game for a demonstration of Spidey flying into the since destroyed trade centers .. with No detectable remnants of editing mind you.


 

"a little digital magic" - anyone who has even a rudimentary understanding of digital effect techniques and compositing at least two sources of moving images together knows it takes time and skill. It's not 'magic' created by clicking the mouse button and making your 'plane graphic' comp (almost neatly) with news footage shot from a helicopter moments before as if nothing was amiss.

If the 'CGI' nose appeared as a result of the footage shifting to the right, why was this not noticed when the comping was done? And why would the rest of the fuselage not appear 'over' the flames?

The 'CGI' plane nose appears behind (from the camera POV towards the horizon) the flames coming out of the 'exit hole' of the building. If the person/persons comping in the plane to the news footage had the skills and tools available to mask the rest of the fuselage (in the 17 second live-feed delay allegedly used to complete the comp job) why did they a) not mask the nose as well and more importantly b) not see it and scrub it out in the first place?

It's interesting how people fall back on CGI and split second 'digital magic' as the method behind the wilder conspiracy ideas.


[edit on 10-6-2007 by Skunky]

[edit on 10-6-2007 by Skunky]

Planted explosives, projectiles whether large internally guided and powered or unguided and merely shot, unknown classified directed energy such as antimissile laser, or possibly any combination of the above.

Neither of us really knows, and for either of us to simplemindedly "rule out" each other's theoretical perspective on this, is quite simply mad.

I think explosives placed at the points of impact can safely be ruled out. Otherwise the outer portions of the "skin" would be pushed, well ... outwards. They're not.

I am not so sure about that m8.

Demo experts can do amazing things with explosives.

Yet planted explosives is not the only plausible explanation.

The fact that many are willing to speculate that what was witnessed on September 11, 2001 by millions all over the world, and thousands in person in New York City was any kind of fabricated illusion is utterly absurd, and insults the intelligence of everyone involved, especially those who may be diverted from seeking real truths surrounding the attacks of that day, to waste time debating and discussing such trivial and obviously contrived crap.

However, you all have the right to pursue anything you wish, no matter what others may think, myself included.

But seriously?

[edit on 10-6-2007 by UM_Gazz]