New Video: september clues exposes 911 TV Fakery

The planes were either missiles, holograms disguising missiles, or CGI faked on video. That's the gist of it.

Gee thanks. Why are you doling out these videos to all on ATS in piecemeal fashion? The proper way to give out your links to these videos, since they were ALL POSTED at the same time allowing for upload time, is to link ALL OF THE VIDEOS at once.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4






[edit on 7-6-2007 by greatlakes]

I watched all four videos and I thought they were interesting. Thank you for posting them.

Yes definitely interesting videos, not ALL of the items, call them errors, or anomalies, are all that convincing, but some are mighty interesting. Check out PART III of the video series (see MY above post) and see what you think of the MISSILE path anomaly in the beginning of that video....

About that "japanese" video :
There's been a LOT of talk about that video, in this forum and on other sites, about a seagull flying past the camera, also in that video, and mistakingly "identified" as an Unidentified Flying Object.
Btw, not all posters do adhere to the theory, yet, or ever.

[edit on 7/6/07 by LaBTop]

Missile's are highly unlikely. Virtually no chance. I can't see how there wouldn't have been huge cavities blown out on the insides of the towers, yet we could see the floors 'intact' on the inside right until the second the towers collapsed. The shockwave from high explosives would have been so far beyond everything that was delt, and regardless of the video anomlies there were catroon holes cut into the buildings. That's some E.T. munitions there.

Somewhere I believe I recall testimony of jet fuel stinch inside there. Oh, wait, we're not to accept any eyewitness testimony whatsoever. What was I thinking

[edit on 7-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Yeah, I know, I was just pointing out the alternative theories brought up by the no plane crowd.

I think the thing that catches my eye the most is the altitude changes between some videos. Some come in mostly straight, yet some come in at a steep angle. Can somebody explain why this is? Does it have to do with the camera angle itself? I can see how the camera angle could do that, but it doesn't explain all of them.

Again, the deceptive techniques of the creators of these videos need to be closely examined.

They rely on the analysis of a badly compressed video, then use obvious compression artifacts as evidence that "something" is there. Yes, Staten Island is there, and the moving landscape (as the camera pans) is causing compression artifacts in the third+ generation digital video.

So let's direct our attention to the "comparison" shot.

These deceptive videographers try to convince you these two shots are the exact same angle, but they are clearly not.

Based on what we see here, the shot from "camera one" is clearly more to the east and much higher in altitude than camera two. This is because we see more of the sunlight eastern-face of the towers, and, we see Staten Island in the background.

While the overhead shot I composed is certainly not accurate in scale or positioning, it clearly illustrates the distinct possibility that the North Tower blocked the view of the oncoming aircraft from camera "one".

ok that video looks suspicious, but watch this video shot by cnn, of the second plane hitting. This looks pretty real, but i would like to hear what you think. (last 15 seconds of video)

link: www.livevideo.com...

The thing about the that film with the 'nose' or 'fuselage' exiting that is curious is that it was posted by "Webfairy" on Youtube. She doesn't give any source on it, which I find a little curious.

I found on Prison Planet a reference to a Japanese film crew.

One thing is certain at this point.

It isn't CGI. The reason is this, earlier in this thread there were video links posted supposedly showing tv fakery going on.

Well it turns out the 'nose' exiting is in two different camera angles. One from a helicopter, It is highly unlikely that there are two errors on two different clips on the same CGI effect at the same moment!

But this doesn't clear up the mystery.

It really doesn't look at all like a smoke plume. Not at all in my honest view.


It also seems hard to match it against this type of plane





So let us look at this more deeply. Recall that the plane before hitting the South Tower banked. It didn't hit straight on. Now it could still be the engine but with the compression it looks wrong, and the shadow is enhanced.

It actually, could be the underside of the plane where there is a known ''buldge' the same buldge that caused the POD THEORY.

I would also like to know what area of the WTC did the plane hit? What was on those floors>?

If you plan on doing several examples you should save it for a new thread so we can give you Flags (WATS "votes"). Like:
"New Thread exposes SEPTEMBER CLUES Video Fakery"

By now everythings so buried in here, and it sucks we can't give your primo analysis ( ) votes

It sucks there's no votes. Apparent disinfo artists like the OP here can get all these flags (votes) for posting the thread, but when people step in and start dropping bombs we can't give them their recognition.


[edit on 7-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Thank you. But I'm more concerned with truth than attention. Unlike these minons of Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt.

There is a growing body of evidence that Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt and his band of shill seekers are not the least bit interested in truth, reality, or anything remotely related to exposing 9/11 criminals.

If they were interested in truth, we would have answers to these questions.

mister.old.school

Didn't a lot of this start with the 'Webfairy'?

Rosalee Grable (if one can believe that name!)supposedly some grandmother from Chicago who happened to be internet savy with her hand on a whole bunch of rare never before seen things?

Should we all when dealing with the subject matter the OP brought up, seek original source material? I am getting to the point where this has to be exposed and the way to do it is with good quality images.

While I like to focus on material presented, we can indeed look to the evolution of these theories.

Here, we have almost two-year old commentary from Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt on the Webfairy: www.questionsquestions.net...

And Nico continuing to give our little fairy some attention: www.bloglines.com...

Here, Nico identifies himself as part of the "Webfairy gang": www.911closeup.com...

Nico seems to have a great deal of time on his hands: www.911closeup.com...

Good information about the Webfairy and her hoaxes here: www.oilempire.us... and here: www.questionsquestions.net... and here: www.questionsquestions.net...

How can you guys explain plane parts on the street after the towers were hit.Where did these parts come from?.I just can't seem to grasp the no plane theory.And I watched all 4 parts of the video.Too many things left unexplained,like the wing impressions in both towers.Thousands of actual eyewitnesses saw planes,including fireman,police and everyday folks going to work that morning.Too many holes in this theory.

mister.old.school

Thanks, I don't want to derail this thread. Its just that some of the video's posted are sourced from this person 'the webfairy' and since she has a very dubious past and seems to be involved with suspicious things, I would think we have to get at the original source as much as possible.

Quick question. They say that the Pentagon witness saw the type of airline, numbers on plane, and even the faces in the windows?

Is this a possibility for an aircraft og that size going 500+ mph? I remembe the video they released of the Pentagon crash. That one seemed pretty blurry.

Just asking...

AAC

crowpruitt


You will notice there is a lot of manipulation in those 4 clips that you have watched. It really is as if whomever put that together did it with the wrong intentions.

Here is a case in point.

I believe it was on part -2, they were talking about the plane being a different color (darker) then in another shot (whitish).

However what they fail to mention is that the Tower itself is different in color in the 2 different shots!

That was one thing that irked me. The other was the very deceptive use of film comparisons claiming 'same angles' and things like that. Very, very deceptive. The other was the trajectory of the flight path they were talking about, which of course would look different from different angles and keeping in mind we are viewing this in 2 dimensions.

I guess what irks me more then anything is not the theory itself, but the way it is presented with obvious deception at hand. That is what bothers me and of course this WebFairy person.

I gotta admit I admire some of his editing approaches; I'm talking about the video itself, not the content tho. Unless he spent some seriously tedious time consumption, I cant see how it was for first editing attempt. To some it may not look all too impressive, but when you actually try to do it to his degree of quality it's not like picking up Paint Shop pro and banging out some edited images. This makes me wonder where his experience came from? For example compare it to the other videos bsreg posted up which mimic many other loosly thrown together clips you find across youtube in abundance.

However, now that I think back, I wont go as far as to call it professional as there was some masking on the TV bit that I would have expected.



I caught that part. That was definetely one of his presentations biggest waeknesses actually as the plane is flying in the buildings' shadow.



Someone let me know if you find the 'original' clip from that Japanese footage.