TV fakery was feasible on 9/11

The military talked about incorporating TV fakery into its arsenal since 1995:

INFORMATION WARFARE
Prof George J. Stein, AWC
Airpower Journal - Spring 1995

Let us take just one example of how current technologies could be used for strategic-level information warfare. If, say, the capabilities of already well-known Hollywood technologies to simulate reality were added to our arsenal, a genuinely revolutionary new form of warfare would become possible. Today, the techniques of combining live actors with computer-generated video graphics can easily create a "virtual" news conference, summit meeting, or perhaps even a battle that would exist in "effect" though not in physical fact. Stored video images can be recombined or "morphed" endlessly to produce any effect chosen. This moves well beyond traditional military deception, and now, perhaps, "pictures" will be worth a thousand tanks.

---------------------------

Dr George J. Stein (BA, Assumption College; MA, Pennsylvania State University, phD, Indiana University) is director, International Security Studies Core and professor of European Studies at the Air War College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. Before joining Air University in 1991, Professor Stein had taught in the School of Interdisciplinary Studies, Miami University, since 1977. He was active in SPACECAST 2020 and continues his research in information warfare.

Video manipulation of live TV broadcasts were possible since 1998:

A winner of multiple Emmy Awards for technical achievement, the Virtual Yellow 1st and Ten Line makes use of Sportvision’s patented video overlay technology to create the illusion that a yellow first-down line is painted on the field, allowing players to cross over and stand on it. Invented by Sportvision and first introduced in 1998, 1st and Ten allows viewers to see the necessary distance for a first down as plays progress... - sportvision.com

The media began warning the public about the use of TV fakery by broadcasters and the military in 1999 and 2000:

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing

By William M. Arkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, Feb. 1, 1999

Most Americans were introduced to the tricks of the digital age in the movie Forrest Gump, when the character played by Tom Hanks appeared to shake hands with President Kennedy.

For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.

Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.

To some, PSYOPS is a backwater military discipline of leaflet dropping and radio propaganda. To a growing group of information war technologists, it is the nexus of fantasy and reality. Being able to manufacture convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a successful military operation or coup.

When TV brings you the news as it didn't happen

Broadcasters are using virtual imaging technology to alter live broadcasts - and not even the news is safe from tampering

Monday, 24 January 2000
independent.co.uk

The technology to do this comes from the defence industry where, following the end of the Cold War, a number of companies have developed new ways of commercially exploiting their military navigation and tracking expertise.

None of the companies will publicly discuss how their's works. But the principle is common: each alters the live video image in the split second before it is broadcast.

Lying With Pixels

July/August 2000

In the fraction of a second between video frames, any person or object moving in the foreground can be edited out, and objects that aren’t there can be edited in and made to look real.

It is perfectly possible now to insert sets of pixels into satellite imagery data that interpreters would view as battalions of tanks, or war planes...

“I’m amazed that we have not seen phony video,” he says, before backpedaling a bit: “Maybe we have. Who would know?”

With experience as an army reservist, as a staffer with a top-secret clearance on the Senate’s Intelligence Committee, and as a legislative liaison for the Secretary of the Army, Currie has seen governmental decision-making and politicking up close. He is convinced that real-time video manipulation will be, or already is, in the hands of the military and intelligence communities.

The video of the WTC that most people around the world saw "live" on TV at about 9:03am:

Too bad all of the pesky people who actually saw the planes had to be involved. Too bad the passengers on those planes had to be involved.
Too bad retarded stuff like this still has legs.

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Too bad all of the pesky people who actually saw the planes had to be involved. Too bad the passengers on those planes had to be involved.
Too bad retarded stuff like this still has legs.

Too bad none of the news reporters on the ground saw or heard a plane.
Too bad no plane crashed, so no passengers did either.
Too bad the mods here allow skeptics to break the rules against insults.

Nice thread

Seeing is believing

So you're saying that the gov't took all those videos and planted them? that every newscrew/person with a cellphonecam/ATM/survallience video has been docotored planted with a gov't agent, and released to us? Well then why knock down the towers at all? Why not just replace every person in NYC with gov't agent's and cover the towers with big CGI blue screens and then one day when they wanna rebuild... TADAH!

The problem with useing articles from proffesor stien, is that while this might work with a war in Iran or or landing on the moon, or Dick Cheney getting blown up while driveing in Mongolia, the world trade center was not a sound stage. the people who died in the building's and on those planes had pulses. They weren't CGI. Those camera men were looking thru thier viewfinders as the planes hit, they would know if thier video's and snapshots were tampered with. Is everyone who has a photo of the planes hitting really a part of the conspiracy?

Originally posted by coldainthe people who died in the building's and on those planes had pulses. They weren't CGI.

No planes = no passengers.

And no one is saying the people who died in the towers weren't real.

I think this theory is plausible but the whole no passenger thing is a little skeptical. I dont know about the WT passengers but I do know that a family member knew someone personally on the plane that "crashed" into the pentagon. My family member worked under this person so he knew he was a real person. After 9/11 however he has disapeared. So what's the theory on that? I've heard that supposedly the hijacked planes were shot down over the ocean and the ones that hit the towers were emptied planes made to look like commuter ones. I have no idea.

I thought this 'no planes' silliness was supposed to be confined to one thread.

Originally posted by im_being_censored
No planes = no passengers.
And no one is saying the people who died in the towers weren't real.

And that folks, is the heart of the matter.

Awesome thread!! Welcome to ATS, "im_being_censored". What's up with that handle? No one will censor you here.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

From my looking at the videos, my opinion is that the images were created in the air, where the plane should have been.
Of course there are fake videos, I mean they are real videos, but the plane has been added.
There are videos that show a plane, that were not tampered with.
I think that, what was actually live, TV was picking up a holographic projection.
That does not mean that nothing flew into the towers.
Something did, just not a normal commercial airliner.
I think the hologram was meant to be viewed at a certain angle.
That would explain why all the cameras were basically pointing in the same direction.
I think (again, from watching the videos) that if you are watching the "plane" from above it or below it, it is not visible (meaning the hologram).
You do see what is under the hologram.
I am still working on this, as far as trying to figure out what it is, exactly.


[edit on 9-6-2008 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by thegdfather
I think this theory is plausible but the whole no passenger thing is a little skeptical... So what's the theory on that? I've heard that supposedly the hijacked planes were shot down over the ocean and the ones that hit the towers were emptied planes made to look like commuter ones. I have no idea.

There are a number of was to dispose of passengers from a plane. Crash it out in the middle of the ocean (remember Hurricane Erin was over the Atlantic on 9/11, so no other planes would be in the area), or simple take it to a secret base and off the passengers there.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I thought this 'no planes' silliness was supposed to be confined to one thread.

I thought trolls were supposed to be bounced.

reply to post by jmdewey60

I'd bet the planes seen on the videos were CGI. The military talked about incorporating TV fakery since 1995.

Was their a holographic projection there that some witnesses saw, but wouldn't be caught on video? Possible. But if the videos are established as fake, we don't need to go any further and speculate if there was a hologram in the air too.

don't you think it's more likely the perps some how sabotaged/prepared the walls for plane entry?

Also check out "Home Run" and electronically hijacking the World Trade
Center Attack Aircrafts.

Copyright Joe Vialls, October 2001

www.geocities.com...

Let's face it, the hijackers weren't in control of those planes.

reply to post by im_being_censored


Well.
That would be great, if we could "establish" anything about 9/11.
How do we establish the videos are fake?
Is that a blanket verdict?
"All videos, purported to have been made, anywhere in the vicinity of lower Manhattan, on 9/11, are from this day forward, are to be regarded as FAKE."
Or, are we to assume some are fake and some are not?
Would you post a list of videos and point out which ones are fake?
And could you also point out exactly what about the video is fake?
Or are they completely computer generated, and there is nothing real about them?
Obviously, at least to me, something has to be fake, because there are discrepancies, between some of them, as far as flight path and appearance of the plane.
I am not about to make a blanket condemnation.
I would rather try to learn something from each of the videos.
I am relatively new to being a 9/11 "researcher" and I am constantly having to throw out ideas and test new ones.
I would be foolish to make a hasty decision that I want to wholesale discard videos.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by jmdewey60]

Those articles are magnificent. Great proof and signs of what to look for. I find flaws in 9-11 being digital (staged, perhaps, but everyone who died that day actually died) - but want to look much closer at pretty much everything the US government ever released to the public.

What may NASA use this for? And I find this of great relevance paired with the survivalist post regarding 10/28/2011.

As implausible as "no planes" or "T.V. fakery" may sound, I keep a very open mind.

I read somewhere -- I think on ATS -- someone say "keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out," and I seriously think my brain has fallen out, but I'm not at all scared about it. Let it, I say.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I thought this 'no planes' silliness was supposed to be confined to one thread.

Fleece I have read some of your posts and I thought you were reasonable and open minded...perhaps I was wrong.

I keep my mind open and I listen and learn.There are holes in every theory of 911 I have read.But there is also some truth and if people took the time to check this out they would have to say something is just not right with the video footage we have..great post!!!

Just heard Jason Bermas complaining on The Alex Jones Show that the new BBC WTC 7 documentary showed someone with a "TV fakery" t-shirt on to try to discredit the truth movement by promoting "crazy theories."

I'm bumping this thread to show people that TV fakery is NOT a crazy theory. The media WARNED the public about the military using TV fakery before 9/11.

There is a reason why:

- on a lot of the WTC crash videos the planes melt into the buildings without breaking, crumpling, or slowing down,
- why on a lot of the videos wings and tails on the plane disappear in mid-air,
- why some of the flight trajectories conflict,
- why some of the videos look like 2-D animation,
- why only 4 videos were shown live and three of that networks that aired them all cut to other camera angle before the plane crash and would be seen exiting the other side,
- why none of the live videos showed the view where the plane melts into the facade,
- why the videos that would be harder to doctor came out later,
- why a lot of the videos by the mainstream media who have top of the line video cameras are in such poor quality,
- why no plane debris is seen entangled in the gashes, or at the base of the Towers,
- why in a lot of the "amateur" video they zoom in or out as if they had rehearsed the shot over and over again
- why in some "amateur" videos they over-react,
- why in the Hezarkhani video you can him saying "Oh my God!" at different times in different versions of his video and why he "forbidden" to talk about his most amazing video,
- why only the nearly identical Hezarkhani video and Carmen Taylor photos are the only released footage from the tour boat full of tourists docked at Battery Park and no footage was released from the tour boat seen in the 'Brooklyn Bridge' 2nd hit video
- why most "amateurs" are still unknown,
- why in some "amateur" videos were they were inside a building you can't see a window seal and the windows are so clean it's like they are not there,
- why most of the "amateurs" were professionals in the media, video, graphic arts, and photography industry,
- why in some videos you can see the nose of the plane exiting out and in others you can't,
- why no news reporter on the ground in NYC live on TV reported seeing or hearing the 2nd plane crash,
- why most of the witnesses to call in the live news networks saying they saw a plane worked for, or related to the media
- why in some videos of the 2nd hit that didn't show a plane don't record the sound of a plane,
- why one witness said it was no plane, it was a bomb and asked the news reporter who told him it was a plane
- why a wheel with a tire still intact on it allegedly from the 1st plane and an engine allegedly from the 2nd plane that miraculously landed upright from falling 85 floors and didn't break the glass sign next to it are both under construction canopies.


For Bermas, Avery, AJones, SJones, or any other planehugging truther to suggest TV fakery/no-planes is a "crazy" theory, they are being ignorant, or worse, purposely suppressing the truth.


Remember:

Lying With Pixels

July/August 2000

Seeing is no longer believing. The image you see on the evening news could well be a fake—a fabrication of fast new video-manipulation technology.

...a government, terrorist or advocacy group could set geopolitical events in motion on the strength of a few hours' worth of credibility achieved by distributing a snippet of well-doctored video.

www.technologyreview.com...

Why must so many outlandish, unlikely actions & events need to occur just to ignore the fact that planes hit the building?

Why, as soon as someone points out how outlandish & unlikely an explanation is, is that person a “troll” for doing so?