Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Digital alteration of live video feed
-
29-04-2015 12:22PM#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
omnithanos wrote: »These two shots are confirmed as actual footage which was screened on the day.
This first shot was screened live and is not fake because we can see the background in the shot which was removed later. This was the live shot that the news team aired by accident as it showed the actual object that hit the second tower which was not a plane.
We know they did not intend to show this object as in the later broadcast shown the same day for the evening news they had deleted the background and inserted a plane following a different path which proves the first object wasn't the plane.
As this first shot showed the tower exploding live with no plane hitting we can therefore conclude that all later shots showing planes were faked.
The following is the only live shot showing a plane hitting. Notice the plane here follows the same path as the plane they digitally inserted for the evening news and not the path of the actual object that hit which was not a plane.
Notice also how the plane goes in one side and out the other with the aluminium nose intact. Proof that it is fake. Aware of their error they fade to black for a split second to hide their mistake.
The cameraman taking the shot was a digital video expert. The error with the nose came about because the movement of the helicopter knocked the masking layer out of sync with the shot.
As this article, published prior to 9/11 in 2000, shows it had been possible to insert digital imagery into live broadcasts since 1999.
http://www.rense.com/general31/pix.htm
For most things about 9/11 I tend to go along with Occam's razor, where the most obvious explanation is invariably the truth.
0 -
For most things about 9/11 I tend to go along with Occam's razor, where the most obvious explanation is invariably the truth.
That's a very poor video explanation from an obvious liar with comments disabled so that his lies cannot be debated.
If you look at the video I posted at 1 minute 30 seconds you will see that the nose out image does not fade out to make a match.
Also the plane in this video which shows the only live impact follows the trajectory of the other fake digitally inserted plane in the Richard D Hall video which I included in post #160 and which clearly did not follow the path of the object that actually hit the tower which was shown to be the exact same footage prior to it being digitally adjusted for the evening news.
The fact that the background was taken out proves digital fakery.
The fact that there was no plane in the original shot proves there was no plane.0 -
For the final nail in the coffin on this debate about whether a plane hit, here is the chopper 4 video showing the actual object which hit the second tower.
Notice how 53 seconds into this video the news team replay the footage and in the replay the object which hit the building has been removed along with the chopper 4 logo in the top left corner.
We are left with an explosion with nothing hitting the building.
This is actual footage guys
And here is the actual footage of the impossible nose in nose out plane hitting which shows that the fake plane just appeared out of nowhere and when the video is reversed you can see the plane wasn't in the long shot.
The stupid cameraman claims that it is possible for a plane to go in one side and out the other because that's what he filmed.
On 5 mins 38 seconds we see a shot of the building exploding from the ground with no plane hitting.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
omnithanos wrote: »Let's stick to the facts shall we.
How do you know that 100's nay 1000's saw a plane hit in real time. Is it because you saw people say it on TV? How reliable is that?
In proving that no plane hit the second tower we can immediately discount all the videos of planes hitting that were shown at a later date as irrelevant as we know they could have all been faked.
You ask why I say 100's nay 1,000's of people would have seen the first plane hit. Imagine walking down any street in Dublin and a low flying jet passes overhead, what happens; people stop and automatically turn towards the noise.
You haven't proven that all videos of the second plane hitting are faked, you have simply offered evidence that some videos may or may not have been digitally altered. Now of course one or two videos may indeed be altered to suit the agenda of those doing the editing, but to suppose that every other video of the same event is fake (see below) based on your evidence is pushing credibility, because of the shear number of videos that must have been altered to prove you right.
I would suggest that it is easier to edit a couple of videos to show that some badly filmed pieces are fake, then to release 100's of videos and ask 100's of people to take credit for filming them.
I can debate whether or not the US Government had prior knowledge of the attack a la Pearl Harbour; but to propose that explosives were planted on multiple floors while 10,000s of people walked by everyday, then have unseen missiles strike and release fake footage of planes hitting goes beyond the Pale for me.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
You ever think it s target could have been building 7
no need to sneak back in just pull it
Ah the "pull it" quote.
Why are these CT's more complicated than a Bond Villains plan for world domination. Park a truck outside the building like Oklahoma and that's all she wrote; but no sneak in explosives and hope a hijacked plane hits it.
0 -
-
You have to consider that first, the twin towers were much more of a tourist attraction, and much more impressive to see and video tape from ground level. You're simply just going to have more people looking and filming up the towers.DamagedTrax wrote: »there is plenty of footage of the planes flying over manhattan, why doesnt the same apply in washington? its a big city too. i would think that a plane flying that low (as the official report showed us) would draw a ton of attention like in new york.
Second, there were two attacks on the towers, one after the other. So after the first attack there'd be far more people videoing the crashsite who'd be able to catch the second plane hitting.
Third, like you said, the pentagon plane was travelling low and fast so the few people who had video cameras at the time wouldn't have had much of a chance to get it out, on and pointed in the right direction in time.
No such rooftop defence systems existed around Washington at the time.DamagedTrax wrote: »infact the run up to the pentagon was much more open than the streets of manhatten, that plane should have been seen coming from much further away. and if it had, it would have been taken out of the sky by the various rooftop defence systems around washington.
There is an airport literally across the road from the Pentagon.
0 -
-
No such rooftop defence systems existed around Washington at the time.
There is an airport literally across the road from the Pentagon.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=12440
Interesting points brought up here0 -
You ask why I say 100's nay 1,000's of people would have seen the first plane hit. Imagine walking down any street in Dublin and a low flying jet passes overhead, what happens; people stop and automatically turn towards the noise.
You haven't proven that all videos of the second plane hitting are faked, you have simply offered evidence that some videos may or may not have been digitally altered. Now of course one or two videos may indeed be altered to suit the agenda of those doing the editing, but to suppose that every other video of the same event is fake (see below) based on your evidence is pushing credibility, because of the shear number of videos that must have been altered to prove you right.
I would suggest that it is easier to edit a couple of videos to show that some badly filmed pieces are fake, then to release 100's of videos and ask 100's of people to take credit for filming them.
I can debate whether or not the US Government had prior knowledge of the attack a la Pearl Harbour; but to propose that explosives were planted on multiple floors while 10,000s of people walked by everyday, then have unseen missiles strike and release fake footage of planes hitting goes beyond the Pale for me.
You are completely missing the point. There couldn't be any witnesses who saw planes if there weren't any planes so your "what about the witnesses" argument is irrelevant.
All the later released footage of planes hitting is also irrelevant because we know that anyone could have tampered with this footage.
Also Electromagnetic Jamming (applied with HERF technology) could have Prevented any private camera from functioning during key time windows.
http://cachemcclure.blogspot.ie/2012/04/herf-technology.html
"Special" Film Crews with faraday-shielded equipment recorded all the 9/11 stock footage for historical record.
I posted the the only two pieces of LIVE video footage of the second tower exploding so we must limit our discussion to these two pieces of footage.
What do these two pieces of footage show us?
1. These two pieces of live footage do not correspond with each other so therefore one has to be fake.
2. The ONLY people who could have faked LIVE footage of an explosion going off in the Tower are the perpetrators.
3. The live footage showing the plane hitting the tower is an obvious fake because we see the plane go in one side and out the other with it's nose intact which is impossible for an aluminium nose which is designed to crush on impact. Prior to the plane hitting we see a long shot with no plane visable then when the camera zooms in the plane seems to appear out of nowhere.
4. The footage showing the other object hitting the tower was not meant to be aired. The news reporters did not notice it at the time of broadcast and when they showed the replay both the object and the chopper 4 logo were removed from the shot. This either means that they either did not want anyone to see the object hit the building or that the object was another digital insertion.
5. This exact same footage that was shown live was again shown on the evening news but they took out the background and they digitally inserted a plane to correspond with the only only other live video showing the plane hitting the tower, which plane did not follow the same flight path of the object that was in the original source video.
So there you have it. We don't need to think about anything else.
1. These videos prove there was definite video fakery
2. The only people who could have pulled off this video fakery were the perpetrators of the crime
3. The reason they adjusted the images was to convince us that a plane hit the tower.
4. The fact that they used video fakery to convince us that a plane hit the tower is because no plane hit the tower.
As an aside you might be interested to know that fakery was also involved in live shots of the demolition of the towers as most videos show a helicopter in the scene but in some shots the helicopter disappears.
David Rockefeller had this event planned before they dug the foundations.
Here he is on the cover of Newsweek in 1967 with his watch set to 9 11.
And how did the emergency number 911 come about?
Rockefeller owned AT&T who In November 1967 met with the FCC to find a means of establishing a universal emergency number for the US. In 1968, AT&T announced that it would establish the digits 9-1-1 (nine-one-one) as the emergency code throughout the United States.
Hardly random as it is believed the true birth date of Jesus Christ was September 11th 3BC. As a Satanist Rockefeller wanted to perpetrate the most despicable crime in history on the anniversary date of Jesus' actual birth.
https://goodnessofgodministries.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/when-was-jesus-christ-born-the-bible-says-september-11-3bc-the-day-of-the-feast-of-trumpets/0 -
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHhBcZxYqY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvWwIxMbmE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFiEgwLQVJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb428ySuFjA
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement