Digital alteration of live video feed

omnithanos

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So do false flag events actually have to happen to be false flag , or can they be faked (like the op claims about 9/11 and Boston).

Omnithanos, are you claiming the events you describe in this thread happened and are government/autghority/rich people orchestrated or are entirely faked?

9/11 was a false flag operation (which was government/authority/rich people orchestrated as you say) as actual lives were lost.

Here's undeniable proof that planes were digitally inserted.
On 4 mins into the following video we are shown the object which actually hit the second tower.
From 4mins 28secs it is shown that this exact same shot was tampered with for the evening news broadcast and a plane was digitally inserted following a different trajectory to the first object.
If the first object was in fact the plane then why would they digitally insert another plane following a different trajectory into their footage for the evening broadcast?

Boston (also government/authority/rich people orchestrated) was a hoax as nobody was hurt or injured.

Here's evidence of how benches were shattered and tables were moved after the event to make the scene look more like a real bomb had gone off.

NewCorkLad

If they were willing to kill people in 9/11, why would they take to risk of being found out by only faking the Boston bombing, why not just set off 2 bombs?

omnithanos

NewCorkLad wrote: »

If they were willing to kill people in 9/11, why would they take to risk of being found out by only faking the Boston bombing, why not just set off 2 bombs?

They did not need to murder anyone to achieve their goal at Boston but they did on 9/11 simple as that.

NewCorkLad

omnithanos wrote: »

They did not need to murder anyone to achieve their goal at Boston but they did on 9/11 simple as that.

But by only setting off smoke bombs as you have suggested they would risk being found out very easily, as they obviously have little regard for human life why not just set off real bombs.

omnithanos

NewCorkLad wrote: »

But by only setting off smoke bombs as you have suggested they would risk being found out very easily, as they obviously have little regard for human life why not just set off real bombs.

Because it was a hoax and because Satanists believe they get power by deception.

Guy:Incognito

omnithanos wrote: »

Because it was a hoax and because Satanists believe they get power by deception.

Setting off real bombs and blaming someone else is deception too.

NewCorkLad

omnithanos wrote: »

Because it was a hoax and because Satanists believe they get power by deception.

Would Satanists not receive more power from the killing of innocents and the framing of other innocents?

I cannot see any reason why they would take the risk of such an elaborate fact bombing in the middle of such a large crowd where all it would take is 1 mistake for the truth to come out?

omnithanos

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Setting off real bombs and blaming someone else is deception too.

I assume it would be less easy to coerce people into conspiring to murder people then coercing them to perpetrate a hoax.

Urban Shield publicly announced they were planning such an event in Boston with 500 responders.

omnithanos

NewCorkLad wrote: »

Would Satanists not receive more power from the killing of innocents and the framing of other innocents?

I cannot see any reason why they would take the risk of such an elaborate fact bombing in the middle of such a large crowd where all it would take is 1 mistake for the truth to come out?

Perhaps they don't care whether they are found out or not. All they have to do is deny it or instruct an investigation not to investigate as the White House did with the 9/11 investigation.

Guy:Incognito

omnithanos wrote: »

I assume it would be less easy to coerce people into conspiring to murder people then coercing them to perpetrate a hoax.

Urban Shield publicly announced they were planning such an event in Boston with 500 responders.

You're deflecting and jumping back and forward.

It would be much easier to stick a couple of real bombs in Boston and blame it on a couple of patsys having already killed a couple of thousand people before (a lot more actually if you count all the things you claim they did) than to organise and keep quite a couple of thousand in making a whole hoax event.

What about those other April 15th events?

Guy:Incognito

Since you're claiming definitive knowledge and proof of what happened, why is there so much "perhaps" when it comes to the reasoning?

omnithanos

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You're deflecting and jumping back and forward.

It would be much easier to stick a couple of real bombs in Boston and blame it on a couple of patsys having already killed a couple of thousand people before (a lot more actually if you count all the things you claim they did) than to organise and keep quite a couple of thousand in making a whole hoax event.

What about those other April 15th events?

You might consider that it would have also been easier to actually fly planes into the twin towers than adding them in digitally afterwards but then it would have been proven that the planes wouldn't go all the way in and the buildings couldn't have been taken down.

They had carefully planned Boston as a hoax using the Urban Shield template. You'd have to ask them yourself why they didn't just go with killing everyone. Anything you or I propose would be just supposition.

I haven't researched any of the other April 15th events apart from the fact that I know there was foreshadowing of the Titanic but I haven't looked into whether the Titanic was sunk deliberately.

Guy:Incognito

omnithanos wrote: »

You might consider that it would have also been easier to actually fly planes into the twin towers than adding them in digitally afterwards but then it would have been proven that the planes wouldn't go all the way in and the buildings couldn't have been taken down.

You'd have to prove (as in proper proof) that they didnt.

How come not one person on the ground looking at it has come forward to claim the planes werent there?

I dont remember if I got an answer before when I asked whether you believe every piece of footage shot by every person that day was just willfully handed up, after which they all just accepted, no questions asked , when the footage of nothing turned up with planes added in? Again, not one person questioned it or failed to hand up their footage and copies? All photographs and copies also handed up?

Wheres the raw footage of the hole being blown in the buildings to make it look like a plane hit them?

omnithanos

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You'd have to prove (as in proper proof) that they didnt.

How come not one person on the ground looking at it has come forward to claim the planes werent there?

I dont remember if I got an answer before when I asked whether you believe every piece of footage shot by every person that day was just willfully handed up, after which they all just accepted, no questions asked , when the footage of nothing turned up with planes added in? Again, not one person questioned it or failed to hand up their footage and copies? All photographs and copies also handed up?

Wheres the raw footage of the hole being blown in the buildings to make it look like a plane hit them?

The video in my post #160 proves that they inserted digital planes.

The following video shows what happens if you don't hand up your footage.

NewCorkLad

omnithanos wrote: »

The video in my post #160 proves that they inserted digital planes.

The following video shows what happens if you don't hand up your footage.

Why has he not released all this footage?

omnithanos

NewCorkLad wrote: »

Why has he not released all this footage?

Cos he'd be killed.

Guy:Incognito

Sonnenfelds footage is available on youtube for the last 5 years and is from the aftermath is it not?. Does he claim there were no planes and they were added afterward? He worked for Fema, surely the footage they employed him to shoot and gave him access where he wouldn't otherwise have been, is theres?

If his claims are that there were planes but its a false flag, doesnt that contradict your claims. How can "facts" , prove such different versions of events?

Guy:Incognito

omnithanos wrote: »

Cos he'd be killed.

Why would they not just kill him now?

NewCorkLad

omnithanos wrote: »

Cos he'd be killed.

He would be safer if he released all this footage, he would no longer have the smoking gun

omnithanos

As I mentioned previously my post #160 proves digital planes were inserted and from this and the obvious cover up we can only logically conclude it was an inside job.

galljga1

omnithanos wrote: »

As I mentioned previously my post #160 proves digital planes were inserted and from this and the obvious cover up we can only logically conclude it was an inside job.

I have looked at this again and hopefully for the last time. I cannot see anything untoward that could not have been inserted digitally to further the conspiracy argument.

Timberrrrrrrr

omnithanos wrote: »

As I mentioned previously my post #160 proves digital planes were inserted and from this and the obvious cover up we can only logically conclude it was an inside job.

That video proves nothing

What about the millions who watched this live on TV and the many thousands who actually saw it live on the streets of NY? Why has one single person not come forward and said "I was there and there was no plane"?

Guy:Incognito

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

That video proves nothing

What about the millions who watched this live on TV and the many thousands who actually saw it live on the streets of NY? Why has one single person not come forward and said "I was there and there was no plane"?

And when the inevitable "they'd be killed" response comes back, how is it that theres any government dissenters left alive in the US?

omnithanos wrote: »

The video in my post #160 proves that they inserted digital planes.

The following video shows what happens if you don't hand up your footage.

Why did no one just not hand up footage (theres no way for the government to know how many people or who they were that filmed footage hat day) and send it anonymously to someone like Alex Jones to release?

omnithanos

galljga1 wrote: »

I have looked at this again and hopefully for the last time. I cannot see anything untoward that could not have been inserted digitally to further the conspiracy argument.

Both shots were released on 9/11, the first live, the second.was edited using the exact same shot and is proof of fakery. If you suggest the first object was a plane, which it doesn't appear to me to be, then why did they remove it & digitly insert a plane for the evening news?
Also there was only one live shot showing a plane hit which is also an obvious fake as the plane goes in one side & out the other with nose intact which is an impossibility.

galljga1

omnithanos wrote: »

Both shots were released on 9/11, the first live, the second.was edited using the exact same shot and is proof of fakery. If you suggest the first object was a plane, which it doesn't appear to me to be, then why did they remove it & digitly insert a plane for the evening news?
Also there was only one live shot showing a plane hit which is also an obvious fake as the plane goes in one side & out the other with nose intact which is an impossibility.

You are proposing that elements were digitaly removed and other elements were inserted? Well, then you call into question every video that could be produced as evidence.

omnithanos

galljga1 wrote: »

You are proposing that elements were digitaly removed and other elements were inserted? Well, then you call into question every video that could be produced as evidence.

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

NewCorkLad

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

Or maybe they cleared up the background to highlight the plane that was already there.

Reg'stoy

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034

omnithanos

Reg'stoy wrote: »

For most things about 9/11 I tend to go along with Occam's razor, where the most obvious explanation is invariably the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034

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.

omnithanos

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHhBcZxYqY

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cvWwIxMbmE

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.

Reg'stoy

omnithanos wrote: »

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.

You use the phrase "nail in the coffin" as if you have actually given some credence to your 'theory'. 100's nay 1,000's of people watched in actual real time not a youtube video of the aircraft hitting both towers.

So may I ask a couple of questions,

First one, did an actual passenger aircraft hit the first tower stuck?

Secondly, if indeed a missile or small aircraft hit the second tower why have a missile hit rather than an aircraft?

Why not use a missile on the first tower, less chance of people filming as obviously every camera available would be trained on the towers once the first tower was struck. The story would have been more plausible if 100's had filmed an aircraft hit (which they did) rather than having to photoshop in an aircraft after the fact.

Finally a missile would have caused a huge amount of damage relative to a passenger jet, think cruise missiles used against buildings in the gulf war.