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

Digital alteration of live video feed

  • 29-04-2015 12:22pm
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭


    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.



«13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    NewCorkLad wrote: »
    Why has he not released all this footage?

    Cos he'd be killed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    omnithanos wrote: »
    Cos he'd be killed.

    Why would they not just kill him now?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,803 ✭✭✭✭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"?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭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.



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭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.


    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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭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



    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    Reg'stoy wrote: »
    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.

    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.

    We must only examine the nose in nose out video shown live which contains not one but two anomalies, the impossibility of going right through the building and the fact that the plane appeared out of nowhere.
    The video of the object hitting the tower live with no plane and the video shown on the evening news showing a digitally inserted plane which was not visible in the source video.

    This is complete proof of video fakery by the media who were complicit in the fraud of 9/11.

    My opinion is that no plane hit either tower however the first tower is irrelevant in proving that a plane did not hit the second tower,

    They couldn't use a real plane because it would be too difficult to aim it to hit the exact spot where the explosives were rigged. They couldn't risk the plane missing the tower because then they couldn't then take down the towers as was planned.
    Also if real planes hit it would be have been glaringly obvious that they wouldn't take down the buildings as being made of fiberglass and aluminium it wouldn't have entered the building the way that the digital planes did and logically jet fuel fires don't create streams of molten steel that the firefighters reported.
    The buildings were rigged to be demolished and we can even see detonation charges going off in some of the videos of the fake planes hitting.

    In the Richard D Hall video he contends that it was not a cruise missile that hit but some kind of highly advanced orb perhaps similar to the one in Mr. Peabody and Sherman. Whether it was an orb or a missile or just a bomb that exploded we can be sure of the fact that it was not a plane that hit the second tower which logically leads us to the conclusion that the official story is false which logically leads us to the conclusion that the event was an inside job.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    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.

    We must only examine the nose in nose out video shown live which contains not one but two anomalies, the impossibility of going right through the building and the fact that the plane appeared out of nowhere.
    The video of the object hitting the tower live with no plane and the video shown on the evening news showing a digitally inserted plane which was not visible in the source video.

    This is complete proof of video fakery by the media who were complicit in the fraud of 9/11.

    My opinion is that no plane hit either tower however the first tower is irrelevant in proving that a plane did not hit the second tower,

    They couldn't use a real plane because it would be too difficult to aim it to hit the exact spot where the explosives were rigged. They couldn't risk the plane missing the tower because then they couldn't then take down the towers as was planned.
    Also if real planes hit it would be have been glaringly obvious that they wouldn't take down the buildings as being made of fiberglass and aluminium it wouldn't have entered the building the way that the digital planes did and logically jet fuel fires don't create streams of molten steel that the firefighters reported.
    The buildings were rigged to be demolished and we can even see detonation charges going off in some of the videos of the fake planes hitting.

    In the Richard D Hall video he contends that it was not a cruise missile that hit but some kind of highly advanced orb perhaps similar to the one in Mr. Peabody and Sherman. Whether it was an orb or a missile or just a bomb that exploded we can be sure of the fact that it was not a plane that hit the second tower which logically leads us to the conclusion that the official story is false which logically leads us to the conclusion that the event was an inside job.

    So it was Mr Peabody. Makes sense, about as much sense as your other suggestions.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    galljga1 wrote: »
    So it was Mr Peabody. Makes sense, about as much sense as your other suggestions.

    I believe I have just established that 9/11 was an inside job using video footage shown live on the day of the event.

    You last comment is a poor attempt to deflect from the fact that all the so called conspiracy debunkers on this conspiracy forum seem to have no intention to enter into any real valuable discussion in finding the truth behind any conspiracy event.

    I have thus far had no constructive debate on the four videos shown in which I have completely exposed 9/11 as an inside job.

    Bringing in irrelevant aspects such as mentioning all the videos of planes hitting which could have all easily been faked or mentioning the live witnesses whose testimony cannot be corroborated by anyone here is not debating the issue at hand which is the evidence posed in the four videos I posted.

    Debunkers please stick to the four videos and debunk these if you can using logic and intelligent debate.

    Unless you can disprove the following statements based on the evidence of the four videos posted we can all safely concur that 9/11 was an inside job.
    1. These videos prove digital fakery was used on 9/11
    2. These videos prove that a plane did not hit the second tower


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,803 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    omnithanos wrote: »
    I believe I have just established that 9/11 was an inside job using video footage shown live on the day of the event.

    You last comment is a poor attempt to deflect from the fact that all the so called conspiracy debunkers on this conspiracy forum seem to have no intention to enter into any real valuable discussion in finding the truth behind any conspiracy event.

    I have thus far had no constructive debate on the four videos shown in which I have completely exposed 9/11 as an inside job.

    Bringing in irrelevant aspects such as mentioning all the videos of planes hitting which could have all easily been faked or mentioning the live witnesses whose testimony cannot be corroborated by anyone here is not debating the issue at hand which is the evidence posed in the four videos I posted.

    Debunkers please stick to the four videos and debunk these if you can using logic and intelligent debate.

    Unless you can disprove the following statements based on the evidence of the four videos posted we can all safely concur that 9/11 was an inside job.
    1. These videos prove digital fakery was used on 9/11
    2. These videos prove that a plane did not hit the second tower

    These video's prove nothing.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    These video's prove nothing.



    They conclusively prove that there was digital fakery involved on the day of 9/11?

    Explain why you think these videos prove nothing?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    omnithanos wrote: »
    They conclusively prove that there was digital fakery involved on the day of 9/11?

    Explain why you think these videos prove nothing?




    Have you had time to peruse my last post yet?

    Heres the contents:


    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?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    Have you had time to peruse my last post yet?

    Heres the contents:





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



    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?

    I have dealt with all these points which bear no relevance to the four videos I posted.

    Please discuss the issue at hand or does the hierarchy of conspiracy debunkers not allow you to discuss those points which prove the conspiracy?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    omnithanos wrote: »
    I have dealt with all these points which bear no relevance to the four videos I posted.

    Please discuss the issue at hand or does the hierarchy of conspiracy debunkers not allow you to discuss those points which prove the conspiracy?

    You havent dealt with it at all. refuting everything with "well , like ,obviously they'd be killed if they spoke out" isnt dealing with it, its copping out.

    Who would the government death squad go to if an anonymous tape had dropped through Alex Jones letterbox showing a video with no planes hitting the WTC?

    How , 14 years later, is there not 1 raw video showing the holes being blown in the buildings where the planes supposedly hit?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    Reg'stoy wrote: »

    but to propose that explosives were planted on multiple floors while 10,000s of people walked by everyday

    this one could be done IMO. recent to the event both the security and maintenance companies were changed. that in itself means nothing but it does validate the possibility.

    large buildings have maintenance areas/walkways/lift shafts etc that normal workers dont access on a day to day basis.
    then have unseen missiles strike

    i agree re WTC but i highly suspect that the pentagon was a missile. i find it easier to swallow than an unseen plane strike. 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. 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.

    whereas a missle.. you'd want to have a sharp eye to catch a missle. and with the speed and size of them, they'd mostly likely look incredibly similiar to the security camera footage that the official report tried to pass off as a plane, ie: small and slim with an exhaust flame.
    and release fake footage of planes hitting goes beyond the Pale for me.

    i agree. the technology to do it definitely exists but the WTC event was too open. it had to be real planes. there is an argument against it being the planes they said it was but definitely solid planes hit those buildings.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    large buildings have maintenance areas/walkways/lift shafts etc that normal workers dont access on a day to day basis.

    i agree re WTC but i highly suspect that the pentagon was a missile. i find it easier to swallow than an unseen plane strike.

    whereas a missle.. you'd want to have a sharp eye to catch a missle. and with the speed and size of them, they'd mostly likely look incredibly similiar to the security camera footage that the official report tried to pass off as a plane, ie: small and slim with an exhaust flame.

    Whether or not it was a missile or passenger jet that struck the buildings be it the twin towers or the pentagon, the problem of infiltrating in explosives particularly into the most secure building in the world still exists.

    What would have happened if the planes/missiles didn't hit the building it was meant to. What happened if the trigger was hit too early to set off the charges or indeed if they didn't go off. Too many variables to go wrong.

    What about the plane that didn't reach it's target, I would imagine it was meant to hit another high profile target, whitehouse? or nuclear plant? Did they have to sneak back in and remove the charges.

    Where was the missile launched from, was it US military or a foreign power.

    As I said in a previous post I can debate the possibility that the US knew in advance. However the idea that Bin Laden was a formerly trained 'CIA asset' (to use the CT vernacular) was used to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and so would have been under their control when planning this strike, seems to me the most reasonable justification in claiming it was an 'inside job'.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Reg'stoy wrote: »

    What about the plane that didn't reach it's target, I would imagine it was meant to hit another high profile target, whitehouse? or nuclear plant? Did they have to sneak back in and remove the charges.

    You ever think it s target could have been building 7
    no need to sneak back in just pull it


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    enno99 wrote: »
    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,766 ✭✭✭✭degrassinoel


    Although this thread has been reopened, we dont want to see the level of bickering back and forth that has been going on for the last few pages in this topic. Keep it on topic.


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    No such rooftop defence systems existed around Washington at the time.
    There is an airport literally across the road from the Pentagon.
    article-1369441-0B52086700000578-630_468x296.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,754 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    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.

    Coincidentally the 80 plus cameras around the pentagon also conveniently missed it


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,754 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    No such rooftop defence systems existed around Washington at the time.
    There is an airport literally across the road from the Pentagon.
    article-1369441-0B52086700000578-630_468x296.jpg

    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=12440

    Interesting points brought up here


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    Reg'stoy wrote: »
    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.

    ba0b80059141e45bec09d9f9e960160f.jpg

    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/


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    King Mob wrote: »

    No such rooftop defence systems existed around Washington at the time.
    There is an airport literally across the road from the Pentagon.

    not according to cheney. infact he gave an order to stand down the raytheon rooftop defence system.

    the plane entered washington airspace without the correct IFF response. on any other day the orders are that the aircraft would be identified and taken down. this was all in place before 911.

    why cheney decided that a 'plane' be allowed fly into the pentagon is beyond the understanding even of Norm Meneta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Mineta)

    immediately after the attacks, cheney invoked continuity of government and the US moved to partial secret government and suspended the constitution.

    makes the whole thing a lot easier when you can suspend the constitution and do whatever the hell you like. who in their right mind was going to argue with the VP (a man that has since admitted to condoning torture AND claimed that he would do it again!!) when planes were falling out of the sky around them?


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    not according to cheney. infact he gave an order to stand down the raytheon rooftop defence system.

    the plane entered washington airspace without the correct IFF response. on any other day the orders are that the aircraft would be identified and taken down. this was all in place before 911.
    No such system existed on the pentagon at the time.
    http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html

    If you have a source to show that they did, please provide it.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement