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
Digital alteration of live video feed
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »Hold on
What?
How were all private cameras "jammed" and where is your evidence of this?
there were plenty of reports of this on the day, even in mainstream media. i dont know about 'all' cameras though? surely they cant jam an analog camera without some sort of EMP burst to take out the battery. but then i remember hearing about signature EMP readings before the 2nd plane hit..
here's one.
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stingerbar wrote: »Altering a live feed yeah, most have a 30 second delay right? but digitally inserting a plane two planes flying into the stadium from 40 different angles, at a football match witnessed by thousands, filmed live,in 2001.
thousands are watching a football match specifically, if anything was altered you'd have thousands of witnesses in close range.
how many people do you think were looking at the sky in the hope of seeing a hijacked plane at 8:45am that morning? even when the 2nd plane hit, how many people were close enough to indentify it beyond reasonable doubt? we havent got 1 single piece of credible (not after the fact) evidence that shows clearly what plane it was.
many witnesses spoke of a silver/black military like plane (maybe a shadow, maybe a dummy that gives some amount of credence to omnithanos' claims). why would various witnesses see a silver/black military plane when the AA flight wasnt black or military looking?
improbable =/= impossible
here's a few of the witness accounts (please ignore the stupid video title).
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
DamagedTrax wrote: »
how many people do you think were looking at the sky in the hope of seeing a hijacked plane at 8:45am that morning? even when the 2nd plane hit, how many people were close enough to indentify it beyond reasonable doubt? we havent got 1 single piece of credible (not after the fact) evidence that shows clearly what plane it was.
Plenty of people on the ground heard it, looked up and saw it hit the building
Many more saw the second plane hit.many witnesses spoke of a silver/black military like plane (maybe a shadow, maybe a dummy that gives some amount of credence to omnithanos' claims). why would various witnesses see a silver/black military plane when the AA flight wasnt black or military looking?
It appears silver/black from certain angles
It doesn't make sense to give credence to certain witnesses but ignore the majority of witnesses when all footage and evidence shows airliners hit the towers, and none shows military aircraft hitting0 -
Stingerbar wrote: »Plenty of people on the ground heard it, looked up and saw it hit the building
Many more saw the second plane hit.
It appears silver/black from certain angles
It doesn't make sense to give credence to certain witnesses but ignore the majority of witnesses when all footage and evidence shows airliners hit the towers, and none shows military aircraft hitting
As we have proven there were no planes all these witness were planted actors.
Those witness who said it was a military plane were also planted actors who deliberately gave an incorrect witness statement in order to appear as if they weren't actors but were actual witness who just got the type of plane wrong in order to trick us into believing there was an actual plane.0 -
-
-
omnithanos wrote: »My questions have not been answered.
I have not received any plausible alternative explanation as to why the two pieced of footage of the explosion at the second tower which were show live on 9/11 do not correspond with each other, one shows a plane which defys logic by flying all the way through the tower with it's nose intact and the other showing an object which is not a plane hitting the tower from a different flight path with no plane.
The only possible explanation is that the live shot showing the plane was digitally altered. The other videos of planes hitting the tower show an additional object attached to the underside of the plane which does not exist on these passenger jets. This could not have been attached at the airport before the flight took off, it was a digital plane which was in fact attached to the object which actually hit the buildings in an attempt to hide the offending object.
If there is another plausible explanation please enlighten me.
You mentioned before that the two videos I posted prove nothing, please explain how you came to this conclusion?
Damaged Trax's explanation of a technical glitch does not explain why the two flying objects followed different flight paths.
Nose in nose out debunked
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Nose_outIt is very simple to demonstrate the utter falsity of the 'nose out' CGI plane claim by simply examining a few stills from the footage. It is quite clear from the following images that the supposed 'plane nose' is really nothing of the sort.
If this was a CGI plane image accidentally emerging, as opposed to debris, we would expect the shape of the plane's nose to remain constant, not to change. Yet, when we look at these stills from the news footage, it is clear that this is not the case:
0 -
DamagedTrax wrote: »and what does that prove? they got on the flights. thats about it.
The flights took off and didn't land. They people on board existed and had families. To disappear 100's of people with families etc would be very difficult.
of course the flights existed, why would they fake a flight if their intention was to use it as a smoke screen, surely a real flight would be a better option? IF whoever perpetrated the attacks did spirit the planes elsewhere, i have no doubt the passengers were killed.
Why use passenger aircraft and the 100's of people and their families which would have to be accounted for when it would have been easier to hijack cargo aircraft, hell they could have filled the cargo planes full of explosives and made sure of the job. Why not simply use one of the many many aircraft parked up like below
why would we assume that? that would be a ridiculous assumption. those flights flew. the argument is whether they hit the towers or not.
All aircraft log flight plans and transmit transponder information for the entire duration of there flight. Radar and ATC track the aircraft again for the entire duration of the flight. All of these records both physical and electronic would have to be amended. ATC, radar and casual observers tracked/watched and recorded the aircraft hitting, the evidence that they did indeed hit is irrefutable. If they had used one or more of the aircraft above, there would only be a need to show fake flight plans and ATC, there are so many 'safer' options then hijacking passenger aircraft. The passengers could fight back, an aircraft could go 'tech' (unserviceable/broken)on the stand. They could have used one of the many empty passenger jets that are transferred daily across the states.
Planes did hit the Twin Towers, the only real talking point is who planned the operation and what was the objective.
Again I point to occham's razor in this case; yes aircraft were hijacked with the specific plan to fly them into designated targets, three struck and one failed to reach it's objective. The only real legitimate argument is as I said who planned and carried out the operation.0 -
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
Looks the same to me.
Do you notice how the explosion also contains an unrealistic white square shape like they were trying to blank out the digital airplane?
So now please explain why this plane doesn't appear in the other live footage?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9ZzmcdNUFM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsmc_rS2jOo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2ElkAdvertisement