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
124

Comments

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


    For the benefit of everyone trying to debunk my proof by examining one live clip at a time let me explain why this is a completely futile exercise.

    Because both live clips do not correspond with each other, i.e. flying objects follow different trajectory's, we have total proof that digital fakery must have been used and the only people who could have faked footage of a live explosion were those who knew it was about to happen proving it to have been an inside job.

    In post #190 I show two live clips which were shown on the day which do not correspond. The first live clip was later digitally altered by NBC for the evening news to show a plane following the same flight path as the live nose in nose out plane and both the object that is shown hitting the tower while following a different trajectory and the background of the source footage were taken out.

    If you think the nose in nose out clip was real then the ball video with no plane must have been faked live.

    If you think the ball clip was real then the nose in nose out clip must have been faked live.

    It's checkmate guys, it doesn't matter how convincingly you try to explain how the clips are real, logic dictates that the two live clips cannot both be real which proves it had to have been an inside job.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    AFAIK there is and never was a nose in nose out issue

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

    Unless all these videos are faked

    Also why go for the nuclear option when thermite is a much more logic explanation which keeps the CT intact


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


    weisses wrote: »
    AFAIK there is and never was a nose in nose out issue

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoE8Uz2ia3M

    Unless all these videos are faked

    Also why go for the nuclear option when thermite is a much more logic explanation which keeps the CT intact

    Nuclear, termite, apples, bananas, both lead to the same conclusion but termite wouldn't have resulted in streams of molten steel.

    Yes all those videos were faked but please stop referring to videos that weren't shown live and could have been easily altered.

    The proof of fakery lies in the two LIVE videos. The inclusion of any other evidence is both confusing the issue and irrelevant.

    Here's a pilot who flew the plane that didn't hit the south tower and the plane that didn't crash in Shanksville explaining why the official story of a passenger plane is impossible which informs us that nose in and all his copies have to be fakes.



    Regarding the North Tower we have evidence that a bomb went off in the lobby before the higher floor exploded which again does not correspond with the official story.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    omnithanos wrote: »
    Nuclear, termite, apples, bananas, both lead to the same conclusion but termite wouldn't have resulted in streams of molten steel.

    Thermite would have resulted in streams of molten steal
    omnithanos wrote: »
    Yes all those videos were faked but please stop referring to videos that weren't shown live and could have been easily altered.

    The proof of fakery lies in the two LIVE videos. The inclusion of any other evidence is both confusing the issue and irrelevant.

    You presented a view from someone using a crappy youtube video ... I didn't see any evidence ... I chuckled but that's all :)
    omnithanos wrote: »
    Here's a pilot who flew the plane that didn't hit the south tower and the plane that didn't crash in Shanksville explaining why the official story of a passenger plane is impossible which informs us that nose in and all his copies have to be fakes.

    then what is he explaining at 6:28 ?
    And he flew the plane on earlier occasions but not on that particular day

    omnithanos wrote: »
    Regarding the North Tower we have evidence that a bomb went off in the lobby before the higher floor exploded which again does not correspond with the official story.

    But a plane flew into that building right ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    I think this nose-cone/camera angle talk is pretty interesting thus far though I just won't have time to absorb it for a couple days :p can someone compile a post of all the unique camera shots we have available of the 2nd impact? thanks!

    I posted a youtube video couple of posts back regarding angles .. you can clearly see there is debris coming out on the other end ..But nose cone ? think not



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,097 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    actually the Honeywell autopilot system (used on commercial boeings) can allow remote override.
    Can you please document this statement, nothing written in my Honeywell FMS user manual and I'm seriously too embarrassed to ask Honeywell design engineers!

    For starters, what means of communication is used?
    which is impossible for an aluminium nose which is designed to crush on impact
    Says who? Do you have the appropriate FAR25 design criteria for that?

    Just watching the video by pilot who flew the aircraft prior to 911. He says that the computers wouldn't have allowed the aircraft to be flown in the manner explained by the government, I would have one question for this guy, "what bloody computers"?


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


    weisses wrote: »
    I posted a youtube video couple of posts back regarding angles .. you can clearly see there is debris coming out on the other end ..But nose cone ? think not


    I fail to see why you chuckled at the two videos of actual live footage I put up in post #190 which prove it was an inside job.

    These two videos can be checked out as having being aired live on 9/11 by searching for 9/11 ball and nose in nose out. You will find multiple videos for each.

    Your compilation of fake videos showing animated planes is mere disinformation and I have explained before why they should all be ignored for the purposes proving this hoax

    Might I clarify there was no first plane either.

    Here's another pilot's expert opinion on the subject watch from 4:50


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


    smurfjed wrote: »
    Can you please document this statement, nothing written in my Honeywell FMS user manual and I'm seriously too embarrassed to ask Honeywell design engineers!

    press from first announcement:
    http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/boeing-wins-patent-uninterruptible-autopilot-system
    Boeing’s is, of course, not the first autopilot technology in existence, but this one has been designed with counterterrorism first and foremost in mind. Not only is it “uninterruptible” — so that even a tortured pilot cannot turn it off — but it can be activated remotely via radio or satellite by government agencies.



    John Croft from Flight Global reported:
    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/diagrams-boeing-patents-anti-terrorism-auto-land-system-for-hijacked-210869/
    “The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.”

    http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptible-autopilot-system-drones-remote-hijacking/



    and wiki (if that means anything)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Honeywell_Uninterruptible_Autopilot
    In 2005, avionics supplier, Honeywell, was reported to be talking to both Boeing and Airbus about fitting a device aimed at preventing a 9/11-style hijack. On 16 April 2003, Honeywell filed patent [9] Airbus and BAE Systems, had been working on the project with Honeywell. Development sped up after the September 11, 2001 attacks.[10][11] The patent for the system was awarded to Boeing in 2006



    IMO, all the above clearly show that the patent has existed a number of years and that boeing started developing it in 2006. they now use the honeywell system, surely logic dictates that they fitted the very thing they were working on? they hardly fitted a different system but used the same name?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,490 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    omnithanos wrote: »
    I fail to see why you chuckled at the two videos of actual live footage I put up in post #190 which prove it was an inside job.

    These two videos can be checked out as having being aired live on 9/11 by searching for 9/11 ball and nose in nose out. You will find multiple videos for each.

    Your compilation of fake videos showing animated planes is mere disinformation and I have explained before why they should all be ignored for the purposes proving this hoax

    Might I clarify there was no first plane either.

    Here's another pilot's expert opinion on the subject watch from 4:50

    Why should everyone else's videos be ignored yet you expect us to accept yours as gospel truth?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,490 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    press from first announcement:
    http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/boeing-wins-patent-uninterruptible-autopilot-system





    John Croft from Flight Global reported:
    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/diagrams-boeing-patents-anti-terrorism-auto-land-system-for-hijacked-210869/



    http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/08/07/flight-control-boeings-uninterruptible-autopilot-system-drones-remote-hijacking/



    and wiki (if that means anything)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Honeywell_Uninterruptible_Autopilot





    IMO, all the above clearly show that the patent has existed a number of years and that boeing started developing it in 2006. they now use the honeywell system, surely logic dictates that they fitted the very thing they were working on? they hardly fitted a different system but used the same name?

    It's not fitted on commercial aircraft.


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


    Why should everyone else's videos be ignored yet you expect us to accept yours as gospel truth?

    Because as I have explained ad nauseum the two videos I posted were of live footage so as they do not match one of these obviously has to have been faked and the only people who could have faked live footage were those who know the explosion was about to happen.

    All the other video footage was prepared afterwards so as it was easier to alter the footage afterwards none of these videos should be admissible for the purposes of proving this hoax.

    I don't understand why none of you can follow the simple logic, it's as if none of you want to accept the truth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    actually about a minute in to Weisses' video, you can see an angle of the plane that matches a previous post of mine, regarding the issue of "missing frames" from one of the camera angles. In that post I stated that there was a likelihood that the plane was on a non-linear trajectory. In this video you can plainly see the plane has to bank into the building, having overshot it by a small bit. Easy enough thing to do if you're going to ram a plane into a building at such insane speeds. The clip around 1:30 you notice some interesting artefacts on the video, but in all likelihood this is the result of something more sinister than most people ever fathom: youtube video compression. Same with the white square that was mentioned in a previous post. Not only is a lot of this video relatively poor quality to begin with (poor resolutions at long ranges saved to analog tape - digital storage for video was not mainstream until the mid-decade) but it was then uploaded to youtube and in most cases reduced in quality where applicable down to about 480i. Youtube didn't always support 720p, 1080p and 4k.

    I can't fathom in 2001 that anyone could have CGI'd so many different camera angles, so many different camera styles (personal, professional, etc), and kept all of it consistent - which it certainly appears to be.
    I'm sorry but you really need to.stop saying that, You have "proven" nothing. At best you have raised some questions which have been answered (not to your liking but answered non the less).
    Timberrrrrr(rrrrr?) this is really dipping into backseat modding. Please report posts rather than responding to them in this manner.

    Omnithanos, you may not like that some people do not agree with your views but nothing has been categorically proven as true or false here. Please review the newest charter if you have not already done so.
    Omnithanos wrote:
    I don't understand why none of you can follow the simple logic, it's as if none of you want to accept the truth.
    That is their right. Again, read the charter.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    Omnithanos, you may not like that some people do not agree with your views but nothing has been categorically proven as true or false here. Please review the newest charter if you have not already done so.

    I believe I have categorically proven without any shadow of a doubt that digital fakery was deliberately used by the media on 9/11.

    Comments stating that my post proves nothing with no explanation do not carry any weight.

    If you or anyone else can logically come up with any other plausible theory to explain how two pieces of footage shown live on 9/11 do not match up please do so otherwise my theory will have to be accepted as fact.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    omnithanos wrote: »
    I believe I have categorically proven without any shadow of a doubt that digital fakery was deliberately used by the media on 9/11.

    Comments stating that my post proves nothing with no explanation do not carry any weight.

    If you or anyone else can logically come up with any other plausible theory to explain how two pieces of footage shown live on 9/11 do not match up please do so otherwise my theory will have to be accepted as fact.

    Problem is that your theory/YouTube link is not making any sense in regards to all the footage available

    You even present videos of pilots in a bid to support your opinion/theory while in fact their statements undermine your ideas as I showed you earlier


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


    weisses wrote: »
    Problem is that your theory/YouTube link is not making any sense in regards to all the footage available

    You even present videos of pilots in a bid to support your opinion/theory while in fact their statements undermine your ideas as I showed you earlier

    None of the other available video footage was shown live therefore it could have been edited.

    The other footage is not relevant to a debate about how two pieces of footage shown live do not match. This is basic logic.

    The pilots in the videos I posted both state that planes were not used on 9/11. How does this in any way undermine the idea that one of the pieces of footage shown live was digitally altered?


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    omnithanos wrote: »
    I believe I have categorically proven without any shadow of a doubt that digital fakery was deliberately used by the media on 9/11.
    You misunderstand the term 'categorically,' then. If the government comes out and says "yes, we faked it," then they faked it. Until then, it's inconclusive. Just like people may well believe God exists but until he or it comes floating down from the sky and performs miracles it is not categorically evident.

    By definition, if people doubt you then there is a shadow of doubt.
    If you or anyone else can logically come up with any other plausible theory to explain how two pieces of footage shown live on 9/11 do not match up please do so otherwise my theory will have to be accepted as fact.
    2 different cameras, with different performance characteristics, uploaded at different times to a digital video site which then compressed said videos. And all derivatives of those videos (the frame-by-frame folks) come from that existing, compressed footage of dubious quality.

    Having provided a plausible theory, your theory by your own restraints does not have to be accepted as fact. And if you continue to force a conclusion in contravention to the charter you're going to go in time out: it's stalling the conversation, we're starting to go in loops, and we're already way off the original thread topic. I've given you plenty of latitude with several soft warnings that you're choosing to ignore. Unwisely. You have already stated your perspective, "ad nauseum" as you say, and you should just let the posts rest and speak for themselves. Nobody is going to want to read 40 pages of you saying the exact same thing, and 40 pages of people continuing to say why they disagree with it. Flogging it like a dead horse is not going to make people change their minds - WMD logic doesn't apply here. Move on already.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    omnithanos wrote: »
    The pilots in the videos I posted both state that planes were not used on 9/11.

    Again



    roughly 8:30


  • Registered Users Posts: 175 ✭✭scuba8


    It's not fitted on commercial aircraft.

    This has been done before. There are no remote control systems fitted to any commercial aircraft. This is a fact not speculation. My scource is an Air Traffic Controller.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    As was suggested in the post before me .. I will leave this as it is


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    scuba8 wrote: »
    This has been done before. There are no remote control systems fitted to any commercial aircraft. This is a fact not speculation. My scource is an Air Traffic Controller.

    Well not remote control systems per se but wifi is a big concern regarding unwanted outside control


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    That fear didn't exist in 2001 though. What were they on, wireless G at best; it wasn't installed in planes


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Overheal wrote: »
    That fear didn't exist in 2001 though. What were they on, wireless G at best; it wasn't installed in planes

    i dont think the remote plane theory described here is referring to 9/11 .. thought it had something to do with the german wings crash ... could be wrong though


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


    scuba8 wrote: »
    This has been done before. There are no remote control systems fitted to any commercial aircraft. This is a fact not speculation. My scource is an Air Traffic Controller.

    and again your source means nothing unless he inspects every single aircraft that leaves the ground from every airport in the world.

    IF somebody wanted to use a commercial plane as a remote weapon, what are the chances of your buddy, a law abiding ATC, hearing about it on the grapevine? its hardly going to be gossip on the apron.

    the only thing your source can confirm is that its not in general use on commercial aircraft. we can all accept that. but that doesnt mean it has not been used on a commercial aircraft at any point.


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


    Overheal wrote: »
    You misunderstand the term 'categorically,' then. If the government comes out and says "yes, we faked it," then they faked it. Until then, it's inconclusive. Just like people may well believe God exists but until he or it comes floating down from the sky and performs miracles it is not categorically evident.
    III
    By definition, if people doubt you then there is a shadow of doubt.

    2 different cameras, with different performance characteristics, uploaded at different times to a digital video site which then compressed said videos. And all derivatives of those videos (the frame-by-frame folks) come from that existing, compressed footage of dubious quality.

    Having provided a plausible theory, your theory by your own restraints does not have to be accepted as fact. And if you continue to force a conclusion in contravention to the charter you're going to go in time out: it's stalling the conversation, we're starting to go in loops, and we're already way off the original thread topic. I've given you plenty of latitude with several soft warnings that you're choosing to ignore. Unwisely. You have already stated your perspective, "ad nauseum" as you say, and you should just let the posts rest and speak for themselves. Nobody is going to want to read 40 pages of you saying the exact same thing, and 40 pages of people continuing to say why they disagree with it. Flogging it like a dead horse is not going to make people change their minds - WMD logic doesn't apply here. Move on already.
    Isn't it in contravention to the charter to dismiss a theory out of hand without providing any plausible alternative?
    I posted a video of footage which was aired live which showed an object hitting the tower from the top right corner of the screen. That evening NBC used the very same footage but the background was removed and it now showed a plane hit the tower coming from the centre right screen. It is obvious that NBC digitally altered the footage. My big question is does anyone have a plausible explanation as to why the plane hit the tower from a completely different direction to the object in the footage which was shown live?
    This anomaly cannot be explained by video compression or a technical glitch.

    The only reason I have kept repeating myself is because I didn't think folks were getting my point.

    If nobody wants to take this further perhaps we could discuss the elements of forewarning for 9/11 such as Rockefeller's watch saying 9:11 on the Newsweek cover in 1967 or the Israeli moving van which was driving around that morning with the mural showing a plane going into the twin towers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,995 ✭✭✭Ipso


    Jade Helm 15 is where it will be at very soon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    omnithanos wrote: »
    Isn't it in contravention to the charter to dismiss a theory out of hand without providing any plausible alternative?

    As if predicting people may have a desire to discuss the charter, there is somehow a feedback thread at the top of the forum next to the charter, specifically for the express purpose of discussing the charter.

    This is your third warning today. Do not post in this thread again. Meanwhile, take a time out to have a word with us.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,097 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    Did you stop to consider that uninterruptible autopilots were a knee-jerk reactions to 911? They are not fitted to commercial aircraft as the need to switch off the autopilot still exists, this was clearly demonstrated by the AF A330 crash.

    Can I ask why are you discounting the possibility that a number of radicalised individuals with limited piloting experience, hijacked the aircraft and flew them into the buildings?

    The illustrious Captain in the video above has already stated that the "computers wouldnt allow it", when there arent any FBW computers in the 757/767, so for me the rest of his statements are bogus!


  • Registered Users Posts: 82,259 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    All posts about 9/11 sent to 9/11 forum under new thread heading. Omnithanos is still banned from this thread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    omnithanos wrote: »
    As I stated previous all releasef videos which were not shown live ate irrelevant as they could have been and were altered. None of these were taken by private individuas as all private cameras were jammed. We must only ins pop extension the two live shots to prove this.

    So now all the private video cameras in New York were jammed?

    You said before all footage was handed up and then edited.

    How come you never brought that up when asked how not one person kept their own footage showing no planes hitting the towers and released it after? Your only explanation on that was that they would be killed for releasing it. If all cameras were jammed then what footage did everyone hand up to be edited and what would they be killed for.

    I even pressed and asked why someone didnt anonymously send their tape to someone like Alex Jones to avoid being killed over it. You ignored that question and never thought to mention this jamming stuff?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    omnithanos wrote: »
    Because as I have explained ad nauseum the two videos I posted were of live footage so as they do not match one of these obviously has to have been faked and the only people who could have faked live footage were those who know the explosion was about to happen.
    .

    Since we're talking about doctored footage , who says thats the live footage as it went out at the time? Does anyone here with eidetic memory remember the footage being exactly as it is on youtube from 14 years ago and not what they were shown since?

    Wheres the proof that footage wasnt edited and released shortly after purporting to be the live footage from the time?

    If they made an editing error in the original live release as you say, why not correct it then claim the error was editing by CT'ers after and never went out? Who would have remembered tiny details that need to be blown up to show in video footage they saw in real time of a catastrophic event?


Advertisement