Digital alteration of live video feed

weisses · 01-05-2015 2:21pm

King Mob wrote: »

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.

From your link

The air defense system for Washington is unique, and many of its operations are classified.

A spokesman for the commander of NORAD, Air Force Gen. Ralph E. "Ed" Eberhart, would not comment on the handling of the incident, saying that rules of engagement are classified

So .. Its only clear to a small group of people what is actually out there which leave us with only common sense thinking

I think it is reasonable to ASSUME that the Pentagon has some sort of air-defense system. Furthermore, I think it would be reasonable to ASSUME that most if not all information about any such system would be CLASSIFIED information. There is nothing wrong with making reasonable and rational assumptions provided one states clearly that they are such. I assume the sun will rise tomorrow and that I'll still be here to see it. No, I don't have a "source" other than my own reason. Lets put it this way, how "reasonable" is it to assume the opposite, to assume that the headquarters for a significant proportion of our national defense infrastructure is, itself, "defenseless"? Obviously, absent verifiable reporting, our assumptions are just that and any detail we might imagine is just that. But the overall assumption isn't unreasonable.

Could not have said it better myself

King Mob · 01-05-2015 2:37pm

weisses wrote: »

From your link

So .. Its only clear to a small group of people what is actually out there which leave us with only common sense thinking

Could not have said it better myself

My link contains neither of those quotes, and none of those quotes are sources for the things that have been claimed.

weisses · 01-05-2015 2:56pm

King Mob wrote: »

My link contains neither of those quotes, and none of those quotes are sources for the things that have been claimed.

Yes they do to make their point in your link they are referring to an article that contain these quotes

If you would use common sense the sources are less relevant ..although there are some sources in the link I provided earlier

If you are looking for blueprints or official statements stating where and what air defense systems are/where used I'm afraid neither myself nor anyone else could help you here

King Mob · 01-05-2015 3:06pm

weisses wrote: »

Yes they do to make their point in your link they are referring to an article that contain these quotes

If you would use common sense the sources are less relevant ..although there are some sources in the link I provided earlier

If you are looking for blueprints or official statements stating where and what air defense systems are/where used I'm afraid neither myself nor anyone else could help you here

And the link I provided explains why that without anything official, then there is no reason to think these defenses exist.
So I stand by my statement.
No such defenses existed on the Pentagon at the time.

weisses · 01-05-2015 3:33pm

King Mob wrote: »

And the link I provided explains why that without anything official, then there is no reason to think these defenses exist.
So I stand by my statement.
No such defenses existed on the Pentagon at the time.

I just quoted a piece perfectly explaining common sense dictates there would be these kind of defenses ...

Of course you can stand by your statement but that doesn't make it a correct one

Example:
Officially there are no US nukes in air force base Volkel in the Netherlands.. But everyone knows they are there, (info was leaked) Was there ever an Official statement confirming they where there ? NO does that automatically mean they are not there ? also NO

omnithanos · 01-05-2015 3:54pm

King Mob wrote: »

And the link I provided explains why that without anything official, then there is no reason to think these defenses exist.
So I stand by my statement.
No such defenses existed on the Pentagon at the time.

You cannot make a definitive statement about this.

I can however make a definitive statement that the perpetrators of 9/11 digitally altered the live feed.

Here's more proof that it could not have been a real plane

And here's a super close up of the object that hit coming from a different angle.

I'm wondering why my post proving same hasn't been commented on?

Are the debunkers on this conspiracy board actually part of the conspiracy itself?

King Mob · 01-05-2015 4:40pm

weisses wrote: »

Of course you can stand by your statement but that doesn't make it a correct one

Common sense dictates that having a missile defense system next to an active busy airport is a bad idea.

If such a defense system existed before or after 9/11 and worked as claimed, then there would be an incidence of a plane being shot down.
My link shows that there have been several occasions before and after 9/11 where a plane wandered into the no fly zones.
They weren't automatically shot down.

There is no basis for your assumption and a lot of reasons going against it.

weisses · 01-05-2015 9:30pm

King Mob wrote: »

Common sense dictates that having a missile defense system next to an active busy airport is a bad idea.

Based on what information ? Its not from official channels as your own links are showing

King Mob wrote: »

If such a defense system existed before or after 9/11 and worked as claimed, then there would be an incidence of a plane being shot down.

Why ?

King Mob wrote: »

My link shows that there have been several occasions before and after 9/11 where a plane wandered into the no fly zones.
They weren't automatically shot down.

Where does anyone states these systems are working automatically?

Your links showed that

The air defense system for Washington is unique, and many of its operations are classified.

Unless you have more information you are guessing as much as anyone else in here

King Mob wrote: »

There is no basis for your assumption and a lot of reasons going against it.

I repeat

I think it is reasonable to ASSUME that the Pentagon has some sort of air-defense system. Furthermore, I think it would be reasonable to ASSUME that most if not all information about any such system would be CLASSIFIED information. There is nothing wrong with making reasonable and rational assumptions provided one states clearly that they are such. I assume the sun will rise tomorrow and that I'll still be here to see it. No, I don't have a "source" other than my own reason. Lets put it this way, how "reasonable" is it to assume the opposite, to assume that the headquarters for a significant proportion of our national defense infrastructure is, itself, "defenseless"? Obviously, absent verifiable reporting, our assumptions are just that and any detail we might imagine is just that. But the overall assumption isn't unreasonable.

Overheal · 01-05-2015 10:00pm

weisses wrote: »

If you would use common sense

weisses wrote: »

Of course you can stand by your statement but that doesn't make it a correct one

omnithanos wrote: »

You cannot make a definitive statement about this.

I can however make a definitive statement that the perpetrators of 9/11 digitally altered the live feed.

King Mob wrote: »

There is no basis for your assumption.

This level of bickering needs to stop, please. You guys more or less are having an interesting conversation here but it doesn't need to be accented with "I'm right you're wrong" attitudes. There are no winners here. Theories are theories, if you don't agree with a theory that's fine but you're going too far trying to battle eachother. "That's how you see it; I would argue XYZ" "Agree to disagree" etc.

Overheal · 02-05-2015 6:17pm

omnithanos wrote: »

You cannot make a definitive statement about this.

I can however make a definitive statement that the perpetrators of 9/11 digitally altered the live feed.

Here's more proof that it could not have been a real plane

And here's a super close up of the object that hit coming from a different angle.

I'm wondering why my post proving same hasn't been commented on?

Are the debunkers on this conspiracy board actually part of the conspiracy itself?

The uncertainty with this theory, is that it assumes the plane made no adjustments in it's flightpath. As in, it didn't bank, roll, or pitch. At 3:00 he makes mention of this possibility (ie. dragforce from pitching up before impact) but without any explanation just concluded it's physically impossible. I don't buy that, personally. Shaky camera footage and all, it doesn't seem that far out of the realm of possibilities that the plane moved a couple pixels faster than what some guy assumed on youtube from 2001 era analog camera footage.

omnithanos · 03-05-2015 1:06pm

Overheal wrote: »

The uncertainty with this theory, is that it assumes the plane made no adjustments in it's flightpath. As in, it didn't bank, roll, or pitch. At 3:00 he makes mention of this possibility (ie. dragforce from pitching up before impact) but without any explanation just concluded it's physically impossible. I don't buy that, personally. Shaky camera footage and all, it doesn't seem that far out of the realm of possibilities that the plane moved a couple pixels faster than what some guy assumed on youtube from 2001 era analog camera footage.

The certainty of the fact behind this theory is that the cartoon plane in this footage, which also performs the impossible act of passing through a steel building with it's nose intact, does not appear in the other live shot of the tower exploding.

This proves beyond any doubt that one or both of these shots had to have been digitally altered live and the only people who could have altered live footage of the tower exploding are the people who knew it was about to explode.

If you contend that the object which is shown hitting the tower in the other live shot is a plane, which close up inspection shows it isn't, then why is it following a different flight path and why did the NBC both digitally insert a plane in the evening news footage following the same flight path as the cartoon plane in the faked live shot and why also did they take out the background with the original object?

Your assumptions fail when both pieces of live evidence are examined together.

On closer inspection of the unaltered live footage you can also see two other similar orb type objects in the scene. The first may be a helicopter flying across the top of the towers but it suddenly appears to vanish from sight and the second appears to fly across from right to left at a considerably faster speed than a helicopter would.

We can therefore only logically conclude that there was no plane and 9/11 was an inside job which was covered up by the White house.

Boston and Malaysia are yet to be proven but based on the proof shown by this evidence of 9/11 I implore you all to reevaluate your false assumptions and refrain from assisting this axis of evil in it's despicable campaign. Do you think it's pure coincidence that the American President is called O BOMB A?

Both RTE and TV3 continue to spout baseless propaganda related to these events in order to brainwash us all into believing the official story. 9/11 was mentioned twice this week as having being a terrorist strike. We now know for sure and can easily prove that this is untrue.

Stingerbar · 03-05-2015 1:23pm

My friend was there on the day that it happened, he was caught up in the dust-cloud as the second building collapsed. Also I, like millions of others, were watching events live on TV, and saw the second plane hit the building live.

Dozens of cameras caught it, just having a brief look on youtube, here's a compilation of 43 different angles

omnithanos · 03-05-2015 1:53pm

Stingerbar wrote: »

My friend was there on the day that it happened, he was caught up in the dust-cloud as the second building collapsed. Also I, like millions of others, were watching events live on TV, and saw the second plane hit the building live.

Dozens of cameras caught it, just having a brief look on youtube, here's a compilation of 43 different angles

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.

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-05-2015 2:12pm

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.

Hold on

What?

How were all private cameras "jammed" and where is your evidence of this?

DamagedTrax · 03-05-2015 4:23pm

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9ZzmcdNUFM

omnithanos · 03-05-2015 4:52pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Hold on

What?

How were all private cameras "jammed" and where is your evidence of this?

I explained how this was possible and gave a link to explain the technology in an earlier post. I have proven this to be an inside job by using the only relevant live footage. All other videos are irrelevant as they could have been & in some cases very obviously were faked.

DamagedTrax · 03-05-2015 5:36pm

omnithanos wrote: »

All other videos are irrelevant as they could have been & in some cases very obviously were faked.

i agree with this. unless the footage is from the live feed it has no real place in a final theory.

I have proven this to be an inside job by using the only relevant live footage.

this i dont agree with. you have only proven that your theory is plausible. there are other plausible theories arising from the evidence you've shown (smoke screening, technology glitch etc).

but i do commend you for looking deeper into it than most. personally i think you've gone a little deeper than you need to. like everything else in this world, you may find a more likely explanation if you follow the money rather than looking for the 'how'.

omnithanos · 03-05-2015 5:56pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i agree with this. unless the footage is from the live feed it has no real place in a final theory.

this i dont agree with. you have only proven that your theory is plausible. there are other plausible theories arising from the evidence you've shown (smoke screening, technology glitch etc).

but i do commend you for looking deeper into it than most. personally i think you've gone a little deeper than you need to. like everything else in this world, you may finder a more likely explanation if you follow the money rather than looking for the 'how'.

if the two pieces of live footage do not correspond I do not see any plausible explanation other than live digital fakery which also explains the nose out anomaly. A technical glitch would not have caused a plane to disappear from view.

DamagedTrax · 03-05-2015 6:21pm

omnithanos wrote: »

if the two pieces of live footage do not correspond I do not see any plausible explanation other than live digital fakery which also explains the nose out anomaly.

they dont correspond but there are many real world reasons for this. not least being latency. we dont know how the footage was recorded (ie was it digital, was it analog? if so what speed (framerate) etc.

i work in audio using the bleeding edge of digital manipulation tools. its is undeniable that we can edit vast amounts of data in (perceived) real time, but that comes at a cost of latency. essentially the 'media' in question is put into a buffer to allow us to work on it. the final output is then delayed by milliseconds to allow us work within that buffer. if you're looking at two pieces of footage from seperate angles then you have to allow for latency between the two and the differences in output between differing systems. a live output is very rarely a live output.

to try to put it in simpler terms. if you and i are standing at opposite ends of a large hallway and we both hear a bang. we both hear very different things althought the source is the same.

A technical glitch would not have caused a plane to disappear from view.

with a digital system it could very easily, ive heard audio come out of speakers when onscreen the audio shouldnt be playing,

with an older analog system its highly unlikely as analog glitches centre around a specific point on the timeline of the media, digital glitches have an entire file to get f'd up in, as digital doesnt have to obey a linear timeframe.

again it all comes down to the systems used. unless we have exact details we cannot make definitive statements.

Stingerbar · 03-05-2015 6:26pm

On the day I saw many angles of the second plane hitting, shortly after it happened. US channels were freely sharing any and all TV footage of the situation, and many stations over here like RTE, ITV and BBC had stopped regular programming to switch to live coverage

DamagedTrax · 03-05-2015 6:28pm

Stingerbar wrote: »

On the day I saw many angles of the second plane hitting, shortly after it happened.

and that is a very important part of your sentence. without seeing it live in real time, you cannot know what happened 100%.

degrassinoel · 03-05-2015 6:50pm

actually iirc after the first plane hit, every tv station in the western world had eyes on the buildings - the second plane hitting was really clear on live tv - so are we talking about both or just the first plane?

DamagedTrax · 03-05-2015 6:56pm

degrassinoel wrote: »

actually iirc after the first plane hit, every tv station in the western world had eyes on the buildings - the second plane hitting was really clear on live tv - so are we talking about both or just the first plane?

while i would think it is improbable, we have to give a glance to omnithanos' theory as the feed isnt exactly 'live'.

if you give me a feed with a slight predelay (we're talking milliseconds), i can drop an amount of frames in without you ever realising you arent watching live tv. all it takes is for the prerecorded frames to be at my finger tips and my timing to be right.

it sounds like its impossible but we drop singers in to record single syllables all the time. thats roughly the same time it would take me to drop a few frames into a live feed.

improbable given the attention on the event and the amount of scrutinisation to be expected after, but not impossible.

Stingerbar · 03-05-2015 7:04pm

I saw the plane hitting live, as I was watching it. I meant that the different shots and camera angles came in shortly afterwards. A bit like watching a football match live on TV at the time, and someone claiming the goals were digitally faked 14 odd years later.

degrassinoel · 03-05-2015 7:14pm

Stingerbar wrote: »

I saw the plane hitting live, as I was watching it. I meant that the different shots and camera angles came in shortly afterwards. A bit like watching a football match live on TV at the time, and someone claiming the goals were digitally faked 14 odd years later.

agreed with you totally, but DT's post does have an important relevance in regards to the theory - live is never 100% live, lagtime is always a factor, even if it's only miliseconds

DamagedTrax · 03-05-2015 7:20pm

Stingerbar wrote: »

I saw the plane hitting live, as I was watching it. I meant that the different shots and camera angles came in shortly afterwards. A bit like watching a football match live on TV at the time, and someone claiming the goals were digitally faked 14 odd years later.

when somebody is presenting an 'out there' theory, the usual train of thought that applies has to go out the window. thinking outside the bos is what gets people into these discussions.

and on your point, we have had the technology to digitally alter a live feed from a football match for over 20 years . if you concede that there is always a lantency between the goal being scored and you actually seeing it, then knowing we have the technology to do it confirms that it is very possible.

Stingerbar · 03-05-2015 9:01pm

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.

DamagedTrax · 03-05-2015 9:13pm

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).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsmc_rS2jOo

Reg'stoy · 03-05-2015 9:54pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

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

100's of people boarded four ill fated flights that morning. Those 100's of people had 1,000's of loved ones who either said goodbye to them at an airport or in their homes.

Calls were made from those flights and CVR recordings were made. If those aircraft did not hit the twin towers and pentagon are we to assume that those flights never existed or the landed at an undisclosed location and the passengers spirited away to live under some witness protection program.

What about the flight plans submitted and ATC transmissions are to be we to assume they were faked as were the scenes of devastation of family members waiting on loved ones in airports.

DamagedTrax · 03-05-2015 10:40pm

Reg'stoy wrote: »

100's of people boarded four ill fated flights that morning. Those 100's of people had 1,000's of loved ones who either said goodbye to them at an airport or in their homes.

and what does that prove? they got on the flights. thats about it.

Calls were made from those flights and CVR recordings were made. If those aircraft did not hit the twin towers and pentagon are we to assume that those flights never existed or the landed at an undisclosed location and the passengers spirited away to live under some witness protection program.

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.

What about the flight plans submitted and ATC transmissions are to be we to assume they were faked as were the scenes of devastation of family members waiting on loved ones in airports.

why would we assume that? that would be a ridiculous assumption. those flights flew. the argument is whether they hit the towers or not.

omnithanos · 03-05-2015 11:37pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

and what does that prove? they got on the flights. thats about it.

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 would we assume that? that would be a ridiculous assumption. those flights flew. the argument is whether they hit the towers or not.

FAA records show that only 2 of the 4 flights took off that day and 350 of the passengers scheduled on the 4 flights, including Seth McFarlane & Mark Whalberg, that were due to fly that day cancelled because they were told it was not safe to fly. That leaves just government agents on the two remaining flights, one which was reported to have landed safely at Cleveland airport & the other presumably did a fly by past the Pentagon which was hit by a missile, not a plane. A plane couldn't fit in the 16 foot wide hole it made.

It was reported that there was a 17 second delay from the live feed giving plenty of time to fake the live hit on CNN & the live NBC shot was obviously alerted for the evening news, taking out the background, hiding the stealth orb that actually hit & inserting a fake plane travelling along a different flight path to the stealth orb. This confirms definate video manipulation by the TV station on the day.

Then we have the fact that the buildings were pulled which couldn't have been done by terrorists & the reports of rivers of molten steel which suggests they were taken out by a micro nuclear device not a jet fuel fire.

The white house confirmed their involvement by ordering the inquiry not to make any findings.

Stingerbar · 04-05-2015 2:30am

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

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 hitting

omnithanos · 04-05-2015 9:47am

Stingerbar wrote: »

Plenty of people on the ground heard it, looked up and saw it hit the building

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk

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.

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-05-2015 9:58am

omnithanos wrote: »

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.

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).

omnithanos · 04-05-2015 11:05am

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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).

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.

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-05-2015 11:54am

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_out

It 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:

Reg'stoy · 04-05-2015 12:02pm

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.

omnithanos · 04-05-2015 12:21pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nose in nose out debunked
http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Nose_out

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?

omnithanos · 04-05-2015 12:25pm

Reg'stoy wrote: »

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.

How did three strike when the FAA statistics show that two of these flights did not take off?

Did they telleport these two planes with the same technology they used to telleport seven of the 19 hijackers (who are sill alive) to safety after they crashed?

DamagedTrax · 04-05-2015 1:52pm

Stingerbar wrote: »

Plenty of people on the ground heard it, looked up and saw it hit the building....

you're posting like you're addressing me directly. you are aware this isnt my theory? my arguments were purely to support my claim that while omnithanos' theories may well be bizarre to some people, they are worth looking into (even if just to be proven wrong).

if the science supports the possibility (and it does in this case), the possibility must be examined before ruling it out.

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

it didnt make sense for the official inquest to ignore some witnesses and evidence, they still did. and as i'm clearly not trying to prove the offical report as correct, i'm obviously going to show you witness statements that support omnithanos' theory.

omnithanos · 05-05-2015 12:27pm

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.

weisses · 05-05-2015 1:27pm

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

omnithanos · 05-05-2015 1:41pm

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.

weisses · 05-05-2015 3:42pm

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 ?

weisses · 05-05-2015 4:13pm

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 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

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

smurfjed · 05-05-2015 5:15pm

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"?

omnithanos · 05-05-2015 7:20pm

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

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

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

DamagedTrax · 05-05-2015 7:51pm

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?

Timberrrrrrrr · 05-05-2015 7:53pm

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?

Timberrrrrrrr · 05-05-2015 7:55pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

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.

Digital alteration of live video feed

Comments