• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Absolute proof of video fakery

I had to jump in.

Let's look at this from another angle entirely. Let's assume that your allegation is true - That this video was doctored to appear that a plane had impacted WTC. If this is in fact true, then every single TV station that aired that footage is also complicit. This doctored footage would have to have been delivered to the television station(s) in the NYC area that were covering the event live. It would have been brought back to the Master Control area where the tape machines for on-air are kept. It doesn't end with the operator placing the tape into the machine and pressing play, either.

In order for this to have been pulled off, the Technical Director in the control room would have placed that tape machine on the on-air program source, with the various station CG ("live" keys, and such) superimposed over it. He/she would have used this tape rather than the usual tower-cam or helicopter shot, which if we follow the OP's allegations, would have showed a completely intact building.

This is ludicrous. I have worked in the TV business for a while now so I'm qualified to debunk this particular aspect of it. So - a shadowy NWO operative drops the tape off with instructions with what to do with it...no, no, that wouldn't work. It'd sit there on the receptionist's cart until someone from Engineering came down and got it. No, there would have been a team of armed "AGENTS WOO!!!" that would have stood directly behind the Master Control or Tape Operator as well as the Technical Director in the Production Control room and made sure they complied. In addition, these shadow operatives would have briefed the news director, producers, and on-air talent on what to say. I would make a call to WNBC's master control folks to see if anything like this happened back in 2001, but that would be insulting. You're more than welcome to do it if you wish.

This just points out the most likely scenario for this supposedly doctored footage making on the air and being presented as fact. I'm always 3 steps ahead of truthers so here's a couple counters to what I believe the retorts will be:

1. Maybe they shot the entire coverage beforehand and just aired the entire thing as if it were live.

Not possible. This would be conceivable had mass digital storage been utilized widely back then. How long was the coverage event? Several hours at LEAST. The capacity to store that video digitally and replay it on the air didn't really exist at the time, not unless they deleted all of their digitally stored local commercials/paid programs to make room. No TV station is going to do that - that's what generate their revenue. Ah, but maybe it was rolled off of tape! NO. Even today, the longest duration for a DigiBeta or Beta SP tape is about 80 minutes. These are the standard tape formats for TV stations. Even if they had recorded it on several tapes and rolled them out over the air, there would be a visible switch in the coverage as the Master Control router took one tape machine offline and put the other one on the air.

2. Mebbe they pirated the signal LOLZ!

No sir, I don't think so. There hasn't been an incident of broadcast signal intrusion since the Max Headroom incident in Chicago back in 1987...before that Captain Midnight managed to override the HBO uplink for a few minutes...that's it. The station would have used either a point-to-point studio to transmitter RF link, but most likely they're using fiberoptics to send their program signal to their transmitter - which would be located in an area outside of the greater city limits owing to RF hazards. Perhaps the NWO was able to somehow cut into the fiber cable between the studio and the transmitter and inject their doctored news footage with enough signal strength to override the actual TV signal, but you would have seen the line get cut at some point - the TV station would have gone dark for however long it took them to get their pirate signal on the line to the transmitter. I don't think that happened, Jeeves.

mchapman, if you would be so kind as to explain to me how it was that this doctored footage made it on the air?

Sorry this was so longwinded, but I think we're looking at game, set, and match here.
 
A W Smith said:
"Absolute proof of video fakery'

I neglected to point out your thread title is in error. you may want to ask a mod to change it.. you and the video author have absolutely proven no such thing.


unloved I will fix that link for ya

Click to expand...

Its not a shadow at all this video is false. I watched several videos where the shadow and the Black line are definitely able to be distinguished as different from each other.
I suspected this at first but easilly was able to throw that idea out the window.
Read my last post and see what i am talking about.

I debunked a debunker who debunked a truther only to show a more credible answer to back the original debunkers beliefs!
Now say that 3 times fast!
 
Last edited:
JoeyDonuts said:
Let's assume that your allegation is true - That this video was doctored to appear that a plane had impacted WTC.
Click to expand...

Surely, I know what you're saying. But if video can be faked to dupe people into thinking a plane hit the tower, then video can be faked to make idiots people like the OP think that video is faked to make people think a plane hit the tower(s). Simply, if no plane hit the towers, where are the ***** towers?

Edited by chillzero: 
Not so clever, no. Do not deliberately breach the rules.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JoeyDonuts said:
I had to jump in.

Let's look at this from another angle entirely. Let's assume that your allegation is true - That this video was doctored to appear that a plane had impacted WTC. If this is in fact true, then every single TV station that aired that footage is also complicit. This doctored footage would have to have been delivered to the television station(s) in the NYC area that were covering the event live. It would have been brought back to the Master Control area where the tape machines for on-air are kept. It doesn't end with the operator placing the tape into the machine and pressing play, either.

In order for this to have been pulled off, the Technical Director in the control room would have placed that tape machine on the on-air program source, with the various station CG ("live" keys, and such) superimposed over it. He/she would have used this tape rather than the usual tower-cam or helicopter shot, which if we follow the OP's allegations, would have showed a completely intact building.

This is ludicrous. I have worked in the TV business for a while now so I'm qualified to debunk this particular aspect of it. So - a shadowy NWO operative drops the tape off with instructions with what to do with it...no, no, that wouldn't work. It'd sit there on the receptionist's cart until someone from Engineering came down and got it. No, there would have been a team of armed "AGENTS WOO!!!" that would have stood directly behind the Master Control or Tape Operator as well as the Technical Director in the Production Control room and made sure they complied. In addition, these shadow operatives would have briefed the news director, producers, and on-air talent on what to say. I would make a call to WNBC's master control folks to see if anything like this happened back in 2001, but that would be insulting. You're more than welcome to do it if you wish.

This just points out the most likely scenario for this supposedly doctored footage making on the air and being presented as fact. I'm always 3 steps ahead of truthers so here's a couple counters to what I believe the retorts will be:

1. Maybe they shot the entire coverage beforehand and just aired the entire thing as if it were live.

Not possible. This would be conceivable had mass digital storage been utilized widely back then. How long was the coverage event? Several hours at LEAST. The capacity to store that video digitally and replay it on the air didn't really exist at the time, not unless they deleted all of their digitally stored local commercials/paid programs to make room. No TV station is going to do that - that's what generate their revenue. Ah, but maybe it was rolled off of tape! NO. Even today, the longest duration for a DigiBeta or Beta SP tape is about 80 minutes. These are the standard tape formats for TV stations. Even if they had recorded it on several tapes and rolled them out over the air, there would be a visible switch in the coverage as the Master Control router took one tape machine offline and put the other one on the air.

2. Mebbe they pirated the signal LOLZ!

No sir, I don't think so. There hasn't been an incident of broadcast signal intrusion since the Max Headroom incident in Chicago back in 1987...before that Captain Midnight managed to override the HBO uplink for a few minutes...that's it. The station would have used either a point-to-point studio to transmitter RF link, but most likely they're using fiberoptics to send their program signal to their transmitter - which would be located in an area outside of the greater city limits owing to RF hazards. Perhaps the NWO was able to somehow cut into the fiber cable between the studio and the transmitter and inject their doctored news footage with enough signal strength to override the actual TV signal, but you would have seen the line get cut at some point - the TV station would have gone dark for however long it took them to get their pirate signal on the line to the transmitter. I don't think that happened, Jeeves.

mchapman, if you would be so kind as to explain to me how it was that this doctored footage made it on the air?

Sorry this was so longwinded, but I think we're looking at game, set, and match here.
Click to expand...

This footage wasn't shown until the following day.
 
Mince said:
Simply, if no plane hit the towers, where are the ****ing towers?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the forthcoming answer will be the same tired old "controlled demolition" bollocks.

So now we've added the technical staff of the NYC-area TV stations to the list of 9/11 conspirators. Ya know, the more complicated the plan is, the harder it is to pull off. 9/11 CT's are no different than any other mindless revolutionary - They can't agree on what they want, only on what they oppose.
 
mchapman said:
This footage wasn't shown until the following day.
Click to expand...

Even if that's true - then it still applies that the TV station(s) are complicit in the cover-up. That still implicates the entire News and Broadcast engineering departments. How did it get on the air?
 
mchapman;

Since you seemingly think the Naudet brothers were complicit in the conspiracy, have you bothered to interview them; or are you, like most other boring truthers, merely relying on YouTube videos and Google searches? Just curious.
 
If the claims in the video are to believed, then there are at least three separate "video forgery" crews, one of which was made up of the Naudet brothers.

Did the NWO put a classified ad in the New York Times asking for "forgery crews" prior to 9/11?

I'm sorry, but I can't take a "penciled-in-gash" looking black tip as anything other than a very shakily held sub-broadcast quality camera. The video posits that the billowing small flame is a "secondary explosion" when it's quite obvious from even a cursory glance that the expanding flames were obscured by debris at first.

And as for the multiple explosions on all sides...Jeesus people, ever heard of a little scientific principle called DISPLACEMENT?!?

Ere go - Boeing aircraft goes into a sealed office building with a given volume of air (no doubt already pressurized due to the sheer height of it), fuel tank explodes - That air has to go somewhere. It's going to follow the path of least resistance through elevator shafts, air ducts, spaces between walls, and whatever else.

To quote GLAdoS - "Speedy thing goes in...speedy thing comes out."
 
mchapman said:
What else did I need to say?
Click to expand...

Once again, I'm going to assume that this video is true. Why YouTube? Why choose a forum that has absolutely NO credibility whatsoever to release this earth-shaking expose?

I'd like to think that if I was the only one who was able to figure out a vast military-industrial conspiracy to goad the U.S. public into supporting a war for oil, I'd take that to a reputable news source outside of the United States like Deutche Welle or the BBC. [buffalo bill accent] OH WAIT. [/bba]

These must all be on the payroll of the Illuminati/Pentavirate/NWO/Colonel Sanders.

I bet Al-Jazeera would love this.
 
Join Date: 28th September 2008

  • Total Posts: 95
  • Posts Per Day: 63.01

Come on, people. Don't feed the troll.
 
Last edited:
mchapman, I really hope you don't mind me playing in your backyard.

So long as you understand I might just poop in your rose bushes while I'm there.
 
mchapman,

Just so I understand where you are coming from, can you please confirm for me what you think caused onlookers in New York to think they saw airplanes? Here are the two possibilities I've seen bandied about:

Everyone simply mistook the missiles for airplanes and news reports and the government reinforced that mistaken perception.

The holographic image of airplanes was projected into the sky.

If you posit the first theory, wasn't that an extraordinary (not to mention foolhardy) risk on the part of the supposed conspirators? Surely most of the people in New York and New Jersey who could see the twin towers would be watching the second plane hit and many of those people would be videoing the event. If even one of those tapes got past the conspirators, the jig would have been up? Weren't they also risking having literally thousands of witnesses insisting on live TV that they actually saw missiles? Is a missile really indistinguishable from an airplane? Really?

If you believe the hologram theory, well I have one objection, namely, that holograms can not be projected into empty space, despite what you may have been led to believe from watching the Star Wars films, or action films such as The World Is Not Enough. Don't take my word for it, though. Research it yourself.

Perhaps you have a third explanation? If so, I for one would be very interested to hear it.
 
1337m4n said:
Interesting question.

Let us suppose you are colorblind, and have been that way for your entire life. As for determining the color of the sky, you would have to options:
Click to expand...
I am colourblind...

The colour of the sky is green..

I asked my eyes and they came back affirmative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom