Absolute proof of video fakery

[JoeyDonuts]

Nope still there as of 2006

Any one wanna tell me what the lower manhattan area witnessed that day if all the videos were fake... because there was something near a quarter million people within a few blocks of the towers at the time of impact.

Quite simple actually. All hot dog and falafel street vendor's carts were swapped out with dummy carts containing a miniature modified version of the Active Denial System. This variant, rather than emitting pain-compliance microwaves, induced artificial visual stimulation directly into the cerebral cortex of each one of those quarter million people. Those people saw what THEY wanted them to see.

Whaddaya mean, do I have proof? I don't need it. I played Metal Gear Solid once and I have a pretty good idea what DARPA stands for - therefore this must be true.

[/facetious]

 

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

mchapman - Have you seen this paper? Ace Baker has put together what he considers to be the strongest evidence for video fakery on 9/11. He's requesting review and criticism.

A conclusion you may find interesting is that live compositing rules out any flying object, according to Baker. This is because live motion tracking is not possible.

 

[Mancman]

Oops, the 'gash' aka smoke is in this footage as well.



Dang reality.

 

[funk de fino]

mchapman - Have you seen this paper? Ace Baker has put together what he considers to be the strongest evidence for video fakery on 9/11. He's requesting review and criticism.

A conclusion you may find interesting is that live compositing rules out any flying object, according to Baker. This is because live motion tracking is not possible.

waste of time, written by a madman

 

[johnny karate]

I conceded to him that even IF it had aired the following day, then all of my points about a TV station conspiracy still applied.

Still waiting on a response.

mchapman already believes the FDNY was in on it , since they participated in making the supposedly fake video in question. Do you really think he'll balk at implicating the media?

 

[roundhead]

 

[johnny karate]

Careful there, roundhead. So far you've only accused the FDNY of cowardice and complicity after the fact. If you throw in with mchapman, you're outright accusing the FDNY of direct involvement in the conspiracy.

 

[roundhead]

Careful there, roundhead. So far you've only accused the FDNY of cowardice and complicity after the fact. If you throw in with mchapman, you're outright accusing the FDNY of direct involvement in the conspiracy.

Stay on topic

 

[Mancman]

[qimg]http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/6673/airvsskyscraperzh9.gif[/qimg]

Debunked.

Any more nonsense you want to peddle?

 

[JoeyDonuts]

[qimg]http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/6673/airvsskyscraperzh9.gif[/qimg]

Roger that. I suspend my disbelief for the moment. And I agree that in this particular image you provided (albeit with no information about where it came from, who is responsible for its creation, who shot the footage, etc.) it takes the plane eleven frames traveling through the air and then another eleven frames to almost completely disappear into the building. This would suggest that the momentum of the plane was virtually unaffected by the "steel and concrete" construction of the WTC.

Since the image postulates that the plane was a fake, are you suggesting that the plane never hit the building at all? Or that an object DID strike WTC that was not a plane? If the second scenario is true, with respect to the assumption that a real plane would have taken more frames to disappear into the WTC - this would suggest that whatever aerial object struck the tower was constructed of a material that would not perform in this manner, something made of more denser and stronger material than the airliner.

That about right?

 

[twinstead]

It takes a special kind of stupid to be a no planer.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Crap. Mancman beat me to it.

MIT did a far better job of blowing that one open than I EVER could have.

 

[mchapman]

False

No, it's true.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No, it's true.

I'd be curious as to what a quarter million people within a few blocks of the towers had witnessed then... in either case you've claimed it, I gather you have a means to substantiate?

[qimg]http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/6673/airvsskyscraperzh9.gif[/qimg]

Damn that little thing called momentum

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Roger that. I suspend my disbelief for the moment. And I agree that in this particular image you provided (albeit with no information about where it came from, who is responsible for its creation, who shot the footage, etc.) it takes the plane eleven frames traveling through the air and then another eleven frames to almost completely disappear into the building. This would suggest that the momentum of the plane was virtually unaffected by the "steel and concrete" construction of the WTC.

Since the image postulates that the plane was a fake, are you suggesting that the plane never hit the building at all? Or that an object DID strike WTC that was not a plane? If the second scenario is true, with respect to the assumption that a real plane would have taken more frames to disappear into the WTC - this would suggest that whatever aerial object struck the tower was constructed of a material that would not perform in this manner, something made of more denser and stronger material than the airliner.

That about right?

also bear in mind that if we postulate BOTH planes were fake then everything laid out in post 102 comes back into play

if we postulate only the first plane was fake, and the second was real the idea of live faking doenst come up, as no shots of the first plane were broadcast live (in fact i think only 2 or 3 videos exist)

of coruse neither scenerio accounts for the eyewitnesses

 

[mchapman]

I'd be curious as to what a quarter million people within a few blocks of the towers had witnessed then... in either case you've claimed it, I gather you have a means to substantiate?




Damn that little thing called momentum

Substantiate what? No news outlets got the naudet first hit footage until the following day. How could they? The naudet brothers were caught up in the action all day.

You can easily verify this by looking at the internet archive. No networks showed that footage until about 3am the following day.

 

[Crazytimes]

Of all the 9/11 truther videos I have ever seen, this is by far the dumbest. Gee...maybe high pressure and fire were rolling through the building during impact and it blew out the windows and burning fuel created the mark ?

But why use common sense ?

All the talk about secondary explosions in the video is embarassing. As if there was no fuel moving through office spaces.

Awful....

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Substantiate what? No news outlets got the naudet first hit footage until the following day. How could they? The naudet brothers were caught up in the action all day.

You can easily verify this by looking at the internet archive. No networks showed that footage until about 3am the following day.

I'm thinking about the south tower for some reason... :\
Let me rephrase for clarity, if the video was doctored then what was witnessed at the time of the actual event? No amount of video doctoring can escape that there were thousands of people in the immediate vicinity of the towers at the moment the impacts took place.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Substantiate what? No news outlets got the naudet first hit footage until the following day. How could they? The naudet brothers were caught up in the action all day.

You can easily verify this by looking at the internet archive. No networks showed that footage until about 3am the following day.

Have to concede this point. The Naudet video first appeared on Univision appx. 1 AM EST, with the major US networks following soon after.

I really don't think this minor point proves one thing or another. If the Naudets were truly part of a conspiracy to release doctored video footage the only video record of the first impact, why would the conspiracy controlling them release it to Univision FIRST, and then the US networks?

Build international support for the scheme before showing it to the US?

I do not believe this video was not doctored at all, owing to the fact that there are other angles showing the "penciled in line" as smoke and shadows.

However, on this technical point you are correct. The Naudet video was not shown until the following day. Though I'm still not finding where they had time to "doctor" the footage before getting it to Univision. You have to admit the timing involved is a little hairy.

 

[mchapman]

I'm thinking about the south tower for some reason... :\
Let me rephrase for clarity, if the video was doctored then what was witnessed at the time of the actual event? No amount of video doctoring can escape that there were thousands of people in the immediate vicinity of the towers at the moment the impacts took place.

Please provide these thousands of testimonies.