Video Fakery in the 9/11 Attack

[dafydd]

I have no clue frankly.

That is obvious.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That's all she wrote.

Well, I'm male.

 

[Anders Lindman]

2. Any flash you see is either (A) sunlight (B) Camera glitch, or something else...it is not some secret signal or anything else related to the evil camera man.

TAM

Something else.

 

[BigAl]

Something else.

Inside Job!!!!!!!

 

[Anders Lindman]

Inside Job!!!!!!!

At least the video shows that the camera operator suddenly hears the 'plane' and then some shaky camera movements occur, and then the camera movement suddenly becomes calmer. Why? If there was no plane, what made the camera operator calm down the shaky movements? Were there more time markers planted in other buildings?

 

[Architect]

This is getting spooky. I'm backing off. Someone else will have to look further into this.

What's spooky? The events, or the fact that people are calling you on your unsupported "theories"?

 

[BigAl]

At least the video shows that the camera operator suddenly hears the 'plane' and then some shaky camera movements occur, and then the camera movement suddenly becomes calmer. Why? If there was no plane, what made the camera operator calm down the shaky movements? Were there more time markers planted in other buildings?

A 757 and a 767 jet were hijacked and flown into two WTC towers and this caused all the death and destruction on 9/11.

Your point?

 

[Anders Lindman]

What's spooky? The events, or the fact that people are calling you on your unsupported "theories"?

I thought it was spooky to find the time markers in the amateur video. Could those markers have been added later on, as some kind of hoax? Does the original video have those markers too? If so, then there is a very strong evidence for video fakery.

 

[Anders Lindman]

A 757 and a 767 jet were hijacked and flown into two WTC towers and this caused all the death and destruction on 9/11.

Your point?

Yes, but were they real, physical jets or only computer graphics?

 

[BigAl]

I thought it was spooky to find the time markers in the amateur video. Could those markers have been added later on, as some kind of hoax? Does the original video have those markers too? If so, then there is a very strong evidence for video fakery.

So what? The existence of a fake video does nothing to make the massive amount of evidence we have for the fact that a 757 and a 767 jet were hijacked and flown into two WTC towers and this caused all the death and destruction on 9/11 go away.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I thought it was spooky to find the time markers in the amateur video.

It would be, if there were any. There aren't. Just some random flashes in the windows, which could have any number of reasons.

Hans

 

[leftysergeant]

There are even two light flashes before that, one around 00:03 and the second around 00:06, so that the camera operator is prepared for exactly when the third flash will come to avoid having to act from reflex reaction alone. The last flash even has a click sound in order to not having to rely only on light signals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3iKLz4oatY

Now, that's what I call beforehand planned operation and not some random amateur recording.

This is so typical of twoofer analysis of evidence. Take off your twoofer goggles and look at the field of vision when the camera zooms back out.

You see open skies for miles.

He saw the plane coming with the eye that he did not have on the camera view finder. It would appear that he even heard it well before he looked for it. (They fly far below the speed of sound, you know.)

 

[BigAl]

Yes, but were they real, physical jets or only computer graphics?

The existence of a fake video does nothing to make the massive amount of evidence we have for the fact that a 757 and a 767 jet were hijacked and flown into two WTC towers go away.

 

[Anders Lindman]

So what? The existence of a fake video does nothing to make the massive amount of evidence we have for the fact that a 757 and a 767 jet were hijacked and flown into two WTC towers and this caused all the death and destruction on 9/11 go away.

But couldn't video evidence be used in a court of law?

 

[BigAl]

But couldn't video evidence be used in a court of law?

You are welcome to try.

The existence of a fake video does nothing to make the massive amount of evidence we have for the fact that a 757 and a 767 jet were hijacked and flown into two WTC towers 9/11 go away.

 

[leftysergeant]

But couldn't video evidence be used in a court of law?

Under limited conditions. Surveillance videos used to identify a perp, points of origin of a fire, that sort of thing. But it is relatively easy to spot an edited-in aircraft.

Nobody has shown us proof of one in re 9/11.

 

[T.A.M.]

At least the video shows that the camera operator suddenly hears the 'plane' and then some shaky camera movements occur, and then the camera movement suddenly becomes calmer. Why? If there was no plane, what made the camera operator calm down the shaky movements? Were there more time markers planted in other buildings?

no they used space based laser beams...see the fictional works of Dr. judy Wood.

TAM

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I don't think the U.S. government was involved. It was a small shadowy part of the U.S. (and possibly also foreign) power structures who planned, staged and carried out the initial false flag operation. Very few people involved. The massive cover-up that was needed after that was left to the U.S. government to deal with, even though they were innocent as far as the actual 9/11 attack was concerned.

And the moon is made of papier mache.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by BigAl
That's all she wrote.

Well, I'm male.

ESL much? Work on your English colloquialisms.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Very few people involved. The massive cover-up that was needed after that was left to the U.S. government to deal with, even though they were innocent as far as the actual 9/11 attack was concerned.

Now, that's what I call beforehand planned operation and not some random amateur recording.

Right, so we can start with the person who made this recording as one of the "very few people involved". We can also add the cameraman and pilot on Chopper 5 and Chopper 7, and everybody in the edit suite in the newsroom - control freaks wouldn't leave it to chance that an outsider might see something they weren't supposed to. Then there's the people who planted the charges to simulate the plane impacts, and the people who designed the principle on which those charges worked and tested their operation - because it would be unthinkable to a control freak to carry out an operation like this in the hope that everything was going to go well. We've also got to include everybody else who took any video or still pictures that appear to show a plane, from the Naudet brothers onwards. We've also got to include everyone who is certain they saw a plane; maybe people could be fooled into thinking they might have seen a plane, but anyone who's absolutely certain they saw one is obviously part of the plot. And, of course, somebody had to source the fake airliner footage that was composited on top of the video feeds from Choppers 5 and 7.

This is already looking like a big operation, and we haven't even looked at the following: the collapse of the towers, anything to do with WTC7, video and documentary evidence implicating al-Qaeda, faked DNA evidence tying the supposed hijackers to the remains found at all three sites, planting airliner parts all over lower Manhattan without anybody seeing, sanitising the whole WTC plaza to remove any evidence of whatever caused the explosions and collapses (zero risk, remember), keeping track of the 11,000 or so workers who were all over the site for months and might have found something (why, exactly, would the US Government want to cover all this up?), keeping track of the 1000+ FBI agents doing fingertip searches of every piece of debris for months at Fresh Kills... do I really need to go on? This is looking like an operation for thousands of people, and we haven't even looked at the Pentagon and Shanksville crash sites.

Whatever hypothesis you may think you're trying to formulate, it cannot conceivably be a small operation.

Dave