PSYOP Stock Footage Shown on 9/11

Originally posted by bsregistration
OK, here's three sources outlining the source of the moving bridge problem.

killtown.blogspot.com...

I see exactly what I would expect of that bridge really, I can't see what the problem really is about it. As the view point moves, so does the way you see the towers if you look closely, and the bridge being 7.5miles away, the effect is magnified unsurprisingly.

my girlfriend was once easily swayed by the loose change video.

she was like, look at this look at that.

then she went on a trip to new york city with her family, and went to ground zero.

and she also saw some 9/11 truth people picketing or something directly across from groundzero.

when she returned, her whole perspective had changed. she said it was so disrespectful of those picketers to be doing that when so many people died there, that there were so many "graves" there, that you were essentially looking at a mass grave of sorts.. i know most of the bodies and parts were removed, but all those people still died right spanking there and i think it affected her.

maybe she felt their cry .. shes an agnostic and is sometimes critical of my religous beliefs and stuff..

Sure, here's a good article on why they didn't use drones or planes. The main problem is that an actual plane crash would have left a lot of wreckage on the sidewalk that could be identified later, and it wouldn't have looked very impressive. They needed to show the plane going all the way into the towers so that they'd have a credible excuse for it having done massive damage. A real plane wouldn't have penetrated the facade, and it would be unbelievable that something crumpled up on the outside and fell to the sidewalk could have caused the towers to collapse. Regardless of whether or not they used planes, they DID use fake videos, and all you have to do to prove it is go to the locations, take pictures, and compare them.

And yes, for the person who asked, I have been to New York. I'm very familar with the locations and that's how I noticed that the skyline was completely wrong. It's not subtle. Take a print-out and go there yourself with a video camera.

killtown.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by bsregistration
A real plane wouldn't have penetrated the facade, and it would be unbelievable that something crumpled up on the outside and fell to the sidewalk could have caused the towers to collapse.

What? You're saying an aircraft the size and weight of those that hit the towers, traveling in excessive of 300mph, would NOT have penetrated the building. (?) M'kay.

Oddly enough, I saw a 2X4 embedded in a tree the other day after a tornado. Yet you claim that a commercial aircraft flying at or near top speed wouldn't have penetrated the exterior of those buildings. Your proposal that they would simply crumple and fall to the ground is near absurd. We're not talking paper airplanes, here.

Originally posted by bsregistration
A real plane wouldn't have penetrated the facade, and it would be unbelievable that something crumpled up on the outside and fell to the sidewalk could have caused the towers to collapse.

That is an amazing statement. It shows you have no idea what you are talking about.

Thanks for the laugh.

Originally posted by bsregistration
Sure, here's a good article on why they didn't use drones or planes. The main problem is that an actual plane crash would have left a lot of wreckage on the sidewalk that could be identified later, and it wouldn't have looked very impressive. They needed to show the plane going all the way into the towers so that they'd have a credible excuse for it having done massive damage. A real plane wouldn't have penetrated the facade, and it would be unbelievable that something crumpled up on the outside and fell to the sidewalk could have caused the towers to collapse. Regardless of whether or not they used planes, they DID use fake videos, and all you have to do to prove it is go to the locations, take pictures, and compare them.

And yes, for the person who asked, I have been to New York. I'm very familar with the locations and that's how I noticed that the skyline was completely wrong. It's not subtle. Take a print-out and go there yourself with a video camera.

killtown.blogspot.com...

Still smoking as well...

Clearly you've never used a sledgehammer in your life!!!! It's simple physics of substantial weight with speed causing impact and damage via pressure on a surface area.....

You may want to brush up on how much a plane weighs and the speed they can travel at:

767: en.wikipedia.org...

737: en.wikipedia.org...

So you're telling me it couldn't even crack the sidewalk, but it blew up the World Trade Center?

You're showing me a photograph of *what exactly* under a constuction canopy?

Maybe YOU should go to wikipedia and check out what an engine for UA175 looks like. Here's a hint: it's not the size of a trash can.

Here's another hint for you: THEY SHOWED FAKE VIDEOS ON TV. It doesn't matter whether or not you show me some grey smoke on some planted evidence. I can, and have, proven that the 9/11 videos they aired are fake, including the CNN Best Angle shot.

Showing me phony planted evidence all day long will not turn a fake video into a real video.

They sold thousands of CNN America Rememebers DVD's. It even has a different fake soundtrack from what they aired.

You can show me a million pictures of whatever you want, and it won't make the fake CNN video real. Understand?

The sound on the videos is fake also. See livevideo.com... or youtube.com... and check his work on audio fakery.

My, what a fuss we have here.

First, let me be clear about one thing that seems to be getting lost. I believe a criminal conspiracy existed to plan and execute the events of 9/11/2001. In addition, I believe an ongoing criminal conspiracy exists to cover up complicity in those events.

Now, "bsregistration", I've staunchly held the belief that you are one of the many online pseudonyms of Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt. I arrived at this assumption from rather extensive in-person and online direct experience with Haupt, and your actions and topics here have been identical to Haupt's career with 9/11 conspiracy topics. I apologize that my identity accusation offended you. While I'm uncertain as to your true identity, I'll no longer imply you are Haupt, but I will reserve the right to refer to some of your topics as having originated with Nico "Conspiracy Fakery" Haupt.

The reason for my intense dislike for the theories you present here (not you) lies in my staunch belief that part of the cover up conspiracy includes the distribution of absurdly impossible or inaccurate contrivances as "9/11 conspiracies". While I may viciously attack the ideas you bring here, it is done so out of a passion to know what really happened and who is responsible. This does not mean I believe those who spread such contrived theories are agents of the conspiracy, but that they have been fooled and are unwittingly playing a part in the viral marketing of disinformation.

I'm not entirely sure what the point of faking all that video would be for?

What were they hiding and how are all the visual witnesses liars? What's the point of faking all that video?

That's what I am trying to figure out, too. Why fake it?

Originally posted by bsregistration
Maybe YOU should go to wikipedia and check out what an engine for UA175 looks like. Here's a hint: it's not the size of a trash can.

Want to bet on that? Most of a jet engine is air. What you're looking at on the plane is mostly fan section, which takes up a LOT of room making up the engine. The actual engine itself is very small. The CFM-56 used on the KC-135R is actually tiny compared to the size of whats hanging off the wing of the plane.


This is how big the engine on the -135 is with cowling on:



This is the actual ENGINE:



Now here's a hint, the actual engine itself is the part BEHIND the big section. Now you take that and run it through a building, and slam it into the ground, it's gonna get smaller.

Yes, I know it's not the same engine as the 767 uses, but it's the same TYPE, so it's going to be similar with that engine as well.

Originally posted by bsregistration
So you're telling me it couldn't even crack the sidewalk, but it blew up the World Trade Center?

You're showing me a photograph of *what exactly* under a constuction canopy?

Maybe YOU should go to wikipedia and check out what an engine for UA175 looks like. Here's a hint: it's not the size of a trash can.

Here's a couple of hints for you. There are not just the two obvious engines on a 767, there is a auxiliary power unit engine as well, at the back, which is considerably smaller than those used in the main engines. As well as that, while engines are heavy and difficult to destroy, they won't go through a building without being destroyed themselves, and it is possible that is a part of one of the propulsion engines.

Here's another hint for you: THEY SHOWED FAKE VIDEOS ON TV. It doesn't matter whether or not you show me some grey smoke on some planted evidence. I can, and have, proven that the 9/11 videos they aired are fake, including the CNN Best Angle shot.

What you think is guaranteed evidence of fakery and what everyone else thinks is are to different things, and so far not one of your films I've seen has proved anything. One had footage from above the WT and you cant see a plane, well considering it's approaching at high speed, is dark against a dark background (the river/harbour), what do you expect to see?

Showing me phony planted evidence all day long will not turn a fake video into a real video.
They sold thousands of CNN America Rememebers DVD's. It even has a different fake soundtrack from what they aired.
You can show me a million pictures of whatever you want, and it won't make the fake CNN video real. Understand?

And maybe you could use the null hypothesis (well, thats what it was called in statistics at least) that it is real, against the hypothesis that it isn't, and work out if your images prove it wrong. So far, you seem to have a problem getting the angles right. And hy, after all the hassle of going through all that work do you think they would make such obvious mistakes as you feel they have?

Originally posted by bsregistration
So you're telling me it couldn't even crack the sidewalk, but it blew up the World Trade Center?

You're showing me a photograph of *what exactly* under a constuction canopy?

Maybe YOU should go to wikipedia and check out what an engine for UA175 looks like. Here's a hint: it's not the size of a trash can.

Here's another hint for you: THEY SHOWED FAKE VIDEOS ON TV. It doesn't matter whether or not you show me some grey smoke on some planted evidence. I can, and have, proven that the 9/11 videos they aired are fake, including the CNN Best Angle shot.

Showing me phony planted evidence all day long will not turn a fake video into a real video.

They sold thousands of CNN America Rememebers DVD's. It even has a different fake soundtrack from what they aired.

You can show me a million pictures of whatever you want, and it won't make the fake CNN video real. Understand?

The sound on the videos is fake also. See livevideo.com... or youtube.com... and check his work on audio fakery.

But wait they must of photoshopped that in or made the cracks while no one was looking...

I've already agreed with you LOL in another thread that i don't believe two 767's were used as there is problem with the engine details maybe a 737 maybe the research i've read is wrong i'm not that qualified on the subject of aviaonics to make that sort of absoulute judgement there is also problems within the movement with the pentagon claims also due to engine claims as well but anyway:

Yet I know full well what the engines look like but excuse me for not thinking it was in an explosive impact and supposedly flung three blocks..Again what does a car crash do...crumple.... now take that and apply it to a plane... especially with it only being the top part of the engine intieor anyway....

Excuse me that there was not enough evidence and that the engine was damaged too much for your liking but we don't all get what we want it doesn't make any claim more crediable just because someone demands that there should of been more evidence of this and that...Events and actions have many different possibilities and outcomes just because the one that happened is not the one you agree with doesn't mean it's wrong you use what you've got.

As many good people within the truth movement are using the actual evidence that there was and the findings in the report to actually discredit the event.

Your point of me not showing you more photos which couldn't have been faked in short time of mass quantity, different variations of quality, different timestamps and in so many different locations...clearly shows i should just quit as we'll just be going in circles instead of forward for the cause.

But good luck in future endevours bsregistration.









[edit on 5-6-2007 by SR]

The reason to show fake video on TV is that you don't run the risk of exposing the military equipment you used to blow up the towers. It's a smokescreen.

No Arabs hijacked any planes on 9/11, and there were no plane crashes or significant plane wreckage at any of the four locations. They used fake video to convince the world of their hijacked plane crash story. The videos went along with the official LIE that they wanted to sell to everyone.

If they had shown real videos, people would have noticed that there wasn't a plane crash, and they would have been able to see people who shouldn't have been there doing things they shouldn't be doing.

By showing NOTHING REAL on TV, they avoided the situation of leaving some smoking gun evidence behind on tape.

If you were going to rob a bank, would you rather let them keep the security camera footage if even if you were wearing a mask? Or would it be smarter to replace the security camera footage with fake footage that implicated someone else.

I think any thinking person would agree it's a lot smarter to show fake video of mass murder in progress than real video.

For more on why they didn't use planes check out killtown.blogspot.com...

and for proof that the videos are fake and that there are problems with the eyewitness accounts see 911logic.blogspot.com...

Nobody who has gone down to Battery Park in NYC has been able to take footage that matches the CNN Ghostplane footage. The buildings are out of position. The reason they're out-of-position has been identified.

I've posted video showing that the CNN video is fake from the very locations it was supposedly shot. It's a mess. Nobody has been able to duplicate the CNN shot and nobody will, unless they're cutting and pasting the skyline together the same way the 9/11 perps did.

It's that simple.

ok, let's pretend for a minute, that the footage on every news channel was fake.

can you please tell me what I saw when I saw the second plane hit? what about my friends who saw that second plane hit? what did they see? what about the thousands of people on the streets, in their cars on the ramp into and out of the holland tunnel? what about the people who saw the second plane hit from the windows and terraces and roofs of their apartments?

what the hell did we all see? I was not watching tv that morning. I was at my office, watching the real deal. no way to fake that.

Why not have our cake and eat it too?

What if the video footage is fake, yet at the same time, a plane hit the second tower? What if the fake footage is nothing but a deterrent from something else?

Originally posted by Crakeur
what the hell did we all see? I was not watching tv that morning. I was at my office, watching the real deal. no way to fake that.

Exactly. What about all the witnesses who saw it happen in real time? Were they all hallucinating? Imagining it?

Originally posted by Crakeur
what the hell did we all see? I was not watching tv that morning. I was at my office, watching the real deal. no way to fake that.

I'm a second in this list of folks who used nothing but his naked eye to see the second plane hit all the way to the towers collapsing. It's far easier to swallow these things when one wasn't there.

mister old school way to go!

he is just muddying the waters of 9/11 truth that is all.

he is trying to associate the cover-up with far-fetched ideas to discredit it though association. why? because it works with a small percentage of the pop


lets put this thread to bed