Evidence of Video Manipulation in "Live" News Reports on 9/11

Originally posted by thedman
Been beat to death before - it is not the "nose cone", but the leading
edge of the debris cloud exiting the other side of the south tower.
The debris contained jet engine and parts of the landing gear.



Problem is every time this gets knocked down, new group of conspiracy
kooks brings it back up....

I would agree except it seems to match up too closely to the nose of the plane, I have been a skeptic basically from the start but I admit that this kind of stumps me (which is pretty much a first), as well as some of the apparantly contradicting videos, though there are parts of these videos that aren't really all that suspicious. I also think it is interesting to note that the black outs right after or during impact aren't always shown, in the second to last video there is ABC footage, including the "nose cone", wiht no black outs. Looks like they did a pretty bad job of covering that up, if it is a conspiracy. Also the "wingless" plane that has very visible wings seconds before the dark wing lines up with the dark building and the white wing lines up with the white cloud, it only seems wingless for a fraction of a second, I kind of doubt that one too. I will be looking for answers to these questions, but for now I'm puzzled.

What did they do with the people that were actually on those flights that supposedly went into the buildings? I am sure there are a few hundred families that will tell you well, we dropped them off at the airport and 3 hours later we never heard from them again... So they saw them on the plan taxi off the runway and did what with the planes and people? vaporize them?

This is one of the items with this 9-11 conspiracy that does not add up for me. Do you remember that day? intentionally doing cut away scenes, 17 seconds?, people were beside themselves it happened fast, no, the camera man, the editor, they did not have their A game going, they were right there with the rest of us in complete amazement, shock or at a loss. Then when you start talking about some guy they interviewed and says "who talks like that?" Yep government plant, yep you bet... get out of here! The streets were a disaster, everyone down to the camera man to the reporter would of had to be in on it.

Hollywood is great and all, but usually those disaster scenes take weeks or months to put together, not 17 seconds, i mean could a computer even render it in 17 seconds back then and send it to live air and the only thing he missed is a bit of splash thru (which is interesting and def worth considering) I think not.

I would like to think I believe in the goodness & truthfulness of people.

I mean a lot more than a room full of people would have had to have been in on it and not just guys in black suits, we are talking about the graphic geek, the computer programmer, the camera man, the pot smoking janitor who was mopping the floors in the back room. These people are smart and are like most of us, not willing to compromise America. They would have already spoken out.

The conspiracy is on us for this one. How could we let this happen in our airspace/country? I think the government is responsible for this disaster because they are big, bloated and have no sense of direction for this country. Moreover, most politicians are self and party serving and CLEARLY are not in it to make America or the World a better place. No, but our beloved politicians would not have been able to throw this together, they can not even show up to work every day and do their jobs. (Dear, Mrs. Polosi, please go back to what ever hole you climbed out of and stay there)

my 2 cents.
on a side note, the videos were well put together, but in the end I have to use my common sense.
C1

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Caliwowly1]

Originally posted by Caliwowly1

my 2 cents.
on a side note, the videos were well put together, but in the end I have to use my common sense.
C1

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Caliwowly1]

I agree, it was just that I couldn't figure out what explaned the "anomalies" in the video, though I have figured it out mostly I think. The "nose cone" was viewable on videos taken on camcorders and as such was not just the graphics popping through the other side, and I know I am not a computer expert but I have worked with animation and making games and that kind of stuff and I found it a little hard to believe that they couldn't control the animation, the helicopter wasn't jerking around that much, as well as I'm not sure how you could make it dissapear perfectly behind the building on live television without visible overlap (besides that blurring that covers a little of the building when zoomed in, and sorry, but a shiny surface's reflection glare can cover up a little of the building, especially when blurry, and at that kind of distance, it isn't a great quality image. In this video (which is actually a conspiracy video, oddly enough) you can see the "nose" coming out in both (unlike the poster who is apparantly blind) and in the two videos you can tell it is either:
1. The actual nose cone.
2. Debris and/or dust in the general shape of the nose cone.
I would not say instanly it is not the nose cone, because in the OP's videos it seems to be a perfect or near perfect match, and remember it's not like everywhere the plane hit was totally steel. It had steel columns, and if the nose passed between these it may just have been able to stay in good enough shape to still look like it was intact in the news video. It could have just been debris, but this seems like an amazing coincedence, so I'm going with nose cone. I do not think the black outs or people "talking wrong" prove much (most of it has already been dealt with), especially since they only apparantly blacked out two videos and one too late. Nice job there. Also, the missing wings don't really prove much, as I said before I doubt that when a wing passes over a similar coloured background at 500 mph recorded on a handicam it will be very visible. Also, of the two videos that are "from the same vantage point", the one on the left looks like it's a bit to the left and a bit higher, looking at a slight downward angle, and the "missile path" could for all we know be a bird, it only seems to be approaching the buildings, we never see it hit because it is too low quality. Taking into account what Caliwowly1 said, I doubt that there is much proof here though I am still looking at what caused the different coloured wings.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by W35M4N]

Originally posted by thedman

You also fail to address numerous instances of other factual evidence presented by the OP eg: The plane suddenly coming into view and hitting the building, when 5 seconds prior it wasnt visible for miles.

Not visible for miles ? - dozens of my co-workers were watching from New Jersey and saw the plane as it went into the South Tower. We were in
Linden NJ at the oil refinery.

Hi thedman,
I'm going to use something here that is used by, ufo skeptics every single time they are on tv or in print, trying to debunk ufos.

You say dozens of your co-workers saw the plane as it went into the south tower. Then as a debunker, I'll just say, were/are they trained observers? If not, then the craft could have been anything, from a cruise missle, to a ufo to sunspots in their eyes, or perhaps swamp gas reflecting off venus or Mars.

I'm not in the camp that there were no planes (though I have seen a video that sure looks like a plane just appeared from nowhere), I just don't believe the governments theory on 9/11.

Have a great day.

You OBVIOUSLY did not watch the vid(s) in its entirety...

How do the pixels match perfectly between the nose going IN and the nose going OUT?

you are aware of the EXACT pixelation that was presented, correct? How can the pixels be an EXACT match? I'll tell you how, electronic manipulation thats how...

Im curious, what did you hear when the the incident in question happened? If you were nearby Id like to know that, because that too was addressed in these vids...

reply to post by Grock


If a person can actually believe that what they saw on 9-11 didnt happen... then its no wonder that people can be convinced to strap a bomb on there ass.. and blow themselves up for a couple of virgins in heaven. Shallow.. very shallow.... I cant imagine not being able to look at the bigger picture,, and not see that it would be impossible to pull something like the hoax your talking about, who would have to be involved.. and just the basic steps it would take,,, after giving it a couple of sec.. any reasonably intelligent person would scoff at such an idea.

You say dozens of your co-workers saw the plane as it went into the south tower. Then as a debunker, I'll just say, were/are they trained observers? If not, then the craft could have been anything, from a cruise missle, to a ufo to sunspots in their eyes, or perhaps swamp gas reflecting off venus or Mars.

It was daylight (9 am Est), weather was clear, visibility unlimited. Some
of my co workers were on the catwalks of the cracking units watching
Over 100 ft up in air.

Controllers at Newark airport saw same thing (Linden is just south of
Newark airport). If every seen UNITED 93 that scene is in there.

Originally posted by Grock
you are aware of the EXACT pixelation that was presented, correct? How can the pixels be an EXACT match? I'll tell you how, electronic manipulation thats how...

I don't know if you are talking to me, but I will assume you are for the moment. Again, it was not simply a cgi plane error that showed up accidentaly on the other side because it was visible from other angles. a cone is a fairly strong structure, and it would have been tougher than the wings.I believe that the body of the aircraft would have mostly punched through the tower (I am not an expert, so just speculating) until the explosion, and that the nose cone could have gone through the other side, forced by the inertia of the plane and the force of the explosion.

Picture 1
Picture 2

If anyone has a better explanation or proof mine is not right then feel free to prove me wrong, again I am just speculating.

Originally posted by philjwolf

If a person can actually believe that what they saw on 9-11 didnt happen... then its no wonder that people can be convinced to strap a bomb on there ass.. and blow themselves up for a couple of virgins in heaven. Shallow.. very shallow.... I cant imagine not being able to look at the bigger picture,, and not see that it would be impossible to pull something like the hoax your talking about, who would have to be involved.. and just the basic steps it would take,,, after giving it a couple of sec.. any reasonably intelligent person would scoff at such an idea.

Impossible? Why? Your reasoning concludes many people would have had to be involved. Thats not necessarily true. It would have only required a few key players in my opinion. A few to organise and approve. A few to remote control the planes (assuming they exist). A few to organise explosives. And a few to ensure NORAD doesnt interfere. Pay people enough money and they will never breathe a word of what they know.

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Pay people enough money and they will never breathe a word of what they know.

I agree with this.

To most people, the concept of keeping a secret means that might tell a couple of friends - who then go and tell a couple of friends and the secret spreads.

However, when you're dealing with people who have no morals and are complicit, do you think that they'll ever tell? No. Maybe they weren't paid with just money, there might have been some other rewards. Either way, some people DO know how to keep secrets, no matter what.

I don't think that it would take too many people to organise a false flag operation.

Originally posted by W35M4N

...Again, it was not simply a cgi plane error that showed up accidentaly on the other side because it was visible from other angles.

Yes, but...no, not really.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp4ILfAOHq8

Originally posted by W35M4N

a cone is a fairly strong structure, and it would have been tougher than the wings.I believe that the body of the aircraft would have mostly punched through the tower (I am not an expert, so just speculating) until the explosion, and that the nose cone could have gone through the other side, forced by the inertia of the plane and the force of the explosion.

Picture 1
Picture 2

If anyone has a better explanation or proof mine is not right then feel free to prove me wrong, again I am just speculating.

In your second image, it is showing the nose is receiving "light damage". But since the nose hits first, logically it would receive the most damage because it impacts at the maximum speed of the crash.

This is what would have happened if they used real planes:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

Cone or not, aluminum simply isn't strong enough to pierce through steel reinforced concrete as we were shown. Neither can the wings as we were shown in some of the "amateur" videos:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com... (zoomed)

Or here:
www.youtube.com...

Or here:
thewebfairy.com...

Note all the 'planes', which are supposed to be the same plane, are very different! One would think they could have found some better pictures and not Army footage...

hmmmmm

Cone or not, aluminum simply isn't strong enough to pierce through steel reinforced concrete as we were shown. Neither can the wings as we were shown in some of the "amateur" videos:

First off exterior of WTC was not steel reinforced concrete, It was
a lattice of light gauge steel bolted togather called spandrels.

Piece of spandrel with section of landing gear embedded in it



Second aircraft are made with heavy strength metals in the jet engine,
landing gear, wing spars and keel beam. Heavy and strong enough
to punch through the building.

Ever heard of straw being driven into trees by tornado?

reply to post by thedman


I didn't say the exterior was steel reinforced concrete. Sorry if that's how it sounded. I was referring to FOX's nose out "live" shot. Meaning the nose of a real plane would not exist the other side intact after smashing through spandrels and steel reinforced concrete.

Originally posted by thedman
Second aircraft are made with heavy strength metals in the jet engine,
landing gear, wing spars and keel beam. Heavy and strong enough
to punch through the building.

Right, but aluminum wings still cannot cut through steel.

Read what Mike Walter from USA Today had to say about his "eye-witness" to the "plane" crash at the Pentagon.

"...And the wings on the jet just folded back. It just kind of crumpled. It kind of came together like an accordion..."

"The force of this jet hitting the Pentagon at about 500 mph...when something hits a concrete structure like that...you know this belief that the wings would go in is just ridiculous. What I say was the actual jet going in, but the wings folded back like this."

Here's the video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0vxc50xAbk

Originally posted by thedman
Second aircraft are made with heavy strength metals in the jet engine,
landing gear, wing spars

All of these 'heavy strength' materials are located behind the nose cone. The nose cone was the first point of contact against the tower.

So, is the nose cone made of 'heavy strength' materials too? If not, then how did the nose cone manage to penetrate the tower exterior without ANY deformation of the fuselage rippling backwards?

Before the wings and engines got their chance to penetrate, the only thing made from your 'heavy strength' materials with a chance to penetrate was the front landing gear.

Why did the front half of the plane disappear into a neat hole, without any rippling or fatigue, before the heavier components impacted?

Military leaders around the world should take note - they don't need to build bunker-buster bombs. All they have to do is launch Boeing 767 nose cones into their targets at high velocity. Target destroyed, while the nose cone allegedly appears outside the other side of the building!!! Laughable.

Why did the front half of the plane disappear into a neat hole, without any rippling or fatigue, before the heavier components impacted?

Because if had read the earlier post that the exterior is not solid, but
a lattice bolted together. The impact will shear the bolts holding it
together

Impact hole North Tower



Can see where the panels were ripped away by the impact.

Ok, so you read half my question.

Now, the other half. Why doesn't the video show any of the plane's fuselage buckling from the impact?

Those videos of crashing planes do not show any distortion of the plane. The tower simply swallows up the plane. All done with a mighty punch of a nose-cone that's not made out of anything particularly strong - yet it can penetrate the exterior of a tower...

Those videos look like a projected image that glides straight into the tower.

you have to be a complete moron to believe that live video was faked during the attack on 9-11, thats the bottom line, end of subject.

Originally posted by philjwolf
you have to be a complete moron to believe that live video was faked during the attack on 9-11, thats the bottom line, end of subject.

I don't know who you are addressing that post to, but you would want to be careful that you don't breach the terms and conditions of this website by calling anyone names.

What's your opinion of the videos that were posted here? How do you explain all of the anomalies, including the black-outs, the altered skyline and the amorphous blobs that DON'T look like planes?

Originally posted by philjwolf
you have to be a complete moron to believe that live video was faked during the attack on 9-11, thats the bottom line, end of subject.

The "live videos" on 9/11 were not live. There was a broadcast delay of 17 seconds.

How do you explain the differences between the planes in the videos? In one video Flight 175 is blue and white, in another it's black. In the "live" videos, as tezzajw mentioned, the planes are just black blobs with no detail. How do you explain the very different flight paths before impact? Or the synced audio "glitches" on all major networks? How about the missing choppers?

Here's a few more absurd anomalies you should take a look at before calling anyone a moron:
September Clues Part 9

I don't know about you, but in the world I live in, bridges don't walk and move by themselves. Nor do airplanes make buildings collapse.