9/11 Red Smoking Gun... no, really!

Original source:
www.questherald.com...

I think this definitely must be TV editing by CBS. It doesn't add any content to 9/11 so I guess it must just be a mistake of some kind. I hope a criminal investigation is coming up!

Excellent find......it has to be intentional editing....investigation? LOL.....never will happen......

CNN vs. ABC footage in regard to the helicopter ......... while both are around the same time, the smoke pattern is markedly different in both views, thus they were not filmed at the same time.

Good find, OP..... I'm going to watch it again. I don't have a dog in this race.... I want to know the truth.

On the surface, I think it would be phenomenally stupid for one newgroup to edit their feed without the written-in-stone concurrence of ALL other newsgroups. Why would they do this, knowing that all other feeds would be available? Nobody is that dumb.

So, what are you saying that the smoking red gun is inferring? That the news stations edit footage? This is no suprise and widely known already. Is there some other inference that you are making? Be clear please as to what the "red smoking gun" is proving exactly.

edited to make my question more clear.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by justamomma]

I'm not sure about this. They couldn't use Fox news live coverage? I am not sure the two tower shots are lined up correctly. One shot shows more of the towers than the other so maybe the helicopter was down there. I wasn't sure the shots at 9:12 were matched up second to second either.
NBC, CBS, and CNN ( PBS?). Interesting.

Then theres the smoke that doesn't move and the building antennas at the very beginning. Didn't look like smoke to me and the building antennas could be hidden by going up or down a few floors while filming.



[edit on 9/3/08 by stikkinikki]

Originally posted by justamomma
So, what are you saying that the smoking red gun is inferring? That the news stations edit footage? This is no suprise and widely known already. Is there some other inference that you are making? Be clear please as to what the "red smoking gun" is proving exactly.

edited to make my question more clear.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by justamomma]

I'm saying not only did an editor of the footage add smoke and a "red smoking gun" but they knew before 9/11 even happened. It takes time to edit footage.

reply to post by truthquest


Ok.. thank you. Just wanted to be clear on what exactly you were implying before the sharp minds (not implying anything by that) make their way here.

This is good evidence for manipulation but an even bigger blunder came from the BBC news station in england. They reported that WTC 7 had collapsed from fire 20 minutes BEFORE it had collapsed. This is proven without a shadow of a doubt because they show a reporter with a live shot of new york and the towers area and you can clearly see building 7 still standing. So it is obvious that somebody knew that building 7 was coming down and the EXACT details of why it fell before it happened. Who gave the BBC this info?

heres a link to the vid www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by truthquest

Originally posted by justamomma
So, what are you saying that the smoking red gun is inferring? That the news stations edit footage? This is no suprise and widely known already. Is there some other inference that you are making? Be clear please as to what the "red smoking gun" is proving exactly.

edited to make my question more clear.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by justamomma]

I'm saying not only did an editor of the footage add smoke and a "red smoking gun" but they knew before 9/11 even happened. It takes time to edit footage.

LOL. So now there are even more people involved in a cover up. How many people do you think are involved in the whole 911 conspiracy. Becuse now editors and the TV stations are in on it too.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
This is good evidence for manipulation but an even bigger blunder came from the BBC news station in england. They reported that WTC 7 had collapsed from fire 20 minutes BEFORE it had collapsed. This is proven without a shadow of a doubt because they show a reporter with a live shot of new york and the towers area and you can clearly see building 7 still standing. So it is obvious that somebody knew that building 7 was coming down and the EXACT details of why it fell before it happened. Who gave the BBC this info?

heres a link to the vid www.youtube.com...

Another rediculous claim. Every station wants to be the first to report something. And reporters make mistakes all the time. They were told it would probably collapse. Also she specifically says DETAILS ARE VERY SKETCHY. What do you think that means? And ask yourself this. Why in the hell would you let a foreign news network in on a conspiracy. Just let the building fall and then let them report it. This is one of the most rediculous claims or proof of a conspiracy that is out there. That is why no one talks about it anymore. Unless of course you are uninformed. Which it looks like you are.

[edit on 5-9-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88


This is what I am thinking. With as many ppl that are supposed to have been involved in the actual events and then the cover up, surely by now someone's conscience would have kicked in. Just far too many ppl are proposed to have been involved according to the theorists that it boggles the mind.

reply to post by tide88


The number of people involved is just speculation. Doesn't the video prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that debris and smoke was edited in?

Personally I believe it could have been done with about 30 people total. The vast majority of the work could have been done deceptively without the workers realizing what they were doing. Think of what was going on at the time: A "simulation" of a terrorist attack. That story alone could have gotten a good deal of the work done. "Your job is to simulate a terrorist attack showing a Boeing 737 crashing into the World Trade Center."

[edit on 6-9-2008 by truthquest]

Originally posted by tide88
Another rediculous claim. Every station wants to be the first to report something. And reporters make mistakes all the time. They were told it would probably collapse. Also she specifically says DETAILS ARE VERY SKETCHY.

I find it very hard to believe that the newsreader could not have turned their head around and seen the visual evidence that the story they were reporting was inaccurate. Not only that but the cameramen had their camera's pointed at the bloody building, surely someone should have spoken up and said "Hey..Um...Small problem with this story........"

Originally posted by tide88
LOL. So now there are even more people involved in a cover up. How many people do you think are involved in the whole 911 conspiracy. Becuse now editors and the TV stations are in on it too.

They do not need to be 'in on the cover up' for them to be given deceiving or inaccurate information. The mistake they made was simply not verifying the source or the information. No word was ever made as to WHERE they got the information from leading me to believe it may have been an anonymous phone call or something like that.

Jumping to conclusions is how the science becomes tainted.

[edit on 6/9/2008 by Kryties]

reply to post by Kryties


First off it was a BBC reporter. It is possible that she had no clue which building was wtc7. A lot of people today have no idea what happened to WCT7 and couldnt point it out if you showed them all the building standing. Also again she states DETAILS ARE SKETCHY Someone probably told the newslady the building was about to collapse or they were pulling the firefigters out of the building because it was going to collapse. It was complete chaos that day. For a reporter to jump the gun or make a mistake would be normal. DETAILS WERE SKETCHY after all. Secondly if someone was editing the film and smoke what would be the point. What would be the point to edit the helicopter out. Look at all the debris flying around the east tower in the ABC live shot. In the CBS live shot there is no debris (looks like paper in ABC feed) when the chopper flies by. Also if someone was asked to edit in smoke, you dont think that person would have come forward. This whole video and what they are saying is completely rediculous.