CNN Replay of Chopper 5

[abababba]

This is my first post here but I have been following the debate about no plane theory. I have been extremely skeptical of NPT but I just cannot explain why CNN would replay the chopper 5 video and not show the plane.

The only clip I could find of the CNN replay is in September Clues at the 8:35 mark of the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tyQeSop2gU&feature=related

First, does everyone agree this is a replay of the chopper 5 footage (shown earlier in the video)?

Second, what possible reason could there be to show only the part of the explosion above the plane impact until the nose out portion of the video was done and then show the whole explosion?

[mynameis]

It's not an airplane, it's a jet of the explosion from the plane. The video cuts out because A.) The cameras are too sensitive for the light to adjust B.) The television tower at the top of the WTC has a loss of reception during the impact. This is a video still of the 2nd hit from two different angles paused at the same time.

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p177/chrisfarb/plane.jpg

[bryan]

The video cuts out because A.) The cameras are too sensitive for the light to adjust B.) The television tower at the top of the WTC has a loss of reception during the impact.

Are we supposed to choose between A and B or do you expect us to believe that two miracles happened at the same time causing exactly the same problem?

[mynameis]

Are we supposed to choose between A and B or do you expect us to believe that two miracles happened at the same time causing exactly the same problem?

As I understand, those in the field of camera work think A had happened. However, the television news stations state B happened. You can argue with those people. I'm stating the facts as they gave them. So you shoved your head up the wrong tailpipe if you are asking me about why they made those statements.

[abababba]

mynameis:

Your response has nothing to do with the question. I am wondering first whether you agree that the CNN footage is a replay of Chopper 5. Second, if this is chopper 5, then why didn't CNN show the plane?

I am not talking about nose out.

[mynameis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI8uUJNc1F8

It's actually an ABC affiliate video footage on CNN. The video in September Clueless is doctored.

This account has different parts:

http://www.youtube.com/user/emscrazy001

[abababba]

So your argument is that the video in September Clues was never actually played on CNN?

[bryan]

As I understand, those in the field of camera work think A had happened.


One person in the field of camera work (says he) thinks A was the cause of fade to black. As it happens, he's an associate of a well-known 9/11 conspiracy debunker who supports every military campaign the US has ever been involved in.


However, the television news stations state B happened.


Another reliable source.


I'm stating the facts as they gave them.


You stated the facts/fiction as if you were endorsing them. A moment's reflexion should tell you that neither explanation is plausible.

[mynameis]

As far as I understand, the reasoning of the experts and the news media, whose experience is deferable, both situations are the best explanation. If I know that is the best explanation, until someone shows different than my belief as such does not waver. As far as what I believe, I have hubris enough to know when someone's knowledge is outside even my own expertise. Maybe you should try it? I know for some that's like asking a goldfish to breathe air though.

[bryan]

mynameis:

Your response has nothing to do with the question. I am wondering first whether you agree that the CNN footage is a replay of Chopper 5. Second, if this is chopper 5, then why didn't CNN show the plane?

I am not talking about nose out.

There's a similar shot in the archives.

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive_-_CNN_1st_reports.html

It's at [9:55] in the second segment of the CNN first reports. It's from WNYW but it's the Chopper 5 feed. They seem to interrupt a live Chopper 5 feed showing the two towers burning with the replay of the nose-out footage covered by the logo.

At [7:26] they flash the logo in front of a replay of the Chopper 7 footage as well, but they also play it with no logo.

One problem with the Chopper 5 footage is the colour of the sky. You'd never guess it was a lovely day.

I think there are bigger smoking guns than these though.

[white horse]

Basically...

The video record of 911 is the dodgiest of any previously recorded event... period.

Discuss.

[bryan]

The video cuts out because A.) The cameras are too sensitive for the light to adjust B.) The television tower at the top of the WTC has a loss of reception during the impact.

C.) The person in charge of quality control at the TV station saw the cartoon plane emerging from the other side of the building and realized there'd been an almighty cock-up. He panicked and interrupted the broadcast causing a fade to black. He then restored the broadcast, knowing it was too late and the damage had already been done.



It's actually an ABC affiliate video footage on CNN. The video in September Clueless is doctored.


The video you linked to shows the CNN live broadcast of the ABC Chopper 7 footage of the second plane. The clip in September Clues is the CNN replay of the FOX Chopper 5 (nose-out) footage of the second plane with the fade to black and the CNN logo covering up the nose out. Curiously, the Chopper 7 live footage fades to black as well on CNN, but not on any other of the many TV stations around the world that broadcast the same Chopper 7 live feed, including the BBC.

[matrix911]

Basically...
The video record of 911 is the dodgiest of any previously recorded event... period.
Discuss.

WERD!

C.) The person in charge of quality control at the TV station saw the cartoon plane emerging from the other side of the building and realized there'd been an almighty cock-up. He panicked and interrupted the broadcast causing a fade to black. He then restored the broadcast, knowing it was too late and the damage had already been done.


the most logical of all conclusions isn't it. common sense even.

but opinion and speculation to those in denial.

unreal

[matrix911]

It's not an airplane, it's a jet of the explosion from the plane. The video cuts out because A.) The cameras are too sensitive for the light to adjust B.) The television tower at the top of the WTC has a loss of reception during the impact. This is a video still of the 2nd hit from two different angles paused at the same time.
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p177/chrisfarb/plane.jpg

a jet explosion?

camera's too sensitive for light to adjust?

loss of reception?

ur kidding right? Rofl

the excuses you come up with to defend these murderers are truly bizarre.

and the fact you look for innocent excuses and give these murderers the benefit of the doubt in the face of ALL the evidence thats been put forth, is simply disgusting and irreconcilable.

its a cgi or missle/drone that fortunately survived from a failed damage control/cover-up attempt at the very least. I can just envision the perp/operators reaction and what was said in the control room... "hey harry, I fucked up and couldn't fix it in time... ya think anyone will notice?" "Nah Pete, people are too stupid and we have enough shills, scripts and propoganda machines out there already planting more than enough seeds of doubt ".... "now get back to work, we still alot editing to do on that pentagon footage."

[matrix911]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI8uUJNc1F8

It's actually an ABC affiliate video footage on CNN. The video in September Clueless is doctored.



What in the hell are you talking about...seriously.

You're actually making the assertion that SEPT CLUES is doctored and the footage they're using isn't the original uncut footage of what was officially available and released?

please tell me ur joking and not that dumb.


This account has different parts:

http://www.youtube.com/user/emscrazy001

again, WTF are you talking about? What does that video have to do with the issue or the footage from SC?


ANYWAYS,,, the first IMPORTANT CUT OUT and footage is at 3:35 ... truly amazing IMO.

the other relevant footage is 6min and then 734

Isn't it just hilarious how at 6MIN the BANNER is totally covering the impact zone but then taken down right AFTER the impact.

of course just a COINCIDENCE right?

just a coincidence they happen to maintain keep the impact area COVERED and HIDE perhaps the greatest spectacle in history til after the impact.

and yeah, whats even MORE incredible and OBVIOUS is how at 7:34 the NEWS BANNER is NOT THERE and ONLY when the IMPACT OCCURS does the OPERATOR/CONTROL ROOM INSERT THE BANNER and THEN THEY TAKE IT OUT RIGHT AFTER THE IMPACT!

WOW... I actually haven't even really seen that before til now... if thats not another NAIL in the OCT and plane huggers coffin, i don't know what is.

can anyone with common sense and a BRAIN seriously or honestly look at that and say its just a coincidence and find nothing at all suspect?

sadly, there are MILLIONS who can.

mynameis appears to be one of them.

I want to believe no one can be this naive and lack so much common sense.

pls tell me you don't think its just coincidence.

Oh, and even more comical is the CHOPPER... PURE CGI and beyond FAKE
I just can't believe anyone thinks these choppers are real.

THERE IS NO WAY, in the REAL WORLD, REAL CHOPPERS OR this CHOPPER FOOTAGE LOOKS OR would BEHAVE LIKE THAT.

NONE. IMPOSSIBLE.

More proof of cgi inserts and fakery.


There's only 3 possible scenarios at the WTC on 911 beyond a shadow of a doubt.

1. MISSLE/DRONE
2. NO PLANES just Pre planned charges
3. both 1 and 2

[mynameis]

What in the hell are you talking about...seriously.

You're actually making the assertion that SEPT CLUES is doctored and the footage they're using isn't the original uncut footage of what was officially available and released?

please tell me ur joking and not that dumb.

September Clueless is doctored. One not need to be a gimp with straw brains to figure it out. The Copper 5 video is not a replay on CNN in the September Clueless movie. A reply is not live and therefore did not happen in context of the events of September 11. It's like taking a copy of anything recorded or written and editing the thing to make it look as though it is legitimate, when in fact it is doctored. If this were a replay 9:02a would not be at the bottom right corner of the film only the fool who produced the film is brainwashing you.

[matrix911]

September Clueless is doctored. One not need to be a gimp with straw brains to figure it out. The Copper 5 video is not a replay on CNN in the September Clueless movie. A reply is not live and therefore did not happen in context of the events of September 11. It's like taking a copy of anything recorded or written .

Thats quite a CHARGE there MNI... SEPT CLUES is DOCTORED? reeeeeeally?

What you're really doing is backing yourself into a corner like a little cat thats been declawed, since if it can be PROVEN/verified thats actual un-cut original FOOTAGE from those broadcasts AS SEPT CLUES claims, then you've created quite a debacle for yourself since SC claims all their evidence and footage can be VERIFIED as being FROM and directly taken from the original broadcast footage thats been released to the public.

So let me ask you these two questions once again... a YES NO answer is sufficient.

1. Are you claiming that FOOTAGE on SC was doctored, and was it doctored by SC, another source or by the ORIGINAL SOURCE from which it originated?

2. Are you claiming the choppers seen in this footage are REAL?

[mynameis]

Thats quite a CHARGE there MNI... SEPT CLUES is DOCTORED? reeeeeeally?

What you're really doing is backing yourself into a corner like a little cat thats been declawed, since if it can be PROVEN/verified thats actual un-cut original FOOTAGE from those broadcasts AS SEPT CLUES claims, then you've created quite a debacle for yourself since SC claims all their evidence and footage can be VERIFIED as being FROM and directly taken from the original broadcast footage thats been released to the public.

So let me ask you these two questions once again... a YES NO answer is sufficient.

1. Are you claiming that FOOTAGE on SC was doctored, and was it doctored by SC, another source or by the ORIGINAL SOURCE from which it originated?

2. Are you claiming the choppers seen in this footage are REAL?

September Clueless is doctored by the creators of their film. If they told you it wasn't that is called lying. As for you second question, I don't know what you are trying to say here, but the actual CNN live video found on the archive is real. There is no replay footage from a live simulcast unless the CNN folk are in an alternate reality and the clock on the video isn't a live broadcast from 9:02a.

[mynameis]

Isn't it just hilarious how at 6MIN the BANNER is totally covering the impact zone but then taken down right AFTER the impact.

of course just a COINCIDENCE right?

And the highlighted word shows how imaginary plane huggers think about a serious event such serves as a capstone for their research effort.

[killtown]

September Clueless is doctored by the creators of their film. If they told you it wasn't that is called lying.
REALLY??? What did Simon Shack "doctor" in SC?

Remember, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

[mynameis]

the excuses you come up with to defend these murderers are truly bizarre.

and the fact you look for innocent excuses and give these murderers the benefit of the doubt in the face of ALL the evidence thats been put forth, is simply disgusting and irreconcilable.

No. What you think is "hilarious" is a very serious subject. You charge ABC 7, CNN, and many TV affiliates signals were replaced, manipulated, or jacked in their news department without their knowledge. When in fact, the agent provocateur schemes to defraud the public from the views of the truth movement investigation without one iota of evidence. Imaginary plane hugger's main fortee is that the absence of evidence is the evidence.There is no effort on the end of TV affiliates etc while capturing live video to insert or not to be able to detect a signal inserted into a live video feed. Occam's razor. A field case points to shows that charlatan tactics work on weak-minded individuals without putting one point of evidence on the table.

Define and Describe how the video demonstrates CGI...

[killtown]

mynameis, we're waiting for your extraordinary evidence that prove Simon Shack doctored stuff on his SC videos.

(Don't worry, we won't hold our breath.)

[mynameis]

mynameis, we're waiting for your extraordinary evidence that prove Simon Shack doctored stuff on his SC videos.

(Don't worry, we won't hold our breath.)

I'm waiting for you to actually go away and stop trying to pass off doctored video as being actual reality when the archive footage shows the September Clueless has been tampered videos of live footage. If you run the videos side by side with the audio, you can see the footage from live and clueless are not identical.

[killtown]

1) I'm waiting for you to actually go away

2) If you run the videos side by side with the audio, you can see the footage from live and clueless are not identical.
1) Yes, the 9/11 perps wish I would.

2) There are dozens and dozens of clips in SC, how about you give us an example since it is YOUR claim?

[mynameis]

1) Yes, the 9/11 perps wish I would.

2) There are dozens and dozens of clips in SC, how about you give us an example since it is YOUR claim?

I already posted that in thread post #6. If you don't want to watch it then don't.


Here is the doctored version of Clueless
http://www.youtube.com/v/3tyQeSop2gU

Here is the archive footage
http://www.youtube.com/v/OI8uUJNc1F8

The clueless is a hopeless charlatan's scheme to defraud the weak minded.

[bryan]

Here is the archive footage
http://www.youtube.com/v/OI8uUJNc1F8


We can soon sort this out. Just give us the reference point in minutes and seconds where the relevant section starts.

[sidlittle]

I'm waiting for you to actually go away and stop trying to pass off doctored video as being actual reality when the archive footage shows the September Clueless has been tampered videos of live footage. If you run the videos side by side with the audio, you can see the footage from live and clueless are not identical.

! erm, no.. they are identical...to be sure..

What exactly are you struggling with here?

[sidlittle]

We can soon sort this out. Just give us the reference point in minutes and seconds where the relevant section starts.

8min 35 on sept clues
9min 50 on the archive video

but what 'mynameis' is seeing that we can't see, only he knows..

[abababba]

In addition to the valid points that Killtown and Bryan are making, I think its possible to have a conditional argument.

We can have the following discussion: if CNN replayed chopper five without the plane showing until after the plane was no longer in the screen and then subsequently showed the full picture, is there a rational explanation for it?

Then we can isolate whether any objection is just a factual objection to the video evidence or whether there is any objection to the argument that CNN would never do this if the plane was real.

Mynameis: In general I don't understand your line of argument. You are only saying September Clues is doctored. Clearly even if you think part of it is doctored, other parts are not. So you should clearly state whether you think the specific part I am discussing is doctored and why.

[sidlittle]

We can have the following discussion: if CNN replayed chopper five without the plane showing until after the plane was no longer in the screen and then subsequently showed the full picture, is there a rational explanation for it?

Then we can isolate whether any objection is just a factual objection to the video evidence or whether there is any objection to the argument that CNN would never do this if the plane was real.


and then of course we could discuss why the chopper 5 clip was scrubbed and replaced in the archives by an alternative 'non impact' shot but the audio kept.

[bryan]

You charge ABC 7, CNN, and many TV affiliates signals were replaced, manipulated, or jacked in their news department without their knowledge.

Without their knowledge? Are you trying to water down the implications of TV fakery ready for when it becomes widely accepted?

[mynameis]

water down the implications of TV fakery ready for when it becomes widely accepted?

When it becomes widely accepted? I think its odd that all reputable forums have kicked you all out of their discussions. I wonder why that is? It's not because you are all widely accepted.

[mynameis]

and then of course we could discuss why the chopper 5 clip was scrubbed and replaced in the archives by an alternative 'non impact' shot but the audio kept.

Are the two videos identical from playback in the video? No. Have they ever been identical? no.

[killtown]

When it becomes widely accepted? I think its odd that all reputable forums have kicked you all out of their discussions.
Which "reputable" forums are those?

[abababba]

reputable forums

There are forums that would disparage or ban any mention of conspiracy theories including 911 truth. Just because a subset of forums bans an idea does not mean its wrong. It could either be because the idea is truly crazy or because they are hiding from or ignoring the truth.

My sense is that most non NPT 911 truthers have bought into the idea that many NPT supporters are disinfo agents. But even if we can disagree about NPT, most of the people on this forum supporting NPT are very likely not agents (especially Bryan).

This is the same sort of rationalization that non 911 Truthers use to justify their position: these people must be crazy "conspiracy theorists" because they don't believe what most other people believe.

Fundamentally, it is a justification for placing less emphasis on logical arguments.

[mynameis]

Are you talking about the WYNW footage that's not helicopter footage, Sid?

[mynameis]

Through explaination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke4m0Z_KC1s

Through explaination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZORr-hfz-E4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6jS2Ah22us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034

[abababba]

Are the two videos identical from playback in the video? No. Have they ever been identical? no.

You can still answer the question: Did CNN ever replay chopper 5?
Yes, No, I don't know

If CNN replayed chopper 5 in the manner described, can you think of an explanation for it besides fake planes?
Yes, No.

Your points are mostly irrelevant to these issues.

[mynameis]

You can still answer the question: Did CNN ever replay chopper 5?
Yes, No, I don't know

If CNN replayed chopper 5 in the manner described, can you think of an explanation for it besides fake planes?
Yes, No.

Your points are mostly irrelevant to these issues.

Did CNN replay a video is not an issue. The issue is the fallacies of September Clueless versus live video.

[mynameis]

The video at 9:09a is CNN, while the daily news footage is at 9:03a. So you tell me what you think happened what they are pulling?

[killtown]

Through explaination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke4m0Z_KC1s

Through explaination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZORr-hfz-E4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6jS2Ah22us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034
Isn't it interesting that out of all of Anthony Lawson's 9/11 videos, only one (and a short video at that) tries to debunk the official 9/11 story and the rest of his videos (which are all longer and were more complexed to have made) try to debunk Sept Clues? Guess that shows Lawson's true agenda in the truth movement.

BTW, Simon Shack debunked Lawson's "Nose-Out Hoax" debunk attempt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

[mynameis]

ISimon Shack debunked Lawson's "Nose-Out Hoax" debunk attempt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ

The evidence doesn't match. I can blur a black circle and a bottle cap and get the same precision match. This is why the two figures do not match in the video, besides the already obvious compression problems put deliberately into the clueless and the change of video size.

[sidlittle]

Through explaination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke4m0Z_KC1s

Through explaination


Oh.My.God!!!
Are you serious????

Have you even bothered to watch this 7 mins you posted??
I challenge you to watch it now and come back on here and stand by it.

Anyone else seen this?? This guy makes Lawson look well researched! It's genuinely funny! He's a no planer but doesn't know it! :D

For gods sake the first bit of the video is debunked by your own link to the archive footage below
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=http%3A//s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/cps-vfl81855.swf&video_id=Ke4m0Z_KC1s&rel=1&eurl=http%3A//www.davidicke.com/forum/newreply.php%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D56223&iurl=http%3A//i4.ytimg.com/vi/Ke4m0Z_KC1s/hqdefault.jpg&sk=HMuXdBN-1NeKGlTUM3hxq13WLNvMBtP2C&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&cr=US&avg_rating=2.75&length_seconds=433&allow_ratings=0&title=September%20%22Clueless%3F%22

[mynameis]

For gods sake the first bit of the video is debunked by your own link to the archive footage below
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=http%3A//s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/cps-vfl81855.swf&video_id=Ke4m0Z_KC1s&rel=1&eurl=http%3A//www.davidicke.com/forum/newreply.php%3Fdo%3Dpostreply%26t%3D56223&iurl=http%3A//i4.ytimg.com/vi/Ke4m0Z_KC1s/hqdefault.jpg&sk=HMuXdBN-1NeKGlTUM3hxq13WLNvMBtP2C&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&cr=US&avg_rating=2.75&length_seconds=433&allow_ratings=0&title=September%20%22Clueless%3F%22

The link you just posted isn't from the archive footage by the way it is from the September "Clueless?" video . What link are you speaking about, Sid?

[abababba]

Did CNN replay a video is not an issue. The issue is the fallacies of September Clueless versus live video.

There can certainly be multiple issues and I see no reasons why my questions are not valid.

Did CNN replay chopper 5? If so why?

Its in the archived video. Do you agree that the video in the archive is most likely accurate or at least enough to prove that CNN replayed Chopper 5?

In the new version of September Clues released in August, several of the complaints about previous versions have been addressed. The video is by no means perfect, but it is a valuable collection of evidence regardless.

I still don't think there is any way to understand the fact that CNN replayed a video that we know had a plane in it, but chose to not show the plane. It's one of the key smoking guns for no plane theory. People can come up with rationalizations of many other things that satisfy themselves (including "that makes sense but I'm not an expert"), but I have heard no reasonable story to explain this.

[mynameis]

There can certainly be multiple issues and I see no reasons why my questions are not valid.

Did CNN replay chopper 5? If so why?

Its in the archived video. Do you agree that the video in the archive is most likely accurate or at least enough to prove that CNN replayed Chopper 5?

In the new version of September Clues released in August, several of the complaints about previous versions have been addressed. The video is by no means perfect, but it is a valuable collection of evidence regardless.

I still don't think there is any way to understand the fact that CNN replayed a video that we know had a plane in it, but chose to not show the plane.

CNN's video of the plane shows the plane's wing, but this does not compute? Why shouldn't CNN replay WYNW footage, when everyone in the news watched the 2nd plane hit live from multiple angles and networks? Also, when the dubious footage of Clueless does not exactly show what Simon "Says" is a nose of an airplane is no reason to claim it is one. I can do the same thing blurring a black circle and a bottle cap. The video Shack uses is the lowest quality for unethical methods of misinformation, not to mention edited. This video of the WYNW footage is not shot from a helicopter imho...but there could also be reasons like picture stabilization for replay in the CNN studio.

[sidlittle]

The link you just posted isn't from the archive footage by the way it is from the September "Clueless?" video . What link are you speaking about, Sid?

Apologies, i posted the wrong link.
This is what you linked to earlier
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=http%3A//s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/cps-vfl81855.swf&video_id=OI8uUJNc1F8&rel=1&eurl=http%3A//www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D56223%26page%3D3&iurl=http%3A//i4.ytimg.com/vi/OI8uUJNc1F8/hqdefault.jpg&sk=HMuXdBN-1NeKGlTUM3hxq13WLNvMBtP2C&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&cr=US&avg_rating=4.95348837209&length_seconds=602&allow_ratings=1&title=CNN%209/11/01%20-%20World%20Trade%20Center%20Part%202

and obviously it debunks this ridiculous video you posted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke4m0Z_KC1s



Seriously, I can't believe you have even watched what you posted, as it's a 7 min journey in comical confusion and surely you yourself are not as confused about NPT as the creator of that vid?

[mynameis]

Apologies, i posted the wrong link.
This is what you linked to earlier
http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?swf=http%3A//s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/cps-vfl81855.swf&video_id=OI8uUJNc1F8&rel=1&eurl=http%3A//www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php%3Ft%3D56223%26page%3D3&iurl=http%3A//i4.ytimg.com/vi/OI8uUJNc1F8/hqdefault.jpg&sk=HMuXdBN-1NeKGlTUM3hxq13WLNvMBtP2C&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1&cr=US&avg_rating=4.95348837209&length_seconds=602&allow_ratings=1&title=CNN%209/11/01%20-%20World%20Trade%20Center%20Part%202

and obviously it debunks that ridiculous september clueless video you posted.
Seriously, I can't believe you have even watched what you posted, as it's a 7 min journey in comical confusion and surely you yourself are not as confused about NPT as the creator of that vid?

I posted it because that is how the majority of people see it without access to most knowledge. I have watched too much footage about the related. I know its like watching a juvenile sitcom guy tear the footage apart, but I think that his analysis will benefit how information is presented. I don't know Simon Shack. I don't care to get to know him, but I do care that the quality of the chosen footage and editing excludes footage for context without telling the viewer. It is important to show specifically how the footage is related. Maybe he didn't know about the blurred copies, but that doesn't make for hubris. I will say that the similarity of shadows do not prove a negative, but that the other angles prove a positive.

[bryan]

CNN's video of the plane shows the plane's wing, but this does not compute? Why shouldn't CNN replay WYNW footage, when everyone in the news watched the 2nd plane hit live from multiple angles and networks? Also, when the dubious footage of Clueless does not exactly show what Simon "Says" is a nose of an airplane is no reason to claim it is one. I can do the same thing blurring a black circle and a bottle cap. The video Shack uses is the lowest quality for unethical methods of misinformation, not to mention edited. This video of the WYNW footage is not shot from a helicopter imho...but there could also be reasons like picture stabilization for replay in the CNN studio.

I think you've just about exhausted all the possible diversions now, so can we get back to your claim that the two pieces of footage are not the same.


If you run the videos side by side with the audio, you can see the footage from live and clueless are not identical.


Like I said in post #10, there's a good quality archive of the clip we're talking about:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive_-_CNN_1st_reports.html

It's in the second segment of the CNN first reports, which starts at 08:59am. If you stop playback at [9:44], you can line it up with the clip from September Clues starting at [8:35] and play them both together. (This is easier if you download at least one of them).

9/11 September Clues Complete (AUG.2008) Part 1/10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tyQeSop2gU&feature=related)

So let's hear it. How are they different?



I think its odd that all reputable forums have kicked you all out of their discussions.


I was just wondering how you judge whether a forum is reputable or not. What criteria do you use?



Your points are mostly irrelevant to these issues.


You're fairly new here, aren't you? :)

Don't expect to get any straight answers to your questions, or you'll just get frustrated and downhearted. Keep in mind that there are honest people reading these forums and every time a question is dodged, a few more people will know who are the ones trying to find answers and who are the ones trying to stop them.

[mynameis]

Are you certain? I don't think it will play for me or it is slow, but the video in the SClues has a time of 9:09a, yet your link sends me to 10:28a. So is that the correct link? Forums that I find reputable are those who actually care about truth instead of specious and speculative arguments that employ cognitive dissonance.

Your link.


Like I said in post #10, there's a good quality archive of the clip we're talking about:

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive_-_CNN_1st_reports.html

[abababba]

Are you certain? I don't think it will play for me or it is slow, but the video in the SClues has a time of 9:09a, yet your link sends me to 10:28a. So is that the correct link? Forums that I find reputable are those who actually care about truth instead of specious and speculative arguments that employ cognitive dissonance.

Your link.

I followed Bryan's link earlier and watched the video in the archive. The time on the CNN clock at the time the clip was shown was 9:09 as you claim. If you go to that time, you will see the replay of chopper 5.

[bryan]

Forums that I find reputable are those who actually care about truth instead of specious and speculative arguments that employ cognitive dissonance.


All reputable forums have kicked the no-planers out.

Only the forums that have kicked the no-planers out are reputable.

So which is the chicken, and which is the egg?

[killtown]

The evidence doesn't match. I can blur a black circle and a bottle cap and get the same precision match. This is why the two figures do not match in the video, besides the already obvious compression problems put deliberately into the clueless and the change of video size.
Aw, Simon Shack "doctored" it, aye? Is that going to be your rebuttal to every time Simon Shack proves TV fakery?

[mynameis]

Aw, Simon Shack "doctored" it, aye? Is that going to be your rebuttal to every time Simon Shack proves TV fakery?

His precision match claim is bull. It is even comparable to the shadow of what looked like a guy with a rifle in the bush in Dallas. Shack deliberately used a poor resolution copy of video for a blurry shadow as evidence of no planes, alright.

Like him, I could say that the poor quality resolution of an explosion is evidence that the shadow looks like a flying couch or a desk was thrown out of the building at that angle. The couch and desk is hidden behind all those poor quality resolution pixels n the video n stuff, you can't see, but its there. I precision matched a couch and a desk, and based on the p shapes alone that are equal it was a couch or a desk.

How is the statement above any different than using a deliberate poor resolution quality video of a shadow and the imagination of the weak-minded to pass that off as evidence.

[abababba]

His precision match claim is bull.

This precision match claim is actually removed from the August 2008 version of September Clues, I think because people including no planers claimed that it wasn't correct. Now he just puts the two noses together and says "this is what we get."

[abababba]

If CNN replayed chopper 5 in the manner described, can you think of an explanation for it besides fake planes?
Yes, No.



Its clear that mynameis hasn't been willing to provide an explanation to this question. Is anyone else willing to give it a try?

Honestly, we are just getting sidelined from the important issue that this thread was supposed to discuss.

[bryan]

I still don't think there is any way to understand the fact that CNN replayed a video that we know had a plane in it, but chose to not show the plane. It's one of the key smoking guns for no plane theory. People can come up with rationalizations of many other things that satisfy themselves (including "that makes sense but I'm not an expert"), but I have heard no reasonable story to explain this.

Its clear that mynameis hasn't been willing to provide an explanation to this question. Is anyone else willing to give it a try?


My view on this is that anybody who thinks there was something to hide in the nose out clip would assume that CNN covered it up on purpose, whereas nose-out deniers would say it was nothing more than a cock-up resulting from the chaos and confusion in the newsroom that day.

There are arguments for either side. On the one hand, the logo is the norm on CNN and there'd have to be a decision to remove it so the plane would be visible, which is something that could be overlooked in the heat of the moment. On the other hand, starting at [6:55] in the archive clip, they do remove the logo a couple of times when they replay the Chopper 7 footage of the same plane. The logo flashes on and off a couple of times and seems to come back on at critical moments, which would be suspicious to the sceptics. Then again it probably looks random enough to be accepted by the more trusting types.

I think the nose out itself is a bigger smoking gun and one that might sway people who are sitting on the fence. Of the three competing explanations doing the rounds, two of them are laughable, and the planehuggers can't seem to decide which one is the least ridiculous. It's exactly the same with the fade to black. There are several such anomalies which NPT can explain with ease, but RPT can't even begin to address without tying itself in knots.



Like him, I could say that the poor quality resolution of an explosion is evidence that the shadow looks like a flying couch or a desk was thrown out of the building at that angle.

It doesn't look like a couch or a desk, though. It looks like the pointed thing that disappeared behind the towers shortly before the explosion.


I don't think it will play for me or it is slow, but the video in the SClues has a time of 9:09a, yet your link sends me to 10:28a. So is that the correct link?

Has it played for you yet?

[mynameis]

If CNN replayed chopper 5 in the manner described, can you think of an explanation for it besides fake planes?

You should really ask CNN. If I were speculating like no planers that would be making conjectures. I think CNN broadcast clips on their live coverage from other network affiliates. Most networks also run news tickers during broadcasts, so I don't follow the line of inquiry you have presented.

[bryan]

You should really ask CNN.

Yeah, and if anybody's suspicious about why George Bush carried on reading My Pet Goat while America was under attack, just ask White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

[mynameis]

Has it played for you yet?

It only sits at the screen like its trying to load. :(

It could be because I will not upgrade my adobe flash.

[mynameis]

Yeah, and if anybody's suspicious about why George Bush carried on reading My Pet Goat while America was under attack, just ask White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card.

Yep. Caught with his breeches reading it upside down.

[abababba]

My view on this is that anybody who thinks there was something to hide in the nose out clip would assume that CNN covered it up on purpose, whereas nose-out deniers would say it was nothing more than a cock-up resulting from the chaos and confusion in the newsroom that day.



The cock-up story doesn't explain why immediately after the nose out is over, they pan down and show the whole explosion where the plane would have been. I guess the theory is that the cock up ended at exactly the right time to miss nose out?

[killtown]

1) His precision match claim is bull.

2) How is the statement above any different than using a deliberate poor resolution quality video of a shadow and the imagination of the weak-minded to pass that off as evidence.
1) what do you think he meant by his coinced term "micro-precision" match? (Note you left out the "micro" part.)

2) The resolution is good enough to see that at least one of the frames of the "nose out" is a near-perfect match of one of the "nose in" frames:

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/5396/nosedoutjh8.gif

Or is that near-prefect match just a "coincidence"?

[bryan]

The cock-up story doesn't explain why immediately after the nose out is over, they pan down and show the whole explosion where the plane would have been. I guess the theory is that the cock up ended at exactly the right time to miss nose out?

The pan down is in the FOX clip, so it's nothing to do with CNN. It must be from Chopper 5 itself.

[bryan]

Abababba, have you seen the manoeuvre that Chopper 7 did just before the second plane appeared? I explained it in another thread:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51550 (post #4)

Chopper 7 had been filming from the north west, but then shot over to the south side and had a look at the area where the plane would hit, then it went back to its original spot just in time to film the plane. All that happened in the space of just over 3 minutes and the chopper was 4 or 5 miles away from the WTC.

[abababba]

The pan down is in the FOX clip, so it's nothing to do with CNN. It must be from Chopper 5 itself.

I agree, thanks for pointing that out.

[abababba]

Abababba, have you seen the manoeuvre that Chopper 7 did just before the second plane appeared? I explained it in another thread:



Yes, this also seems very unlikely to happen if their was no foreknowledge of the coming explosion.

But then again, this could just be another weird coincidence. I guess that's why its better to rely on the physical evidence like nose out and the various ghost plane videos.

And eye witnesses of course are valuable, but many of the eye witnesses fail to hold up after further inspection as far as I can tell.

Does anyone know if there is a good written explanation of the physics behind why nose out is not possible? I was discussing this with someone who argued that if the nose traveled through a window instead of a steel beam, and then through a series of offices and out another window, that it would be physically possible to see nose out.

I think this is ridiculous for several reasons, but can someone explain the physics for why its ridiculous?

[stannrodd]

The WTC towers windows were 19 inches wide .. that's 1 foot 7 inches or 482.6 mm.

How big is a 767 nose ??

Stann

[abababba]

The WTC towers windows were 19 inches wide .. that's 1 foot 7 inches or 482.6 mm.

Stann

Do you mean from steel to steel is 19 inches, that seems small, but if true would definitely rule the argument out. Where did the 19 inch number come from?

[stannrodd]

Here's a photo taken in the restaurant. The upright columns are the perimeter columns. Not sure if 19 " is totally correct because it has been variously quoted as being as little as 18" to as much as 22 inches from steel to steel, but as you can see the windows were quite narrow.

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj16/stannrodd/WTCwindows.jpg

Stann

[bryan]

And I told you those video links you posted cannot play on my side

The link was to a better quality archive, which would help your argument. If you feel you don't need any help, just use the links you posted yourself:


September Clues, skip to [8:35]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tyQeSop2gU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tyQeSop2gU


CNN Archive, skip to [9;50]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI8uUJNc1F8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI8uUJNc1F8


Don't forget what you have to prove if you want to be accepted as an adult in the real world.

the archive footage shows the September Clueless has been tampered videos of live footage. If you run the videos side by side with the audio, you can see the footage from live and clueless are not identical.

Please provide reference points in minutes and seconds.



What do you mean by "get McAlpines to dig a hole?"


Just in case you need some place to crawl into.

[mynameis]

Don't forget what you have to prove if you want to be accepted as an adult in the real world.



Please provide reference points in minutes and seconds.




Just in case you need some place to crawl into.


I don't need to, this is accepted version of the truth explained without the 50 cent spin on the actual evidence. Perhaps you'll remember post #340.

If these two images do not match then the hypothesis that this is a graphic insert of a plane falls
apart. A graphic insert of a plane is not actually colliding with the Tower, thus its nose would
remain as basically the same shape should it accidentally emerge from the other side of the
building. The shape in the ‘nose out’ picture is not the same as the shape in the ‘nose in’ picture,
therefore the theory that this is a graphic insert has been proven false.
When anti-aliasing is used to ‘smooth’ the information between enlarged pixels, many unlike
objects can be made to appear similar. Anti-aliasing was not used in the enlargements above,
which were taken from a better copy of the ‘Chopper 5’ video than the one analysed by
“September Clues”.
It is important to note that the maker of “September Clues” made these two different
pictures match:

*note pictures inside*


To somehow make two images which do not match into a “micro
a deliberate act of deception by the maker of “September Clues”.
guilty of manipulating and interfering with the evidence.


http://twilightpines.com/images/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf
http://davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=855871&postcount=340

[bryan]

I don't need to, this is accepted version of the truth explained without the 50 cent spin on the actual evidence. Perhaps you'll remember post #340.

http://twilightpines.com/images/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf
http://davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=855871&postcount=340

I've read the paper and it doesn't say the CNN footage in September Clues is different from the CNN footage in the archives. It only says Simon Shack put anti-aliasing on the zoomed-in images of the nose out to compare them to images of the nose in. That's a different claim to the one you made.

You seem to be the only one claiming the CNN footage has been doctored, so no more posting links to imaginary proof of your claims. You're on your own in the big world now. :eek:

[mynameis]

I've read the paper and it doesn't say the CNN footage in September Clues is different from the CNN footage in the archives. It only says Simon Shack put anti-aliasing on the zoomed-in images of the nose out to compare them to images of the nose in. That's a different claim to the one you made.

You seem to be the only one claiming the CNN footage has been doctored, so no more posting links to imaginary proof of your claims. You're on your own in the big world now. :eek:

Dur. That would make it doctored. That would make it different than the CNN footage.That is doctoring the video and misrepresenting the event.

[matrix911]

Dur. That would make it doctored. That would make it different than the CNN footage.That is doctoring the video and misrepresenting the event.

as bryan said....


That's a different claim to the one you made.
You seem to be the only one claiming the CNN footage has been doctored



using the same circular false semantic logic to argue with and worm your way out of the hole you've fallen into.

its quite pathetic really.

[bryan]

Dur. That would make it doctored. That would make it different than the CNN footage.That is doctoring the video and misrepresenting the event.

You started talking about the anti-aliasing after you realized you couldn't back up your original claim that the CNN footage was doctored in September Clues. Unfortunately your syntax is so bad that it's impossible to decipher the exact meaning of any of your posts. Like I've said before, I believe you do it intentionally to hide the fact that you have nothing of any substance to say.


In the two quotes below, you're claiming that the time stamp is proof that September Clues is doctored.

The Copper 5 video is not a replay on CNN in the September Clueless movie. A reply is not live and therefore did not happen in context of the events of September 11. It's like taking a copy of anything recorded or written and editing the thing to make it look as though it is legitimate, when in fact it is doctored. If this were a replay 9:02a would not be at the bottom right corner of the film only the fool who produced the film is brainwashing you.

There is no replay footage from a live simulcast unless the CNN folk are in an alternate reality and the clock on the video isn't a live broadcast from 9:02a.


In the following quote, you're implying that it's the audio that proves September Clues was doctored.


If you run the videos side by side with the audio, you can see the footage from live and clueless are not identical.



These allegations have nothing to do with anti-aliasing or the nose out itself, and they are not addressed in the pdf you linked to.

It's not too late to apologize. We all make mistakes. :)

[mynameis]

You started talking about the anti-aliasing after you realized you couldn't back up your original claim that the CNN footage was doctored in September Clues. Unfortunately your syntax is so bad that it's impossible to decipher the exact meaning of any of your posts. Like I've said before, I believe you do it intentionally to hide the fact that you have nothing of any substance to say.


In the two quotes below, you're claiming that the time stamp is proof that September Clues is doctored.






In the following quote, you're implying that it's the audio that proves September Clues was doctored.




These allegations have nothing to do with anti-aliasing or the nose out itself, and they are not addressed in the pdf you linked to.

It's not too late to apologize. We all make mistakes. :)

You were talking about a different section initially than I was. Then I started looking at the other footage that was also doctored. If you want to state that there was no clear indication of what section of the footage was posted, when they both, if not all, show evidence of doctoring by that same charlatan. Making something appear to happen that didn't happen is a false misrepresentation of events, but that's all fake video is for imaginary planer nonsense.

[bryan]

You were talking about a different section initially than I was. Then I started looking at the other footage that was also doctored.

In other words, because you went to the wrong place in the video, you couldn't follow the thread, so you assumed that September Clues was doctored and on the basis of that assumption you accused Simon Shack of being a charlatan and an agent provocateur. When you were rumbled, you tried to cover your tracks by introducing the question of the anti-aliasing as a red herring.


But how did you get confused in the first place? It was clear in the OP where the relevant part of the clip was.


The only clip I could find of the CNN replay is in September Clues at the 8:35 mark of the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tyQeSop2gU&feature=related


It was also clear what questions were being asked about the CNN footage.


First, does everyone agree this is a replay of the chopper 5 footage (shown earlier in the video)?

Second, what possible reason could there be to show only the part of the explosion above the plane impact until the nose out portion of the video was done and then show the whole explosion?


Maybe you confused yourself by trying to divert the thread from the subject of the CNN replay to a discussion of the nose out and the fade to black, which you did as early as the second post.

It's not an airplane, it's a jet of the explosion from the plane. The video cuts out because A.) The cameras are too sensitive for the light to adjust B.) The television tower at the top of the WTC has a loss of reception during the impact.

It's curious that now I've started a thread to discuss the nose out and the fade to black, you're not interested in the subject any more.

[matrix911]

You were talking about a different section initially than I was. Then I started looking at the other footage that was also doctored. If you want to state that there was no clear indication of what section of the footage was posted, when they both, if not all, show evidence of doctoring by that same charlatan. Making something appear to happen that didn't happen is a false misrepresentation of events, but that's all fake video is for imaginary planer nonsense.


did i say your ill-conceived logic, denial and baseless assertions were pathetic?

its actually beyond sickening.

bryan, seriously... I think its more than obvious attempting rational, logical or reasonable debate and intelligent discourse with MNI is a complete waste of bandwidth and time. At this point, the only purpose it seems to serve is comic relief and amusement. How can any serious objective or scholarly debate ever occur with someone thats in this much denial and who's basically STILL for all intents and purposes, defending murderers and perpetuating the OCT LIE under the guise of "skepticism?

There's alot more being revealed by SC than just NPT.

MNI is making some pretty serious charges against SC and its pretty obvious she can't support whats being asserted by anything other than her OPINION... as are most of what the oct minions claim.

its getting tiresome really.

[mynameis]

did i say your ill-conceived logic, denial and baseless assertions were pathetic?

its actually beyond sickening.

its getting tiresome really.

Funny, this is NPT in a nutshell. The original poster asks about CNN footage and the black cut outs from the live video that are in both clips. What is one supposed to think from the original questions posed when both CNN videos show a cut out? From the first shot at 0:58 and the chopper 5 bullcrap at 8:38 that is also doctored? When there are two clips of CNN that are shown in the original posts clip, both are still doctored irregardless of the ill conceived notions of that nutter's false video manufacture.

From my answering the questioner or considering their a mistake by themselves or the questioner, the majority of cartoon huggers or loony tooners, have decided that defending a person who is misrepresenting the event as they happened live is acceptable and honest. The crooked retouching is called tampering with the evidence.

NPT should be glad that this charlatan or agent provocateur isn't asking you to do something criminally worse than watch a film, because I can't want to imagine what a terrorist could get you all to believe. It's laughable at this point how imaginary plane huggers will try and lap up anything that suits their meme and believe it works in their favor when they are being pied pipered too.

First, does everyone agree this is a replay of the chopper 5 footage (shown earlier in the video)?

Second, what possible reason could there be to show only the part of the explosion above the plane impact until the nose out portion of the video was done and then show the whole explosion?

As you can see there is no clear indication of what chopper 5 is, nor is any time given in the question. Second when he says chopper 5, I'm looking for two things one CNN, two the station's FCC lettering, three the time code on the film itself, fourth all other smaller indicators to match with the archive footage. All these go into establishing a fixed channel and a fixed time for the broadcast. The first post by calling this footage CNN replay of chopper 5 is the first mistake in a long chain of mistakes, but hey that's what NPT is "cartoon fantasy" that makes humor out of a serious situation of the dead at the expense of the victims families.

[bryan]

The original poster asks about CNN footage and the black cut outs from the live video that are in both clips.


The original poster doesn't mention the blackouts. His two questions couldn't be clearer.


First, does everyone agree this is a replay of the chopper 5 footage (shown earlier in the video)?

Second, what possible reason could there be to show only the part of the explosion above the plane impact until the nose out portion of the video was done and then show the whole explosion?


You tried to answer the first one and got it wrong. Now see if you can do any better with the second one.



As you can see there is no clear indication of what chopper 5 is, nor is any time given in the question.


What problem do you have understanding the number 8:35?


The only clip I could find of the CNN replay is in September Clues at the 8:35 mark of the following video:


Do you prefer Roman numerals?



The first post by calling this footage CNN replay of chopper 5 is the first mistake in a long chain of mistakes


The first mistake in this thread was not reporting post #2 as spam.

[mynameis]

Second, what possible reason could there be to show only the part of the explosion above the plane impact until the nose out portion of the video was done and then show the whole explosion?

Why do you waste everyone's time bryan? It is clearly shown that there are two CNN videos and two blackouts in the video posted by original poster. You need to get your eyes examined if you can't see properly.

[coco]

I saw the second plane hit on live TV in a manager's office on his small, portable black and white TV. No black outs, no blips, no loss of transmission.

I saw a large jet fly right into the other building.

[bryan]

Why do you waste everyone's time bryan?


If you call addressing both questions in the OP a waste of time, then I'm a timewaster.

If you call answering one question incorrectly, ignoring the other, and introducing several red herrings a good use of people's time, then you're the most efficient user of time I've ever had the misfortune to meet.



It is clearly shown that there are two CNN videos and two blackouts in the video posted by original poster. You need to get your eyes examined if you can't see properly.

Any more diversions?


I saw the second plane hit on live TV in a manager's office on his small, portable black and white TV. No black outs, no blips, no loss of transmission.

I saw a large jet fly right into the other building.

Does this have any relevance to the thread? For example, were you watching CNN, or FOX?

[coco]

Since it was a battery operated TV it must have been on a local channel getting a feed from a national one but I'm afraid I don't recall if it was CBS, NBC, etc.

I feel my post has at least a modicum of relevence as the issue seems to be about the temporary blackout the video shows when the second plane hit. I stated I saw no transmission interruptions.

In reference to people saying they heard an explosion on the first tower. I easily believe that. They were carrying on about their everyday lives and not looking up in the sky for killer building crashing planes. I would have described the incident noting a terrible explosion too.

I do believe the buildings were laced with explosives and taken down intentionally but as far as the first plane hitting, people were caught off guard and yes, heard an explosion as a jet crashed into the building.

I heard a minor explosion three years ago, ran to the window and then saw a truck had hit my oak tree head on. Can't believe the guy was able to get out on his own despite being instructed to stay put until the ambulance arrived, he was delirious from the accident. The truck was pretty much demolished.

Have a nice day to you as well.

[matrix911]

Since it was a battery operated TV it must have been on a local channel getting a feed from a national one but I'm afraid I don't recall if it was CBS, NBC, etc.

I feel my post has at least a modicum of relevence as the issue seems to be about the temporary blackout the video shows when the second plane hit. I stated I saw no transmission interruptions.


do you have any supporting and corroborated evidence for what you're claiming?

SC clearly states the footage they're using is un-cut and taken from the official original broadcast from each of the respective MSM... a claim that CAN be verified and proven.

MNI has the BALLS (or i suspect ovaries) to assert that SC doctored it.... but of course has no evidence whatsoever proving that and never will. why? because the TRUTH is on SC side and everything they CLAIM is supported by the facts and verfiable evidence. Anyone that claims what
MNI has, will in the end, be exposed for a FOOL and making wild assertions based on nothing more than opinion and speculation. Anyone doing serious objective research using common sense, will find SC is based on FACT and can back up what they claim.

MNI, STANNrod and the rest of those defending the murderers, will always lose the argument.

so you can CLAIM all you want you SAW this or that... but until you can offer more evidence to support your CLAIM, thats all it is... a claim that proves or disproves nothing... so it serves no purpose whatsoever in this situation to give your personal account considering EVIDENCE exists that CAN BE verified, corroborated and analyzed which contradicts what YOU claim.

I was in the control room of CNN on 911 and witnessed with my own eyes how they faked the LIVE FEED and used a cgi plane to cover up the drone!

So don't tell me you saw something you didn't... I WAS THERE! I SAW IT! THEY FAKED IT! so there!


In reference to people saying they heard an explosion on the first tower. I easily believe that. They were carrying on about their everyday lives and not looking up in the sky for killer building crashing planes. I would have described the incident noting a terrible explosion too.


Well there you have it folks... you certainly put any doubt about what REALLY happened and what people heard...

Wow... now i guess i gotta take your word for it... Yes sireee! well bryan, its time to pack it up... we were all wrong. COCO says people heard the first plane... no need to question 911 anymore. No doubt about it... flight 11 and 175 hit the towers... thank goodness the hi jackers passports escaped the burning plane and tower infernos or we'd never have enough evidence that they were muslim finatics with box cutters.

our gov would never do something like this to their own people... There was no need to make up an excuse to attack iraq or create a war on terror. The people wouldve supported it anyways. :rolleyes:


I do believe the buildings were laced with explosives and taken down intentionally but as far as the first plane hitting, people were caught off guard and yes, heard an explosion as a jet crashed into the building.


yep, no doubt about it... no one but the naudet brothers saw anything or were even looking up, but EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS A JET! YUP! couldn't have been anything else but flight 11 and 175.

whew! glad we've finally solved that mystery. :rolleyes:


I heard a minor explosion three years ago, ran to the window and then saw a truck had hit my oak tree head on. Can't believe the guy was able to get out on his own despite being instructed to stay put until the ambulance arrived, he was delirious from the accident. The truck was pretty much demolished.

well gee, u sure cleared that all up :rolleyes:

that last paragraph about your truck experience is truly bizarre and i'm trying to figure out what it has to do with anything we're talking about regarding
911, let alone the relationship or connection to a 767 crashing into steel column skyscrapers.

was there any particular reason you decided to enter this thread and grace us with your infinite wisdom?

[matrix911]

I saw the second plane hit on live TV in a manager's office on his small, portable black and white TV. No black outs, no blips, no loss of transmission.

I saw a large jet fly right into the other building.

and I was in the control room of CNN and watched them manipulate the live feed in real time... it was amazing... but i'm like WTF... why you guys doing this? someones gonna notice dude! and then right when i said that, they messed up and they tried to cover up the second missle. The chief operator, i think his name was Barry.,,, got really pissed off and fired Joe. It was pretty sad... Joe had been an employee and worked for Larry King for almost 10 years.

lol

[matrix911]

yep...post #2... this has to be my favorite in this thread... efin classic.

It's not an airplane, it's a jet of the explosion from the plane. The video cuts out because A.) The cameras are too sensitive for the light to adjust B.) The television tower at the top of the WTC has a loss of reception during the impact. This is a video still of the 2nd hit from two different angles paused at the same time.
http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p177/chrisfarb/plane.jpg

Never have i seen this bizarre level of denial and commentary and excuses.

you can't make this shit up. seriously. The sad thing is I really think MNI believes what she's saying.

I especially love the bit about how the black-out was due to the cameras being too sensitive to light. ROTFLMFAO!

Even funnier is her excuse about reception... yeah, they just happened to lose reception right at point of impact and then everythings fine... never is there any such loss of reception in any other 911 footage.

for MNI to even use that CARD, proves to me all i need to know about her state of denial.

[bryan]

Since it was a battery operated TV it must have been on a local channel getting a feed from a national one but I'm afraid I don't recall if it was CBS, NBC, etc.

I feel my post has at least a modicum of relevence as the issue seems to be about the temporary blackout the video shows when the second plane hit. I stated I saw no transmission interruptions.

There were two different blackouts - one on FOX, the other on WABC. CNN were relaying the WABC broadcast at the time, so the same blackout was seen on CNN as well.

To complicate matters, the WABC blackout happened during the same Chopper 7 feed that went all over the world with no glitches, which is proof that the blackout was not caused by a camera malfunction or an interruption of the signal between the chopper and the studio.


On a related subject, it looks like the archives have been pulled again.


This site has been suspended


http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive.html


So the real-planers can breathe another (hopefully short-lived) sigh of relief.

[dave52]

The cameras are too sensitive for the light to adjust

I've seen this excuse used to explain why you can't see the plane initially in the wide, zoomed out shot. Rediculous.

I've even had people try to tell me that the missing frames in the Naudet second hit and the Bob and Bri footage is down to cameras not being able to handle the shock wave of the impacts or the conversion from NTSC to PAL.

This is all straw clutching to cover the inconsistancies in the video record. Whatever your view on planes/no planes, it is clear that the videos have been tampered with and faked.

[coco]

Easy, Matrix.

I don't doubt your word that you were in the control room even thought I wasn't there to see you in the control room just as much as you weren't where I was on that day.

I was merely making a statement about what I saw. Do I have proof or facts? None now, sir. All I could have told you then is what I say now, there was just me and some other witnesses looking at the TV.

That was my statement. It is difficult to determine tone in this medium, perhaps you thought I was speaking in a snotty, know it all tone. I was not.

As far as folks going about their everyday lives not looking for a plane crash, I think that is reasonable. I used the car crash by my house story as an example in the point: I was not looking for a car to crash into the tree that afternoon and it did sound like a small explosion.

I appreciate you feel strongly about this. I was just giving my own account. Nothing more.

And P.S. I am not, and never will, support or defend the murderers responsible for that day or 7/7 or any other such event.

[coco]

Wow... now i guess i gotta take your word for it... Yes sireee! well bryan, its time to pack it up... we were all wrong. COCO says people heard the first plane... no need to question 911 anymore. No doubt about it... flight 11 and 175 hit the towers... thank goodness the hi jackers passports escaped the burning plane and tower infernos or we'd never have enough evidence that they were muslim finatics with box cutters.

our gov would never do something like this to their own people... There was no need to make up an excuse to attack iraq or create a war on terror. The people wouldve supported it anyways. :rolleyes:

Lol! You do assume you know what I think and don't think alot, don't you?

If what you passionately assert is true then I hope for the sake of the dead, their families, the world, and for the pure sake of truth that it comes to light one day. No, I'm not calling you a liar. Just saying be it the truth, may it see the light of day as truth should.