Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > 9/11 & 7/7

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 13-05-2009, 07:51 AM   #1
fanoftruth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 444
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default Undeniable evidence of TV fakery

Some time ago whilst sifting through a forum dedicated to the research of TV fakery and no-planes I came across a short piece which I was quite taken back by. If this below footage is varifiable as being completely untampered with (post airing date) then it contains for me the only 100% bit of undeniable evidence that fakery existed through the media on 9/11 which is why I am always suprised it doesn't recieve as much attention as it does ;



I'd love to get some other peoples' thoughts on this piece.
fanoftruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 08:48 AM   #2
matrix911
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanoftruth View Post
Some time ago whilst sifting through a forum dedicated to the research of TV fakery and no-planes I came across a short piece which I was quite taken back by. If this below footage is varifiable as being completely untampered with (post airing date) then it contains for me the only 100% bit of undeniable evidence that fakery existed through the media on 9/11 which is why I am always suprised it doesn't recieve as much attention as it does ;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkzfKRe0gbc


I'd love to get some other peoples' thoughts on this piece.
Yeah, I've seen that before. Another addition to the long list that convinced me long ago. ITS BEYOND OBVIOUS AND BLATANT. I always wonder how many have actually seen all the tons of examples of fakery that have been revealed. and I assume you've seen Sept clues?

But really, thats merely 1 of hundreds of examples of the fakery apart of the 911 footage that the MSM were complicit in.

And my position all along on the fakery issue is that if there's even one example such as the one you source above and are convinced by, then thats really all thats needed to prove fakery not to mention puts almost if not ALL the footage into question as most likely FAKE. If thats the case, then the assumption and claims of fakery, are more than reasonable.

Yet those in denial and/or who defend these murderers, will insist thats not proof of anything since theres no way to prove they're from the original broadcasts or somehow pixelization and compression obscure whats really going on... which btw, is an absurd claim in of itself.

The rest who are ignorant of the fakery, just haven't seen it yet or seen it properly. Once a person with half a brain cell takes time to examine this fakery, its beyond obvious and they'll begin to awaken and join the movement which will most often eventually lead them to understanding and embrace NRPT isn't as crazy or ridiculous as most claim.

Last edited by matrix911; 13-05-2009 at 08:52 AM.
matrix911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 09:03 AM   #3
fanoftruth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 444
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix911;986507**
et those in denial and/or who defend these murderers, will insist thats not proof of anything since theres no way to prove they're from the original broadcasts or somehow pixelization and compression obscure whats really going on... which btw, is an absurd claim in of itself.
The smoke anomolies in this footage are not down to pixelisation or compression. Not a chance. This is a special effect and that is an undeniable fact so if this video has indeed been lifted directly from what was broadcasted on the day then we have proof of media complicity. Not just evidence, but proof.

My train of thought would be ; the smoke was enhanced and digitally added to sell the fires to be far worse than they actually were in order to back up the explanation that fire was the main cause of the buildings' collapse.
fanoftruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 09:31 AM   #4
dave52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,141
Likes: 985 (411 Posts)
Default

Unfortunately the nay-sayers will immediately suggest that this footage is not tv fakery, but has been manipulated by the nafarious NPT movement. I'm (still) hoping to get hold of some "as it happened" video from that morning so that I can independantly verify some of the footage.

Imho tv fakery on 9/11 is pretty much a given. Which, in turn verifies the inside job and the media complicity.
__________________
Dave.

www.DaveWare.co.uk
Are You Listening...?
dave52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 09:44 AM   #5
stannrodd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,301
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave52
I'm (still) hoping to get hold of some "as it happened" video from that morning so that I can independantly verify some of the footage.
Good thing to hope for .. and independently verify ..

Stann
stannrodd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 10:03 AM   #6
dave52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,141
Likes: 985 (411 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stannrodd View Post
Good thing to hope for .. and independently verify ..

Stann
Yes... that and world peace...
__________________
Dave.

www.DaveWare.co.uk
Are You Listening...?
dave52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 10:33 AM   #7
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

The archived version is here:

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

Second segment (09:02 - 09:12) at around 2m 35s into the clip, then repeated at 3m 34s.

I don't think the video is genuine. You can see a line where the sky changes colour.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dave52 View Post
I'm (still) hoping to get hold of some "as it happened" video from that morning so that I can independantly verify some of the footage.
I remember when you were promised that footage. I was tempted to say "don't hold your breath" and it's a good job you didn't!
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 10:49 AM   #8
thirdwave
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 22,597
Likes: 92 (77 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanoftruth View Post
Some time ago whilst sifting through a forum dedicated to the research of TV fakery and no-planes I came across a short piece which I was quite taken back by. If this below footage is varifiable as being completely untampered with (post airing date) then it contains for me the only 100% bit of undeniable evidence that fakery existed through the media on 9/11 which is why I am always suprised it doesn't recieve as much attention as it does ;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkzfKRe0gbc


I'd love to get some other peoples' thoughts on this piece.


Very interesting footage I must say...

though why would they need to enhance the smoke there?.. seems a little pointless...

though this footage is clearly doctored... its a case of by who... im not so sure I buy the theory that NP people done it them selves... are there any other versions of this footage?

I am quite surprised so many brush off the NP theory so passionately... although I have not gone deep into it all, so far I have been presented with nothing to rule it out... yet many very interesting videos which present the case..

The bottom line is who made the vids... if someone can get some genuine footage and prove its straight from the news reel.. then its game set and match....

though why would the news channels hand them over?
thirdwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 10:54 AM   #9
dave52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,141
Likes: 985 (411 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
The archived version is here:

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

Second segment (09:02 - 09:12) at around 2m 35s into the clip, then repeated at 3m 34s.
That is a strange clip. At 0:33 you see a dive bombing plane from directly above the towers just before the cut to the different shot. Then in that shot (a full 10 seconds later) at 0:43 you can just see the top of a plane coming in straight and from the right.

It just looks wack...



Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
I remember when you were promised that footage. I was tempted to say "don't hold your breath" and it's a good job you didn't!
LOL - yeah...
__________________
Dave.

www.DaveWare.co.uk
Are You Listening...?
dave52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 11:03 AM   #10
fanoftruth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 444
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Okay it would seem that, thanks to the link that bryan posted, the video I found 'smoke and mirrors' is doctored. Looking at the particular shots he has highlighted I see no resemblance to the smoke SFX that the film I posted claims to be exposing.

In which case ; is this proof that there are people out there purposfully tampering with footage in order to promote a TV fakery debate?
fanoftruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 11:15 AM   #11
thirdwave
Premier Subscribers
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 22,597
Likes: 92 (77 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan View Post
The archived version is here:

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

Second segment (09:02 - 09:12) at around 2m 35s into the clip, then repeated at 3m 34s.

I don't think the video is genuine. You can see a line where the sky changes colour.




I remember when you were promised that footage. I was tempted to say "don't hold your breath" and it's a good job you didn't!

link does not work for me..
thirdwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 07:44 PM   #12
matrix911
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,591
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanoftruth View Post
Okay it would seem that, thanks to the link that bryan posted, the video I found 'smoke and mirrors' is doctored. Looking at the particular shots he has highlighted I see no resemblance to the smoke SFX that the film I posted claims to be exposing.
Since we can't verify the S&M clip, or iow it could be from another stations footage, all it means is that its unverified. And as i said, thats only one clip/example amidst tons of others out there which are much better and clearly taken from the original sources... ie the naudet.

But not sure if anyone watched the full clip
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_...t_reports.html
and caught what the so-called "witness" says at 9:30. Its quite amazing since he (THE ONLY ONE EVER) claims to have seen (at 9:45) the 1st "plane" that CRASHED into the tower "FALL DOWN AND DISAPPEAR BEHIND THE BUILDING"

huh???

Now what in the hell is that supposed to mean?

Its that kind of IRRESPONSIBLE testimony that contributed to the disinformation and confusion which suggests an intentional deception if this testimony is to be taken seriously. This is the first time i've even heard this particular account and I don't see how its based in any possible reality of what really occurred just based on other witnesses who said nothing remotely like this guy who claims the PLANE FELL INTO THE STREETS BELOW....really! thats what this guy claims.

This is more PROOF showing the depth of the deception that was orchestrated and how witnesses (most connected to the media) DEDUCED an IMPACT while at the same time claiming to have ACTUALLY SEEN A PLANE which yet is another illogical accounting of what imo appears to be physically impossible and contradictory.

Listen to the next clip as he continues contradicting himself and makes no sense whatsoever. He gets lost in his own story as brian gumble questions him about whether he actually saw the 1st plane hit. He ends up claiming HE ASSUMED IT WAS A PLANE THAT CRASHED INTO THE TOWERS along with a bunch of other incoherent rambling and circular logic. Its actually dispicable since its these types of interviews that contribute to why we're all here debating what really happened or whether there were even real planes or not. The guys name is SNEIDER or something like that.

if anyone else can figure out what he's really saying or whether its logical, be my guest.

Last edited by matrix911; 13-05-2009 at 07:59 PM.
matrix911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 08:31 PM   #13
citroen999
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,194
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

dont want to wee wee on your bonfire but....

who took the footage? when was it took as there is no time stamp ?

could be fakery and could be deliberate fakery to create something that wasnt there originally....

need to be careful with stuff like this
__________________
I refuse to tiptoe quietly through life to safely arrive at death!!

There are 2 sides to every story and then there's the truth!!

If i left you alone in the woods with only a hatchet how long before you could send me an email?
citroen999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 10:18 PM   #14
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave52 View Post
That is a strange clip. At 0:33 you see a dive bombing plane from directly above the towers just before the cut to the different shot. Then in that shot (a full 10 seconds later) at 0:43 you can just see the top of a plane coming in straight and from the right.
It's hard to weigh it up. If that's what went out live, wtf was going on? On the other hand, if the footage was pieced together specially for the archives, to cover something up, how come they didn't do a better job?

I don't see how they can be the same plane OR the one in the 18Mb jpegs we've been looking at in another thread. Are the plane-believers going to say it's because of the different camera angles...?


Quote:
Originally Posted by fanoftruth View Post
In which case ; is this proof that there are people out there purposfully tampering with footage in order to promote a TV fakery debate?
Why would anybody promoting TV fakery do something so easy to debunk. I'd say it's either somebody having a laugh or trying to discredit TV fakery.
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2009, 10:55 PM   #15
dyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 149
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I wonder whether some of this footage might have been faked to sell to tv stations.
dyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2009, 06:09 AM   #16
fanoftruth
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 444
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Why would anybody promoting TV fakery do something so easy to debunk. - bryan

Who can say. There are many pieces out there which are easily brushed off as disingenuous. 'September Clues' and '911 Amateur' are two examples of films promoting a type of TV fakery and much of their content is easily explainable. It seems we can now add 'smoke and mirrors' to this list. This may be down to a lack of understanding on the film makers part, or a concious attempt to muddy the waters of research. 9/11 research is thwart with both misinformation and disinformation alike and we can only do our best to look at everything with an open yet critical mind. If you maintain a maturity in discussing topics then it is that much easier to accept having been wrong about something instead of having to adopt an aggresive stance to try and back up your wrongly proven claims. It seems the footage I presented was fraudulant which one one hand I am relieved about (as it takes away the implication of live media involvment for me) but leaves me wondering ever more exactly what you can actually trust to watch out there...
fanoftruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2009, 10:16 AM   #17
bryan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,098
Likes: 121 (70 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanoftruth View Post
Who can say. There are many pieces out there which are easily brushed off as disingenuous. 'September Clues' and '911 Amateur' are two examples of films promoting a type of TV fakery and much of their content is easily explainable. It seems we can now add 'smoke and mirrors' to this list. This may be down to a lack of understanding on the film makers part, or a concious attempt to muddy the waters of research. 9/11 research is thwart with both misinformation and disinformation alike and we can only do our best to look at everything with an open yet critical mind. If you maintain a maturity in discussing topics then it is that much easier to accept having been wrong about something instead of having to adopt an aggresive stance to try and back up your wrongly proven claims. It seems the footage I presented was fraudulant which one one hand I am relieved about (as it takes away the implication of live media involvment for me) but leaves me wondering ever more exactly what you can actually trust to watch out there...
There's a big difference between Smoke and Mirrors and September Clues.

Parts of September Clues have been debunked, but they were mistakes in the author's interpretation of what is happening in the videos. If you compare all the clips in September Clues to the originals, you'll find they haven't been altered, except maybe for contrast.

Smoke and Mirrors has been well and truly doctored!


Why is it that the real-planers always want to focus on youtube videos and totally ignore the archives? The official archived footage is the best evidence of fakery, and you only need to watch around 20 minutes of each channel, which is a couple of hours altogether.


As for the CBS footage, it does make SOME sense if the dive-bombing plane is meant to be a long way out from the towers. But the fact that the plane is there 10 seconds before the impact makes it even harder to explain how the CBS cameras managed to miss the live shot. There was plenty of time for the camera that was square to the towers to zoom out a bit. Then there's the question of why they sat on the shot of the impact for two minutes before rewinding it.

Another thing is, the plane's approach is nothing like the direction of the smoke trail, so there's no way it could have been in the smoke's shadow for any length of time.
bryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-05-2009, 11:20 AM   #18
john white
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,244
Likes: 166 (116 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fanoftruth View Post
Some time ago whilst sifting through a forum dedicated to the research of TV fakery and no-planes I came across a short piece which I was quite taken back by. If this below footage is varifiable as being completely untampered with (post airing date) then it contains for me the only 100% bit of undeniable evidence that fakery existed through the media on 9/11 which is why I am always suprised it doesn't recieve as much attention as it does ;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkzfKRe0gbc


I'd love to get some other peoples' thoughts on this piece.
Well congratulations are in order, after 5years of trying NPT researchers finally dig out some evidence of images being faked: because sure I can clearly see the digital magnification of the smoke and it is "fakery"

I'd also never seen that footage before... so the question is,why has more not been made of it? I think I might see why....

Firstly, is the footage fakable on a home PC type set-up? I would speculate that a simple piece of image manipulation like this certainly could be

But lets proceed on the assumption that this is exactly what NPT fans want it to be: broadcast footage shown on the day of 9/11

What the does the digitial manipulation of smoke tell us?

After all no-one in the NPT arena has ever, ever, claimed the towers did not suffer fire!

Note how the camera, possibly hand held due to minor shake in keeping with pulmonary motion, is essentially static from a fixed vantage point. This is not chopper footage, its being shot from a tall location with a view to the towers

If we consider everything left of the first "line" in the smoke to be re-constructed,what do we see? The towers crammed against the far left of the frame. What might have been in the left of the frame in the firstplace? The edge of another,far closer, building? A wall and window frame? Or perhaps the "line" represents the original left edge of the footage

One probable motive would therefore be to frame the towers more aesthetically into the shot: which I certainly dont approve of but I can see why MSM would want to improve a shot in that way

It doesn't tell us anything about everything to the RIGHT of the line... no manipulation is demonstrated there... and everything there is entirely consistent with every other piece of footage available, including all the amateur footage/stills

Perhaps this is why this footage has gained no mileage with major NPT advocates and has been found forgotten on a NPT forum somewhere

Of course, that's the situation even if this is MSM footage and not a bedroom cut job, in the other scenario the footage's relevance is even more diluted

So its a bit of a congratulations! But oh well..... situation
__________________
Free your Self and Free the World

https://www.facebook.com/john.white.50596013

Last edited by john white; 14-05-2009 at 11:25 AM.
john white is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2009, 10:09 PM   #19
john white
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,244
Likes: 166 (116 Posts)
Default

I must admit, I did think someone would have something to say?
__________________
Free your Self and Free the World

https://www.facebook.com/john.white.50596013
john white is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2009, 10:56 PM   #20
supersmell
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 173
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

We figured you should read the rest of the thread before we comment on your post.
supersmell is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:20 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.