Are These 9/11 Videos Real or Fake?

[CB_Brooklyn]

Regarding a Plane Crash into the South Tower on 9/11


First, let's take the videoclips here: http://www.911researchers.com/node/98

I'd have to say there's something very odd about the 9/11 clips. What do others think?


But what about this video? It seems even more revealing of who might have been behind 9/11: http://www.livevideo.com/video/landing/39F...edia-perps.aspx (http://www.livevideo.com/video/landing/39FF29F532DC4ED194560D144BA0FC71/911-octopus-8-unmasking-the-media-perps.aspx)



What has become of the corporate media??

[RNK]

**SPOILER WARNING**

I checked out the second video (the one from livevideo). I've found a "hole"...

During the first scene, the video attempts to show that a helicopter-born camera shows no plane hitting the WTC while a stationary ground-born camera sees a plane, and suggests it is because it's easier to copy & paste a plane into the image from the stationary camera.

However, after looking at the video repeatedly I can see the plane in the helicopter-born camera. It's very faint. If you look over the city across the river to the right of the WTCs you'll see what looks like a "blur" moving towards the bottom-left of the camera (towards the WTC). A couple of seconds after this "blur" disappears behind the WTC, the explosion occurs.

I don't know why it looks like a "blur". It may be due to the shoddy video footage. Or the shoddy look may be an attempt of the creators to cover up their attempt to remove the plane using graphics editors. Either way, I can clearly see the fuckin' thing. Like I said, either the creators of this "documentary" suck, or they're lying themselves. Either way, it's obviously not a documentary that should be taken seriously.

[Ihavenoidea]

Urban Legend:
While this picture (shown to the right) looks like it could be doctored, there is also a CNN video that shows the same face.



http://www.glennbeck.com/hots/devilface2.jpg

TRUE
This is a real photo taken from footage aired by CNN. You can follow this link *LINK IS AUTO-MEDIA.. *

http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/2nd...its.cnn.med.asx (http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2001/09/12/2nd.plane.hits.cnn.med.asx)


to see the video for yourself. The face can be seen between 24-26 Seconds. As with all images of this type, you'll see what you want to see. And while the tail and staff might be a bit much it doesn't take much of an imagination to see the face.

[welshred]

Perhaps it was the devil all along!!!

[CB_Brooklyn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 06:16 am
**SPOILER WARNING**

I checked out the second video (the one from livevideo). I've found a "hole"...

During the first scene, the video attempts to show that a helicopter-born camera shows no plane hitting the WTC while a stationary ground-born camera sees a plane, and suggests it is because it's easier to copy & paste a plane into the image from the stationary camera.

However, after looking at the video repeatedly I can see the plane in the helicopter-born camera. It's very faint. If you look over the city across the river to the right of the WTCs you'll see what looks like a "blur" moving towards the bottom-left of the camera (towards the WTC). A couple of seconds after this "blur" disappears behind the WTC, the explosion occurs.

I don't know why it looks like a "blur". It may be due to the shoddy video footage. Or the shoddy look may be an attempt of the creators to cover up their attempt to remove the plane using graphics editors. Either way, I can clearly see the fuckin' thing. Like I said, either the creators of this "documentary" suck, or they're lying themselves. Either way, it's obviously not a documentary that should be taken seriously.
Well, the NBC news anchors certainly didn't see it. And it looks quite smaller than in the other channels, don't you think?

[Tower of Bebel]

You can also see a teddybear and a joker, fantasy is all you need.

[Pawn Power]

Satan is always so Machiavellian!

[RNK]

Originally posted by CB_Brooklyn+March 27, 2007 09:07 am--> (CB_Brooklyn @ March 27, 2007 09:07 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 06:16 am
**SPOILER WARNING**

I checked out the second video (the one from livevideo). I've found a "hole"...

During the first scene, the video attempts to show that a helicopter-born camera shows no plane hitting the WTC while a stationary ground-born camera sees a plane, and suggests it is because it's easier to copy & paste a plane into the image from the stationary camera.

However, after looking at the video repeatedly I can see the plane in the helicopter-born camera. It's very faint. If you look over the city across the river to the right of the WTCs you'll see what looks like a "blur" moving towards the bottom-left of the camera (towards the WTC). A couple of seconds after this "blur" disappears behind the WTC, the explosion occurs.

I don't know why it looks like a "blur". It may be due to the shoddy video footage. Or the shoddy look may be an attempt of the creators to cover up their attempt to remove the plane using graphics editors. Either way, I can clearly see the fuckin' thing. Like I said, either the creators of this "documentary" suck, or they're lying themselves. Either way, it's obviously not a documentary that should be taken seriously.
Well, the NBC news anchors certainly didn't see it. And it looks quite smaller than in the other channels, don't you think? [/b]
Actually, it almost looks as if the camera starts to pan towards the plane, and then stops when the plane goes out of view. Then the explosion.

As for it "looking small", it's mainly because it's "camoflaged" with the rest of the city (particularly because of the digital degredation). That, or like I said, it's been doctored to try and make the plane disappear.

[CB_Brooklyn]

Originally posted by RNK+March 27, 2007 08:40 pm--> (RNK @ March 27, 2007 08:40 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 09:07 am

[email protected] 26, 2007 06:16 am
**SPOILER WARNING**

I checked out the second video (the one from livevideo). I've found a "hole"...

During the first scene, the video attempts to show that a helicopter-born camera shows no plane hitting the WTC while a stationary ground-born camera sees a plane, and suggests it is because it's easier to copy & paste a plane into the image from the stationary camera.

However, after looking at the video repeatedly I can see the plane in the helicopter-born camera. It's very faint. If you look over the city across the river to the right of the WTCs you'll see what looks like a "blur" moving towards the bottom-left of the camera (towards the WTC). A couple of seconds after this "blur" disappears behind the WTC, the explosion occurs.

I don't know why it looks like a "blur". It may be due to the shoddy video footage. Or the shoddy look may be an attempt of the creators to cover up their attempt to remove the plane using graphics editors. Either way, I can clearly see the fuckin' thing. Like I said, either the creators of this "documentary" suck, or they're lying themselves. Either way, it's obviously not a documentary that should be taken seriously.
Well, the NBC news anchors certainly didn't see it. And it looks quite smaller than in the other channels, don't you think?
Actually, it almost looks as if the camera starts to pan towards the plane, and then stops when the plane goes out of view. Then the explosion.

As for it "looking small", it's mainly because it's "camoflaged" with the rest of the city (particularly because of the digital degredation). That, or like I said, it's been doctored to try and make the plane disappear. [/b]
Do you have evidence that the NBC4 was doctored? Still, the newscasters didn't see it.


How about the FOX 5 footage of the nosecone piercing the other side of the building?