Question about 9/11 News Coverage

[EndofLight]

After watching September clues I do believe that all of the news coverage is fake. The question that I have in mind is was the footage they were showing as live(with a 17 second delay) messed with graphically in real time? Like were the planes graphically inserted right then and there as it was being shown live, or were these videos pre made and then just aired and being sold as live footage? It seems like from the 'nose out' incident that it was being done right then and there.. I guess im just unclear on how that was all pulled off as live footage with the planes inserted. Also does anyone know when the first of the amateur footage was released and obviously that must have had more time to be messed with, but if thats correct.. given that they had so much time to mess with it.. how could they have still messed so much of it up to the point were it can be proven as fake just by noticing the inconsistencies? I hope someone can clear this up for me. Thanks!

[AmongTheThugs]

there was no "amateur footage".

[fbenario]

The question that I have in mind is was the footage they were showing as live(with a 17 second delay) messed with graphically in real time?

Complete answers are in the main threads in this group/topic of threads. After you've gone through them we will be glad to help you with any remaining questions. In the future please quote a specific post that you don't 'get', staying within the thread of that quoted post. No need to start a new topic, unless you've got a new subject.

[EndofLight]

there was no "amateur footage".

If you read the context I used amateur footage in you'd understand that I was talking about the videos that were passed off as amateur footage.. obviously we are all aware that those are fake along with the news coverage. The question I was asking is why are there so many flaws in footage that had much more time to be messed with.

[EndofLight]

The question that I have in mind is was the footage they were showing as live(with a 17 second delay) messed with graphically in real time?

Complete answers are in the main threads in this group/topic of threads. After you've gone through them we will be glad to help you with any remaining questions. In the future please quote a specific post that you don't 'get', staying within the thread of that quoted post. No need to start a new topic, unless you've got a new subject.

I searched the threads on this section of the board and still haven't found an answer to my question(s). Would you kindly point me to the thread or threads you speak of?

[nonhocapito]

After watching September clues I do believe that all of the news coverage is fake. The question that I have in mind is was the footage they were showing as live(with a 17 second delay) messed with graphically in real time? Like were the planes graphically inserted right then and there as it was being shown live, or were these videos pre made and then just aired and being sold as live footage? It seems like from the 'nose out' incident that it was being done right then and there.. I guess im just unclear on how that was all pulled off as live footage with the planes inserted. Also does anyone know when the first of the amateur footage was released and obviously that must have had more time to be messed with, but if thats correct.. given that they had so much time to mess with it.. how could they have still messed so much of it up to the point were it can be proven as fake just by noticing the inconsistencies? I hope someone can clear this up for me. Thanks!

We don't know exactly how things went in the control room. But there were certain variables they probably had no complete control on. 1) real explosions in the towers. Those had to be synched with the sim-planes as shown in TV, to give another bit of illusion to the people in Manhattan, although evacuated so far from downtown they couldn't see much. 2) direction of wind. This would condition the direction of the smoke shown in the footage. Also, even though they probably had some weather machine at their disposal, the weather too could have caused some surprise (things are never perfect), so another reason to render things "live". 3) the role of anchormen and reporters, although their words were faked and scripted (and in parts probably even pre-recorded) could require for them to address in real time problems happening for real on the ground...

For these and other reasons it can be argued that, even though all the live footage is fake (which means towers, sky, planes and smoke are ALL fake) the whole thing could not simply be pre-rendered and recorded and aired, like another "war of the worlds" story. It had to go "live". This caused bad quality and a whole mess of problems, including the nose out incident, the "black outs", the synched sequences, the chrome errors etc etc.

As to why other errors are there, including in the "amateur" videos (and in the "victim" creation), is everyone's guess, be it bogus software, plain arrogance, whistle-blowing, lack of competence, rush or a combination of all those. I think initially it mattered little since "the world was changed forever" anyway.

[pov603]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-1466 ... a-comments


When the BBC is as dismissive of what happened on 11th Sept 2001, as per their comments on the 'top 5 conspiracies' there is not much hope of getting any impartial/constructive investigation from any news agency.

I also note that they have closed comments at 751 or so, and in the Editor's Pick he has seemingly given a 'balanced' view ie agree/disagree/agree/disagree etc which is not actually reflective of the tone of the total number of comments, but of course they are not here to actually print news or people's true concerns.

[simonshack]

After watching September clues I do believe that all of the news coverage is fake. The question that I have in mind is was the footage they were showing as live(with a 17 second delay) messed with graphically in real time? Like were the planes graphically inserted right then and there as it was being shown live, or were these videos pre made and then just aired and being sold as live footage? It seems like from the 'nose out' incident that it was being done right then and there.. I guess im just unclear on how that was all pulled off as live footage with the planes inserted. Also does anyone know when the first of the amateur footage was released and obviously that must have had more time to be messed with, but if thats correct.. given that they had so much time to mess with it.. how could they have still messed so much of it up to the point were it can be proven as fake just by noticing the inconsistencies? I hope someone can clear this up for me. Thanks!

Dear EndofLight,

Sorry for very late reply - I must have somehow missed this topic you started.

Here you can read about the "17 SECOND ENIGMA": http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2055659#p2055659

Here is some more reading material about the issue: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p2349943

And regarding the Nose Out issue: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 0#p2359050

[Brutal Metal]

You'd think they would have done a better job with the backgrounds since all the newscasters were exclaiming what a clear day it was with rich blue skies, the videographers should have had a meteorologist on the payroll too for a weather prediction pre-911

[Tufa]

The question that I have in mind is was the footage they were showing as live (with a 17 second delay) messed with graphically in real time?

The archive version show animal pictures in the smoke/fire, and this imply that the fire/explosion was pre-recorded, so that these elements could be inserted in advance. Note that the fire ball is reasonably consistent, when you compare clips, but the plane flight-path is not (speed, colour,..). The many errors: the "17 seconds", the different colours of the clips, and many others, was likely inserted intentionally to conceal the origin of the video and induce a speculation about real-time video editing.
Unfortunately, the knowledge on how the videos was made is partial and have an element of speculation. But it is a fake.

[reel.deal]

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_depaSOa4I

[SmokingGunII]

I like Brooker, RD, but I bet his views on 9/11 wouldn't waver too far from the official narrative.

PS. Looks like Glenn Beck went to the same acting school as Bob McIlvane. Same paymasters, too, I would imagine.

[reel.deal]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Barley

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... y#p2351133

cant argue with that, smoke.
although... he was a co-creator/writer of 'Nathan Barley'; back in the day...
but, as you say, whatever his personal suspicions, i'm sure he keeps a lid
on his most ascerbic views, so his BBC contract dont get ripped up...

[reel.deal]

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2g3EDC6YuA

Charlie Brooker's 2011 Wipe - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4coGerRh4ZI
found it! ...& yeah, i know its 'mainstream', but still amusing.

how many people - on the entire planet - know the true extent of fakery - to be found only here ?
50 ? ...100 ?!?

[fbenario]

how many people - on the entire planet - know the true extent of fakery - to be found only here ?
50 ? ...100 ?!?

A lot know about it. Unfortunately, the vast majority of them are the culprits/perps who are producing it, and/or benefiting from it.

More unfortunate is the apparent existence of only about a dozen people in the world (the regular contributors here) who seem to give a flying f** k about identifying and educating people about media fakery. An unbelievably sad commentary on people as a whole.