Is Video Fakery the New Transsexuality? Or the New Alien Abduction?
This is part one (duh) of a five part series, and "socialservice" definitely leads with his/her strongest arguments. Having watched this part several times, I would now definitely entertain the idea that some faked video was broadcast on 9/11.
What did I just say? Well, note carefully what I did not say: I didn't say there were no planes or that all the video is fake. I said this video makes a good case for FOX's local affiliate having broadcast one very, very weird shot. Remember that FOX also brought us Harley Guy -- that is, these are the folks for whom reality just doesn't quite do the job. It can always use a little embellishment.
From a "meta-Truth" perspective, it is interesting that this series was made. Until now, arguments of video fakery were most often made by people who couldn't seem to string together two cogent thoughts, let alone make a video without migraine-inducing music and extraneous shots of people with digestive difficulties. Although parts two through five are not nearly as convincing as part one, they are careful and clear. "socialservice" is not your average no-planer. So what does that mean? Has disinfo central finally put enough money in the budget for someone who is not cognitively impaired? Or does the video fakery argument have some merit, and has some reasonable truther (apparently in Norway) decided to out his or herself as something beyond the pale in truther circles?
I am always uneasy when an idea is beaten into submission by the rabble. As many of us have heard, controlled demolition itself was subject to very harsh opposition from "respectable" truthers -- but some people carried on with their "crazy talk" for long enough that among the open-minded, persuasion was possible. (And thank God -- because without someone pointing out to me that the Towers were blown to smithereens, I would have filed my LIHOP-ish 9/11 skepticism with Iran-Contra under "I'm too jaded to care how evil the government is.") I don't necessarily believe that convincing people that video was faked would bring down the whole house of cards (substitute cliche of choice), which some of the tv fakery advocates do. On the other hand, perhaps there are proto-Truthers out there who haven't met the argument that finally sparks their curiosity and their outrage. If this shot was faked, I would like to know, and maybe they would, too.
sorry cass, i don't buy it
OK... Chelsea lady may not have superhuman vision, she may have binoculars. They don't mention the plane in the portion of the conversation we hear but it sounds like Chelsea lady was told or saw on TV that it was in fact a plane that caused the explosion she heard. Then she grabs her binoculars and proceeds to chat with Gumbel--notice she says she heard the explosion but didn't see the impact, of what? The first plane of course.
The nose cone thing is really just smoke. There is another angle that the noplaners liked to show which was closer and from the opposite side (plane coming in from left) where its clear that what they say is the video faked nose cone is actually a blob of condensed smoke/exploding stuff that just happens to be coming out sort of in the shape of a nose cone (which itself is not all that distinctive a shape. The micro-definition match of the nose and the smoke could well be due to some video fakery of the noplaners' own.
Finally the convenient zoom in and seeming lack of plane in the reversed zoom is simple to explain when you've shot a lot of video. When you're looking through the camera these days you are probably not only seeing what the camera sees, you are probably looking at the viewfinder from a few inches away and thus can see the world around you. When you see a plane flying in out the corner of your eye you zoom in because it seems pretty clear what is about to happen. The plane was also flying very fast so its not surprising it wouldn't be in the frame before zooming, even though the cameraman could see it in the distance and headed toward the towers.
I'll just repeat what I think the video fakery stuff is all about--they want to discredit the notion of video fakery genrally so that when they DO fake some video for some reason people will reflexively tune out the accusations. And because for the time being it does make people look silly... :)
instincts tell...
i have a conflicted instintual gut reaction to this. I lean towards "of course there were planes - millions of new yorkers must have seen the second plane hit from buildings and such after the first plane hit! all they had to do was be looking up or out the window looking up!" and there is that interview by Bollyn with the guy who miraculously escaped one of the towers after the plane hit (which he witnessed)
but then, again...when i watched that shot over and over again on the morning of 9/11 ..that clip with the ominously strange, large black plane on a blue-sky sunny September morning, i do remember how odd i thought it looked - like, why is it black? ....
why is it black
because the sun was behind it and the plane itself was in shadow? there are many more interesting issues in my opinion that need analysis and exposure!
sun was where?
actually in the clip i have seen with the ominous, large, black plane approaching, on level with the NY skyline...the skyline buildings behind the plane are all illuminated in morning sunshine.
I'll be more specific...
So you think the pixel-precise match of the nose and the "smoke" are kinda weird looking? I do, too. Your proposed explanation is that the no-planers faked that snippet of video, then? (An oversimplification?) Unfortunately, FOX pulled that footage from its archives, so there's no easy way to verify whether that is indeed the shot broadcast. Personally, I find the tragically timed blackout just about as weird as the nose cone, and the fact that the two other networks covered the actual impact with their banner at least as weird as those two items.
Bear in mind that all these oddities pertain just to that one live helicopter shot. I don't find Chelsea Lady persuasive either, and I'm not even too perturbed by the *other* nose-out shot that got a lot of play at 911blogger, because that does look like smoke to me. That shot, though, (assuming it was broadcast in the form we see in September Clues) makes me think we have already passed the point when "they" are willing to fake video, and that we *have* tuned it out because of the high volume of no-planer noise. I can think of a number of reasons to broadcast this fake shot, other than the absence of a plane. For one thing, if the impact was going to coincide with explosions in the building, I might be a little nervous about the execution. It would look really bad if the explosion preceded the impact by even the tiniest visible amount. Why not just make sure by broadcasting your own version? (But damn it, the video fakerist was incompetent!)
Very interesting, I have to admit
The "nose out", assuming that it can be matched on the original video and that the pixels really do match, does have me stumped.
As far as the synchronous "fade to black" on both Fox and CNN, I can think of a couple of possible explanations, including:
1) It was officially acknowledged that CNN (can ya say CIA News Network?) was providing "live" feed to the other networks. So any glitches or shenanigans or whatever that occured with the CNN feed could have been carried to the other broadcasters.
2) Could something like an EMP (Electro-magnetic-pulse) have been generated by a particular type of detonation or weapon used during the impact, causing what apperaed to be the "fade to black" with the live video? I have heard talk of and seen other videos that show what appeared to ba an interruption in the electrical grid around New York City at the time, causing lights to blink off right around the time of impact. I'm not sure about how large the area of interruption was, though.
The (in)convenient banner placement also makes me suspicious.
Thanks for this thread, Cas. This is why I like this forum that RT has graciously provided to us - so that we can deal with these issues in a much more intelligent and functional way than over at 911Blogger for example.
From a local colleague...
"I honestly don't know what to make of it. Before I embraced any of it,
I would first want to see the original archived footage to compare it
to what was shown in the videos. I know that would be a brazen lie, but
still.....
This is, of course, the central problem with the theory: After the
first impact, the planners had to have considered the fact that
hundreds of cameras would have been fixed on the buildings. If it was a
missile that hit the buildings, why isn't the internet saturated with
video images of the missile hitting the buildings. Certainly there is
no way for them to control every video that would have emerged.
Further, some overstated or distorted facts:
The fact that the producer's wife heard the impact of the first plane
"all the way from Chelsea" does not surprise me at all. Chelsea is
probably less than two miles from the WTC.
The fact that she says that she "saw another plane" is no big deal to
me. Even though she makes no mention of seeing what caused the first
explosion, by that time everyone knew it was an airplane.
That she says that she saw the plane from Chelsea is not at all hard to
believe. I have friends who live in the Village which is adjacent to
Chelsea. From the top of their 5 story apartment, they had a clear view
of the towers and had they been looking, would have easily been able to
see the impact.
That one of the images of the plane is darker than the others can just
be a result of light and angle.
The part that has me stumped is the blackout of the screen and the nose
coming through the other side. So here is my rococo explanation: The
planners knew that there was risk that a bunch of smarty pants would
question the official story. So they planned before hand how to
sabotage any truth movement by labeling it a movement of conspiracy
theory wackos. One way they did this was to invent false and outlandish
theories beforehand and to plant some false evidence to confound and
confuse. One of these is the manipulation of the images on the screen
to make it appear as if it had been tampered with. This would lead some
"truthers" to question whether in fact the images of the plane are
real, and yet given the fact that probably thousands of people saw the
second airplane impact, this would allow supporters of the official
theory to paint the whole movement as ridiculous. This would have been
an absolute stroke of evil genius, if true."
I like the super-duper-mind-fuck interpretation he gives it in the last paragraph.
sounds good
but isn't it odd that the nosecone shaped smoke can be seen from multiple angles--odd if indeed one of the shots is faked?
Do you have some links to the
Do you have some links to the other angles to check?
You could dig around at
Killtown's blog. There might be something there. I wouldn't know, because I've never been to that site and if you look at it you have to poke your eyes out with a sharp stick afterwards.
The "smoky nosecone" was blogged at 911blogger on more than one occasion, as well.
Ouch! That does not sound
Ouch! That does not sound pleasant, so maybe I'll hold off on looking into this just yet. Besides, my radar is starting to detect the possibility of another rabbit hole approaching which, if I get sucked down it, I could lose several more hours from what I'm supposed to be doing right now, and I've already spent way too much time on the computer today. Does anybody know of a Rabbit Hole Anonymous self help group?
Actually, now that I've thought about it
I would recommend Ningen's blog instead -- he believes he was abducted by Morgan Reynolds who spirited him down that rabbit hole. I agree -- don't go there if you have a low tolerance for cognitive dissonance. Ningen's an unusually smart guy (however?)
from the site guidelines...
This site encourages discussion and analysis of news and facts surrounding the events of 9/11. We begin from the premise that many if not most aspects of the events have been lied about and/or covered up by the government and media. We discourage wild speculation not based on verifiable evidence, such as claims of "video fakery" with regard to the planes that struck the towers. We will not tolerate racist or otherwise bigoted comments, and in turn will not tolerate baseless charges of bigotry. Our desired goal is a provocative and informative resource for those who feel that the issue of 9/11 merits serious and thought-provoking discussion and debate.
I'm being a little facetious with the kos-ian language, and note that video fakery discussions are discouraged, not prohibited.
the reason for this is that video fakery is a total red herring and we have indeed covered it many times. I encourage you to do your own research on it if you want but honestly I have more important things to do with my time than disprove allegations that no plane hit the south tower!
hope that doesn't sound too jerky but you'll notice there are two things that are specifically mentioned in my site guidelines--no actual bigotry or false accusations of bigotry, and understand that video fakery is by now pretty well utterly discredited and pretty clearly a part of the blatant (as opposed to subtle) disinfo. Jon Gold will be happy to explain to you all about how wrong the noplaners are, and I assure you he will not be lying about that. I on the other hand want to focus on the more subtle forms of disinfo!
I'm adequately discouraged
and I won't carry on (or blog repeatedly) but do note that there is an important distinction to be made between "No plane hit the South Tower" and "Some fake video was broadcast." I don't subscribe to either, but I will entertain arguments about the latter. But not here. I don't wanna get banned ;)
Ok, understood. I do want to
Ok, understood. I do want to point out that video fakery shouldn't, and logically doesn't reguire a no planes scenario. I definately am not advocating any possibility of no planes at the WTC, and I don't thnk anybody else here is either.
it's all good...
and I take your point about the possibility of video being faked for reasons other than inserting a plane where none was. particularly the idea that they wanted to show the second plane strike without showing the simultaneous explosion in the north tower (which is readily visible in other videos)--I hadn't considered that and I think it may well be the answer! for the blackouts too, right?
thanks very much casseia for this post. . .
. . . and thanks gretavo for keeping it, despite your dislike and distrust of the topic. i thought i was alone among "real truthers" (yes, i have voted myself into this exclusive club;-) in thinking that some of the 9/11 video looked fake. not saying it IS fake, but looks fake.
however, my focus was always on this video of flight 175, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stdfd6hLGWA&feature=related which i believe is the same video used in "9/11 mysteries" and "loose change," which is where i first came across it. when wathcing those films, i frankly could not believe that the film makers were not commenting on what i was seeing, i.e., that the video looked so obviously fake.
however fascinating this topic might be to some (myself included), i would say that at this stage, there is little point in pursing this intensely, IF the goal is to get mainstreamers to see that the official 9/11 story is a coverup and bring about a real investigation. but...if there were ever such an investigation with a hefty budget, and i had a vote, it would be to go after the filmers and broadcasters and tv produers involved with the allegedly fake videos, because (a) i'd like to know if the videos are fake; (b) and if they are fake, who faked them--how, when, and for what purpose; and (c) this avenue of pursuit could quite possibly get us closer to the inner circle. also...
i too like the "super-duper-mind-fuck interpretation" casseia's "local colleague" gives it in the last paragraph.
and "I [too] am always uneasy when an idea is beaten into submission by the rabble."
being a relative newcomer to 9/11 truth myself (sept 2008 awakening), i did not know that "controlled demolition itself was subject to very harsh opposition from 'respectable' truthers." hard to believe, as CD looks so obvious.
oh and for the record...
I think video fakery may be the new holocaust denial, now that actual holocaust denial has been exposed as actually being holocaust revisionism and not really all that taboo!
yes
thanks
Hello, casseia
It's good to see open discussion of this issue. I won't get into what I think, because you've heard that. I would just add to your take that faked videos and staged interviews, if proved to have been broadcast that day and particularly right after the attacks, would show foreknowledge and complicity.
Sincerely
Ningen