Technology Review Magazine Discusses TV-Fakery

I link to my blog because of the multiple links:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/174


------------------------------------
Believe it or not, one year before 9/11 Technology Review published an article detailing TV-Fakery technology.

This must-read article, entitled "Lying With Pixels", was published in the July/August 2000 edition of Technology Review magazine.

In fact, "Lying With Pixels" discusses the exact type of TV-Fakery technology that was used on 9/11: inserting prerecorded footage into a live broadcast, in real-time.

The article specifically states that the military and TV networks have this technology, and that what we see on the evening news is no longer trustworthy.

Also discussed is the ability of a government or terrorist group to use fake video footage for political purposes.

One interesting excerpt follows:
Combine the potential erosion of faith in video authenticity with the so-called “CNN effect” and the stage is set for deception to move the world in new ways. Livingston describes the CNN effect as the ability of mass media to go beyond merely reporting what is happening to actually influencing decision-makers as they consider military, international assistance and other national and international issues. “The CNN effect is real,” says James Currie, professor of political science at the National Defense University at Fort McNair in Washington. “Every office you go into at the Pentagon has CNN on.” And that means, he says, that a government, terrorist or advocacy group could set geopolitical events in motion on the strength of a few hours’ worth of credibility achieved by distributing a snippet of well-doctored video.

The article was updated on 1/11/2002, which removed the last three paragraphs. The original version is available here.

have I got that right?

Sid

What I do know is that what was shown on TV was a CGI

"There is no reasoning with this madness."

those people on site that saw the plane hit the second tower were victims of a mass illusion or hysteria?

Always good to get that out of the way before proceeding on the assumption that rational discussion is possible.

Lets get a solid starting point if there's going to be a discussion.

Cheers.

Sid

Actually I'm heading to bed, but will give a brief description of the main point regarding CGI on 9/11:


An aluminum airplane is not going to glide through a steel/concrete building like it glides through the air.

The plastic nosecone isn't going to travel hundreds of feet through the steel/concrete building and pierce the other side.

Enough said.

The plastic nosecone isn't going to travel hundreds of feet through the steel/concrete building and pierce the other side.

Amen to that brother(sister). The fuselage is 17 feet plowing through at least two stories which means at least one floor.Oh oh....

Sid

Why do you care? You have already made up your mind on that one ...haven't you?

but I'm asking the OP what he thinks happened. I get tired of the truthers just "asking questions", I'd like to see some of you actually form an opinion of your own.

Sid

Get a life.

A Global Hawk missle hit the Pentagon, not a jetliner. A jetliner can't pass through the Pentagon and come out the other side. That's ridiculous.

Anyone who thinks that that is physically possible is, in my humble opinion, either insane or deluded.

SR

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

didnt pierce the pentagon and come out the otherside

a global hawk missle you say.

are you an expert on missles? were you an eyewitness to what happened at the pentagon? how did you come to the conclusion it was a global hawk missile? did you speak to people in the armed forces?

What's the goddamn mystery?

Airplanes hit the Towers; an airplane hit the Pentagon.

Get over it.

1) WTC wasnt a concrete/steel structure
2) did you expect a plane traveling a high speed to bounce off the side or just get crushed like a tin can?
3) have you ever seen the aftermath of a hurricane or tornado. where a 2by4 or other object are driven clear thru a tree?
4) a nose cone isnt made of plastic

1) The Twin Towers were steel framed buildings. They contained perimeter columns made of structural steel and massive core columns made of structural steel. Between each floor was a slab of steel-reinforced concrete.

2) So according to you, if it can't glide into the building then it must bounce off?

3) 2 by 4's are wood. Trees are wood. Airplanes are aluminum. The Twin Towers were structural steel and steel-reinforced concrete.

4)767 nosecones are made of a plastic material.


See this post:
http://www.911researchers.com/node/98

1.Each floor was a lightweight concrete mix. There was no steel reinforcement in the floors.

2. At the speed the jets flew, it is not surprising in the least they penetrated the building.

3. Glad your on board on this one. With enough velocity (or KE) wood will break steel.

4. What the nose cone is made out of is completely immaterial.

1. What does that have to do with a supposed plane crash?

2. That statement means nothing. You're making assumptions with no analysis.

3. I'm on board, but I can't say the same for you unfortunately. Wood is not going to glide into steel with no resistance, completely disappear, and create a cartoon cutout of itself in the steel.

4. Apply this type of thinking to # 1 above. Besides, no one explained how a plastic nosecone traveled through hundreds of feet of steel and concrete and popped out the other side. And you're right... it doesn't matter if it was plastic or aluminum :)

1. You said Between each floor was a slab of steel-reinforced concrete. I corrected you.

2. And I suppose you're going to counter my view that jets traveling around 500 mph would not find it difficult to penetrate the WTC perimeter columns with your own analysis saying something else? I can hardly wait?

3. No resistance, completely disappear. What are you talking about. It's not the WTC impacts for sure.

4. Did a nose cone pop out the other side? I think you're dreaming.

agree that Flight 175's wings would have penetrated the WTC tower in such a fashion?

Speed of the plane + heft of the fuel laden wings = sufficient force to cut through the steel columns?

is that footage of a man on the street who is apparently unaware of the approach of a "screaming jetliner" just hundreds of feet above him until it hits the tower. Then he looks up and shirks away. Huh?

...it does look staged somewhat. Was someone lying on the ground to get that particular camera angle with the WTC and the man in the shot?

I may be wrong... it just rubs the wrong way a bit.

I'm not a no-planer by the way.

Then I suppose this will get your knickers in a twist. And this guy is a MIHOP'er. Amazing how rational a truther can be.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html

This wasn't an air show. I HAVE been to air shows as a matter of fact.

apparently unaware of the approach of a "screaming jetliner" just hundreds of feet above him

If you've been to an airshow you would know that you can't hear a high jet aircraft aproaching at high speed until its right over you.

as they are the new bottom feeders of the truther movement.



Nevermind the people on the street, numerous people that barely survived the WTC attack saw the fucking plane hurtling at their building and impacting, in some cases, one floor above them.

Too bad you missed this eywitness documentary.

You want to get yourself labeled as a Disinformation Specialist?

In the context of the original post, which talks about video fakery, all footage is suspect. Anything seen on television or the internet can be manipulated to present a certain "reality". Whether it's a 'live event" or footage from some "amateur video".

So, my answer to that question is, amateur video can be wholly faked. Seems logical enough to me.

How does fake footage wind up in the Sony MiniCam held by a tourist from Cincinnati?
How does the NWO Division of Video Faking control -all- the cameras held by all the tourist who might happen to be in NYC?

Jezes H Kreeest wearing shorts and a flowerdy shirt and a stupid hat walking down the street with a miniCam in front of his face!

I'll try to explain my point a little further...

The premise of the article is that video footage can be faked, right?
It also states that the fake video footage can be presented on television as an actual event. Ok?

Your questions, imho, are moot, as there is no need for fake footage to "wind up" on any tourist's video camera. No civilians need to be involved in the least.
All one would need is the fake footage, and the narrative of it coming from some random tourist's video camera.

Then, Agent Jezes H Kreeest (complete with his shorts, flowerdy shirt and stupid hat) poses on camera as a tourist with his "MiniCam's footage".


Now, I'm not suggesting that's what happened on 9/11 or any other event, I'm just saying that's how fake video footage can make it to "amateur video footage". Which was my answer to the initial "logical" question.

I think they would have been pretty easy to come up with, people will do anything for money, especially if they work for black ops or intelligence agencies. Also, Camera Planet asked for a lot of "amateur" photography and Bank of America (an interesting tenant) bankrolled it. They could come up with some good footage there. There would be few cases of amateur photos with out the plane in it because no one would look at the area that was "hit" if they didn't see anything. There would be few cameras trained that far up. Think of the secret service guy who doesn't look until the "plane" has already disappeared into the building. So there was very little footage that they had to worry about and could easily find "amateurs" who took the photos that day. and stick their little fakes in.
It IS logical to ask questions, and question what seems improbable. It IS NOT logical to believe everything you see and hear on television.

Simple question. Simple answer will suffice. Forget CD, forget remote control. Do you believe that 2 planes hit the WTC's on Sept 11, 2001?

Sid

And HERE is one of the FAKE parts after planting...



:eyes: