Found it...but you need good ears.

[plannedexplosion]

Watch this before you read my comment below...don't want to influence what you hear. (listen closely from the 30 second mark)


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFQpI2bW95M

[plannedexplosion]

I have watched the whole context of this CNN Dub4 and the crew aren't too careful with what they say and pick up.

Here you can clearly hear a man in the background replying to an inquisitive lady...

"Yeah it was an explosion...but it was a planned...you know"

I can't quite make out what is said before and after, but if anyone has better ears or audio equipment maybe they can comment.

EDIT: and I apologize if this has been found before, I did do a search of the forums and couldn't find any reference.

[proloft]

Do you know why you couldn't find any reference to that clip on this site?

It's real easy - it's not a trick question.

Let that question rattle around inside your head for a while and you'll figure it out.

Best Regards.

[AmongTheThugs]

[pshea38]

How does that work then? At 1.57min., two passers-by come into picture
even though the camera is focused on the top of the tower?
Oh Yeah. I forgot. I know how that works.

Can't catch much of what is being said, i'm afraid.

[nonhocapito]

EDIT: and I apologize if this has been found before, I did do a search of the forums and couldn't find any reference.

Thanks for wasting our time! Found out? What do you have found out..?

First of all: all 9/11 video footage is fake, and this video is no exception, especially since it comes from that load of re-rendered crap that goes under the moniker "NIST cumulus". So whatever can be heard in the audio was planted there and has no value except for disinfo. That said, the voice most likely says (duh) : "but it was a plane" not "but it was planned", which is a more believable conversation to stage "in the middle of the street".

Sorry proloft and others if I spelled out the obvious and ruined your more strict pedagogical approach

[plannedexplosion]

So are you guys trying to encourage or discourage new people looking at this?

Should I not bother going through the NIST videos to look for slip-ups? Apparently you think they made a whole bunch of obvious video fakery errors (which I have no expertise in), but you don't entertain the possibility that the guys listening in the sound booth lopping out or doctoring incriminating evidence didn't miss a couple of off-hand remarks made by the rent-a-crowd on the day. I've already looked through hours of videos and the obvious bad and over-acting by the participants, the lack of reality in the staged 'disaster' movie sets, no sign of real plane parts or real debris, have all convinced me that the day itself was fully contrived. Do you think all of the video was produced in a studio, and therefore none of the footage or sound is worth looking at?

I started looking at this (again) purely because I saw simon's septemberclues video on youTube. From that and other reading on this site, I came to the conclusion that the whole day in NY was faked (previously I had thought the US gov just new about it and organized it to happen) so now, with my interest piqued, I stumbled across the couple of yTube channels with these clips I thought wow, so much footage, and decided to trawl through some of the video to look for any obvious mistakes. It was extremely frustrating with all of the "camera shake" right at the important parts, the clips being cut at perfect moments (for example between the switch of a live actor and a mannequin for falling bodies scenes), so when I found something I thought sounded like a smoking gun mistake I naturally got excited and decided to post it here to see if anyone could confirm what I'd heard. I'm sorry if my title for the thread is a bit overblown and misleading, but it felt amazing at the time to think I'd blown the lid off it. : embarrassed smiley face:

Now onto some of your comments:
Maybe he does say plane, but this is after the south tower falls so to me it didn't seem to be in context, and to me even though I'm now listening for 'plane' it still sounds like 'planned'.

Sorry if I wasted the 10 seconds that it took you to watch from the 30 to 40 second mark of that video, nonho, I'm sure you've been over all this before.

And as for the heads walking by while the guy is focussed on the top of the tower, if you look at the context of the footage, the guy actually seems to be a lone cameraman who is sitting on a bike for most of the footage. At full zoom you could have the whole lens be obscured by someone walking by even if you were pointing at the top of a tower...you're still only 4 or 5 feet off the ground right?


Anyway, I had a second part of the footage that I was going to run by you guys where I believe a woman makes a pretty bad contextual slip as well...I'm not hoping for any big reaction after my first effort though, but have fun anyone who is interested. (Listen for the woman exactly 1 minute in)


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ba9F5XDnec

After the south tower goes down (but before the north has fallen) a woman says "Did you see the first one go?" Why would she ask someone this if they (at least she) wasn't expecting them both to fall eventually? I know you guys are already convinced that everyone knew, etc etc, but isn't this good spoken evidence on the actual day that they did...it would be convincing to people who didn't already believe (I would think). In fact this is the only reason I was looking...to help convince the apathetic or unaware (not to preach to the choir).

[proloft]

"So are you guys trying to encourage or discourage new people looking at this?"

Gee, I dunno, plannedexplosion, are you trying to set back the research here by at least 5 years?

"Do you think all of the video was produced in a studio, and therefore none of the footage or sound is worth looking at?"

While we may not know exactly how each video was produced, none of it is worth looking at.

"Sorry if I wasted the 10 seconds that it took you to watch from the 30 to 40 second mark of that video..."

Don't worry, I don't know if anyone bothered to fall for that.

You seem to have a pretty well laid out idea of how these videos were made, but I think you're dead wrong.
You really need to let the concept of TVFakery float around and sink in for you...don't be embarrassed if you don't get it - not everyone will.

[plannedexplosion]

Gee, I dunno, plannedexplosion, are you trying to set back the research here by at least 5 years?

So, you're saying that just one piece of audio that the 'producers' missed would set back the research here by 5 years? Are you sure it wouldn't clear it up a bit further...given what you say next...

While we may not know exactly how each video was produced, none of it is worth looking at.

If you don't know how each video was produced yet you're sure you're NONE of it is worth looking at then that makes you closed minded and unlikely of ever finding out how and why it was done this way.

Don't worry, I don't know if anyone bothered to fall for that.

Does this mean you didn't even spend the 10 seconds to listen to the video?

You seem to have a pretty well laid out idea of how these videos were made, but I think you're dead wrong.
You really need to let the concept of TVFakery float around and sink in for you...don't be embarrassed if you don't get it - not everyone will.

You "think" I'm dead wrong? Why? You can fake a lot of stuff for TV/Film but what is always consistent is that you need something to be real (either background or foreground) to fake it on otherwise it ALL looks like CGI and sounds like layered soundtracks. I confess major portions of it do seem this way, the sections of video either side of the "planes" going in all very much appear and sound this way...BUT:

- do you believe that the hours of New York street scenes as well as the 'extras' flowing out of the buildings (but seemingly none coming from the towers, unamazingly) were all CGI'd or green-screened in later?

- do you think that a film studio would fully render everything with CGI and yet leave obvious errors in like the nose-out shot?

- do you think a CGI studio would do such a half-assed job of the 'simulation' that they used only paper and dust for the debris and showed no plane parts coming out of the building yet later have them in full
display on the ground (unburned and undamaged) rather than CGI-ing a rain of aircraft parts and then CGI-ing those similar damaged parts on the street later?

- do you think it's not possible that they used extras in the cordoned off areas of downtown that day to lend a semblance of reality to the fully organized destruction of multiple large buildings?

- do you then think that (before they released these vids) they didn't have sound engineers trawling through the sound to make sure that no one had let anything slip, or video engineers cutting and introducing false camera shake, after all, why would you need all of these cuts and shakes and false sounds if the videos themselves weren't actually recorded on the day.

- isn't it possible that the guys running through all this footage didn't miss something along the way??? doesn't JUST that by itself mean it's worth at least looking at the released videos?

I came at the whole issue with one assumption...that the ONE thing that has to be used as the grounds for a whole theory on what happened that day is that: in the morning the towers were there and in the afternoon they were gone. If you're going to the trouble of knocking down some towers why not adjust the footage that you get later to make it look passable but un-fathomable to both 'prove it happened' and frustrate attempts at identifying what really happened.

None of that guarantees they didn't make mistakes though...so you saying it's not worth me examining the sound because they've faked it all is like me telling you not to bother examining any of the footage because...they faked it all...

I'm willing to admit I'm wrongly hearing the 'planned' versus 'plane' thing, but I find it ludicrous that you're writing off whole piles of footage that could reveal many errors and could help lead to proving "your" case just because it seems to be (and I agree it is mostly) fake. But then, I guess you're right...I've NEVER seen a blooper in a well-produced movie either :sarcasm:

[simonshack]

At full zoom you could have the whole lens be obscured by someone walking by even if you were pointing at the top of a tower...you're still only 4 or 5 feet off the ground right?

No. No way.

As for the audio tracks and their cringingly contrived dialogues...please spare us from listening to them any further. Thanks!

[plannedexplosion]

So no one has bothered to listen to it.

You guys are amazing, well actually you're a typical closed off group of internet forum cultists...haha...but good luck with your "research"...

Don't let the entropy of an isolated system reduce you to chaotic rubble...

I'll be extremely careful to avoid letting the door hit my ass on the way out...so no need to warn me...

[hoi.polloi]

So no one has bothered to listen to it.

Actually, nobody can hear it because it's not there. You're hearing mumbling in a piece of video fiction. And it's true it sounds more like a subliminal "plane" rather than a distinct "planned." Remember, the videos are most likely created in an editing studio.

... you're a typical closed off group of internet forum cultists...haha...but good luck with your "research"...

Nobody likes what you have to say so you call everyone a cultist? How antisocial of you.

To be a little more serious, does saying "typical", "closed off group" and "internet forum" in one sentence avoid redundancy? Internet forums, going by their typical use - are like cults. All of them. So you cannot really say that we're anything worse than any other forum.

The question is - does the forum reveal some truth about the world? I believe we do.

So perhaps those who find themselves here only have one small bit of the truth about large-scale media hoaxes, but it's a valuable piece. What have you contributed to any community? Good luck, and hopefully you find something real to do with your life.

Be careful of the many fictions being sold to you as reality.