Fake Video from 9/11? Was this Doctored?

[more_pain_please]

Actually this is more of a question, this videos been bugging me for awhile now.

It's from the camera planet archive, amongst a large compilation of others.

This is the one that was thought to be dubbed and used in '9/11:In plane Sight' where a woman's voice screams out 'That is not an American Airlines!'

This tape is time coded pay particular attention to 3:04 to 3:07 how the blond woman's head just pops up from nowhere.

Maybe I've just watched this too many times and am seeing things.

<http://youtube.com/watch?v=7xDbQV3FMEk|Here's The Video>

[Wally101]

1. Looks to me

like the blond woman who says the American Airlines line is ducking under the camera so as not to block the shot.

Mark

[canetoad]

2. Definitely the same woman

and you are correct, she was ducking under the camera. I reckon she said 'That is not an American Airline' in the manner of someone whose first instinct was sheer denial, not because she could see any distinct details from that distance.

[more_pain_please]

3. Thanks,

I was looking up info on the clip there was suspicion that it was modified for 'In Plane Sight' but that may not have been the case. I just thought it looked odd.

Here's a snippet on the clip

http://www.oilempire.us/inplanesite.html


The film claims that a video clip in New York of the second crash is strong evidence that the second plane wasn't Flight 175. This clip has a background voice yelling "that was not an American Airlines," repeated twice. It has nice hysterics, and sounds real, if you ignore the lack of correlation to the video clip (there isn't anyone in pictured in the video saying this, the person saying this is not in the scene). It is just as probable that the screaming voice was added in the studio during the manufacture of this film. Furthermore, does anyone, even those who think that Bush ordered 9/11 to happen, really believe that bystanders in New York started shouting "that wasn't an American Airlines?" This is embarrassingly bad, beyond parody.
While "powerhour" has some video editing skills, taking other peoples' footage of 9/11 into their own production, it seems unlikely that their digital editing skills aren't yet to the point of being able to insert people into video clips who aren't part of the original footage, and they had to rely solely on dubbing in the sound, and then pretend that this was "testimony."

[canetoad]

4. I think your instincts are correct about this clip

It's another shot of the towers with zilch significance. I don't see how anyone could read any-fucking-thing into the outburst of the woman in the pink and white stripes. She said 'airline' not AIRLINES.

[seatnineb]

5. Seeing as the video starts at 2:44:24..........

....I would say that this still ain't the complete raw footage.....

I wanna see the whole thing...from 00:00:00!.....which should include the plane approaching and hitting the building......instead the video starts from 2:44:24.... just after the explosion of the building....

Also interesting is the commentary emanating from a radio or TV from a witness/journalist:

"From my vantage point I did not see a thing hit the building but I did see an explosion"

This whole video needs to be shown.

Period.

[Sinti]

6. Could be one of two things

Actual footage where the woman did, in fact, see an AA plane hit the tower, and in a case of instant denial says "that is not an American Airlines." Oftentimes when something traumatic happens people will react with "no it didn't happen," initially. It is not unusual for this to happen, believe it or not, it's a simple coping mechanism the human mind has. How often have you done it? I know I have any number of times.

OTOH, it could just as easily be altered footage. I've seen other pieces of footage where the vox was obviously dubbed in, why people do this is beyond me. The TV in the background is real though. That's Good Morning America playing, I have that on video.

IMO, '9/11:In plane Sight' is one of the biggest steaming piles of horse-hockey ever created, it serves well to discredit anyone who questions the events of that day, and I have serious questions about the creators thereof.