Hezarkhani video "oh my god" voice overdubbed

[spooked911]

Gee, why would they do this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4ZrkpJT4BM&NR=1

This is nice too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fmBmTMpJJY

[SDuderstadt]

1. Jesus, dude...

who cares?

[BeFree]

2. Hey spooked

Did You see the video from NatGeo on the boobie?

They showed a street scene of GZ and there was one building on the edge that for about ten stories high had all it windows blown out and was blackened as if it had burned. Above 10 floors as if nothing had happened.

I never saw such a thing before. Of course it's only been 9 years and 9 months. >>>?

[spooked911]

3. no, but all kinds of stuff has come out in the past few years

but most people seem tired of it all; almost all people have made up their minds by now and so we're in a stasis of sorts

[BeFree]

4. Yeah sure

Stasis. But most people who have a mind still have questions.

And man that building looked like a huge explosion had taken place at street level, just what you've been banging on all these years. Had you ever seen such a sign, at street level? Don't recall you ever mentioning it before.

Oh the program was called "Inside 9/11"

[spooked911]

5. Thanks. I didn't see that show but I think I know what you mean

and yeah, those blown out windows show the signs of a major explosion. But there is just so much over-whelming evidence all over.

[BeFree]

7. yeah

I've been around a bit and have read a lot and seen lots of pictures. But when I saw that picture of the building face at GZ, I had to pause the vid and look it over close because I had never before seen pics of the buildings across the street.

Gee, I wonder why we had never really seen a panoramic of the buildings around the scene?

[LARED]

6. Who is they? nt

[spooked911]

9. the overdubbers, obviously

don't know who, but probably the gang involved in all the other film fakery

[LARED]

11. So who do you think did the video fakery?

And why bother to fake all those videos and make such an obvious mistake by removing some audio from one clip?

[William Seger]

8. But there are two possibilties

One is that the "oh my god" was added to the DVD version (for some completely baffling reason), and the other is that it was edited out of the first showing on CNN. Please explain why -- once again -- you prefer the least likely explanation.

[spooked911]

10. least likely????

seriously-- CNN shows a video they just got, supposedly, on a huge day full of major news, and they are going to go through all the trouble of carefully snipping out one voice? Seriously? That makes no sense.

If they had to, they would just cut the clip short-- they didn't need that extended bit anyway.

The fact is, the voice was dubbed in is the far more likely explanation, and clear evidence of 9/11 video fakery.

[William Seger]

12. Yes, least likely

I can understand why a TV producer would want to "clean up" the audio by removing that "Oh my god." I can't fathom why anyone -- including even your imaginary video fakers -- would add it in, especially after already having shown the video. And, even if someone did add the "Oh my god" later, that wouldn't say anything at all about the original video being faked.

> The fact is, the voice was dubbed in is the far more likely explanation, and clear evidence of 9/11 video fakery.

Hmmm, I suspect it seems "far more likely" to you BECAUSE you think it's "clear evidence of 9/11 video fakery." But that's what typically happens when you start with a conclusion and reason backwards.

[spooked911]

13. ok, I'll bite

why would a "TV producer would want to "clean up" the audio by removing that "Oh my god""? Note that the whole quote was "Oh my god, the plane just crashed into the building. I cannot believe it. Oh my god." Note also that they didn't cut the voices or audio completely, just that one voice. Pretty careful, technically demanding editing, at a stressful, busy time. Yeah, that makes complete sense.

[William Seger]

15. It would be easy

... to just remove that section of the audio track. That would put the audio out of sync with the rest of the video, but that wouldn't matter if they only showed a few more seconds.

Have you thought of any reason why ANYONE would do that overdubbing? And even if it was done, what would that have to do with Hezarkhani's original video? Sorry, but you're not really making a lot of sense here.

[spooked911]

18. you're not making sense either

if the "oh my god" is so offensive (and why would it be under the circumstances?), why not simply cut out the sound altogether, or just cut it at the end? Again, it seems silly on such a day to go to big lengths to alter an audio track.

I suspect they added in the audio of shock and plane hitting the bldg to reinforce the impression that the plane was seen by people there and not digital fakery, as the Hezarkhani video has long been "exhibit A" in the no plane case.

[zappaman]

20. or

it was edited in the documentary for effect.

regardless, the fact remains that hundreds saw the planes hit the towers with their own eyes and those that promote crap like "mini-nukes" or "super-duper thermite" will always be mocked for their tenuous grasp on reality.

[William Seger]

26. It doesn't really matter how likely you think it was

Once again, your incredulity is not proof of anything. Point is, you haven't yet established that the "OMG" was overdubbed later. Worse, whether it was removed from the first showing or added later, you haven't yet explained what ANY of that has to do with the original Hezarkhani video. Hezarkhani was just a tourist with a video camera who sold his video to CNN. The video shows what thousands of NYers saw and what dozens of other cameras recorded. There isn't any rational "no plane case."

[spooked911]

29. point is, you haven't explained your theory one iota

I have strong evidence, on the other hand, that the video was manipulated after the fact.

There is a lot of evidence for video fakery, I just thought this was particularly clear.

[William Seger]

30. Explain what? Why the "OMG" might have been removed?

If I were the producer of that news show, I would consider removing that "OMG" because A) it comes in very loud and I wouldn't want my news presenters to have to talk over it; B) I wouldn't want any viewers to think it was one of my news presenters talking, and removing it would be easier than explaining it; C) some viewers might find it offensive; and D) it really adds nothing to the video and in fact detracts from it.

And you still haven't explained why anything CNN did with the video after buying it says anything about the original video being faked.

And we've been through your "strong evidence" before, only to find that it consists entirely of imaginary physics and ignorance about digital video imaging and photogrammetry. You "no-planers" are still struggling with how the plane could have penetrated the wall so easily and claiming your own inability to understand that as "strong evidence," which pretty much guarantees that no intelligent person is ever going to be impressed with your "analysis." Every claim you guys have made about that video being fake has been soundly refuted but you just keep repeating them and calling it "strong evidence." That's "strong evidence" of something, but not video fakery.

[KDLarsen]

14. So?

If it was a Boeing 767 in one video and an Airbus 330 in another, then I'd agree there was an issue.

As it is, it sounds like the video showed on CNN was 'raw', ie. it came straight from the camcorder. The DVD wasn't released overnight, so there's been time to process the video and audio, cleaning up unwanted noise and making what's being said clearer.

[zappaman]

16. congrats on the silliest post I have ever seen!

you do realize that the second clip is from a documentary about that day?
has it occurred to you that maybe the audio was placed there because the actual audio source didn't have as compelling a video?
have you ever seen a documentary?
sometimes you see footage and hear audio that isn't from the footage.
it's called editing and, contrary to what you might think, it's even done in documentaries!
as to why they did it? there could be a number of reasons.
you'll have to ask the producer or editor.
in the meantime, maybe you can explain to us why the fuck it matters.
here's something else you might not know..."reality shows" are not real.
they are edited as well as manipulated.

[BeFree]

17. Manipulated "reality shows".... indeed

The whole OCT is the biggest manipulated 'reality' ever.

Of course, you being so smart, knew that, right?

Wait, maybe you are just being silly? Yep. I'd say so.

[zappaman]

19. Silly? Hardly

Not sure what you're being, but your post makes no sense.
Dense, perhaps?
Yes, I do believe I am smarter than you, so I guess we agree on something.
Sad, but laughable nonetheless.
:rofl:

[spooked911]

21. OK, so they altered the historical record

thanks for the confirmation. Once we know they did that, who knows what else they've altered.

[LARED]

22. Check out this link where alterations to the "historical record"

is cataloged

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~farid/Hany_Farid/PhotoTampering4.html

That should keep you busy for a few years.

[spooked911]

27. this hardly goes against my point, but rather greatly strengthens it

thanks

[LARED]

28. Do you have a point?

So far you have established that there was some editing to either remove or add some audio to a video over the last 10 years. This video is visually identical as it shows a commercial airliner crashing into the WTC with no discernible differences between the two.

You have not even speculated as to why this piece of audio is important to your theory of video fakery.

If you want to greatly strengthen your point you may want to provide some evidence to support your point. Something you can't seem to find in nearly a decade of searching. But don't give up just yet, you must be close by now.

[zappaman]

23. maybe they altered the eyes of the hundreds of people who saw planes crash into the WTC? n/t

[Ohio Joe]

24. Almost

See... They really saw a nuke go off and no airplanes. When they got home they saw on TV that it was airplanes and every last one was so amazingly stupid that they completely forgot what they saw. Instead they were hypnotized by the TV and now believed they saw planes. Stupid NY'ers.

[zappaman]

25. I disagree

I think TPTB paid off each and every one of the hundreds of eyewitnesses to say it was planes even though they know it was "mini-nukes".
As we all know, TPTB can do anything and have unlimited resources at their disposal.

[terrafirma]

31. Hmmm....

Been away awhile, but how do we know the "removed" track from the CNN broadcast wasn't "put in" by some conspiracy nut for this YouTube upload?

We obviously aren't directly watching the DVD he/she is claiming it's coming from.