DISINFORMATION: VIDEO FAKERY

DISINFORMATION: VIDEO FAKERY

NEW WAVE 9/11 TRUTH >> DEW-Nuke – NPT – Digital Fakery – Holograms…all 9/11 Lampoons

The point in countering propaganda is not to change the propagandist’s mind, but to lay his techniques and dissembling bare to a candid world.~ww

Shack presents confirmed disinformation:
The “dark lines” around the buildings that Shack claims are problems indicative of “Chroma Key Composits”, are nothing more than run of the mill compression / sharpening artifacts seen in JPEGs as still images and any number of video codecs which use a variety of compressive and image sharpening methods – especially when enlarged, and as a greater degree of these effects is applied – very artificial looking “outlines” are created at the boundaries of contrasting values of pixels.
Non 9/11 imagery showing the compression artifacts of black outlining.
This one image is sufficient to prove the point: http://imageshack.us/f/822/imagedva.jpg/

Having lived and breathed special effects cinematography from the time I was twelve years old, it is difficult to relate to those who have little to no understanding of such things. This is where the frustrations come to both sides in the issue of ‘digital fakery’ of the 9/11 imagery. It occurred to me last night in the moments before falling asleep {as many epiphanies occur to me} that one of the major misunderstandings has to do with virtual space and things.

So, to start on the ground floor of this, considering digital effects and animation, one must discard any preconceptions having to do with manual animation techniques, such as redrawing each ‘frame’ or ‘cell’ as it was called during that era. Or repainting backgrounds from varying angles and distances, as was done in Disney’s ‘Snow White’ or ‘Pinocchio’.

In the digital realm is a virtual space. It begins in this virtual space, which is created in software programs called CAD. If one constructs a simple 3D item in CAD, one is not only dealing with surfaces, one is creating an item that takes up virtual space. All of the relationships of the components of such an item in this virtual space are constant. This is so in the entire digital realm. A virtual 3D space is created, and all component relationships remain constant – until ‘animation’ is applied. This movement is also all integrated into the virtual 3D space which is first and foremost a simple 3D grid with POV and perspective and light source algorithms plugged in.

The point I lead up to here, is that once this virtual 3D “world” is created, it works on all the perimeters of a real world environment when properly constructed. It is therefore as “impossible” for mistakes such as one POV showing one particular event, while another shows some change in angles or any other component.

These are things that betray the type of “analysis” done by Shack and his ilk. All of this is over and above the other silly “analysis”, such as ‘black outlines’ supposedly caused by mismatched chroma keying, or evidence of ‘clone tools’ used in animated video.
CAD : “Computer-Aided Design”

June 26, 2012 at 3:05 pm
As to my above post, I would suggest digesting what I have said above, and then going back to view the Shack “analysis” of WT7 onebornfree posted June 25, 2012 at 12:32 pm, and paying close attention to his arguments with this information in mind.

As with many of the other “analysis” on CluesForum, there is a lot of pointing out “errors” from one video to another to do with plane paths, building and debris falls, etc. It would be absurd to claim that these are errors due to the ‘creators’ of this virtual presentation, as the first order of the day is to create the ‘virtual world – or stage’ in which all the action or animations would take place.
And any change of angles would be flick of the switch programming of one time animations.

Perhaps it is redundant, but I recognize that many are brand new to this. So I will try to make it clearer:

If a virtual model of WT7 is created in CAD, and then an animation is done of it collapsing. This is now available to be rotated and viewed from any conceivable angle, it can be lit from differing light sources, zoomed into and away from etc. So any shots would be consistent in every way aside from lighting, which would be set based on the time of day the event is to be staged at.

Thus, any inconsistencies Shack pretends to point out are all the product of his own imagination.~ww
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_design

On the shack site, near the top of the page we are speaking to, there is someone “analyzing” frames from a video. They are pointing to what they see as “evidence of the use of a cloning tool.” This is absurd. A clone tool is used in still photo construction or reconstruction, and has zero use in a digital animation. This person saw such “evidence” in the churning plumes – noticing similar but not exact shapes being repeated.
But in digital animation replicating fluids or atmospheric effects, the process is done using complex fractal programing, which must be integrated with a three dimensional perspective grid complex. And if there is to be the slightest panning or zooming in and out this grid must be the lead element in the animation of a scene. Further, if there is to be interaction with background elements {such as the building} these buildings cannot be simple still images used for a matte painting. The buildings would have to be constructed in a complex CAD program, and those results imported into the perspective grid as well. And then the interaction between the the fractal animations of the churning smoke and fire effects would have to be integrated in a new layer so that the animations of any destruction of the CAD built elements worked smoothly and believably together.
In 2001 the version of Photoshop available didn’t even have tri-element perspective capabilities in the cloning tool. So even doctoring still frames such as the ones under discussion would have been unmanageable in Photoshop.
There ARE elementary animation possibilities with the newest versions of Photoshop today – BUT they did not exist back in 2001.

hybridrogue1 says:
February 1, 2012 at 7:05 pm
“Firstly, I hope you will agree that showing to the World TV audience REAL images of the WTC demolition job would have been an incredibly silly choice on the part of the perps. Whatever explosives were used, anything that may have gone wrong would have been aired on LIVE TV – to the entire world!”~Mr. Shack

>But things DID go wrong, and were broadcast live to the whole world. Squibs were caught on video, the towers are obviously exploding well beyond the frame of their footprints. Beams are seen flying latterly with great energy. Certainly inexplicable as having anything to do with the aircrashes.~ww

“Secondly, the physics of the TOP-DOWN collapses shown on TV are simply laughable. How could the burning top sections of the towers (“hit by airplanes”) possibly cause the collapse of ALL the floors underneath? This could only happen on Fantasy Land – in a cartoon dimension!”~Mr. Shack

>This question has been adequately addressed thoroughly by the explosive demolition propositions put forth for years now. It was not addressed as a standard implosion, but a top down explosive demo. This is standard fare here.

hybridrogue1 says:
February 2, 2012 at 8:43 pm
“We are therefore asked to believe that the incredibly alert CNN producer managed to promptly switch between 4 different cameras JUST as the 18-second+ collapse took place… just as it happened – LIVE !!!”~Shack

This is hyperbole Mr. Shack, and I feel it is jejune as well.

Yes, a TV control room can juggle many screen shots at one time, the director in the room is a professional and the good ones are as adept as a musician with this instrument. Two seconds to decide on segue is not and exceptionally quick response in determining to follow the collapse wave by switching screens, when it went out of the helicopter footage’s frame.

I also get the sense that you realize this in that you turn to a more excited form of rhetoric going into such passages.

For a single critique of one of your photos on the site with the Giff animations. The last still shot with the arrows showing the direction of sunlight. If this is an example of your visual acuity, let me just say that you fail miserably, or you already know what I mean and are being disingenuous {I’m having a hard time getting a handle on what you are all about here..}

At any rate, the whole mistake is in the fact that the building in the foreground is in full sunlight without a plume of smoke half a mile high just above it. The buildings in the background are lit brighter by the reflective sunlight off of the water in the foreground to them. High above them, cut off in this frame is that plume of smoke shadowing the right side of the buildings- as opposed to the foreground building receiving direct sunlight. In other words the lighting in this photo has no problems whatsoever. You are making it up.~ww

hybridrogue1 says:
March 14, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Concerning the drop of the mast atop WTC1:

Etienne Sauret WTC1 v MSNBC is right and a bit higher than the Sauret video.

The difference in appearance is due to the different angles of the two videos. The distance is flattened in zoom as well, so the difference of the closer camera would have less of this flattening effect – it appears that this is the MSNBC shot that is physically closer, and the Sauret shot is farther away using a larger Zoom app. What is happening in both shots is the antenna is falling backward. Being slightly to the L or R of that would give the appearance of an angle in one direction or the other. From the L it would appear falling slightly leftward – and from the R slightly to the right. It would only take a couple of degrees of camera angle to put this appearance to effect.

So “backward” in this instance needs to be defined. And what that is, is a point in relation to the two POVs we have under discussion, the antenna mast falls straight back from the split difference of the two shots. If the scene was from the opposite side the antenna would fall forward. But this was obviously obscured by smoke from the other side. From above the piece is falling towards and into the thickest plume of smoke.

A more sophisticated approach of analyzing these shots would involve locating some key points of the structure of the building and creating a 3D perspective matrix to find the true angle of the face of the building which is ‘almost’ straight on’ – but isn’t exactly. From there it could be calculated to what degree the angles of the camera’s vary. Because of the flattening of the Z-point [depth], it might be impossible to say which camera was closer or further away. As I have said, intuitively I think the MSNBC shot is physically closer.

Your use of the Contrast setting to dip the photo into stark contrast may sound convincing. However your assertions as to whether the ‘smoke’ would not add light to a shadow, being true in a live situation does not hold fast in a photograph. The smoke does indeed add light in the photograph, regardless of your proposition. Just a glance at the photograph shows this to be the case..

Again, I don’t think you have proven anything other than your misconceptions of digital photography – and indeed your visual acuity in general.

A picture – in this case the digital picture of the aftermath – is nothing but pixels. It is not going to react in anyway to manipulation but in the realm of pixels, this does not translate in any way other than light, darkness, grades between and color values.

Now you will note, that in the photo above, the materials seen through it are fogged, and lightened.
That it is “lightened” pictorially, is no different than if it were ‘lit’ in reality. Understand, the photo can only give you the light information, and that information is all you can use, not assumptions based on how light and dark act in a physical setting.

It should be clear from what I have said here that it would not be surprising to find an area “lit” by the smoke pictorially to contain more contrast information than an area that is in deep shadow.

And I will state one more time, there are no shadow anomalies in the photo above.

I have worked with literally thousands of photographs in Photoshop. I have seen countless examples of the “anomalies” you point out for your 9/11 shots, many from photos that were originally analog shots from 35 millimeter slides.

The contrast settings will create demarcation lines as you describe for many reasons. That is what the contrast tool does, demarcate between the brightness and darkness in a picture. I have seen faces outlined in high contrast as if someone had drawn a line with a pen. But it is merely the result of the demarcation of the visual information between the flesh tones on the face, and the brighter or darker background. All you do with the contrast settings is eliminate the mid tones by the degree.

You should also understand that atmosphere will often create a halo effect around objects in the
distance. This can be indiscernible at a mild contrast setting and then jump out at you in high contrast. There is so much to understand about common photo editing as a prerequisite for forensic analysis.

You say:

“This clarification has to do with building C (the US Post Office building).

[1] “As we can see, the western façade of building C is brightly lit – as if the smoke in front of it were a light source – which is, of course, absurd.”~Shack

–This is NOT absurd, the smoke in front of it IS a light source:

The fact that the haze or the smoke has brought refracted light into the shadows should not be a surprise; The haze is particulate, it not only blurs the underlying features, it lights them by reflecting ambient light. Thus there is more visual information than in deep shadow.

So there are compound aspects of the light areas caused by the smoky haze; there is the refracted light of the lit particulates that make up the haze. There is then the separate aspect of that reflected light into the shadow. So there are in fact two indirect sources for the light in this area of the photograph.~w

[2] “It should be just as dark (shaded) as the A and B façades. ”Just as dark”? No. More precisely, C should actually be EVEN DARKER than A and B, since the C façade is angled even further away from the sunlight (as shown in my red frame):”~Shack

–You are forgetting a very elementary aspect of photography here Mr. Shack; the Reflective Fill Light of the lit area in front of the facade. It is the very fact that C is angled more directly from the sun’s angle that means it is more directly aimed at the reflective fill light on the ground in front of the facade in question.

This also is the reason that the other facades are darker, as well as the buildings nearby creating an alley of darkness where the ground in front is not lit, so the fill light is missing that facade C is getting. Meanwhile back in Toontown [Sept Clues pg. 10]:

“Same kind of smoke and identical shadows: were these pictures taken at the same time?”
~nonhocapito, Administrator’s ‘comparison montage”.~Clues

Hardly identical shadows, even the cranes are in different positions in these shots, as well as the shadows. Only the shot; top-right ,was taken from a great height {satellite}, this is why the angular discrepancy is missing as shown in the others.

The others are from aircraft – seemingly within about a half hour or so between shots.

Remarks of Steve Brown digital photo expert:
“You’re trying (logically) to debate him logically within the context of his own ill-informed and significant illogic – he’s talking about this image as if it was a 3D construct duplicating the spatial reality (in terms of light & shadow) of the scene it shows – IT’S A 2D IMAGE AND THESE ARE FLAT PIXELS
when a brightness/contrast filter is applied, this is basically what happens: the darks get darker and the brights get brighter – the smoky haze has already lightened the value of the shadows in this image considerably in relation to the shadows not obscured by smoke – Photoshop (or any other graphics app) is not going “look underneath” the smoke to see what value the shadows would be if the smoke wasn’t there – and then darken those areas instead end of story…but his points are often founded on absolutely wrong “facts” or “assumptions”, made by someone who apparently is presenting himself as a digital graphics expert, and yet knows virtually nothing about this field

One glaring example: the “dark lines” around the buildings that he claims the plane is impossibly “passing through” – are nothing more than run of the mill compression / sharpening artifacts seen in JPEGs as still images and any number of video codecs which use a variety of compressive and image sharpening methods – especially when enlarged, and as a greater degree of these effects is applied – very artificial looking “outlines” are created at the boundaries of contrasting values of pixels”
~Steve Brown
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2366974

SEE: FAKING THE RUBBLE
by simonshack » March 20th, 2012, 8:49 pm

Here is the photo [top of Truth and Shadows] that Shack has darkened the contrast to, and a smaller inset.
The two photos are obviously taken at different times. The inset is taken at an earlier time than the main photo in question. I would estimate from a quarter hour to an half hour later in the day. What the significance of this inset is supposed to be is not clear.

________________________________

>”To this day, I have not come across any knowledgeable criticism (or, as popularly called,”debunking”) of my work. I am tranquilly awaiting for a serious, well-documented critique to commence. It still hasn’t – but when it starts – I will be happy to tackle every single well-formulated challenge to my longstanding research.”~Simon Shack – February 2, 2012 at 6:10 pm

Mr. Shack, it is now March 27, very close to two months since you made the comment [boast] above.

So far your only response to “every single well-formulated challenge to..[your]..longstanding research,” has been wholesale dismissal and hand-waving; characterizing such challenges as, “attacks” and “pseudo-intellectual drivel”.

Your “tranquility” is pretense, just as your “research” and “analysis” is pretense. You have made it blatantly obvious that you cannot formulate even the beginning of a defense of your “work”, other than the pretense that your hand waving dismissals are in anyway adequate.

For myself, I can only conclude from all of this that you sir, Mr. Simon Shack, are a charlatan and a pretender who has staged an elaborate internet hoax concerning a critical issue of our times – that being the 9/11 PSYOP.~Willy Whitten
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie/

Video is an inexact medium. In 2001, most cameras weren’t digital, they
were analog. They recorded information on magnetic tape of various sizes
and speeds, and those images are then interpreted by the video player.
Everything from age of equipment to dust to how many times the tape is used
affects the picture quality. Even live cameras will never look exactly the
same, even with two of the same brand of camera set up next to each other.
Trust me; studio engineers work tirelessly to get the cameras at least
close enough in image characteristics to at least not be distracting to
viewers. Consider now you have dozens of different kinds of cameras that
day recording the attacks; the quality will differ widely between them all.
The question of the “black edge” or the “masked edge” which so
intrigues you is simply an anomaly of video. Zoom lenses record video
which is not going to be perfect because of lens distortion, and video has
never been fond of bright light and contrast as was experienced that day.
The pixilated shifts you also obsess over, like when parts of a building
visibly morays and then springs back to normal, is a characteristic of
microwave transmission, which is how these images were beamed back to the
stations. The video was transferred digitally over the airwaves, which is
why there’s a digital effect, that tearing and shifting. As far as I can
discern, you have no original footage in your video ? it’s all recorded
from other websites or are copies of on-air broadcasts, which degrades the
quality of the video signal exponentially. Again, if you’d sought experts
in this area instead of just using your imagination, you could’ve
answered your own question.
You also spend a lot of time trying to show that differences in angles,
etc., prove there were a number of badly made versions of the attacks
created, but as I watched your accounts of this is was obvious these were
simply different perspectives of the same scenes, and perspective can have
a huge impact on how things appear. In the one scene where you insisted
the cityscape disappeared it was clear the camera angle was slightly lower,
thus eliminating the buildings. Keep in mind, this was shot with a long
zoom lens so even the slightest adjustment of perspective is going to
change the background radically, even if it changes the foreground
minimally. Put a drinking straw to your eye and peer through it at
something at eye-level, then lower your head even just an inch while
focusing on the same item. The scene changes radically. No mystery there.

I did get a chuckle out of your PAT sequence and my only explanation for
why the helicopter “appeared” to disappear in that one perspective is,
again, the failure of degraded video to hold onto every visual element,
especially in the high-contrast haze of that morning at great distances
(and the sky was very hazy at the scene itself from the first few moments
of the fire onward, even if crystal blue skies prevailed everywhere else).

Microphones are the same – they will sound different, especially with the
many different kinds of commercial camera-mounted mikes out there. Some
are unidirectional, some are omnidirectional. Most are very cheap if not
attached to a professional-grade camera and thus vary greatly in which
frequencies they are most attuned to pick up. In the scenes where you
compare the loudness of the crash noise, sometimes buildings were between
the mike and the crash, which would dilute the sound. Different cameras
have different built-in sound filters, too, which will wash loud noises or
specific tones, like bass, out.~Dahler

“Moreover, consider this: ALL 4 segments showing the “plane approach” are not only perfectly sequential, but each one of them also features the same “now-you-see-me-now-you-don’t” dynamics: PLANE ENTERS FROM EDGE OF SCREEN / THEN DISAPPEARS BEHIND EITHER SMOKE OR THE WTC.”~Simon Schacht

If the plane approach is from real footage, what would one expect BUT to find the footage sequential? Same for the framing of the footage. The camera focus is on the building, the cameraman or a spotter sees the plane and the camera moves to catch the plane, of course it will come into the frame from the edge of POV. The building is billowing smoke…so what is the mystery of the plane disappearing behind the smoke from that angle. As far as an angle of the plane hitting from the other side, what could the mystery possibly be in it disappearing behind the building??
Where is the logic here? All of the visuals make sense as real video – the argument that they are not takes the very aspects one would expect and DOES see, and twists them into “proofs” that what is seen is “ridiculous”. Shack’s arguments are absurd. They are absurd on the very face of them.
Again, it is deeply discouraging that anyone can read such tripe and not see through it. I stand in wonder at such incredible gullibility.~ww 3/30/2012 > posted 4/1/2012
http://truthaction.org/debunkingseptemberclues.pdf Sept Clues Debunked PDF

hybridrogue1 says:
March 31, 2012 at 2:28 pm
WELL?

It seems to me this is like Florida in 2000 – Hanging Chads….

By that I mean, there is no resolution, no summation.

I would perhaps propose, that like a chess match, or a boxing match, when the opponent is a no show the game goes to the team or player that does.

I think I have made a very strong case that September Clues is an elaborate hoax, that the main purpose is to take the Best Evidence off the table. I think that the lack of response by the chief instigator of this hoax is most telling.

Unless there is something more than hand waving the critiques I have offered here, I will offer my simple summation:

September Clues is a scam.~Willy Whitten

Now to some of the Physics the Faked-Video charlatans dispute:

SANDIA JET CRASH — THE FACTS:
Sandia National Laboratories conducted a crash test of an F-4 Phantom jet impacting a MASSIVE CONCRETE BLOCK in 1988.
Picture 1 is a still frame from the video segment used in the analysis (http://www.sandia.gov/videos2005/F4-crash.asx) with an added overlay of blue and red equally spaced vertical lines. Although this particular segment is running in slow motion, Sandia reports that the initial velocity of the plane before impact was 480 MPH
(http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html).
The absolute time measured in units of frames (1/30 of a second) when the tail-end was aligned to each vertical line is tabulated in Table 1. Since the error bars are quite large (+/- ½ frame), the time difference was calculated between every 2 vertical lines. For example, in Picture 1, the time difference calculated at the first red vertical line is taken as the time it takes for the tail-end to traverse both adjacent blue vertical lines, and the result placed into the row labeled “Red 1” in Table 1. Since velocity = change in distance / change in time, and the distance is constant (the distance between every other vertical line), the relative velocity ~ 1/change in time and is tabulated in the third column of Table 1. The average of this column is computed and is used to normalize the data, resulting in column 4. The resulting graph of the normalized velocity is shown in Figure 2. The red and blue vertical lines in the graph correspond with those in Picture 1 (left-aligned). An arrow marks where the point of impact begins. Each data point should be thought of as a rolling average over the distance of 2 units of the x-axis.
Data could not be taken for the last 20% of the impact since the tail was obscured by debris.
No change in velocity was measured before or during impact to within an error of
3%.
Picture 1: F-4 Phantom jet impacting a massive concrete block (far right). Equally spaced blue and red vertical lines are overlaid on the original video.
http://journalof911studies.com/letters/Boeing767DecelerationTowers.pdf – [Appendix]

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “DISINFORMATION: VIDEO FAKERY

    • “We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”
      ~George Orwell
      \\][//

    • Here is a page that explains how to find the origin of a jpeg or other digital photo:

      JPEGsnoop 1.7.3 – JPEG File Decoding Utility

      JPEGsnoop is a free Windows application that examines and decodes the inner details of JPEG and MotionJPEG AVI files. It can also be used to analyze the source of an image to test its authenticity.

      Every digital photo contains a wealth of hidden information — JPEGsnoop was written to expose these details to those who are curious.

      Not only can one determine the various settings that were used in the digital camera in taking the photo (EXIF metadata, IPTC), but one can also extract information that indicates the quality and nature of the JPEG image compression used by the camera in saving the file. Each digical cameras specifies a compression quality levels, many of them wildly different, leading to the fact that some cameras produce far better JPEG images than others.

      http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop.html
      \\][//

  1. Have you ever seen a video of someone holding on end of a Slinky above their head, so that the stretched out springs other end is about two feet from the ground?
    When they let it go, that end nearest the ground remains in place and does not fall until the rest of the spring compresses to that point.

    Visually it looks impossible, especially watching in slow motion to get the full effect of the bottom part sitting there motionless over the ground.

    This illustrates a phenomena that “looks wrong”, has the “appearance” of the impossible, and yet can be explained by Newtonian physics. It has to do with an object’s center of gravity, ie, the center of the object’s mass.

    I bring this up as it is a similar phenomena as the videos of the jet crashes into the World Trade Towers on 9/11. Some hold that these videos show “a physical impossibility”, but as explained by the crash dynamics in the Sandia jet-sled experiment, it has to do with the center of gravity of the object [the plane] and that center of gravity meeting the impact point before there is any slowing down of the tail section of the plane.

    Both the Sandia test and the crashes into the towers take place in a fraction of a second. The Sandia test used high speed slow-motion cameras to record the event so the video could be analysed. The tower crashes are taken in real time speeds, therefore any slowing down of the video is in need of extrapolation software to fill in the framing gaps. When this is analyzed correctly it shows that the same crash physics as that proven by Sandia occurred in the tower crashes.

    \\][//

    • On the shack site, near the top of the page we are speaking to, there is someone “analyzing” frames from a video. They are pointing to what they see as “evidence of the use of a cloning tool.” This is absurd. A clone tool is used in still photo construction or reconstruction, and has zero use in a digital animation. This person saw such “evidence” in the churning plumes – noticing similar but not exact shapes being repeated.

      But in digital animation, replicating fluids or atmospheric effects, the process is done using complex fractal programing, which must be integrated with a three dimensional perspective grid complex. And if there is to be the slightest panning or zooming in and out this grid must be the lead element in the animation of a scene.

      Further, if there is to be interaction with background elements {such as the building} these buildings cannot be simple still images used for a matte painting. The buildings would have to be constructed in a complex CAD program, and those results imported into the perspective grid as well. And then the interaction between the the fractal animations of the churning smoke and fire effects would have to be integrated in a new layer so that the animations of any destruction of the CAD built elements worked smoothly and believably together.

      In 2001 the version of Photoshop available didn’t even have tri-element perspective capabilities in the cloning tool. So even doctoring still frames such as the ones under discussion would have been unmanageable in Photoshop in other than ‘hand painting’ or single perspective cloning.

      I hope this clears some areas of this topic up for you.

      Again, I see the whole effort there as misguided for a penumbra of reasons.
      \\][//

  2. Five Arguments have emerged as among the strongest proofs that video fakery took place on 9/11, namely: that United 175 is traveling at an impossible speed for its altitude; that the entry into the South Tower with no debris is physically impossible, that this occurs in uniform motion in violation of Newton’s laws, that the Naudet brothers’ video of AA 11 hitting the North Tower reveals “cut outs” being created by secondary explosions and that the Evan Fairbank’s video of United 175 displays similar problems.

    (1) Multiple experts (including the FAA, the Royal Air Force, and so on) have calculated the speed of United 175 as reflected by the Michael Herzarkhani video at approximately 560 mph (averaging their estimates). While that corresponds to the cruise speed of a Boeing 767 at 35,000 feet altitude, it would be impossible at 700-1000 feet altitude, where the air is three times more dense, as Joe Keith, an aerospace engineer and designer of the Boeing “shaker system”, has recently explained, in the video entitled, “Flight 175 – Impossible Speed”, which is archived at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY . While Anthony Lawson has claimed such a plane could reach that speed in a dive, the plane is clearly not diving.”~James Fetzer

    I will address (1) in this post, and then the other four points in subsequent posts.

    This assertion relies on the assumption that the plane involved was indeed ‘Flight 175’ a commercial Boeing 767. But this is highly doubtful. It is more likely, in fact almost certain that the planes were remote control drones flown by autopilot, and therefore military planes that would have been souped up in other ways – such as a special fan and intake system for use in lower altitudes.

    There are also misconceptions as to the strength of the aircraft aluminum used in the construction of even the standard Boeing aircraft. This is not the same soft aluminum of a “beer can” as Fetzer is so fond of saying.

    So Mr Fetzer is arguing with the official version of events, and not the critics who have made substantive inroads as to showing these planes cannot have been the commercial aircraft of the official narrative. But eliminating the official aircraft does not eliminate ALL aircraft, thus point number 1 fails to definitively prove the point Fetzer asserts.

    \\][//

  3. (2) “The way in which the plane enters the building appears to be impossible as well. Go to killtown.blogspot.com and scroll to (what is now) the sixth image and you can view the plane interacting with the building. It is passing into the steel and concrete structure without displaying any signs of impact, where the wings, the engines, the fuselage and other component parts all remain intact. It should have been the case that massive debris was breaking off and the plane was being dismantled by the interaction between the moving plane and the stationary building, as early critics and late–from the Web Fairy to Morgan Reynolds–have been maintaining for years now. So this is yet another physical impossibility.”~James Fetzer
    . . . . . . . . . . . .
    >”…appears to be impossible..” is the key phrase in this assertion. It appears that way to the naked eye as viewed on the video. However, as discussed above in the body of my article [See; Sandia test] , and as further explored in the comment on the Slinky spring, appearances are deceiving, and the crash physics science explains this well.

    So what is the relevance of the Sandia test of the F-4 Phantom jet impacting a massive concrete block?

    The conclusion based on the slo-motion video taken was:

    “No change in velocity was measured before or during impact to within an error of 3%.”
    . . . . . . . . . . . .
    >”It should have been the case that massive debris was breaking off and the plane was being dismantled by the interaction between the moving plane and the stationary building”

    This assertion discounts momentum and kinetics entirely.

    Put bluntly for brevity, there is no question of “impossibility” when the crash physics are fully understood and applied. Again see the article on this blog: Disinformation: No Planes, for more detail on this subject.

    The Boeing 757 and 767:

    The aluminum that modern aircraft are made of is not the same soft material as that of a beer can: Aluminum 2219-T81 UNS A92219; ISO AlCu6Mn; Aluminium 2219-T81; AA2219-T81 – with a tensile strength greater than that of structural steel.

    Gross weights 172,365 kg (380,000 lb) and, from 1992, 186,880 kg (412,000 lb); further increased centre-section tankage.

    \\][//

  4. (3) “As Joe Keith has observed, the interaction observed here also violates all three of Newton’s laws of motion. According to the first law, objects in motion remain in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. According to the second, an object accelerates in the direction of the force applied. According to the third, there is an equal and opposite reaction. But the plane moves at uniform motion through both air and building, which would violate Newton’s laws unless the building provides no more resistance (force) than air, which is absurd. By most counts, the plane moves its length through air in 8 frames and also moves its length into the building in the same number of frames, which cannot be the case if these are real objects and real interactions. His paper is archived at http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=joes_law.”~James Fetzer

    This one is total nonsense, and is coupled to number 2, which rebuttal given here has already been made.

    But I will mention that after debating Fetzer for numerous threads on the blog Truth and Shadows, he revealed himself to be absolutely clueless with it comes to applied physics.
    He insisted at one point that the tower had the property of momentum. An object at rest has zero momentum, this is simple and elementary physics. Like his bizarre “beer can” analogy of a plane, he is simply giving us rhetorical balderdash.

    It is this scientifically determined fact that puts the false assertions to rest that it was in some way “mysterious” that the impacting jets passed through the façades without perceptible slowing. Or as the ‘no-planers’ claim, “like a hot knife through butter.”

    Fetzer uses the term “effortlessly,” but as seen in the discussion of the physics detailed in the article: https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/911-disinformation-no-planes-theory/, to claim this impact was ‘effortless’ is rhetorical nonsense.

    The term “effort” is the energy put into work to achieve the effect manifest. As we have seen in the analysis of the crash, there was massive ‘effort’ or force in the kinetic energy of the mass of the aircraft; equal to 0.75812 ton TNT or 3.1720e+9 joules (watt second).

    \\][//

  5. (4) “Neither the impact of United 175 with the South Tower nor the impact of American 11 with the North show the damage done to the steel and concrete in the form of the “cut outs” that subsequently appear at the time they were allegedly being “caused” by the planes’ impacts there. A study of the Naudet brothers footage reveals a secondary explosion after the initial impact and fireballs that actually causes the cut out in the North Tower. Indeed, an extension of the right wing’s cut out was even “penciled in”. Take a look at the study of this phenomenon under “9/11 Amateur, Part 2”, http://www.revver.com/video/605306/911-amateur-part-2/ . It is fair to infer that the same technique was employed to create the cut out images in the South Tower.”~James Fetzer
    . . . . . . . . . . .
    This assertion is due to both Fetzer and those he cites’ ignorance of video and photography in general. The Naudet brothers footage reveals very little because of the extreme pixelation of the copies to be found on the Internet. Because of the thinness of the aircraft wings at the distance it was shot from, they are less than a single pixel in size when view from the edge. The so-called ‘second’ explosion that Fetzer purports made the “cut out” of the shape of the aircraft in the side of the building is a bogus concept as well, as in both instances in each of the towers the blowback of the conflagration was moments later than the nose impact, not occurring until the engines were impacting the facade. And again the extreme pixelation of the shot, it’s being out of focus to begin with make this analysis a subjective argument in many ways. Standing this along side the other three failed assertions gives weight to this counter argument against it.

    \\][//

  6. “(5) The same student of the videos has examines the Evan Fairbank’s footage and found ample grounds to dispute it. Certainly, it shows the same smooth entry as the Herzarkani footage and the same lack of debris from the encounter. However, it goes further in considering the angle of the shot and how he came to take it, which suggests that he is lying through his teeth. He claims he saw a “white flash” and was able to determine it was a jet. But the time line is so brief that this explanation appears to be a complete fabrication. View this study at “9/11 Amateur, Part 3”, at http://www.revver.com/video/605306/911-amateur-part-3/ . Killtown has now extended the uniform motion argument to Evan Fairbank’s video, http://killtown.blogspot.com/2008/07/air-vs-skyscraper-video.html.”~Fetzer

    The URLs for the Killtown pages have this message:
    “Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.”

    However, when Fetzer says, “Certainly, it shows the same smooth entry as the Herzarkani footage and the same lack of debris from the encounter,” he is merely reiterating the first and second points which have already been sufficiently address here.

    \\][//

  7. “In all honesty, page 1 [of 20] should really be enough proof for the average individual here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=802&sid=3b44387deabc7515dc148d4eee5a53c0
    ~Onebornfree – March 9, 2012 – 6:33 PM
    . . . . . . . . . .
    My Reply:

    That’s the spirit Onebornfree!

    It is too bad that spirit is all you have. The spirit to call others delusional, that is quite an argument. Pointing to a page and claiming it is ‘self-evident’, when what is self evident to someone who understands digital animation, is that everything on that page is amateur hour blather.

    This page shows GIF animation, which is the crudest digital animation display one can work with and asks the viewing audience to determine whether the scene is actual video or as claimed on this page, a CGI animation. The accompanying text reads:

    “This is a clip from the NBC archives. It should be immediately clear to any casual observer that this visual representation of Manhattan is not real. It has all the characteristics of a digitally rendered computer animation.”clues

    It is “immediately clear..” yes and it has, “all the characteristics of a digitally rendered computer animation,” – because it IS – it is a crude GIF “animation file” – NOT VIDEO.

    From the same page:

    “Thus, in all probability, the oldest trick in the manuals of covert military ops was used: smokescreens. More recent technology deactivated temporarily all cameras within sight of the area. In reality, the towers were most likely enveloped in thick smoke (military obscurants) as they collapsed – and no real footage exists of that brief event.”~clues

    “technology deactivated temporarily all cameras within sight of the area.”

    –This is not so and anyone aware of all the video of that day knows that there are scenes close to the buildings with firefighters and reporters as the towers exploded above and the video captured the scenes – camera’s being totally ‘activated’.

    There are many other videos never shown on TV the day of the event, taken by pedestrian video-photographers that began showing up on YouTube soon after – from many varying angles. Their camera’s were not deactivated.

    “These images are an intolerable insult to human intelligence”~clues

    –This is true, the images as presented on this site are indeed an insult to our intelligence.~ww

    \\][//

  8. The post above reports on a small portion of the dialog on this thread at Truth and Shadows:

    http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/when-did-they-know-truth-leaders-on-how-they-awakened-to-the-911-lie/

    This is where the rumble between myself and Max Bridges began. It is also where I ran into Simon Shack, and his pet snake, Onebornfree. There is also twaddle on Judy Woowoo Wood from a couple other people.

    It was these initial debates that led me to write the series, ‘9/11 DISINFORMATION’.
    These should all be read as a series, as they address a lampooning phenomena that has infiltrated the research community referred to as the Truth Movement. I say they are lampoons because they pose as serious theories, when in fact they are all based on spurious fraud by charlatans.

    In many ways, these charlatans are more destructive of the search for truth than the obvious shills and toadies promoting the official narrative. They are the enemy inside the gates, a 5th column.

    \\][//

  9. “What is like is not”~Taoist saying

    I was a bit brief in my post above, so let me elaborate just a bit to make my point clear.

    I open with the Taoist quote, which is brief as well…so let me explain it for those who don’t see the obvious in what the quote says:

    If I show you a picture of a horse and ask you what it is, you may answer, “a horse”. But it is not a horse, it is a PICTURE of a horse. Thus, what is like is not.

    A picture is not the thing it is a picture of. This is rudimentary, but that seems to be where this conversation needs to begin, because a lot of false assumptions are being made in this very elementary level on this subject.

    A picture – in this case the digital picture of the aftermath – is nothing but pixels. It is not going to react in anyway to manipulation but in the realm of pixels, this does not translate in any way other than light, darkness, grades between and color values.

    Now you will note, that in the photo above, the materials seen through it are fogged, and lightened.
    That it is “lightened” pictorially, is no different than if it were ‘lit’ in reality. Understand, the photo can only give you the light information, and that information is all you can use, not assumptions based on how light and dark act in a physical setting. [like is not]

    It should be clear from what I have said here that it would not be surprising to find an area “lit” by the smoke pictorially to contain more contrast information than an area that is in deep shadow.

    And I will state one more time, there are no shadow anomalies in the photo above.

    Hybridrogue1 – MARCH 19, 2012 – 10:11 PM [Same page as URL above]

    \\][//

  10. Copious photographic evidence indicates that World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7 were brought down by explosions within these buildings. Testimonies from personnel of the New York Fire Department tell of explosions inside these buildings. Radio transcripts and written affidavits of members of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department tell of explosions inside the twin towers including in the basement.(www.thememoryhole.com/911/pa-transcripts/).
    . . . . . .
    Now just as the question asked concerning the attempt to defame Jones and Harritt concerning the discovery of nanothermate in the aftermath; that question being:

    “In who’s interest is it to attempt to dismiss such smoking gun evidence?

    The same is true for the photographic evidence:

    ‘In who’s interest is it to dismiss the imagery, the largest portion of evidence?’

    Cui Bono

    Zionist-Neo-Conservative principals of PNAC provides Motive, the fact of the members coming to direct executive power with GWB provides Means and Opportunity. The covert MO of the National Security State has remained constant for more than a century, ie; “false flag” intelligence operations.

    \\][//

  11. Now I want to promote the work of Saul Trane, who posted a comment on the “No-Planes” article on this blog and left this URL to his own work critiquing Ace Bakers bullshit on CGI, similar to Simon Shack’s gibberish, but more sophisticated as Baker can actually do some elementary CGI himself.

    Mr Trane thoroughly thrashes Baker’s nonsense here. I urge all who read this page to check out his fine work:

    http://debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-lies-of-ace-baker.html

    \\][//

  12. Pepper’s Ghost v Holograms

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper%27s_ghost

    There is no such thing as a “projected hologram” – what is usually referred to as ‘holograms’ in stage shows is ‘Pepper’s Ghost’, as explained in this article on wiki.

    “Pepper’s ghost is an illusion technique used in theatre, haunted houses, dark rides and in some magic tricks. Using plate glass, Plexiglas or plastic film and special lighting techniques, it can make objects seem to appear or disappear, to become transparent, or to make one object morph into another. It is named after John Henry Pepper, who popularized the effect.”
    \\][//

    • It is likely that many reading this have been to the Disney Haunted Mansion at one or another of their theme parks. There are several variations on Pepper’s Ghost seen on this ride:

      The severed head of Medusa in a “crystal ball” is one of these. The miniature woman saying good-bye at the end of the ride is one as well.

      The most elaborate is the ‘Haunted Dance Hall” which is a reflection on angled glass of what is actually taking place below the track that the “cars” that the visitors ride in; they are manikins on spinning platforms that are lit a bit less bright than the lighting in the dance hall with the tables and other furniture – thus you can see through the figures in that “ghostly” manner.

      The singing tombstones are another type of projection of animated faces onto a blank tombstone form, where the projected image wraps around the form. The control of lighting and POV is the essential element in making these convincing effects.
      \\][//

      • MUSION: THE WORLD LEADERS IN HOLOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY

        Eyeliner:
        eyeliner
        Eyeliner is the core of our technology, with its imagery often referred to as a hologram. A 21st century twist on a Victorian theatre trick, the Eyeliner utilises a technique called Pepper’s Ghost. The visual effect is created through our holographic projection system.
        http://musion.com/about-musion/
        http://musion.com/eyeliner/
        \\][//

    • Musion Eyeliner/Pepper’s Ghost

      MANSION

      To be absolutely clear here about Musion Eyeliner/Pepper’s Ghost; it is not a “hologram” nor is it a “projection”, it is a “reflection” in an angled clear sheet of glass or plastic.
      \\][//

  13. Yes indeed I am prolific. This seems to concern a certain anonymous entity [Maxwell Bridges]. It is rather funny, all the things about myself that seem to concern said entity…

    Perhaps he/she can learn a few things in the process, such as the fact that there is no such thing as, in fact no possibility of a projected hologram as posited by the flatulent “Dr” Fetzer. A hologram needs a screen – or a medium on which to “display” the image. This rules them out for WTC 9/11.

    I doubt if the entity would dispute this – it is just good for him to grasp some of these fundamentals better. It would behoove the entity to understand that 4th generation nuclear weapons are also still a twinkle in the military’s eye. This rules them out for WTC 9/11. Conjecture needs to take it’s proper place in the entity’s thinking process – MAYBE just don’t cut it when the real chips are on the table. Fiction is the realm of maybe and conjecture.

    The entity’s house of cards has been blown down. That the entity will ever accept that fact is a kink in his/her own make up.

    If he/she keeps on counting those beans, maybe he/she can make a hill of them someday.
    \\][//

  14. Epiphanies on Parade a Neural Cascade

    Realizing that the Medium is the Message is a core point in getting what goes on in the postmodern ‘high-tech’ society. Even though the concept has been around from the early 1950s when McLuhan first began writing and speaking on the subject – it is not openly considered by the mainstream, because it reveals too much as to what the mainstream media is all about and what it’s underlying agenda actually is.

    Once one ‘gets it’, has that epiphany as to how it is the medium itself that is the message, a whole new level of understanding is available. A large part of grasping the the underlying basic core of this ‘message’ is as McLuhan himself reiterated, it is a continuing massage., it is “Process”. Just as the medium is the message; the process is the agenda. When all is in an endless process of becoming, it never actually is.

    This is the trap the Palestinians are caught in with the “Mid East Peace Process”, which has been going in circles for the past 60 years. This is the key to the power of the New World Order centered in the UN. It is the revolving “resolution”…the perpetual revolution the never ending story, from the land of Nod, to the land of Oz.

    In the paradigm of the dialectical, the Process is the Agenda – not reaching the solution. It seems a spiral as natural as DNA, but it is an illusion as there is no depth – so it is merely a going in circles on a flat plain. Around and around the playing board.

    All of this has bearing here, on this very topic of the Pentagon event. We have been set on a turning wheel of process; ending back at ‘GO’ where we began, wherein it was ‘obvious’ that no plane hit the Pentagon. Like a “Reset” button was hit for the ten year anniversary. This is essential for the agenda of the current system, the Process Must Proceed.

    Most of those involved in this have little to no understanding of the parts they play in this process. It is only in bringing this process to the forefront of our consciousness that we can begin to determine such things and to make the conscious effort to break the bonds to such a game—to step away from the game board and make our own path to where we want to go.
    \\][//

  15. YouTube has taken down the best videos on Pepper’s Ghost, probably at the request of the Musion company as per “trade secrets”.

    It is a shame because these videos showed very nice demonstrations of reflection type Peppers Ghost – Musion Eyeliner techniques.
    I understood that a company cannot copyright a word, but apparently “Musion” is now a ‘Trademark’… which despoils the whole “public domain” protections for “educational purposes”. I protest, but realize it is futile in a corporatist system. Fuck Fascism!
    \\][//

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s