Video Fakery On 9/11, merged Options

[Quest]

http://www.diatribune.com/new-proof-video-fakery-911

New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11

Submitted by Jim Fetzer on Tue, 07/29/2008 - 12:25.
Abstract. 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.

Madison, WI (diatribune) July 30, 2008 – A recent dispute between prominent 9/11 activist Kevin Barrett and founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth James H. Fetzer has led to the presentation of what appear to be five of the strongest, if not the strongest, arguments for video fakery on 9/11. Indeed, they are strong enough that Fetzer, who spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific reasoning, has described them as “decisive” in establishing the complicity of the media in misleading the American people about the events of that day. “It is a sad commentary on the state of freedom of the press that we now have overwhelming evidence that the mass media – television, in particular – was crucial to the deception.”

Barrett, who is running for Congress in Wisconsin’s 3rd District as an Independent Libertarian, challenged Fetzer to offer stronger and more formal support for his views on video fakery, which have evolved during the past year and a half from skepticism to acceptance. “During that time, I conducted more than fifteen interviews with students of video fakery and became convinced by the evidence they produced that there is no reasonable alternative explanation.” Ironically, he and Barrett jointly host a radio program, “The Dynamic Duo”, on gcnlive.com, where Barrett hosts Mondays and Fridays and Fetzer the rest of the week. The arguments that Fetzer has found to be the most compelling were published in Barrett’s Truth Jihad News (July 16, 2008) as follows:

(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 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.

(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.

(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&...bpage1=joes_law.

(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.

(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, as can be observed in the very first image currently archived on his site, killtown.blkogspot.com.

“The evidence is so visual and easier to assess in video format that I find it more than a little puzzling why Kevin insists that the arguments should be presented in scholarly, written papers”, Fetzer said. “But the fact of the matter is that Morgan Reynolds has already done that in his exceptional study, ‘Plane Deceit at the World Trade Center’, 54 pages with 71 footnotes, which is archived on his web site, http://nomoregames.net.” Reynolds, the former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor in the Bush Administration, is an accomplished scholar with a half-dozen books to his credit and innumerable articles. Fetzer, who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is the author or editor of 28 books, with three on JFK and one on 9/11.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth has previously published a press release about this subject, “Mounting Evidence of 9/11 Video Fakery" (July 28, 2007), which is archived at 911scholars.org. What is most powerful about these new arguments, Fetzer said, is that they display the occurrence of events that would require violations of laws of physics, which is not possible. Laws of physics cannot be violated and cannot be changed. Which means that, if they are being shown in videos, they cannot be authentic. . As Ace Baker, musician, composer and expert on digital processing, has recently observed, “9/11 seems to have been a media job as much as it was an inside job.” His own study, “Chopper Five Composite”, may be found at acebaker.com.

Video fakery and no planes are not the same thing, since, although the planes must have been present if the videos were authentic, they might or might not have been present if the videos
are fake. They could have been faked for the purpose of concealing features of the planes or of their interaction with the buildings. “Although the absence of planes is even more controversial than video fakery”, Fetzer observed, “there is considerable circumstantial evidence suggesting that, in this case, video fakery may have been required to conceal the absence of planes.” The alleged eyewitness reports, for example, are far fewer than we tend to suppose. The occurrence of false memory syndrome appears to be a simpler explanation than violations of Newton’s laws.

The debris often cited in support of the existence of real planes has been repeatedly challenged itself. The engine found on the sidewalk in New York appears to have come from a Boeing 737, not a 767. A piece of debris from an American Airlines crash found at the Pentagon has been traced back to a crash in Cali, Columbia, in 1995. Col. George Nelson, USAF (ret.) has observed that each of these planes had thousands of uniquely identifiable component parts, not a single one of which has been recovered from any of the four "crash sites". And John Lear, an aviation expert, has pointed out that, before any commercial carrier can pull away from the terminal, the captain must submit an "envelope" certifying that the plane was ready for flight. Yet not one of these envelopes has been produced, either.

Perhaps even more importantly, Elias Davidsson has a masterful study of the lack of evidence the alleged Arab terrorists were aboard any of the planes, among the most important papers in 9/11 research, http://www.aldeilis.net/english/images/sto.../noevidence.pdf. “I know that Kevin is familiar with his work, because Kevin featured Davidsson as a guest on "The Dynamic Duo" (July 11, 2008). I don't know what he makes of all of this,” Fetzer said, “but the available evidence could be explained with a high likelihood if there were no planes and all of this had to be faked. I submit that any rational mind considering the evidence presented here should similarly conclude that video fakery took place in New York and that there is a very strong possibility that the planes were an illusion. How else is this evidence to be explained? What would be a more reasonable alternative?”

__________________________

[painter]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/bs_flag.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blahblah1.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blech.gif)

[ogrady]

Sometimes the simplest pleas for reason and reevaluation fall on deaf ears. The people who continue to see real airplanes, haven't gone back to simply look at all the different videos of different plane-shapes, how they blink off and on, fade in and out, etc., and they never will.

They can hardly wait to show these films to their children and grandchildren someday, as they relate the tale of airplane terror.

"Look, Bobby. See the plane glide smoothly into the building?"

"But, Daddy. That plane's different than the other one you showed me."

"No, it's not." (Pause in conversation while parent sketches a confusing series of mathematical equations on Bobby's chalk board. He proudly displays finished product.) "See, this proves that the planes only looked different!"

(A chastened and confused Bobby falls silent.)

Airplane saga continues intact into the next generation.

[painter]

Airplane saga continues intact into the next generation.

No. What I want is something other than flakey video productions by people who don't understand anything about video compression, optical distortions through lenses and so forth. My point is that video evidence in these instances are useless as PROOF (which is the term Quest used). Evidence can be conclusive or not. Evidence which is not conclusive should not be called "PROOF" -- it undermines the whole argument by drawing an over-reaching conclusion from the evidence provided. It is precisely this that turn a lot of intelligent people off to the whole 9/11 issue. Worse, I believe to a larger extent than is known, this is INTENTIONAL.

[p.w.rapp]

"New Proof Of Video Fakery On 9/11"

Can't help it, Quest.
I am disapointed!

I've personally always kept an open mind about NPT and video fakery on 911.

But there's nothing 'new' in Fetzers article, apart from the date of issue.

[Comseur]

(IMG:http://comseur.com/comsiteold/halfmast.gif)

[Quest]

Guys, it's an article. Take it for what it's worth. If you care to dismiss it, fine. I never said it was the bible of TV fakery.

Painter, I would be glad to debate you on what is I feel is proof of TV fakery. And what I offer will not be subject to claims of "compression".

And comments like the below?

Worse, I believe to a larger extent than is known, this is INTENTIONAL.

Intentional? By whom? By an individual? By everyone who espouses NBPH? An entire site?

Who?

This post has been edited by Quest: Aug 10 2008, 11:00 PM

[p.w.rapp]

Quest,
I am sorry if you took anything on this thread or in my post personal. I have a high regard of you and your work.
And my disappointment was honest. Fetzer's article is a sumary of known arguments, that so far have not convinced me - probably also because of my lack of knowledge about video technology etc.
Anyway, I am always open for new evidence.
Zap

[Sanders]

Intentional? By whom? By an individual? By everyone who espouses NBPH? An entire site?

Who?

No no no, not an entire site, nothing like that - by a few people, probably connected with one of the military's IT programs, guys who were tasked with concocting strategies for containing the 9/11 truth movement. They probably envinsioned and tested out a number of possible disinformation campaigns as a matter of course. I know they do this sort of stuff, we all do, we know DoD has placed special importance on IT-based "defense" ever since Bush put neocons in charge at the Pentagon, that IT-related military programs are funded, & that the "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document in fact mentions the internet frontier and the need to exploit it militarily. They probably initially "seeded" the video fakery debate with a few dozen posts & a video or two, and continue to feed it to keep bogus info circulating as needed. They probably sit around and laugh when the ideas they concoct are picked up on and vids (they didn't even have to make themselves) show up on youtube and generate controversy.

I have no idea if something along those lines is the case or not, but I suspect it is, I believe this is a "conservative" point of view. That's what I mean when I say "Intentional" ... I can't speak for painter and don't want to put words in his mouth. Quest, you and I were just talking about this sort of thing and I wanted to expound on this point.

[painter]

Guys, it's an article. Take it for what it's worth. If you care to dismiss it, fine. I never said it was the bible of TV fakery.

Painter, I would be glad to debate you on what is I feel is proof of TV fakery. And what I offer will not be subject to claims of "compression".

And comments like the below?

Intentional? By whom? By an individual? By everyone who espouses NBPH? An entire site?

Who?

First: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10749136

Second: Sanders has said it well. The perps DO NOT CARE how much we speculate or on what we speculate. In fact the more we speculate and the more 'out there' these speculations become THE BETTER for them! They don't care what we think, what we say, what we believe -- even if it is far closer to the truth than what they are telling us.

There is only ONE THING they care about and that is seeing to it that the 9/11 Truth movement REMAINS an easily marginalized movement that does not have either mass awareness or mass appeal. If they can get naïve people who don't understand the first thing about photo-optics and digital video to do their disinformation campaign for them ALL THE BETTER. A good counterintelligence program doesn't rely solely upon paid agents to do their work for them. Quite the contrary. Remember my motto, "Whoever controls your perception of reality controls you." So, all you have to do is get people to "believe" something -- doesn't matter what it is -- and then turn them loose. After that they broadcast the disinformation and argue about it endlessly among themselves. BAHH BAHHH -- and we call those who are ignorant of 9/11 facts Sheeple!

I believe that 9/11 is the largest counter-intelligence operation in history. Regardless of the details, we were put in a state of 'shock and awe' on that day, we were told what we were seeing (our lying eyes be damned), we were told who was responsible and how they did it -- and all the rest of it is history. Fundamental to this operation is the necessity for there to be a "conspiracy theory" that reveals something closer to the truth while simultaneously making that truth less acceptable. Without this component, someone might take the MANY anomalies surrounding these events seriously and begin a real inquiry. The disinfo agents were there from the very start, Quest. Many of them and their proteges are still with us.

What I want to know is WHY ARE YOU BROADCASTING DISINFORMATION ON THIS FORUM? Again, I define disinformation as speculation presented as fact. I base this definition on the observation that everything the media and the government has given us to cement their narrative of 9/11 is precisely that.

[Aldo Marquis CIT]

(2) The way in which the plane enters the building appears to be impossible as well. Go to killtown.blogspot.com

This is about the time you should stop reading, folks.

[Quest]

Painter, it's funny how we have a site of almost 2,000 "disinfo agents" at 911movement.org and it keeps growing. Thanks for the 'compliment'. While you're at it, just add Brasscheck to the list of sites spreading "disinfo".

No planes
Just manufactured video
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/401.html

Painter wrote...

What I want to know is WHY ARE YOU BROADCASTING DISINFORMATION ON THIS FORUM? Again, I define disinformation as speculation presented as fact. I base this definition on the observation that everything the media and the government has given us to cement their narrative of 9/11 is precisely that

Police detectives who speculate on various theories on a given crime are "broadcasting disinformation"?

Painter, is Brasscheck guilty of spreading "disinfo"?

Yes or no?

This post has been edited by Quest: Aug 12 2008, 08:51 PM

[painter]

Painter, it's funny how we have a site of almost 2,000 "disinfo agents" at 911movement.org and it keeps growing. Thanks for the 'compliment'. While you're at it, just add Brasscheck to the list of sites spreading "disinfo".

No planes
Just manufactured video
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/401.html

Painter wrote...


Police detectives who speculate on various theories on a given crime are "broadcasting disinformation"?

Please explain, Painter.

Having problems with your reading comprehension, Quest? From the link in my post: "It's fine to speculate so long as one admits to oneself and everyone else what one is doing."

The subject of this thread is: New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11

My definition of disinformation: Speculation presented as fact.

[Quest]

Having problems with your reading comprehension, Quest? From the link in my post: "It's fine to speculate so long as one admits to oneself and everyone else what one is doing."

The subject of this thread is: New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11

My definition of disinformation: Speculation presented as fact.

Painter, in THEIR opnion and mine, it is proof. If you don't want to believe it's "proof", don't. But please do not proceed to tell me I'm spreading "disinformation".

As I asked you earlier Painter, is Brasscheck spreading "disinformation" with the following video?

No planes, Just manufactured video
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/401.html

[painter]

Painter, in THEIR opnion and mine, it is proof. If you don't want to believe it's "proof", don't. But please do not proceed to tell me I'm spreading "disinformation".

I'll damn well tell you what I think, as I did, and if you don't like it you can go back to your 2,000 plus member forum and stay there. We obviously have very different standards for "proof".

As I asked you earlier Painter, is Brasscheck spreading "disinformation" with the following video?

No planes, Just manufactured video
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/401.html

No, actually, BECAUSE, the producer ends the presentation with the statement he does not have answers, only questions. The producer is presenting "evidence" (such as it is) and evaluating that evidence. Fine! He gives a fairly compelling analysis suggesting there was VF. I have no problem with this and find it quite likely. However, he does NOT state that this is PROOF. So long as a presentation stays within that frame of speculation it remains acceptable. Without an examination of the source video or testimony from a witnesses to this video alteration, however, it remains speculative.

[albertchampion]

brasscheck is the work of ken mccarthy.

a very stand-up guy. and i think a founder of mediaweek.

during the fight to save the pacifica foundation from lynn chadwick, mary frances berry, and the clintonistas who were attempting to wrest that "air" from the public and sell it for their personal enrichment, ken was the only individual i knew who saw this fight as i saw it.

but, in the main, our analysis was avoided. until it was almost too late. pacifica did save itself, but incurred an unnecessary amount of debt having waited until the 11th hour to act.

i can't speak for ken, but it would not surprise me if he feels as i do, that pacifica's continuing to take money from the corpse for public broadcasting remains a bar sinister on the pacifica escutcheon. a sign that will not go away until pacifica renounces all government funding.

ken then moved from sfo to tivoli, ny. where he was living when the events of 11/09/01 occurred.

if you have any historical memory, the initial usg sty was that the "hijacked" airliners became lost to boston/ny control because of transponder "turn-off". and that is how they were able to traverse the northeast corridor successfully.

somehow, ken wrote me about transponders. and i wrote him back about how a transponder "turn-off" did not remove a bogie from a controller's radar screen - that in fact, it called for an act of virtually immediate interception.

even more to the point, i wrote ken about all the air guard bases within interception range of all the purportedly "hijacked" flights. and how virtually none seemed to have launched that day. which told me that they had to have been ordered to "stand-down".

ken must have had a relationship with jeff rense. what i wrote to ken was aired on that site.

ken was also one of the first individuals who entered lower manhattan to assess the air quality. when the usg was telling everyone that the air was good, ken was writing that it wasn't at all good. many denounced ken's air quality analysis at that time. in retrospect, ken got it accurately. the usg, rudy, were lying.

his other interesting analysis involved the nyfd fire boats. which landed at battery park and rescued scores of individuals isolated by the events of that day. he told this sty, which was buried by officialdom, because fema was asserting that only fema had been capable of performing rescue ops - that no nyc entity had been able to do that. by the mainstream media, the nyfd fireboat sty was buried[it was written up in a fireman's specialty periodical, however].

ken mccarthy smelled usg rats big time. one he smelled was condi rice's assertion that no one thought of aircraft being used as agencies of "terrorism".

almost simultaneously, we discovered that yossef bodansky had a book published by shapolsky entitled TARGET AMERICA. you may remember bodansky, he was, is a mossad operative. who wrote a preface to the false flag op entitled BIN LADEN: THE MAN WHO DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA.

TARGET AMERICA: TERRORISM IN THE US TODAY. published in 1993. on the cover, bodansky is identified as an international terrorism expert. in fact, at the time of publication, he was the DIRECTOR OF THE REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE ON TERRORISM & UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE OF THE US CONGRESS.

this is a very important book. it can only be considered mossad's first bit of agitprop. and shapolsky must be recognized as a virtual us intell service proprietary.

within hours after the events of 11/09/01, this book disappeared from amazon/barnes&noble. ken felt that the usg seized all copies of this book. principally because it contradicted the "official" pronouncements of the mossad-controlled bushit regime. i concurred. in fact, this book disappeared throughout the usa. ken concluded, as did i, that the feds implemented a program to round up all copies of this book.

ken was dogged, however. eventually, he found some copies in a college bookstore in montreal. he drove to montreal and bought all that they had. i gave him some money for that acquisition. he and i may have the only copies of that book still extant.

in my opinion, ken mccarthy has been one of the few anti-fascists [a knowing skeptic of the state] that i have ever encountered.

lastly, i think ken mccarthy's early career involved computers. specifically how they could be used to create and manipulate reality.

ken mccarthy[brasscheck] is no tyro when it comes to the usage of computers to create reality. neither is he a novice when it comes to understanding the state's manipulation of public opinion. he understands the bernaysian imperatives.

one aspect of ken's initial brasscheck site that endeared him to me was his affection, respect of a great anti-fascist journalist, george seldes. who revealed the linkage of amerikan, european industry, financiers to hitler, mussolini.

seldes' best quote on his careeer was: "tell the truth and run".

seldes' successor was i.f. stone

just some realities of which you might not know.

[painter]

Thanks albert! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/handsdown.gif)

[albertchampion]

i want to say something more about yossef bodansky.

now, i do not routinely listen to cspan's washington journal in real time.

but after what i considered the false-flag events of 11/09/01, i took an interest in listening to that show.

imagine my surprise one morning when yossef bodansky was the guest.

[as far as i know, this was the only time that bodansky has ever been interviewed].

the cspan interviewer, a woman, was talking to him about his book, BIN LADEN: THE MAN WHO DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA.

and then the show was opened to "call-ins". virtually the first caller called to question him about TARGET AMERICA and his israeli citizenship, and his role as a rebbe.

to paraphrase, this is how bodansky responded: "i am not answering those questions. my arrangement to appear here was to only talk about my book on bin laden. in fact, i am so insulted by these questions being allowed, that i am ending this interview."

there was a break for a psa. when washington journal returned, bodansky was gone. he had walked off the set.

bodansky has never been interviewed again.

to the best of my knowledge.

[albertchampion]

while i am on this rant,

another acolyte of seldes, stone was an investigative journalist by the name of bob parry.

who got so deep into iran-contra, bcci, the reverend moon, that he was fired from newspeak, than the ap. for his stories.

he now writes for his website: consortium news.

but in homage to seldes[who published a broadside entitled IN FACT], before retiring to the net, bob published a periodical entitled I.F.[shorthand for In Fact].

i think i have a complete collection.

bob parry was the best intestigative journalist of his generation. and he was snuffed by the evil empire.

"tell the truth and run" remains the imperative.

the only other real journalists that i encounter are robert fisk. john pilger.

but another sty appeared today concerning a real journalist: ray bonner. who the feds spied on from his station in djakarta following the "bombing" in bali.

in my opinion, the feds did to him once again what they did to him after his reporting on el mozote. when he was going to report on the bali bombing as being a false flag op, involving mossad detonation of a micro-nuke, the feds, intercepting his filing, went to pinch and shut-down the publication of that sty.

the gestapo lives.

[Quest]

I'll damn well tell you what I think, as I did, and if you don't like it you can go back to your 2,000 plus member forum and stay there. We obviously have very different standards for "proof".



No, actually, BECAUSE, the producer ends the presentation with the statement he does not have answers, only questions. The producer is presenting "evidence" (such as it is) and evaluating that evidence. Fine! He gives a fairly compelling analysis suggesting there was VF. I have no problem with this and find it quite likely. However, he does NOT state that this is PROOF. So long as a presentation stays within that frame of speculation it remains acceptable. Without an examination of the source video or testimony from a witnesses to this video alteration, however, it remains speculative.

Painter, I say the video on Brasscheck IS proof however, I am not telling you what to believe. Where does that leave us now?

This post has been edited by Quest: Aug 13 2008, 08:39 AM