Fakery, Air-speed & Open Complicity, My POV Options

[Sanders]

Officially, Pilots for 9/11 Truth as a web-site tries hard to refrain from offering "theory", which I believe is a smart and correct approach which has paid off in dividends. However there is a role that theories play in the sciences, they provide a possible explanation for events which can then be proven or disproven. Scientific theories are often holistic, providing a framework with which to interpret various sorts of data. If the incoming data fails to agree with the framework the theory provides, the theory is probably wrong. If it continues to agree, the theory gains credibility. I have a theory regarding the contentious subject of what really hit the South Tower. It is just a theory, my own personal POV on the subject.

Reasons Why People Suspect Fakery: (Compelling)

The Impact

Many people think this looks fake

(IMG:http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/4939/stowerhitui4.jpg)

Could a Boeing slice into a steel-framed building like this? What kind of steel are we talking about? The perimeter box columns were not "massive". Apparently, the steel in these columns near the top of the building was only 1/4 " thick.

(IMG:http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2144/perimeteriw0.jpg)

NIST appears to be a source for the 1/4" thickness figure:

According to NIST, the gauge of steel used for the exterior columns varied
considerably with height.  The perimeter column flanges for the lower
stories were often more than 2" thick, whereas the steel could be only 1/4"
thick in the upper storey columns.

http://www.takeourworldback.com/911/911fires3.htm

But the plane had to contend with more than just the perimeter columns, judging from the diagonal that the plane hit at there were steel and concrete floors that proposed an obstacle as well. The diameter of the fuselage alone was 17 feet, it would have had to have hit at least one floor slab, to say nothing of the wings. How could the plane not have crumpled against the face of the building, how could the wings not have broken off and fallen to the ground?

Some try to rationalize that what made it possible for the plane to penetrate the tower intact was it's speed. I contend that, while a high speed collision will result in more damage overall, speed itself doesn't impart any special quality on the object that is moving. A plane crashing into a building at 500 mph is exactly like a building crashing into a plane at 500 mph. Just like a Toyota crashing into a mack truck at 60 mph will result in the same kind of overall damage as a mack truck crashing into a Toyota at 60 mph - in matters of collision mechanics, speed is relative.

I'm no engineer, but common sense tells me that there is something very wrong with the "impact".

Speed of the Plane

There is more though that indicates that a Boeing isn't what struck the South Tower. Factfinder General discovered that this plane, according to NTSB records, was doing near Mach 1 speeds as it careened toward the towers through New Jersey.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...post&p=10017372

Then there is a pumpshitout interview with Joseph Keith, a 76 year old retired software engineer who worked on the "Shaker" system used by Boeing to test airframes by "shaking" them through various resonant frequencies. Regarding his work for Boeing, he says, "I became very familiar with the fragility of these airframes, all they are are flying aluminum beer cans..." 2/3rds through this phone conversation Keith continues: "I also contacted friends of mine that were still working at Boeing, and, because I know that those planes can't fly very fast at sea level. And if you count the frames that it takes in that video, in any of those videos, it's all the same, it takes either 6 or 7 frames [for the plane to fly it's own length], and if it takes 7 frames to fly a total length which is 159 feet, that means the plane was averaging 465 mph. If it took 6 frames that meant the plane averaged about 543 mph. Well, according to the Boeing experts or Boeing people themselves, the engineering department, ... the plane maxes out, the specs on the plane, the power plant will max out at 700 feet altitude at 330 mph. In other words you can't fly that fast. And, the plane will begin to shake itself apart at about 220 mph at that altitude. ... You see, the engine with the cowlings around them are I think something like 12 feet in diameter on a 767, and they're built to fly at over 30,000 feet - and when you're at 700 feet altitude the air is so thick that when the engine, you max the rotation of the turbines, the air, they can't suck the air in, and the things start acting as a brake."
http://www.pumpshitout.com/audio/joseph_ke...1607_planes.mp3

Jeff contacted Boeing and two people he talked with there also seem to think that it would be impossible for a 767 to fly at 500+ mph @ 700 feet altitude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

None of the above is what I would call conclusive, but all of this certainly makes one wonder if what hit the south tower wasn't something other than a Boeing.

Reasons Why People Suspect Fakery: (Uncompelling)

Conflicting Flight Paths & Building Positions

There is a plethora of videos available on the net which claim that videos were faked. I have looked at many of them carefully, and there is a revealing pattern to which claims appear to hold water and which don't. The claims which attempt to show buildings in the wrong places or flight path comparisons that don't match, at least the ones I've tried to analyse so far, appear to be baseless. They all have as their basis misinterpreted anomolies of photography. Some of my posts on this topic:

On the claim that the Hezarkhani shot from Battery Park was impossible (trees should have been in the way, 19 Rector Street building is missing, etc.)
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=9813506
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=9813583

On the claim that the flight path in WB11 news footage does not match other accounts
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...post&p=10006252

Position of background buildings in two shots of the towers from either side of the Empire State Building are "static"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...dpost&p=9868170

Another claim shows two shots of the towers, one from a stationary position and one taken from a helicopter. The claim is made that the shots are "identical", yet while the Hudson river is visible in the background of the Chopper shot, in the background of the stationary shot nothing can be seen but sky. The claim is, that the background in one of the shots is "missing". Well, of course the shots are not identical. While the towers look more or less the same and the two shots appear to have been taken from a similar horizontal vantage point, they were obviously taken from very different heights. This is why you can see the water in one while in the other the horizon is below the field of view.

Other alleged anomolies: (Uncompelling)

While all of the above claims in my opinion stem from a misinterpretation of photographic side-effects (long zooms, perspective, etc.), there are other claims that I believe flow from a misunderstanding of sound recording. In one amateur video, a point is made that there is no impact sound. What is missed here I think, is the fact that video cameras have a compressor/limiter built in to them which "limits" the level of the recorded sound to a very finite range . It doesn't matter if you talk or sing or point the camera at a plane crash, the volume at which all will be recorded is basically the same. (I use compressors/limiters all the time in my work and I know something about this.) With a cheap camera the limiters are very bad and can't handle large decibel levels and the whole thing just gets limited like crazy, so a big explosion like that will just sound like noise. In the amateur clip cited, when the plane crashes you can't hear anything except noise - you can't hear the sirens either anymore, and just afterwards the limiter backs off automatically and you can hear the sirens again and people yelling "oh my god", etc. This is what these cheap limiters do. (There are of course other clips where the sound of the explosion is loud and clear, but these compressor/limiters vary widely in quality and their ability to handle high decibels depending on the quality of the camera.)

Another claim compares two clips, in one the explosion is tremendous and in the other it is barely audible, if not inaudible. However the first of these clips is taken from right under the towers, the second is taken from probably midtown (the image shakes slightly, signaling that it was taken from a tripod with a long zoom lens). Sound decreases in volume at the rate of the distance SQUARED, so when you record something from a distance the sounds in the immediate vicinity are nominally much louder and more predominant than sounds emminating from far away. Even an explosion at half a mile away can't compete with a police siren a block away when the sounds are all fed into a limiter and recorded.

Judging from what I have looked at so far, none of these claims of conflicting flight paths, buildings in the wrong position, entire shots faked, missing explosions etc., hold up to scrutiny.

That's not to say that all of the claims of "fakery" are so easily debunked...

Other alleged anomolies: (Somewhat compelling)

As BoneZ has shown, the "nose-in, nose-out" anomoly is not a pixel for pixel match (exact words in the video are "micro-precision match") as the video maker claims. However, the brief "black out" that follows it in footage from two different networks, and the fact that this "nose-out" business was covered up in subsequent airings with a banner in the lower half of the screen, is indeed suspicious.

There is a "charcoal plane" claim in September Clues Part 2 that seems valid. The fore of the buildings are illuminated by the sun and the plane is clearly not in the shadow of anything, yet appears a dark charcoal color.

"Stuttering plane" - one of these videos illustrates how the plane skips pixels, i.e. it moves 2 pixels, then 2 again, then one pixel, then 2 again, etc.

There are many other claims of course, some compelling and some not. I do believe that once you get a feel for how photography can be deceptive especially when shots are taken from long distances, I think it becomes obvious these none of these claims of conflicting flight paths and/or buildings being in the wrong position ever hold up to scrutiny. There are some things that seem to suggest that some kind of alteration was made to video footage though. This all fits with my POV, as we shall see.

The First Down Line

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/first-down-line1.htm
http://www.nodeception.com/articles/pixel.jsp

The technology is available.

Why fake the plane?

A real Boeing probably would have made a mess when it hit the tower, raining debris on the streets below. Anyone could have have picked up identifiable airplane parts. Unless it was actually UA flight 175 that was used, the perps would have wanted to avoid this. Also, the whole idea of the WTC event was for the planes to enter the buildings, doing extensive damage and providing fuel for the fires that would be blamed for the collapse. There are of course aircraft that could be depended on to do this without a hitch, but they don't look like Boeing 767's. I don't know what might have been used, but...

High Speed is a Clue

However the perpetrators pulled it off, they only had one chance to do it for real. Crashing planes into skyscrapers isn't an easy thing to practice. If they had a choice of flying the planes in at moderate speeds, i.e. the kinds of speeds the planes were designed for at low altitudes, or of flying them in at breakneck (500+mph) speeds, one would think the slower the speed the better the chance of them getting it right. There is no good reason for them to have attempted this at such high speeds unecessarily, unless they had no choice in the matter. I contend that whatever hit the towers had a higher density-to-lift ratio than a Boeing, and was not capable of flying at more moderate speeds. My guess is that some sort of aircraft did fly across the Hudson river and hit the south tower that morning, and that it was enough like a missile to be able to penetrate the steel-framed perimeter of the building intact. I'm also guessing that it looked enough like a plane from the ground to have fooled many eyewitnesses, but was too much like a missile to have flown at more moderate speeds.

DU

DU, which missiles are often tipped with, becomes pyrophoric upon impact, it ignites as it cuts through its target. Could this be the source of the "flash" evident in some videos just as the plane is entering the building? Is this burning piece of debris flying out of the opposite side of the building below the remnant of a DU penetrator? Seems like an interesting detail.

(IMG:http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/205/projectilebz5.jpg)

Open Complicity

"Adam" from Ann Arbor 9/11 Truth made a video titled "Open Complicity". In it, he examines various aspects of the 9/11 conspiracy that make no apparent sense. The aspects he focuses on are, Bush sitting in a classroom for 7 minutes after being told that the 2nd tower had been hit, the fact that put options were placed on companies to be affected by the attacks but the profits never collected, the "dancing Israelis", and Larry Silverstein's confession on PBS that he and the fire chief decided to "pull" WTC7. The most bizzare of these instances is the dancing Israelis. Mossad agents dressed up like Arabs and celebrated the attacks in three different locations, drawing sufficient attention to themselves to get arrested. Adam's hypothesis is that various participants in the 9/11 conspiracy were persuaded to publicize their complicity in some way, in order to insure their loyalty to the real planners of 9/11. He cites the video JFKII, where it is theorized that George H. W. Bush participated in the Kennedy assassination in order to win a seat at the table, just as a mobster is required to kill someone while his future superiors watch before he can become a "made man".

I would add five other instances that may also be examples of this sort of "open complicity". One would be Dick Cheney having been put in charge of the air-defense. Another might be Donald Rumsfeld announcing the day before 9/11 that the Pentagon couldn't account for 2.3 trillion dollars (and maybe even his slip of the tongue regarding the "missile" that hit the Pentagon). Another could be the fact that AIG and Blackstone Group set up the financing and insuring of the WTC. It should be noted that Kissinger Associates was also involved in this financing. View from the Catbird Seat reported this on their website, but the information AND the website itself are now gone. Henry Kissinger would not have been required to document his own complicity in the attacks, he's far higher up than that.

The other two instances I would add have to do with the Media. One of these, I would venture, was the BBC's reporting the collapse of WTC7 23 minutes too early. The BBC may have done this willingly or they may have been duped, but their complicity and hence their eternal silence with regard to allowing any real 9/11 truth to make it out on their airwaves or websites was insured. The other instance was... (you guessed it), the broadcasting of fake plane images on US national TV.

When the NPT controversy first began to rage, I was under the impression that it was all part of a disinformation campaign, designed to both distract and divide the movement, and to set up truthers to be ridiculed in the media. I still believe that the original source of some of the more radical theories (that promote the idea that whole shots were faked for example, buildings in the wrong places etc.) may be such a disinformation campaign, but it's just a hunch (and it doesn't mean I believe that everyone promoting these claims are a part of it - these ideas can be seductive and the distortions relating to photography I addressed above can be deceptive - not just for the viewer but for the researcher as well).

However, I was surprised that the theories that no Boeing hit the twin towers have not been mentioned in the mass media. Why not? I can hear Glen Beck now, "these truthers think that the planes were faked, that CGI images of the planes were added into all of the footage! They're all NUTZ!!!"

Why is the media ignoring this juicy opportunity? Is it because the NPT /TV Fakery crowd is small enough to have escaped notice? This has been bugging me.

Then it hit me. This is the media's achilles heel, this is their "openly complicit" connection to the 9/11 attacks - and they don't want to get too close to it.

Conclusion

So that's my theory. Some sort of plane/missile hybrid was used to hit (and successfully penetrate) the towers. This explains the high speed of the plane(s), apparently impossibly high for a real Boeing near sea level. The videos were altered to the extent that the actual aircraft used was covered up with images of a large Boeing, at least in the footage that mattered, that is, the footage where the object shows up large enough to discern what it is.

This theory rejects the notion that entire shots were pieced together from different images or that different videos show different flight paths or other such more radical ideas, notions which may or may not be part of a disinfo campaign to keep everyone arguing over the whole subject until doomsday.

The mass media, who's parent companies are all in bed with the ruling elite that were the masterminds of the attacks, was stong-armed into participating in the attacks by allowing certain images to be altered before they broadcast them, and their loyalty and their pledge of eternal silence was thus cemented.

2 cents

[Factfinder Gener...]

2 cents

Talk about getting your money's worth! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Seriously though, this is a splendid hypothesis, Sanders. It really provides an excellent summary of what is in and what is out as regards NPT also.

However, I'm not quite sure why you are so hung up on the idea that there must have been something that looked like a plane just because some people said they saw one. Knowing you though, you have good reasons, still, I'm curious.

Personally, I know too well how easily people will lie, for any number of reasons. Plus the witness testimony of David Handschuh, who had his camera trained on tower 2 at moment of impact yet didn't see or hear any plane. His vantage point of West and Liberty was ringside. He describes instead a high pitched sound like a high pressure gas rupture coming from everywhere and nowhere. he also describes the people around him as being just as confused by this as he was. His reaction, close up witness mind you, and a professional observer, was that it must have been a bomb. Of course being media himself, he now "buys" in to the fact that there MUST have been a plane, but he maintains he never saw it.

What he saw, or didn't see, and what he heard conforms exactly to the projectile being a high subsonic penetrator missile.

Then you have the reporter on the street, veteran Dick Oliver, who heard the same whistling screech and who argued with the studio anchor that the people he was interviewing thought it was a missile that hit WTC2, not a plane. Of course he was promptly cut short by the anchor.

Then we mustn't forget that there's the chopper reporter and pilot too. Amber Theoharis was WNBC's eye in the sky and she saw not a lick of any plane approaching the Towers. She too was watching the Towers closely with a clear view of the whole darn sky.

This to me is a powerful antidote to all the obviously phony and way over the top histrionics of Oberstien and co, with there repeated assertions that not only was it a plane, but it was a big plane, at least a 727 yaddah, yaddah, yaddah. There's a "witness' over at PI who is a flight controller I believe. Super nice chap by all accounts, but he reckons he saw the plane from about six miles away and was telling me that it swayed back and forth as it approached the tower.

Then there's Mike Walters who says he saw the pentagon plane enter the building, as its wings folded in like an accordion so it could squeeze through the tiny hole. LOL!

None of this persuades me in the slightest. I find the No Plane witnesses to be so much more credible, in every way.

My 2 cents.

[waterdancer]

I think Sanders and I are in fairly close agreement on this, so I'll list a few of my reasons for thinking that there was actually something which resembled Flight 175 in the skies over Manhattan on 9/11.

1.) The money shot. This is the big bucks, Hollywood extravaganza opportunity money shot. All eyes and cameras are looking right where you want them to be. You've got a huge fireball prepared to dazzle everyone. Do you run the risk of having some amateur expose a clear fraud with some home footage which doesn't show a plane where and when it should? I would think not. Flight 11, no one is going to be prepared- hence we only have a few very poor shots to go with (and the Naudet film is probably foreknowledge, IMO). With 175, OTOH, you have the golden opportunity to show the "plane" in all its glory. You have the huge (IMO) risk that if you don't actually have something which will pass as a plane in videos that you run the risk of the plot being exposed. Provided you have a passable substitute which will penetrate, you have substantially less risk.

2.) The lack of FDR data being made public from the WTC site. Passports made it out, supposedly bound and severed stewardess's hands made it out yet no black box data has ever been publically released or acknowledged. (Though, unofficially 3 of the four black boxes were supposedly found). If those black boxes did make it out, why wouldn't the data be released? My theory is because pilots would be able to tell that 175 couldn't have been 175 due to airspeed, etc. One could argue that there actually were no black boxes to be found, I suppose.

3.) Landing gear, engine, fuselage, etc. in lower Manhattan. These could have been planted in some way, but it would have been (I suspect) much more difficult than it would have been to do something similar at the Pentagon. The debris in Manhattan looks a great deal bigger and heavier than what showed up at the Pentagon, for one thing. For another, the Pentagon would be easier to control access to.

4.) Eyewitness accounts, photographic and video evidence. There is a substantial amount that would require faking if nothing resembling Flight 175 were over Manhattan. If something which could pass as Flight 175 were there, there is relatively little that would need to be manipulated, as Sanders mentions. I suppose this is actually pretty similar to #1, but the emphasis here is on exactly how much footage/documentation we do have. Which would all have to be fake, in order for there not to have been something resembling Flight 175. See this thread for a few examples. Then extrapolate to include skycams, live footage and amateur footage broadcast later + eyewitness accounts.

So, for me it comes down to which would be easier and less risky- putting together a missile/plane hybrid designed to penetrate the south tower or ensuring that all the evidence was planted/doctored satisfactorily. Until I see a more convincing case that it would be damn near impossible to do option number one, I'm going to say that #1 would be easier, because I personally think it would be damn near impossible to do option #2.

This post has been edited by waterdancer: Sep 24 2007, 11:19 AM

[Sanders]

FfG, I didn't say it looked like a plane, but rather that I would guess that it looked enough like a plane to be mistaken for one by an eyewiteness. You can interpret that anyway you like, you can interpret it as meaning a missile with little wings on the side if you want - no one is ever gonna know. This is the weakest part of this hypothesis, the only evidence for it is the fact that some people said they saw a plane, and the fact that the perps would be concerned about what people saw (or got on film).

But there is very good reason to believe that it was something and not nothing. If it was nothing and all the images we saw were just plastered on empty sky, then they could have had the plane going at whatever speed they wanted. It wouldn't make any sense for them to have it flying at 500+ (or even 600+ in New Jersey) mph. The hijackers that they were supposed to be mimicking wouldn't try to fly that fast, the perps themselves wouldn't increase their chances of missing on their one do-or-die attempt by flying that fast if they didn't have to, so the logical conclusion was they HAD to - because it was something that won't fly at slower speeds.

As for what it was, everyone gets to use their imagination. The only requirement for it to fit this theory is that it has to have so little lift that it can't cruise around at 300mph, it has to be able to penetrate a steel-framed building, and it has to look different enough from a Boeing to require some video tampering.

It's just a theory, but it provides a framework to try and fit the available facts into. It is the only explanation that I can think of that explains everything I've looked at so far regarding the south tower strike. It may get shot down, or it may not, we'll see (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Sanders]

Oh yeah, one other thing to think about, Factfinder General ...


The perps were concerned enough about eyewitnesses at the Pentagon to enact a flyover by a real Boeing (or it appears they did) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Factfinder Gener...]

I think Sanders and I are in fairly close agreement on this, so I'll list a few of my reasons for thinking that there was actually something which resembled Flight 175 in the skies over Manhattan on 9/11.

1.) The money shot. This is the big bucks, Hollywood extravaganza opportunity money shot. All eyes and cameras are looking right where you want them to be. You've got a huge fireball prepared to dazzle everyone. Do you run the risk of having some amateur expose a clear fraud with some home footage which doesn't show a plane where and when it should? I would think not. Flight 11, no one is going to be prepared- hence we only have a few very poor shots to go with (and the Naudet film is probably foreknowledge, IMO). With 175, OTOH, you have the golden opportunity to show the "plane" in all its glory. You have the huge (IMO) risk that if you don't actually have something which will pass as a plane in videos that you run the risk of the plot being exposed. Provided you have a passable substitute which will penetrate, you have substantially less risk.

2.) The lack of FDR data being made public from the WTC site. Passports made it out, supposedly bound and severed stewardess's hands made it out yet no black box data has ever been publically released or acknowledged. (Though, unofficially 3 of the four black boxes were supposedly found). If those black boxes did make it out, why wouldn't the data be released? My theory is because pilots would be able to tell that 175 couldn't have been 175 due to airspeed, etc. One could argue that there actually were no black boxes to be found, I suppose.

3.) Landing gear, engine, fuselage, etc. in lower Manhattan. These could have been planted in some way, but it would have been (I suspect) much more difficult than it would have been to do something similar at the Pentagon. The debris in Manhattan looks a great deal bigger and heavier than what showed up at the Pentagon, for one thing. For another, the Pentagon would be easier to control access to.

4.) Eyewitness accounts, photographic and video evidence. There is a substantial amount that would require faking if nothing resembling Flight 175 were over Manhattan. If something which could pass as Flight 175 were there, there is relatively little that would need to be manipulated, as Sanders mentions. I suppose this is actually pretty similar to #1, but the emphasis here is on exactly how much footage/documentation we do have. Which would all have to be fake, in order for there not to have been something resembling Flight 175. See this thread for a few examples. Then extrapolate to include skycams, live footage and amateur footage broadcast later + eyewitness accounts.

So, for me it comes down to which would be easier and less risky- putting together a missile/plane hybrid designed to penetrate the south tower or ensuring that all the evidence was planted/doctored satisfactorily. Until I see a more convincing case that it would be damn near impossible to do option number one, I'm going to say that #1 would be easier, because I personally think it would be damn near impossible to do option #2.

Well. I knew Sanders would have his reasons for speculating on some slight of hand "could've been a plane" device being utilized, and they are sound as are yours, WD.

However, I wouldn't underestimate the perpeteers ability to get people to believe black is white and vice versa. This is one of their favorite things to do. I'm sure it gives them even more of a thrill and sense of power when they get people believing in something that wasn't even there.

I do think you HAVE to factor in Handschuh's evidence. He got his Money Shot, a great shot of the missile blowback from the impacted South face of WTC2, but he saw no plane, no fly by, nada. I believe that there were a few (hundreds, who knows, maybe a thousand or more) skilled operatives on the ground 'spinning' what ever evidence of a missile there might have been, and proclaiming loudly that they just saw a plane, thus shaping and manipulating the perception of all the disoriented and innocent members of the public. There were operators and "peace officers" collecting/confiscating untoward material, and I am certain that there were witnesses leaned on to change their opinion, etc. etc. This was, after all, a massive operation: more massive than any of us dared to first imagine and getting more massive in our understanding by the month as each revelation hints at broader and more profound levels of conspiracy.

Of course I am not discounting the possibility of decoy flybys, as was obviously used at the Pentagon. Handschuh's evidence, once again him, must though be placed firmly center table, IMO, when trying to ascertain the bottom line truth of what exactly was pulled off and how.

Excellent points though, gentlemen, and an extremely well thought out and finely argued thread. Bravo. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/happy.gif)

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 24 2007, 02:06 PM

[painter]

Excellent post, Sanders. We're on the same page w/ this.

The only thing you didn't include that I would is in regard to the NCC and COG -- the amount of control the DoD can exercise over all the forms of electronic communication, including real-time broadcast satellite feed, in instances of a "national emergency." The fact is they DO have the ability to input video imagery into real-time satellite feeds. Which is not to say that they DID do so, only that this is a real possibility, just as there was the real possibility of inserting fake bogies in FAA radar.

CF:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=7250
and:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=2504

[Sanders]

Thanks for adding that, painter (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/salute.gif)

[Factfinder Gener...]

Excellent post, Sanders. We're on the same page w/ this.

The only thing you didn't include that I would is in regard to the NCC and COG -- the amount of control the DoD can exercise over all the forms of electronic communication, including real-time broadcast satellite feed, in instances of a "national emergency." The fact is they DO have the ability to input video imagery into real-time satellite feeds. Which is not to say that they DID do so, only that this is a real possibility, just as there was the real possibility of inserting fake bogies in FAA radar.

Good points, painter.

I trust however, that you are not suggesting even the possibility of TOTAL Video Fakery as floated by NPT's resident and well named Mr. BS (registration that is) with his much touted Future Combat System "they made everything up" far-fetchedness.

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

Excellent post, Sanders. We're on the same page w/ this.

The only thing you didn't include that I would is in regard to the NCC and COG -- the amount of control the DoD can exercise over all the forms of electronic communication, including real-time broadcast satellite feed, in instances of a "national emergency." The fact is they DO have the ability to input video imagery into real-time satellite feeds. Which is not to say that they DID do so, only that this is a real possibility, just as there was the real possibility of inserting fake bogies in FAA radar.

CF:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=7250
and:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=2504

tO ADD this piece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxY2OHQsdBk

[Factfinder Gener...]

Excellent post, Sanders. We're on the same page w/ this.

The only thing you didn't include that I would is in regard to the NCC and COG -- the amount of control the DoD can exercise over all the forms of electronic communication, including real-time broadcast satellite feed, in instances of a "national emergency." The fact is they DO have the ability to input video imagery into real-time satellite feeds. Which is not to say that they DID do so, only that this is a real possibility, just as there was the real possibility of inserting fake bogies in FAA radar.

CF:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=7250
and:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum...showtopic=2504

tO ADD this piece

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxY2OHQsdBk

Another nifty vid m-v-b but there is Zero proof of military co-option of the media, putting painter's points about the possibility of outside control being exerted to one side for right now, and there is no credible proof of Total Video Fakery. Aaron Brown, of CNN, here seen in your vid was standing on a REAL roof watching a REAL tower, that had been impacted by a REAL explosive device. No FCS officer was in a room somewhere, beaming out pre-generated material en masse, while the media stood by helpless. The media worked hand in hand with the military, who worked hand in hand with the government, who worked hand in hand with international intelligence, who worked hand in hand with Big Finance, who worked hand in hand with the Brotherhood of the Hidden Hand (to give them one of their more colorful names!)

FCS stops speculation beyond the MIC, and is designed to, and furthermore it stretches the implausibility factor because of it's literally incredible and thoroughly bogus claims, and thus it is extremely divisive. When is everybody going to wake up and get that this kind of theory was planted as disinfo very skillfully with the express purpose of leading people down a blind alley. When we get to the end of the alley, you know the perps are gonna be lying in wait so they can Cream us. This is an alley I believe we need to back out of immediately, and how. As investigators we should have open minds, most definitely yes, and your open mindedness is worthy and a great quality, m-v-b, but we should sift through what is credible and what is not.

Just like Sanders is doing with this thread.

I really believe that we need to become much more aware of the disinfo and be able to recognize it for what it is. Haven't we all had enough of being had?

I don't mean to come across as a (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/grump.gif) but the issue of misleading info is a hugely important one, IMO. Not meaning to Offend, m-v-b, and I sincerely hope that I haven't.

This post has been edited by Factfinder General: Sep 24 2007, 05:49 PM

[painter]

Good points, painter.

I trust however, that you are not suggesting even the possibility of TOTAL Video Fakery as floated by NPT's resident and well named Mr. BS (registration that is) with his much touted Future Combat System "they made everything up" far-fetchedness.

I'm not "suggesting" anything, god damn it! I'm pointing out information most people simply do not know. BSReg is either an idiot or counterintelligence precisely because he brings up very valuable information regarding FWS, FCS and FSD, the potential to monitor, control and disrupt all lines of commercial communication, yet he couches it in very bad analysis, sloppy research, over-reaching statements and "far-fetchedness" which serves to undercut the very significant things he's pointing out. This has been my criticism of his work from the very beginning.

In any case, we can no longer assume that simply because we were shown something on the TEE VEE it is real. This should go without saying as it isn't anything new (consider Orson Welles' War of the Worlds radio broadcast, for an outdated example) but the technology has now become so sophisticated that whether what we are shown is "real or memorex" has become almost impossible to ascertain without the source material and sophisticated analysis. If, as is clearly suggested in the material provided, the DoD has the ability to insert into live feed even the news commentators themselves aren't going to know what is and isn't 'real world or exercise'. The Full Spectrum Dominance potential for total control of social perception via the media and augmented reality is a genuine concern regardless of whether it played any part in 9/11.

Cf:

---

[Guest_m-v-b_*]

@Factfinder

While i agree with you, i also hear Aron Brown, stating that there images comming from a "broadcast Pool". I indeed admit that this is very speculativ, while on the other hand "I" do not believe that the whole media-apparatus, including all reporters, anchors and who else is in such a company, was fully involved in knowing that there where "No Planes". I think the perps succsesfully, used the sensationally "thinking" of the Media, of whom they knew, they would jump imediately on the "Plane-Horse" and ride it all the way down.

For myself i think, the actual amount of perps, who where directly involved, was between 50-100.

Anyway, i am glad to meet people like all of you who not get drown in selfillusions.

greeting!

[amazed!]

Great post Sanders! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

Very thought provoking. I find it plausible that there was utter fakery and no plane, but cannot reconcile that with all the sources of pictures of a Boeing striking the South Tower. The only picture I've seen of the first strike was inconclusive at best. Could easily have been something other than a Boeing.

But how are you going to disguise an aircraft to look like a 767? Can't be done, it seems to me, all things considered.

As for the 767 exceeding its design speeds, I see no big problem with that--the aircraft is in enough of a dive that it's well over the redline. Autopilot, probably military standard and enhanced, is doing the flying. Yes, it won't do such speeds in level flight, but I'm sure that just like small airplanes, with enough of a dive angle the red line can be exceeded.

[Factfinder Gener...]

I'm not "suggesting" anything, god damn it! I'm pointing out information most people simply do not know. BSReg is either an idiot or counterintelligence precisely because he brings up very valuable information regarding FWS, FCS and FSD, the potential to monitor, control and disrupt all lines of commercial communication, yet he couches it in very bad analysis, sloppy research, over-reaching statements and "far-fetchedness" which serves to undercut the very significant things he's pointing out. This has been my criticism of his work from the very beginning.

Exactly as I trusted! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Factfinder Gener...]

@Factfinder

While i agree with you, i also hear Aron Brown, stating that there images comming from a "broadcast Pool". I indeed admit that this is very speculativ, while on the other hand "I" do not believe that the whole media-apparatus, including all reporters, anchors and who else is in such a company, was fully involved in knowing that there where "No Planes". I think the perps succsesfully, used the sensationally "thinking" of the Media, of whom they knew, they would jump imediately on the "Plane-Horse" and ride it all the way down.

For myself i think, the actual amount of perps, who where directly involved, was between 50-100.

Anyway, i am glad to meet people like all of you who not get drown in selfillusions.

greeting!

You're right, I think it is a pretty safe bet that the whole of the Operation was carried out in a Needs to Know fashion. As for how many perps were in on it, I'd say a whole bunch (that's specific of me (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ) more than we'd care to imagine, IMO.

[Sanders]

But how are you going to disguise an aircraft to look like a 767?  Can't be done, it seems to me, all things considered.

In video-land? Yes, it can be done, they can do it quite easily! It's amazing what they can do.

I looked and looked for the video where the guy is waving around the bouquet of flowers which is being put in his hand only in the video monitor IN REAL TIME (actually within the 1/24th of a second between video frames)... there's a fake helicopter flying around the room toward the end - and this is an old video. Anyone have a link to it??

Here's what is significant to remember though, that kind of near-real time video alteration is only possible if they have control of the camera - and can feed all of the zoom/panning/focusing data from it in to the computer. If they have to "wild" the image in it takes longer (a few seconds? I don't know). Anyway, if they control the camera and have all of their preparatory work done , they can replace a missile with a 767 in less than a 24th of a second - in between video frames. The technology is very advanced. The video I mentioned that I don't have a link to is a demonstration of this technology, as is the yellow first-down line on Monday Night Football.

The more I think about 9/11 the more I am impressed with the way it was designed - I don't think they were sloppy, I don't think anything was an accident (except the late collapse of WTC7 - and even that I'm not sure). Nothing has disrupted or divided the truth movement like NPT. It has crippled our efforts. Even me, here, now, would be spending my time better e-mailing congressmen than typing this post IMO. If the truth be known, I DO think this is a "disinfo campaign" at least in an abstract way, the way that the "war on terror" is a disinfo campaign. And in either case the effectiveness of the campaign is enhanced by whatever seed of truth that it springs from (I'm putting it this way to make a point). It is very difficult to "debunk" the war on terror because there really are terrorists (which the CIA has both helped create and/or fed money and intel to through middle men like the ISI), and the US really is hated by many in the Muslim world (and the US has done a splendid job of making sure that is increasingly a reality by virture of its foreign policy) - all the best disinfo campaigns contain some truth, couching them in lies and distortions. It's an algorythm that has proved effective time and time again, so I would be a fool not to expect the same thing in this case - in fact, that to me is one of the strongest arguments that video footage was messed with. The inclination to do it this way pays off in so many ways - it solves technical problems, provides the basis for an effective disinfo campaign, and documents the mass media's complicity in the attacks. Pure genius, IMO.

Anyway, that's how I see it lately - and it sort of scares me that they might actually be that smart. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

If they're NOT that smart, then they are that lucky.

[painter]

<s>
I looked and looked for the video where the guy is waving around the bouquet of flowers which is being put in his hand only in the video monitor IN REAL TIME (actually within the 1/24th of a second between video frames)... there's a fake helicopter flying around the room toward the end - and this is an old video. Anyone have a link to it??
<s>

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) You need to look up-thread, dude. Fourth video in my post. Key words: "augmented reality."

[Sanders]

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/doh1.gif)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L6ee0KAdX


That's the one (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)

[painter]

<s>
Here's what is significant to remember though, that kind of near-real time video alteration is only possible if they have control of the camera - and can feed all of the zoom/panning/focusing data from it in to the computer.

This is why BSRegestration is so dead set on total fakery, I think.

The more I think about 9/11 the more I am impressed with the way it was designed - I don't think they were sloppy, I don't think anything was an accident (except the late collapse of WTC7 - and even that I'm not sure).  Nothing has disrupted or divided the truth movement like NPT.  It has crippled our efforts.  Even me, here, now, would be spending my time better e-mailing congressmen than typing this post IMO.  If the truth be known, I DO think this is a "disinfo campaign" at least in an abstract way, the way that the "war on terror" is a disinfo campaign.  And in either case the effectiveness of the campaign is enhanced by whatever seed of truth that it springs from (I'm putting it this way to make a point).  It is very difficult to "debunk" the war on terror because there really are terrorists (which the CIA has both helped create and/or fed money and intel to through middle men like the ISI), and the US really is hated by many in the Muslim world (and the US has done a splendid job of making sure that is increasingly a reality by virture of its foreign policy) - all the best disinfo campaigns contain some truth,  couching them in lies and distortions.  It's an algorythm that has proved effective time and time again, so I would be a fool not to expect the same thing in this case - in fact, that to me is one of the strongest arguments that video footage was messed with.  The inclination to do it this way pays off in so many ways - it solves technical problems, provides the basis for an effective disinfo campaign, and documents the mass media's complicity in the attacks.  Pure genius, IMO.
<s>

WORD. But something else to keep in mind, this "pure genius" is working inside an already established "social reality bubble." 9/11 isn't the only thing we've been lied to about and lied to about for a long, long time. We've all been programmed to "respect" and "trust" authority -- or, at least to fear it. We've been conditioned to believe the system works as advertised. We've been conditioned to believe that when someone in a suit tells us something on the TV they are telling the truth (more or less) and that if it is a "big enough lie" it will be exposed sooner or later. All I'm saying is, they've had lots of practice 'pulling the world over our eyes'.