Monday, June 12, 2017

The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus Common Sense Logic

The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus Simple Commonsense Logic 


Fig.1:A short clip taken from the Fox Networks original, on- archive "live" 9/11 footage showing flight 175 striking WTC2.

An Important Question For You, Dear Reader - assuming you are even interested in 9/11 "truth"- if not, stop reading right about now!

On the other hand, if you carry on reading, and ultimately agree with my main point, then you will be light years ahead of 99% of the 9/11 "truth movement" :-)  .

Important Question: Is any part of the original, on-line, archived,"live" 9/11 footage of the 5 major US TV networks, all 102 minutes of it, to be trusted [for example, the short Fox sequence seen above]?

I'll try to answer that question for you a bit later on. But first, in light of that question, a very important fact to consider that you might not be aware of.

An Inconvenient,Very Important, Very Ignored 9/11 Fact:

There Are Two Distinct Classes of 9/11 Imagery:

Specifically: 

1] The original "live" US mainstream media broadcasts of the morning of September 11th 2001[ i.e ABC, CNN,CBS, Fox, NBC] ,  as archived on line since 2003*,  plus maybe similar overseas so-called "live" broadcasts [for example, the BBC]

2] Everything else.

That is: any and all "after the fact", never broadcast "live" when the event[s] allegedly happened on TV, videos, and "after the fact" published photos; whether or not these are  from "amateur" or professional sources, including all not- originally "live", shown later, mainstream media video footage that was somehow altered [i.e. it was/is different from the original "live"broadcast by the same channel - which essentially makes it  edited, "re-cap", "earlier today"- type of network footage].

Whether it be none-network footage or photos, or "professional, US network" re-edited, "re-cap",  footage that was never actually broadcast "live" at the actual times of any of the 3 events  earlier that day, no matter, there are literally 100's, and possibly 1000's of examples of this very broad, second class of 9/11 imagery.

Why is this "there are two classes of 9/11 imagery" fact important?

Because, the fact of the matter is that all of the class [1] original, archived, U.S. M.S.M. imagery that was actually broadcast "live" at the exact times of the 3 events that they all captured that day, came to us first and allegedly"live" on TV, that is: before any of the class [2] imagery existed or was published, so it must always  take precedence as the historical  record of 9/11 [ I would think].

It must, therefor, naturally take precedence over any/all [class [2]] imagery for close study, assuming an individual is genuinely interested in trying to determine what did/did not happen on 9/11.

 After all, proof of origin and authorship of everything in the class [1] imagery class has never been in serious dispute - it is all still online now [2017], and has been online since 2003, so obviously all 5 US networks, to this day, stand by their  own archived historical records as being accurate footage  capturing the "live" events of the morning  09/11/01.

Conversely, outside of the networks very own "earlier today" type re-cap footage, [which,as I said, invariably differs considerably from what any one network actually broadcast "live" that morning], authenticity and authorship of most of the 1000's of "after the fact" photos and videos in class [2] above  can never even be satisfactorily  verified without a lot of time-consuming and fruitless deep detective work.

 Back To The Important Question Previously Asked: 

Question:  "Is any part of the original, on-line, archived,"live" 9/11 footage of the 5 major US TV networks, all 102 minutes of it, to be trusted?"

Answer [via a question]:

 Question: "Is any part of the original  archived on-line US network footage of the 3 events that all 5 stations allegedly broadcast "live" that day [1x plane strike, 2 x tower collapses], provably fraudulent?"

 Consider this :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ
 Above, a close, frame by frame analysis of the same Fox 5 on-line archived footage shown at the top of this page [fig.1], revealing the original on-line archive content to be fraudulent [ i.e. pre-fabricated ] imagery.

And Now-Time For a Little Simple, Applied, Logic! :

If Simon Shack's "Nosed Out"  analysis is correct, as I believe it is, and the entire Fox sequence is  pure fabrication, then logically, by extension, that means that all of the official, class [1], on-line archived footage of Fl.175 recorded "live" at the same time by the other 4 networks [ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC], must also be pure fabrications.

Which means, again by logical extension, that all class [2], not- "originally "live"broadcast network sequences", regardless of source, and  showing the same event[s] must also be fabrications.

Furthermore, assuming the falsity of all 5 networks "live" Fl. 175 footage, then,  by further logical extension, it should mean [for the honest researcher], that every other part of those 5 US TV networks claimed "live" coverage, including the two supposedly"live" sequences showing the 2 tower collapses [NBC and CNN], would, at the very least, be highly suspect as being fraudulent, before the researcher ever even bothered to take a close look at it.

And, if the only two extant, class[1] official, "live" on-archive US network WTC1 and 2 tower collapse sequences turn out to be pure fabrications, then, by simple logical extension, any and all class [2] sequences and photos showing those exact same two events, regardless of source, must also be fabrications.

This Just In: The Only Two Originally "Live", On Archive, Tower Collapse Sequences [NBC & CNN] Are Frauds!

Well, surprise, surprise, close analysis does  indeed reveal those two, lesser-known, class[1]on-archive WTC1 and 2 destruction sequences to also be pure fabrications. [ See "* 60 seconds of Truth?", below].

In Summary:

In summary, if all of  the original, on-line, official US network archives for the morning of 09/11/01 [i.e. class [1] type footage], is revealed to contain  nothing more than:

 [a]: fabricated footage of a plane, [Fl. 175], hitting a WTC tower [WTC2] ......... and........

[b]: fabricated footage of two towers falling [WTC2 then  WTC1]....

...then,  by logical extension, any particular class [2] video or photo you care to name depicting and replicating any one of those exact same 3 "live" TV events cannot possibly be genuine.

Simple!

A Sad Fact:

However, 99% of the "9/11 truth movement" is either completely unaware of the vitally important "two classes of imagery" distinction, or intentionally chooses to ignore it regardless, and is instead fully content to wallow around forever examining/scrutinizing mostly entirely unverifiable class [2]  video footage and/or photos that have practically nothing to do with the original, official, MSM on-line archived "live" footage record.

Another Sad Fact:

The "9/11 truth movement" will remain lost, and floundering around, getting nowhere, as long as it insists on completely ignoring the easily provable, "in your face" fraudulence of all of the official on-line, archived, US mainstream media network  records of the three  9/11  events they all allegedly captured "live"; as, for example, demonstrated in the "Nosed Out" analysis above, [see also the addendum below for 3 more clear examples of "live" MSM video fraudulence], and instead chooses to myopically focus on any/all other, class [2], none-archived, none-verifiable imagery of those alleged events, plus other, related similarly unverifiable material.

Yet Another Sad Fact: with that tactic, the most it/ they can ever hope to agree on is some broad generality; for example: "9/11 was an inside job".

The rest of the time they'll be too busy idiotically and childishly fighting over whether or not it's been "proven" [via class [2] video sequences or photos], that it was tower destruction by nukes, mini-nukes or exotic beam weapons, or whether or not it is "proven" [via class [2] video sequences or photos], that the plane images had to have been holograms, or just  clever inserts; and, with such never-ending internal fighting, succeed only in distracting peoples attention far away from the bald fact that almost none of these "9/11 researchers" various silly hypothesis'  are ever based on close analysis of any of the original, class [1] "live", on-line, official archived footage for 9/11, particularly with regard to the original, archived tower collapse imagery. [See below]

Conclusion: Another Sad Fact:

The vast majority of the "9/11 truth movement" [ including its various leaders/ main spokespersons - you know who you are :-) ], appears to be almost entirely devoid of simple, common sense logic.

And so it goes...... [ "Send in the Clowns" ]

regards, onebornfree.

Notes:

60 Seconds of truth? :

Plane Strike Video Fact: when added together, the total  official"live" on-line archived coverage of Flight 175's approach + hit amounts to around 40 secs for all 5 networks. That's it!


Tower Collapse Video Fact: the total official "live", on-line, archived footage of the collapses of WTC's 1 and 2 adds up around 27-30 secs. for the only two networks that showed them [1 event for each channel]: the WTC2 collapse [approx.10-12 secs on NBC], and the  WTC1 collapse [approx 17 secs. on CNN].

That is: to this day [2017] there are only around 27 to 30 secs. total of official, verifiable on-line, "live" archived footage of the collapses of WTC's 1 and 2 in the whole world - that's it! See also: "The "WTC Collapse" Animation Sequences"


In summary, the total amount of "live" network footage for the 3 events the networks allegedly captured "live" on 9/11 [i.e. {1} Flight 175's strike on WTC2, {2} the collapse of WTC2, {3} the collapse of WTC1] is around 60 secs.

To re-emphasize: despite the appearance that there are 100's of minutes of authentic "live"9/11 imagery,  in actual fact, there exists , to this day, no more than around 60 secs. of original, verifiable, on-line archived footage of the 3 main televised events of 9/11 .

*************************************************************
Addendum:

For Your Further  Viewing Pleasure!:

Three more short analysis' demonstrating  the fraudulence of the  original online, archived 9/11 "historical" record provided by the 5 US national TV networks:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hyvcxYXRTA




 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLSVdg5i9y0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp7SDi-lJbU

See  also, "September Clues" starting at the 14 min mark, through to the 15 min. mark, the "Matrix Shots", where all 5 networks used the same twin tower image, but each inserted [impossibly] different foregrounds, backgrounds, and colors to give the appearance of different, independent, coverage.




Sunday, May 28, 2017

Hall & Johnson Admit Massive "Live" 9/11 MSM Video Fakery!

Hall & Johnson Now Admit  Massive MSM Live Feed  9/11 Video Fakery!   :-) .


Part 2 of Richard Hall's 2010, 6 part interview concerning 9/11 live media fakery, with Andrew Johnson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsxOhuMQgdE

Post update: [ 06/18/17]: Whoops! It appears I made a mistake with these recent two posts about the Hall/ Johnson interviews. My mistake was to assume that the 2015 video I saw on Youtube was the original. That being the case, I had then thought "well, there is hope for messrs. Hall/ Johnson, yet", as they both seemed quite fair in their analysis of "September Clues" In other words, I assumed that Hall had  now changed his mind and rejected his own 2012 "holographic plane image" theory. 


However , further research has revealed that the 2015 Youtube video had actually been originally posted at Hall's site in 2010, meaning that while at first he had in fact first pretty much accepted Simon Shack's various observations,  later  [2012]  he'd decided that Mr Shack was wrong. 

His later retraction can be seen/heard here.  All I have to say about Hall's 2012 retraction is that it is far from satisfactory, more of an obfuscation than anything else, as he hardly even bothers to address Shack's primary observations that he [Hall] had earlier agreed with. For example, the "matrix shot" issue, which he conveniently dismisses while only referencing NBC's contradictory Fl.175  footage, when the "matrix shot " issue involves  all five stations, not just one.   In conclusion, whereas before I'd wrongly held out hope for Hall/Johnson, I now understand that both of them are "way beyond help".  And so it goes :-) ,Obf.


In my previous post, I brought your attention to the fact that researcher Richard Hall had in 2012, with his holographic plane theory, completely contradicted his own earlier [2010] statements about the plane paths not matching-  as he had  earlier concluded [2010] that researcher Simon Shack had already clearly demonstrated that the plane paths of Fl. 175 did not in fact match up in the "live" 9/11 footage; as indeed I had myself pointed out back in 2012, shortly after Hall's hypothesis was first made public.

After studying the relevant footage in part 3 of 6 of Mr Hall's 2010 interview with Andrew Johnson [who appears to have been the person responsible for pointing out at that time, the incongruity of the flight paths within the original "live" broadcasts ], I decided to delve a little further into Mr. Hall's entire 6 part interview with Johnson,  which originally appeared at Mr Hall's website: "9/11 TV footage and amateur video analysis"., back in June 2010.

  "What Gives"?

And what do I then find, in part 2 [of 6] of the interview [video at top of this post] :

1: Hall Again Admitted That Plane Paths Do Not Match

First of all, at the very start of the video segment, Mr Hall again re-confirms the disparity of the plane paths, [as he does in more detail in part 3 of the interview], as he reviews a segment of Simon Shacks "September Clues" movie that clearly demonstrates 2 different plane paths seen on [even] just one station , NBC. [Let alone the fact that the paths do not match station to station.

Of the two contradictory NBC sequences Hall says:

" This to me is the smoking gun" [at 3.00 to 3.05] and: "that is actually from the same camera, so they've actually removed all of the background from that shot" [3:20-3:30].

See my previous post for more on the plane path issue.

2: Onwards and Upwards: the Hall/Johnson Analysis of "The Matrix Shot"

Starting at 6mins and 30 secs in the interview [posted above], and ending at the 8 mins 20 sec point, Messrs Hall and Johnson then review what Mr Shack had called "the Matrix Shot", i.e. Shack's astute observation that the exact same perspective view of the towers is seen inserted into the live feeds of all 5 MSM networks [ ABC, CBS,CNN, NBC, Fox], but, depending on the network, all 5 showed different back grounds and foregrounds, which again means that the imagery shown "live" that morning cannot have been genuine.

The "Matrix Shot": Hall/Johnson Admit Faked "Live" MSM Imagery and Network Collusion:

Hall:

"..the matrix shot"......"all 5 networks appear to have used the same shot, but they've tried to make it look different, different colors, different foregrounds on there, different backgrounds.."

......and then:   ".. so this suggests that all five networks were colluding somehow..."

Johnson: " That's what it looks like."

Moving On: The Original, "Live" MSM Tower "Collapse" Imagery:

 At this point, An Important Question For Hall/Johnson etc.:

So, if they both admitted, all the way back in 2010, that the original "live" broadcast  9/11 imagery they reviewed in the show was not in fact genuine, but  instead consisted of  poorly composited fake imagery made to look like genuine imagery to the casual observer, and, although none of the footage examined in the interview showed the two actual tower "collapses" as shown on TV that morning, why would they [and many others] still, [as of 2017], blithely assume/insist  that any actual, existing, archived  MSM "live broadcast imagery " of the two tower collapses themselves was in any way genuine?

Two Important Facts That Hall/Johnson May Not  Be Aware Of :

 Fact [1] :  While all 5 networks [ABC, CBS,CNN, NBC, Fox] broadcast wholly faked imagery of a plane hitting WTC2 [as Hall/Johnson originally seemed to agree] ................

.[.......see Simon Shack's "Synched Out" analysis of the original, "live" plane hit footage..................]

......... Fact [2]: Only 1 of each of the 5 networks actually claims to have captured the "live" collapse of a WTC tower.

Specifically:

The WTC 2 "Live" Collapse Footage:

The first tower to go [WTC2] was caught "live" only on NBC:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkp9AAhS6Ls

ABC, CNN, CBS and Fox all mysteriously missed that allegedly "live" event [at least it's missing from the official on-line "live" archives for those 4 networks]

Question, dear reader : does this NBC "live" sequence really seriously  look like genuine live imagery to you?

The WTC1 "Live" Collapse Footage:

The second tower to go [WTC1] , was seen "live" only on CNN:
 

ABC, CBS NBC and Fox all mysteriously missed that event [at least it's missing from their official on-line archives for these 4 networks].

Question, dear reader : does this CNN "live", on archive sequence, complete with miraculously timed camera "zoom-ins" [that end at the exact moment that the tower starts its collapse],and 3x camera/viewpoint  live studio edits in the space of around 17 secs of a totally unexpected collapse,  seriously  look like genuine live imagery to you? 

See also Simon Shacks  excellent "The "WTC Collapse" Animation Sequences" presentations of the tower collapse imagery

Attention!,  Messrs. Hall and Johnson [and others too numerous to mention]:

That's It!

There Ain't No More Original, "Live" , Archived On-Line, Broadcast, WTC1 & 2  Tower Collapse Imagery!

That's right, no other original better quality, less fake-looking, "live" broadcast tower collapse imagery of the demise of WTC1 and 2 exists! [only those two short sequences on archive and displayed/linked to here, above]

Again, [in case you missed it  the first time :-) ] : these two clips above are the only two extant, official, live, MSM recordings of the "collapses" [or whatever you want to call them], of WTC 1 and 2, that can be found within the official MSM on-line archive for all 5 US TV stations.

Any/everything else Hall, Johnson [or yourself, dear reader], have seen to date regarding those collapses, be it photo or video, is simply not part of the original "live" MSM broadcast record, and only first appeared hours, days, months, or even years after the events themselves.

For example, this somewhat famous photo of WTC1, [used by various 9/11 "researchers" to "prove" that the towers were  destroyed top-down by this, or by that], which , according to online reverse-image search app. "TinEye", did not even appear until 2007 in an on-line newspaper in the far east [of all places], has nothing to do with the original "live" broadcast tower collapse imagery of WTC1's collapse, as shown "live" on CNN [see above] that morning:

         Fig. 1. A supposedly "genuine" image of  WTC1 apparently exploding, "top-down".

Important Questions For Hall, Johnson Etc.:

1] Are Messrs Hall and Johnson and associated now going to  claim, with straight faces mind you, that either of those two official MSM sequences of the collapses of WTC1 and 2 shown above are somehow genuine?

2] Or, perhaps, that a photo  of WTC1 collapsing/exploding that appeared mysteriously in a Far East online newspaper fully 6 years after the event [fig.1] is  genuine,  while the original live NBC and CNN sequences of WTC1 and 2's collapses are fake?

3] Or perhaps [shock, horror, egads ! ] , that the  2 video sequences of the tower collapses , and the photo above, plus others like it, are all fakes?


Inquiring minds want to know ! :-) 

Regards onebornfree[atyahoodotcom]

Addendum: 

And while we're on the subject, here are two more excerpts from the original "live" MSM broadcast  feeds of the morning of 9/11 that also clearly illustrate the fact that that original "live" footage we saw that day was not in any way, shape or form, actual live imagery, but instead , poorly fabricated digital imagery produced entirely via computers, pre- 9/11, then broadcast as "live" imagery on the morning of 9/11:

1] "The Incredible Moving Verrazzano Bridge: [ bridge is  impossibly big, plus it still moves while background/foreground remain stationary]:


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hyvcxYXRTA

2] "The Spinning Towers" : [towers magically turn to face the camera lens as it circles around them]:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLSVdg5i9y0

Other onebornfree links:

Personal Freedom Consulting

Onebornfree's Financial Safety Reports

OneBornfree's Mythbusters

Music/recordings [channel: Fake-Eye D]:

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Richard Hall Refutes His Own 9/11 Holographic Plane Hypothesis!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wag2XVRR5Dc      [youtube 2015]
[The whole 6 part interview originally appeared in 2010 here     ] 

Post update: [ 06/18/17]: Whoops! It appears I made a mistake with these recent two posts about the Hall/ Johnson interviews. My mistake was to assume that the 2015 video I saw on Youtube was the original. That being the case, I had then thought "well, there is hope for messrs. Hall/ Johnson, yet", as they both seemed quite fair in their analysis of "September Clues" In other words, I assumed that Hall had  now changed his mind and rejected his own 2012 "holographic plane image" theory. 

However , further research has revealed that the 2015 Youtube video had actually been originally posted at Hall's site in 2010, meaning that while at first he had in fact first pretty much accepted Simon Shack's various observations,  later  [2012]  he'd decided that Mr Shack was wrong. 

His later retraction can be seen/heard here.  All I have to say about Hall's 2012 retraction is that it is far from satisfactory, more of an obfuscation than anything else, as he hardly even bothers to address Shack's primary observations that he [Hall] had earlier agreed with. For example, the "matrix shot" issue, which he conveniently dismisses while only referencing NBC's contradictory Fl.175  footage, when the "matrix shot " issue involves  all five stations, not just one.   In conclusion, whereas before I'd wrongly held out hope for Hall/Johnson, I now understand that both of them are "way beyond help".  And so it goes :-) ,Obf.


 Richard Hall Eats His Own  Words ?

Starting at 3:58 of the above video [first published on 06/18/2010 on his own site, and then at Youtube June 9th. 2015], and using clips taken directly from Simon Shacks "September Clues"   series,  Mr Hall along with  interviewee Andrew Johnson, revealed the different, contradictory flight paths of Flight 175 shown in the various MSM and "amateur" videos, to his viewing audience.

At around 4:40 in this interview with Mr Johnson we have him [Johnson] stating:

 "....you get different trajectories for the plane....If this is the same plane, then you should be able to determine what the trajectory is from the video clip".

Hall then agrees with Johnson, and in doing so directly contradicts his very own, subsequent "holographic plane image" hypothesis first aired publicly in his own May 19th 2012 "NEW 9/11 Video and Radar Analysis"

Some Recent History:

On November the 18th of November 2012 I published an exhaustive [tedious?] 4 part refutation of  Mr Hall's hypothesis that a holographic plane image had been used on 9/11.

Mr Hall's "Reasoning" = Matching Flight Paths:

Briefly, his whole hypothesis  rested on the idea that if all of the plane trajectories in the various 9/11 videos showing Fl.175's approach and strike on WTC2  matched, then that "proved" that :

1] The videos were all genuine.

2] if the flight paths matched, that because the plane images in  some of the videos defied known laws of physics , then they could not have been of a real plane, so "therefore" [he, Hall, assumed "logically"] , a single, fake, moving  plane image was projected holographically by a "cloaked" [i.e. invisible to the live camera] plane flying close alongside the projected holographic image. [Yes, really :-) ]

Mr. Hall then tried to demonstrate in his video that all of the flight paths for 20 odd video clips of fl. 175 matched ["therefor" all of that footage was genuine].

{Hint: the flight paths he so carelessly analyzed never did match}.

What My Refutation  of the Hall Hypothesis Tries To Demonstrate:

If you bother to go back and look at my own, long, 4 page refutation of the Hall hypothesis, you will clearly see that I demonstrate  [ as  Messrs Hall and Johnson originally appeared to agree], that the flight paths of Fl.175 do not match even within his own video presentation of his theory.

Hall Eats His Own Words

So now it seems that Mr Hall agreed  with Mr Shack and myself back in 2010 [when this interview was first aired on Hall's site], but later [2012] "ate his own words" to come out with his own grandiose, wholly contradictory, holographic plane image idea of 2012

 Is Hall's Backpedaling Important?  

Why did  Messrs Hall  and Johnson originally publicly state [2010] that the plane paths did not match, only to later [2012] emerge with a bogus holographic plane theory which almost exclusively relied  on Hall "proving" that the plane paths  matched, even when it had been obvious to themselves back in 2010, that they did not in fact match? 

 What's Next?

So what's next? Are we ever going to witness the gloriously comical sight of Messrs Fetzer and  Reynolds,  the two most prominent supporters of the Hall hypothesis, publicly "eating their own words" regarding Hall's  2012 holographic plane hypothesis?. Let alone Messrs Hall  and Johnson, who certainly do not seem eager to draw attention to  their entirely contradictory statements on the issue.

Will Pigs Fly?

Personally, I would love to see this. However, if my own personal experience with these  persons is anything to go by, the egos of at least two of these three "gentlemen"  are way to big to ever acknowledge publicly that the whole holographic plane hypothesis was bunk right from the "git go", so I'm not holding my breath on this issue, that's for sure :-) .

But maybe, just maybe..... "pigs will fly", after all, it's happened before, as this photo clearly shows :-)  :

                               "Genuine" photo of 3 flying pigs.

And so it goes.......

Regards, onebornfree[atyahoodotcom]

Related articles:

"ABC's Magic "Spinning Towers" 

"So Exactly Where Did Flight 175 Strike WTC 2 ?"

"911 Scams:Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method"

"Why Jim Fetzer /Richard Hall/Ace Baker etc. Are Wrong About This Fl.175 Video [Hezarkhani]]"

"Fake 9/11 Bird Flocks = "False In One False In All""

"9/11 Scams: The 9/11 "Truth Movement" Versus "The Burden of Proof"

"9/11 Scams: "Scientific" Lies of 9/11- A Laymans Guide"

"Fl. 175's Speed: Fairbanks [290+ mph] or Fox [540 + mph]?"




 




Thursday, May 11, 2017

ABC's Magic "Spinning Towers"


         
                       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLSVdg5i9y0


[N.B. The ABC News clip above is excerpted from the official, on-line television archive for 9/11. ]


I'll say it again :" Nothing we saw on TV that morning "live from Manhattan"was genuine "live footage.""

In support of this "outrageous" claim, here's a video I recently came across that examines some original "live" broadcast 9/11 footage from US mainstream [nationwide] outlet ABC, called "The Spinning Towers".

Although I'm not a member there, I still visit Simon Shack's " September Clues" forums on a daily basis, and had not seen this particular, very simple analysis posted there before.

Maybe Simon and associated don't think much of it , or maybe it's there somewhere and I missed the post. I don't know at this time.

My Own "Logic" Applied:

I thought about it and concluded that although the twin towers sides would not change size relative to each other quite as obviously as the extreme distant objects in the shot move from left to right in the sequence- as the helicopter allegedly moved right to left across the scene [because those towers are closer to the camera], that even so, there should still be enough of a visible change in their size relative to each other from the camera's perspective so that the partially exposed, furthest  right side of the tower nearest the camera would either narrow significantly, or completely disappear from view, given the change in viewpoint of the heli-cam.

ABC's Magic Spinning Towers:

However, as  can be clearly seen in the video below, while the [presumed] helicopter circles the smoking towers right to left [as evidenced by the left to right motion of all of the background scenery],  the same tower sides somehow [magically]  constantly turn  to  face the camera lens, so that they are in fact always seen from the exact same angle/perspective throughout the sequence, despite the change in camera perspective caused by the continual movement of the helicopter across the scene right to left, as if the towers themselves were turning in place to always face the "camera" lens:


Conclusions:

Logical conclusion? [For myself, anyways :-) ] :

 The entire ABC sequence above was faked, pre- 9/11.

 That is: the background, the foreground, the smoke, the towers, the helicopter perspective- all fake [i.e. 100% fake digital footage poorly manufactured/prefabricated, with 2nd or 3rd rate software on computers, prior to 9/11, then broadcast on 9/11 as being genuine live imagery] :-(  .

Questions/ Lies

Questions you might consider asking yourself, if you agree that the footage is fake "live footage":

1] If this scene, broadcast on 9/11 as live, right after the alleged second plane {Fl.175} struck WTC2, was in fact faked beforehand, why would you believe that any part of the rest of ABC's "live broadcast" of 9/11 , including the actual second plane into WTC2 sequence, and including all tower collapse imagery, was actually genuine?

2] If ABC was broadcasting faked "live footage" on 9/11, why would you believe that any of the other 4 mainstream national networks [ NBC, Fox, CBS and CNN] , which all showed almost identical imagery to that seen on ABC that morning, was in fact genuine?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P9k7Et4zUk

Only you, dear reader, can answer those two questions. Have fun!

Regards, onebornfreeatyahoodotcom

Thursday, December 1, 2016

BBC Caught Fabricating News to Start a War [a Limited HangOut]

Yay!  Sunlight hits Manhattan buildings from 2, opposite directions. Impressive!

“Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups…So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms…it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. I ought to know. I do the same thing.” Philip K Dick.


"The press has been routinely creating fake news reports to start a war. This is a serious issue for the press is conspiring against the people to create war, sell climate change, and rig elections. This is by no means something new. They taught me in high school history class about how the press started the Spanish-American War by reporting that the Spanish attacked a US ship, which never happened.".................  ............"The movie “Wag the Dog” was based on how things really operate. They used the press as a co-conspirator to manipulate the public. This is also why this election has resulted in the collapse in public confidence in the mainstream press. "

Source

obf comment: Although the movie “Wag the Dog” is briefly mentioned , nowhere does the article excerpted above mention perhaps the greatest modern real world example of the “Wag the Dog” criminal methodology, [i.e. the manufacture - on computers- of entirely faked imagery that is then broadcast as being authentic live video], which to my mind, was 9/11, when all 5 US MSM networks simultaneously broadcast 102 minutes of entirely faked [prefabricated on computers]"live" footage of a plane [Fl. 175] hitting a WTC tower, and[later] of the 2 main towers magically collapsing into their own "footprints" in record time.

So the few who understand the complete fraudulence of the "live" archived 9/11 imagery, myself included, would inevitably characterize this article as being a great example of a "limited hangout" :-)

And lets not fergit, the very same B.B.C. is on record as announcing the total collapse of WTC 7 before it "officially" [time-wise],even happened :-)

And so it goes....

Regards, onebornfreeatyahoo

Postscript: of course, the fact of the matter is, that when the collapse of WTC7 was shown on US MSM, once again [ and as with the two preceding "live" collapses shown, of WTC2, then WTC1], the US stations involved broadcast fake, pre-manufactured imagery, not authentic live imagery of a collapse:






Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Fake Zapruder ['63] V. Fake Fox 5 [2001]


Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BEsAkXVeVM


First of all, let me just mention that I am in no way a JFK assassination fact "freak" or expert, and so I have perhaps not seen many of the other videos that analyze the world famous Zapruder footage, but I have to say that this video is easily the best one I've seen to date, for a number of reasons.

1] It's short- only 10 minutes or so.

2] It is very clear and "to the point"

3] It analyses the Zapruder footage in a completely different way from what I've seen in other analyses':

 By analyzing the heretofore concealed layers of the movie, it shows it to be a composite of at least two layers, [presumably made from one original] ; where the foreground [ i.e JFK's limo etc.] and the background, [the spectators on the green], have been split off, then re-aligned, so that the original background and foregrounds were made to run out of synch with each other, thus creating a new, final  composite [i.e. what we now see as the Zapruder film]; that is, a false record of the events of that day, to hide whatever really did happen.

4] Zapruder Film Image Layering  Versus 9/11 Film Image Layering

My main point: the wholesale alteration of film imagery via an intricate layering process, although undoubtedly slower and more tedious to perform in the period 1963 -1975, I would assume, was obviously still doable back then [n.b.The Zapruder footage was not shown on network TV until until 1975 ] . 

The revealing of the fraudulent layering of the Zapruder movie to deliberately create  a false history is, I feel, very relevant to 9/11 and the alleged live TV video recordings of that day, as similar ,layering can be clearly seen in much of that allegedly "live" footage, also [ albeit computer generated]. 

For just one example, Simon Shack's analysis of the Fox5 video of Fl. 175's collision with WTC2 , clearly shows at least two extra  layers [not including the moving layer of the plane image itself] that were fabricated to create the fake "plane into building" footage broadcast "live" that morning on the Fox network:





                                  




Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ&list=UUqfE8pqHQXLtP2oZY2NWDTA&index=48

And so it goes.....

"Layers of the onion", anyone?
 Regards, onebornfree.

Tuesday, October 27, 2015

Fl. 175's Speed: Fairbanks [290+ mph] or Fox [540 + mph]?

[Due to lazy research, where I mistakenly used an average 757/767 plane length of 178 ft. to make my original Fl.175 plane speed calculations, instead of the actual length of  159 ft., as pointed out by "CriticalMass" at Cluesforum , {thankyou,thankyou CM}, this post has been re-edited and updated on 10/28/15, with "new and improved"  plane speed calculations ]

Another "Plane" Fact : Contradictory Video Plane Speeds:

 The pre- strike plane speed  for Fl. 175 that I previously calculated via the Fox 5 footage as being 540+ mph , is directly contradicted by the Evan Fairbanks "amateur"footage - which shows a speed of either 148 mph, 296 mph., or 591 mph. depending on the claimed frame speed of the camera purportedly used :-) .

That previous post established the fact that at a video speed of 30 frames per second, the Fox 5 network footage showing Fl.175's alleged flight and collision with WTC2 reveals an [altogether physically impossible for plane] air speed of 540 +mph. as calculated frame to frame.

[N.B. "official " plane speed was/is 520 knots, or 598  mph :-) ].

A 9/11 Video "Evidence" Fact: For Plane Speed Calculations, Only Two Useful Video Sequences

There are only two Fl.175 flight/impact videos that I am aware of with sufficient camera/ viewer perspective of close to 90 degree [i.e. close to 90 degrees perpendicular to the planes path] that allow for a reasonably accurate calculation of frame to frame plane speed .

These two sequences are:

1]: The original Fox 5 national TV network broadcast sequence, as examined in my previous post :


Fig 1: frame 372 of Fox5 video  [ nose of Fl. 175 enters frame, circled in red]



                           Fig 2: frame 378 of Fox5 video [i.e 6 frames, and 1 plane length later]

and ....

2] The er, "amateur"sequence [ i.e never part of a "live" "as it happened", 9/11 US network broadcast ] purportedly captured by pro videographer "Evan Fairbanks", which was subsequently shown on a major US network later the same day, for the first time:

                           
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXxZNHrtyuU

Speed Check

So, in order to double check on the plane speed I have calculated as being 540+mph in the Fox 5 sequence by measuring distance travelled per frame, at an assumed 30 frames per sec. camera speed, I then used the wonderful Killtown "Air Vs. Skyscraper" analysis of the Fairbanks sequence, which handily slows the sequence down to reveal individual frames of that sequence:

                    
                        Youtube :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJhGlohdWhY


Plane Speed is Only 296 mph in Fairbanks Sequence?

If we ignore the main purpose of the Killtown analysis , and instead just concentrate on the number of frames the plane image takes to travel its own length, it will be seen that Killtown's frame by frame analysis of the Fairbanks sequence reveals the plane taking 11 frames to travel its own length:

                        

Plane Length= 159 ft.  

According to Wikipedia, Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-200, 159 ft. long

Fairbanks Camera's Frame to Frame Speed ? 

The frame to frame speed of the camera used for the Fox5 sequence was apparently 30 frames per second.

I did a superficial search for technical details of the Fairbanks sequence, but drew a blank for frame to frame speed, so I've done my plane speed calculations using three different, most common speeds.

From what I understand, these most common frame to frame speeds are:

1] 15 frames per second

2] 30 frames per second [the industry standard, even in 2016 , as far as I'm aware]

3] 60 frames per second [n.b. I'm not sure if this camera speed was even available in 2001, but included it anyway].

Plane Speed =14.45 Ft. Per Frame

If the plane takes 11 frames to travel 159 ft, it travels 14.45 ft per frame.

Therefor:

1] at 15 frames per sec.: 14.45 ft per frame =216 ft per sec= 13,009 ft. per minute=780,545 ft. per hour:

= 148 mph

2] at 30 frames per sec. , 14.45 ft per frame = 434 ft per sec= 26,010 ft. per minute, = 1,560,600 ft. per hour:

= 296 mph.

3] at 60 frames per sec., 14.45 ft per frame = 867 ft per sec= 52,020 ft. per minute = 3,121,200 ft. per hour :

= 591 mph. 


Impossibly Slow, Or Impossibly Fast- Or, Both Fake? 

So there you have it , dear reader, according to the Evan Fairbanks video sequence Fl.175 was either traveling at an impossibly slow [to do what it next supposedly did] 148 mph, [at 15 frames per sec.]contradicting the Fox 5 plane speed of 540+ mph, and the official speed of 598 mph.

Or, an impossibly slow [to do what it next supposedly did] 296 mph,[ at 30 frames per sec.] once more contradicting the Fox5 plane speed of 540+ mph., and the official speed of 598 mph.

or.....

An impossibly fast 591 mph,[ at 60 frames per second, if that camera speed was available in 2001],  which was/is just as impossibly fast as the Fox5 plane speed of "only" 540+ mph [and  just as impossible as the official speed of 598 mph.]

Assume 30 Frames Per Second for Fairbanks Video?

If I assume that the Fairbanks video was shot at the same camera speed as the Fox5 sequence,[ a not unreasonable assumption, I believe], then the Fairbanks video, with its airspeed of 296 mph., directly contradicts the Fox5 sequence, which shows an airspeed of 540+  mph.

Question:

So Who do You Believe: 11 Frames Or, 6 Frames For Plane To Travel It's Own Length ? 

If we assume a camera speed of 30 frames per sec. for , the Fairbanks video shows Fl.175 traveling its own length in almost twice the number of frames as it takes in the Fox 5 sequence. :-) .

And, don't fergit, as the Pilots For 9/11 Truth video clearly demonstrates:


                                
                                       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rs5RQ_5nu4k


... that at anywhere near the official collision speed of  598 mph., [ or even at Fox 5's  revealed speed of 540 mph], or even at  "only" 500 mph........

 at that altitude [1000 ft. and below], the plane would have simply broken apart pre-strike due to the forces exerted on it by the 4x denser [than at 35,000 ft.], air mass.

And, from what I understand [as a non-expert in these matters] - even at 296 mph [ i.e the recorded speed of the E. Fairbanks video, assuming 30 frames per sec.], the plane would still not have been able to endure the massive forces acting on it via 4x air density, descent, and turning maneuvers , and would have therefor broken up, long before any attempted building strike.

Conclusions? 

So, based only on the plane speed issue [i.e. excluding any/all other technical and physical impossibilities shown in either video] :

1]: either the Fox5 sequence is genuine, and the Fairbanks sequence is a fake.

Or,

[2]: the Fairbanks sequence is genuine, and the Fox sequence is a fake.

Or,

[3]: [ horror of horrors], they are both [bad] fakes.

Or,

4] They are both genuine, because you are out of your tiny mind :-) [ get help]

False In One False in All- An Idea For You to Consider ?: 

To close, a legal principle for you to perhaps consider, dear reader:

"False in one , false in all" 

Regards, onebornfree