Monday, June 12, 2017

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

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


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUqqdoup6fU
Fig.1:A short clip taken from the Fox Networks original, on-line archive showing flight 175 striking WTC2.[ Question, dear reader: does anything in this sequence - foreground, background, tower images, smoke, plane image, explosion - actually look genuine to you?]

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 so-called "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.

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

Fact: There Are Two Distinct Classes of 9/11 Imagery:

Specifically: 

Class [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].

For example :


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

Fig. 2, above: an example of Class [1] imagery. A still frame from a video depicting the collapse of WTC2, as allegedly recorded live by the only U.S. station to record the event "live" in its entirety, N.B.C., on what was, presumably, one of the "best in world" most sophisticated and advanced [and expensive!] TV cameras. [How's that for clarity/resolution/definition ? ].


           From:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul--oYht2RE                                    

Fig.3: another example of Class [1] imagery. A still shot taken from the video of the collapse of WTC1, as allegedly recorded "live" on the only U.S. channel to carry the event 'live" in its entirety, C.N.N., on what were at the time presumably the worlds most advanced/ expensive/best T.V. cameras. [How's that for clarity/resolution/definition ? ].


Class [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.

 For example:



Fig.4.: An example of Class [2] imagery. A still photo of the collapse of WTC1 that was [somehow] not published until 2007 [in the Far East, of all places]. Note the dramatic increase in overall clarity vis a vis both of the class[1] images presumably taken with the worlds best network video cameras that proceed it here. N.B. This photo,and others like it, with no easily provable provenance, [unlike the U.S. 5 network records, which are all archived on line], is frequently used to "prove"  that the WTC towers were demolished, top down, with either "mini-nukes", or supposed "direct energy weapons".

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 alleged 3 events [i.e. 1 x plane crash, 2 x tower "collapses"] 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 asked again:  "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]:

 "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?"

I believe so. Consider this :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-xcvv_fRQ
 Fig. 5 Above, a close, frame by frame analysis of the same Fox 5 , class [1]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. wholly pre-fabricated ] imagery.

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

If Simon Shack's "Nosed Out"  analysis above is correct, as I believe it is, and the entire Fox Flight 175 plane crash sequence was/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", plus all still photos, regardless of source,  showing the same alleged event must also be fabrications.

Furthermore, if we  assume that all 5 networks "live" Fl. 175 crash into WTC2  footage was/is fake, 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 them.

And, if the only two extant, class[1] official, "live", still 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.

 For further clarification on this issue, please watch the following short, class [1], pre- tower collapse sequence that was broadcast "live" on ABC on 9/11 . [fig.6, below]

Notice - an ABC news "chopper", complete with "heli-cam", supposedly circles the  two smoking [post-strike, pre-collapse] WTC towers 1 and 2 , and yet, those amazingly agile  twin towers manage to constantly revolve so that they always  face the camera lens, as if on a revolving platform . Crafty little buggers, weren't they?  :-) :


Fig. 6 ABC's "Spinning Twin Towers"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEmVPCRDidk

More Simple, Applied Logic:

There is, I submit, in light of the obviously fraudulent class [1] ABC sequence above, taken as it is from the original on-line archives, pre- collapse of either tower, absolutely no good logical reason to gaily assume the realness of any subsequent sequence, on any TV channel, that  allegedly depicts the later "collapse" of either of those same  two impossibly "spinning towers", surely?

[See also 67 seconds of Truth?" and "Addendum", 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] on all 5 US networks........ and........

[b]: fabricated footage of two towers falling on only two networks [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" [usually 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: Yet 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 ignorant of both simple, analytical scientific procedure and  common sense logic.

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

regards, onebornfreeatyahoodotcom.

Notes:

*  67 Seconds of truth? :

Plane Strike Videos Fact: when added together, the total  official"live" class 1, on-line archived coverage of Flight 175's approach + hit [i.e. ABC, CBS,CNN, NBC, fox] amounts to around 40 secs . 40 seconds,that's it!


Tower Collapse Videos Fact:  the total official "live", class 1, 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" , class 1, 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 67 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 67 secs. of original, verifiable [class [1] ] on-line archived footage of the 3 main televised events of 9/11 .

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

For Your Further  Viewing Pleasure!:

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

1] Oversize bridge caught on the move by stationary camera :-) :



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

2] More chopper impossibilities :


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.

And finally, here's a good example of what CGI could achieve back in 2014 :
                                                               

                                                    END







No comments:

Post a Comment