Ammunition for Propaganda

Ammunition for Propaganda

A critical review of "9/11 Justice"

by Ace Baker

September 12, 2008

I watched the short film "9/11 Justice" last night at the 911TruthLA conference. It's also available on Google Video.

The film advances the proposition that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Myers, and Condoleezza Rice are provably guilty of conspiracy to commit mass murder for the events of 9/11.

I agree. The neo-cons murdered Americans on 9/11. In fact, the film does not go far enough, and does nothing to point the finger of blame at any news media execs and anchors, who are also provably involved. I wholeheartedly agree with the general premise and intent of "9/11 Justice".

But the film is so riddled with errors and false assumptions that I wonder if the filmmakers were just sloppy, or were actually trying to discredit the movement and create potent ammunition for the government propagandists.

For example, the narrator claims: "A specialized explosive used by professionals to demolish a steel frame is called thermate. It is placed in key places, and melts large steel joints in an instant."

This is just plain wrong. Thermate is NOT an explosive, it is an incendiary. It is an alumnothermic reaction which produces very high temperatures, high enough to melt steel. That is what incendiaries do, it is not what explosives do. Explosives produce very high air pressure.

Thermate is NOT "used by professionals to demolish a steel frame". To cut steel, professional demolition engineers use high explosives, such as RDX. It is difficult to control the timing of a thermate reaction, and demolitions require precision timing.

This is not to say thermate was not PART of the 9/11 demolitions. We certainly see molten metal flowing out of the south tower just prior to the destruction. Likely it was used to melt floor trusses and cause floors to sag, which would later be blamed on "jet fuel fires".

But thermate CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT possibly be responsible for the disintegration of the towers. The towers mostly turned to dust. They didn't melt. They exploded. There was a mushroom cloud. The film makes mention of the extraordinary explosive force of the demolition, but leaves us to assume this was from thermate. Based on this, the critics would be all too happy to dismiss the entire film as ridiculous, and that's a shame.

So total was the disintegration, I suspect it was a low-yield nuclear fusion reaction, sequenced from the top down. This might explain the high tritium levels, the high cancer rates, and the "China Syndrome" meltdown fuming reaction which persisted visually for months, and hasn't completely stopped to this day. Do you wonder why they haven't built anything on ground zero yet? What type of explosives were used is certainly debatable. But it wasn't thermate, and thermate isn't an explosive.

The thermate business comes from Steven Jones, of course. It's understandably seductive to be swayed by an actual Ph.D. physicist who purports to be a truther. But a review of the totality of Jones' work tells us something is terribly wrong. His entire thesis is founded upon the presence of molten metal, "flowing and in pools". Molten metal IS impossible to reconcile with the official story. So why then is there no mention of molten metal in Jones' "Request For Corrections" to NIST? Why is there no mention of molten metal in his "Ten Points of Agreement" article?

I digress.

Another serious problem I have with "9/11 Justice" (and Jones) is that it repeatedly calls the destruction a "collapse". The twin towers did not collapse. They exploded. The word "collapse" is a meme propagated by the govern-media. It's mind control. Truthers would all do very well to avoid that term. Avoid it like . . . like an old cliche.

"Justice" repeats the Larry Silverstein "pull it" quote, perhaps the most infamous of all 9/11 tidbits. But the film leaps to the outrageous claim that "Larry Silverstein . . .accidentally told PBS that he had [WTC7] demolished."

Larry Silverstein did no such thing. A moment's thought will show that Silverstein delivered a very well-scripted, perfect little nugget of ambiguous disnifo. Silverstein was not speaking at some live event, he was interviewed for a PBS official propaganda show. Silverstein was rehearsed. The show was edited. It was reviewed. Rest assured, they WANTED you to hear Silverstein's statement.

"Justice" plays Silverstien saying, ". . .and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse". Scandalously, the film claims that we don't know who Silverstein means by "they". That's false. Of course we do. Silverstein said, "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander . . .". "They" would refer to the Fire Department.

The Silverstein statement was deliberately crafted in just such a way that it COULD be interpreted to mean "demolish the building", but it could ALSO be interpreted to mean "pull the firefighting operation". Which, of course, is what his spokesman said he meant.

"Pull it" was NO accident.

Along the same lines, "Justice" uncritically accepts as true the claim that there was an August 6, 2001 White House memo warning Osama bin Laden was prepared to strike. This may be the most suspicious element included in the short film. It's very clear to me that the intent of "leaking" the August 6 memo was to reinforce the idea that "Osama did it", to focus public debate away from "What really happened" and on to "Could Bush have stopped it?" See how it works?

A misuse of a scientific term further discredits the film. Says the narrator, "Jet fuel does not create anything near the heat necessary to melt steel". What he meant to say was, "Jet fuel cannot burn at a high enough temperature necessary to melt steel.

Heat and temperature are not the same thing. Temperature is the degree to which something is releases energy, heat is the amount of energy released. My water heater has much more heat than a burning match, but the burning match is a much higher temperature than the water heater. The intended point about hyrdrocarbon fires and steel is correct, and important. But the botched terminology is just one more distraction.

A silly error needlessly confuses the issue on WTC7. WTC7 was 47 stories, not 42 as the film states. WTC7 is a smoking gun, no question. But if the filmmakers can't even get a simple fact straight, it doesn't bode well for credibility, especially in the minds of the undecided.

Throughout the 20 minutes, "Justice" just assumes the official story of plane crashes at the WTC. There is essentially no hard evidence to support this position, and a mountain of data proving that the airplanes are video composites. I certainly appreciate the contentious nature of the plane hoax debate within the movement, so I'll leave planes to one side for the moment, and deal with that another day. There is plenty else wrong with "9/11 Justice". Please don't promote this film.

John Hutchison for President

Model of Disinformation

The purpose of disinformation is to deceive. Large-scale govern-media operations require obedience and acceptance of policy objectives, which typically run contrary to the interest of most people.

Broadly speaking, disinformation can take one of two forms - trying to get the public to believe something which is actually false, and trying to get the public to disbelieve something which is actually true.

A. Acceptance of a false narrative

1.  Divide the false narrative into component pieces, then repackage each element surrounded by true (but irrelevant) details.
2. False narrative is presented by a seemingly credible source (expert).
3. Public swallows the false story piece by piece.
   

B. Rejection of a true narrative

1. Divide the truth into component pieces, then repackage each element surrounded by false details. The false details range from plausible to absurd.
2. Repackaged truth is presented by a lunatic.
3. Public rejects truth, "throwing the baby out with the bath water".
   

$100,000 WNYW Chopper 5 Challenge

I challenge WNYW Television (Fox-5 New York) to release to me a broadcast-quality copy of the raw Chopper 5 airplane footage, plus a copy of the WNYW broadcast output for the morning of 9/11. If they do so, compliant with the parameters below, I will pay a reward of $100,000.00 in U.S. currency. 

1. For purposes of this challenge, the master recordings are assumed to exist on NTSC 3/4" Beta video tape, a newsroom standard for many years up until 2001. WNYW shall make 1st generation digital copies directly from the Beta masters. 

2. The digital copies will be dimensions 720 x 486.

3. The digital copies will be interlaced.

4. The digital copies will be free of any and all processing, including but not limited to color correction and frame blending.

5. The digital copy of the raw Chopper 5 footage will be free of any and all logo graphics. The one (and only) known televised replay of the Chopper 5 footage occurred on CNN, a few short minutes after the event. The FOX-5 graphics are not present, indicating that the footage was recorded without them.

6. The digital copy of the broadcast output shall comprise the unedited broadcast which actually occurred on the morning of 9/11, on WNYW,  both audio and video.

7. The digital copy of the broadcast output will run continuously beginning no later than 8:30 a.m., and ending no earlier than 9:30 a.m. 

8. All digital copies will include the VITC time-code area.

9. The videos are licensed to me in perpetuity. 

Any clarifications, questions or details may be discussed. I warrant that I have a line of credit in excess of $100,000.

Sincerely, 

Alexander "Ace" Baker

cc

Isaura Nunez, WNYW 

Kai Simonsen, WNYW

Steven Jones

Steve Wright

Ron Wieck

Gary Popkin

Jim Fetzer

Judy Wood

Morgan Reynolds

Jerry Leaphart

Andrew Johnson

John Hutchison

Killtown

$100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

August 17, 2008

To John Hutchison and Judy Wood:

I hereby challenge John Hutchison and/or Judy Wood to reproduce the "Hutchison Effect". If successful, according to the criteria below, I will pay a reward of $100,000.00 in U.S. currency.

1. I will travel at my own expense to Hutchison's laboratory (shown above) in the Vancouver area.

2. I will bring 3 video cameras with tripods.

3. Hutchison will describe and point out his apparatus components on video. I will have unrestricted access to the laboratory area, being allowed to video anything which piques my curiosity.

4. Hutchison will then produce the levitation of a steel wrench, as depicted in at least one of his previous videos. The wrench must fly upwards off of the table.

5. During the levitation demonstration, I will video tape continuously on all 3 cameras. One camera will be aimed at Hutchison as he operates any controls, one camera will be aimed at the wrench, and the last camera I will hand-hold, aiming at anything I choose.

While Hutchison formerly claimed to have had trouble recreating the Hutchison Effect, as of this past January, he claims to be able to reproduce it "regularly". I don't believe him. I think John Hutchison is a fraud.

Judy Wood is also a fraud. Wood claims that a weaponized version of the Hutchison Effect was used to destroy the twin towers. In trying to discredit me, and rehabiliate the Hutchison Effect, Judy Wood has issued demonstrably false claims about me, e.g. calling me a "plagiarist" with respect to my music writing.

I have reproduced the "Hutchison Effect" for exactly what it is - video fakery. Judy Wood created this page about my efforts, and intentionally left off most of the evidence that I supplied her with, a clear case of scientific fraud on the part of Judy Wood.

This is an opportunity for Hutchison/Wood to prove it up, and have a very nice payday. I warrant that I have I line of credit exceeding $100,000. Offer stands until the end of time.

Sincerely,

Alexander "Ace" Baker

cc

Judy Wood

John Hutchison

Jerry Leaphart

Morgan Reynolds

Jim Fetzer

--------------

The $100,000 Hutchison Effect Challenge

This agreement is between Alexander “Ace” Baker (hereafter “Baker”) and John Hutchison (hereafter “Hutchison”). The purpose of the agreement is to settle a scientific dispute between Baker and Hutchison. Toward that end, Baker and Hutchison agree arrange and document a demonstration of the so-called Hutchison Effect (hereafter “H-Effect”).

Background

Hutchison claims to have discovered a previously unknown energy effect capable of, among other things, levitating solid objects. Hutchison claims to have a laboratory of equipment in his Vancouver-area home capable of producing the H-Effect under his control. Hutchison has produced various videos purporting to depict various manifestations of the H-Effect, including one in which a steel wrench suddenly moves upwards, off of a table, into the air, flying out of the picture.

Baker claims that Hutchison is a fraud. Baker claims that Hutchison’s videos depict ordinary events, cleverly photographed in such a way as to make them appear unusual. According to Baker, the “levitating” steel wrench is an effect achieved with an upside-down camera. The wrench is held in place on an upside-down table, via an unseen magnet, then released and allowed to fall down, thus appearing to fall upwards, claims Baker.

Hutchison denies all accusations of fraud, states that his videos are legitimate, and that the H-Effect has been witnessed by many, including military personnel.

Challenge

Hutchison agrees to demonstrate a levitating steel wrench in the presence of Baker. Baker will, at his own expense, travel to Hutchison’s home/laboratory, arriving at a mutually agreed upon day and time.

Time: _____________ AM/PM

Date: ______________________ 2010

Hutchison agrees to be home at this time, and prepared for the demonstration.

The demonstration is said to begin the moment Baker arrives, and will last not more than 1 hour. Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to make audio/video recordings at all times during the demonstration. Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to observe and record audio/video wherever Baker wants, including under things, behind things, etc.

Hutchison agrees to then place a steel wrench on a table.

Hutchison agrees to allow Baker to verify to his own satisfaction that it is an ordinary steel wrench, allowing Baker to lift it, and examine it.

Hutchison agrees to then allow Baker to stand next to Hutchison during the time in which Hutchison operates any necessary controls.

Hutchison will then cause the wrench to move upwards off of the table, into the air at least 12 inches above the table. This levitation is to occur without anyone touching the wrench, and without any other normal means of lifting a solid object, e.g. by means of an attached string or wire.

After the completion of at least one levitating steel wrench, Hutchison will confirm that Baker was able to make a recording of the spectacular event. Hutchison will ask Baker, “Did you get that?” or words to that effect.

Baker agrees to, at that time, and under those circumstances, stop his recording, access the audio/video file, play it, and make sure that he “got it”. Baker agrees to then say to Hutchison, “Yes, I got it!” or words to that effect.

The demonstration is over when Baker says, “Yes, I got it!”, or one hour has elapsed since Baker’s arrival, whichever comes first.

Judge

Baker and Hutchison agree that _____________________________________ will serve as Judge of the demonstration.



Payment

Baker warranties that he has a line of credit in excess of $100,000. If Hutchison is successful in levitating a wrench, Baker will access his credit, and transfer $100,000 (U.S.) into the bank account of Hutchison, not more than 14 days after the demonstration.

Further Considerations

Furthermore, if Hutchison is unsuccessful at levitating a steel wrench, Hutchison will give to Baker a digital video copy of the so-called “Boat Experiment”. This digital video shall be dimensions 720 x 480 in size, 29.97 frames per second, and will not contain any duplicated frames. It is to be delivered to Baker no more than 7 days after the demonstration.




Witnesses

Hutchison agrees that Baker will bring one witness of Baker’s choice. The witness will be allowed to observe the demonstration along with Hutchison and Baker.

Baker agrees that Hutchison will be allowed to invite as many witnesses as Hutchison would like, and that the size of his home/laboratory will accommodate.

Ownership of audio/video

Hutchison agrees that, whatever the outcome of the demonstration, Baker will, in perpetuity, own all intellectual property in the audio/video recording made by Baker. Other witnesses who choose to make recordings of their own, will each own their respective recordings.

Baker agrees to publish and make available for download his complete and unedited recording of the demonstration.

Hutchison agrees to never interfere with the publication and dissemination of the demonstration recordings.





Alexander “Ace” Baker ________________________________ date _______________




John Hutchison ______________________________________ date________________

Theory of Edited (non-live) 9/11 Airplane Videos

I demonstrate how the Ghostplane video was created. I use Apple Motion, any high-end compositing environment could have been used on 9/11.



A better quality version of the demonstration video may be downloaded here.

1. Stabilize source video.
2. Create airplane.
3. Add airplane, color correct, blur.
4. Establish motion path of airplane.
5. Add layer mask to disappear airplane.
6. Add shadows on tower face.
7. Add hole, with masking.
8. Add puffballs.
9. Unstabilize everything.

I am here