9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera

9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera

A scientific, historical, and musical exploration of 9/11 by Ace Baker.

Chapters 1-8 are now free on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/user/CollinAlexander?feature=mhee

If you think planes crashed into the twin towers, see chapter 6 "What Planes?" and chapter 7 "The Key". Carefully considered, real plane crashes are impossible, and the evidence for video compositing is irrefutable.

If you think the towers were brought down by thermite and/or directed energy weapons, please see Chapter 4 "Phenomena". The evidence for nuclear reactions is overwhelming.

If you think there was a gravity collapse, or are inclined to believe any part of the ridiculous official story, please see chapter 2 "The Official Story vs. The Truth Movement".

If you're interested in the psychological aspects of false flag terror, please see chapter 8 "The Psy-Opera".

If you think the leaders of the "truth" movement are seeking the truth, please wait for chapter 9 "The Controlled Opposition".

If you want to know what actually occurred on 9/11, please wait for chapter 10 "Conclusion".

Liu Bolin, The Invisible Man . . . and 9/11

Liu Bolin is the Invisible Man. He creates astonishing photographs of himself painted to blend in with the surroundings.

The 36-year-old Chinese artist has made quite a name for himself lately, boasting several recent Yahoo articles and an exhibition of his work at the Eli Klien Fine Art Gallery in New York City.

Liu Bolin is an artistic genius. He's also a fraud. The following animated gif alternates between two of Liu's recent works, depicting him in the infamous Tiananmin Square.

(click to enlarge)

In one frame he's allegedly painted himself to replace the portrait of Mao, and to match the arched gateway underneath. In the other frame, he stands further back, and blends into the wall. Notice, however, that the flags and the other people are identical in the two shots. They could not possibly have been photographed at two different times. This is irrefutable evidence that Liu has simply used photoshopping techniques to create his startling effect, at least in these two photos.

This is no great discovery on my part, I'm merely pointing out the obvious. Liu is no amateur. He didn't have to give the game away like this. He could easily have just used two different background pictures, instead of the same one twice. He understands that his trickery would be exposed by a comparison of these two images. He clearly wants us to "see through" what he's doing.

What of the people at the Eli Klien Gallery? Are they among the deceived, or the deceivers? Everyone knows that Photoshop would be a much easier method of achieving the Invisible Man effect than actually painting a person. And by the way, according to the story, Liu doesn't do the painting himself anyway, it is done by "an assistant". If any of Liu's art really is accomplished with actual painting, then a good deal of the artistic credit should go to the painter. However, I am sincere when I call Liu a genius.

There is surely fakery taking place, and I believe this is the important part of Liu's message. He is challenging us to contemplate the validity of what is presented to us in the media. He and the Eli Klien Gallery are inspiring us to see through it, while being bombarded with messages that the work is legitimate. Get it? The point is to test your ability to believe falsehoods when the truth is plain to see.

And so it was with 9/11. In case you haven't seen "9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera", you should.

http://psy-opera.com

In particular, Chapter 7 "The Key", presents overwhelming evidence and explanation for why we know that the 9/11 airplane videos were faked using video compositing. Both the 9/11 airplanes and Liu Bolin's art present examples of the extraordinary ability of people to deny the truth when it conflicts with a belief system propagated by media. This phenomenon is called "cognitive dissonance". Artists who dare to provoke cognitive dissonance are my favorites. How about you?

(9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera is rated CG for Cognitive Dissonance).

Press Release 2

chapter 2

The Official Story

vs. The Truth Movement

psy-opera.com

The scientific and historical investigation begins in earnest on Sunday, September 18, 2011. Ace Baker compares the official story of 9/11 with the claims made by the truth movement. This chapter features original interview material with Official "collapse" modeler Frank Greening, and introduces some of the other major players - Zdenek Bazant, Dylan Avery, Jim Fetzer, David Ray Griffin, Morgan Reynolds, Jim Hoffman, and the crew from Popular Mechanics.

Chapter 2 also debuts a new song “9/11 Was an Inside Job (guess you didn’t get the memo)”, a humorous lambasting of Norman Mineta’s testimony regarding Dick Cheney in the White House bunker.

Fearlessly Answered Questions

Could plane crashes and fires really cause what we saw? Where’s the tail? Where are the engines? Where are the seats? Where is the luggage? Where are the passengers? Why did World Trade Center building 7 go into freefall? Wouldn’t the core be left standing? Does this look like a hollow steel shaft? How could that possibly be? Where are the floors?

Where was America's mighty air defense? Was it just a coincidence that a number of military war games were taking place on 9/11, including simulated hijackings, planes crashing into buildings, and fake blips injected into the radar screens? Is this real world or an exercise? Was it just a coincidence that a bio-terror exercise called Tripod II was scheduled for the day after 9/11, on the pier right next to the World Trade Center, and that FEMA agents had already arrived the night before 9/11?

Was it just a coincidence that on the day before 9/11, the Pentagon announced it had misplaced $2.3 Trillion? Was it just a coincidence that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon in an area that had recently been renovated, and that contained financial records, and not the area where the top brass had their offices? Did the Bush administration receive warnings that Al Quaeda was going to strike? How specific were the threats? How can security be strengthened in the future? Do the orders still stand? Why would the U.S. government do such a thing? Did Brent Blanchard get the memo?

View The Great American Psy-Opera at psy-opera.com, or . . .

Become an Affiliate

Earn money and spread the word by imbedding chapters into your own website, blog, forum, or facebook. It's easy. Go to psy-opera.com, call up the chapter you want to embed, follow the embed links to youreeeka, and create a free membership. You will earn 50% of the revenue from people who watch on your site.

________________

“9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera” is a copyrighted, non-profit work of education, research, criticism, and parody. ©2011 Peace Through Anarchy

Prediction on Bin Laden Death Photos

Osama bin Laden was allegedly killed a couple of days ago at his compound in Afghanistan. Before burying him at sea, gruesome pictures were supposedly taken of him with a bullet through the left side of his head. They're debating whether to release the photos.

9/11 "truthers" have long suspected that Bin Laden was a CIA asset, going back to his days as a pro-U.S. "freedom fighter" in the Afghan war against the U.S.S.R. FOX news reported Bin Laden's death on December 26, 2001. Who knows the truth? I certainly don't claim to. I doubt Barrack Obama knows the truth either.

What is clear is that they very much want us to believe that they finally got that bad guy. Here's my prediction:

They will officially decline to release the photos, citing concerns that it will foment anti-American sentiment. Then the photos will be "leaked", the classic method of getting us to focus on the issues surrounding leaks per se, while accepting the government lies as gospel.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Bin Laden is still alive, nor am I saying he died long ago. I'm saying that I don't know, you don't know, and it's un-knowable.

Obama's Forged Birth Certificate = Silverstein's "Pull it"

Yesterday the web exploded with proof that Obama's newly released "long form" birth certificate is a forgery. Clearly it has been hacked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s9StxsFllY

The birth certificate, available on the White House website, is in PDF format. Opening the file in Adobe Illustrator allows us to see that the document was assembled in multiple layers. Usually a graphic artist will "flatten" a composited image for final output, merging all layers into one final picture. Apparently Obama's guys "forgot" to do that. Even had they flattened the layers, there are other glaring mistakes, such as the mismatching colors on adjacent characters.

Could the holy graphic artist really be so incompetent? I highly doubt it. They could make a perfect forgery if they wanted to, and could have done so years ago. They wanted us to obsess on this file. They question is, why?

I think it's a distraction, like Clinton's Monica Lewinski. It's also a lot like Larry Silverstein's "pull it" remark. For anyone who doesn't know, Silverstein was the the brand-new lease holder on the World Trade Center on 9/11. Speaking about WTC7 in a government documentary show, he said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it. And they made that decision, to pull, and then we watched the building collapse".

For years afterward, the 9/11 "truth" movement spent tremendous time and energy on "pull it". They said "pull it" was jargon from the controlled demolition industry meaning "initiate the demolition", as in "pull the building". They suggested that Silverstein slipped up, and admitted that WTC7 was blown up. How this supposed slip up was allowed to make it to an edited government documentary program was never explained.

The official story supporters echoed the subsequent explanation given by Silverstein's spokesperson. According to them, "pull it" meant "pull the firefighting effort out of the building". Why would Silverstein would have said "pull it" rather than "pull them"? Why was such an ambiguous statement in the show to begin with? If they had wanted us to have a clear statement, they surely would have given us one.

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Silverstein's "pull it" was a carefully crafted statement, designed to do exactly what it did: generate obsession and debate, while still having some plausible deniability. It was a distraction.

And so it is with Obama's birth certificate. It's a hacked up photoshop job all right. But the official story is that a software process of OCR (Optical Character Recognition) generated the separate layers in the file. It is true that the OCR (and/or "PDF Optimization") can generate layers recognized by Adobe Illustrator, but it cannot create anything remotely resembling what is seen in the laughable Obama birth certificate. Still, most people don't have the software, or will not bother to check it out in depth. For those inclined to support the official story, OCR is good enough.

The forged birth certificate is a lightening rod, designed to draw the fire, and keep us focused on that. Why? Are we supposed to forget about Libya? Is there a new war brewing? Are they planning to install a new president next election? Is it just an exercise in audacity, as if to say "Yeah, we forged it. What are you going to do about it?"

I don't know where Obama was born, and I don't care. I don't support what politicians do, regardless.

Wikileaks is a U.S. Asset

Wikileaks is surely a U.S. counter-intelligence operation. It is simply a new portal for an old tactic. Government agents have long been packaging certain key pieces of propaganda as "leaks". Doing so serves the purpose of bypassing scrutiny of the content of the message. Focus is instead placed on questions such as . . .

Who leaked the information?
How much damage was done to national security?
What can be done to contain the leak?
How can we prevent future leaks?
How should we punish the person who leaked the information?

. . . instead of asking the fundamental question:

Is this information true?

In addition to the goal of garnering unquestioning public acceptance of important lies, "leaks" propagate the "government can't keep a secret" meme. This is a key pillar in defense of large disinformation campaigns protecting, for example, 9/11. Recently AP news has started citing "Leak" as an allegedly reliable source, the same way they have for a long time cited "government sources" or "a high ranking Pentagon official" or whatever.

If you believe that large groups of people cannot keep a secret for a long time, then answer the following. What are the accomplishments of the NSA? Where can I download plans to build a nuclear weapon?

Facebook and the Controlled Opposition

Facebook is suing Teachbook in federal court, alleging trademark infringement. They claim that use of the word "book" in the name of a social networking site dilutes the value of their famous brand. A great number of reports have appeared about it, see this, and this, for instance.


I suspect Facebook secretly owns Teachbook. This unfolding drama makes much more sense to me in that light. Let's think about it.

You may or may not know, most teachers are reluctant to use Facebook, citing privacy concerns, fearing their students will friend them. Owning a spin-off site for teachers, with privacy, would be a nice solution. What's a cost-effective way to get the word out, and jump start subscriptions? A nice controversial lawsuit. Membership on Teachbook has gone from a mere 10 users, to nearly 5000, just in the last few days as news of the lawsuit spread.

If Facebook can prevail in the lawsuit, it will establish precedent that it enjoys a trademark in the suffix "book". The best chance for a plaintiff to win in such an endeavor is to control the defendant. And, as Vladimir Lenin so infamously said:

The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.

We should pay careful attention to how Teachbook handles their defense. There are any number of ways that they could underlitigate, and try to lose on purpose. The first would be answering the complaint right away. Their first two moves should be:

1. Under California law, file an anti-SLAPP Special Motion to Strike. This is a low-cost Motion that would force Facebook to essentially prove up its whole case right at the beginning, just to proceed to discovery. This is a federal case, the judge may or may not allow the California statute 425.16 to be used.

2. File a 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State Cause of Action Upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. This is standard defense in almost every federal case. The judge would have the authority to toss the case right out, again, prior to any discovery.

If Teachbook doesn't respond with those two moves, I will immediately smell a rat. However, even if Teachbook litigates vigorously, and even if they get the case dismissed, or even if they counterclaim against Facebook and prevail, it still makes sense that Facebook is behind it. After all, what harm is there in losing a court case to yourself?

I think Facebook is playing both sides in this game, and they have created a no-lose situation for themselves. The worst case is that Teachbook becomes popular among teachers, and Facebook has solved their teacher problem. The best case is all that, PLUS they really do get to own the word "book", and then force every other "book" site to surrender their name.

It's brilliant, and it's the only scenario that makes sense to me. Why else would Facebook risk suing a little tiny website with nothing to lose, and everything to gain from a potential counter-suit?