Thursday, June 26, 2008

Video Fakery AND Real Planes?? Owning Jones.

The following dialog between Steven Jones and me took place June 23-24 2008, and I await any further comment Dr. Jones may have. This came right after I submitted a 25 page paper on video compositing and no planes to the Journal of Nine Eleven Studies for review.

Dr. Jones is now evidently floating the idea that videos were faked AND there were real plane crashes. This is ridiculous on its face, and an understanding of the technology shows it to be impossible.


1. If two videos were "faked", does that necessarily mean that ALL videos of a plane hitting the So Tower were faked, including a number of amateur videos? could not faking the two videos be part of the Machiavellian plan (as someone pointed out, Mike I think) rather than "proof" of "no planes"? Please clarify your logic here.

-Steven Jones

You must make finer distinctions than merely saying "fake" video. Some kinds of video fakery are possible to do in real time, some are only possible with editing time, some are extremely difficult even with editing time, and some are strictly impossible.

We see impossible physics in CNN Ghostplane. We see the wing through the wall, yet no damage to the wall. Later, there was damage to the wall. This is perfectly consistent with a simple type of compositing. That's why it looks so fake.

However, if this was a real plane crash, which actually broke the columns, then it means they had to copy and paste the wall back together so that it appears unbroken during the wing passage. This is next-to-impossible to do without detection. You would need to copy the undamaged wall information from somewhere. Where? Earlier frames? That would work, but we could run a difference matte, and could easily prove that pixels were copied from one frame to another.

If we accept that Chopper 5 was shown live, the "real planes + fakery" hypothesis is out. For example, there's no plane in the wide shot. This is perfectly consistent with the compositing hypothesis, because they did not intend to show that wide shot, only the zoom ed in shot. It is impossible to erase a flying plane out of the sky, in real time, on a shot that zooms and pans. It simply cannot be done with existing technology. This would require perfect motion tracking on the buildings, and the incoming airplane. Not possible.

Suppose I grant that you are correct about the two videos you challenge, does that necessarily mean that ALL videos of a plane hitting the So Tower were erroneous, including a number of amateur videos? could not these two videos be part of the Machiavellian plan (as someone pointed out, Mike I think) rather than "proof" of "no planes"? Please clarify your logic here.

-Steven Jones

First, it is more than 2 videos I challenge. Please read the paper I sent you for review. It is a consideration of the totality of the video record, and show that only the compositing hypothesis satisfies that data. I outline a fairly specific narrative involving 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation videos.

But yes, proving the nature of the video compositing present in Ghostplane, and/or Chopper 5 necessarily rules out the legitimacy of the other videos. I have explained this perfectly clearly. Some things are possible with editing, some things are not. Inserting an airplane and making it disappear through the wall is quite doable. Taking a real plane crash, and making it look like a bad special effect composite, is not possible. Therefore, there was no real plane crash. QED.

Consider Chopper 5 and its missing airplane in the wide shot. If we assume this footage was shown live, we can rule out a real airplane. A real airplane would have been present in the beginning sequence, including during zooms. Real time erasing an airplane from a zooming shot, and doing so undetectably, is impossible.

Therefore there was no real plane. QED.

The motion of the airplane in Chopper 5 becomes less stable upon stabilizing the footage. This is impossible with a real airplane. Therefore the airplane image is a composite. It is impossible to motion track reliably in real time, therefore the airplane image in Chopper 5 could not have been overlaid on top of a real plane in real time. Therefore the airplane image must not be covering up a real plane. Therefore no real plane was present. QED.

The Pinocchio's Nose event cannot be a real event, as explained in great detail in my paper. Therefore real time compositing was taking place. Real time compositing cannot cover up a real airplane. Therefore there was no real plane. QED.

I could go on, but it would run 25 pages, and it would be the paper I already sent you.

Since there was no real plane, all videos depicting a plane are composites. QED.

Perhaps you should clarify your hypothesis, Dr. Jones. You're suggesting there was a real plane crash, and that certain videos were faked, to serve as a honey pot for false research. What specifically do you argue was added/deleted/modified on which videos? Be specific. Only then could I address your claims in any more detail.

1b. In particular, How do you account for multiple, independent amateur videos of a jet hitting the So. Tower?

-Steven Jones

Pretty easy actually, once you understand the technology. A single flight path is modeled in a program such as Lightwave 3D. Once modeled, an airplane layer can be rendered from any virtual camera position. Camera motion is matched with a form of motion tracking called "match motion". Motion blur, focus, shadows, etc. are all standard plug-ins.

Amateurs? Prove it. Spooks were seizing cameras left and right. There was no flying object, therefore actual amateur footage of no-plane is unlikely, for why does someone shoot video of nothing? If video surfaced showing no plane, the perps would simply accuse that person of removing the plane, they would seize the footage, quickly and easily composite a plane into it, and claim that was the original. A computer with files would be planted as evidence, the photographer would be jailed as a terrorist, and that would be the end of it.

I don't care if there are 42 or 1042 of them. Any number of airplane videos can be composited.

2. Did the Boeing plane which hit the Empire State Building ENTER into that building? Did it leave a hole showing where the wings hit? Relevant experimental data.
-Steven Jones

It is instructive to consider the B-25 accident. The Empire State building has a non-structural facade. No steel columns were severed. Pieces fell to the street. Video was not available in those days. If video was available of the B-25, I'm sure that whatever damage was done appeared to occur as the airplane was interacting with the building material. This is in sharp contradistinction to CNN Ghostplane.

2. It appears that we agree that a B-25 hit and ENTERED the Empire State Building, with pieces exiting the building. These data are consistent with observations of the planes hitting the Towers. Building on these data, can you provide other experimental evidences that a B-767 at high speed would NOT enter a WTC Tower?

-Steven Jones

As far as I knew, pieces of the B-25 fell down to the street on the impact side. Entering the building is a bit misleading, because of the structural differences between the buildings. The twin towers had structural box columns right at the perimeter.

I think the best data we have on jets hitting strong things is Sandia. Score was Wall 100, Jet 0. I think the strength of the Sandia wall was comparable to the strength of a floor assembly, edge on. Those floors had to transfer lateral loading to the core.

3. How do you account for NIST's detailed analysis of the oscillatory motion including damping of the So. Tower following hit? How does one get the Tower to oscillate like that in the absence of a plane-hit?

-Steven Jones

One gets the Tower to oscillate like that in the absence of a plane-hit by setting off explosive charges. Those charges are asymmetrical on the tower, they exert force, the building is flexible. Very flexible. It was known to sway in the wind all the time. Newton. equal and opposite. Force. As in pushing. We've been through this. At length. It's not so different from rocket thrust. Explosion goes one way, pushes stuff the other way.

3. How do you account for NIST's detailed analysis of the oscillatory motion including damping of the So. Tower following hit? How does one get the Tower to oscillate like that in the absence of a plane-hit? Note that Momentum must be conserved in ANY collision. A Boeing 767-200 traveling at high speed has enormous momentum, which can be calculated using P = MV. Similarly, explosives blowing OUT the side of the building would have some momentum -- but have you calculated how much? In other words, how much explosives (by weight) does one need to use, and at what velocity of the "exhaust" gases, to equal the enormous momentum of a high-speed B-767?

-Steven Jones

Who said it has to equal the momentum of a Boeing 767? What plane? Let's begin by asking what NIST used for input data to their Moire. What was actually measured, and could I please see that?

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda

I should be working on the movie. I'll get it done, and it will be all it needs to be. But I'm messed up. 

I didn't handle the Hardfire show well. There was no way I could have, under the circumstances. Steve Wright's pre-condition for doing the show was that he be supplied with a list of every claim I would make, and every video I would show, a week in advance. Originally, months before the show, I responded by saying that I needed the same consideration. I wanted to see everything Wright would present. I suggested that I give him my material 2 weeks in advance, and he present his to me one week in advance. 

In response to that suggestion, Wright declined. He said he did not intend to present any new material. That turned out to be a lie, only the first of many. A week before the show, I gave Steve Wright this Word document, with links to many video files. 

So the situation preceding the Hardfire show was that Wright new everything I would say, and I didn't have a clue what he would say. I knew this. I agreed to go forward anyway, because I wanted answers. At that time, there simply was no official story explaining away the problems in the 9/11 videos. I felt it was important to get an expert on the record answering these charges. 

But what I should have done was this - I should have explained to the camera what I just explained in writing. I should have said that I've had no chance to research whatever claims Wright was going to make. I should have said that all claims would be addressed on my blog, and given the address. 

Unfortunately, I could not respond on the show the way I would have liked, because I had promised to only present the videos I sent to Wright. 

For example, on "no plane in the wide shot", I could have shown my control case. I shot video from 6 1/2 miles, into a bright sky, zoom out. Planes are visible. 

For example, on "debris came out of the tower, and looked like a nose", I could have shown Gamma Press, and Fairbanks, which also look like a nose cone. Then, I could have shown Naudet, which clearly shows  a dust creation. I could have mentioned that the edit in Naudet is exactly where the fade to black is in Chopper 5. 

But, I held up to my end of the deal. It will be OK in the long run. Rest assured this will all be covered in my movie. But very few people will give a rat's ass anyway. So what?  Who cares?

Wright lied his ass off, over and over. He says interlaced footage proves no compositing. He says the fade to black is Auto Gain Control. He says objects disappear at 8 pixels in size. He says planes must only go at a constant speed in a composite. He says a kerosene explosion can break steel. 

Steve Wright, you are a filthy liar. You conspire to cover up mass murder, and I hate you. You lied to me, you lied to the world, and I can prove it. 

Sunday, June 15, 2008

Rasga's Over-Under Puffball

click image for larger version

Rasga Saias has produced a study claiming a contradiction in placement of the fake "puffball" seen in the 9/11 airplane composite videos. He says the puffball appears below the left wing in CNN Ghostplane, but above the left wing in Fairbanks. I repeat his study, and I agree.

Live Compositing Challenge to Steve Wright

I will shoot 3 sequences of high resolution progressive footage:

1. An airplane flying across the sky and disappearing behind the edge of a building.
2. The same building as in #1 with no airplane.
3. An airplane flying across the sky all by itself.

I'll remove the background from #3, leaving an airplane flying against a transparency, and color correct it as I see fit.

I will arrange time at a video editing room with an AVID symphony or similar. I'll arrive with the 3 video files. My goal will be to, in real-time, using real-time luma key, insert the airplane in #3 into video #2, and make it appear to fly across and disappear behind the edge of the building. We'll convert the composited output to NTSC, and also convert video #1 to NTSC.

I'll end up with two NTSC interlaced videos, both showing an airplane crossing the sky and disappearing behind a building edge. The test will be to see if Steve Wright can identify which video is the composite, and to point out any:

1. Mismatched interlace scan lines.
2. Color disagreement.
3. Harsh edges.
4. Differences in video noise between airplanes and building.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

An Exchange with Steve Wright

As one hilarious note, Wright claims that because Chopper 5 is in an interlaced video format, it cannot be a composite. By this reasoning, Jurassic Park DVD shows real live dinosaurs.

Again, Baker has garbled the facts and tries to mislead the lay audience. Jurassic Park was composited at feature film resolution, shot out to film, then the finished film transfered to interlaced video, like all movies. The compositing was not done in interlaced video, and I am sure that Wright's friends at ILM will be enraged to hear Baker claim that it was. This example reveals Baker's persistent ignorance of the material he tries to use as "evidence".

-Steve Wright

I never said movies were composited interlaced, exactly the opposite. Wright makes my point for me. In my paper, I state that the live composites are done progressive, then converted to interlaced. Of course Jurassic Park was composited in high resolution. That's MY point. It is Steve Wright who observes that Chopper 5 was given to him in an interlaced format, and then dishonestly concludes that the compositing must have been done in that format. I'm going to keep Wright's recorded words unchanged as he speaks of Chopper 5's interlacing, and substitute interlaced Jurassic Park footage. The audience will observe compositing expert Steve Wright "proving" the dinosaurs are real, the exact same way he "proved" the plane is real. And we will laugh hard. Or cry.

"Live compositing not possible" is another hilarious lie by Steve Wright. What was required is real-time luma key.

Nobody said live compositing is not possible. The weatherman does it every night on the news. What Wright correctly stated was that lumakeying a pre-recorded jet video clip over a live video feed from a wobbling chopper camera AND motion-tracking it into position AND color correcting it AND matching the video noise AND matching the video interlaced lines - is impossible in real-time. Baker conveniently ignores this complete list of requirements in his video fakery rants.

-Steve Wright

I ignore nothing, I've written the paper. Read it before you try the strawman argument.

Theory of Live 9/11 Video Composites

1. The Chopper is not "wobbling". The camera is gyroscopically stabilized. It presents a very stable shot. I still maintain that it was slightly unstable, measurably. Wright demonstrated that the airplane motion is pretty stable on the stabilized version of the video. What he didn't do, which I have done, is show that the airplane motion on the raw, unstabilized version of Chopper 5 is just as stable, and I say even more so. It most CERTAINLY is not any less stable.

2. No Motion Tracking is required, because the camera is gyroscopically stabilized.

3. Color correction of the airplane image is done ahead of time, against test shots, as I have demonstrated. It's a piece of cake, the planes are silhouettes.

4. Video noise is a non-issue. The composites are done at a high resolution, THEN converted to NTSC. I suspect they were done at 59.94 frames per second, progressive.

5. "Matching interlace scan lines" is a complete red herring, and Wright knows it. The composite is done in progressive format, then the entire thing is converted to NTSC interlaced. There is no possible way the scan lines could not match.

I think my challenge is a good way to test all this. No? Scientific method. Let's test it. While we're at it, let's test Wright's claim that Auto gain Control can make a camera go to black. No video camera I've tested will do this. I say he made that up. Where's your evidence for that whopper, Mr. Wright?

There is a huge fight brewing between Steve Wright and the executives at Avid.

False controversy. There is no fight brewing between Steve Wright and the executives at Avid. The Avid executives have never even raised the topic of Baker with Wright. They, like Wright, simply have better things to do with their time than feed Baker's psychosis by responding to his inane allegations and garbled thinking.

-Steve Wright

Avid makes live compositing systems. Steve Wright is calling them liars. I'm going to push it until someone cries uncle. And it's going to be Mr. Wright (aka Mr. Wrong).

Wright does not call his friends at Avid liars. Wright calls Baker a bumbling psychotic that cannot get the facts straight who continues to try to fool the lay audience with his phony "analysis". Baker simply needs to invent a controversy that does not exist in a pathetic attempt to get more attention for himself. Avid will wisely ignore Baker.

-Steve Wright

I'm glad Wright is admitting that live compositing is possible. Wright is, however, in effect, calling AVID liars. AVID claims live compositing, of exactly the type required to do a 9/11 live shot. Wright says it is impossible. The only way to really settle it is a live demonstration. Wright and I both know how to do it. The only part of the equation I can't duplicate is a gyroscopically stabilized camera mount. We won't need it, because Wright's own methods re-applied demonstrate the stability of the camera shot. (His method also demonstrates that the airplane image in Chopper 5 did not slow down on entry, I guess Steve didn't get the memo on that point. Pssssst, Steve, you're supposed to say it slowed down by 18%).

As we saw on "Hardfire", Baker actually believes that if you find a few people that did not see planes crash into towers, that proves planes didn't. In fact, that proves nothing. The truth is, if you found 1000 people that did NOT see it, but ONE that really did, then that one observer PROVES planes hit the towers. By Baker's logic, if we can find a few people that did not see him born, then he does not exist. We could only wish.

-Steve Wright

I never said that. The no-plane witnesses are interesting, but not proof in and of themselves. It is the fake videos, and the impossible physics, and the ever-changing story on the nose-out that proves no planes.

The final nail in Baker's silly coffin is Wright's conundrum, which goes like this: If there exists even one authentic news video, camcorder video, photograph, or eye witness to the planes hitting the towers, then the planes are proven. However, to prove no planes, then every single news video, camcorder video, photograph, and eye witness must be fake. To fake these hundreds of different sources plus keep the perpetrators of those fakes silent all these years is absurd on the face of it. Just like Ace Baker.

-Steve Wright

That's your final argument? That's a big IF. One could use the same "logic" to prove bigfoot. If just ONE of those bigfoot videos is authentic, or ONE of those photos is authentic, or ONE of the eyewitnesses is correct, then it PROVES bigfoot. There are lots of videos and photos and witnesses for bigfoot.

Only a true disinfo artist could try to claim that SOME fake videos are insufficient proof of no-planes. Even one provably fake video proves no-planes. CNN ghostplane is a freaking fake. It's physically impossible. No planes.

Guess what? There's no bigfoot. The "evidence" is fake, the witnesses are lying or mistaken. And there were no plane crashes on 9/11. Remember when Wright went on Hardfire and claimed that kerosene breaks steel? That's Baker's conundrum. I sent it to you Ron Wieck, and asked you to send it to Mackey. Copy Wright, it will be funny as hell.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

No Flying Object

Why video fakery proves no flying objects, and why they wouldn’t use flying objects anyway

9/11 video fakery has been proven. The videos showing a plane look fake because they are fake. So cheesy are they, that composi-traitors like Evan Fairbanks felt compelled to appear on television and declare that a commercial airliner “disappeared like a bad special effect”. News perp Peter Jennings memed, “It’s like a graphic artist, isn’t it?” Yes, indeed. 

Live Video Compositing Rules Out Flying Objects

To be specific, the 9/11 airplane videos are video composites. Each has had a flying airplane image inserted into what is otherwise legitimate footage. Most of these approximately 30 videos came after the fact, but 2 of them were shown live. Focusing on the live airplane videos, and understanding compositing technology, we can rule out a number of scenarios which have been proposed to explain the damage that occurred to the twin towers.

In fact, accepting video fakery on the live shots, we can rule out any flying object as having caused the airplane-shaped holes. Inserting an airplane image into a live shot is doable, under certain very specific circumstances, as I explain in the Theory of Live 9/11 Composites. If there is really an empty sky, an airplane image can be made to appear to fly right across. If there is high contrast between a nice, straight, dark tower, and a bright sky, the airplane can be made to disappear behind the edge.

However, covering up and/or erasing a real flying object on video is a different matter altogether, whether the object is a missile, a UAV, a Global Hawk, an A-3 Skywarrior, or anything else. A flying object could literally be covered up with an overlaid airplane image, provided the airplane is bigger, and provided the motion can be matched.

Matching the motion of a video object in real time involves real-time motion tracking. Motion tracking software was in its infancy in 2001, and even today, in 2008, an incoming small flying object could not be reliably tracked in real-time.

Motion tracking works by identifying by a pattern of pixels on a particular frame. The software then looks for a similar pattern on each subsequent frame, and keeps track of the change in position. The identifying pattern must be selected first, on a frozen frame. Only then can the software attempt to track. For an incoming object like a missile, there is simply no time to select what is being tracked.

Even if a selection could somehow be made, motion tracking is notoriously finicky. Any small error in tracking would give the overlaid airplane image an unnatural motion. With current technology, there is no possible way to reliably track a flying object live in real-time.

So the perpe-traitors might have considered attacking the twin towers with a missile and replacing it on video with images of a 767. For non-live video, this is doable. But factoring in the necessity of showing the television audience live footage of an airplane, this entire scenario can be ruled out as technically impossible.

They Wouldn't Use Missiles Anyway  

In fact, even ignoring the problems with live motion tracking, I think we can rule out flying objects with logic. The same reasoning that allowed Gerard Holmgren to rule out the use of real planes in his 2006 article, may be extended to rule out the use of all flying objects.

Accepting the general notion of 9/11 as an inside job, and that the perpe-traitors wanted to sell a story about suicidal Musilm hijackers using airplanes to cause catastrophic damage to the twin towers, Holmgren methodically goes through options. There are simply too many problems with using real airplanes.

Real pilots could never be trusted to actually commit suicide, so any real-plane scenario must involve remote control guidance. If the real flights AA11 and UA175 were electronically hijacked, the pilots and flight attendants would be on the radio, and the air-phones, screaming “Help! We’ve been electronically hijacked!”. Even if those systems could be sabotaged, at low altitude, personal cell phones would work.

Perhaps the real passenger flights could be landed somewhere, and switched with military 767s, flown by remote guidance. Can a 767 really be reliably targeted with accuracy down to 1 foot? I doubt it, and that is what is needed in this situation. If the “collapse” begins obviously below where the plane hit, how would that be explained away?

Worse, what if the plane partially misses the tower? If even a wing tip were to break off and land on the street somewhere, it could be found and photographed by the wrong person. A passenger aircraft has over 1 million serial number parts. If the serial number on that military plane doesn’t match the records for UA175, how is that explained away?

As difficult as those problems are to solve, the fundamental unsolvable problem with real airplanes is physics. The people must believe that there is extensive damage to the core structure of each tower. This requires what Killtown calls “Guaranteed Penetration”, an apt phrase. And to carry off the “collapse” hoax, the demolitions must begin at the location of the airplane holes. Therefore the airplanes must appear to penetrate and completely enter the tower, at very precise locations. There is no way the engineers could guarantee that.

An aluminum passenger jet simply will not enter a steel and concrete tower . The tower is much, much stronger. The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand the crash of a commercial jetliner. A real plane would mostly crash up against the side of the tower, exploding and sending serial number wreckage down to the street below. Such an occurrence would do very little damage to the building, but would obliterate the official story.

Holmgren knew enough about physics and airplanes to reason that far, and concluded that it must have been a missile strike. Missiles can be precision targeted, at least more so than airplanes. And missiles are good for blowing large holes in strong structures. But he didn’t know enough about video technology to rule out live motion tracking, as I have done.

And there are other problems with missiles. Missiles blow the hell out of things. How could a missile be controlled to create a plane-shaped hole? Could pre-planted explosives in the building help determine the shape of the hole? Yes, but then why not just use the pre-planted explosives by themselves? Why complicate things with a missile?

What About Amateur Photographers?

Further, even if an incoming missile could be replaced on live TV with an airplane image, what about amateur photographers? With anything flying towards the twin towers, chances are very good that many people would shoot photos and videos. This becomes a sticky problem. On the other hand, if there is no flying object of any kind, the chances of an incriminating amateur video drop drastically. People shoot pictures of flying things. But how does someone shoot a picture of nothing?

It’s possible that someone would inadvertently shoot video of the tower exploding. But there would be far, far less of those to deal with, than there would with any sort of flying object to attract attention.

The strategy for dealing with amateur photographers is first to confiscate. We know for certain that agents were in position around the towers confiscating cameras and deleting digital files. If incriminating footage slipped through the Gestapo, the next strategy would be to co-opt. “What We Saw” by “Bob & Bri” is very dramatic home video shot from an apartment just northwest of the towers. They began shooting shortly after the first “airplane strike”. They captured both of the demolitions. But the second “airplane strike”was evidently edited out.

If confiscating and co-opting fail, and someone did decide to go public with footage of no plane, the perpe-traitors would simply claim that this footage was faked. They would claim that the photographer removed the airplane from the footage. They would seize the no-plane footage, composite an airplane into it, and claim that was the original. A computer with editing software and files would be planted as evidence, and the photographer would be charged with being a terrorist. He would be sent to prison, and silenced.

The hole in the north tower shows a few perimeter columns which are bent inward. This has been cited as proof that the tower was hit from outside with some sort of flying object. But this is not necessarily true. A sagging floor will create an inward pull between the core and perimeter. We see this trick occurring shortly before the main demolitions, where the outer wall sections are bent significantly inward, at places where nothing is alleged to have hit from the outside.

Can the perpe-traitors really control the amateur video? If you are inclined to think not, then answer this: Where is the video of the hole forming in the south tower? The best video to show that would be CNN Ghostplane. Ghostplane is edited. We see the airplane image enter the tower, we see the wings pass through the wall without creating the hole. We see the white explosions come out of the wall, then we see the orange and black fireball coming from deep within the building.

Ghostplane is supposedly amateur footage shot by Michael Hezarkhani. Who edited it? What did the missing footage show? What format was the original? Where is that tape? Why does Hezarkhani say that he is not allowed to speak about his video, on advice of his lawyer?

And what about Chopper 5? Shouldn’t there be thousands, or at least hundreds of different copies around, recorded by hundreds of different people on their home VCR decks? Where are they? There are only two (2) versions of Chopper 5 – the west coast and the east coast. The two are quite different from one another, and are suspect. Where is an actual original recording off of the television?

I have advertised and sent out numerous requests for original television recordings from 9/11. When it comes to Chopper 5, they simply do not exist. WNYW FOX 5 TV in New York has refused all requests to license the footage.


The airplane–shaped holes were blown with pre-planted explosives. I strongly suspect that “Gelitin” were the crew in charge of setting up the explosives in the North Tower. Who are Gelitin?

Get this: According to an August 2001 New York Times article "Balcony Scene (or unseen) Atop the World", a group of “artists” calling themselves “Gelitin” took over and occupied the 91st floor of the North prior to 9/11. In what was dubbed a work of performance art entitled "The B-Thing",  they built a structural balcony and were photographed out on it.

They made drawings that included the layout of the core columns, and the perimeter columns. A surviving drawing is made showing precisely the correct number of 240 perimeter columns.

“AA11” allegedly struck at the 92nd floor of the North tower. How suspicious is it that “Gelatin” were holed up at floor 91, and outside on the perimeter doing who knows what? Does anyone believe these were performance artists?

The Smith Act

This article is fictional. It is dialog from an unpublished screenplay, where a fictional character called "John" researches 9/11 and questions the legitimacy of government.

I, Alexander Baker, do not wish to advocate, abet, advise, nor teach the duty, necessity, desirability, nor propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States nor the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, nor the government of any political subdivision therein, by force nor violence, nor by the assassination of any officer of any such government; and

I, Alexander Baker, do not intend to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, I have not printed, published, edited, issued, circulated, sold, distributed, nor publicly displayed any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, nor propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force and/or violence, nor attempted to do so, and

I, Alexander Baker do not wish to organize nor help nor attempt to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, and/or encourage the overthrow and/or destruction of any such government by force and/or violence; nor do I wish to become nor am I a member of, nor am I affiliated with, any such society, group, and/or assembly of persons, and I do not know the purposes thereof.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Do You Want to Overthrow the United States Government?

The following is fictional. It is dialog from an unpublished screenplay, in which a character named "John" researches 9/11 and questions the legitimacy of government. Please see this disclaimer.

If 9/11 doesn't make you withdraw support for the continued existence of the government, what would?

Most people support the official story of 9/11. That's a far cry from believing it. Some actually believe it, I suppose. But those people are simply stupid. For better or worse, half of all people are below average in intelligence. But none of the reasonably intelligent upper half actually believes the official story of 9/11. Not a single one. The details of the narrative range from far-fetched to physically impossible.

Q: Why do people support it?

A: Fear.

If the truth of 9/11 were to become widely acknowledged, it could very easily lead to a Constitutional crises or revolution of some sort. What form it might take is not knowable. A very volatile situation though.

Most people are afraid of revolution in any form. They don't necessarily like what "their" government and "their" media did on 9/11, but even those who are diametrically opposed to the endless war, nonetheless support the concept of continued government as such. I find that unfortunate, for the free market would provide all the same services as government, and would do so cheaper and more efficiently. I agree with a large body of literature which finds central government harmful and unnecessary.

But that is the answer to the human riddle of 9/11 story support. Fear of revolution. That explains why the engineers go along with the absurd gravity collapse theory. That's why so many alternative news outlets play along. They can put 2 and 2 together. If the revolution is to be avoided, the official story of 9/11 must be upheld.

I turn the question around. If you are a 9/11 truther, do you support a revolution?. Do you support the abolishment of the United States? So many truthers say the goal is "a new investigation". I find this laughable. Truthers elaborate: "A new and TRULY INDEPENDENT investigation". I laugh harder. A government is a territorial monopolist of jurisdiction and taxation. Thus government is a corrupt, criminal organization by definition. It is no more capable of investigating its own crimes than any other criminal organization is.

And people know this in their hearts. Yet they fear revolution. They have been so conditioned to equate "government" with "society", they imagine the world flying apart in the absence of an all powerful state running every aspect of their lives.

So people stop short. Somewhere along the line, nearly everyone stops short of the inescapable conclusion, that is that government must be abolished. It cannot be fixed. I would point out that the true founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, makes it quite clear that "it is the right of the people to . . . abolish it".

If 9/11 doesn't make you withdraw support for the continued existence of the government, what would?

So I must confront a very harsh reality about people. People like 9/11. People like the war. Whether they benefit outright, like the defense contractors, or mistakenly BELIEVE they benefit, people like 9/11 and the war because they fear the alternative more. They are conditioned to believe in the goodness of government. They are wrong, but if 9/11 won't convince them, what will? Nothing I can think of.

So I must confront a very harsh reality about myself. I am unlike you. I'm different. What makes me different is that I am physically incapable of experiencing fear. This, owing to some bizarre nerve damage I suffered in 2002. This loss of fear allows me to contemplate the unthinkable, while most cannot. It also involves an escalating pain syndrome that is getting pretty unbearable.

Everyone wants to fit in somewhere. To be on a team. But I do not fit. I fully admit this. I am the different one. I do not belong among people.

Nose Out Challenge

How does debris, or smoke, become a size and shape indistinguishable from the nose of a Boeing 767?

If you support the plane theory, tell me, which are noses, and which are debris exiting the building?

Monday, June 9, 2008

Chopper 5 and the Missing Shadow

Chopper 5 was a live, real-time composite. Adding proper shadows was not feasible. The shot was composed in such a way that all surfaces requiring shadows were hidden. But, as we all now know, a terrible mistake was made. The nose of the airplane image accidentally was allowed to come out the back side of the layer mask, so that it appeared to come out of the back side of the building.

So the second generation composites had to attempt to cover up the screw up. The "Gamma Press" shot includes an object exiting the tower that looks a lot like the fuselage.

It's consistent with Chopper 5. Then a strange, 2D looking flame gobbles up the object, it disappears, and is never seen again. StillDiggin named this the "Venus Plane Trap". We could sort of believe it was the fuselage, or maybe an over-sized engine, or. . . something.

The Fairbanks video also shows a cylindrical "nose cone" exiting, but does not show the Venus Plane Trap. It is from such a low angle, that the real explosion expands far enough to simply overtake the nose cone image.

Alas, there was a terrible problem with the 2nd generation composites also. There is no exit wound on WTC2.

So then the third generation of composites was born, those which show a dust explosion. The clearest example of this may be Naudet. The Naudet footage shows a dust explosion for the nose out, and it looks nothing at all like the fuselage of a plane. The frames of Naudet that would show the Venus Plane Trap have been edited out. Highly suspicious editing.

Both GammaTV and Naudet show a very dark shadow from the "nose out", a shadow cast diagonally across the building face. No such shadow is present in Chopper 5. Whether it is supposed to be a fuselage, an engine, debris, dust or anything else, the missing shadow in Chopper 5 is irreconcilable with reality. Shadows do not take a day off.

All the observations in all of these videos are consistent with the following narrative:

1. Chopper 5 and Chopper 7 are live composites, carefully composed to be doable in real-time.
2. The nose of the airplane image accidentally slipped out of the layer mask.
3. Composites were created throughout the day on 9/11 which showed a metallic, cylindrical object exiting, complete with (more or less) correct shadows.
4. It was discovered that there was no exit wound.
5. New composites were created that showed a dust cloud instead of any solid object, complete with (more or less) correct shadows.

I am not aware of any other narrative which satisfies the evidence.