Sunday, November 29, 2009

Fractional Reserve Bandwidth

I'm convinced AT&T are selling more bandwidth than they actually have. I have AT&T DSL, and my connection speed varies dramatically throughout the day. We've had the service guy out twice, he's changed a line filter and whatnot, but it really has made no difference.

Usually I get about 2.5 Mb/sec download, which is bad enough, I understand many DSL connections achieve up to 8 Mb/sec. But then it will clog up and I'll get only 20% of what I was getting just a minute before. The performance fluctuates throughout the day and night, but the most likely time to get the really slow speeds is early evening, so it seems correlated to peak hours.

My understanding was that a DSL is a hardwire connection to the internet. Its bandwidth should not vary. I highly suspect AT&T has developed a scheme that continuously re-allocates bandwidth among active users, "robbing Peter to pay Paul". Not all of their customers use the internet at the same time. For a certain number of users, the re-allocation would be unnoticeable. But the more users on the grid, the more performance would have to suffer. The temptation on the part of AT&T would be to service as many customers as possible for a given hardware investment.

This is not unlike the way banks originated the process of "fractional reserve banking", where they would fraudulently issue paper receipts for gold far in excess of the gold they actually possessed. Of course, the banks eventually managed to "legitimize" the practice and eliminate the obligation to redeem in gold at all.

Is anyone else experiencing fractional reserve bandwidth? Is this what you paid for? How might the large internet providers seek to legitimize the practice, once it becomes known?

Monday, October 5, 2009

Nuking the Airplane Hole

(click to enlarge)

Here's a stabilized sequence from Jennifer Spell's video, after the "airplane" goes in, and waits, then two totally different types of explosions occur. One is the spectacular orange-black hydrocarbon fireball,  meant to represent "jet fuel". But notice the explosion on the lower left. Point sources leave expanding white trails. This looks very much like what happens to the entire building later on, which looks very much like known nuclear reactions. 

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Fake Video Dramatically Alters Eyewitness Accounts

Researchers at the University of Warwick have found that fake video evidence can dramatically alter people's perceptions of events, even convincing them to testify as an eyewitness to an event that never happened.

Associate Professor Dr Kimberley Wade from the Department of Psychology led an experiment to see whether exposure to fabricated footage of an event could induce individuals to accuse another person of doing something they never did.

In the study, published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, Dr Wade found that almost 50% of people shown fake footage of an event they witnessed first hand were prepared to believe the video version rather than what they actually saw.

Dr Wade's research team filmed 60 subjects as they took part in a computerised gambling task. The subjects were unknowingly seated next to a member of the research team as they both separately answered a series of multiple-choice general knowledge questions.

All subjects were given a pile of fake money to gamble with and they shared a pile of money that represented the bank. Their task was to earn as much money as possible by typing in an amount of money to gamble on the chances of them answering each question correctly. They were told the person who made the highest profit would win a prize.

When they answered each question, subjects saw either a green tick on their computer monitor to show their answer was correct, or a red cross to show it was incorrect. If the answer was wrong, they would be told to return the money to the bank.

After the session, the video footage was doctored to make it look as if the member of the research team sat next to the subject was cheating by not putting money back into the bank.

One third of the subjects were told that the person sat next to them was suspected of cheating. Another third were told the person had been caught on camera cheating, and the remaining group were actually shown the fake video footage. All subjects were then asked to sign a statement only if they had seen the cheating take place.

Nearly 40% of the participants who had seen the doctored video complied. Another 10% of the group signed when asked a second time by the researchers. Only 10% of those who were told the incident had been caught on film but were not shown the video agreed to sign, and about 5% of the control group who were just told about the cheating signed the statement.

Dr Wade said: "Over the previous decade we have seen rapid advances in digital-manipulation technology. As a result, almost anyone can create convincing, yet fake, images or video footage. Our research shows that if fake footage is extremely compelling, it can induce people to testify about something they never witnessed."

For more information, please contact Kelly Parkes-Harrison, Communications Officer, University of Warwick 02476 150483/02476 574255, 07824 540863,


Kelly Parkes-Harrison
Communications Officer 
University of Warwick 02476

Dear Kelly,

I read with tremendous interest Dr. Wade's recent study on fake video altering eyewitness accounts. I'm an expert in video compositing, and I have authored a treatise proving that the airplane videos broadcast on 9/11 were in fact fake. That is, the 9/11 airplane videos were authentic footage with a fake airplane image inserted into them. 

None of the live 9/11 airplane videos actually showed an airplane hitting anything, rather the airplane disappears across the straight edge of a tower. The live videos had all of the compositional characteristics required for live video compositing, which in and of itself would be extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance. Those that did show the penetration came only later, after there was plenty of time to composite in the actual airplane penetration. 

These penetration videos are provably fake. The airplane goes through the steel wall without any physics at all -  no bending, crashing, breaking, slowing down - quite impossible. A real airplane would react to the impact with the much stronger tower, parts would break off, many would fall to the ground. 

One frame of video shows the wing of the airplane past the wall of the tower, yet no damage to the wall. 

Mistakes were made in one live video, known as "Chopper 5". The nose of the fake airplane image accidentally popped out of the back site of a video mask, making it appear as though the nose of the airplane came out the back side of the tower. This is quite impossible, as the nose of a 767 airplane is plastic, and hollow, and nobody alleges that the nose actually came out. Various attempts have been made to explain it away, but the fact is, it looks exactly like the nose of a Boeing 767, and this is exactly the kind of problem you might have in trying to do a live video composite like this. 

There are many, many other anomalies, all supporting the video composite hypothesis, and ruling out real airplane crashes. The only evidence for real airplanes are the eyewitnesses, and that's where Dr. Wade's study comes in. I wish to thank her for it, and you can rest assured I will reference it in my future work, including my upcoming film, "9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera". 

My treatise may be studied here:

I would welcome any comment you have.


Ace Baker

Frank Legge Says it All

Anyone who pushes the idea that the planes were not real, regardless of whether or not they were real, is doing a terrible disservice to the truth movement.

                                -Frank Legge

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

A Few Quick Comments on Nat Geo Hit Piece

The National Geographic hit piece on 9/11 truth aired 2 nights ago. It was called "9/11 Science and Conspiracy" or something similar. I recorded it and will get around to a more rigorous critique at some point.

A few observations of the top of my head -

1. The editing was malicious in the extreme. The "truthers" - Dylan Avery, David Ray Griffin, and Richard Gage, were barely allowed to say anything. Though I have differences of opinion with Gage on explosive type used, Gage can do a competent job of explaining the evidence for explosive demolition. In particular, I have heard Richard gage point out that the steel floor pans were disintegrated. I am very confident that Richard Gage must have offered a good deal more substantive material than Nat Geo chose to include.

2. The softening beam experiment. Nat Geo built a nice kerosene fire under a loaded steel beam, and got it to sag and fail quite quickly. OK. So what? How could a fire in the twin towers get ALL of the beams in a story to fail at the same time?

Worse, assume all of the support in a story fails at the same time. Assume it melts. Assume it evaporates and disappears, allowing the upper structure to fall unimpeded down onto the lower structure. How does softened support at floor 96 explain how the entire tower exploded into dust? How does it explain the mushroom cloud? How does it explain the dust tsunami? How does it explain the particle size?

3. The projectile experiment. They shot an aluminum cylinder at some walls, and it penetrated, leaving holes roughly in the shape of the projectile. FIrst of all, the holes weren't circular, they were ripped out.

But more importantly, what happened to the projectile? Nat Geo didn't show us. The projectile emerges out the back side after passing through several walls. I suspect the projectile sustained little damage. This makes sense. It was stronger than the walls, so it made a cutout of itself, and went through. On 9/11, we're asked to believe that airplanes made cutouts of themselves, but then disintegrated. It makes no sense.

4. No det cord means no demolition. Nat Geo tried to suggest that because the rubble had no det cord, and it would have taken workers months to rig a standard demolition, and would have needed to cut away walls, it couldn't have been demolished. This simply means it wasn't a standard demolition, which is quite obvious anyway.

5. David Ray Griffin said the twin towers "imploded" and went "into their footprint". This is false, disinformation from David Ray Griffin. The towers EX-ploded, not IM-ploded. The mass of the towers went almost entirely OUTSIDE the footprint, which is one of the best proofs of explosive demolition. Official collapse modelers Frank Greening and Zdenek Bazant agree that anything more than 20% outside the footprint rules out a gravity collapse.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

9/11 FAQ Part 1

1: how could the government possibly get every one of the thousands of firefighters, FBI agents, demo experts, CIA, majority of the house of reprasentatives, scientists, everybody in the bush admin, major military figures, air traffic controll, rescue workers, pilots, police etc. to keep it a secret?

Threats and bribes. People are scared of losing their jobs, scared of being outcast, scared in a hundred ways. Plus they're on the payroll. The government funds, thus controls about 100% of all scientific research. Look at what has happened to the few academics who have spoken out on 9/11. Fired, every last one.

Don't think large numbers of people can keep secrets for a long time? I'll prove that wrong with 3 letters: N S A. The NSA is a secret government organization with at least 30,000 full time employees, and an unknown black budget. They've been around since . . . well we don't really know exactly, but many decades at least.

What have they done? What are the accomplishments of the NSA? 30,000 working full time for decades on end, and we don't have any idea what they do. Why? BECAUSE IT'S SECRET!

2: why would the government attack the pentagon? theres no point. even if there was info in the pentagon regarding 9/11, its only a small section. theres still 95% percent of the pentagon not destroyed. i doubt highly that only one section of the pentagon has something as important as the BIGGEST TERRORIST ATTACK EVER.

The Pentagon is a military target. They needed to be able to call 9/11 "an act of war", which is exactly what the president called it. Remember that the wall that was blown up (allegedly by flight 77), had recently been renovated for "blast protection", and was far away from the area where the top brass hang out.

3: why would bush invade afghanistan for oil money? the cost would be greater than the profit.

the costs of a possible 9/11 conspiracy: paying off the thousands of major figures that would have had to been in on 9/11 to make it work- around 3 billion dollars AT LEAST.

the cost of freedom tower: estimated around just below a trillion dollars if not more.

cost to carry out the leftover debris: about 10 million.

war costs: trillions of dollars.

the profit of a possible 9/11 conspiracy:

oil: 1.5 trillion.

as you can see, the cost would be greater than the profit.

Other People's Money. The people who wage war are not the people who pay for war. You're right that 9/11 was a net loss, a huge net loss. War is always a net loss. But SOME people can profit immensely from war, such as the government and its military contractors, and that's exactly who did 9/11.

The same is true for the real estate. The insurance companies who paid for the World Trade Center are being greased directly by the Federal Reserve, who simply create money out of thin air. The true cost of all this is being paid by productive citizens in their taxes, and by inflation.

3: why would osama admit to 9/11 if he didnt do it?

Because he's a CIA asset. A paid actor. First, Osama might very well have been dead now for years. We don't know. The various "confession" tapes are a joke, the guys don't look like him. But assume Osama really admits responsibility. So what? What did it cost him? You really think they couldn't go find Osama bin Laden if they wanted to? Please.

And remember, Osama was OUR guy to begin with. "Al Queada" really grew out of Osama's "Freedom Fighters", who were backed by the U.S. government when Afghanistan was fighting the Soviets during the 1980's.

4: if the government really wanted to ensure the success of the conspiracy, why wouldnt they assassinate the big names in the conspiracy buisneess in the most accidental looking way possible?

The "big names" are part of the conspiracy. Vladimir Lenin said "The best way control the opposition is to lead it ourselves". So true.

Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Jim Fetzer, Simon Shack and many others have screwed the case up badly. Fetzer never really says anything. Jones is pushing a thermite hoax that cannot possibly explain what disintegrated the towers, while ignoring the visual evidence. Wood does a great job of examining the visual evidence, but associates it with the ridiculous nonsense about "The Hutchison Effect". Shack has destroyed the case for video fakery, by claiming the 9/11 videos are completely animated.

It would be far too messy to go around killing truthers. The strategy is to flood the internet with nonsense called "9/11 truth". It's worked brilliantly. The "truth" movement is a manifest failure.

5: if the government really did it, why wouldnt they shut down your conspiracy sites minutes after their creation? youre telling me the government can carry out the biggest terrorist attack in history and successfully blame it on someone else, but they somehow dont have the ability to shut down something as simple as "" or some other college student-made site?

Same as #4 - too messy. Instead of shutting down real truth, the drown it with a flood of half-truth, lies posing as truth, nonsense, irrelevancies, and the like. Government agents outnumber real truthers 1000 to 1. They have essentially unlimited funding. Remember how, on the day before 9/11 they announced the Pentagon has misplaced $2.3 trillion? That'll buy you a nice 9/11, plus a whole lot of "truth" sites.


These FAQs by Tyler Hightower.

Saturday, August 8, 2009

Plane in the Wide Shot Strengthens the Case

I was wrong. There is an airplane in the wide shot of Chopper 5. It's difficult to see in the Dylan Avery version. And it is very very difficult to see in the Jim Hoffman west coast version. But it's there. 

Since Hoffman's came out first, and Avery's came out after people complained about the missing airplane in the wide shot, I thought they must have added the airplane only into Avery. 

But I was always troubled by this. It didn't make sense. Hoffman's Chopper 5 wasn't released until years after 9/11. Surely they had ample time to fix anything wrong with it. Would they have ever released it without first figuring out there should be a plane in that opening? Of course not. 

Just like they wouldn't release it without fixing the nose out. 

But wait a minute. We still have the nose out. If the nose out was a compositing mistake, where they allowed the nose of the airplane image to slip out the back side of a luma key mask, couldn't they just erase the nose out altogether, and be done?


People saw the nose out mistake. News anchor Jim Ryan saw it, and felt compelled to explain it by saying, "The plane went right through the other tower". Some people at home must have seen it too. They'd remember. This had to be explained away, not erased away. 

"An explosion that took the shape of a Boeing 767!" This was the solution. 

They took the nose out in Chopper 5 and modified it carefully. They left the beginning of it intact. Toward the end of it, they defocused it and made it get a little bigger and bumpier, so we could start imagining it was an explosion of dust. 

To help cover tracks, they added the flame covering up most of the nose, as it starts to blur. This flame has an additional benefit. If the flame were present in the original shot, it would have made this type of video composite impossible. The keyer would not be able to accurately distinguish between flame and sky, and would have likely made the flame go transparent. 

It's still not possible for a dust explosion to take the shape of a Boeing 767. Nor is it reasonable to believe any of the various explanations for the fade-to-black. Nor do we have an explanation for why the cameras held steady shots of the towers, rather than following the plane. Nor do we have a good explanation for the lack of crash physics, nor the missing wake vortex, nor the many eyewitnesses who witnessed no plane, nor the refusal to release original quality video. 

Video compositing still fits the evidence better than any other explanation. In fact, now it fits even better than before. It explains how the composi-traitors were so stupid as to release a version with a missing plane - they weren't, and they didn't.

Friday, July 24, 2009

What Happened?

The official story of 9/11 is certainly false. The many claims that make up the official story run from highly unlikely to physically impossible. Proving the official story false is one thing. Advancing a positive theory of what did happen is another thing.

Various demolition theories have emerged, as have various theories about the airplane crashes. There are many individuals criticizing these theories. Very few people are actually supporting any positive assertions.  

Here is a list, off the top of my head, of the various airplane theories, and the people advancing them. I'll update this as information comes to my attention. Eventually I'd like to paste in the evidence in support of each theory.

  1. The official story. Suicidal hijackers crashed commercial Boeings into the towers. The airplane videos depict authentic footage. (NIST, mainstream media).
  2. Super planes. Specially modified planes were swapped with the passenger flights, and flown by remote control into the towers. The airplane videos depict authentic footage. (Anthony Lawson). 
  3. Video Compositing.  The airplane videos were faked by inserting airplane images into otherwise real video. The towers exploded from within. (Ace Baker). 
  4. Hologram. A 3D airplane image was projected into thin air. The airplane videos depict authentic footage of this hologram. (John Lear). 
  5. Total animation. The 9/11 videos, including the demolitions and everything else, were completely animated using unknown technology. (Simon Shack, Fred BS Registration, Webfairy, Killtown).
  6. The Flying TV. An aircraft completely covered in LCDs flew at the towers. At the last moment, it became invisible by displaying an image from the opposite side of the plane, and swerved to miss the towers. The airplane videos are a "cartoon display".  (Morgan Reynolds).
  7. The truth about the airplane videos is not knowable. (Rasga Saias)

Why do I Think Jim Fetzer is a Psy-Operator?

I know Jim Fetzer as well as anyone in 9/11 truth circles. I spoke at his conference, I've been on his show a dozen times, he's been to my house. Jim fetzer is a psy-operator, a very important part of the controlled opposition that we know must exist in the 9/11 coverup.

Fetzer has been publishing his list of evidence for video fakery. He cites September Clues, which is full of mistakes and strawmen, like "pixel perfect match", and "missing frames", and "line penciled in", and which now promotes the diabolical "total animation theory", with "moving bridges" and "missing skylines", and claiming the 9/11 videos were completely animated by some unknown advanced technique.

Fetzer also promotes the hologram theory, which is physically impossible, and he knows it.

I, of course, have written a book length treatise compiling the correct evidence for no plane crashes and video fakery. It is published online for all to experience. I have discussed this material ad nauseum with Fetzer, on his show, and presented him with multiple revised versions. The entire project stemmed from HIS request for me to author a chapter in his alleged forthcoming book.

And yet, Dr. Fetzer refuses to include a link to this treatise. Why would that be? Why would Dr. Fetzer promote the dubious material, and not the scholarly work?

There are critics of my work. In my opinion, none of the criticism stands up to scrutiny, but that's a bit beside the point here. There's plenty of criticism of September Clues also.

"Impossible Speed" is a good argument, but only applies to a stock 767. It leaves open the possibility of some modified aircraft (Anthony Lawson's hangout).

"Impossible Entry" is a brilliant argument, and applies to any aircraft, but Fetzer never gets around showing the impossible video frame, the "magically healing columns" frame from Hezarkhani. I have repeatedly explained why there is more than sufficient resolution to see the hole in the tower, if it were there.

The goal of the psy-operators is to protect the truth, spinning all seekers off into some false territory. Observing the behavior of Fetzer and all the other ops is the perfect compass pointing to the truth, you just need to know how to read it.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Tension + Extreme Temperature

This shriveled up beam was a horizontal floor support in Bankers Trust, which was never on fire. Judy Wood wonders how this could have happened, and blames it on directed energy weapons for some reason.

Higher res version of shriveled beam picture

The explanation is as straightforward as it is horrific. The horizontal beam is under great TENSION. The shriveling is exactly what we would expect if that segment were very hot, and the tension was released suddenly. Since Bankers Trust was never on fire, the question is, how could falling material from WTC2 heat that beam in one second?

Answer: Only a nuclear reaction could explain it. Falling nuclear material got close to the beam and raised its temperature very, very quickly in one area. This area became soft, one end breaks, tension is lost, and it shrivels up.

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Fetzer Show 7-8-2009

How we know that video fakery of some kind has to have taken place 

Nine extraordinary compositional features

Theory of how it was done by compositing

Why this approach is superior to other alternatives

Total Animation Theory?

Thin Air Holograms?

Monday, June 29, 2009

Psychological Resistance to Video Compositing Theory

The following article was adapted directly from Brian White's movie review of the Ken Jenkins DVD "Overcoming People's Psychological Resistance to 9/11 Truth" (see here). Jenkins is a supporter of the 9/11 airplane hoax. After some interaction with Jenkins in an email discussion group, and becoming familiar with his theory, it appeared to me that Jenkins himself was psychologically resistant to the truth about video compositing in the same way others are resistant to the "inside job" in general. The best way to portray this irony was to use Jenkins (and White's) own words, with relevant changes.  The present article is thus a work of criticism and parody. Copyrighted material by White and Jenkins is used here without permission, under the doctrine of Fair Use, U.S.C. Title 17, §107 (see here).   


Psychological Resistance to Video Compositing Theory

Important understanding of the human factor in the spread of uncomfortable verities

Adapted by Ace Baker

All truth goes through three stages, first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third it is accepted as self-evident.
—Arthur Schopenhauer

Everyone—well everyone who's examined the evidence with at least a 30% open mind—has his own story of what led him to conclude that the US govern-media was complicit and culpable in the crimes committed on 9/11/2001, including the insertion of fake airplane images into video. 
In due course I succumbed with most Americans to the govern-media propaganda of the official conspiracy theory.  That theory still stands tall, as most people simply don’t value truth.

According to a Zogby poll in September 2007, 51% want Congress to probe Bush and Cheney's role in the 9/11 attacks, clearly demonstrating people’s irrational belief that “Congress” somehow represents the interest of “the people”.

7 out of 10 fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous disintegration of World Trade Center Building 7 (which, like the twin towers, was not struck by any airplane).  Clearly the forces of psychological operations are continuing to warp the minds of the American people, so the urgency is still high for us to make 9/11 Video Compositing Theory nearly universal... so we can move on and build a peaceful, benevolent, libertarian tomorrow. 

Toward that end, Ace Baker—a well known music composer, 9/11 lecturer, and creator of “9/11 – The Great American Psy-Opera—has put together this adaped aritcle to remind us of the human factor in the spread of ideas, and in particular the major obstacles we face in getting out the good word about 9/11 Video Compositing Theory.  Lack of evidence, we find is not the limiting factor.  Fundamentally, people do not want to believe the obvious truth. 

First, let's understand what the evidence tells us 9/11 was: a psychological operation (psy op), which is a term used by secret services like the CIA for a class of operations intended to manipulate the emotions of populations; it is a form of mind control.  The specific intention of 9/11 was to terrorize the American people into supporting a so-called war on terror, to replace the cold war and provide a blank check for the American state to attack anyone, anywhere it wishes—the Neoconservative dream come true. 

As we watched the events of 9/11 unfold on the news, most of us were traumatized by the unrelenting sequence of dramatic spectacle of destruction.  Many of us were horrified into feeling "will my loved ones and I be next?"  The buildings had to explode as they did, disintegrated into ultra-fine dust, because if they had stood, the subliminal message would have been we're invulnerable.  We had be made to feel vulnerable, thus to yield our liberties and lives to a powerful government/military/media who alone would be able to protect us. 

Why the need for a psy op?  Because the people don't want war.

"Naturally, the common people don't want war. That is understood, neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." Herman Goering, Nazi Reichmarshall and Lutwaffe Chief at the Nuremberg Trials

Ken Jenkins has presented a statement supposedly made by Julius Caesar, that according to Snopes is apocryphal (of questionable authenticity).  But it's one of those statements that expresses a universal characteristic of political power, especially in regard to the war/patriotism tension, so I'm using it:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so." 
— el maximus liderus anonymous

So what we're dealing with here in the minds and hearts of many Americans, not to mention other peoples of the planet, is fear, plain and simple.  The only antidote to fear is reason, but in order to work its cure and reach minds we need to be caring of hearts.  So what are these obstacles to reason, to understanding?  I adapt what was originally laid out by Ken Jenkins, with gentle modification, as follows:

0.      Many people simply don't WANT to believe in 9/11 Video Compositing Theory... or stolen elections truth, or weapons of mass destruction truth, etc.  Want implies desires, preferences, drives, needs, motivations. As Maslow and other have shown, security and safety figure very highly in our hierarchy of wants and needs. "Even if what you say about Video Compositing Theory is true, I won't believe it."  To accept that our own govern-media, which is supposed to protect and inform us, will kill us, greatly reduces our sense of security.  It's scary, even terrifying.  People don't want to go there, they don't want to think about it or hear about it.

For this obstacle it is most productive to respond with sympathy and understanding.  Go through your own experience of fear and sadness that you had to fight through. Point out they were already afraid of terrorists; that threat is replaced, not added to, by the implications of 9/11 Video Compositing Theory.

0.      By questioning the official airplane story of 9/11, we are questioning the foundations of many of our fellow citizens' belief systems regarding our government, our media, and our country—especially its depiction of foreign policy in the news.  Such questioning of these foundations is far more profound than say questioning a war. It's a major paradigm shift.  To question the official 9/11 airplane myth is fundamentally revolutionary. As such, it risks a period of chaos, which many find scary.

Stress that questioning the official airplane story is deeply patriotic. Establish things they do believe: e.g. 70-80% believe that the official story of the Kennedy assassination is a lie.  As a specialist on the Kennedy assassination, Ken Jenkins was swayed to 9/11 half-truth by multiple similarities between the CIA's plot against Kennedy and 9/11.  He mentions “light chaos” and “dark chaos”; in Jenkins’ mind there are advantages to having the truth come out slowly (i.e. continuing to cover up certain truths) to avoid “dark chaos”.  Important to commit to long term work in 9/11 Video Compositing Theory.

0.      Epidemic apathy and complacency—encouraged by systems of media, education, government, health care, etc.  Average US citizen does not believe "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance," to paraphrase Jefferson.  I.e. part of the resistance to 9/11 Video Compositing Theory is people might have to do something about it; better not to take action.

This is part of the growing up process, to realize that if our ruling class can insert fake airplane images into news video, then kill 3000 of our countrymen, one's survival as a free human being may depend on facing such reality actively. Grow up, get involved.

0.      Media WMD (weapons of mass deception)—Huge obstacle to understanding the truth of 9/11 Video Compositing Theory and many other crimes. Book Into the Buzzsaw, about 18 award-winning journalists who were prevented by corporate ownership form reporting major, incredibly revealing news.  Some even fired or laid off. Includes Greg Palast, Gary Webb, many others who have won numerous awards including several Emmys and a Pulitzer. 
Ken Jenkins talks about the coverage of Gulf War 1; he realized we were in deep trouble because war was reduced to a video game, with no reports of the carnage we saw in Vietnam... which is credited with (eventually) ending that war. 
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
—Former CIA director, William Colby In the early days of the Cold War, late 40s, CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort was headed by Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, and Phillip Graham (publisher of the Washington Post).

A study showed TV generates misperceptions of facts and Fox is the worst among equals.  The three misperceptions were 1) 9/11 was connected to Iraq, 2) Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and 3) the people of the world supported the invasion of Iraq. 


Possible solution, rupudiate Ken Jenkins’ admitted policy of delayed-truth, and commit to a search for the facts of the matter, wherever they lead, whatever they imply. The CIA owns the media, the media lies, video compositing is a great way to lie. Grow up. 


0.      Stigma of conspiracies—conspiracy is a plan or agreement by two or more parties to commit an illegal or subversive action. Primary alternatives to conspiracy theory are incompetence theory and coincidence theory.  It's just as crazy to believe nothing is a conspiracy as to think everything is.  

Recent conspiracies: California energy crisis, the Enron/Arthur Anderson/Worldcom, etc., stolen 2000, 2002, 2004 elections, 9/11 (the official story is a conspiracy theory). As we know other lies created by conspiracies of power have served as pretexts for war or oppression of peoples: 

— Pearl Harbor (what pushed Jenkins over the edge) 
— Operation Northwoods
— Vietnam's Gulf of Tonkin
— The Reichstag Fire
— Sinking of the Lusitania
— Battleship Maine explosion
— False story of stabbing incubator babies (for Gulf War 1) 
— Long list of state-sponsored terrorism 

And now we know about the Iraq war lies, which helps to overcome the stigma of conspiracy about the Bushoviks.

0.      The Big Lie and the Colossal Evil—we tend to be psychologically traumatized and disarmed by catastrophes, whether created by political leaders or real attacks.  When the former, the scale of the event and/or the deceit of the event are so wholesale the people cannot believe anyone would insert fake planes into video footage. 
"The masses indulge in petty falsehoods every day but it would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths... the bigger the lie, therefore, the likelier it is to be believed."—Adolph Hitler

"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."
—J. Edgar Hoover 

Antidote: tough to find. You have to encourage people to trust their own rational judgment. But beware: cognitive dissonance can create a belief in irrational things, such as airplanes passing through tower walls with no crash physics.  This is Ken Jenkins’ area of resistance.  He considers the insertion of a fake airplane into video more complex than the insertion of a real airplane into a steel tower.   Perhaps if he studies “The 9/11 Airplane Video Composites”, he might realize that the evidence for compositing is overwhelming.   

0.       9/11 Video Compositing Theory is a confrontation to the self image of many Americans, of their country, and of themselves as (flag waving) Americans. The self image Americans have been sold is that we're the good guys, the white hats, the bringers of democracy and freedom.

Antidote: Iraq war lies, torture, secrecy in government, rendition, outing of agents, depleted uranium, shabby treatment of soldiers, covering up of massacres, weapons in space, the debt and the sinking dollar, the Katrina response, and many other incidents are breaking down self-image at least as far as the federal government is concerned.

0.      As if We Were Grownups—we consistently elect candidates and watch newscasters who tell us what children would want to hear: that everything is okay, that little is expected of them, that they can go out and shop and play and watch the news, and that they'll be informed. They're expected to be seen and not heard, to pay their taxes, to take their flu shots, and to not question what they see on the news.  Americans are encouraged to be children emotionally, means government is parental, news is factual, whether strict father or smothering mother. 

Antidote: Grow up.

0.      Most everyone we introduce to 9/11 Video Compositing Theory now has believed the limited hangout story for years—to accept the truth they have to admit they were duped, deceived, and manipulated all that time. That brings up questions of gullibility, na├»vete, lack of perceptiveness, obliviousness, etc.  Most of us have resistance to admitting such blindness/weakness. 

Antidote: Most of us did not get 9/11 right away, let alone Video Compositing Theory, so we can lead with a confession of our own.

0.      Emotional investment and ego investment—we are often emotionally invested in our worldview as well as in specific beliefs.  We get rewards, payoffs for believing certain things, and have to give up that payoff to change the belief.  There is also the ego investment that we get ego strokes, we're better than others, by holding a belief.

Antidote: one of the toughest psychological problems to overcome is the attachment to ego, a general approach of being concerned and staying in the now is desirable.

0.      Unconscious emotional beliefs—both liberals and conservatives, a characteristic of partisan thought, exploited by campaign consultants and advertisers. Political thinking is often predominantly emotional, not interested in the facts. 9/11 Video Compositing Theory is very emotional.

Antidote: take time and be deliberate, study the evidence, try to put yourself in the person's shoes, keep cool, recognize your own hot buttons. Take the long view.

0.      The rabbit-hole resistance—e.g. the Matrix. To believe 9/11 Video Compositing Theory, the rabbit hole gets deep, e.g. our media is corrupt and complicit, there is a powerful secret shadow government, most of our leaders are far more corrupt and malicious than we want to believe.  Others: Kennedy, RFK, MLK, stolen elections, Wellstone, UFOs and abductions, moon landing, chem trails, Oklahoma City bombing, 7/7, Y2K, vaccines, AIDS, mind control, IRS/Federal Reserve, NWO, etc.  A lot other stuff down there and it's hard to tell what's what, easier to stay out of the rabbit hole. 

Antidote: Up the rabbit hole—the voluntary society. We don’t need a coercive state, Read Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and many others. To begin making the state disappear, stop voting.  

0.      Working on changing the world without also doing the inner work of changing and healing ourselves and our personal relationships is far less efficient and effective.  Urgency vs. Panic as motivation.  Driven by many things, as there are many crises happening all at once right now.  We need to encourage and be aware of the latter.

0.      Traits of Panic: 
exhausted, tense
worry, frantic
stressful, insecure
ominously close deadlines
nervous, anxious
catastrophic thinking
worst case scenarios
apprehensive, foreboding
must, need, have to..
pessimistic, dread

Traits of Urgency:
energizing, exciting
enough time
fun, interesting, exciting
calm, serene, peaceful
want to, would like to, would prefer


Saturday, June 27, 2009

Hologram Psy-Op in Full Gear

An email from Jim Fetzer to the crowd:


A nice example where each of us seems to be fixated on our own preferred
theory! Jeff  [Hill] has done brilliant work on establishing confirmation for
the impossible speed [of UA175], so he KNOWS that the speed shown for the 767 that is supposed to be in the videos violates laws of aerodynamics. Now he
suggests that it is possible to combine AUTHENTIC VIDEOS with IMPOSSIBLE
EVENTS if the images that are presented of these impossible events were
produced by a HOLOGRAM, which can fly faster than aerodynamically poss-
ible, melt into buildings, and violate Newton's laws! I think this is
a fascinating hypothesis. If he is right, we are left with HOLOGRAMS!
I don't know if he's right or wrong, but it would certainly explain a
lot of data and is an alternative explanation we should take seriously.
And John Lear is well-positioned to advance arguments in its support.

Jim [Fetzer]

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Double Thinking the Physically Impossible

John Lear and Jim Fetzer are working hard trying to convince us that the 9/11 airplanes could have been holograms projected into thin-air.  

Thin air holograms are physically impossible. For a projected image to reach the eyes (or a camera), it must reflect off of some surface. Semi-transparent screens work for 3D teleconferencing. Particulate matter in the air can create a vaporous reflective region. You can use mirrors. But there is simply no way to get around the fact that the photons need to enter people's eyeballs. 

There is no earthly reason to suspect that the military have image technology beyond that of Hollywood. But even if they did, they cannot defy physics. 

It is more reasonable to think the military have aircraft more advanced than do the commercial airlines. If you are willing to consider the possibility of something thought to be physically impossible, why not just believe they have a 767 that can fly through steel columns like thin air? It's no more ridiculous than thin-air holograms. 

Why would the the kindly professor Fetzer reject the presence of real airplanes based on the observed impossible physics, yet promote equally impossible thin-air holograms, especially when the correct solution (video compositing) stands written up and un-refuted?

Furthermore, even assuming the existence of thin-air holograms, there are several data points that rule out this explanation anyway.

1. The nose out. Perfectly consistent with a real-time video compositing mistake, as explained in detail by me. How does thin air holography account for Pinnochio's Nose? 

2. No Plane in the wide shot. They accidentally broadcast the wide shot from Chopper 5. Perfectly consistent with video compositing, as it is not possible to composite in real-time on a zooming shot like that. Other videos show the plane approaching during the time of the Chopper 5 wide shot. How could the hologram appear in some shots, and not in Chopper 5?

3.  The over-under puffball contradiction. Perfectly consistent with a misplaced layer mask in video compositing, how could a real live image appear above the explosion in the Hezarkhani video, and below the explosion in Fairbanks?

4. Unstable motion. The motion of the airplane in Chopper 5 becomes less stable when you stabilize the video. This is perfectly consistent with trying to do real-time compositing on a moving helicopter shot. The motion of a hologram would be smooth, just like a real airplane. How on earth could this motion become less stable after stabilizing the video?

Of course, believing in thin-air holograms gets the guilty news media off the hook. Again.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Thirty-eight fifty-six make ninety-four

Come to my table periodically

Gaze into the dust, drink of strong tea

Empty the soul, free the heart, mind the head

Crush down the demon and bury him dead 

Said the wise man pinning the lie to the floor

Thirty-eight  fifty-six make ninety-four

Pluto poor peasant,  a planet no more

Thirty-eight  fifty-six make ninety-four

Try tea? Mmmm, Yes. Don't mind if I do

Sixty cups dirty before we are through

Sixty cups dirty, we usually have one

Behold in its glory, a miniature sun

Strong tea and seed-bread, so much on your plate

Ninety-four makes fifty-six thirty-eight

Bury him, lest he come crashing your gate

Ninety-four makes fifty-six thirty-eight