Thursday, February 5, 2009

Why Does Genghis Want Us to Think That?

click image for larger version

Genghis is trying to get us to think that they put the wrong plane into the CNN shot, Park Foreman, etc. I've put a model 767 into CNN for comparison. The angle is almost perfect, maybe off by some fraction of a degree. Mine is not painted in UA colors at all, so no surprise the colors don't match.

I do find it suspicious that the bottom of the CNN plane is so gray, not blue like UA livery. Color matching is a common problem in compositing, de-saturating the colors down close to gray is an easy way to get overlaid objects to blend in.

But for crying out loud, it's a Boeing 767-200. There is not one detail on that plane to suggest it is anything other than a 767-200. It is patently absurd to think the composi-traitors would show us anything but a 767-200. They have flight simulators and stock models of 767's the same way we do. There's no way they would screw this part up. They screwed other parts up.

Genghis is just giving the "debunkers" ammunition to discredit no-planers, as it is quite easy to show that he is wrong about this. Genghis, the 9/11 airplane videos all show a 767. Every one of them.

We know the 9/11 airplane videos are fake, but not because of any wrong airplane models used.


Ace Baker said...

This comment was received from "BG". I had to repost the article, so I must paste BG's comment.


Okay, I m taking on all comers. Argue me down. Call me a fool. Ignore me, whatever.

Here's what I think matters above all with respect to the 1st and 2nd hit events on 9/11 at the WTC.

1. The damage to the buildings and pyrotechnics associated with the crashes (1st hit and 2nd hit at the WTC 1 are completely inconsistent with the govt. / media story of what happened involving passenger jetliners of any normal description.

Game over. Finale. Official story debunked.

I'm not saying to anyone to not do more research, calculations, audio analysis, video analysis, debate, whatever.

There are many aspects that can be discussed beyond the above. However, although I think the case for TV Fakery is overwhelming with respect to the 2nd hit, there is absolutely no reason to squabble over it or any other other finer point such as exactly what model plane does or does not appear in in particular photo / vid.

Let's review:

1. "Nose Out". What is it? It doesn't matter.

2. Weird pre-2nd hit "object in the clouds or otherwise obscured" don't matter.

3. Synchronized video feed and clear signs (like an audio signal about 13 seconds before the "2nd hit" which shows that the broadcasters
(or whoever controlled the feeds to the broadcasters) had black operators who set up for the 2nd hit video feed. It doesn't matter.

4. WABC helicopter pilot killed in cold blood outside a Manhattan restaurant (by an "out of control" taxi driver). It doesn't matter.

5. We have all the proof we need, The stuff like this blog post talks about is not nearly so important as just focusing on what any fool should study and understand: passenger jetlines don't:

a) go 500 mile per hour at this low altitude

b) they don't impact building lie the WTC towers in the way depicted.

Anybody who doesn't want to acknowledge the above is just wanking and spoiling it for all working to take a any sensible approach to developing cohesion and a united force.

Ace Baker said...

BG - I think the lack of crash physics is absolutely a great argument for no planes.

I also agree with the impossible speed argument. It's too bad the leading proponent of impossible speed is John Lear, a very sober intelligent aeronautics expert who pretends to believe in human civilization on Venus, the moon, and Jupiter.

Edo said...

I think the passages below form an excellent snap-shot of the current situation with 9/11 research...

Vincent Salandria was perhaps the first JFK researcher to come to believe that the truth of the assassination could be better approached by large-scale considerations than by focusing on details. Here is a brief selection from Gaeton Fonzi's 1993 book The Last Investigation that vividly expresses this sentiment, which has now been adopted by many researchers:

QUOTE -"By late 1975, when I was beginning work as a Government investigator on the Kennedy assassination, I had not seen or spoken with Vince Salandria for a number of years... I moved to Florida and, because of other demands, found little time to devote to the assassination. But Vince Salandria had become something of a legend among the growing circle of Warren Commission critics. Almost everyone who planned to write a book about the Kennedy assassination first journeyed to Philadelphia to probe Salandria for insights and perspective...

But before starting my new job, I returned to Philadelphia to draw upon Salandria's vast knowledge of the evidence and get his opinion about the most fruitful areas of investigation. Salandria was most cordial, and we spent a long winter Sunday talking. Yet I sensed a certain balking in his attitude, a feeling of disappointment in what I was about to begin. Eventually, he explained why he was no longer actively involved in pursuing an investigation of the assassination. It gave me a surprising insight into how far Salandria's thinking had evolved.

"I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one -- not the President, not Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

"The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face the fact -- not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually, they'll wear you down."

K.L. Ashley said...

Why did Kean/Hamilton want to bait the citizen with absurdities? Maybe to keep the bickering going?

They could have settled for 250 kts (the max speed limit for under 10,000 ft). (No less damage.)

But then they through in the pass port!! Holy cow!

End of case.

When you introduce a gun in a murder trial, you best have a gun.

But Kean/Hamilton throw in a Black Box, Planes, but no black box, no parts. What kind of a trial is this?

But they bought all of it as they can't face up to the fact that a government is not as depicted according to the 4th grade version. Glorious civil war and all that.

The key is to break through this, not more physical evidence.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post Edo...thank you. I have felt this way for some time. Microanalyzing precisely how these criminals murdered their victims is a complete waste of my existance. My question has always been...then what next? What do we do? What can we do with no power, no money, no influence, no laws, no leaders, and no success?

Scott said...

Thank you very much for taking the time and effort and staying with, phone call with Genghis, Ace

All I can do is listen with a non-attached ear, that you want a calm wholesome call and he wants to get down to business, all while decent info still gets through; see what happens.


spooked said...

I think you're missing some subtleties in the airframe-- just Ace-- just look how the wing angle isn't right with ghostplane compared to your model. Most of the 9/11 videos planes have similar airframe anomalies. Yes, the plane is a "Boeing 767"-- but a mutant one!

I actually agree with Genghis on this point.

The fakers may well have distorted the airframe to mess with us or as a type of tacit whistleblowing.

The best known airframe anomaly is the "pod". It's all a sign of video fakery.

Ace Baker said...

Spooked, the slight deformities are easily explained by video. Television video captures images as scanned horizontal lines, with blank spaces in between the scanned lines.

When you go to display such an "interlaced" picture on a computer, it is "de-interlaced". This means image software "fills in the spaces".

Any slight difference in wing angle is easily explained as my not perfectly matching the angle of the airplane in 3D.

Please let me know what on Earth you suppose happened. Are you claiming they are real planes that look almost (but not quite) like a 767? Or they are fake planes but they somehow used a defective model?

Or what?

Ace Baker said...


The "pod" appears on my 3D model. The shadows are not as dark on it, but the exact same shape is there. It is the bulge at the wing fairing.

Anonymous said...

actually the leading proponent of impossible speed is mr. joseph keith, a former boeing design engineer who realizes that the ua175s were video fakery rather than a flying object projecting a holographic 767 cloak around itself, which john lear believes.

Anonymous said...

The lighting on the Official Composite Boeing is wrong as well as the color. Seems to be lit from the top.

Ace's composite plane is lit similarly to the Towers.
Even though the color isn't right it appears more real while the OCB looks out of place.

The question is, is Joe roto-rooter capable of understanding this, and would he care?

L.L. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
K.L. Ashley said...

"Where is the real journalism in this world?"

The Bush administration (and not likely to change) with the military apparatus has established a propaganda machine with a budget of $4.7 billion and 27,000 personnel.

This is from the AP (largest news organization in the world, 4000 employees) head, Tom Curley, who says that his people are threatened from the highest level in the military; AP could be destroyed if it upheld high principles. Their journalists who have attempted to honestly report on Iraq and Afghanistan have been severely repressed.

Does Joe SixLite understand that he is underwriting his own destruction, in many ways.

Anonymous said...

I wanted to relay a very brief personal story. I was living in Tampa after 911. Six months after 911 a young man flew a plane into the Bank Of America building in Tampa. I followed very closely what information was being released by the law enforcement, military, and the local media. I even contacted friends and workers withing those areas to find out even more information. What I found differed quite a bit from what I had read and been shown on tv.

The media and military told me that he was a depressed child. That he had left a suicide note claiming support for Osama Bin Laden, even though the media and law enforcement would not release the note for verification.

I found out that the young man gave up his life to prove that planes could not do the damage that was seen on 911. You wrote a note alright and it said exactly that. It said that he could care less one way or another about Osama but that he couldn't handle his own government and media lying to him to stage wars and death.

Sure enough, when his plane hit the BOA building it smashed into many sections that then fell to the area below. I actually saw the newscast from inside the office space that he hit. A desk 5 feet inside the window was untouched. What the young man wrote in his note proved that a plane could never do the kind of damage that was seen at the WTC's.

What happened? After speaking with reporters I found out that not even they were allowed to see the wreckage and took the word of law enforcement for what was on the note. The mother won a law suit against the makers of the depression drug he was on (6 million US children are on the same drug). That can only be described as payola. By getting that money she had to sign documents that said she would never talk about or sue anyone else with regards to this "accident". This young man gave his life to prove that his own government was lying, and they lied to cover up his statements?