9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera

9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera

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

Chapters 1-8 are now free on YouTube.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(click to enlarge)

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

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

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

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

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

http://psy-opera.com

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

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

Press Release 2

chapter 2

The Official Story

vs. The Truth Movement

psy-opera.com

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

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

Fearlessly Answered Questions

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

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

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

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

Become an Affiliate

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

________________

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

Prediction on Bin Laden Death Photos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikileaks is a U.S. Asset

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

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

. . . instead of asking the fundamental question:

Is this information true?

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

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

Facebook and the Controlled Opposition

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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. 

Fake Video Dramatically Alters Eyewitness Accounts

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090914110537.htm

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, K.E.Parkes@warwick.ac.uk

.............................................................

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:

http://911composites.wiki-site.com/

 

I would welcome any comment you have.

Sincerely,

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

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.

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 "infowars.com" 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.

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?

No.

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.

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.

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.

Fetzer Show 7-8-2009

Link to mp3 Archive of Show

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

$100,000 Amateur Video Challenge

Nine extraordinary compositional features

Pinocchio's Nose

Magically Healing Columns

Over-Under Puffball Contradiction

Theory of how it was done by compositing

Live, real time shots

Edited (non-live) shots

Why this approach is superior to other alternatives

No Flying Object

Total Animation Theory?

Thin Air Holograms?

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, naïvete, 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..
martyrhood
pessimistic, dread
terrified

Traits of Urgency:
energizing, exciting
concern
secure
enough time
fun, interesting, exciting
calm, serene, peaceful
playful
want to, would like to, would prefer
optimistic
happy