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)