Sunday, March 22, 2015

Governments Already Admit To "False Flag" Attacks

Not Theory … Admitted Fact

There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.

In the following instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack) admit to it, either orally or in writing:

(1) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the “Mukden Incident” or the “Manchurian Incident”. The Tokyo International Military Tribunal found: “Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking Japanese army officer], have on various occasions admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the ‘Incident’ was to afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ….” And see this.

(2) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that – under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland.

(3) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson.

(4) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland. Russian president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the aggressor in the Winter War.

(5) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader Gorbachev all admit that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army officers and civilians in 1940, and then falsely blamed it on the Nazis.

(6) The British government admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews attempting to flee the Holocaust to seek safety in Palestine, set up a fake group called “Defenders of Arab Palestine”, and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim responsibility for the bombings (and see this, this and this).

(7) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind “evidence” implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this).

(8) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

(9) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.

(10) The British Prime Minister admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to effect regime change.

(11) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.

False flag attacks carried out pursuant tho this program include – by way of example only:
(12) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.

(13) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

(14) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

(15) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

(16) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”

(17) The NSA admits that it lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 … manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to create a false justification for the Vietnam war.

(18) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of its “Cointelpro” campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.

(19) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.

(20) The German government admitted (and see this) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a prison and planted “escape tools” on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction – which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.

(21) A Mossad agent admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi’s compound in Tripoli, Libya which broadcast fake terrorist trasmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.

(22) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him “to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident”, thus framing the ANC for the bombing.

(23) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author).

(24) The United States Army’s 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces – updated in 2004 – recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and other regions as part of the CIA’s “Dirty Wars“. And see this.

(25) Similarly, a CIA “psychological operations” manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a “martyr” for the cause. The manual was authenticated by the U.S. government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other news coverage that – during the 1984 presidential debate – President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television:
At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs.
(26) An Indonesian fact-finding team investigated violent riots which occurred in 1998, and determined that “elements of the military had been involved in the riots, some of which were deliberately provoked”.

(27) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see this report and this discussion).

(28) According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.

(29) The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.

(30) As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the “war on terror”.

(31) Senior police officials in Genoa, Italy admitted that – in July 2001, at the G8 summit in Genoa – planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer, in order to justify a violent crackdown against protesters.

(32) The U.S. falsely blamed Iraq for playing a role in the 9/11 attacks – as shown by a memo from the defense secretary – as one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq war. Even after the 9/11 Commission admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is “overwhelming” that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein’s regime, that Cheney “probably” had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not ‘doing their homework’ in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that the Iraq war was really launched for oil … not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction. Despite previous “lone wolf” claims, many U.S. government officials now say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue elements of the U.S. government; but such a claim is beyond the scope of this discussion.  The key point is that the U.S. falsely blamed it on Iraq, when it knew Iraq had nothing to do with it.).


(33) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

(34)  Police outside of a 2003 European Union summit in Greece were filmed planting Molotov cocktails on a peaceful protester

(35) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

(36) United Press International reported in June 2005:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
(37) Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.

(38) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and see this).

(39) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.

(40) Egyptian politicians admitted (and see this) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts in 2011 to try to discredit the protesters.

(41) A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat.

(42) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently admitted that the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists.

(43) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.

(44) The Ukrainian security chief admits that the sniper attacks which started the Ukrainian coup were carried out in order to frame others. Ukrainian officials admit that the Ukrainian snipers fired on both sides, to create maximum chaos.

(45) Britain’s spy agency has admitted (and see this) that it carries out “digital false flag” attacks on targets, framing people by writing offensive or unlawful material … and blaming it on the target.

(46)  U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants

(47) Similarly, police frame innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit. The practice is so well-known that the New York Times noted in 1981:
In police jargon, a throwdown is a weapon planted on a victim.
Newsweek reported in 1999:
Perez, himself a former [Los Angeles Police Department] cop, was caught stealing eight pounds of cocaine from police evidence lockers. After pleading guilty in September, he bargained for a lighter sentence by telling an appalling story of attempted murder and a “throwdown”–police slang for a weapon planted by cops to make a shooting legally justifiable. Perez said he and his partner, Officer Nino Durden, shot an unarmed 18th Street Gang member named Javier Ovando, then planted a semiautomatic rifle on the unconscious suspect and claimed that Ovando had tried to shoot them during a stakeout.
Wikipedia notes:
As part of his plea bargain, PĂ©rez implicated scores of officers from the Rampart Division’s anti-gang unit, describing routinely beating gang members, planting evidence on suspects, falsifying reports and covering up unprovoked shootings.
(As a side note – and while not technically false flag attacks – police have been busted framing innocent people in many other ways, as well.)

So Common … There’s a Name for It

A former U.S. intelligence officer recently alleged:
Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.
This might be an exaggeration (and – as shown above – the U.S. isn’t the only one to play this terrible game). The point is that it is a very widespread strategy.

Indeed, this form of deceit is so common that it was given a name hundreds of years ago.

“False flag terrorism” is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:
False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one’s own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy’s strategy of tension.
The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship. Because the enemy’s flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a “false flag” attack.
Indeed, this concept is so well-accepted that rules of engagement for naval, air and land warfare all prohibit false flag attacks. Specifically, the rules of engagement state that a military force can fly the enemy’s flag, imitate their markings, or dress in an enemy’s clothes … but that the ruse has to be discarded before attacking.

Why are the rules of engagement so specific? Obviously, because nations have been using false flag attacks for many centuries. And the rules of engagement are at least trying to limit false flag attacks so that they aren’t used as a false justification for war.

In other words, the rules of engagement themselves are an admission that false flag terrorism is a very common practice.

Leaders Throughout History Have Acknowledged False Flags

Leaders throughout history have acknowledged the danger of false flags:
“Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”.
– Adolph Hitler

“Why of course the people don’t want war … But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the 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.”
– Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.

“The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”.
– Josef Stalin

Article source: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/03/false-flag-5.html

Friday, January 16, 2015

9/11 Scams: "Scientific" Lies of 9/11- A Laymans Guide

"Scientific" Lies of 9/11- A Laymans Guide [Or, " Where Are All the Aluminum Saw Blades ?"]

 For brief review: 3 Statements By An Alleged  Scientist Supposedly Studying The Events of 9/11:

1] "...there can be videos inadvertently out of synchronization by 3 seconds.But these things are total trivia.  I don’t deal in trivia."

2] "Again, in the better videos, I saw a plane entering the South Tower exactly as I would have expected given Newton's Laws." 

3]  " I'm an author of 195 peer-reviewed and published papers, 113 of these as the principal author"

As with my previous post [about my short email exchange with the claimed video "expert" Ace Baker], these 3 quotes are the result of a brief e-mail exchange between myself and a claimed "NASA scientist". 

**********************************************

Details, Details Details?

 Quote [1] :"...there can be videos inadvertently out of synchronization by 3 seconds.But these things are total trivia.  I don’t deal in trivia."

Are details important for 9/11 researchers? Apparently not, at least not if you claim to be a scientist . 

Now, as a [none-scientist] layman , I have to say I'm "a little" confused here.

 I'd have thought that a person with scientific training/education would insist on examining  "trivial" details which might escape the layman [ie myself] , but in reality, the reverse seems to be the case, as an alleged scientist's quote makes very clear. 

[And he's not the only alleged "scientist" with  this same cavalier attitude, either. Another claimed "philosopher of science" has repeatedly  stated words to the effect of "the 9/11 videos  all look similar on initial, cursory  inspection- therefor they are genuine" . This, despite the fact that it is possible, and has been since at least the early 1990's, to fabricate a film sequence of a plane in flight, or of a building demolition, entirely inside a computer, and that once published from one viewing angle, that same sequence can be "re-toggled" inside the computer and re-published with an entirely new camera perspective, allowing for multiple "prints" of a movie, all with unique camera perspectives]

A Waste of Time? 

It is perhaps worth remembering that neither of these two claimed scientists have laid claim to _any_ expertise/experience with video or photographic analysis for signs of fakery with regards to 9/11, nor for anything else, and yet regardless of this shortcoming on their part, both of  "scientists" cavalierly dismiss detailed analysis of archived MSM footage and related imagery as a waste of your time, while simultaneously reminding you of their purported "scientific expert" status.

4 "Trivial" Facts About the 9/11 Imagery:




"Trivial" fact [1] :  in the online MSM archives for 9/11, there is a 3 second discrepancy in the strike time for Fl.175  on CBS, versus 4 other MSM "live" feeds, despite the fact that prior to that strike, all 5 MSM stations are not only  perfectly in synch with eachother, but also, for much of the time, are broadcasting the exact same "live" imagery at the exact same time! 

"Pfft!"  the "scientist" effectively says, "mere trivia, the plane image behaves in accordance with Newtons laws, therefor the MSM sequences are  genuine" ; all the while common sense should tell us that there is something very wrong with such large time discrepancies. 


"Trivial" fact [2] : depending on which "plane into WTC2" video is viewed, the  actual strike/entry point,  differs by more than 160 ft..[ie about 16 floors] 





"Pfft"  the "scientist" effectively says, "mere trivia, who cares about a 160ft plus difference in the strike zone- the plane image  behaves in accordance with Newtons laws, therefor the video sequences are  genuine"  , while common sense indicates that the entry point for the plane should be the same in all videos.


"Trivial" fact [3]:  the flight path of Fl.175 is radically different, depending on which "live" video is being viewed:

Image


See: 
 "Was Fl.175 Flying Level During Its Last 7 Seconds, Or Did It Dive Downwards Before Leveling Out? "

and Simon Shack's  "The Plane Phony Plane Paths" [for a more comprehensive review.]

"Pfft"  the "scientist" effectively says, " mere trivia, who cares that in one sequence the last 7 seconds of Fl.175 involve a very steep descent, whereas in another sequence the plane is seen to be traveling parallel to the ground for the last 7 seconds in flight - the plane image  behaves in accordance with Newtons laws, therefor the video sequences are  genuine" , while common sense indicates that the flight path for the plane should be the same in all videos.

"Scientific" Logic Versus Common Sense:

"Scientist" quote [2]: "Again, in the better videos, I saw a plane entering the South Tower exactly as I would have expected given Newton's Laws." 

The obvious "scientific" implication here  being that because he believes that Newton's laws were obeyed in the various "plane into building" videos, this means that the videos depicting that 9/11 event [specifically Fl.175's alleged collision/penetration of WTC2] "must" be genuine. 

A Logical Fallacy

That of course, is a logical fallacy. 

Question for the "scientist": Is it   impossible to entirely fake a video  that obeys general laws of physics?   

Common sense says no, therefor, a researcher has to look for other signs [see above 4 "trivial" details], that the video is genuine; the mere appearance of conformance to certain laws of physics is not definitive proof of a videos authenticity.

And Yet, By Traveling Through Steel and Concrete at The Exact Same Speed as It  Travelled Through Air, The Plane Image Obviously DISOBEYS Newton's  Laws

                             https://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img55/6673/airvsskyscraperzh9.gif
Of course, in flying "unmolested", in one piece, completely inside the WTC2 , common sense tells us that the plane image clearly _defies_  the laws of physics- it does not slow down by even one video frame  throughout impact, and in fact takes the exact same number of frames to travel through air prior to strike as it does to completely disappear inside the WTC2! 


Common sense tells you that a plane cannot travel through steel and concrete at the exact same speed as it travels through air, yet a "scientist" will apparently swear up and down that it can , and in doing so is acting in accordance with established laws of physics [yeah, right.] 

Good News For Laymen/Simpletons -  Forget Newtons Laws of Motion!

Although I believe I understand the basic Newtonian Laws as applied to the events of 9/11, if you are a layman/simpleton like myself, I would claim that there is no need for you to ever have to try to understand Newton's Laws of Motion in order to understand the events of 9/11, nor to have to rely on any alleged "scientists" claims about them.

To repeat the "scientists" quote [2]: 

"Again, in the better videos, I saw a plane entering the South Tower exactly as I would have expected given Newton's Laws." 

What Is The "Scientist" Really Saying Here? 





The twin towers were mostly constructed of steel girders and concrete, and weighed around 500,000 tons each , and 140 ton commercial aircraft have plastic noses and an aluminum skin around 2mm thick over an aluminum frame. 

So all that the "scientist" is basically  claiming here is that aluminum cuts right through steel, [and not just one steel girder, but multiple steel girders, simultaneously] . 

Common Sense From a Construction Worker[Me]: Aluminum Saw Blades DO NOT EXIST! 

l have worked on and off in the construction/housing restoration business for 30 years. 

That means I have both engaged in, and witnessed on a daily basis for 30 years, the cutting of various materials. 

As a plumber I have cut PVC [plastic] pipe, copper pipe,  iron pipe, steel pipe, aluminum pipe, ALL with a steel-bladed hacksaw, hand held or otherwise, NEVER with an aluminum hacksaw blade. 

There is, and has never been, an aluminum -bladed hacksaw to cut any of those materials [not even PVC plastic pipe]

As a carpenter I have cut wood 2 x 4's, and aluminum door thresholds and other fixtures to size, plus 4" and bigger steel  nails, ALL with either a fast rotating , hand held circular saw, a table saw, or a plain old saw/hacksaw - ALL using steel blades. _Never_ aluminum. 

FACT: THERE ARE NO ALUMINUM-BLADED SAWS USED IN COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION - because an  aluminum saw blade would be too weak to cut plastic, wood, copper, iron, steel etc.!

If you doubt my assertion, just go to your local hardware store and ask for a piece of  plastic PVC pipe,, a piece of copper pipe, a piece of steel pipe, a piece of aluminum [such as a door threshold], or a section of 2" x4" wood to be cut to size, or just ask the guy who cuts any of those materials on a daily basis what the blade he uses is typically made out of. Or go to a a nearby construction site and just ask a carpenter, or his/her $8 per hr.  assistant, what the blade they use to cut their materials  to size is made of.

3rd "Scientist" Quote: 

" I'm an author of 195 peer-reviewed and published papers, 113 of these as the principal author"

The implication being that you, dear reader, should abandon plain old common sense here, bow to this persons claimed superior knowledge and accept his assertion that aluminum skinned planes can indeed cut through multiple steel girders, despite the fact that in the real world, there are no aluminum saw blades in use.  

Conclusion: Either an Over Educated Fool, Or......

The "scientist" who is claiming that aluminum cuts steel is either an over-educated fool [ your tax dollars at work :-) ], or he is a fraud, a liar, a charlatan. 

Your choice to make, dear reader, not mine.

Regards, onebornfree.




Saturday, December 27, 2014

9/11 Scams: Alexander "Ace" Baker Versus "Armageddon"

            


  WTC Tower collapse 09/11/01                                  A  [faked] movie  building collapse, 1998.

"Animating the demolition videos to the level of realism depicted is impossible, even with 2014 technology. "  Alexander"Ace" Baker Dec. 2014

Introduction

This post was prompted by a recent short, but very revealing quote [see above] from an email exchange  I had with  Alexander "Ace"Baker [aka Colin Alexander]  because we both are apparently on the same 9/11 e-mail group list somehow [I'm not even sure how I even got on the list ].

Our own brief "obf/Baker" message exchange was prompted by an e-mail group discussion of  a series of still photos that both himself and others defend, claiming the photo series depicts "steel turning to dust".

Here is one of the photos from the series under discussion:




Fig1: "Steel to dust"

Here is a link to a complete slide-show of  that alleged "steel to dust" imagery

Back Story

I first came across the 9/11 research of one "Ace" Baker in around 2007, when I was first exposed to his analysis of the still controversial "live" Fox5 TV broadcast that appeared to show Fl.175 [ie the 2nd 9/11 plane], penetrating, and then emerging, nose-cone still miraculously intact, on the opposite side of WTC 2.

Mr Bakers original frame by frame analysis of that Fox5 sequence can still be viewed here [although I could not get the frame advance button to work for me].

My Negative Comments and Conclusions Regarding "Anarcho-Libertarian"Ace Bakers 9/11 Research Conclusions In This Post: 

  Although Mr Baker appears to share similar beliefs to myself as regards both economic and political theory [ broadly: "anarcho/ Austrian/libertarian"] , and we both seem to share the  belief that the government is nothing more than a 100% criminal scam, [ whereas, as far as I can see, 99+ % of 9/11 and "conspiracy" researchers in general appear to be rabid, "foaming at the mouth",  apologists for the state],  and besides the fact that he is one of only  two other persons involved in 9/11 research that appear to be on anything like the same page as myself with regard to both economic and political philosophy concerns, unfortunately, my  comments and conclusions addressing Mr Baker's 9/11 research to date are almost entirely negative here. 

My apologies to Mr Baker, but still, in the interests of honesty, my negativity towards his research was, in the end, unavoidable, as far as I can see.

Baker's Current 9/11 Beliefs = Plane Images Were Inserted Into Otherwise Live 9/11 Broadcast "Feeds"

From that Fox5 analysis and others similar, Mr Baker concluded that all of the imagery showing a plane flying into WTC2 was in fact deliberately altered - however, he believed, [and still does to this day, that an image of a plane silhouette was "merely" inserted into what was otherwise genuine live MSM broadcast imagery on 9/11.

Video "Expert" Baker Believes The 9/11 Televised Destructions of WTC1, 2 and 7 Were Genuine Live Broadcasts.

Despite Mr Baker's "plane image inserts into live feeds" theory, which I would think would naturally lead an investigator  to at least very seriously question the veracity of any/all of the rest of the alleged live TV 9/11 broadcast imagery- he [surprisingly, to me, anyway], apparently unquestioningly  trusts the  genuineness of the rest of the alleged live 9/11 broadcast imagery, [as revealed by his quote], and therefor believes that the videos and photos of 9/11 that depict the WTC buildings [e.g.WTC1, 2 and 7] collapsing or exploding [or whatever you wish to call it] , including the "steel to dust" sequence under discussion [see Fig1 above] are all genuine, and that they therefor depict some type of nuclear demolition process, although I'm not exactly sure whether he supports the mini-nuke hypothesis, or something else ["maxi-nukes" perchance? :-)].

Although Mr Bakers 9/11 conclusions at first made some sense to me way back when [2007], they no longer do so, for many reasons, for whatever _that's_ worth. 

Thank You, Mr Baker

Even so, I still have to thank Mr Baker for his initial contribution to 9/11 research , if only for at least initially prompting me to take a much closer look at all of the allegedly "live" MSM broadcasts as now archived on line , as well as  other alleged  9/11 imagery.[ e.g. Fig. 1 and related, above]


 Mr Baker's  "Expert" Video Analysis Abilities: 

He Appears To Be a Very Poor "Expert" Videographer

Mr Baker claims to be an "expert" videographer, and to have produced the  more recent  production "9/11 - The Great American Psy-Opera",  by himself, as proof of his own videography expertise.

However, based on his conclusions to date, plus his more recent quote, it seems to me that  there are  serious questions to be asked as to his supposed ability to closely analyze _any_ of the alleged 9/11 imagery, including the so-called "steel to dust" sequence mentioned/linked to above that had prompted our recent [Dec.2014.] , brief email "discussion".

Again, for the record,  Mr Baker claims:

 "Animating the demolition videos to the level of realism depicted is impossible, even with 2014 technology. " Alexander"Ace" Baker Dec. 2014

 Important Provenance Facts To Remember

First of all, when reviewing/analyzing the claimed "genuine""steel to dust" sequence, I think that it is worth bearing in mind a couple of facts:

Provenance Fact [1] : The"Steel To Dust" Sequence is NOT Original "Live" MSM 9/11 Footage!

It is worth remembering [at least for a serious researcher, methinks ], that the "steel to dust" sequence is NOT original , broadcast as live, MSM 9/11 footage as archived on line.

 It has absolutely nothing at all to do with the original, as archived MSM  "live" footage record.

It is, in fact of an entirely different provenance ,  never broadcast as  live footage that day [9/11] .

N.I.S.T. [National Institute of Science & Technology] Origins? 

The "steel to dust" sequence under discussion, just like the vast majority of ALL 9/11 imagery, was  released some time later.  [ I'm assuming , for now, without back-checking, that it was a part of the mysterious, enormous, 9 years later, 2010 N.I.S.T.  imagery "dump" onto the internet, although it may possibly originate from an earlier "dump" in 2007].

Which means that the provenance of the "steel to dust" sequence is unknown, or at the very least, highly dubious. [Please see 6 provenance questions listed below].

Provenance Fact [2]:  Original, Complete,"Live" MSM Broadcast Tower Collapse Sequences Within The Official On-Line Archives Are Extremely Scarce 

Original "live" footage of the two tower "collapses" that was broadcast "live" as they happened, is  scarce. 

Most 9/11 researchers [including Mr Baker, apparently] appear to be entirely unaware of this very important fact, and appear to spend  their time analyzing video and photographs that are not a part of the official on-line archived video record, and never have been. 

On checking  the on-line archives for the original MSM coverage at the alleged collapse times [ 9:58 am  EST for WTC2, and 10:28 am for WTC1], unless I missed one [ possible, I'm not infallible] it appears that only two complete top to bottom "live" collapse sequences by the "big 5" national stations [CBS,CNN, ABC, Fox, NBC], were first broadcast "live" at those exact same times [ie.   9:58 am  EST and 10:28 am EST]. 

 That is : NBC showed the entire WTC2 collapse at 9:58 am, and CNN showed the entire WTC1 collapse at 10.28 am.

The rest of the supposed live MSM broadcasts for that day showing WTC1 and 2 tower collapses appear to be "earlier today" type, non-live re-caps, _not_  live "as it happened" broadcasts. 

Click here   to see  the only two original allegedly  live, complete, MSM top to bottom tower collapse broadcasts [WTC2 @ 9.58 am and WTC1@ 10.28 am], that I have been able to find in the archived footage for all 5 US MSM networks for 9/11 to date .  

6 Important "Steel To Dust" Sequence Provenance Questions Mr Baker and Many "Serious 9/11 Researchers" Don't Ask:

1] Exactly who shot the "steel to dust" sequence under discussion?

2], Exactly where were they situated?

3] Exactly what camera equipment was used?

4] Has a complete in-depth, private investigator-type background investigation of the alleged photographer ever been undertaken, including financial and bank records etc.?

5] Has a thorough technical analysis [frame by frame if a video], been performed , looking for specific "giveaways" for faked imagery [Assuming the investigator knows what to look for]?

6]Most importantly,without an honest attempt to get answers to all of the above 5 questions, why would any serious 9/11 researcher just go right ahead and assume that the "steel to dust" sequence [let alone any other alleged 9/11 video or photo sequence] was in any way genuine? [Beats me.]

Provenance Fact [3 ]:  All Archived MSM Footage Has a Clear Provenence:

While the provenance of fully 99.9% of the alleged 9/11 imagery is dubious, uncertain, and appeared in all its glory _after_ 9/11,  the provenance of all of the archived, on line, original "live" "as it happened" network footage [what little there is], is very clear.

So What's The Big Deal About Provenance? 

Why do I believe that provenance issues are important when analyzing 9/11 imagery?  My  point is [ I hope], easy to understand. 

To whit: if it could be shown that all of the original MSM "live" broadcast, on-line archived footage, including the sequences showing both plane crashes and tower collapses, is  not genuine live video but only crude, computer generated CGI imagery, then why would any honest, serious 9/11 investigator,  in light of that new fact, simply go right ahead and then assume that a later released [ie never shown live on TV as it happened] photo or video depicting the exact same event , but supposedly showing it "in more detail" [eg the "steel to dust" sequence that started this whole e-mail group discussion], was original and genuine, without performing all of the first 5 provenance tests briefly described above?                 

 Again, it beats me :-) . 

The unfortunate fact of the matter is that 99% of claimed 9/11 researchers , including Mr Baker, it appears, are quite happy to avoid dealing with issues of imagery provenance, or prefer to deal with it superficially - that is, assuming they even know, or care, what it is.

O.K., Forget Provenance Issues - Moving On:

Anyhoo, 'nuff said, and moving right along to my main points.......

Ace Baker Versus Hollywood, Circa 1996 & '8 

Contrary to Mr Baker's "video expert" assertion, it was in fact possible to create "the level of realism depicted" in the original , on-line archived 9/11 tower destruction imagery almost 18 years ago, and therefor, it is  _not_ still impossible to do so in 2014, as he asserts,  as can be seen from short on line scenes taken from two 1990's Hollywood "blockbusters":

Ace Baker Versus 1996's "Independence Day":

In 1996, the Hollywood movie "Independence Day" was released, replete with  100% CGI produced building explosion/collapse scenes such as this one :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAq3vFBL5KM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_%281996_film%29 :

Here is the overall "level of realism depicted" in a still frame from "Independence Day":


Moore's Law, Anyone?

Remember,  the Youtube clip above is from a Hollywood movie released five years before the events of 9/11, and that as regards computer software and technology advancements, Moore's Law states that :     "over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years."

Meaning that because of ongoing technological innovation,  computer power and capabilities effectively doubles about every two years.

Meanwhile,  Supposedly"Live" On TV, On 9/11:

By way of comparison, here is the "level of realism depicted" in two stills taken from the original 9/11 TV broadcast archives, allegedly with their state of the art "best in the world", MSM cameras:

Fig. 2: Had too much to drink? Are we seeing double  yet? [And "dig" the squared smoke patterns to the right of the North tower antenna :-) ].



Fig.3:  X-Ray vision, anyone? See through buildings?Is that a see-through spire seen above in this detail from a 9/11 live MSM broadcast? Or are you going to dismiss it as a sunlight reflection?

Ace Baker Versus   1998's"Armageddon":

It gets worse for "Ace"- but better, in terms of the "level of realism depicted" in faked CGI Hollywood building collapse sequences, because two years after "Independence Day", in 1998, another "Hollywood blockbuster" movie, "Armageddon" was released, replete with  an even better "level of realism depicted" in its CGI collapse/disaster scene animations:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJHlcurFVUI


For your edification, if you are too lazy to play the short clip above, here is the "level of realism depicted" in  still frames from that 1998 Hollywood movie "Armageddon":






Reminder - Moore's Law - Again:
First of all, notice the very clear upgrade in detail seen in the "Armageddon" clip and stills versus what can be seen in the two year earlier movie "Independence Day;  remember, these "Armageddon"examples are from a Hollywood movie still released 3 years before the events of 9/11, and that as regards computer software and technology advancements, Moore's Law states that :
"over the history of computing hardware, the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years."

1998's "Armageddon" Versus NBC and CNN "Live" On 9/11 [2001]:

By way of comparison, here is the "level of realism depicted" in  stills taken from the original 9/11 live TV broadcasts of the tower collapse  allegedly with state of the art "best in the world", MSM cameras:

Fig 4:  Real enough for ya yet? A still frame from NBC's original live 9/11 broadcasts [just prior to WTC2's er, "collapse" at 9:58 am.]For complete original collapse sequence go here.

                                                                       

Fig.5: Real enough for ya? A still frame from CNNS's original live 9/11 broadcast of the er, "collapse" of WTC1 at 10:28 am. For complete sequence go  here.

Meanwhile, back in Hollywood, in 1998,  no less, details and picture quality apparently exceeded what TV networks could achieve 3 years later, live on 9/11: 

Question For Mr Baker  and Others Convinced That The Archived 9/11 MSM Tower Collapse Sequences Are All Genuine:

Q: Mr Baker [and other researchers] : do these examples I gave show the " level of realism"  that you had in mind?:



          "Steel to dust" - Take a good hard look- Honestly now, does this 2001 image really depict a higher level of realism than can be seen in say, 1998's "Armageddon"? Seriously?




        NBC , supposedly "live" on 9/11


1998 Hollywood movie "Armageddon" computer generated building destruction scene




"Parting Shot" Questions For Mr Baker and His Believers:

Regarding the  reliablity of Mr Baker's original 9/11 research on the Fox5 sequence, here is a still from the on-line archived Fox 5 live broadcast footage:




Q: Now I ask you, Mr Baker [and other  true, died-in -the-wool "plane insert only" and "steel to dust","the collapse footage is all genuine" believers] , are you seriously still suggesting that the only fake part of this image,  is the plane nose image [left of "NY Good Day"] itself ? 

You are kidding, right?  ;-) . 

How does the "level of realism depicted " in that Fox image still compare to the "level of realism depicted " in, for example the 1998 movie  Armageddon? Huh?

Or how about this  Fox5 allegedly "live" 9/11 image? :

         Fox5 "live" Sept. 11th. 2001





Hollywood CGI, 1998

Mr Baker- Genuine Video Expert, Or Something Else? 

2 Key questions for Mr Baker and his supporters:

1] As a claimed "video expert", why was/is he _still_unaware of the level of computer technology available to produce 100% computer generated [CGI] simulated building collapse scenes in major Hollywood movies from more than 15 years ago, while non-video experts [e.g. myself] are fully aware of the level of that pre-9/11 computer technology?

2] Why is he, like most other claimed "9/11 researchers" apparently entirely unaware of, [or  choosing to conveniently ignore], just about all of the  original, on-line archived 9/11 live broadcast TV records and the collapse of WTC1 and 2 as depicted in that original, archived 9/11 footage? 

 Conclusions? :

Mr Baker appears to be either a very poor video expert , since to this day[Dec. 2014] he remains entirely unaware of the true technological capabilities of CGI software that was in use in Hollywood more than 15 years ago , and  claims  that "Animating the demolition videos to the level of realism depicted is impossible, even with 2014 technology." , or, he is something else entirely.

That final choice of what Mr Baker is, and is not, is yours to make, dear reader.  

Personally, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt  for now, and just assume him to be a bad, or inexplicably ignorant, video "expert". [Sorry "Ace".]

Regards, onebornfree.

Related posts: