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:




Two Original, Complete, Top To Bottom "Live" MSM WTC1&2 Collapse Sequences

Here are the only two complete "top to bottom " collapse sequences for the Twin Towers actually broadcast "live", "as it happened" , "in real time", as the events took place, that I have been able to find in the official 9/11 archives, to date. [If you know of another complete, "live" collapse sequence shown "real time"on ABC, CBS, or Fox, that I have somehow missed, please let me know.]


The first on-archive complete tower collapse shown on TV is that of WTC2 [South Tower], at around 9.58 am EST, and this was broadcast "live" "as it happened" on NBC :


  
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkp9AAhS6Ls

Here is gif file of that complete collapse shown on NBC that morning in "real time",  courtesy of Simon Shack, www.septemberclues.info  :

Image
nbc wtc2  collapse 9: 58 am 




The second complete tower collapse shown on TV was that of WTC1 [North Tower], at around 10:28 am EST, and this was broadcast "live" "as it happened" on CNN .  





Youtube :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul--oYht2RE 

http://septemberclues.info/images/WTC1CNNcollapse2.gif

WTC1 -CNN gif from:  http://septemberclues.info/images/WTC1CNNcollapse2.gif


Miscellaneous Still -Frames From The CNN "Live" WTC1 Collapse Sequence [ please look closely and you should be able to detect obvious signs that these images are _not_ part of a genuine live, real-time TV broadcast] :








Related posts:

" 9/11 Scams:The Faked "Live" CNN WTC1 Collapse Footage"

"9/11 Scams: Real N.Y.C. Images Vs. Fake MSM 9/11 Media Broadcast Footage- Random Examples. "

Monday, November 10, 2014

9/11, Deja Vu, and "The Matrix"

 Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVqA4u2t2Ek

Introduction:

 I have used the "Matrix" movie analogy in a previous article with regards to the events of 9/11, and I'm afraid that  I have once again succumbed to the temptation to use it for this post.

It is perhaps a far from perfect analogy [i.e. yes, I'm fully aware that the movie has its faults], however, because of its broad popularity and appeal, and because a lot of people reading an article such as this are probably familiar with the original movie "The Matrix" and various scenes in it, I feel it can come in handy  as an easy way of  graphically illustrating points I am attempting to make about the alleged events of 9/11.

The "Deja-Vu-Cat-Warning" Scene in "The Matrix" Movie

In the movie, there is a scene where the hero, Neo, spots, out of the corner of his eye, a cat walking slowly across an open doorway.

A moment later, for some reason he again looks back at the doorway and sees an identical cat doing the exact same thing.

He mentions these two strangely coincident "deja vu" events to the people he's with at the time, and they immediately start to interrogate him to try to find out whether the two cats he claims to have witnessed were identical, or merely similar.

They all conclude that the two events were in fact  identical, and that this is a sign of what is called "a glitch" in "the matrix", and is a CLEAR WARNING SIGN  that Neo's group is not experiencing reality, but instead, a simulated reality,  and that Neo's cat deja vu experience was  an unintended indication of a trap [i.e a technical error- a "glitch"],   set by the controllers of the matrix [artificial intelligence machines].

Flight 175's  9/11 Deja Vu Double Impact = The Deja Vu Cat "Glitch" Warning Scene In "The Matrix"

Well, just as the cat in the Matrix movie makes the exact same journey twice within a matter of seconds, on 9/11 Flight 175 [i.e the 9/11 "cat" ] apparently made its very own identical journey into WTC2 twice within a 3 second time frame, "live" on nationally broadcast TV!

Don't believe me?

Probably not, at this point in time, and so, a question for you, dear reader:

if the on-line archived mainstream media [MSM] video records for the morning of September 11th, 2001 are in fact all accurate, and are all genuine real-time records of what happened, as recorded live by those  five networks [ ABC,CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC] that morning, [as most still claim], then why does the impact of Flight 175 into the South Tower [WTC2] occur at two distinct  times, 3 seconds apart, on a minimum of at least 3 out of the 5 separate MSM networks, according to those very same alleged recorded live-in-real-time on line archives?

In other words, why is it that the impact  and resulting fireball of Fl. 175's impact  on CBS's "live" archived footage happens when it does, when,  according to those very same on-line archived video records for ABC and CNN, at the exact same moment in time as  CBS's post impact fireball makes its on-screen debut,  Flight 175's image is still to be quite clearly seen  in full flight, prior to impact, and similarly, on ABC and other networks the resultant fireball does not  commence until around about a full 3 seconds after the CBS  fireball makes its appearance on-screen ? :

            Fig. 1: post impact fireball already in progress [lower right corner] in the "live" CBS footage
                  as archived on line.[Click on image to enlarge]

                             
              Fig 2: Meanwhile, at the exact same moment in time, on ABC's archived
                                                 footage, Fl. 175 is still in flight. 
[Click on image to enlarge]

I Submit: The 9/11 Fl. 175 Double Hit "Deja Vu Glitch" Is a "Matrix"- Like Warning - "A Dead-Give-Away" Sign of an MSM   Artificial Reality on 9/11 

I submit that this anomaly is in actual fact a "real world" replication of the deja vu cat scene from "The Matrix" movie - an indication [ or warning, or a "dead give-away" if you will] that what you were viewing on the morning of 9/11 was not reality as it happened in Manhattan , NYC, but in fact a simulated reality consisting of at least 2 different pre-fabricated movies that were being simultaneously broadcast on all 5 MSM networks on the morning of 9/11. 

However, I Ain't That Stoopid

However,  I am not foolish enough to believe that you would believe my above claim, based solely on the two screen shots I have provided so far, above [Figs 1 &2], neither of which even have a clearly visible, accurate to the second, network time stamp.

Enter: "Synched Out"- 9/11 Researcher Simon Shack's Analysis of the On-line Archived  MSM Video Records:


                     
                Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P9k7Et4zUk

The two images below [Figs 3 and 4] are screen shots taken from 9/11 researcher Simon Shack's "Synched Out"analysis of the on-line archived MSM video records, for the 11 minute period, 8.52 am through 9.03 am, on the morning of Sept.11th 2001, for the US mainstream media [MSM] networks ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, and NBC:


Fig. 3 . Screen shot detail [@5:41]from Simon Shack's "Synched Out" analysis of the 5  MSM network broadcasts [when run simultaneously], for the morning of 9/11.  Plane-strike fireball has just started to "bloom" on CBS,[see lower left corner of upper right quadrant],  therefor  Fl.175 has already struck WTC2 on CBS. Meanwhile, on ABC,[upper left quadrant],  the plane  [white arrow in upper left ABC quadrant]] is still in  flight.
                           

Fig.4 : Plane still in flight on ABC and CNN- Screen shot detail [@5:47] from Simon Shack's "Synched Out" analysis of the 5 simultaneous MSM network broadcasts for the morning of 9/11. The plane  is still clearly in the air on ABC [top left quadrant], and on CNN [small sq. lower center] while on CBS [upper right quadrant], the post-strike fireball continues to spread, indicating that Flight 175 has already hit WTC2 on CBS.

"Synched Out" Analysis = 5 MSM Broadcasts - All Running Simultaneously, in Double Time, On One Screen, For Your Viewing Pleasure :-) .

What he did was download the on line archived records of those 5 networks broadcasts, and then start them all from the exact same point in time , and run them all simultaneously, on a multi-split screen, at double speed, to see how they compared to each other when so run, right next to each other on screen, where they could be easily compared.


REVEALED!: Network To Network, The Fl. 175 Plane-Strike and Fireball Imagery Is, Err....."Out of Synch" 

Mr Shack's analysis clearly shows that when these segments of the archived footage for that particular time period are run simultaneously, [i.e. "in synch" with each other], that the plane strike occurs at different times on different networks, when obviously, if the networks were all really broadcasting live, with no time delay [which,to this day, is what they all apparently claim to have done ], then they would all show the plane strike occurring at the exact same time, and the resultant fireball would also match network to network  in duration and other salient details . 

Proof That The "Live" 9/11 Network Imagery Was All Fake?

For myself and a [very] few others, this huge, 3 second discrepancy within the imagery of the various MSM broadcast feeds is proof positive that those feeds were actually pre-fabricated [i.e. made on computer beforehand] videos that were then fraudulently broadcast as live imagery that morning.

Objections To Mr Shack's and My Own Assertion- Mandatory F.C.C.  Time Delays?

On showing the last part of "Synched Out" to an interested member of The Freedom Network  at a recent meeting, the reviewer commented that the discrepancy in the timing of the plane strike was probably due to the F.C.C.'s mandatory time delay in force for all live broadcasts [ supposedly enforced so that , amongst other things, bad language can be removed before it goes out "live" on the air]. 

At first I though that that person had a legitimate point [about F.C.C. regulations requiring a delay], but on consideration I don't believe they really do, because:

1] If there was a time delay, wouldn't all networks use the exact same [mandatory] delay, so that even if on delay, they'd all still be in synch? 

2] To this day, there is no proof that the networks actually were on any automatic time delay that morning. None of the networks to date have ever disputed the accuracy of the times given for each of the broadcast segments for their individual networks as archived.  

Meaning all networks have apparently agreed to date that the on-line archived records for their  particular station are accurate historical records of what they broadcast live  that morning, including displayed times given for those individual network broadcasts. 

And let's not forget, the various times recorded for both the 2nd hit [fl.175] and the collapse of the towers themselves by those 5 MSM networks, all match the official times given for those events in  all of the official government accounts of events that day.

How Else To Prove Pre- Fl. 175 Strike On-Air Network Synchronicity ?

There are two possible ways I see of establishing that the video segments analysed by Mr Shack are actually running "in synch" prior to the 2nd. hit. 

1] An individual could go to the on-line archives and check that the sections shown in Mr Shack's analysis actually have the exact same 8.52 am EST start point in those archives as he  has used in his own analysis, for the stations concerned.

If you know how, you could probably even download the sections concerned and make your own video in the same manner as Mr Shack has done , so that all 5 network broadcasts can be viewed simultaneously in a suitable video software editor program. 

2] You could carefully review Simon Shack's entire "Synched Out" movie [it's slightly under 8 minutes long], to check to see if there are any  obvious clues to none-synchronicity  of all stations concerned occurred prior to the  out of synch by  3 secs. 2nd. plane hit. 

This [2] , is what I decided to do. 

An Obvious [Ad Nauseum] Sign of Inter- Network Synchronicity?

On checking for network synchronicity prior to the plane strike, I found many instances that suggest that prior to that strike, all networks were perfectly in synch.

Actually, it is one specific sign, repeated "ad nauseum", as it were. 

That specific sign being two or more networks displaying the exact same images, at the exact same time, within their own supposedly individually unique "independent" broadcasts. 

For just one glaring example:





  Fig. 5: From Simon Shack's "Synched Out"- ABC, CBS, Fox,NBC display the same feed at the same time.

An Obvious, Related, Question: The Exact Same Feeds On Competing Networks - How Come?

That question being, why on earth were supposedly rival, competing commercial TV networks repeatedly showing the exact same images on the morning of 9/11? 

Isn't there something dreadfully wrong with "the picture" here [ Different, allegedly "competing" networks showing the exact same "live" footage]?

Another 9/11 Red Flag?

Isn't this in fact, dear reader, one more very big, and very obvious, 9/11 "red flag", on top of the already  revealed Fl.175 flight impact time, err.... "discrepancy"?

If  not for you, dear reader, I would humbly suggest that perhaps it should be.

14 Randomly Picked Instances Where 5 "Competing" MSM Networks Broadcast The Same 9/11 Imagery:

Anyhoo, "onwards and upwards" as they say - back to the MSM archives "in-synch, then out-of-synch"  question. 


 Even More Examples?

Please understand, my analysis was by no means exhaustive, if you undertake your own review I'm  certain that you will be able to find  more instances where the feeds over that 11 minute time frame [8.52 am -9.03 am] are remarkably similar, if not identical.

Regards, onebornfree.