9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths: The Case of Video Fakery

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:11:16 -0500 [09:11:16 AM CDT]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: KenJenkins@aol.com, jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

Ken,

A diagram that I previously posted demonstrated that Flight 175 would have
intersected with eight (8) of the trusses, one per floor, which were welded
to the core columns at one end and bolted and welded to the external support
columns at the other. The massive steel plates--even though they were much
thinner toward the tops of the towers than they were toward their bottoms--
appear to have covered around 50% of the surface area of the exterior. The
massive resistance of that structure would have created enormous resistance
that would have smashed and crumpled half or more of the aluminum aircraft.
It could not possibly have passed through that steel-reinforced-by-concrete
structure and entered the building without leaving wings, seats, luggage and
bodies. Anyone who has seen what happens to the tail of a big plane when it
has an abrupt landing knows that it snaps off. We are witnessing a fantasy.

There are no stronger proofs of impossibility for physical phenomena than
contraventions of laws of nature, which cannot be violated, cannot be changed
and require no enforcement. In this case, the laws that are violated, when
we take into account the impossible speed of the aircraft, include those of
physics, of engineering, and of aerodynamics. Joe Keith observed long ago
that, if you count the number of frames that it takes for the plane to pass
through its own length in air, it is equal to the number of frames it takes
to pass through its own length into the building. That would be physically
possible only if the building provided no more resistance than does air. I
previously observed that Rick Rajter has shown that Eric Salter committed a
mistake in arriving at his determination of some 12% deceleration by using
two frames of reference. The velocity of half the plane should go to zero.

If you had spent the hundreds upon hundreds of hours that I have viewing the
videos and studies that John Lear, Morgan Reynolds, Ace Baker, the webfairy,
killtown, and others have presented, I cannot imagine that intelligent and
sophisticated individuals such as yourselves would continue to persist in
accepting a fantasy as reality. You really should avail yourself of some
of the massive studies that are available by visiting nomoregames.net and
reading some of the studies Morgan has posted there or going to killtown.
blogspot.com and watching the Evan Fairbank's video, where he goes through
the process of counting frames. Ultimately, it was this observation that
convinced me that what we are witnessing violates the laws of inertia and
of conservation of motion. Perhaps no achievement in the history of science
rivals Newton's discovery of the laws of motion and of universal gravitation,
save for Einstein's refinements. Yet all three of Newton's laws are violated.

When Rasga asked me for (what I take to be) the five most important proofs of
video fakery, I responded by offering six. Frankly, I find it difficult to
believe that anyone who has been participating on this thread could possibly
be unaware of my position here. I have offered ten data points that have to
be taken into account in understanding the function of the planes on 9/11.
Collectively, they afford (what I take to be) a mountain of evidence that is
explainable on the no planes--strictly speaking, no big Boeings--hypothesis
and, so far as I can discern, is not explainable on any alternative. I have
laid out the principles of likelihood and of probability that apply in cases
of this kind, where the likelihood (measure of evidential support) of h given
e is equal to the probability (strength of causal tendency) for e given h; in
other words, treating e as all the relevant, available, authentic evidence--
whose presence or absence or truth or falsity makes a difference to truth or
falsity of the hypothesis--the best supported h has the highest likelihood,
which in this case, surprisingly, is that of video fakery with no planes.

There are around 40 videos that Ace and killtown have discovered. I know it
strains credulity to think they could all have been faked. But I don't know
of any chain of evidence for any of it. The networks won't even sell copies
of their original footage to Ace, who has been aggressive in pursuing it. I
am not the only one to have noticed that most if not all of those who made
contact with the networks reporting their observations of planes appear to
have personal or professional ties to those networks. The witness testimony
is all over the place. Andrew Johnson, for example, surveyed 500 reports
that had been collated by The New York Times and found that the number who
reported an United Airlines plane had hit the South Tower was the same as
the number who reported the North Tower had been hit by a missile that had
been fired from the Woolworth Building: one! If you can possibly disabuse
yourselves of your preconceptions and listen to the very sane voice of Jerry
Leaphart, who is one of the magnificent human beings involved in all of this,
then I think you might find your mind slightly more open to the possibility.

Indeed, it is in response to preconceptions that I included in my response
to Rasga three circumstantial proofs, namely: Elias Davidsson's study that
shows the government has never proven the alleged hijackers were even on any
of the planes; John Lear's report that pilots of commercial carriers have to
submit an "envelope" including a flight plan, passenger manifest, and check
list of airworthiness before pulling away from a terminal, yet none of the
four enveloped has been produced; and the observation of George Nelson, USAF
(ret.), that each of those planes had hundreds or even thousands of uniquely
identifable component parts that must be periodically replaced for reasons of
safety, yet the government has yet to provide even one part from one plane!
I don't know about your preconceptions, but I think they have to be rather
strong to resist the implication that perhaps the POSSIBILITY of no planes
should be taken more seriously than you had previously supposed. Precisely
what alternative explanation, I ask, provides a more adequate explanation of
the data than that these planes were phantoms and the videos have been faked?

Now I haven't spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking and scientific
reasoning to abandon the principles that define them outside of the classroom.
I have invested a huge chunk of time and effort to the investigation of the
death of JFK, for example, which has yield three books of some 500 pages in
length apiece, a 4 1/2 hour documentary, chairing or co-chairing four national
conferences and making hundreds of radio and television appearances as well as
dozens and dozens of public lectures, including ones at Cambridge, Harvard and
Yale. I suppose I am the only person who has done that. If you take a look
at any of my books--such as ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY
PLAZA (2000), or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), you will see what it
means to me to apply the principles of scientific reasoning to complex and
complicated cases like JFK and 9/11. For a nice example, google my article,
"Reasoning about Assassinations", which I presented at Cambridge and which
was peer-reviewed and appeared in the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF THE HUMANITIES.

Now I make these observations not to extoll my virtues, because I have plenty
of vices, but to observe that, when it comes to the application of scientific
reasoning to complex and controversial cases, I have "been there, done that".
The JFK case is a veritable cornucopia of techniques of fabrication and dis-
information: the backyard photos of Oswald were faked; the weapon planted on
him could not have fired the bullets that killed the President; he was not on
the sixth floor, but was observed by co-workers in or around the lunchroom on
the second floor at 11:50 AM, Noon, 12:15 PM, as late as 12:25 PM, and then
was confronted by a motorcycle patrolman within 90 seconds of the shooting at
12:30 PM, who held him in his sites until his supervisor assured him that he
was an employee who belonged there; he was not perspiring, agitated or even
the least bit excited, as they both wrote in their handwritten statements,
which are in the 888-summary known as THE WARREN REPORT (1964); there were
four shell casings at the scene of the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit, which
was used to incriminate Oswald; but had been ejected by an automatic, while
Oswald had a revolver; the casings were later changed; and on and on and on.

If you had lived through the experiences I have lived through, including most
notably the massive resistance my colleagues and I have encountered in demon-
strating that the "home movie" known as the Zapruder film has been massively
edited--recreated actually, using authentic footage manipulated by means of
the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects--then
perhaps you would be the least bit more open minded about the prospect that
the videos of the planes in New York might have been fabrications, too. For
short pieces that discuss the kinds of evidence involved here, do a google
on "New Proof of JFK Video Fakery" and "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moor-
man JFK Polaroid". There is much more to it, and I have been fortunate to
be working with the best students to ever study the case, including David W.
Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who has a Ph.D. in physics from Madison, a M.D. from
Michigan and is board certified in radiation oncology; Jack White, legendary
analyst of photos and films; John P. Costella, Ph.D., whose area of special-
ization in physics is electromagnetism; and David Lifton, a physics graduate
student whose career was distracted by immersion in the study of this case.
But I can't expect you to believe us if you won't even look at the evidence.

The case of the Zapruder film is especially telling, because there are two
or three other films that one might expect to have different properties if
the Zapruder had been altered and they had not. We have discovered, how-
ever, that the other films are not authentic on a variety of grounds. The
strongest argument that has come from those who want to defend authenticity
of the film is that it is CONSISTENT with the others. But consistency is
only necessary and not sufficient for authenticity. The events it shows
must also correspond to those that occurred at the time. That this is the
case is impossible to PROVE, since we cannot recreate the situation as it
existed at the time, separate from the films themselves. But it is not
impossible to DISPROVE, which we have done on multiple grounds. Some are
seemingly trivial, such as that the driver, William Greer, turns his head
twice as fast as humanly possible. Others include a motorcycle patrolman
having motored forward, for which we have impeccable testimony. The most
damning is that the film shows the blow-out of brains and blood going to
the right-front, when the witnesses and the X-rays--which were altered to
conceal it--show the blow out occurred to the left-rear, not to the right-
front, as I explain in the articles and the books that I have cited here.

Now, just as I have collaborated with experts in other fields, like physics
and medicine, who have backgrounds and abilities that exceed my own in their
areas of specialization, I have been collaborating with others who are more
knowledgeable than I on various aspects of 9/11. I included contributions
from ten experts in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007) and I have continued with my
research on the most complex and controversial aspects of the case, such as
what happened at the Pentagon, how the Twin Towers were destroyed, and the
possibility of video fakery--with or without planes--in New York. This has
subjected me to attacks from almost every direction, even though it is only
the complex and controversial aspects of the case that need further debate
and investigation. My role has been to push and push and push until we've
finally arrived at an understanding of how these things were actually done,
which is one of the greatest mysteries of history. Which means that I have
invited fifteen or more students of video fakery onto my radio programs for
interviews, discussion and debate, frequently viewing videos on their sites.

Oddly enough, it was a family event that opened my mind to the possibility
that video fakery might actually have taken place. My son-in-law's parents
live in Milwaukee and visited them in their home near Madison. There was
a Brewers' game that day, which they wanted to watch on television. They
also had a favorite announcer, who was only heard on the radio. We placed
a radio next to the television so we could have the benefits of both and,
to our astonishment, the radio broadcast was so far ahead of the TV image
that we knew whether a pitch would be a ball, a strike, or a hit BEFORE
THE BALL HAD LEFT THE PITCHER'S HAND! Maybe that doesn't impress any of
you, but it had quite an impact upon me. Combined with my past research
in establishing the recreation of the Zapruder film, it was apparent to me
that it was POSSIBLE that video fakery had occurred, where there seems to
be as much as a 17 second delay in image projection. I then became intent
upon discovering whether it was PROBABLE given the evidence available and,
somewhat to my surprise, I found a great deal of evidence that strongly
suggests that video fakery was part of the plan, as my data points reflect.

I know this is more than anyone wanted to read, but I think it has become
important for all of you to understand that I am completely serious about
this, that I understand the requirements of scholarship, and that I have
become convinced by the available relevant evidence that video fakery has
occurred. I don't like repeating myself and, when Rasga asked for my five
strongest proofs, I was taken aback. I have been spelling this out from
scratch. If anyone were to take a look at "New Proof of Video Fakery on
9/11", for example, you will find that I offer FIVE PROOFS OF VIDEO FAKERY
in that article. I find it exasperating in the extreme that few if any of
you appear to be making any effort to study the evidence for yourselves.
If you were to spend time on the web sites of Ace Baker and killtown, for
example, I think you would have a better idea of what we are dealing with
and how it may have been done. Like most human beings, however, you have
allowed your preconceptions and vague impressions about number of videos
and number of witnesses to make the very possibility almost inconceivable
but that, alas, is a function of your subjective degrees of belief, which,
in this case, do not correspond with the likelihood of the hypothesis in
relation to the alternatives, give the available evidence, if you study it!

There are quite a few studies of the question of video fakery that I have
archived on Scholars for 9/11 Truth, none of which has ever been addressed
on this forum by anyone so far as I can recall. I have provided it there
and invite you to look at some of it. It can be found conveniently listed
under the heading, "Possible Evidence of Video Fakery", on the home page:

POSSIBLE EVIDENCE OF VIDEO FAKERY

New Proof of Video Fakery on 9/11
http://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Proof-of-Video-Fakery--by-Jim-Fetzer-080729-132.html

September Clues NEW (1st half)
http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/7F39E60C4F004BCC8062B5EB2F0F6891/september-clues-new-1st-half.aspx

September Clues NEW (2nd half)
http://www.livevideo.com/video/socialservice/BC194C47C2204E6E8DA38207EAF31846/september-clues-new-2nd-half.aspx

Flight 175 - Impossible Speed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY

"9/11: Impossible Speed & Impact - Busted! Updated"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L978nIT-AY4

Another aeronautical engineer confirms impossible speed
http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/pf_011909.mp3

SEPTEMBER CLUES high quality (1ST HALF):
http://blip.tv/file/1272900/

SEPTEMBER CLUES high quality (2ND HALF)
http://blip.tv/file/1273564

the SEPTEMBER CLUES playlist (YOUTUBE)
http://tiny.cc/septcluesenglish

the "911 AMATEUR" playlist
http://tiny.cc/911amateur

Simon Shack's additional 9/11 research
http://tiny.cc/911addresearch

9/11 Octopus Part 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_ySSJ_L6Zs

9/11 Octopus (New World Order)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3280828063975945650

No More 9/11: Game Over!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PCr8CyG1Sg&feature=related

Genghis6199's Epic - 911 Flatline - #1 [video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6MIU-rUPrI

Genghis6199's Epic - 911 Flatline - #2 [video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxKJxFArD-o

Genghis6199's Epic - 911 Flatline - #3 [video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf-adnwEIQU

Genghis6199's Epic - 911 Flatline - #4 [video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMiVjSpoMHI

"Chopper 5 Composite":
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/Chopper5Velocity2.html

REBUTTALS AND REPLIES:

Debunking "September Clues": A Point by Point Analysis
10 October 2007, Nick Irving, Scholars for 9/11 Truth

September Clues - Busted! (Anthony Lawson on "September Clues")
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=823734902101057550

Eric Salter's Rebuttal:
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/Fox5analysis.html

Ace Baker's response:
http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/ABPlaneStudy/SalterDeconstruction.html

ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE AND ARGUMENTS:

Unseen September 11th Footage (video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UyGQ-6yKbU

9/11 Attack (worth sorting out)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfDaGYYcz48&sdig=1

South Tower Anomalies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BspxdVv7C4

South Tower Anomalies - Extended
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ388KB3OqM

South Tower Anomalies III - Addressing the Debunkers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh7cKDXnS_s

North and South Tower Anomalies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvJdxJ2Fhog

There's actually a lot more, but I know none of you wants to bother with
it. Your minds are made up. Well, in that case, there is very little I
can do for you. But don't expect your casual dismissal of (what I take
to be) the reality of video fakery to impress me. With the exception of
Anthony--who persists in repeating odd arguments, but is still making an
effort to deal with the evidence--I don't see any genuine attempt here to
come to grips with the issues. I see some appeals to authority regarding
expertise in video making, but an utter failure to address the evidence.
I can only report that this entire exchange has been among the most frus-
trating exercises of my life, that I have staked my reputation on arguing
for something many of you consider to be extremely implausible, and I am
not going to accept poorly-researched rebuttals for serious science. And
I am absolutely not going to place "political correctness" before truth.

Jim

Quoting KenJenkins@aol.com:

[Hide Quoted Text]
Jim and All,

Your argument seems to boil down to this:

In a message dated 6/24/09 5:22:13 PM, jfetzer@d.umn.edu writes:
videos that include impossible events cannot be authentic
Or to rephrase: IF the events were impossible, THEN the video of those events cannot be authentic.
So far so good. The evidence you present you believe to show that the
events were impossible. Also fine. So this constitutes one kind of indirect
evidence for fakery IF the events could be shown to be impossible, which I
understand you believe as been done.

But the request was for 5 different kinds of direct evidence of video
"fakery". That would include things like: - imperfections in the faking that
experts agree reveal faking, like poor matt lines, or light directions
inconsistencies, or imperfect match moves, or other flaws or imperfections that can
give away effects compositing. In the 40 to 50 professional and amateur
videos shot of the second plane strike, most of which I have seen, I have
seen no such flaws or telling imperfections that would reveal special effects
work (or as you like to say "video fakery"). Much of my career in video
production has been as a video editor and special effects creator, so I am in a
position to give a professional opinion. So is Eric Salter, who has
reached similar conclusions and posted his opinions. Anthony has already listed
his credentials that give his evaluation similar validity and merit.

Faking those ~4 dozen videos of the plane from ~4 dozen different angles,
getting them all to match, having many camerapersons pan perfectly to track a
non-existent object in one take so as to be able to add the plane later,
matching light angles, and so on, and getting some of those shots out in real
time and others in minutes or hours, all this would be quite possibly the
most complex and sophisticated effects effort in history, and so would take
quite a large staff of highly skilled, Hollywood level effects artists and
technicians. Also qualifying as direct evidence would be any one of the
dozens to hundreds of people who would have been involved with such a massive
special effects effort coming forth, or even leaking evidence of their
handiwork. Normally effects work of such complexity takes months to accomplish.
Add to that the logistics of coordinating all that work, especially from all
the amateur cameras which would have been randomly positioned at all
different angles. All in all, a mind bogglingly overwhelming undertaking,
impractical beyond reason.

Or, you could just use a plane.

Ken

Views: 44

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Rosalee Grable on June 25, 2009 at 7:16pm
"Much of my career in video production has been as a video editor and special effects creator, so I am in a
position to give a professional opinion." says Ken Jenkins.
I would not put it past possibility that Ken Jenkins was on the crew that provided the fake videos. There is a lot more enthusiastic denial than the evidence deserves from a number of people who turn out to have the professional skills to have done the dirtywork.
Comment by James H. Fetzer on June 25, 2009 at 3:15pm
When you're right, you're right! The place of lazy thought and mental inertia is showing itself here. He is making
no effort whatsoever to think through (a) that it was done and (b) how it could have been done. You are right!
Comment by Thoth II on June 25, 2009 at 2:25pm
To quote Ken:

"Much of my career in video production has been as a video editor and special effects creator, so I am in a
position to give a professional opinion."

The problem is, he just doesn't get the aerodynamics and physics involved. If he did, he'd see instantly that these videos are cartoons. This is so sad how blind people are.

" Also qualifying as direct evidence would be any one of the dozens to hundreds of people who would have been involved with such a massive special effects effort coming forth, or even leaking evidence of their
handiwork. Normally effects work of such complexity takes months to accomplish. Add to that the logistics of coordinating all that work, especially from all the amateur cameras which would have been randomly positioned at all different angles. All in all, a mind bogglingly overwhelming undertaking, impractical beyond reason."

I can't believe he is making this old straw man argument. How in the world can he know what was possible? We've heard that old bromide ad nauseam about how people would have talked by now.

© 2019   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service