The Air Force Information Warfare Center
When you absolutely, positively must get a Matrix there overnight
Section Four – Placing of the “LIVE” ABC 9/11 copter view of the globally distributed 2nd jet impact onto a computer-generated model of the Twin Towers
While the splicing of the Middle Eastern urban war devastation scene onto the bottom of the LIVE CNN global broadcast shortly after the impact of the 2nd jet into the South Tower was in a small way subtle, it was still a simplistic technique with rather brutal errors. To the IWC team’s credit, it was only designed to test and demonstrate functionality to project managers and perhaps “authorized observers” in the IWC - so it was only a couple of seconds long, and would thus go unnoticed by design. So it didn’t have to be as perfect a melding as would be required in a sustained view of some further “battlespace” being transmuted into another scene of the war planner’s preference. Such a sustained view that would be subject to the most intense scrutiny by quite literally the whole World did exist the morning of September 11.
The next most important “glitch” in LIVE 9/11 Network transmission came on the world famous ABC Live impact copter view. This view was the most important manipulated view by far, and no doubt would have the best IWC workstation team on this job. The most radical and innovative computer-driven Information Warfare alterations are seen in the ABC view. The frame snips are seemingly in two unrelated groups – one set at the start of the ABC Special Report and the second showing the dramatic computer glitch. But they share a unifying feature – a complete blackout in a single frame that precedes each manipulation.
First we see Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer on Good Morning America seated on a couch signing off for a commercial break with no trace of any problem off screen. Very happy. The commercial is for Onstar featuring Batman, with voice command of phone calling. He is the master of the terse, masculine military initiative commander. Chased for exactly 14 seconds by a black chopper firing machine guns and grenades down a skyscraper corridor very much like that of the World Trade Center, the master of vigilante action barks – “Things are heating up.” At that moment the ABC “Special Report” comes on screen with Charlie and Diane seated on a new set with their own chairs, and both very somber as Charlie says “We want to tell you what we know as we have learned it.” The problem is that his briefing plus the getting ready to go on the air to present the coverage of the North Tower damage required over 2 minutes. The Batman commercial took only 14 seconds. Plus it is plainly a purposefully timed introduction to the 9/11 world coverage. So, it appears the usurpation of the ABC Network transmission was BEFORE the Onstar commercial. Charles and Diane were actually being briefed on the North Tower as their transmitted images were in a state of amicable good morning, nothing’s wrong. So the pre-commercial part of GMA was not live, but HELD UP. Since the anchors’ appearance is seamless and not broken by a lost minute or two from the commercial break before the Batman commercial break to the Batman break. So the hold up or lost time comes from either the previous break with perhaps an extra couple of commercials, or before. Maybe GMA isn’t live and while we think we are watching the pair, the pair went out and had some coffee. The question remains “Where’s the lost time?. Since the IWC was involved in the too-clever by a mile Batman introduction to the “festivities” , it is reasonable to assume they had control of the previous GMA segment so as to engineer the 14 seconds into perfect position, since Batman has to say “Things are heating up” exactly at the cut to the ABC SPECIAL REPORT banner.
Charles and Diane return with the mood change and proceed to tell us what they’ve been told “so far”. It takes Charlie around half a minute to tell us, and as he winds up we are taken to the ABC copter view of the North Tower. This initiates the second and most vital set of frames – the computer glitch itself. At first showi9ng the smoke is lighter than it becomes but one cannot see through the smoke to see the top edge of the Tower. It is completely obscured. Later, at the time of the glitch, it is even more dense. Suddenly the black frame and the next frame shows the North Tower with no smoke, no plane damage, and the ENTIRE TOP EDGE IN FULL AND CLEAR VIEW. This is 100% impossible in real physics. No video glitch can confer X-Ray vision. That the totally invisible Tower upper edge becomes perfectly visible and all smoke vanishes from above, on, and in front of the Tower shows this second Tower to be a computer generated one, onto which the “ABC” copter video feed in overlaid.
The glitch only lasts for one second, and the glitch seems to have been successfully suppressed on what this writer presumes was a different regional showing of the Good Morning America/ABC Special Report IW epicenter. The glitch warbles this other version at the exact same moment the glitch begins on the other version, but the image of the North Tower remains unaffected. In fact, after review we find this other GMA version starts with Charlie and Diane looking somber with Diane saying there has been an accident at the WTC BEFORE the “ABC SPECIAL REPORT” placard, which swings into view in a different way. There is NO commercial break, either. No Batman telling us that “Things are heating up” to usher in the North Tower death scene. So, we are still left with missing time on the regional version WITH the major glitch revealing the computer drawn substrate.
The effect of the glitch on the version in question proves with 100% certainty that there was a computer-generated image of the Towers “underneath” the colorized and realistic-ish Live “ABC Copter” view. Again – as simple as that. Now, its proof of IWC image perversion is not at this moment 100% assured… merely 99%. There is no possibility that the image we find is anything other than a computer-generated one. BUT it is still remotely possible that this is a hoax generated by an extremely gifted post-9/11 manipulator who then distributed his ABC version with the one second glitch onto YouTube where it multiplied. It is on many of the ABC LIVE 9/11 coverage Youtube pieces. HOWEVER, said hoaxster would have to have the same knowledge of AFIWC usurpation imagery goals, and a computer with programming to match. This yields a probability of 2 percent. Probably less. If it is the case, he’s missed his calling – the AFIWC Battlelab has a premier workstation waiting for his expert touch. Then, he has no repeat of the feat the entire rest of the ABC coverage. That renders the chance of a hoax replica of an IWC technique virtually nil. But there. That’s why the CNN digital war zone inserted picture is the perfect pr oof – it’s on all versions of CNN 9/11 LIVE at the exact same time, and the ultrahigh resolution of ResidentPinto’s “CNN 9/11 Live 9:29 to 9:39” Youtube version shows exactly the details, and they show with a clarity unsurpassable in this Universe a scene that is not the NYC streets below, but a town covered with the dust of its own pulverization. Of course, this was half hour before the first of the Towers’ collapse, and the “other balcony camera” showed the actual streets under the same balcony at the same time. 100% certainty and perceivable as such, ironically, to the entire World. Given the chance.
Still, the great sophistication of the IWCs ABC impact view with its LIVE merger of a computer simulation of the Towers and LIVE major Network image of the Towers (or substituted live video from an imposter IWC-tasked copter) creates an undreamt-of depth of IWC intersession capabilities. Yet on 9/11 such sophistication held a dual edge for the IWC. The fancier the technique, the greater chance of something going very wrong. For this reason, and as we will see in the next section, test models of aircraft passing by, into, and through the North Tower were run at least four times in the ABC 2nd impact copter video, and the main two with fake helicopters contain such grotesque image errors one might laugh if the implications weren’t so totally monstrous and threatening to the entire future of Mankind. Actually, a great deal went wrong, too much to catalog for this overview.
Do US military IWCs now have computer models of most major cities and regions like, say, the Gaza Strip? If you were running an ever-more capable IW facility, and whose “24 hr/365 day perpetual mission” (AFIWC Mission Statement) demanded total dominance in the Information part of any Battlespace, wouldn’t you be sure you had such models? They must be incredible by now. While this writer is the only one has elucidated the scene behind the scenes, he stands on the shoulders of courageous YouTube giants who have pointed to the apparent use of computer imagery and false aircraft imagery in a major portion of the 9/11 video record, which is extensive. They are heroes, and smart heroes are hard to find.
Hypothetical scenarios using the IWC ABC usurpation techniques will be examined in the final section, using past, present and future computer technologies. These will include nuclear scenarios such as the portrayal of the accidental malfunction and impact short of the target of “an Iranian nuke” on a medium range missile. A remote refugee camp might be the host of a, say, "Al-Jazeera" camera crew there LIVE to capture the happy children benefitting from, say, new agreements. The camera swings up at a strange noise and clearly shows a missile streaking down with a slight wobble. The bright flash, the mushroom cloud, the incineration/obliteration of the camps and surrounds. All computer generated, people and all. And no one can tell the difference. “Authorities believe the actual missile target was Tel Aviv. Was there an anti-missile battery ready to intercept if the stealthily launched Iranian missile had flown correctly? We turn to our expert, babble burble bubble…” Weeks later, Al-Jazeera says it has not lost any reporters, but no one cares.
The long term threat implications of the IWC overlay of a LIVE Network transmitted video image onto a computer version of the Twin Towers cannot be overstated.