Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
When you consider that New York City has been, for more than sixty years(!), the most competitive TV-news market in the world, with both network and local-station camera crews scouring the city (and the high-profile borough of Manhattan in particular) at all hours, searching for "scoops" via fresh/new "action" footage of "breaking" events -- their coverage of the WTC "plane" crashes and resultant fires was so uncharacteristically LETHARGIC as to be HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS from the get-go!
Yet long before 2001, literally EVERY TV-news operation in the city had become well-equipped with what constituted, collectively, an entire FLEET of live-remote capable minivans, lorries, and SUV's, always filled with petrol and ready to speed to the site of any calamatous event as soon as its location could be determined from chatter first monitored on emergency-services' two-way radio traffic.
But on the morning of 9/11, as can be plainly seen in the archived video of the real-time program streams, there is NO on-the-scene, street-level television reporting for a painfully long time. Instead, all the viewer is presented with is a narrow selection of alternating studio shots of chatting morning-show hosts, some alleged telephoto long shots of the towers as seen from the air, and telephone-patched audio of various big-time media employees who just happened to be "off duty" but were nevertheless quite well situated to recite verbal desecriptions of the morning's ghastly, "terrorist-caused" events.
As Simon Shack and others have documented, what the viewing public was initially presented with that morning (at least until the "impromptu" presidential response from Florida aired) was not genuine, live TV-news coverage at all, but rather a prefabricated, 103-minute, CGI-crafted, psyop-MOVIE, designed to implant in the nation's collective consciousness a strategically falsified version of how the towers were destroyed.
Andy, thanks for your input. You, as I, have been reviewing this data for a long time now. I appreciate your sticking with this difficult material, and the unsettling effect it has on us all. I am not perfect, and sometimes my emotions can get me reacting rather than thinking clearly.
Chuck has been an invaluable part of this site for a long time. I am glad for your understanding of his passion for the truth, and important work discounting the official collapse theory. We all can get a bit hot-headed!
IMHO, there was a mix and layering of real and prepared footage used on 9/11. Take for two examples, Chopper 5's Nose-out blooper clearly running into a layer mask which was shifted by a drifting helicopter platform. Also, as proven by Ace Baker, there is different camera motion on the footage of the plane from the cam motion of the footage of the exploding tower.
As you mention, this was a Psychological Operation, there was much preparation of videos before the event, and the media are complicit up to their singular eyeball. I cannot agree that everything was fake, CGI; some may have been, showing telltale signs such as buildings missing or out of place. I cannot agree that the towers were hollow or unoccupied, as I personally know people who worked there that were killed.
The videos of the collapses seem to me to correspond with the physical evidence I saw personally. I wouldn't stake my life on it though! I think we are looking at a deep deception with planted leads in many directions, designed to cause confusion and infighting. There are many con-op leaders and blind followers.
If I can say one good thing about this horror, it is that it has led me to sharpen my scientific skills, and have learned a lot about this from Jim, and other members here, and elsewhere.
To quote Jim,
"ALL SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS ARE BOTH TENTATIVE AND FALLIBLE! “Fallible” means they might be false, even when they are the best supported; and “tentative" means that, with new evidence and new hypotheses, we may have to reject hypotheses we have accepted and accept hypotheses we have rejected and leave others in suspense...
EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE IS NEVER CERTAIN. But that does not mean we cannot have excellent reasons to accept the best supported theories as the evidence “settles down”, but ALWAYS in the tentative and fallible fashion of science."
I look forward to furthur discussions with you.
Chuck, your instant dismissal of Shack and company's years of detailed research reveals that you spent virtually no more time studying their discoveries than it takes to blow your nose. Apparently you felt threatened by even the mere possibility that the CGI videos, on which you have based your own long years of nuked-towers research, were not genuine. I do sympathise with the fear (that you may have wasted your precious time and effort) and resultant stress you must be feeling now, and I forgive you for disgracing yourself on this forum by calling me a clown pushing bull crap. I'm confident, from reading your other, more serious and thoughtful postings, that you must be a better man than that. IMHO, low-level nukes may indeed have been used to obliterate the towers. The perps use of nukes AND the TV networks showing fake videos are NOT mutually exclusive possibilities. And then there's the related issue of the apparently faked victim identities, which you did not even bother to address.
Here's an appropriate place to continue your search, Chuck.
In addition to the latest version of the documentary, you will also find a series of introductory articles (on the subject of massive image-fakery) by the producer of the documentary, Simon Shack, beginning with the one reproduced here below:
The Power Of Imagery
Television is - and has always been - a Weapon of Mass Distraction. The power of TV-imagery was the driving force behind the 9/11 deception.
Whenever a major news event is reported by the mainstream media, it will invariably be illustrated with photographs or videos in order to convey to the public some visual impressions of the event. Undeniably, the imagery connected with any given news story enhances our emotional relation to it. The way we relate to news imagery has an almost hypnotic effect on our psyche: we have come to consider the visuals of any given news story as proof of that news story’s authenticity. This is truly a ‘weak spot’ of our brains’ readiness for critical-thinking. Thus follows, unfortunately, that to challenge the authenticity of a catastrophic event shown on Live TV is way beyond what most people are willing to contemplate. However, the time has come for everyone to call television by its most appropriate, military-sounding name: "Weapon of Mass Distraction".
The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that ‘weak spot’ of ours. We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time – understandably so, as the sheer horror of the proposed imagery generated a wall of outrage and fear – thick enough to discourage any critical review of it. In hindsight, we can only wonder why so few questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks. The picture at left shows a moment (at 8:59AM) of the four synchronized TV broadcasts of ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX: yet another indication that the 9/11 TV "LIVE" broadcasts were managed by one single, centralized studio. (see my audio analysis in September Clues E)
WHAT TELEVISION VIEWERS SAW ON 9/11
The 9/11 TV imagery (of the crucial morning events) was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie. It featured for the most part what were meant to be “chopper shots” of the smoking towers - and very little else. The sum total of “Action Shots” (“Planecrash” and “Tower collapses”) amounted to little over 30secs of the entire morning's TV broadcasts ! Needless to say, much as the rest of the animation movie, none of these “Action Shots” depicted any sort of reality. Now, it may be difficult for many to understand why the 9/11 plotters needed to fake even the tower collapses; yet this was undoubtedly the most crucial aspect of the entire operation - and needs to be fully understood in its plain logic: The unprecedented WTC demolition job was far too risky an affair to be shown on LIVE TV - (or to let any amateur cameraman capture it on film). The 9/11 conspirators had no intention whatsoever to offer such a "pyrotechnical" spectacle to world scrutiny - just imagine how unspeakably foolish this would have been. Thus, in all probability, the oldest trick in the manuals of covert military ops was used: smokescreens. More recent technology deactivated temporarily all cameras within sight of the area. In reality, the towers were most likely enveloped in thick smoke (military obscurants) as they collapsed - and no real footage exists of that brief event. Thankfully - for all normal people of this world - the 9/11 planners hired a poorly skilled animation crew : in their efforts to simulate reality, their crass 'artistry' and countless mistakes provide ample and repeatable proof of the trickery - forever engraved in the TV archives.
These images are an intolerable insult to human intelligence :
A REAL PLANE CRASH ?___________________________A REAL SKYSCRAPER COLLAPSE ?
See: Detailed Analyses of Airplane Animations
See: Detailed Analyses of Collapse Animations
WHY FAKE THE NEWS BROADCASTS ? The 9/11 TV broadcasts were designed to ‘sell’ a fictitious terror attack to the world– by replacing the real-life events of the day (the WTC demolitions) with fake imagery. The official story was quite surreal - as were the TV images of the day and the preposterous tale of 19 kids roundly outfoxing the US Air Defense. It is essential to judge with one's own eyes the broadcasts actually aired by ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC and CNN.
WHAT ABOUT THE "AMATEUR" VIDEOS ? All the other videos (endlessly replayed on TV) were released only later. They have all been extensively analyzed by scores of video analysts; each and every video snippet of "amateur imagery" has been methodically dissected and compared - and empirically proved to be nothing else than computer-generated fabrications.
HOW WERE PRIVATE VIDEOS IMPEDED ? In order for the 9/11 TV-deception to succeed, full visual control of the Manhattan area had to be in place. The existence of EMP/HERF technology is undisputable: only the hypothesis of it being used on 9/11 remains unverifiable. It is, however, a reasonable postulation supported by a series of electronic blackouts which occurred in NYC that morning. In any event, the logic of using EMP/HERF holds water and effectively explains the ruse with disarming simplicity: NO private photography of the real-life events was allowed: thus, the imagery aired by the TV networks feared no comparison and was passed off as reality.
Yes, I am familiar with Mr. Hall's work, Shallel. And I would like to assume that he is a man of good will (rather than a shill) who has devoted extensive time and effort to making sense out of the radar data he has providentially acquired -- by correlating it with the broadcast-and-published 9/11 imagery. Perhaps he has reached valid and proper conclusions. If so, then the Shack-ian hypothesis of massive video-fakery cannot stand.
But Hall's correlations, mathematically persuasive as they initially appear (regarding essential path/angle/distance representations) still cannot account for the many more suble, residual imprecisions, mapping errors, timing errors, CGI traces and other suspicious oddities that Shack and company have shown us also exist in the archival images! Thus we come to an inevitable questioning of the provenance/authenticity of the radar data itself. Under the Shack-ian hypothesis, the Tuesday morning "103-minute movie" (with its parallel re-edits for each of the TV-news networks to play) was the end result of months, perhaps years of intricate planning and near-perfect (but still ultimately flawed) digital artistry -- closely akin to the spectacular Batman/Spiderman/Independence Day productions which, by 2001, had already proved to the world that such astonishingly convincing effects were indeed possible. And in the creation of a comparably proficient video fantasy whose sinister purpose was to do far more than sell tickets and popcorn, would not that movie's highly skilled (and military backgrounded/funded) creators also have the foresight to factor into the algorhythmical mix a correlative simulation of how their simulated event would be radar-tracked? Of course they would. (They probably have simulated-satellite video of 9/11 too, still sitting on an NRO/NSA server somewhere, just waiting until the next convenient Wiki-leak!)
Now perhaps the perps' only motivation in doing so was to prepare for whatever "official" scientific inquests by "credentialed" experts might be scheduled someday, when the "fog of war" finally dissipated and some nagging doubts might have arisen as to what really was taking place -- back when the (digitally misrepresented) casus belli occurred. Yet, in the irony of happenstance (if Mr. Hall is NOT a Sunstinian infiltrator, that is) the plotters' clever extra-credit project (fabricating a set of radar data) ends up being employed by a gifted amateur to validate the perps' own CGI movie.
Andy, have you reviewed Richard Hall's work? http://www.richplanet.net/911.php
He has allegedly made a 3D model of the flight paths of the videos of UA 175 (28 or so that had enough data for 3D modeling), showing them to conform to the same exact fight path, factoring in camera angle and distance. I don't at all believe these were real, however the concept of advanced hologram tech has been discussed here. Just curious on your thoughts...
© 2023 Created by James H. Fetzer. Powered by
You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!
Join 9/11 Scholars Forum