Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
STUNNING ANALYSIS OF TV FAKERY ON 9/11
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.
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.
Views: 141
Comment
-
Comment by James H. Fetzer on September 13, 2009 at 12:08pm
-
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 12:56:41 -0700 [09/12/2009 02:56:41 PM CDT] From: "John Lear"
To: "'Anthony Lawson'" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: [Show addresses - 35 recipients]
Subject: RE: STUNNING ANALYSIS OF VIDEO FAKERY ON 9/11 by Pete Velis
Part(s): 2 winmail.dat 92 KB
The purpose of this post is to show that if Flight 11 crashed into the north
tower there should have been tons of aircraft parts on the ground.
The attachment (at the bottom of the text) is a composite of the alleged
left wing of Flight 11 in the North Tower and its positioned exactly as
represented in the NIST report.
This means that there cannot be a change in the position
of the alleged left wing without a change in the right wing and the alleged
slot of the right wing.
Columns are arbitrarily numbered 1 through 15 just for reference.
The alleged wing is represented by 2 green lines with these 3 references
labeled, WING, Top of Wing, Bottom of Wing.
The left horizontal tail is referenced by 'Left Horizontal Tail', aa and bb.
The left engine is represented as a circle with 'Left Engine' labeled
inside.
Slightly below and slightly to the right is the alleged Edna Citron.
The cc inside the circle, represents her approximate height with a line at
her head and one at her feet. I assume she was around 5 feet tall but it
doesn't matter because we are only using this distance as a distance
reference from the Left Horizontal Tail to the bottom of column 13, 14, and
15 to show how much lower the left horizontal tail would have to have been
to hit these columns, 13, 14 and 15.
You will notice (ee) how neatly the steel columns, 13, 14 and 15 were
sliced, perfectly horizontal, and not at the angle of the left horizontal
tail. This is also the position in the wing where the bulk of the fuel is
but there doesn't seem to be much evidence of a fire. The perfect horizontal
cut may have also been the steel column joints.
Letters A, B, C, D, and E through which the alleged left wing passed are not
breached, that is, spars, ribs would have had to compress, break and slip
through the space between the columns. Any material that didn't pass between
the columns would have fallen to the ground.
Consider the large and heavy spars of the left wing: all of those spars
could not possibly have been severed over their entire length by impact with
the columns and then pass entirely through, disappearing into the tower and
leaving nothing to fall to the ground.
Considering the breach of the first spar would have ignited the wing tank
fuel there appears not to be much evidence of fire on the outer face of the
columns.
-
Comment by Thoth II on September 13, 2009 at 7:40am
-
"You and your followers are looking more foolish, every day, but even worse, you are continuing to give the mainstream media all the ammunition that they need to claim that the 9/11 truth movement is made up of a bunch of foil-hatted nutters, some of whom think that about 50 videos, showing the approach and impact of the South Tower plane, were either faked—some of them done live—or that the people who shot them were shooting impossible thin-air holograms"
The only foolishness going around is when people stop searching for the exact details about what happened. Does your side understand exactly what demolished the WTC? No, and I can say that because nobody yet has "Kentucky Fried Chicken's secret recipe" for the demolitions yet, except those who did it. But people are trying . This plane issue in the WTC is cut and dried: the videos show physically impossible features, therefore they can't be authentic videos of authentic planes. That ball game is already over.
-
-
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:16:14 -0500 [10:16:14 AM CDT]
From: "Jack & Sue White"
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: [Show addresses - 37 recipients]
Subject: Re: STUNNING ANALYSIS OF VIDEO FAKERY ON 9/11 by Pete Velis
Jim...Roy Schaeffer was kind enough to send me the graphics that accompanied the Velis
article.
After looking at them, I concluded that a likely cause of most everything claimed to be evidence
of conspiracy was more likely just tv control room glitches caused by standard operating
procedures.
Having been around tv productions, I know that not everything said to be "live" is really
live. There are pre-recorded inserts, tape delays, etc. That was a hectic morning, and it
is likely that in their haste and confusion, errors were made.
The Velis analysis uses only one network, ABC. What would be more compelling, if there is
funny business afoot, is a comparison of ABC with other networks at the same instant.
Jack
-
-
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 11:54:20 -0500 [11:54:20 AM CDT] From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "Anthony Lawson" , KenJenkins@aol.com, "Rosalee Grable" , jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: [Show addresses - 36 recipients]
Subject: Re: STUNNING ANALYSIS OF VIDEO FAKERY ON 9/11 by Pete Velis
Part(s):
2 aa11_time_lapse.jpg 124 KB
Download All Attachments (in .zip file)
1 unnamed 15.01 KB
Anthony and Ken,
The only difference between me and 99% of the Architects and Engineers is
that I have been studying the evidence and they have not. If you think the
truth is a function of popularity, then you are seriously demented. Here is
a time-lapse study of the "plane" image in the Naudet Brothers video prepared
by Rosalee Grable. Bear in mind that the wing span of a 767 is 156 feet and
the North Tower, like the South, is 208 feet wide. Do you still think that
this is the image of a 767? Nothing you could say at this point in time will
surprise me--unless it is to acknowledge that this cannnot possibly be a 767!
Jim
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:32:06 EDT [04:32:06 AM CDT]
From: KenJenkins@aol.com
To: lawson911@gmail.com, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: STUNNING ANALYSIS OF VIDEO FAKERY ON 9/11 by Pete Velis
In a message dated 9/11/09 11:57:14 PM, lawson911@gmail.com writes:
Look at the Architects and Engineers for Truth website, and count the number of people
far more qualified than you are to assess such things, then see if you can find out if
any one of them has any doubts that each of the Twin Towers was hit by a plane the size
and shape of a Boeing 767.
Jim,
As one of those 839 engineers (and architects) at AE 9/11, and a good friend and
associate of Richard Gage, I agree with asking Anthony's question above.
In my assessment of my colleges at AE, the likelihood that even one amongst us would
support the notion of no planes at WTC is small. There is no doubt that at the very
least, the VAST majority reject no planes.
It is unreasonable to think that your opinion is more accurate than at least 99% of that
group of professionals.
Ken
Quoting "Anthony Lawson" :
Dr. Fetzer,
It is rare for me to agree with Ace Baker, but he's dead right: this is
nonsense. There are all kinds of explanations for some of the transmission
glitches that this person claims prove no-planes, and the lack of images to
go with his claims only serves to demonstrate that you are, once again,
clutching at any straw that floats past you.
When are you going to stop this nonsense? It seems that you are currently
looking to use the least-clear video of any of the impacts, the Naudet
video, to prove a point. What point, I do not know, but it will not have
any relevance, because there are other videos that show the South Tower
impact far more clearly, and stills pictures that show that the holes in the
Towers have a similar size, shape and impact orientation to that of the
planes that appear to have hit them.
Your 10th-grade-physics claim is also wearing very thin, because you have
yet to deliver someone, with the necessary physics or engineering degrees,
to confirm that about 320,000 pounds of aircraft travelling at about 840
feet per second could not possibly have crashed through the wall of the
South Tower, when the impact was, virtually, head on. And if the South
Tower could be breached that way, it would follow that so could the North
Tower, even though the estimates for that planes speed were slower.
Look at the Architects and Engineers for Truth website, and count the number
of people far more qualified than you are to assess such things, then see if
you can find out if any one of them has any doubts that each of the Twin
Towers was hit by a plane the size and shape of a Boeing 767.
You and your followers are looking more foolish, every day, but even worse,
you are continuing to give the mainstream media all the ammunition that they
need to claim that the 9/11 truth movement is made up of a bunch of
foil-hatted nutters, some of whom think that about 50 videos, showing the
approach and impact of the South Tower plane, were either faked—some of them
done live—or that the people who shot them were shooting impossible thin-air
holograms.
Either get some positive proof for your theories, or stop your divisive
nonsense.
Anthony
-
-
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:56:57 +0700 [01:56:57 AM CDT]
From: "Anthony Lawson"
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: [Show addresses - 36 recipients]
Subject: Re: STUNNING ANALYSIS OF VIDEO FAKERY ON 9/11 by Pete Velis
Dr. Fetzer,
It is rare for me to agree with Ace Baker, but he's dead right: this is nonsense. There are all kinds of explanations for some of the transmission glitches that this person claims prove no-planes, and the lack of images to go with his claims only serves to demonstrate that you are, once again, clutching at any straw that floats past you.
When are you going to stop this nonsense? It seems that you are currently looking to use the least-clear video of any of the impacts, the Naudet video, to prove a point. What point, I do not know, but it will not have any relevance, because there are other videos that show the South Tower impact far more clearly, and stills pictures that show that the holes in the Towers have a similar size, shape and impact orientation to that of the planes that appear to have hit them.
Your 10th-grade-physics claim is also wearing very thin, because you have yet to deliver someone, with the necessary physics or engineering degrees, to confirm that about 320,000 pounds of aircraft travelling at about 840 feet per second could not possibly have crashed through the wall of the South Tower, when the impact was, virtually, head on. And if the South Tower could be breached that way, it would follow that so could the North Tower, even though the estimates for that planes speed were slower.
Look at the Architects and Engineers for Truth website, and count the number of people far more qualified than you are to assess such things, then see if you can find out if any one of them has any doubts that each of the Twin Towers was hit by a plane the size and shape of a Boeing 767.
You and your followers are looking more foolish, every day, but even worse, you are continuing to give the mainstream media all the ammunition that they need to claim that the 9/11 truth movement is made up of a bunch of foil-hatted nutters, some of whom think that about 50 videos, showing the approach and impact of the South Tower plane, were either faked—some of them done live—or that the people who shot them were shooting impossible thin-air holograms.
Either get some positive proof for your theories, or stop your divisive nonsense.
Anthony
-
-
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 09:26:06 -0700 [11:26:06 AM CDT]
From: "roy schaeffer"
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: STUNNING ANALYSIS OF VIDEO FAKERY ON 9/11 by Pete Velis
Dear Jim,
Pete's most famous work was on the Anthrax. He ram a full page article in the Washington Times. He met Hatfil and got into a lot of trouble. He was a insurance agent and I think he invested claim for a living.
He also had interest in JFK film and photos ans submitted his work to the national Archives. He has a good eye for seeing photos in a 3-D format and slight alterations.
Roy
----- Original Message ----
From: "jfetzer@d.umn.edu"
To: roy schaeffer
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Sent: Saturday, September 12, 2009 7:46:49 AM
Subject: Re: STUNNING ANALYSIS OF VIDEO FAKERY ON 9/11 by Pete Velis
What can you tell me about Pete Velis and his credentials for this?
-
-
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:52:39 -0500 [09/11/2009 11:52:39 AM CDT]
From: "Jack & Sue White"
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: [Show addresses - 37 recipients]
Subject: Re: STUNNING ANALYSIS OF VIDEO FAKERY ON 9/11 by Pete Velis
Jim...without images, this is hard to comprehend. One must keep in mind that time delays
and pre-recordings are
used extensively in TV, so disginguishing between LIVE and recorded is difficult to pin
down. I would like to see images of the things described. Words are inadequate.
Who is Pete Velis and what are his credentials?
Jack
-
-
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:40:39 -0700 [09/11/2009 11:40:39 AM CDT]
From: "David Hawkins"
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu, acebaker1234@yahoo.com, avalonbeef@msn.com
Cc: [Show addresses - 34 recipients]
Subject: RE: STUNNING ANALYSIS OF VIDEO FAKERY ON 9/11 by Pete Velis
Twin Tower videofakery was done by faculty members at Northwestern University's iCAIR - International Center for Advanced Internet Research - and webcast into the MSM channels over Internet2 fiber optics links.
http://www.captainsherlock.com/Olympic-Debt/Chapter-17.html
NU's Bazant wrote his analysis of why the Trade Center collapsed before 9/11 and published it through iCAIR two days after the attack so that his theory could became the official explanation and all subsequent theories could be ascribed to "Truthers".
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
On the faculty of law at Northewestern you will find Bernardine Dohrn the Weather Underground terrorist leader.
Capeche?
References
Bazˇant, Z. P. ~2001a!. ''Why did theWorld Trade Center collapse?'' SIAM
News, 34~8!, 1, 3.
Bazˇant, Z. P. ~2001b!. ''Anatomie za´niku dvojcˇat @Anatomy of ruin of
twin towers.#'' Veˇda a technika, Hospoda´rˇske´ noviny, 186, September
25, 1, in Czech.
Bazˇant, Z. P. and Cedolin, L. ~1991!. Stability of structures:
Elastic, inelastic, fracture and damage theories, Oxford Univ., New
York.
Bazˇant, Z. P., and Zhou, Y. ~2002!. ''Why did the World Trade Center
collapse?-Simple analysis.'' J. Eng. Mech., 128~1!, 2-6.
About
Welcome to
9/11 Scholars Forum
© 2024 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