Monday, December 16, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
PLEASE SUPPORT REVERE RADIO:
SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed
DONATE to Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
---------
(Right-click on guest name to download mp3)
SUBSCRIBE to the iTunes feed
STREAM premieres on Revere Radio
5pm CST (2300 GMT) M-W-F:
---
Since the official plane speed for Fl.175 [500mph] was/is impossible at 1000 ft, and the top speed would have to have been closer to 250 mph in real life, I would assume that the motion blur per frame would be approximately half the guests, and A. Weisbecker's, calculations, but still readily apparent.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the plane collision explosions seen/mentioned by the guest and Jim Fetzer in the various plane impact videos - they are all 100% CGI and fake explosions [as are the entire videos, no differently than the Herzekhani and Fairbanks videos analyzed by the guest here, which are both 100% fake, as I have repeatedly claimed on Mr Fetzer's show, in the past].
To be clear, I mean to claim that the plane image is fake, the explosion image is fake, the smoke is fake, the building images are all fake, the sky image is fake, the backgrounds and foregrounds are all fake.
Regards, obf
Yes--and I have explained repeatedly why I take that position to be indefensible and even absurd.
DeleteDr. Fetzer, please point out which parts you think are animations and which footage you think is authentic.
DeleteThe plane footage has been fabricated or faked, but precisely how it was done appears to be still up-in-the-air. (Hear the show I just did with Don Fox.)
DeleteAs I explain below, however, I have found no good reason to doubt that the footage of the destruction of WTC-7 or of the Twin Towers was faked. I watched what was labeled as the "complete" September Clues, which ran about 1:32:44, so if that's it, IT'S NOT THERE. So if there is more, let me know.
I'll try to address both of those points.
DeleteFirstly, the speed of the plane has been quoted at various figures from 480 to 540mph, the latter seems to be the most oft-quoted. I would tend to think that any speed in that range is impossible for a 767. It is very simple to calculate the amount of motion blur we should see, the formula is Blur = V x T where V is the velocity of the object and T is the exposure time or shutter speed. As the video cameras used in North America use the NTSC standard, they capture at 30 frames per second. Therefore, to calculate the length of blur in feet, you simply divide the speed in feet per second by 30. If we take the lowball figure of 250mph, which is 367 feet per second, divide that by 30, we get the figure of 12.23 feet. So it is clear that no matter what the speed of the plane, there should be a very noticeable amount of motion blur present on the video footage.
To answer the second point about the whole thing being faked, I don't think there is any argument to support that view. Simply, there is no need to fake anything other than the plane, the explosion and the resulting fireball and smoke all actually happened. It is far, far more difficult and complex to model and render in 3D an explosion and a smoke cloud than it is to simply add in a 3D model of a plane. Unless I see some valid argument to support the theory that the whole of the videos is faked, then I don't think it's even worth considering as a valid viewpoint.
Ian Greenhaigh's passion is history. I would be very interested if he agrees with this version of American history.
ReplyDeleteTHE-GREAT-AMERICAN-ADVENTURE.pdf
It can be found online. Search: Judge Dale
This document was forwarded to me by Karen Hudes.
Thanks for the tip, I'll take a look at it and see what I think.
DeleteLe spectacle de Ian Greenhaigh / Maria Heller était formidable.
ReplyDeleteGreenhaigh se montre pour être rationnelle et bien versé dans le sujet.
En ce qui concerne les poursuites sélectives aux États-Unis, l'affaire Ramsey JonBenet est un excellent exemple. Le Grand Jury a voté pour inculper, mais le procureur suspect, Alex Hunter choisi de ne pas poursuivre les parents. Pour moi Graphics Access était une façade de la CIA, et Lo,u Schmitt a été engagé pour créer de tout doute raisonnable. L'affaire n'a pas été retenue parce que le gouvernement ne voulait pas de détails sur le fonctionnement de Ramsey à sortir dans la chambre de justice; ce qui aurait probablement été le cas, en raison de la nature de la demande de rançon présumée.
JFK has been done to death. I wish you would focus on more recent events such as 9/11 and Sandy Hook. There's only so many ways you can skin a cat.
ReplyDeleteAre you aware of my articles at Veterans Today? You might like to read "Sandy Hook + American gullibility = coming Gulag USA", which can be found at http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/16/sandy-hook-american-gullibility-coming-gulag-usa/ Look around while you are there. I have quite a lot that might also interest you.
DeleteMy archives there, which probably include about 100 articles by now, can be accessed at http://www.veteranstoday.com/author/fetzer/
DeleteThe total absence of any credible and irrefutable evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's presence on the TSBD sixth floor at the material time on November 22 1963 IS of ITSELF evidence of a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK.
DeleteYour views, James?
"rationnel"
ReplyDelete"a choisi"
Jim Fetzer said : "Yes--and I have explained repeatedly why I take that position to be indefensible and even absurd."
ReplyDeleteTo every one here _except_ Jim Fetzer :
I would suggest that what is "indefensible and even absurd" is an alleged professor of science who _still _point-blank refuses to utilize the basic, fundamental, scientific methodology, and proceed to closely examine the original 911 network footage [plus alleged "amateur" footage] BEFORE proclaiming that any part of of it is genuine [and therefor real evidence of something], as he obviously intends to continue to do .
' last I heard, genuine scientists are supposed to first conclusively establish that something is in fact genuine before EVER using it as evidence of anything - yet Dr Fetzer continues to proclaim that all of the network and amateur footage has some kind of "prima facie claim" [to use his words] to be pre-assumed to be genuine.
All this, despite the fact that he has now had two guests on his show who, by themselves utilizing the scientific methodology [i.e a close examination of video footage] have clearly and successfully demonstrated to him that both the Fairbanks and Herzekhani videos are 100% digital fakes! .
My my my, the pretzel logic/denial consistently on display here continues to entertain , that's fer sure! :-)
See: "Professor Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method":
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html
Regards, onebornfree
Having gone through (what is labeled as the "complete" September Clues, I can report that, apart from the demonstrations that the footage of the planes is fabricated or faked, I find NOTHING to support the inference that all of the 9/11 videos about the destruction of the Twin Towers is fake: NOTHING AT ALL. I have discussed this tonight with Don Fox, but in my opinion, OBF has demonstrated that he is some kind of crank. He is completely off base and I recommend that he be discounted as having anything serious to contribute. I don't mean to be harsh, but that is my conclusion.
DeleteI don't see any reason to fake any part of the videos other than the plane. I think it is pretty obvious that the videos were shot at the time of the event, and the explosion, fireball and smoke is all authentic in that they actually happened there and then. Where the fakery comes in is the adding of an airliner to that footage. To add in an airliner is fairly simple and straightforward, and I'm pretty sure that is precisely what they did.
DeleteI wonder if you would say that to Professor Fetzer's face. Professor Fetzer - a man of infinite patience,
Deletedoes not suffer fools like you lightly. Perhaps you could keep this in mind before you post again.
Jim Fetzer said:
ReplyDelete" ..but in my opinion, OBF has demonstrated that he is some kind of crank. He is completely off base and I recommend that he be discounted as having anything serious to contribute. I don't mean to be harsh, but that is my conclusion."
So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen!
A "crank", according to the Right Honorable James Fetzer, [a professor of "the philosophy of science"] is a person who merely insists that scientists actually honor the scientific method and closely examine all possible evidence [e.g. network 911 broadcast footage] in order to determine whether it is genuine or not, _before_ using it as "genuine" evidence to support any particular hypothesis.
You gotta love it :-)
Regards, onebornfree.
Ian Greenhalgh :
ReplyDelete"I don't see any reason to fake any part of the videos other than the plane."
Are you suggesting that the videos should therefor not be checked first before being assumed to be genuine, as Jim Fetzer claims?
Regards, onebornfree.
I think you're misrepresenting Jim's viewpoint. What reason is there to suspect any aspect of the videos are fake other than the insertion of the planes? You need to present reasons why you believe they are faked rather than just attack Jim for not agreeing with you, that way we can have a rational debate.
DeleteIan Greenhalgh said:
ReplyDelete"I think it is pretty obvious that the videos were shot at the time of the event, and the explosion, fireball and smoke is all authentic in that they actually happened there and then. "
You "think", therefor you know?
Regards,obf.
Other than making a semantic point about my use of language, what point are you trying to make here?
DeleteAre you going to present some rational case for fakery? Something I can reasonably respond to and either agree with or rebut.
Ian Greenhalgh said : "Other than making a semantic point about my use of language, what point are you trying to make here?"
ReplyDeleteI am suggestinging that there is a distinct difference between thinking something is true, and knowing that it is actually true - therefor I am asking you if you actually believe that because _you_ " think it is pretty obvious that the videos were shot at the time of the event, and the explosion, fireball and smoke is all authentic in that they actually happened there and then", then do you actually know all that for a fact? Yes or no?
Ian Greenhalgh said : "Are you going to present some rational case for fakery? Something I can reasonably respond to and either agree with or rebut."
First I'd have to know what _you_ consider to be a "rational case for fakery"- otherwise I'm just spinning my wheels/wasting time, no?
So kindly give me an idea of a couple of features/signs, the presence of which you would consider to be giveaway signs of video fakery, if you have any.
Or are you only talking about me offering a rational motive for faking all of the network broadcasts?
regards, obf.
Ian Greenhalgh said : "I think you're misrepresenting Jim's viewpoint. What reason is there to suspect any aspect of the videos are fake other than the insertion of the planes? You need to present reasons why you believe they are faked rather than just attack Jim for not agreeing with you, that way we can have a rational debate."
ReplyDeleteFirst of all , I have not attacked Jim, [the reverse is not true , however]- I have attacked his consistent ignoring of the scientific methodology.
Ian Greenhalgh said : "What reason is there to suspect any aspect of the videos are fake other than the insertion of the planes? "
Which videos are you specifically talking about- the non-network Fairbanks and Herzekhani videos [although these 2 were broadcast on networks later that day and the next, they are not supposed to be network produced sequences], or the original, archived on line, alleged "live" network feeds [NBC ,ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN]?
Or do you mean all videos, network and "amateur"?
[Serious question]: why, if you have not closely checked the videos [whichever ones you are referring to], to find out, would you assume them to be genuine apart from having plane inserts?
Regards, obf.
Yes, you did attack him on your blog after a show in which he never said you were wrong he just wanted you to convince him. You continually misrepresented what he said and started attacking him as a shill. Do you understand what prima facie means?
DeleteDo you have any background in Computer Graphics? An understanding of 3D modelling and rendering?
ReplyDeleteI don't think you do, because if you did, you would realise just how much work is involved in creating everything seen in the videos from scratch.
Why go to the bother of faking everything when you only need to fake the planes?
You would need exponentially greater resources and time to fake the entireity of the videos than you would need just to add in the planes.
I really don't see any rational argument for fakery beyond adding in the planes, there simply is no need to, all they needed to do was shoot footage of the explosion taking place then manipulate it, this is far, far simpler to do than to create videos from scratch. There is no doubt that the explosions and fireballs and resultant clouds of smoke actually occurred, so what possible reason could there be to recreate that with CGI when you could just point a video camera at the towers and capture it.
Ian Greenhalgh said :
ReplyDelete"Do you have any background in Computer Graphics? An understanding of 3D modelling and rendering? I don't think you do, because if you did, you would realise just how much work is involved in creating everything seen in the videos from scratch."
Ignoring your appeal to authority type of "argument", are you claiming that even though you have not checked to see if this was in fact done,[videos faked from scratch on computers], that without even doing the analysis, you know it was _not_ done, for certain, just because you consider that it would have been too much work to fake an entire video from scratch?
Ian Greenhalgh: "I really don't see any rational argument for fakery beyond adding in the planes, there simply is no need to,"
Are you claiming that because _you_ see no "rational argument for fakery beyond adding in the planes ", that there were/are none?
And isn't the presence or not of a rational argument entirely irrelevant to the methodological question of whether scientists are allowed to simply make broad pre- assumptions concerning the authenticity of imagery later used as evidence without ever analyzing that imagery closely to see if it is in fact genuine. ?
Regards, obf
OBF said:
ReplyDeleteIan Greenhalgh: "I really don't see any rational argument for fakery beyond adding in the planes, there simply is no need to,"
Are you claiming that because _you_ see no "rational argument for fakery beyond adding in the planes ", that there were/are none?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
With all due respect, OBF, September Clues is not clear about what is and what is not faked. You and Simon are toying with us by not being direct with this information.
I've come to the conclusion on my own that all of the footage of the buildings, plane hits, fireballs, plane shaped gashes, smoking buildings and subsequent demolishment was all pretaped and the anchors were reporting on the tape that was playing.
I have a background in art and architectural drawing and can see clearly these scenes allegedly filmed from choppers are composites. Using Occam's Razor theory, IOW, the simplest method is probably what was used. I think the objective of 9/11 was to destroy the towers as they were obsolete. To blame it on Muslims in a false flag operation and all they had to do was create a movie of a couple hours in length. I think it was a controlled demolition as classic as they could get by first clearing the building of furniture and fixtures as well as people. If Lower Manhattan was evacuated in a drill, there would have been no witnesses and very little can be seen from a distance with so many tall buildings blocking the scene.
A military style smoke screen was most likely used. As to the still photos of the aftermath--I notice fakery there, with lots of compositing. Operations like Sandy Hook continue in this new computer information age modus operandi.
Occam's razor is often cited in stronger forms than Occam intended, as in the following statements. . .
"If you have two theories that both explain the observed facts, then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along"
"The simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be accurate than more complicated explanations."
"If you have two equally likely solutions to a problem, choose the simplest."
Could we have that in (Google translator) French, obf?
DeleteJust kidding.
:)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJoan Edwards said :" September Clues is not clear about what is and what is not faked. You and Simon are toying with us by not being direct with this information. "
ReplyDeleteAlthough, au contraire, [see that, use of French! :-)] www.Septemberclues.info has been _very_ clear about what is fake in the site administrators opinion, what Simon or myself, [or anyone else] claims to be fake is entirely irrelevant to the point I am making at this time, which is:
other than the applicable, discovered scientific laws governing the events, are scientists allowed to just assume that something is genuine evidence without subjecting it to close study to first determine whether or not that is in fact the case, as Fetzer, and apparently Mr Greenhalgh believe, or are they instead required by their very own methodology to perform various tests to first determine authenticity ?
When does something like video and photographs become genuine reliable evidence- on Fetzer's or another scientists say-so or automatic assumption, without any actual verification procedures, or only after it has actually been shown to most likely be authentic, via testing by the scientist in question ?
Joan Edwards said : "I've come to the conclusion on my own that all of the footage of the buildings, plane hits, fireballs, plane shaped gashes, smoking buildings and subsequent demolishment was all pretaped and the anchors were reporting on the tape that was playing. "
That's interesting, because those are more or less the exact same conclusions of Simon Shack's research.
Are you saying that you reached your own conclusions on these matters entirely independently of Mr Shack's research? If so, wow, I'm impressed.[seriously]
Regards, obf.
Jim Fetzer said: "I have found no good reason to doubt that the footage of the destruction of WTC-7 or of the Twin Towers was faked. I watched what was labeled as the "complete" September Clues, which ran about 1:32:44, so if that's it, IT'S NOT THERE."
ReplyDeleteYou have been repeatedly advised in these threads, by Simon Shack, myself, and others , that there is virtually NOTHING in the movie /documentary September Clues that directly addresses the issue of the faked tower collapse imagery.
In fact, my understanding is that Simon released September Clues [2007-8] BEFORE he had himself even reached the definitive conclusion that all of the tower collapse imagery had been faked.
That definitive conclusion was only reached AFTER the release of September Clues, via further research.
All of that research [tower collapse and other] is archived on line at Simon Shacks website"
SEPTEMBERCLUES.INFO, _NOT_ in the move "September Clues!
Got that?
WARNING! That research is not an easy 1 hour, or even 2 hour browse/review- it takes time and mental effort to seriously consider- there will be no handy, overnight, instant revelations, which is what most people [icluding yourself] appear to demand.
obf.
Here is the problem with CGI. The quality is so good (even as much as Simon Shack criticizes it) that the only way to know that it is CGI is if there is some kind of a "Reveal". You need to see something non-physical to know for sure that you are looking at CGI.
ReplyDeleteLet's take a look at some WTC7 footage, posted by AlienEntity1 on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tNhnTBzSyQ
Start at 0:14, and watch through 0:26 .
Notice how the Eastern Mechanical Penthouse falls slowly at 0:15, then the roofline sags from left to right over a few seconds, and then at 0:22 the whole building falls, at it's out of sight at 0:26.
Notice also that the roofline falls from left to right and that a little portion of the falling roofline BACKS UP and RECONSTITUTES ITSELF between 0:20 and 0:21.
Now here is the question for you:
Since you believe, as you do, that WTC 7 came down by controlled demolition, then: HOW is it possible to make a controlled demolition look so much like a fire-induced collapse? What kind of Genius Artistry did the controlled demolition planners have to make their controlled demolition LOOK JUST LIKE a fire-induced collapse?
Did they place their charges just so? Did they calculate the force of the explosions to the 10th decimal place to make it look just right?
No. The video that you are looking at from AlienEntity1 is CGI. That is the only way that it is possible. Take a careful look at 0:20 to 0:21 where the roofline, after falling, UNFALLS slightly. That makes no mechanical sense at all.
Although this footage isn't the best, take a look at portions from the movie "Hypothesis" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cfjYUHF8UE .
DeletePlease take a close look at 3:20 and then 3:37. At 3:20, the Tower is on fire and smoking, and then turn to 3:37.
At 3:40, the Tower begins to collapse, the "flames" go out, and the collapse sequence starts.
Now since you believe, as you do, that demolition of the WTC Twin Towers were caused by nukes, ask yourself this question: HOW ON EARTH did they make the collapse look like a fire-induced collapse?
What possible techniques could have been used to accomplish this? Above all, HOW COULD THEY HAVE KNOWN THAT THE TECHNIQUES WOULD WORK?
It must have been the most terrifying day of the perp's life, because if the nuclear fireball should burst through the side of the building, revealing the plot, it would be "Game Over".
There really is no way that they could have known how it would look, so they took no chances whatsoever, and made all of the relevant video of the collapse CGI.
Regarding the "Single Unitary Event"
Jim, I don't know if exactly 100% of the footage is CGI, but I don't think that it matters, as I mentioned in the first broadcast. I think that the true collapse looked very similar to the CGI collapse, except that the CGI collapse is absolutely perfect for the Official Story's needs. Don't forget that 2001 was before YouTube, so it was much more difficult to share video.
Regarding the "single, unitary event" argument for the reality of the footage, it is ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE for the computer database to store the Official footage of the collapse event and then repost the event in all of the available videos. This would create the illusion of a "single unitary event".
Simon posits a "CGI Fakery Factory" and there are no technological show-stoppers for such a "fakery factory". This is Disney Feature Animation in Burbank, CA http://www.buildabetterphotograph.com/2009/07/group-portraits-and-all-that-schtickgive/ , and this is a computer center/sound studio at Disney Feature Animation http://www.mattconstruction.com/project-detail/performing-arts-theatres/disney-feature-animation .
THERE IS NO TECHNOLOGICAL REASON why this could not have been done.
Regarding inferential logic, as I see it:
When I was first aware that the cell phone calls on Flight 93 were not possible, I realized something else: Even though they are not possible, NEVERTHELESS, the Official Story claims that the cell phone calls were received by the loved ones.
IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT to say that the cell phone calls are like a bad data point that you throw away, no harm, no foul. NO. Because the Official Story claims that cell phone calls WERE received, you need to AFFIRM, POSITIVELY, that some institution ACTUALLY MANUFACTURED AND FAKED the cell phone calls.
If those cell phone calls could speak, they would say "Hello, I'm from the CIA and I'm trying to FOOL YOU about the issue of cell phone calls!"
The same issue applies to the CGI. WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN that the planes hitting the Towers are CGI, and that the Falling Man is CGI, and that the Jumpers are CGI.
If the videos could speak, they are saying "Hello, I'm from the CIA and I'm trying to FOOL YOU about the issue of CGI and Imagery of the planes hitting Towers, Falling Man, and WTC 1, 2 and 7!"
The way I see it, if the 9/11 footage ALREADY HAS A BAD REPUTATION for being CGI, then the fact that the WTC7 and WTC1 and 2 footage looks TOO MUCH LIKE A FIRE INDUCED COLLAPSE to be considered credible, is enough. CGI is the best answer of them all.
That's why I think that you can feel comfortable that all of the most essential footage is in fact CGI. Your arguments have been well answered.
I can provide some prima facie evidence that is much easier to see why the "live" news reports must have been CGI or some similar Hollywood technique.
DeleteFrame from a video: WTC corner is 90 degrees. Should be 45+45 degrees: http://tinyurl.com/qzkjr6x
Explain how a video camera possibly could have captured something like this, please.
Here is a frame from 2010 Dimitri Khalezov WTC video. The 39 beams on the façade run diagonally - should be 59 beams:
http://tinyurl.com/nclulsd
From one of NIST 2009 releases: at 0:37 the shadows of the 2 guys cast in the exact opposite direction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6CSYgfd65A
Where did all the dust in the streets come from before WTC2 fell?
From the "live" news reports. WTC towers are standing on a turn table, and are spinning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeVY7b3D-qU
For one or another strange reason, not everyone is able to see this, for one or another strange reason.
Lots and lots of other examples here:
http://letsrollforums.com/9-11-video-deception-t23098.html
There are millions of example like this out there for anyone who wants to hunt for it.
We have here shot down the notion that the "live" 911 news reports were real broadcast video, and it has crashed into the ground and pulverized to dust.
Protecting medias involvement it this operation is REALLY important for the 911 operation management and the controlled opposition. As long as the truth movement is staying inside the virtual reality they created for us that they, they will be spinning their wheels forever and never get anywhere. You really need to get out of the virtual reality if you want to understand anything about 911.
I want to refine my argument a bit. When I said, above, that if the those cell phone calls could speak, they would say "Hello, I'm from the CIA and I'm trying to FOOL YOU about the issue of cell phone calls!"
ReplyDeleteIt's not just FOOLING about the issue of cell phone calls, it's about FOOLING about the presence of HUMAN BEINGS on the originating end of the cell phone call, namely, non-existent passengers on the non-existent flights.
Similarly, It's not just FOOLING about the issue of CGI and Imagery of the planes hitting Towers, Falling Man, and WTC 1, 2 and 7. It's about FOOLING about the presence of HUMAN BEINGS in the planes hitting Towers, Falling Man himself, and INSIDE WTC 1, 2 and 7.
It is logically much easier to believe that the "500mph" figure is cited, quoted and considered under duress than it is to evaluate each separate video of jets impacting the World Trade Centers I and II on 9-11-2001 as fraudulent. TRUE: CNN used at least two videos contracted for and produced, on order, via 'photoshop'. These videos should be considered as visual aid facsimiles instead of inferences of anything of scholarly value beyond CNN's attempts to defraud the public and commit treason by obscuring the facts and aiding and abetting in the conspiracy to commit murder in the middle east and accessories after the fact for every single death incurred on 9-11-2001 and days subsequent through illness and death from cancers and other maladies.
ReplyDeleteLook at the damaged areas on WTCs I and II. Obviously impacting jets bashed in the panels and mangled both steel and aluminum siding and structural members. Holograms do not affect material objects. Look again to see aluminum siding scattered about on the ground.
I think it is imperative to establish a definition of "CGI" and "composite video", the relationship between the two, and the difference between the two.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a sure, scientific way to pronounce ALL of a video as "CGI", then that is what should be discussed, thoroughly in a separate article. Likewise, if there is no scientific way to make such a determination, that also needs to be fully explained in a separate article.
Frankly Speaking does not appear to be relying on science, but on the presence of a "reveal" in the video. That is not "science" to me.
I am most interested in the destruction sequence videos of WTC 1 and 2. Nothing so far in any of these threads show scientific proof that any one of these videos is "CGI" or "totally CGI."
However I have repeatedly cited Buidling 7 video taken by Jeff Kantoff as a truly "amateur" honest video of WTC "collapse." And by all appearances, including rubble pile aftermath photos, WTC does appear to have been destroyed via a "gravity collapse."
P.S.
I think I have located the Building 7 collapse video taken on 9-11 by Jeff Kantoff from a hotel room. I contend this video is not CGI or composite video or whatever. I know the person who took the video and he is an honest reliable informant.
IT is found in Loose Change, Final Cut well-known video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igknlqmg2lk
LOOSE CHANGE Final Cut pt7 1of2 WORLD TRADE CENTER WTC BUILDING SEVEN
ricthuse•2,240 videos
4:45 This is the Jeff Kantoff video
4:52…I do not know the source of this video "
Don said...
Delete"Debating the authenticity of 9/11 videos with the Onebornpaids and Simon Shills of the world is a complete waste of time..."
Don, I was attempting a reply to Frankly Speaking, though he may be connected in some way to the Clues people. I know not to try to debate obf or Simon Shack.
I think we need to determine if it is valuable to look more closely at the videos and still photos. I think IF THERE IS A WAY to make a truly scientific determination about each one of the identified videos and photos, then we should do that. After all, we are supposed to be seeking as much 9-11 truth, in all of its aspects, as is possible.
Dr. Fetzer has stated repeatedly why it is important to expose the HOW of 9-11. He has explored the WHO of 9-11 concurrently with continuing research on the HOW.
Hi Jeannon
DeleteIf there is a particular video or photo you would like my opinion on, I would be happy to give it. Analysis is tricky because of the low quality of the material. The videos are all highly compressed, which means they are covered in artifacts introduced by the compression algorithms. If we had access to the original versions in high quality, that would enable much more meaningful analysis, but I expect that will never happen, and like the Zapruder film,we will have to do the best we can with what we have.
"If we had access to the original versions in high quality, that would enable much more meaningful analysis, but I expect that will never happen"
DeleteI am disheartened to hear that. The "do the best we can" will not give us a clear definitive answer as to a subject video being "fakery" or "genuine", however we would define those concepts.
Here is a photo that is said to be from the “Amy Sancetta” video of the South Tower destruction showing the top several floors of the South Tower tipping over at about a 45 degree angle.. I would like to know as much as possible about the video but I was unable to find the entire video on YT. I am interested in the specifics about exactly what it is in the video that appears definitely faked, preferable something that proves computer imagery or digital animation. I hope you can locate the Sancetta video. Thank you very much for offering to look at this.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/08/28/2-2-israel-nuked-the-wtc-on-911/
Wednesday, August 28th, 2013 | Posted by Jim Fetzer
2 + 2 = Israel nuked the WTC on 9/11
By Don Fox (with Jim Fetzer)
Jeannon,
DeleteYou're an honest, thoughtful and well-spoken commentator. OBP and Simon Shill have none of your qualities. They're not honest researchers. The jury is still out on Franklyspeaking.
My rant below is just to serve as a warning to some of the new people out there. If you or anyone else is so inclined to debate the video evidence with these guys, by all means go ahead. It's just my experience with people like them that you'll end wasting a bunch of valuable time. That's what their goal is - waste everyone's time.
Well, I spent an hour looking at obf's 'analysis' of the Sancetta and other images and I have to say, it was wasted time. I don't see any point in worrying about whether those images have been photoshopped or not, I man, what difference does it make to anything if they have been altered? It just reminds me of the idiots on youtube who claim to have analysed the Zapruder video and come to the conclusion that Greer turned around and shot JFK or that Jackie shot him with a Derringer.
DeleteI very much appreciate Don's warning. I have read a lot of comments by obf on this site and VT and looked at his own site and it is my opinion that he's an empty vessel that makes a lot of noise. Most of the rubbish he writes is pointless poking at others and he doesn't make ANY worthwhile points. From this point on, I intend to ignore him completely, it is a waste of my time to engage such people.
I read Don's article on the nuking o the WTC and thought it was wonderful, one of the best pieces on 911 I have read. It filled in some blanks for me such as the toasted cars and the hole in WTC 6.
I have to question what obf's motives are and what point he is actually trying to make, it is hard to figure out what the point behind all his hot air is, it seems it is merely that the timing of the destructions is not 9 and 11 seconds but 16 to 18. Well, if that is all it is, then what an irrelevant, bogus point. Has he even considered cross-referencing timings taken from videos with our sources such as seismic data? Some timings from videos are scarcely important when compared to real, significant scientific research data such as that which Don presented in his nuke article.
Anyways, I'm about to listen to the latest Real Deal with Don, I expect to learn a few things as I did from his wonderful nuke article.
One thing to keep in mind here folks in that September Clues is nothing more than a gatekeeper operation. Most likely run by the ADL. Clueless has several statements posted on their forum that should remove them from any serious discussion of 9/11.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Sept Clueless nobody died on 9/11The notion of 'thousands of victims' was crucial to generate universal public outrage. However, having 3000 angry families breathing down their necks was never part of the perps' demented plan. Our ongoing analyses and investigations suggest that NO one died on 9/11.
Now let's contrast that statement with one from someone who was there. Per an email I got from Sofia Smallstorm "Matthew Tartaglia (first responder)told me they were searching for bodies in the pile but all they found were little bits of what they thought were wet rags, and then when they got the dust off them they realized these were raggedy pieces of human flesh – little bits, just like you said. Thousands of raggedy pieces of flesh – only 13 full bodies, one of which was John O’Neill (identified by Jerome Hauer, head of Kroll Securities, subdivision of Kroll Inc., new security company engaged by Silverstein) and most likely planted there by one of the dirt-carrying trucks."
Two 110 story behemoths converted into a fine dust powder in less than 30 seconds. Thousands of people blown to bits. Only nuclear bombs can account for this.
If I were Larry Silverstein I'd sure want the 9/11 research community to believe that nobody died on 9/11..
Debating the authenticity of 9/11 videos with the Onebornpaids and Simon Shills of the world is a complete waste of time for serious 9/11 researchers. It's on par with breaking down the finer points of the non-existent Hutchison Effect with Judy Wood and Andrew Johnson.
Well said Don. I don't see anything from obf that resembles a cogent argument worth addressing.
DeleteAs for the collapse of WTC7 looking exactly like a fire collapse,I would disagree with that, it looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Danny Jawenko, when showed the footage stated that there was no doubt it was a controlled demolition and he was an expert, his honesty sadly cost him his life.
On the subject of were the towers empty of people? I am pretty sure there were people in those towers. The firemen who went in reported casualties over their radios, many people fled the towers, so I don't think there is much mileage in the argument that they were empty.
I think that it's wrong to get too involved in the minutiae of what actually happened because it is a good way of losing site of the bigger picture and the more important questions of why it happened and who did it.
Bottom line, as I stated on the show, WTC2 burned for 56 minutes, a couple of minor fires that the fire captain said he could knock out, then suddenly that immense structure of steel and concrete was turned into dust in just a few seconds. That requires a huge input of energy far beyond what could have come from 10,000 gallons of jet fuel of a couple of fires. Therefore the official explanation is plainly false. We don't know what mechanism was behind the dustification of the tower and quite honestly,it's not very important, what is important is to refute the official story with the simple fact of dustification after 56 minutes.
Who did it and why they did it is far more important that now they did it.
Ian,
DeleteI've done a LOT of work into HOW the WTC buildings were destroyed. The WTC buildings were nuked. Ed Ward, Jeff Prager and myself have written the best accounting yet as to what actually happened. Check out Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11.
The reason I believe it's important to expose HOW they did it is all of the people who were exposed to radiation in the aftermath of the destruction of the WTC.
Matthew Tartaglia's story is typical of the first responders:
"Since his time working at Ground Zero however, Tartaglia has become incredibly ill like many others who worked at the site. As a counselor set with the task of talking to countless distraught rescue workers, he could not wear a respirator mask to protect him from what he fears was exposure to arsenic gas. At age 32, Tartaglia has already suffered two heart attacks, has had many of his teeth fall out, and has had a variety of respiratory problems."
Teeth falling out is a well known symptom of radiation exposure. A lot of people got sick from working at Ground Zero and they deserve to know the truth of what they were exposed to.
Exposing HOW it was done also helps us narrow down WHO did it.
Check out 2 + 2 = Israel nuked the WTC on 9/11
Hi Don
DeleteThat is a wonderful point, I overlooked that. The health issues is something that concerns me a lot, I believe there are something like 14,500 responders who are at risk, plus untold numbers of New Yorkers who could suffer ill effects, the true death toll of 9-11 will not be known for decades and we owe it to all those affected to fight for the truth.
As I mentioned on the show, the discovery of the fusion and fission products in the USGS samples, the attempt to ban geiger counters, Dr Cahill's discovery of uranium in air samples, all points to the use of nukes.
For me, the biggest indicator is the simple fact that an immense input of energy was required to dustify the towers, that energy had to come from somewhere and I don't know of any other possibility than a nuclear device. As I also mentioned on the show, I don't have any time for Judy Wood and her theories, that's sci-fi nonsense imho designed to obfuscate the truth.
I shall indeed check out those links, many thanks for them.
For those that haven't familiarised themselves with Israel's nuclear programme, look up the name Mordechai Vanunu and Dimona, It is 30years since Vanunu exposed what is going on in the Negev desert at Dimona and among the things he exposed was the development of neutron bombs, with another 30 years of development since then, they could have some very advanced and exotic nukes.
Finally, let us remember that one of the parties who was behind the death of JFK was Israel because JFK opposed the development of an Israeli nuclear programme. I highly recommend checking out the work of Michael Collins Piper on that subject, he wrote a superb book and has appeared on The Real Deal, you can find that show in the archives.
Thankyou Don, you gave me some reading to do, which I shall do with interest.
To anybody out there who believes Ian Greenhalgh's and Jim Fetzer's conclusion here [i.e. that the plane image in the Herzekhani and Fairbanks videos, and others similar, is fake, but that the rest of the content of the videos is genuine live footage filmed in real time.]
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about this interview, the more I realize the astounding display of the absence of critical thinking on display to all by a person who has allegedly taught logic and critical thinking for 30+ years.
The same cannot be said for Mr Greenhalgh presumably, so he is mostly excused from what follows:
...how in God's name does proving that the plane image in the Fairbanks/Herzekhani videos is a fake due to lack of motion blur per frame "prove" that _any_ part of the rest of the subject matter seen in those videos was real time imagery captured by an on-site photographer?
Surely, other tests would need to be carried out on the videos in question to firmly establish that the scenery etc. depicted in them is genuine imagery photographed in real time at the time of the event, and that just the plane image was inserted, or that alternatively, the rest of the video is also fake.
This entirely illogical leap of faith [logic?] , is so vast that if I did not find it so humorous, I would instead find it totally sickening, or greatly disturbing.
But no, according to Mr Greenhalgh, apart from the plane image, it/they must all be authentic, simply because he believes that faking the entire clip[s] is too complicated/expensive.
Ultimately, this is all nothing more than a re-statement of the Ace Baker plane insert theory.
Too funny!
Regards, obf.
Maybe you missed my earlier comment about ignoring you from now on because you're obviously not worth engaging?
ReplyDeleteI didn't say the rest of the video isn't faked due to being too complex or expensive, I said that I didn't see any reason to fake it because the explosion, fireball and smoke actually happened, therefore there was no need to fake it.
Don was right, we can now, with a good degree of certainty sideline obf as we have with Judy Wood because he's clearly not working towards proper research or understanding and is, in fact, a disinfo agent/psyop trying to lead people in false directions.
Chris said: "Yes, you did attack him on your blog after a show in which he never said you were wrong he just wanted you to convince him. You continually misrepresented what he said and started attacking him as a shill. Do you understand what prima facie means?"
ReplyDeleteBullshit. Take lessons in reading comprehension fer chrissakes!
I attacked his lack of use of his own alleged methodology, and then I proposed 3 possible reasons for his consistent ignoring of his own methodology.
And , like Fetzer, you are obviously entirely ignorant of the term "prima facie" . See the comments section of my blog post :
" 911 Scams- Prof. Jim "First Blush" Fetzer's Trashing of The Scientific Method" :
http://onebornfrees911researchreview.blogspot.com/2013/11/911-scams-professor-jim-first-blush.html
No regards, obf.
Ian Greenhalgh said:
ReplyDelete"Maybe you missed my earlier comment about ignoring you from now on because you're obviously not worth engaging?"
Yep, you need to run off and hide instead of actually answering any of my serious questions. A typical response :-)
Ian Greenhalgh said: "I didn't say the rest of the video isn't faked due to being too complex or expensive, I said that I didn't see any reason to fake it because the explosion, fireball and smoke actually happened, therefore there was no need to fake it."
And I asked you seriously[ but politely :-) ] :
" Are you claiming that because _you_ see no "rational argument for fakery beyond adding in the planes ", that there were/are none? "
No response- except for a wholesale retreat into the usual: "he's a shill/troll/disinfo agent, [yadda yadda yadda].
For example: "Don was right, we can now, with a good degree of certainty sideline obf as we have with Judy Wood because he's clearly not working towards proper research or understanding and is, in fact, a disinfo agent/psyop trying to lead people in false directions."
Is that all you losers [Fetzer, Fox, yourself] have got?
I believe so ! :-).
No regards, obf.
that you have to fight so hard to convince otherwise cogent and seemingly intelligent conspiracy punters as to the veracity of your rudimentary argument roars volumes as to the true nature of the opposition obf. these players will never act in any way genuine or convinced as it is not a part of their remit. i bet there is a song or two in you, more worthy of your time and efforts, that is inspired by the (feigned) dunderheadedness of these, your most worthy of unworthy intellectually, scientifically, procedurally and methodologically sound opponents! let it rip, my friend!
ReplyDelete(me, i fart in the face of their acting skills...touché!!
(mais non! me shea! but my friends call me P.))
pshea said: " i bet there is a song or two in you, more worthy of your time and efforts, that is inspired by the (feigned) dunderheadedness of these, your most worthy of unworthy intellectually, scientifically, procedurally and methodologically sound opponents! let it rip, my friend!"
ReplyDeleteAs it happens pshea, you are correct! Here's a youtube vid of me performing "Dreams [Anarchist Blues" live- I even mention that 911 was a scam in it :-) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o-C1_LZzk
Regards obf.
nice. no more dreaming our lives away mate. some of the sly old sandmen here would have us toss and turn restlessly as we continue slumbering on and on. But I AM, wide awake, and Anarchy rules! happy times to you, obf. and all.
ReplyDeleteDear pshea and obf,
ReplyDeleteSince we're on the subject of music (a much better idea of a topic to discuss on this asinine, troll-infested and time-wasting "Real Deal" blogspot) - let me submit a contribution of my own. It's a song of mine called "Strange":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Jhz48tORMQ
I wish to dedicate it to 'professor'/charlatan Fetzer and the numerous helper-rabbits he keeps pulling out of his magic hat, from 'good'ol' Ace Baker - and all the way to this recent Don Fox clown.
The lyrics go like this (yeh, it's yours humble truly at the vocals):
You duly make up your own lies
You duly do what you're supposed to do
You duly make up your own lies
You duly do what you're supposed to do
I'm not saying something strange
I'm saying something true
Hope you enjoy the tune, happy holidays to you two and all similarly good souls on this planet! :O)
Simon Shack
good stuff simon....
ReplyDeleteI duly make up my own mind
I duly do what i'm supposed to do
though I might be strange
I am true.
I thought you might like to read the lyrics of the latest u.k. christmas no.1 song 'skyscaper'..
Skies are crying
I am watching
Catching teardrops in my hands
Only silence as it's ending, like we never had a chance
Do you have to, make me feel like there is nothing left of me?
[Chorus]
You can take everything I have
You can break everything I am
Like I'm made of glass
Like I'm made of paper
Go on and try to tear me down
I will be rising from the ground
Like a skyscraper!
Like a skyscraper!
As the smoke clears
I awaken, and untangle you from me
Would it make you, feel better to watch me while I bleed?
All my windows, still are broken
But I'm standing on my feet
[Chorus]
You can take everything I have
You can break everything I am
Like I'm made of glass
Like I'm made of paper
Go on and try to tear me down
I will be rising from the ground
Like a skyscraper!
Like a skyscraper!
[Bridge]
Go run, run, run
I'm gonna stay right here
Watch you disappear, yeah
Go run, run, run
Yeah it's a long way down
But I am closer to the clouds up here
You can take everything I have
You can break everything I am
Like i'm made of glass
Like i'm made of paper, Ohhh woaah
Go on and try to tear me down
I will be rising from the ground
Like a skyscraper!
Like a skyscraper!
Like a skyscraper!
Like a skyscraper!..
another 9/11 fear driven reminder almost worthy of the pens of the tragi-comedy duo fetzer&fo(re)x. no mini-nukes overtly mentioned but it won't be hard for the reader/listener to insert 'zero' after 'ground' to subliminally reinforce the nukes bullshit.
all the best to you my friend. don't let the numpties get you down. there just doing their jobs is all. your work and that at cluesforum stands strong, proud and true on it's own. no risk of collapse there, of any type or kind.
Peter.